When it happened I agreed with Bill Belichick's call to go for it

[WhiteWonder 2,735]

It's a coin flip either way is my whole point. If the Pats punt they have about a 60% chance of winning the game. If they go for it, they have about a 60% chance of winning the game. It sounds like you think it's a foregone conclusion that the Colts put up a TD if the Pats don't convert. That's obviously not true since they still need to go 30 yards and like you said, the Pats defense stopped them several times and even picked off Manning twice.

 

refer to my edited post.

 

i knew you would say its a coin flip either way but in my opinion (and i think its more than just opinion) a longer field brings in alot more variables.

[WhiteWonder 2,735]

also, if its simply a coin flip either way then why does any team, in any game, in any situation, ever punt on 4th and 2?

 

shouldn't they just go for it since its a coin flip to convert and a coin flip that the other team will score if they punt?

[TD Ryan2 316]

How can "It didnt work" not be a good reason against the call?

 

2006 AFC Championship, NE @ IND

4th quarter, 2:27 left

NE has the ball on their own 46yard line, it's 4thdown with 4 yards to go.

They Punt.

 

IND takes over with 2:17 left and 1 timeout.

Manning marches them down the field and Addai scores the go-ahead TD with 1:02 remaining.

 

NE loses the game.

 

 

Should NE have gone for it?

Was the punt the right move there?

 

here's a link to the play by play:

NFL.com link

[kmbryant09 1]

HAS ANYONE THOUGHT OF THIS ARGUMENT AGAINST BELICHICK?????

 

-Even with the Timeout called, Belichick had approx. 60-120 seconds from the end of the 3rd down play to the snap of the 4th down play. Given the fact that he discussed options with Brady and Faulk during the TO, and had to take time to think of, call, and relay the play into Brady's helmet (who knows how many people are talking to Brady/Belichick at this point)......with all this going on, there is NO WAY Belichick sat there, came up with the %'s for all 3 scenarios playing out, did the math/probability, and said, "the numbers don't lie, we should go for it".

 

No way, now how, can anyone believe he worked this out to a math problem...so what did it come down to????

 

It came down to Belichick's confident, but mostly cocky/arrogant style of coaching, in which he truly believes he and his players and his team, are above everyone else and the integrity of the game. It's the same reason they got caught with SpyGate, the same reason he ran up scores in '07, the same reason he's the biggest post-game-handshake-###### of all time. And for one of the first times I can remember, his style backfired on him. Now I tip my cap for all the gutsy times it worked out for him, but since he gets the praise when it works out, he sure as hell better take the heat when it doesn't work out, because it cost his team the game, and a chance at homefield advantage (will be a huge factor, especially this season).

 

And by the way, I guarantee you every single other coach in the NFL punts the ball, or if its any other QB besides #18, the Pats punt the ball, simple as that.

[TD Ryan2 316]

also, if its simply a coin flip either way then why does any team, in any game, in any situation, ever punt on 4th and 2?

 

shouldn't they just go for it since its a coin flip to convert and a coin flip that the other team will score if they punt?

 

1. I think in the future you will see more going for it on 4th down.

At one time the NFL didn't pass much at all and the game evolved.

At one time the NFL had to have FBs and TEs on the field every posession.

At one time using short, quick passes to replace your running game was unheard of.

At one time lining up a RB in the QB spot was considered gimmicky.

 

going for it on 4th will become more of a trend in the NFL.

 

 

2. This was an End-Of-Game situation. Makes a lot of difference.

[nobody 2,671]

also, if its simply a coin flip either way then why does any team, in any game, in any situation, ever punt on 4th and 2?

 

shouldn't they just go for it since its a coin flip to convert and a coin flip that the other team will score if they punt?

 

It's not always a coin flip. Like I said, I made up my own percentages trying my best to factor in the human element at the time and it was a coin flip. Keep in mind I'm not the guy saying he was stupid either way. I'm just saying it was a marginal call. I consider the chances of the Colts driving and scoring after a punt to be about 40%, the statistics put it around 30 I believe. I believe the chances of the Pats making that first down to be about 50%. The statistics say about 60% I believe, and I think the chances of the Colts scoring from the 30 after a failed conversion are about 80%, I think the statistics say about 50% I believe. Add all that up and to me there is a 60% chance the pats win either way.

 

All I'm doing is quantifying my beliefs. Everyone who is trying to say Belicheat is stupid are just saying it's stupid becasue statistics don't factor in the human element. This is true, but at the same time, you can't just assume punting is a no-brainer unless you, too, can quantify, your position. Or am I suppose to believe that the human element automatically makes the punt obvious. Because it sure doesn't to me.

[TD Ryan2 316]

It came down to Belichick's confident, but mostly cocky/arrogant style of coaching, in which he truly believes he and his players and his team, are above everyone else and the integrity of the game. .

wow.

Francis is blowing snot bubbles.

 

I can't imagine how many Pats fans you could beat up with all that retard strength.

[nobody 2,671]

HAS ANYONE THOUGHT OF THIS ARGUMENT AGAINST BELICHICK?????

 

-Even with the Timeout called, Belichick had approx. 60-120 seconds from the end of the 3rd down play to the snap of the 4th down play. Given the fact that he discussed options with Brady and Faulk during the TO, and had to take time to think of, call, and relay the play into Brady's helmet (who knows how many people are talking to Brady/Belichick at this point)......with all this going on, there is NO WAY Belichick sat there, came up with the %'s for all 3 scenarios playing out, did the math/probability, and said, "the numbers don't lie, we should go for it".

 

No way, now how, can anyone believe he worked this out to a math problem...so what did it come down to????

 

It came down to Belichick's confident, but mostly cocky/arrogant style of coaching, in which he truly believes he and his players and his team, are above everyone else and the integrity of the game. It's the same reason they got caught with SpyGate, the same reason he ran up scores in '07, the same reason he's the biggest post-game-handshake-###### of all time. And for one of the first times I can remember, his style backfired on him. Now I tip my cap for all the gutsy times it worked out for him, but since he gets the praise when it works out, he sure as hell better take the heat when it doesn't work out, because it cost his team the game, and a chance at homefield advantage (will be a huge factor, especially this season).

 

And by the way, I guarantee you every single other coach in the NFL punts the ball, or if its any other QB besides #18, the Pats punt the ball, simple as that.

 

I actually addressed this a few posts ago. It's game theory. It's not statistics. Humans automatically have a knack for game theory. We just sort of think about it, subconciously assess the percentages and then make a decision. He said himself, "I thought going for it gave us a better chance to win then punting." That sums up the game theory pretty well. He didn't say I thought we had a 9.67% better chance by going for it.

[kmbryant09 1]

wow.

Francis is blowing snot bubbles.

 

I can't imagine how many Pats fans you could beat up with all the retard strength.

Oh really?? So you don't think he's cocky? You don't think SpyGate was an example of him thinking he was above the rules and could get away with bending them? You don't think he's a pr!ck for all the ghey-@$$ handshake bullsh!t he pulls everytime he loses a game??? You think he was showing good sportsmanship, etc. etc. running up the scores in '07 (which I don't think are a big deal, and good for them for being able to do it, but again - no other team/head coach pulls that stunt off like he did).

 

So please show me where my comments are retarded, as you so maturely stated.

[TD Ryan2 316]

Oh really?? So you don't think he's cocky? You don't think SpyGate was an example of him thinking he was above the rules and could get away with bending them? You don't think he's a pr!ck for all the ghey-@$$ handshake bullsh!t he pulls everytime he loses a game??? You think he was showing good sportsmanship, etc. etc. running up the scores in '07 (which I don't think are a big deal, and good for them for being able to do it, but again - no other team/head coach pulls that stunt off like he did).

 

I think all of these thing make for interesting threads and discussions on their own.

 

I don't think any of them have anything to do with Belichick trying to win a game by going for it on 4th down.

 

you're proving my point here BTW.

it's pure emotion, rage, reaction, hate, etc that factors into your opinions, judgment, and decision making.

 

I argue that going for it was not stupid because stats show that the probabilities for winning favored it.

You argue that going for it was stupid because Bill Belichick is a Big Meany.

[KYSteel 0]

So when a team is down by 6 with 1 seocnd on the clock 40 yards from a TD, and they throw a hail mary that fails, you are saying it's the wrong call because it didn't work.

 

What other choice is there? This is a bad example.

 

What if a team is at the 5 yard line with 1 second left down by 1 and they kick a field goal and miss. Was kicking the field goal the wrong call because they missed?

 

Yeah.. maybe. Depending on the teams, situation, ect. I know going for it at the 1 is whole lot fking smarter than from the 28.

[parrot 789]

HAS ANYONE THOUGHT OF THIS ARGUMENT AGAINST BELICHICK?????

 

-Even with the Timeout called, Belichick had approx. 60-120 seconds from the end of the 3rd down play to the snap of the 4th down play. Given the fact that he discussed options with Brady and Faulk during the TO, and had to take time to think of, call, and relay the play into Brady's helmet (who knows how many people are talking to Brady/Belichick at this point......with all this going on, there is NO WAY Belichick sat there, came up with the %'s for all 3 scenarios playing out, did the math/probability, and said, "the numbers don't lie, we should go for it".

 

No way, now how, can anyone believe he worked this out to a math problem...so what did it come down to????

 

Maybe you should do some research. It's pretty common knowledge that this is one of Belichick's pet areas and he has been at the forefront of the league in going for it on fourth down for some time. This is something he has studied and considered beforehand. Any idea who Ernie Adams is?

 

It came down to Belichick's confident, but mostly cocky/arrogant style of coaching, in which he truly believes he and his players and his team, are above everyone else and the integrity of the game. It's the same reason they got caught with SpyGate, the same reason he ran up scores in '07, the same reason he's the biggest post-game-handshake-###### of all time. And for one of the first times I can remember, his style backfired on him. Now I tip my cap for all the gutsy times it worked out for him, but since he gets the praise when it works out, he sure as hell better take the heat when it doesn't work out, because it cost his team the game, and a chance at homefield advantage (will be a huge factor, especially this season).

 

Jesus, just when you think arguments couldn't get anymore lame it's now detrimental to the integrity of the game to try and win the game.

 

 

And by the way, I guarantee you every single other coach in the NFL punts the ball, or if its any other QB besides #18, the Pats punt the ball, simple as that.

 

Yeah, and? No other coach takes an intentional safety to avoid punting from the back of his own endzone either, at least until BB showed them. One sure way to never be thought of as an innovator is to always do what every other guy in the league would do. And of course the fact that it was Manning on the other side weighed into the decision. I don' think anyone has argued otherwise. To go for it there was a great sign of respect from Belichick to Manning.

[nobody 2,671]

By the way, I'm not a Pats fan by any means. I think they are cocky and the media slob their jocks way too much. I just don't think Belicheat deserves the lambasting for this particular call.

[nobody 2,671]

What other choice is there? This is a bad example.

Yeah.. maybe. Depending on the teams, situation, ect. I know going for it at the 1 is whole lot fking smarter than from the 28.

 

 

Think about the examples I gave to you in the context of what you wrote.

 

You said something to the effect of, "How can 'it failed'" not be a good excuse for calling it a bad call. I'm trying to illustrate to you that sometimes you can make the right call and still fail.

 

You are down 1 at the 5 yard line with 1 second left. Do you kick the 17 yard fieldgoal or go for the touchdown? If you kick and miss, does it go from being the right call to the wrong call?

[TD Ryan2 316]

Maybe you should do some research. It's pretty common knowledge that this is one of Belichick's pet areas and he has been at the forefront of the league in going for it on fourth down for some time. This is something he has studied and considered beforehand. Any idea who Ernie Adams is?

 

 

this is the part that gets me parrot.

I would almost guarantee that the timeout involved a chat with Ernie Adams.

and I suspect that Ernie and Belichick have gone over this scenario before.

 

so why not use both the 3rd and 4th down to get the yards?

why throw two passes there?

were the Colts in that much of a run-prevent Defense that it wasn't an option?

[kmbryant09 1]

I think all of these thing make for interesting threads and discussions on their own.

This is code for you agreeing with what I had to say

I don't think any of them have anything to do with Belichick trying to win a game by going for it on 4th down.

My point was it's his style of coaching - very aggressive/cocky, which I believe is the same reason he went for it on 4th down, try to keep up

you're proving my point here BTW.

it's pure emotion, rage, reaction, hate, etc that factors into your opinions, judgment, and decision making.

Uhhhh, by saying it's pure emotion, rage, reaction, etc that factors into decision making, how can you argue that it was the right call because of the stats?? If it is pure emotion, stats, flow of the game, etc. than you can throw stats out the window, along with your argument

I argue that going for it was not stupid because stats show that the probabilities for winning favored it.

You argue that going for it was stupid because Bill Belichick is a Big Meany.

Never said he was a meany, just simply saying I think BB went for it to try and beat his chest to the rest of the NFL - "convention says punt it, but we're beyond that, and are gonna prove we can win our own way". Like I said, sometimes he looks like a genius, and he takes the credit, but when the strategy backfires, he's gotta take the heat.

[t-birdie 8]

It was the right call.

 

I was thinking as soon as they came up short on 3rd down - "Man, I'd go for it if I were them." When I saw them line up on 4th down I knew they weren't just trying to draw them off, they really were gonna go for it.

 

NE just proved they couldn't stop Manning on the drive before. He went 80 yards in about 1:30 as if it were a scrimmage. They punt it away and chances are he's gonna do it again, the clock is down and the game is over.

 

NE had about 450 yards of offense and weren't having much trouble moving the ball either. I'll take my chances with Brady on the field running a play that he'll convert about 95% of the time versus kicking it away and giving Peyton Manning, probably the best clutch QB of all-time, a 2:00 minute drill in that situation. It didn't work out, but it was still the right call. If they'd have kicked they most likely would have lost anyway.

[parrot 789]

so why not use both the 3rd and 4th down to get the yards?

why throw two passes there?

were the Colts in that much of a run-prevent Defense that it wasn't an option?

 

Absolutely. Agreed completely. I didn't like the whole chain of events. I was really surprised when Bill said that they had decided pre-third down to go on it on fourth down, as they should have then run on third down. Hell I wanted play-action down the field to Moss on first down after the bs PI call, but that's another story.

 

I didn't like the play call on fourth down, I didn't like the empty backfield as the Faulk direct-snap has been a bread and butter play in those situations and something the Colts would have had to be wary of. Obviously, I don't have any problem with them going for it, but the whole thing could have been planned and executed MUCH better.

 

Hey crawfish, please take note that this is two Pats fans with serious issues regarding the coaching down the stretch. HTH.

[PATSSOX 22]

i was pissed after they missed the 3rd and 2 and figured they would punt and thought we are done So i walked out to porch to smoke a cigar and turned around and Brady was in shut gun ready for snap I couldnt believe it so i threw down cigar and ran back into house and was fired up. HELL YEA great idea BB you have some balls than Faulk caught it across yellow first down line and got knocked back. I had forgot we had wasted our TOs to challenge and thats when i gave up hope and knew game was over I liked the call but i am not on PATRIOTS

[parrot 789]

How can "It didnt work" not be a good reason against the call?

 

Do you play any poker Steel?

 

Did you know that 2-7 off will crack A-A about one in every ten hands? Does that mean that you shouldn't push with aces against 2-7? No. That's always the right call. Even if you happen to be the guy who gets cracked, it's still the right play.

[BMoney 0]

they werent stopping peyton manning at that point...he was money....

 

best way to solve that was get 2 measley yards..they had 2 plays to do it....

 

i blame the 2 yard pass play more than the call...the call was smart...end the game...but for the sake of cheaters everywhere, throw the thing 4 yards.....

 

im more concerned as a fantasy owner with what happens with maroney after his fumble on the 1..if BB stops depending on him down deep, his value goes poof...

[TD Ryan2 316]

I was really surprised when Bill said that they had decided pre-third down to go on it on fourth down

 

it was 3rd and 2.

you have two plays to get 2 yards and win the game.

why not QB sneak or dive play on 3rd down?

that's gotta put you within inches... at least cut it in half.

[PATSSOX 22]

it was 3rd and 2.

you have two plays to get 2 yards and win the game.

why not QB sneak or dive play on 3rd down?

that's gotta put you within inches... at least cut it in half.

 

I was thinking same thing Brady runs that little QB sneak well. He is what 6-4 or 6-5 and everytime i see him run that he gets 2 or 3 yards easy. Hell throw it up for Moss to make a play or throw Welker that little slant they run or that screen. THe play to Welker is more of a run play than a pass

 

HELL its over time to focus on JETS

[WhiteWonder 2,735]

2. This was an End-Of-Game situation. Makes a lot of difference.

 

we agree here. we just disagree on the type of difference it makes.

 

you think the end of game situation is added incentive to go for it

 

i think its all the more reason you punt when you're up 6. If you're trailing by 6 then yeah, obviously you go for it 100% of the time.

[WhiteWonder 2,735]

Parrot,

 

I'm just curious since you didn't respond.

 

Was my list of quotes enough evidence to show you that people are providing reasons and not simply saying Bill was wrong because the play failed?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

it was 3rd and 2.

you have two plays to get 2 yards and win the game.

why not QB sneak or dive play on 3rd down?

that's gotta put you within inches... at least cut it in half.

 

It could also be the fact that Bill was not really telling the truth that he knew he was going for it before 3rd down. If he did, then he forgot to tell Tom Brady who was running off the field on 4th down. He also forgot to tell the punting unit that was running onto the field.

 

[WhiteWonder 2,735]

It could also be the fact that Bill was not really telling the truth that he knew he was going for it before 3rd down. If he did, then he forgot to tell Tom Brady who was running off the field on 4th down. He also forgot to tell the punting unit that was running onto the field.

 

 

this is also true but thats just a fun example of Bill being high and mighty with the media.

[parrot 789]

it was 3rd and 2.

you have two plays to get 2 yards and win the game.

why not QB sneak or dive play on 3rd down?

that's gotta put you within inches... at least cut it in half.

 

 

When I say I was surprised I mean because of the play call on third down. Not sure if you misenterpretted my meaning there.

[PATSSOX 22]

Do you play any poker Steel?

 

Did you know that 2-7 off will crack A-A about one in every ten hands? Does that mean that you shouldn't push with aces against 2-7? No. That's always the right call. Even if you happen to be the guy who gets cracked, it's still the right play.

 

 

hey PARROT,

 

here is a song for you!!!!!! you need to watch this

 

 

[parrot 789]

Parrot,

 

I'm just curious since you didn't respond.

 

Was my list of quotes enough evidence to show you that people are providing reasons and not simply saying Bill was wrong because the play failed?

 

I saw a lot of opinions, not a lot of reasoning or analysis. Mostly people are saying "the risk was too great". That's an opinion and one I clearly don't agree with, because the reward was so great as well. There was risk and reward to every option. Clearly it didn't turn out the way they wanted, that doesn't make it a poor decision.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

this is also true but thats just a fun example of Bill being high and mighty with the media.

 

He is always that way. He does not throw a player under the bus and he does not throw himself under the bus. He will say vague things like "we all have to do a better job, me included" and stuff like that.

 

The reality is that he did not know he was going for it before 3rd down. He was not sure he was going for it at the end of 3rd down and he made a rush decision that caught people off guard and forced a timeout. Factor in the risk with that confusion and I think that it was the wrong call.

[zmanzzzz 1]

dont you guys have work to do?

[KYSteel 0]

Do you play any poker Steel?

 

Did you know that 2-7 off will crack A-A about one in every ten hands? Does that mean that you shouldn't push with aces against 2-7? No. That's always the right call. Even if you happen to be the guy who gets cracked, it's still the right play.

 

 

Yes thats true. I think that perhaps I didnt express myself properly and this is the last I'm gonna speak on it.

 

Im looking at "the right call" and "a good decision" as 2 different things. IMO I think the call was neither, but I can see how it can be argued that it was a good decision.

 

AA is always a good decision vs 2 7, and I'll always do it, but if I lose that hand it wasn't the right call.

 

I can see a valid arguement on both sides of this for a good decision, but it certainly wasn't the right call.

[WhiteWonder 2,735]

I saw a lot of opinions, not a lot of reasoning or analysis. Mostly people are saying "the risk was too great". That's an opinion and one I clearly don't agree with, because the reward was so great as well. There was risk and reward to every option. Clearly it didn't turn out the way they wanted, that doesn't make it a poor decision.

 

this entire thread is opinion. the opinions are backed up loosely by stats and history as well as general football knowledge and commonly accepted football practice.

 

if we assume its a 50/50 deal, there is going to be arguments for playing it safe and punting as well as arguments for the potential reward tied to going for it.

 

just the way it is.

 

but I still say, without much doubt in my mind that had the Patriots punted and still lost the game, none of the Patriot fans (yourself included) would have been here yelling that the right call would have been to go for it on 4th and 2. You would all be saying they made the right call by punting and were beaten by a great QB.

 

 

also, for what its worth, opening up the Colts entire playbook is not opinion. Its football fact.

[parrot 789]

if we assume its a 50/50 deal, there is going to be arguments for playing it safe and punting as well as arguments for the potential reward tied to going for it.

 

If you assume it's a 50/50 deal then I can't imagine why you would then say it was monumentally stupid. A lot of time and energy could have been saved if certain people accepted that assumption.

 

but I still say, without much doubt in my mind that had the Patriots punted and still lost the game, none of the Patriot fans (yourself included) would have been here yelling that the right call would have been to go for it on 4th and 2. You would all be saying they made the right call by punting and were beaten by a great QB.

 

Bold statement , seeing as how I've already said AT LEAST TWICE that I would have been fine with a punt there. I even prefaced it with "To be clear..." just to, you know, be clear.

 

The situation didn't demand that they go for it, but it was a perfectly defensible and sensible decision, that gave them, IMO, all things considered, a MARGINALLY better chance to win. That's been my position from the first post.

 

also, for what its worth, opening up the Colts entire playbook is not opinion. Its football fact.

 

Maybe so, not sure how much difference it would have made though. The Colts had just ripped them for eight yards two minutes before when they knew they had to pass.

[spongeballer 2]

This thread in 7 words. Brought to you by Microsoft Windows 7.

 

1. Bellichick...

2. blows...

3. game.

4. die-hard...

5. fans...

6. fellate...

7. him.

[PATSSOX 22]

This thread in 7 words. Brought to you by Microsoft Windows 7.

 

1. Bellichick...

2. blows...

3. game.

4. die-hard...

5. fans...

6. fellate...

7. him.

 

 

 

spongebob try again

[parrot 789]

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/11/16/going-for-it/

 

[PATSSOX 22]

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/11/16/going-for-it/

 

 

i think the fella who wrote that article and Belichick are just a little smarter than us

 

here ill paste some of the article:

 

His explanation is simply this: A team picks up fourth and two about 60 percent of the time — and we all know that a fourth down conversion in this case means certain victory. On the flip side: A team would score a game-winning touchdown from the 30 about 53 percent of the time. This leads to this formula — the first part is the 60% multiplied by 1 (1 signifying the certain victory if the play is converted). The second part is 40 percent multiplied by the chance of winning the game if the 4th down play fails:

 

(.60 *1) + (.40*(1-.53)) = 78.8% chance of winning.

 

There you go. Burke then estimates the chance of winning if Belichick punts — that is the chance of a team going 66 yards for a touchdown in the final two minutes. He says, historically, teams get that about 30% of the time. So a punt gives the Patriots a 70% chance of winning.

 

And there you go — 78.8% chance of winning vs. a 70% chance if you punt. It really is clear cut. I don’t know if Belichick plays with such percentages in his mind, but instinctively he knew that his team’s best chance to win was to go for it.

 

Now, you probably are saying here that the numbers do not sound all that authentic. The Peyton Manning Colts would have a much better than 53% chance of scoring from the 30 (and, as it played out, the Colts scored so easily and left so little time on the clock it seemed just about automatic). But, you have to figure that the Colts also had a much better than 30% chance of scoring had the Patriots punted — no doubt this was weighing on Belichick’s mind. And for that matter, you have to figure that Tom Brady has a better chance than 60% chance of converting on fourth down and two.

 

Really, no matter how you play with the numbers, it will come out about the same. Try it. There is almost no way — without suppressing the numbers — to make the percentages even out. The Patriots best PERCENTAGE chance was to go for it on fourth down. Of course, football is not really a percentage game for most of us, is it? No, it’s a game about emotion and passion and momentum. When the game ended and his gamble had failed, people lined up to bash Belichick — and normally I’d be all for this. Former Patriots player Rodney Harrison called it the worst coaching move Belichick had ever made. Former Patriots player Tedy Bruschi wrote that Belichick dissed his defense by not believing they could stop the Colts over 70 yards. Tony Dungy said, “You have to punt there. You just have to punt there.” And so on and so on.

 

so by the numbers BB made the right choice so end of story next topic

[WhiteWonder 2,735]

If you assume it's a 50/50 deal then I can't imagine why you would then say it was monumentally stupid. A lot of time and energy could have been saved if certain people accepted that assumption.

Bold statement , seeing as how I've already said AT LEAST TWICE that I would have been fine with a punt there. I even prefaced it with "To be clear..." just to, you know, be clear.

 

The situation didn't demand that they go for it, but it was a perfectly defensible and sensible decision, that gave them, IMO, all things considered, a MARGINALLY better chance to win. That's been my position from the first post.

Maybe so, not sure how much difference it would have made though. The Colts had just ripped them for eight yards two minutes before when they knew they had to pass.

 

Just because I agree that 4th and 2 might be a 50/50 shot doesn't mean I agree with the situation. I mean this whole time Ive been saying that so much more needs to be considered than the odds of success on that single play. So I'm not sure where your confusion lies as far as my stance on going for it.

 

You can defend the decision with loose statistics but that does not make the decision a sensible one. In fact, sensible usually errs on the side of caution which would dictate a punt in that situation.

 

Opening up the Colts playbook makes a ton of difference and this is a huge example of where football knowledge trumps simple odds. When a team has 2 minutes to go and a short field to travel, they can run any play. They don't need to worry about getitng out of bounds, as they have plenty of time. In fact, since the Patriots has 0 timeouts remaining, staying in bounds and running time off the clock before scoring is preferred.

 

However, with 70 or 80 yards to go in the same time span, run plays more or less are tossed out and a premium is put on passes toward the sidelines. This makes the defensive coordinators job a bit easier.