Jollys Time with Paul Jolovitz - Phillies Playoff Blog
BELICHICK WAS RIGHT
From the Philadelphia Daily News, Monday, November 16, 2009, "Even with my dislike of Lindros, I still think he should be in the Hall of Fame. You are supposed to be judged on how you play the game, not who likes you." This was Bob Clarke's explanation of his personal dislike of Eric Lindros, and how it should have nothing to do with a clear analysis of his merits.
Let me say this immediately: I am not a fan of Bill Belichick. He is arrogant at times, even ruthless, seemingly for no reason. Spygate, specifically, comes to mind as a Nixonian episode in his past. However, as Bob Clarke says, even with my dislike of Belichick, I respect his genius, as well as his thinking out of the box. He is clearly the best coach in the NFL, and one of the best of all time.
I base this entire column on analysis, and none on emotion. In the past couple of days, I have read and listened to a bunch of very savvy, bright football people use inane words of ridicule for Belichick's decision to go for a first down on fourth and two from his own 28, leading 34-28 over Indianapolis, with 2:08 remaining on Sunday evening. While there clearly is and should be debate as to the relative merits of Belichick's move, to say it was a no-brainer not to is inane in itself. And I will show you why that is true, on several levels.
As Herman Edwards famously says, "You play to win the game." Bill Belichick was playing to win the game, and nothing else mattered.
As for the folks who say that he disprespected Indy's defense, well, so what? Every game plan in every sport is based on the desire to probe the weaknesses of opponents to thrive. Disrespect is the most overused word I can think of. This was the best way, in his opinion, to win the game, and that is all that matters.
Bill Belichick is a coaching genius. He can coach both sides of the ball. He has taken different kinds of teams all the way. He is entrepreneurial in nature, which is to say that he is willing to think out of the box, not caring what others think. His resume allows him to do this, rings buy mulligans in sports and life. Einstein could take a chance that others might not, his reputation was secure, his job was not in any danger either way. Steven Spielberg could bring to a studio a movie about cardboard, and it would be green lighted. If it tanked, his next movie would be green lighted as well.
If you are afraid of taking risks, chances are you will not realize your potential, unless you are an heir or an actuary. And, as I said before, if you are bullet proof as to caring what people (usually risk-averse men and women) say, you will likely succeed if you have expertise in your given area. See Walsh, Bill, West Coast Offense, or Gates, Bill, dropping out of Harvard to try his hand at circuitry.
So, back to Herm. "You play to win the game." I am not going to introduce computers into this, merely common sense and basic mathematics, followed by logic. I will also point out that one very esteemed television talk show host mentioned that it was the wrong decision, to paraphrase, 'because it did not work.' This particular nut should include that in his induction speech at the knucklehead hall of fame. It is called after race analysis. If a Hail Mary pass does not work, should a team have done something else? Sheesh.
Peyton Manning had driven the Colts 79 yards in 5 plays, in 2:04, as well as 79 yards in 6 plays, in 1:49, in two fourth quarter drives. New England's defense clearly was gassed, and momentum was on Indy's side. Any arguments here? Good. We move on. Tom Brady is New England's quarterback, and one of the greats of all-time. Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Kevin Faulk have been there, and, well, you know the rest. Brady has led drives to win Super Bowls, and excels under pressure. Don't you want to impose your Hall of Fame will on others, and not give them the chance to impose theirs on you, with mathematical logic on your side? New England had converted 12 of their last 16 fourth down opportunities against the Colts. How far, each time? I do not know. I do know that fourth and two would probably be under the average of yards needed on those 16 attempts.
Bill Belichick was playing to win the game. I detest players and coaches who play not to lose, either because they are afraid that they will be criticized or because they have no, well, you know what I mean. Before I start, did any of you really feel, deep in your heart, that if New England had punted, Indy would not have scored a touchdown? Come on, be honest. I know I did not, and I am a Brady over Manning guy, but a realist as well.
Let me put the chances of New England getting the two yards at 60 percent. I am being conservative here, erring toward my opponents, and for cause. If they move those chains, they win the game. That puts the chances of failing at 40 percent. If that happened, Indy had, in my opinion, an 80 percent chance of scoring a touchdown. Multiplying .4 by .8 gives us .32, or a 32 percent chance that New England would lose the game by going for it. That is, by the way, VERY conservative. If they punted, do you really think Indianapolis and Manning had only a 32 percent chance of going 70 or so yards, with a timeout left as well? I would put it more like 60 percent, and that might be conservative. They had gone longer twice in the period, again in 5 and 6 plays. Time would have been NO ISSUE HERE AT ALL. Indy runs the no huddle, had plenty of time, and would have had plenty of momentum. And New England could have won the game RIGHT THERE.
There were two mistakes, in my opinion, by Bill Belichick, and neither involved going for it. One, he burned two timeouts in the drive, and running out of timeouts is like missing an extra point, it can bite a team. And two, Kevin Faulk ran a two yard pattern. I know he bobbled the ball. However, with no challenges left, he had to be POSITIVE of being beyond the spot, and Brady as well. Put the game in the hands of a referee spotting a ball, and well, Eagles fans know what can occur.
Bill Belichick played to win the game, and failed. Not because he made the wrong decision, but because his decision did not work. These things happen. As for Tedy Bruschi, and Rodney Harrison, they are proud defenders. Since the coach did not put faith in his defense (though one could also argue that he WAS putting faith in his offense and Brady, above all), they were understandably mad. However, what is the defense to do? Quit? Um, no. They will report to work Wednesday, see the three rings that their coach has, and play hard next week as well. Do you agree with your boss all the time? Of course not. Do you quit when this happens, literally or otherwise? Of course not.
As for the pundits who screamed loud and long about how dumb or goofy the call was, I ask you, did you think about this, or just want to 'pound the genius when you perceived a mistake?' I profess that it was primarily the latter, though it could be because of a lack of understanding of mathematics as well. Could one be against the move? Sure, and support it well. Was it crazy? That is unsupportable. As a matter of fact, I would have done it as well. And failed. Nobody bats 1.000. By the way, whatever happened to Bill Gates?
FRESH FINAL THOUGHTS
It is after four o' clock this morning, and I have arrived home from Game Six a short while ago. I could sleep on this, but I would like to convey some thoughts that are fresh in the mind.
I think that Charlie Manuel is one of the classiest people I have ever covered in sports. Honesty, integrity, and making time for everyone are three of the things that mark the skipper a special man. He tried his best, made some moves that people will question, including myself, but has always been accountable and given reasons for each decision he has made.
I think that while the clubhouse was really, really disappointed, the players were to a man looking forward to next season. They realize that they have a good thing going, although this season it was not quite enough.
I think that repeating is extremely difficult.
I think that second place is the first loser, and I will never change that mantra. However, the Phillies are far from losers. They gave it their all, and nearly repeated. They were resilient, and never quit. They were beaten by a better team, but have the nucleus to contend for years to come. Enjoy the ride, fans, even when it does not coast smoothly to the finish. Next year looks bright.
I think that Cole Hamels, Brad Lidge, and Jimmy Rollins had sub-par years, and the Fightin's still made the Fall Classic.
I think that Raul Ibanez, Cliff Lee, J.A. Happ, and Pedro Martinez were huge contributors, and that all but Pedro will return. Pedro gave it his best last night, but it just wasn't good enough. Against really good teams, Pedro must be very precise, and it was not to be in Game Six. If he wants to play next season, it will probably be somewhere else.
I think that J.A. Happ probably should have been used more in the postseason.
I think that Philadelphia has the best baseball fans in the world. Yankee Stadium was loud, Citizens Bank Park much louder.
I think that Ruben Amaro had a heckuva first year as the Phillies' General Manager. Sometimes the last step is the hardest to take, and he will have some big decisions in the offseason.
I think that one of those decisions will be a lefthander towards the back of the bullpen.
I think that Scott Eyre should postpone retirement, and that the Phillies should invite him for another season.
I think that although the starting eight should be back, the Phillies need a bit more situational hitting, and more pop from both sides of that bench.
I think that I miss Harry Kalas a lot, a whole lot.
I think that Mariano Rivera is one of the most dominant athletes of all time.
I think that I need to watch Curb Your Enthusiasm, and then go to bed.
I think that I will have a lot more to say about the Phillies.
