Patriots/Colts game

[Ragnar]

I'm not a fan of either team but I am a bit surprised at the heat the Patiots coach is taking over his decision.

His choice was to win the game and not give Peyton 2 minutes to drive the field and win themselves. I thought it was a good choice and going by the replay it looked like he got it.

What I want to know from all of these critics is........why is it ok in a situation like that to punt and lose, and not ok to lose by going for it? How many times do you see it happen? The Giants come to mind just last week.

[pstrickert]

It was not a terrible decision, IMO. I think it would have made more sense, though, if NE had some times outs left. They needed to be able to control the clock, once IND had the ball. Since they had no time outs left, they probably should have let IND score the TD, to save some time for Brady and the offense. That's where I think Bellichek messed up.

[Splitter24]

Agreed. After the refs said they didn't get the first down, the Pats should have come out blitzing Manning to either force him to do something stupid (unlikely) or give up the quick score.

[Scoman]

4th and 2 on your own 27 with 2 minutes to go up 6 points and you go for it?

Boneheaded call all the way.

[jaxmagicman]

I hate the Patriots and everything Belichik stands for, but it was the right call. Only people who don't think so are people who can't do math.

[theasfl]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

I hate the Patriots and everything Belichik stands for, but it was the right call. Only people who don't think so are people who can't do math.

echo'd.

I wrote 31 Bill Belichick sack jokes in the morning hours after the game.

It was ballsy. Didn't work. It happens. In a game where Peyton Manning is playing against Tom Brady the game should come down to Peyton Manning vs Tom Brady.


For the record, I hate the Patriots.

[Erik W.]

Tom Brady with his weapons or a mediocre defense that had been sliced up by Manning the entire 4th quarter. I put the game in Brady's hands, too.

The bad coaching was the wasted timeouts that led to not being able to challenge, not the 4th down call.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Erik W.

Tom Brady with his weapons or a mediocre defense that had been sliced up by Manning the entire 4th quarter. I put the game in Brady's hands, too.

The bad coaching was the wasted timeouts that led to not being able to challenge, not the 4th down call.

That is right. And if you are going to go for it, why pass on 3rd down? You run, keep the clock moving, have the 2 minute warning pass and then run your play.

What annoys me more is the people who say "He showed he didn't have faith in his defense."

I think he showed great faith in his defense, and more in his OFFENSE. What is wrong with showing faith in your offense? Which one has a better chance of happening, Peyton Manning going 70 yards or Tom Brady getting 2 yards? And many people answer that as what has a better chance of happening Peyton Manning going 70 yards or Peyton Manning going 28 yards? Well to them I say then I will give you the 28 yards, so what has a better chance of happening Tom Brady getting 2 yards or Peyton Manning getting 28 yards?

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

That is right. And if you are going to go for it, why pass on 3rd down? You run, keep the clock moving, have the 2 minute warning pass and then run your play.

What annoys me more is the people who say "He showed he didn't have faith in his defense."

I think he showed great faith in his defense, and more in his OFFENSE. What is wrong with showing faith in your offense? Which one has a better chance of happening, Peyton Manning going 70 yards or Tom Brady getting 2 yards? I

Well, Teddy Bruschi said that, and I'm somehwat inclined to believe he knows what he's talking about.

[pstrickert]

I'm not sure Bellichek thought through all the permutations. He probably made the decision more with his gut than with his head. I dislike Bellichek, but I can understand him making that call.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Well, Teddy Bruschi said that, and I'm somehwat inclined to believe he knows what he's talking about.

I am not the only one who thought it was the right call. Bill Belichik thought it was the right call and Tom Brady did too, so I am just going to trust one of the best coaches in the league and one of the best Quarterbacks in the league over a washed up player second guessing a three time super bowl winning coach.

[Slackker]

I agree with the call if he had two timeouts left. I can accept it with one timeout. With no timeouts.. punt the ball.

And that's with the belief that they did get the first down, and the call on the field was wrong. Faulk did bobble for a moment, but I think they marked it a good 18 inches back of where he gained control. But that's just me, and it doesn't matter at this point anyway. Because the Patriots had no timeouts. =)

[dsvitak]

If New England would have been up by two, I say try for the first down.

But they weren't. Indianapolis needed a touchdown to win.

With the ball on the 28, you can anticipate a net of about 40 for the punt. This puts Indianapolis back on their own 30 yard line or so, NEEDING a touchdown.

It is a whole lot tougher punching the ball ALL the way down the field than in would have been to punch the ball down to the New England 30.

I say bonehead call, all the way. Bonehead even if it works.

[crackpott]

As much as I hate New England... he made the right decision, just not the standard one. It'd be like using your closer in the 8th inning against the best hitters. If it DOES fail, you'll be chastised for it.

I read the odds of the two different ways. Going for it produced an approximately 79% chance of winning. Punting would yield approximately a 70% chance of winning.

Statistically, he made the right call.

[MikeyMikey]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Well, Teddy Bruschi said that, and I'm somehwat inclined to believe he knows what he's talking about.

I'll listen to Bruschi if he's talking about linebacker play. I'm not all that interested in his opinions on coaching strategy.

[EDIT]
That may have been a response to something you didn't say. I didn't notice you bolded the quote.

Bruschi can be upset that Belichick didn't show faith, but that's not really important. He made the correct decision, despite hurting their feelings. If they want Belichicks faith, then perhaps they should have been more effective in the fourth quarter.

[stevebydac]

Originally Posted by crackpott

I read the odds of the two different ways. Going for it produced an approximately 79% chance of winning. Punting would yield approximately a 70% chance of winning.

Statistically, he made the right call.

And that's not even considering the particular players involved. He's got a hot Tom Brady and an excellent offense trying for two yards against an okay defense. Versus a hot Peyton Manning going against a tired NE defense. So those odds probably leaned even a little bit more in Belichick's favor.

But, for comparison, sometimes in Blackjack you make the correct call and "stay" on 20 against a dealer's 15, and then the dealer gets 21. Been there...

[Scoman]

Originally Posted by crackpott

As much as I hate New England... he made the right decision, just not the standard one. It'd be like using your closer in the 8th inning against the best hitters. If it DOES fail, you'll be chastised for it.

I read the odds of the two different ways. Going for it produced an approximately 79% chance of winning. Punting would yield approximately a 70% chance of winning.

Statistically, he made the right call.

Better check your numbers again,

A 4th and 2 conversion would be successful 60% of the time. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53% of the time from that field position.

A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their own 34. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 30% of the time from that field position.

Anyway you slice it up it was not a good statistical move.

Most coaches would be **** canned for a move like that. Belicheck only did it because he can. Like a previous poster said it was a gut feeling type of move and it didn't work.

[realplayeremailhere]

Originally Posted by Scoman

Better check your numbers again,

A 4th and 2 conversion would be successful 60% of the time. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53% of the time from that field position.

A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their own 34. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 30% of the time from that field position.

Anyway you slice it up it was not a good statistical move.

Most coaches would be **** canned for a move like that. Belicheck only did it because he can. Like a previous poster said it was a gut feeling type of move and it didn't work.

Using those numbers:
(.60 *1) + (.40 * (1 - .53)) = 78.8% of winning if you go for it on 4th down
70% of winning if you punt.

[Ragnar]

All these historical #'s mean crap. Historically the Giants lost to the Chargers because they were only up by 6 with about 90 seconds left. Why? Because they kicked a FG and did not try for the TD. I'm not saying that was a bad decision, but a lot of people saw that coming.

This game came down to whether or not Peyton can go roughly 70 yards in 2 minutes. If you don't like that idea, you see of Brady can get 2 yards.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Erik W.

The bad coaching was the wasted timeouts that led to not being able to challenge, not the 4th down call.

I didn't see the game, so how were the timeouts spent exactly?

Originally Posted by Scoman

A 4th and 2 conversion would be successful 60% of the time. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53% of the time from that field position.

A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their own 34. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 30% of the time from that field position.

Er, your percentages don't make sense. At least, not the way you've written them.

If NE gets the two yards, they're on their own 30 yard line. You list that as having a 53% chance of a TD. If IND receives a punt, it's likely ends up on its own 34 yard line. You list that as having a 30% chance of a getting a TD. Huh? How does NE being 4 yards poorer in field position yield a TD percentage 23 points better?