Analytics

[SOMDColtsfan]

Up for discussion, forgive if already been hashed out. Do the Colts use this data during games more than other teams? It seems to be a reactive mindset/scheme rather than a dictate. This is what we're going to do, and you have to stop it. Reich stated the direction of the game dictated not using Hines as much as they wanted vs the Jags. Pittman and Pierce being out may have factored into this, but still. That's not forcing your will or gameplan on another team. There were times last year certain things were working well, and we saw the play call's go in a totally different direction. Great coaches have a feel for game flow. While pointing fingers..Are analytics to blame?

[CoachLite]

2 hours ago, SOMDColtsfan said:

Up for discussion, forgive if already been hashed out. Do the Colts use this data during games more than other teams? It seems to be a reactive mindset/scheme rather than a dictate. This is what we're going to do, and you have to stop it. Reich stated the direction of the game dictated not using Hines as much as they wanted vs the Jags. Pittman and Pierce being out may have factored into this, but still. That's not forcing your will or gameplan on another team. There were times last year certain things were working well, and we saw the play call's go in a totally different direction. Great coaches have a feel for game flow. While pointing fingers..Are analytics to blame?

It's really challenging to learn the lessons that data analysis can potentially teach you. Extracting information from data can be counter-intuitive, even to being unbelievable. Couple that with the fact that probabilities and the underlying understandings of probabilities (and stochastic phenomena) are extremely hard for people - even smart, educated people who are supposed to understand it - means that most folks use analytics wrongly.

 

Some of us use AI and big honkin' computers to help us out. We scare the willies out of normal people.

[CoachLite]

5 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

It's really challenging to learn the lessons that data analysis can potentially teach you. Extracting information from data can be counter-intuitive, even to being unbelievable. Couple that with the fact that probabilities and the underlying understandings of probabilities (and stochastic phenomena) are extremely hard for people - even smart, educated people who are supposed to understand it - means that most folks use analytics wrongly.

 

Some of us use AI and big honkin' computers to help us out. We scare the willies out of normal people.

If you're a geek, see https://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/technical .

 

I apologize for the inconvenience.

[cdgacoltsfan]

You can't spell analytics without anal.

[SOMDColtsfan]

Was just thinking outside the box. Reich's play calling has gotten worse over time.  

[SOMDColtsfan]

Irsay brought this up, exactly what I was referring to. Frank lost touch of what was working and not working during games. Relied too much on analytics..

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, SOMDColtsfan said:

Irsay brought this up, exactly what I was referring to. Frank lost touch of what was working and not working during games. Relied too much on analytics..

 

The popular boogey man of analytics... I'd argue Reich should have studied the analytics more. They'd have told him that he was calling the wrong plays at the wrong times, from the wrong personnel groupings. 

[Pat Curtis]

One of the post game radio shows after the loss to the Titans this year talked about how Tennessee "insiders" (as well as other around the league) figured out Reich's tendencies from our own analytics.  Almost like hearing the play being called in based on the situation.  Way too predictable.  

 

Analytical decisions based on 4th down I'm fine to go with the math.  Analytical decisions based on how many LB's are on the field and either run right or left.....leave that to the QB.

[Myles]

I prefer a coach that doesn't depend on analytics.

[Goatface Killah]

24 minutes ago, Pat Curtis said:

One of the post game radio shows after the loss to the Titans this year talked about how Tennessee "insiders" (as well as other around the league) figured out Reich's tendencies from our own analytics.  Almost like hearing the play being called in based on the situation.  Way too predictable.  

 

Analytical decisions based on 4th down I'm fine to go with the math.  Analytical decisions based on how many LB's are on the field and either run right or left.....leave that to the QB.

Bingo.

 

It makes you incredibly predictable. 

 

 

[SOMDColtsfan]

Just the way the Colts would get away from running plays that were working Reich talked about the use of and having great feedback from his consultants. I won't pretend to understand analytics, I was just curious if the Colts used them too much, and then to hear Irsay bring it up seemed odd to me.    

[DougDew]

This is not a great explanation, admittedly:

 

Its all about how good the data is.  In football, the data collection and the resulting inputs both suck.

 

With credit card applications, issuers will use only a few basic data pieces to form their profiles.   Millions of people behave the same way when it comes to debt, respond the same way to the same stimulus....like a school of fish where thousands look like one big moving and shifting blob.  Change one simple and understandable stimulus cohort to the data ( add a shark to the lagoon) and they all move in unison the other way.   Determining how they will behave in the future is very predictable by looking at the past...by understanding what circumstances are similar.  

 

The data used in football is anything but homogenous. Way too many variables, and way too few repetitive performances amongst only 32 team sample universe.   Every game is different...every season your team has different players...week to week even...and every opponent has different combination of players from the last season, and from week to week.  Its a data compiling and aggregation nightmare because virtually no circumstances are similar over the course of a season.  What has happened against Washington, or against any teams this season in certain situations adds nothing towards predicting how the same plays will work against New England in the same situations.  I'm surprised that the NFL even uses analytics at all.  

 

IMO, Frank's play calling looked like he would appear to play tendencies, which is like playing the odds, which is how the analytics are typically used (with credit card companies, the odds are about 95% that people will repeat their past actions).  With football, nothing is in the 95% predictability area.  A past success rate on 4th and 2 from this point on the field has a 55% of succeeding where another decision has a 41% chance...I'll call the 55% chance....and it doesn't work because he's not aware that Pinter has been getting his * handed to him this game when he didn't last season.  "I'll have to look at the tape later". 

 

 

 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Pat Curtis said:

One of the post game radio shows after the loss to the Titans this year talked about how Tennessee "insiders" (as well as other around the league) figured out Reich's tendencies from our own analytics.  Almost like hearing the play being called in based on the situation.  Way too predictable.  

 

Analytical decisions based on 4th down I'm fine to go with the math.  Analytical decisions based on how many LB's are on the field and either run right or left.....leave that to the QB.

Yes, because Frank is using his analytics to gauge success rates (probably from data around the league or from the specific opponent) and fails to understand that there are idiosyncrasies that are part of the data he's looking at that need to be understood and managed.   He's robotic and predictable because he fails to incorporate enough game flow intuition into his decision making, IMO.

[SOMDColtsfan]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This is not a great explanation, admittedly:

 

Its all about how good the data is.  In football, the data collection and the resulting inputs both suck.

 

With credit card applications, issuers will use only a few basic data pieces to form their profiles.   Millions of people behave the same way when it comes to debt, respond the same way to the same stimulus....like a school of fish where thousands look like one big moving and shifting blob.  Change one simple and understandable stimulus cohort to the data ( add a shark to the lagoon) and they all move in unison the other way.   Determining how they will behave in the future is very predictable by looking at the past...by understanding what circumstances are similar.  

 

The data used in football is anything but homogenous. Way too many variables, and way too few repetitive performances amongst only 32 team sample universe.   Every game is different...every season your team has different players...week to week even...and every opponent has different combination of players from the last season, and from week to week.  Its a data compiling and aggregation nightmare because virtually no circumstances are similar over the course of a season.  What has happened against Washington, or against any teams this season in certain situations adds nothing towards predicting how the same plays will work against New England in the same situations.  I'm surprised that the NFL even uses analytics at all.  

 

IMO, Frank's play calling looked like he would appear to play tendencies, which is like playing the odds, which is how the analytics are typically used (with credit card companies, the odds are about 95% that people will repeat their past actions).  With football, nothing is in the 95% predictability area.  A past success rate on 4th and 2 from this point on the field has a 55% of succeeding where another decision has a 41% chance...I'll call the 55% chance....and it doesn't work because he's not aware that Pinter has been getting his * handed to him this game when he didn't last season.  "I'll have to look at the tape later". 

 

The data compiled about past performances that are used to project tendencies and success rates is way too noisy.  Nonhomogenous, full of idiosyncrasies that don't ever or rarely get repeated.  IOW, useless.

 

 

Explains the concept better. Thanks. Agree on the example you used, and that's just how all these games seem to have been flowing. Like there was no recognition of what was actually working/not working on the field and plays were called based solely on tendencies 

[Mighty Blue]

1 hour ago, Goatface Killah said:

Bingo.

 

It makes you incredibly predictable. 

 

 

I would like to see Sheldon Cooper on the sideline writing on his whiteboard

analyzing the next play…BAZINGA!

 

Is that why Reich always looked so serious that he was waiting for the analysis?

 

“Talk to me, Goose!”

 

Okay, I got it…it didn’t take the Titans to follow analytics…they just knew what we said on the Forum about Reich and company’s play calling

 

So, who analyzes  Analytics analysis?

     

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Pat Curtis said:

One of the post game radio shows after the loss to the Titans this year talked about how Tennessee "insiders" (as well as other around the league) figured out Reich's tendencies from our own analytics.  Almost like hearing the play being called in based on the situation.  Way too predictable.  

 

Analytical decisions based on 4th down I'm fine to go with the math.  Analytical decisions based on how many LB's are on the field and either run right or left.....leave that to the QB.

I’ve been saying for a year and a half now that I think we look very, VERY well scouted.   It’s as if defenses know what the Colts are going to do when they break the huddle.  

I believe the Colts use them extensively, but I don’t know that they use them smartly.   I suspect other teams are using them better. 

Very frustrating. 

[Defjamz26]

Analytics were the basis for Frank’s idea to go for it on 4th down so frequently. Data shows that there’s a high percentage of success when you go for it on 4th and 2 within the 20 for example. But as other posters have said, football is too fluid to really heavy on analytics. 
 

The whole analytics in football trend comes from baseball which is all about analytics and tendencies. There’s no play calling so to speak in baseball so it works. But in a sport where the result is determined by the play call, the players on both sides of the ball, the weather, the turf, the health of the player(s), audibles, etc… analytics doesn’t really work. Too many variables.

 

A lot of FO people including Ballard use it in the draft too, which I’m not a fan of, but it does have some merit too it. But since this topic is about Reich, I won’t go off on a tangent about that.

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Analytics were the basis for Frank’s idea to go for it on 4th down so frequently. Data shows that there’s a high percentage of success when you go for it on 4th and 2 within the 20 for example. But as other posters have said, football is too fluid to really heavy on analytics. 
 

The whole analytics in football trend comes from baseball which is all about analytics and tendencies. There’s no play calling so to speak in baseball so it works. But in a sport where the result is determined by the play call, the players on both sides of the ball, the weather, the turf, the health of the player(s), audibles, etc… analytics doesn’t really work. Too many variables.

 

A lot of FO people including Ballard use it in the draft too, which I’m not a fan of, but it does have some merit too it. But since this topic is about Reich, I won’t go off on a tangent about that.

“Analytics doesn’t really work.”   ????

 

Huh?

 

Find me that view in main stream thinking?   I think the 32 NFL teams who use it are going to be surprised at your perspective. 

I saw lots of opinion.  And zero facts.    It’s used in all sports, including basketball and hockey. 

[chad72]

Whatever happened to “if their safety isn’t fluid enough to keep up with our TE in space, we go with that matchup and if they have more size than speed to handle our RBs, I’m using Hines in space against them, if their DBs don’t look back in critical situations Coach your WRs to come back for the ball aggressively to get a call or the ball” common matchup/players observation based sense and coaching. 
 

Just saying. 

[jonjon]

The rise of "analytics" is one of the worst and most id i otic things to happen to football since "color rush" uniforms. They don't tell the whole story and are relied on too much by fools who don't know how to coach. 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, chad72 said:

Whatever happened to “if their safety isn’t fluid enough to keep up with our TE in space, we go with that matchup and if they have more size than speed to handle our RBs, I’m using Hines in space against them, if their DBs don’t look back in critical situations Coach your WRs to come back for the ball aggressively to get a call or the ball” common matchup/players observation based sense and coaching. 
 

Just saying. 

 

How is that not analytics? 

[chad72]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How is that not analytics? 

To me, it’s taking advantage of player matchups, without needing numbers whatsoever to tell me it’s advantageous. Patriots didn’t need analytics to tell them that once James White wasn’t being handled by the Falcons’ LBs in the second half to keep using him in that SB. Like the Chargers didn’t need numbers to tell them they had a distinct special teams advantage and a Sproles matchup advantage against us in the Polian era.
 

Belichick doesn’t need analytics to tell him his best chance of slowing the K-gun Jim Kelly offense was to jam his WRs and concede the run a bit. I can go on and on. 
 

Game planning on a short week May want you to hone in on high probability formations and personnel groupings based on numbers. But it doesn’t take numbers for me to tell a coach in a battle of defensive teams how important field position is. 
 

That’s my point. 

[compuls1v3]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How is that not analytics? 

So is analytics common sense?  Seems like common football knowledge to me, which is so frustrating when we weren’t doing those things during games.

[chad72]

13 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

So is analytics common sense?  Seems like common football knowledge to me, which is so frustrating when we weren’t doing those things during games.

To me, all 22 film study that gives me advantageous matchups and tendencies is just that, film study, has been happening for a while. Just that we have technology to study it better.

 

Thats where I think the lines are blurred a bit for me in the name of analytics, more semantics than numbers. Sean Payton telling Tracy Porter before the SB pick six to watch out for the digg route or sluggo is based on their film study. He analyzed it, so it’s analytics?? Then it’s a case of semantics to me.

[Superman]

19 minutes ago, compuls1v3 said:

So is analytics common sense?  Seems like common football knowledge to me, which is so frustrating when we weren’t doing those things during games.

 

So it's only analytics if it's in a pie chart?

 

If you know that you have success with a certain matchup, so you keep working it, you're using data to your advantage. All analytics does is tell you 'when the defense is in base they'll use a LB on our TE 80% of the time, and our TE gains X yardage per target when covered by LBs.' Now you have the actual data in front of you, and it's up to you to use it. 

 

If you know your opponent plays man coverage 75% of the time on third and short, it should influence your play call in that situation. If you know the offense always runs inside trap when they bring a WR in short motion, your defense is better prepared. 

 

Do you think football coaches just inherently understand and memorize these patterns, and then know exactly what they want to run when they pop up on game day? No, they've analyzed the data and gameplanned with these patterns in mind. On game day, the third and short play list favors man beaters, because they know the defensive tendencies. 

 

Belichick saw the Seahawks goal line personnel in the SB, and knew they were likely to throw a quick slant. They had identified that pattern through film study, and prepared for it. So he didn't call a time out, and didn't need to sub. The work was already done, and it paid off. 

 

This is all analytics. And much more. People act like it's just a computer telling you whether to go for it on 4th down, and the coach just blindly follows the data. That's not the case. And what's really funny to me is how people attribute unsuccessful decisions to analytics, but don't acknowledge the successful decisions that are influenced by data, or the unsuccessful decisions that were made contrary to the data. 

[MB-ColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

To me, all 22 film study that gives me advantageous matchups and tendencies is just that, film study, has been happening for a while. Just that we have technology to study it better.

 

Thats where I think the lines are blurred a bit for me in the name of analytics, more semantics than numbers. Sean Payton telling Tracy Porter before the SB pick six to watch out for the digg route or sluggo is based on their film study.

Agree.  Malcolm Butler said he recognized the Pats formation and guessed the play call so he jumped the route.

 

I also remember (sorry, really bad about player na!es) A young corner for us doing film study with a vet corner and the kid noticed the QB topping his throw.  Said he was going to look for it in the game.

 

In my opinion it's more helpful for players to key in on film study.  Analytics has it's place but it can't dictate your game plan before the game and for halftime adjustments.  The game is fluid, analytics don't appear to be.

[chad72]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Belichick saw the Seahawks goal line personnel in the SB, and knew they were likely to throw a quick slant. They had identified that pattern through film study, and prepared for it. So he didn't call a time out, and didn't need to sub. The work was already done, and it paid off. 

 

This is all analytics. And much more. People act like it's just a computer telling you whether to go for it on 4th down, and the coach just blindly follows the data. That's not the case. And what's really funny to me is how people attribute unsuccessful decisions to analytics, but don't acknowledge the successful decisions that are influenced by data, or the unsuccessful decisions that were made contrary to the data. 

So basically what you are telling me is that film study is included in the umbrella of analytics, even if it’s not quantified as percentages and probabilities.

[SOMDColtsfan]

I kind of forgot I started this thread back in September. Had like 2 replies. Going back to last year and certain play calls just made no sense. Hines up the gut with an 8 man front. Running JT with a big lead late in a game with already 20+ carries. Not using Hines and his capabilities and other players strong suits in obvious to everybody but Reich moments. Then I read some comments on other media about how Jeff Saturday and his style will probably try and dictate to a defense what the Colts want to do instead of just reacting to what a defense gives. And Irsay commenting on coaches being afraid/using analytics and wanting a new coach not afraid and all that.  

[MB-ColtsFan]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So it's only analytics if it's in a pie chart?

 

If you know that you have success with a certain matchup, so you keep working it, you're using data to your advantage. All analytics does is tell you 'when the defense is in base they'll use a LB on our TE 80% of the time, and our TE gains X yardage per target when covered by LBs.' Now you have the actual data in front of you, and it's up to you to use it. 

 

If you know your opponent plays man coverage 75% of the time on third and short, it should influence your play call in that situation. If you know the offense always runs inside trap when they bring a WR in short motion, your defense is better prepared. 

 

Do you think football coaches just inherently understand and memorize these patterns, and then know exactly what they want to run when they pop up on game day? No, they've analyzed the data and gameplanned with these patterns in mind. On game day, the third and short play list favors man beaters, because they know the defensive tendencies. 

 

Belichick saw the Seahawks goal line personnel in the SB, and knew they were likely to throw a quick slant. They had identified that pattern through film study, and prepared for it. So he didn't call a time out, and didn't need to sub. The work was already done, and it paid off. 

 

This is all analytics. And much more. People act like it's just a computer telling you whether to go for it on 4th down, and the coach just blindly follows the data. That's not the case. And what's really funny to me is how people attribute unsuccessful decisions to analytics, but don't acknowledge the successful decisions that are influenced by data, or the unsuccessful decisions that were made contrary to the data. 

I have been a casual watcher of football for over 55+ years.  I may be wrong on this but I started hearing/recognizing the phrase "they'll have to make some adjustments at halftime" only *recently*.  Honestly just asking; is that just coach speak or do they really make major adjustments only at halftime?  Is it analytics that make coaches less flexible during games?

[chad72]

12 minutes ago, MB-ColtsFan said:

Agree.  Malcolm Butler said he recognized the Pats formation and guessed the play call so he jumped the route.

 

I also remember (sorry, really bad about player na!es) A young corner for us doing film study with a vet corner and the kid noticed the QB topping his throw.  Said he was going to look for it in the game.

 

In my opinion it's more helpful for players to key in on film study.  Analytics has it's place but it can't dictate your game plan before the game and for halftime adjustments.  The game is fluid, analytics don't appear to be.

To me, here’s a situation. Mike Vrabel has a good pulse of how well his D is playing vs Mahomes the other night. He’s on the Chiefs’ 40 yard line looking at a 4th and 2. With Henry at his disposal he can opt to go for it based on analytics telling him it’s a greater probability of converting the 4th down than kicking a long FG and because it’s “Patrick Mahomes” on the other end, he needs to play keep away.
 

Or he could go with his gut that tells him he can be confident and punt, based on how well his D is playing. It’s the same reason Belichick wanted to put the ball in the hands of Brady to end the game on 4th and 2. Still the right call because his D hadn’t stopped Peyton most of the 4th qtr 
 

So yes, I agree, the flow of a game and feel for how your team is playing is lost when there’s a heavy reliance on analytics. 

[SOMDColtsfan]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So it's only analytics if it's in a pie chart?

 

If you know that you have success with a certain matchup, so you keep working it, you're using data to your advantage. All analytics does is tell you 'when the defense is in base they'll use a LB on our TE 80% of the time, and our TE gains X yardage per target when covered by LBs.' Now you have the actual data in front of you, and it's up to you to use it. 

 

If you know your opponent plays man coverage 75% of the time on third and short, it should influence your play call in that situation. If you know the offense always runs inside trap when they bring a WR in short motion, your defense is better prepared. 

 

Do you think football coaches just inherently understand and memorize these patterns, and then know exactly what they want to run when they pop up on game day? No, they've analyzed the data and gameplanned with these patterns in mind. On game day, the third and short play list favors man beaters, because they know the defensive tendencies. 

 

Belichick saw the Seahawks goal line personnel in the SB, and knew they were likely to throw a quick slant. They had identified that pattern through film study, and prepared for it. So he didn't call a time out, and didn't need to sub. The work was already done, and it paid off. 

 

This is all analytics. And much more. People act like it's just a computer telling you whether to go for it on 4th down, and the coach just blindly follows the data. That's not the case. And what's really funny to me is how people attribute unsuccessful decisions to analytics, but don't acknowledge the successful decisions that are influenced by data, or the unsuccessful decisions that were made contrary to the data. 

I appreciate all these perspectives and input. Honestly it just shows how much time, effort and planning goes into this sport. So many moving parts and variables. Can appreciate now how Peyton Manning was considered a cerebral QB. The analytics were in his head already lol..most of the time   

[Superman]

24 minutes ago, chad72 said:

Belichick doesn’t need analytics to tell him his best chance of slowing the K-gun Jim Kelly offense was to jam his WRs and concede the run a bit. I can go on and on. 

 

But data was the basis for that decision.

 

Jim Kelly averaged 8.2 yards/pass attempt, and threw a TD on 6.9% of his passes. Thurman Thomas averaged 4.8 yards/rush attempt, and ran for a TD on 4% of his rushes. There are other variables to consider in balance with these facts, but understanding that their passing game was more dangerous than their run game was based on the data. And now, 30 years later, that's an understanding that the NFL has fully embraced. 

 

Why do you attribute that decision making to coaching intuition, rather than Belichick understanding the data? The more important thing is he knew how to make practical application of what he saw in the data. And that's a variable that we can't always understand from the outside looking in. And it's obvious that some coaches are much better than others at understanding the variables, isolating the most relevant factors, and making effective application of what they learn. 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, MB-ColtsFan said:

I have been a casual watcher of football for over 55+ years.  I may be wrong on this but I started hearing/recognizing the phrase "they'll have to make some adjustments at halftime" only *recently*.  Honestly just asking; is that just coach speak or do they really make major adjustments only at halftime?  Is it analytics that make coaches less flexible during games?

 

Analysts have said this for as long as I can remember. It's recently been debunked by several people, including Peyton Manning. Coaches make adjustments throughout the game, they don't wait for halftime to make major adjustments because halftime is too late. This is why the coaches are looking at images and tablets and discussing things with their players on the sidelines. 

 

I think your post is an example of people making a boogey man out of analytics whenever they don't understand a coach's decision making. 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, chad72 said:

So basically what you are telling me is that film study is included in the umbrella of analytics, even if it’s not quantified as percentages and probabilities.

 

Analytics is based on film study. Even if you don't put it into a database and get probabilities expressed as a percentage, you've still used data to understand situations and tendencies. 

[MB-ColtsFan]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Analysts have said this for as long as I can remember. It's recently been debunked by several people, including Peyton Manning. Coaches make adjustments throughout the game, they don't wait for halftime to make major adjustments because halftime is too late. This is why the coaches are looking at images and tablets and discussing things with their players on the sidelines. 

 

I think your post is an example of people making a boogey man out of analytics whenever they don't understand a coach's decision making. 

Yeah, but I'm only going by what is being fed to me.   Coaches say it as they're being interviewed at halftime, thus I ask the question.  I definitely see them looking at their pads, but that's positional coaches.  If Frank was calling the plays was he calling the game based on analytics or what he's being fed?  None of us truly know the answer, but a serious wonder there...

[chad72]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

And it's obvious that some coaches are much better than others at understanding the variables, isolating the most relevant factors, and making effective application of what they learn. 

…and some coaches do a better job of being tuned with the pulse and flow of their team knowing when to discard information they get from analytics as well.

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, chad72 said:

To me, here’s a situation. Mike Vrabel has a good pulse of how well his D is playing vs Mahomes the other night. He’s on the Chiefs’ 40 yard line looking at a 4th and 2. With Henry at his disposal he can opt to go for it based on analytics telling him it’s a greater probability of converting the 4th down than kicking a long FG and because it’s “Patrick Mahomes” on the other end, he needs to play keep away.
 

Or he could go with his gut that tells him he can be confident and punt, based on how well his D is playing. It’s the same reason Belichick wanted to put the ball in the hands of Brady to end the game on 4th and 2. Still the right call because his D hadn’t stopped Peyton most of the 4th qtr 

 

They were at the KC 26, and it was the middle of the third quarter, and his team didn't score again all game. Maybe they needed those 4 points after all...

 

What the data would tell him is 'if we go for it and don't convert, the probability that the Chiefs score on their next possession is X. Also, we have X percent probability of converting if we go for it.' 

 

And then it's up to him to weigh out those factors, along with other relevant information - is our QB playing well, is the OL blocking well, are we healthy at critical positions or are we missing a key player, is their defense healthy, is their best LB in the medical tent right now,' etc. And then he makes a decision based on all the information he has, some of it clear from the data, others based on his own present observations. 

 

Or he can just say 'we need the points right now, let's kick it' and make a decision based on nothing but his feelings at the moment. Why not use the information, and then make an informed decision? 

[MB-ColtsFan]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

But data was the basis for that decision.

 

Jim Kelly averaged 8.2 yards/pass attempt, and threw a TD on 6.9% of his passes. Thurman Thomas averaged 4.8 yards/rush attempt, and ran for a TD on 4% of his rushes. There are other variables to consider in balance with these facts, but understanding that their passing game was more dangerous than their run game was based on the data. And now, 30 years later, that's an understanding that the NFL has fully embraced. 

 

Why do you attribute that decision making to coaching intuition, rather than Belichick understanding the data? The more important thing is he knew how to make practical application of what he saw in the data. And that's a variable that we can't always understand from the outside looking in. And it's obvious that some coaches are much better than others at understanding the variables, isolating the most relevant factors, and making effective application of what they learn. 

I can get behind this.  Thanks.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

…and some coaches do a better job of being tuned with the pulse and flow of their team knowing when to discard information they get from analytics as well.

 

I don't think the information needs to be discarded. It's just outweighed by other information. 

 

But coaches don't usually say 'yeah I wanted to go for it but our QB wasn't having a good night so I decided to punt.' But that happens. I'm pretty sure it influenced some of Reich's decisions in recent weeks. 

[Hammer]

I'm pretty sure I don't ever want to hear that word, again.