One of the more well-known Pats fans gives his take on "4th and 2"

[JVides]

Here's what Bill Simmons had to say, in part.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnflpicks/091120

"Inane Angle No. 1: "Statistically, it was the right move"

So we're saying 55.7 percent, huh? That's the success rate for a road team playing its biggest rival, in a deafeningly loud dome, coming out of a timeout -- a timeout that allowed the defense to get a breather and determine exactly how to stop the obvious five-receiver spread that was coming because the offense's running game sucked -- along with that same defense getting extra fired up because it was being disrespected so egregiously/willfully/blatantly/incomprehensibly. I say lower. By a lot.

Statistics can't capture the uniqueness of a particular moment, and in this case -- with the Pats self-combusting, with a sure victory suddenly slipping away, with the crowd going bonkers, with a fired-up defense gearing up to stop them, with an obvious play looming (a short pass), and with everything happening during a drive that was already so disjointed that they had called two timeouts -- I find it really, really, REALLY hard to believe they would have completed that play 56 times out of 100 times with how they lined up. They spread the field with five receivers, eliminating any chance of a run. The Colts brought pressure -- happily -- ensuring a quick pass and a short field (so Indy's D-backs could hug the line of scrimmage). Given these realities, if you're feeding me "Here's what happened in this situation historically" numbers, shouldn't we be looking at the data for two-point conversions?

After all, this was essentially a two-point pass play. The Patriots went five wide, stuck Tom Brady in the shotgun, shortened the field and tried to find a quick-hit mismatch. Sure sounds like a two-point play. So what's the recent history of teams passing for a two-point conversion on the road? Peter Newmann from ESPN Research crunched those numbers for me.

2009: 9-for-28, .321 (overall); 3-for-10, .300 (road).
2008: 23-for-52, .442 (overall); 13-for-32, .406 (road).
2007: 14-for-38, .368 (overall); 6-for-23, .261 (road)."

Obviously there's more to read (follow link), but he seems to see eye to eye with those of us who think that completing a 4th and 2 was not as easy as people think, and that Manning taking his team 75+ yards with 2 minutes was not as easy as people think.  Does this change / solidify anyone's opinions on the subject?

[Philly Fin Fan]

That was a long, but very well-written article. I'm glad not every Pats fan is sitting there saying "He made the right call!"

[Dave Gray]

His point almost makes me more feverish about my position.

That you can't capture the uniqueness of the game with stats -- The Pats were done.  They had faded out, the defense was done, they were going to punt and lose.

Bellichek tried to end it.

NFL teams punt entirely too much.

[Sunstroke]

I love to pull out stats to support my points whenever possible, but I have to agree with Dave in this situation. I would have gone for it on 4th and 2 as well, to try to end the game right there without letting Peyton "Instant TD" Manning have a shot to beat me.

I may have...probably... gone with a different play call, but I just can't dog Belichick for going for it.

[Spider-Dan]

I find it interesting that he seems to want to modify all these statistics, yet not once does he mention that NE's offense has a HELL of a lot better chance of making 4th-and-2 than the league average and that IND's offense has a HELL of a lot better chance of driving down the field than the league average, both of which weigh the decision even more heavily towards going for it.

[NADS]

If Manning is going to beat my team I'd prefer he need more than 28 yards to do it.  That being said, the Pats have one of the most dynamic offenses in the league.  That being said it's more probable the Colts will make a mistake or Pats D will step up the longer Manning and Co. have to go.  Gotta punt.

[JVides]

I find it interesting that he seems to want to modify all these statistics, yet not once does he mention that NE's offense has a HELL of a lot better chance of making 4th-and-2 than the league average and that IND's offense has a HELL of a lot better chance of driving down the field than the league average, both of which weigh the decision even more heavily towards going for it.

Yeah, I thought of that too as I read it.  The argument is definitely biased towards punting, and stats are very selectively used.  However, it is interesting to note the 57% chance of completing a 4th and two, which I thought was more realistic than some numbers thrown out there, like 80%.  I say this because, once you go empty backfield, wouldn't your probability of converting be limited (capped) to your QB's completion percentage (and then modified downward for chance of completed pass of less than two yards)?

[Spider-Dan]

However, it is interesting to note the 57% chance of completing a 4th and two, which I thought was more realistic than some numbers thrown out there, like 80%.  I say this because, once you go empty backfield, wouldn't your probability of converting be limited (capped) to your QB's completion percentage (and then modified downward for chance of completed pass of less than two yards)?

Your QB's completion percentage is calculated from all passes attempted, not just 2-yarders.  I'm sure Brady's completion percentage for 2-yard passes is a good deal higher than his aggregate completion percentage.

[JVides]

Your QB's completion percentage is calculated from all passes attempted, not just 2-yarders.  I'm sure Brady's completion percentage for 2-yard passes is a good deal higher than his aggregate completion percentage.

Yeah, agreed.  But in order to get a true percentage on that given play, you'd have to calculate passes while facing a blitz up the middle while the opposition is guarding the first down line, etc...you get the point.  Using his completion percentage as a high mark is simplistic, but I mentioned it because once the Pats went 5 wide, the probability of gaining two yards via the rush evaporated, which I'm not sure was taken into account by all the stat guys breaking down the odds. 

[Dave Gray]

Without getting into all of the stats, simplify the question:  What's a higher percentage -- The percentage of the Pats completing a 2 yard gain, or the Pats stopping Peyton Manning on a "4 down territory" drive of the field?