Build analogies, not walls

Texas is a conservative Republican state, right on the firing line as millions of Mexican rapists and murderers pour across the border.  (Well they used to, before net immigration from Mexico virtually stopped after 2008.)  So you’d think that Texans would be especially enthusiastic about the new wall.  Not quite:

Few, if any, Texans in Congress support building a wall across the entire U.S./Mexico border, according to a Texas Tribune delegation-wide survey.

None of the 38-member Texas delegation offered full-throated support of a complete border wall, a position popular with President-elect Donald Trump’s supporters that would impact Texas more than it would any other state.

No worries, Mexico will pay. And maybe we misunderstood Trump:

“We will construct a great wall at the border,” Trump said at a rally earlier this month in Cincinnati. But the president-elect has also discussed only constructing a wall in areas where natural barriers like rivers do not exist.

The Rio Grande rivals only the Amazon in width, so perhaps that’s enough.  But I prefer the idea of a sort of analogy to a wall:

That would be at odds with many of Trump’s supporters, 79 percent of whom were in favor of building a wall across the entire U.S.-Mexico border, according to a Pew Research Center poll in August.

Some Texas Republicans in Congress told the Tribune they backed building a wall but declined to clarify whether it should be a contiguous construction from San Diego to Brownsville. U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Dallas, believes Trump’s support for a border wall is “an analogy,” according to a spokeswoman.

Perhaps Trump could erect a “wall of ignorance” along the Mexican border.

Among many Texas Republicans in Congress, the concept, while popular with the party’s base, collides with another conservative tenant: eminent domain.

A wall would require the confiscation of ranching land near the Rio Grande, and several Texas Republicans expressed concern about the federal government taking away property — often held by families for generations — and the legal tangles that would inevitably arise from that.

Suddenly I’m a big fan of gridlock.  NIMBY!

On another topic, even John Yoo, yes, that John Yoo, thinks Trump is going too far:

As an official in the Justice Department, I followed in Hamilton’s footsteps, advising that President George W. Bush could take vigorous, perhaps extreme, measures to protect the nation after the Sept. 11 attacks, including invading Afghanistan, opening the Guantánamo detention center and conducting military trials and enhanced interrogation of terrorist leaders. Likewise, I supported President Barack Obama when he drew on this source of constitutional power for drone attacks and foreign electronic surveillance.

But even I have grave concerns about Mr. Trump’s uses of presidential power.

One searches for “analogies” from the Nazi era; but no, I better not go there.

PS.  Congrats to Matt Ryan on a spectacular game:

Matt Ryan QB rating = 144.1

Tom Brady  QB Rating = 95.2

 

 


Tags:

 
 
 

39 Responses to “Build analogies, not walls”

  1. Gravatar of RSF RSF
    6. February 2017 at 14:34

    Brady’s performance looks more impressive under more sophisticated metrics such as those published by football outsiders.

  2. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    6. February 2017 at 14:59

    Belichick shoulda got the MVP not Brady (yes I know coaches don’t win that). Talk about making adjustments…

    Brady is considered the best QB ever, and I guess I have to agree, but I wonder how much of that greatness came from playing for the best coach in NFL history. Would another competent QB have done similarly well in that system?

  3. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    6. February 2017 at 16:39

    “Britain has changed since 1998.

    Back then, it only took workers about three years to save enough money for a down-payment on a house. Now it takes 20 years, on average, according to the Resolution Foundation, which published a landmark report on income, housing, and inequality in Britain last week.”

    —30—

    Hmmm. The above from Tyler Cowen today.

    So…immigration good, walls are bad…but when supply of housing constrained?

  4. Gravatar of James Ancona James Ancona
    6. February 2017 at 16:39

    Belichick was 42-58 in his first 100 games as an NFL head coach before Brady took over in New England. So it’s not cut and dried…

  5. Gravatar of Don Don
    6. February 2017 at 16:50

    Too bad for Ryan he didn’t get one more incomplete pass instead of taking that sack. Got to know when to hold em–know when to fold em.

    Good news about sanctuary cities in Texas: the Travis County sheriff says she will cooperate with ICE in the cases of capital murder, rape, *and* human trafficking. She must have the case fresh in her mind, of the guy (previously deported 5 times) arrested last year for raping a woman and setting her on fire. http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/203317457-story Regular murder still gets sanctuary. I prefer more “safety” in my “public safety”.

    Wikipedia says this about the Rio Grande: “Near Presidio, the river’s discharge is frequently zero.” In general, the flow rate of the Amazon is 2000x higher than that of the Rio Grande. It is silly to compare them. Like comparing with the width of a dry lake to the greatest river on earth.

  6. Gravatar of Student Student
    6. February 2017 at 18:16

    The big divide on the GOP side on immigration has and will continue to involve seasonal farm laborers (which they would prefer to be illegal).

    Also, Atlanta lost because they stopped pressuring Brady and they stopped running the ball. Brady/Belicheat are greats… but Atlanta lost this game by being boneheads on both sides of the ball late. Anyone remember seeing Brady being hit that much before? They had him frustrated and they just let up fearing the big play they were shutting down all game. The abandonment of the run game late when they were averaging 5+ a pop is a mystery.

  7. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    6. February 2017 at 18:44

    Sumner: “PS. Congrats to Matt Ryan on a spectacular game” ??! Is this meant to be ironic or moronic? With Sumner you never know, they are often merged. Scott, ATL lost the Super Bowl, NE won, in a thrilling finish that went to overtime. True, I turned off the TV after halftime but I watched it streamed online in the 4th quarter. I guess our host went to bed…

  8. Gravatar of Major-Freedom Major-Freedom
    6. February 2017 at 19:01

    Someone who took Sumner’s principles about walls would need to demolish the walls of Sumner’s home, so that his home will be open to immigration in a way that does not stall or delay the free movement of immigrants.

    Surely Sumner is not racist in believing that his walls are needed in order to provide a controlled mechanism of who does and does not enter his home?

  9. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    6. February 2017 at 19:56

    LOL Funny post, with a big assist from Trump.

  10. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    6. February 2017 at 20:19

    RSF, I would hope so.

    Msgkings, I agree, switch coaches and the Falcons win that game easily.

    Thanks Scott.

    Some of the commenters here . . . I just don’t know what goes on in their heads.

  11. Gravatar of H_WASSHOI H_WASSHOI
    6. February 2017 at 23:25

    I could not find B/C analysis of the wall.

    President Trump itself raise the B/C?

  12. Gravatar of Dave Dave
    6. February 2017 at 23:47

    Thanks. Another fantastic post demolishing the myth that Trump is somehow open to true conservatism and or libertarian ideas.

    Personal question: is your blending of sarcasm, irony, and directness influenced by your time in Australia and the UK? Monty Python?

    Love how it annoys your more literal-minded, logic-challenged followers like Ray and Harding.

  13. Gravatar of B Cole B Cole
    7. February 2017 at 05:59

    Interesting comments at Tyler Cowen’s regarding waals, immigration and housing costs…

    30 konshtok February 6, 2017 at 2:14 pm
    so the rich and powerful zoned themselves in and imported cheap labour

    REPLY

    31 Effem February 6, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    Said another way… they built local walls and tore down national walls.

    —30—

  14. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    7. February 2017 at 07:44

    “Matt Ryan QB rating = 144.1
    Tom Brady QB Rating = 95.2”

    Nice example of Twain famous quote (of unknown origin) about lies, damn lies, and statistics..as all Economists know…stats can prove anything.

    I’ve decided that Trumps main problem is that he is too old. His brain pathways have been calcified on conclusions that he came to 15 years ago and are not capable of changing based on new information. If you take many of his views and take the world of 15 years ago..they make a lot more sense. Illegal immigration and trade deficits were at all time highs. The Iraq war was raging, 9/11 was fresh in everyone’s memory, etc…

    As far as walls go…to me English proficiency should be a major criteria for immigration. If a someone can’t learn English while sitting around in a refugee camp for 2 years..then…no I don’t think they deserve entry. We now have nearly 30 million people in this country that have very limited English proficiency which drags down the schools and severely limits their ability to productively add to American society.

  15. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    7. February 2017 at 09:32

    @engineer

    Agree on English proficiency. It boggles my mind how some think it’s racist or anti-immigrant to insist on this. Isn’t that the point of moving to a new country? You learn the language to live there.

  16. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    7. February 2017 at 11:05

    msgkings and engineer,

    Why care whether immigrants learn English? Would you keep out Carlos Slim if he wanted to be an American citizen, but refused to learn English? By the same argument, though less extreme, since immigrants are good for the economy, why care what language people are speaking? Why not let the market decide which languages should dominate in various places?

    Now, of course, there can be political problems that come with this, but economically, I don’t see any reason why immigrants should be expected to learn English.

  17. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    7. February 2017 at 11:13

    Um, the market has decided already that English should dominate the world, let alone the US.

    And it was the political problems I was referring to. If the US is going to continue to succeed in attracting and blending in immigrants, a common language is an important part of that.

    I didn’t say you have to learn English before you arrive, so Slim is welcome. But once you are here, if you want to be a citizen, you should have at least a basic understanding of the language.

    Technology may make this moot at some point, as real time translation is not far away.

  18. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    7. February 2017 at 12:35

    msgkings,

    Perhaps you’ve not spent a great deal of time in many parts of Texas, or south Florida, for example. Last time I was in Houston, it was very much a bilingual city, and that was 20 years ago. Road signs are in English and Spanish, for example, and speaking Spanish is important in many jobs there. Much the same is true in many areas in south Florida, and border states in general.

    Also, it’s a mute point. As anyone who grows up with immigrants knows, the children of immigrants born here, or who come here when very young typically master English anyway, and are culturally American. This has been true of every immigrant population in US history, for the most part.

    Besides, why should I care that the only person who speaks English at my favorite Chinese restaurant is the young son of the owners? As long as I get the good food at a low price, I’m winning.

    Would you kick Carlis Slim out of he didn’t want to learn English? How about the owner of this Chinese restaurant?

  19. Gravatar of TravisV TravisV
    7. February 2017 at 12:36

    Prof. Sumner,

    David Glasner just wrote a new post addressing your recent comment on his post about Gorsuch.

    I vaguely interpreted Glasner’s first post as criticizing Gorsuch in the event that he believes in originalist judicial philosophy…….

  20. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    7. February 2017 at 12:36

    moot

  21. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    7. February 2017 at 13:28

    @Scott F: I’m not talking about kicking anyone out. I’m fine with things as they stand, but is there any reason the Chinese restaurant owner shouldn’t at least try to learn the language?

    Agreed on the kids.

  22. Gravatar of anon/portly anon/portly
    7. February 2017 at 14:16

    “Msgkings, I agree, switch coaches and the Falcons win that game easily.”

    That seems pretty harsh. Is this because of Belicheck’s superiority in in-game strategizing, or pre-game prep, or what? Given that the Falcons got up by 25, it wasn’t exactly a glory day for New England’s coaching acumen. New England obviously got very lucky to pull the game out; there were several points where one more good play by one more Falcon (e.g. Freeman or the left tackle execute one good block) and New England probably loses.

    Of course New England was just as unlucky to be down by 25 in the first place….

    I don’t know about anybody else, but when Atlanta got that first down at the NE 22, I said out loud, “take a knee, take a knee, take a knee.” I know that no NFL coach would ever do that (they’ll go absurdly conservative in other ways, but not that one), but why not? At that point running more plays can get you some very nice things – possibly a touchdown, possibly a first down and more time off the clock, possibly a shorter field goal – but it can also get you some bad things (sack or loss, penalty, fumble, incomplete pass). And the nice things are nice, but are they worth it?

    Perhaps they were – I admit my view was skewed by what is no doubt a cognitive bias, the feeling that everything was going New England’s way….

  23. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    7. February 2017 at 14:36

    msgkings,

    Let’s turn your question around. It’s there any reason we should care if the Chinese restaurant owner learns English? Would it make my food any better or cheaper?

    If learning English were a requirement, it may make my food more expensive. Why tax me for something I don’t value? Her other customers are apparently okay with the status quo too.

  24. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    7. February 2017 at 17:46

    “any reason we should care if the Chinese restaurant owner learns English? Would it make my food any better or cheaper?

    So as the only thing you care about is that your General Tsos Chicken is tasty and cheap….nice.

    As far as kids…my wife was an ESL teacher for years. Yes, the kids usually learn English…but the parents live in the shadows..afraid to talk to their teachers and get involved in society at all. People are not happy living in a strange land where they can not even speak the language. The chances of being successful and happy in this country are greatly enhanced by learning English…don’t know how anyone can argue with that.

  25. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    7. February 2017 at 18:05

    Dave, Thanks, but I’m not very good at sarcasm or irony.

    Engineer, You said:

    “I’ve decided that Trumps main problem is that he is too old.”

    No, he was saying the same idiotic stuff way back in the 1980s.

    anon/portly, Belichick was an econ major; he’s one of the few couches that can actually think logically about strategy. He understands far better than other coaches the implication of moving touchbacks to the 25 instead of the 20, which is why the Patriots usually started with better field position. Brady’s a great quarterback, but if you swapped Aaron Rogers with Brady the Packers would get worse and the Patriots would be better. Swap coaches and the Packers would improve, and vice versa. Belichick is the key to the team.

    Everyone, English? Why would anyone care about that issue?

  26. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    7. February 2017 at 18:05

    engineer,

    No one’s stopping the owner of that Chinese restaurant from learning English. She chooses not to learn and has enough customers who don’t care.

  27. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    7. February 2017 at 18:40

    Everyone, English? Why would anyone care about that issue?

    Sorry, I care about a functional society that does not breed generations of ghettos and racism.

  28. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    7. February 2017 at 18:59

    BTW..i’m just echoing the common sense views of Bill Maher and Thom Hartmann…(Not a left/right issue…)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhCMpz3DUWY

    and for some comic relief…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guIVYeCFP7M

  29. Gravatar of Potato Potato
    7. February 2017 at 20:57

    The English language thing is just actual racism and xenophobia dressed up as something else. As someone who is disgusted by the current SJW phenomena, I have to admit a broken clock is right twice a day.

    It’s a visceral reaction to watching the transition to a bilingual country. And let’s put our cards on the table, it’s about Spanish becoming a major secondary language in the US. No one cares about upper middle class kids taking Chinese class on Saturdays.

    I heard about a guy on one of our shop floors complain about not being able to understand other dudes on the floor. Next time I visited the plant, I brought him in and asked why he hadn’t learned Spanish. He’s working around a heavily Spanish workforce, yet he expects English to be the main language. Why? I told him this is America, and in America the working class needs to speak Spanish or get fired. He’s gone now, one too many racist statements about “those people”. If Harding starts saying he’s been fired I guess I’ve been doxed ?

  30. Gravatar of John S John S
    7. February 2017 at 21:37

    “Brady’s a great quarterback, but if you swapped Aaron Rogers with Brady the Packers would get worse and the Patriots would be better.”

    What are you basing this on — passer rating alone? I’m not saying for sure that Rodgers isn’t better, but the leading advanced NFL stats site, Football Outsiders, ranks Brady’s 2016 above Rodgers’.

    DYAR (Def. Adj. Yds Abv Replacement, i.e. Total Value): Brady #5, Rodgers #6

    DVOA (Value per play): Brady #2, Rodgers #8

    Brady also tops Rodgers in ESPN’s QBR (#2 to #4).

    Also, keep in mind that Brady is 39 and Rodgers is 33. Brady has topped Rodgers in DYAR, DVOA, and QBR in most years since Rodgers became a starter in 2008. Obviously it’s not easy to tease out how much of either QB’s performance is due to the coach, system, or teammates (QBR tries w.r.t. teammates). But there’s certainly no slam-dunk statistical evidence that Rodgers > Brady.

    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

  31. Gravatar of John S John S
    7. February 2017 at 21:56

    Btw, in the Super Bowl, Brady’s QBR was 79.6; Ryan’s, 79.2. Both had great games, but the problem was Ryan’s 3rd down performance.

    (From FO):

    “On first down, the Falcons averaged 11.1 yards per play… The Falcons had 114.0% DVOA on first down.

    On second down, the Falcons averaged 6.9 yards per play. The Falcons had a more reasonable 19.5% DVOA on second down.

    On third down, the Falcons ran nine plays (not including penalties) and averaged a loss of 1.1 yards… Matt Ryan was sacked four times on third down and lost a fumble. The Falcons had MINUS-121.1% DVOA on third down.”

    It’s obv hard to draw anything conclusive from a one-game sample size, and the Falcons did plenty to throw away the game. But seriously, can’t we at least give Brady **some credit** for staying mentally strong in the face of a 25 point deficit in the 3rd quarter?? What else did he have to earn more than backhanded compliments: return a KO for a TD? Rush for a 100 yards?

    I bet Brady could win another SB, and some people would still say, “Ah, it’s all Belichick.” I wonder why people don’t say the same thing about Montana and Walsh.

  32. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    7. February 2017 at 23:51

    I find it funny that John Yoo agreed with Afghanistan, Guantanamo, torture, drone wars and the NSA surveillance state but when Trump is building a border barrier (that mostly already exists)and passes a travel ban for a few unimportant countries (that 90% of Americans wouldn’t even find on a world map) for just a few days, Yoo becomes very worried. That’s his red line. Very ironic indeed.

    But you totally concealed that even Yoo said that the travel ban is perfectly legal. Shame on you.

  33. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    8. February 2017 at 00:38


    it’s about Spanish becoming a major secondary language in the US.

    Exactly. One lingua franca is more than enough. The more different languages you got the more trouble you have and the more dysfunctional the community of states becomes. Just look at the EU as an example.

    It’s funny how all the immigrants in the centuries before the Hispanic migration learnt English during their assimilation and now some Hispanics seem to think otherwise.

  34. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    8. February 2017 at 06:39

    “The English language thing is just actual racism and xenophobia dressed up as something else.”

    Back in the real world…I recently posted a job for a computer programmer…the job requirement was that they know the C/C++ language, because that is what all of our legacy code is written in. Yes, we could rewrite all of our code to accommodate someone that does not know the language…but again this is the real world and I am only going to hire someone not experienced with the language…

    BTW…The racist/xenophobe label is being thrown out so often that it has become totally meaningless…It is not being a xenophobe to not dismiss the bill of rights because it is written by dead white men and to think Sharia law is a medieval concept that is incompatible with American culture and society.

  35. Gravatar of anon\portly anon\portly
    8. February 2017 at 11:17

    “Belichick was an econ major; he’s one of the few couches that can actually think logically about strategy. He understands far better than other coaches the implication of moving touchbacks to the 25 instead of the 20, which is why the Patriots usually started with better field position. Brady’s a great quarterback, but if you swapped Aaron Rogers with Brady the Packers would get worse and the Patriots would be better. Swap coaches and the Packers would improve, and vice versa. Belichick is the key to the team.”

    I was actually thinking of asking the Brady or Belicheck question, but didn’t – but got it answered anyway. Thanks.

    I still don’t understand the “switch coaches and the Falcons win easily” comment. Before the game? When the Falcons were up 28-3? During the preseason? I agree Belicheck is a great coach, and seems to understand sunk costs and other factors involving optimal retention of personnel much better than other coaches or GM’s.

    In this game, Belicheck’s understanding of the kickoff issue was worth 6 yards of field position, as the Falcons started the first drive of the second half on the 19. (Later they were pinned deep twice, but obviously while guarding against the onsides kick, so Belicheck’s strategy I believe was pretty pro forma there).

    Obviously Brady’s lack of mobility is seen as his big flaw, and the reason why the Giants (and the Seahawks until the Avril concussion, and the Falcons for awhile) were able to thwart him. I’ve always thought it was interesting that Marino never won a SB and Fouts never even got to one, when they seemed like the two greatest passers of their era. Belicheck deserves credit for building a system that minimizes this problem.

    “It’s obv hard to draw anything conclusive from a one-game sample size, and the Falcons did plenty to throw away the game.”

    I like the first part of this sentence but not the second. It’s tempting to impose order and say something like “New England made a lot of mistakes early and the Falcons made a lot of mistakes late,” but maybe what seems like a pattern is mostly randomness. On two of their three meaningful possessions after going up 28-3, a holding penalty against the left tackle took the Falcons out of field goal range. Did New England strategize to achieve this, or did it just happen? Maybe if the ball had been spotted a foot differently before one of those plays, the Falcon’s left tackle might have had better footing, not held, or not enough to extract cloth, and the Falcons would have gone on to win. There are probably a thousand things like this on which the outcome turned, that could be cited, were we omniscient.

    In a game where one team dominates the other throughout, I think you can (maybe) take the outcome as evidence of some sort that one team was really better in some way, either strategically or personnel-wise or whatever. In a game like SB LI, I think what you saw was pretty random.

    My final useless comment is that when it comes to the Super Bowl, the game isn’t the best part, it’s the “hindsight is 20-20”-thon that comes after.

  36. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    8. February 2017 at 12:57

    John, New England has much better schemes for getting receivers open. The Packers are one of the most predictable teams in the league in terms of pass routes. There are plays where no one is open after 6, 7 or even 8 seconds. Rodgers is forced to do far more than Brady. Again, Brady’s also great, I consider them both top 3 quarterbacks. But Rodgers is more spectacular, because he has to be in the Packer’s system.

    Just to be clear, I would not argue against anyone claiming Brady is the GOAT, as he’s done it for far longer than Rodgers. At age 39 his accomplishment is awesome.

    Christian, You said:

    “But you totally concealed that even Yoo said that the travel ban is perfectly legal. Shame on you.”

    You totally concealed that I never claimed the travel ban was illegal. Shame on you.

    Anon/portly:

    “In this game, Belicheck’s understanding of the kickoff issue was worth 6 yards of field position, as the Falcons started the first drive of the second half on the 19. (Later they were pinned deep twice, but obviously while guarding against the onsides kick, so Belicheck’s strategy I believe was pretty pro forma there).”

    The reason you give for them being pinned deep is exactly why the Atlanta returner should not have run it out from the end zone on the final kickoff. Atlanta was at the 10 on both of the final two kickoffs. I recall Belichick using this strategy to pin deeps deep even very early in the season.

  37. Gravatar of John S John S
    9. February 2017 at 03:44

    Scott, good answer, that makes sense. Fwiw, I agree that Belichick is more important (if nothing else, for his personnel moves alone — picking up Hogan, an unwanted castoff, was huge). But it irks me when some people (not you, of course) assume that any old QB could have filled the role Brady has since 2000.

    Anon, completely agree about the randomness of events that can happen in a single game. I wasn’t referring to individual outcomes, which are indeed random; I meant poor strategic decisions (e.g. not running the ball more in the 4th) and tactical errors (Ryan’s snaps with 10-15 sec left on the play clock) which really should not have occurred in ANY hypothetical iteration of this game.

  38. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    9. February 2017 at 07:58

    John, Some of that is based on personal dislike of Brady. It happens in other sports too, where people downplay LeBron James, for instance.

  39. Gravatar of anon/portly anon/portly
    9. February 2017 at 10:45

    “The reason you give for them being pinned deep is exactly why the Atlanta returner should not have run it out from the end zone on the final kickoff. Atlanta was at the 10 on both of the final two kickoffs. I recall Belichick using this strategy to pin deeps deep even very early in the season.”

    Well, one of those kickoffs landed at about the 3 and the other landed very close to the goal line, and on the first one Atlanta was surely playing for the onsides kick. Maybe on the second one he should have let it bounce, I’m not sure. But anyway this is not, I am quite sure, a strategy unique to Belicheck, you see other teams kick it high and short also. Especially when behind and thinking fumble, which I think are more common on returns. NFL coaches can be pretty dumb but I believe this strategy is common knowledge and not used rarely. I would have been surprised if they hadn’t done it. Maybe when I’ve seen it, it’s just been by accident, and the kicker meant to kick it into the EZ. Maybe some teams have kickers who aren’t strong enough to do it well – I’m not sure.

    On the other hand, if you want to give Belicheck some credit for events following 28-3, where I (obviously an ignoramus but still) would give him the most credit is on the play design of the two-point conversions. Maybe I am influenced by the feeling that my own favorite team (Seattle) seems to run the most duff, unthoughtful plays in that situation, but it looks to me like NE has put a lot of thought and effort into it. When NE went for the FG to make it 28-12, that was probably a good strategy for them, but might have been a bad strategy for many other teams, who would have a much smaller chance of converting two two-point conversions, and perhaps should have gone for it on 4th and goal from the 14.

    “I wasn’t referring to individual outcomes, which are indeed random; I meant poor strategic decisions (e.g. not running the ball more in the 4th) and tactical errors (Ryan’s snaps with 10-15 sec left on the play clock) which really should not have occurred in ANY hypothetical iteration of this game.”

    Yeah, but to me you’re much farther into “hindsight is 20-20” territory than you might think. Look at the three drives (assuming your critique begins at 28-3):

    First drive (starting on NE 41): pass for 9, run for -1/holding -10, incomplete, sack, punt. They run it on second and one, disaster (out of FG range) ensues.

    Second drive (starting on own 27): run for 8, run for 0, strip sack. A successful run followed by an unsuccessful run. Maybe they should have run it on 3rd and 2, maybe not, I think it depends on the defensive look. If Ryan didn’t get them into a good play, either kudos to NE for fooling him or bad on Ryan.

    Third drive (starting on own 10): pass for 39 (first down); run for 1, pass for 28 (first down); run for -1, sack for -12, pass for 9/holding for -10, incomplete, punt.

    They ran the ball 5 times, 1 was successful (gain of 8 on 1st), 3 were unsuccessful (gains of -1, 0, 1), 1 was wildly unsuccessful (loss of 1 but holding penalty taking them out of FG range).

    Meanwhile in non-certain-pass situations they passed the ball 7 times. 2 were wildly successful (gains of 39 and 28). 1 was successful (gain of 9). 1 was unsuccessful (incomplete). 3 were wildly unsuccessful (sack of 12, holding, strip sack).

    If you take away the two holding penalties, clearly errors of execution, they were successful on 4 of 7 passing plays and 1 of 5 running plays. I think New England was not going to let them get first downs by running (plus they might have been a bit limited by the Coleman injury); I believe top NFL teams generally can take away the run when they want to. But they can’t take away the pass.

    Matt Ryan, I think made two huge mistakes, not checking his blind side on the strip sack and holding on to the ball too long on the sack on that third drive. Those too are errors of execution, not play call. I have no argument with Atlanta’s play selection, with the exception that after the pass to Jones I would have gone with inside, conservative runs that couldn’t lose (much) yardage. But I’m not sure they ran a play like the entire game – maybe they didn’t do it because Freeman never runs them or something, or maybe because of Mack’s injury, I don’t know.

    Anyway, the bottom of line of this too-long comment is that I think New England was focused on taking away the run; at that point with Atlanta’s personnel I think their best strategy was to keep throwing it, as they did. The 4 wildly unsuccessful plays (holding, strip sack, holding, sack) were all pretty clearly errors of execution, not play call, it seems to me.

    This is why football is more interesting than monetary policy, where there are no errors of execution, just bad play calls. (Fiscal policy does have both though….)

Leave a Reply