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

[spongeballer 2]

This is a great discussion.

 

IMO, you cannot use the NFL average of converting a 4th and 2, 50% of the time in this situation. That data is for all 4th and 2 situations, on every place on the field with all different types of teams, in different score scenarios and at different times in the game.

 

A truer average would be to gather the data on going for it on 4th and 2 with the game on the line. I bet that number is below 50% but I don't know.

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

This is a great discussion.

 

IMO, you cannot use the NFL average of converting a 4th and 2, 50% of the time in this situation. That data is for all 4th and 2 situations, on every place on the field with all different types of teams, in different score scenarios and at different times in the game.

 

A truer average would be to gather the data on going for it on 4th and 2 with the game on the line. I bet that number is below 50% but I don't know.

 

 

even if you have a 99% chance of success............you dont go for it with Peyton freaking manning.......A 1% fail rate is still too high when you have peyton mannning.........pats had the lead just kick the ball away.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

It was the wrong call and it would've been the wrong call even if they made it.

Hilarity

[MDC 7,405]

Hilarity

 

Managing a game is about balancing risk vs. reward. Sure the Pats could have converted the 4th down and they've converted about 70% of them this season, but the risk is handing the ball to Payton at the 30 when the Colts had been unstoppable in the 4th quarter. If the Pats converted they would've won but it still would've been a needlessly stupid risk by Belichick. They didn't convert, which underscores just how dumb the call really was.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

I am the guy telling you to

fock off, douche.

Who the fock are you?

 

Ohh you are some dumb as sh!t retread because you think the entire game rests on Bill's shoulders for that call. No need to answer dip-hole.

 

GFYourself for good measure.

 

Super post hun. You made your point well.

[jgcrawfish 232]

This is a great discussion.

 

IMO, you cannot use the NFL average of converting a 4th and 2, 50% of the time in this situation. That data is for all 4th and 2 situations, on every place on the field with all different types of teams, in different score scenarios and at different times in the game.

 

A truer average would be to gather the data on going for it on 4th and 2 with the game on the line. I bet that number is below 50% but I don't know.

 

those figures weren't even for 4 and 2's...they were for 4th down conversions in general, from inches to the 1st onto whatever. But I'd bet 3/4 of those are for 4th and less than one that are QB sneaks.

[Stewburtx8 67]

giving a top ten Qb all time in his prime with all the game momentum the ball you your 28 when he is down 6 points is insane. No excuse for the pats.......this was a stupid call. Kick the ball and force manning to drive 70 yards. give your D some room to work instead of bottling them up with no chance of success.

 

 

Why is everyone acting like he GAVE the ball to Peyton Manning on his own 28 yard line??? His offense had a chance and only needed to gain 2 yards on 4th down to end the game. He has Tom Brady, a guy he ultimately puts full trust in. He has Randy Moss. He has Welker and Faulk...two guys that have made catches to keep countless Patriots drives going. The odds of the Patriots getting 2 yards there were pretty high in my opinion. The only thing I didn't like was calling the timeout and letting the Colts defense time to set up. But ultimately it didn't work out (although I thought he got it anyways).

 

Belichick basically said he thinks their was a better chance that his offense gains 2 yards than there is of his defense stopping Manning from going 70 yards. He wanted to put it in the hands of his best players, not in the hands of the Colts best players. I tend to agree with him. The only looming thing here is that his defense may feel slighted that their coach didn't have faith in them. But in my opinion that wasn't the case. I think it was just Belichick having ultimate faith in Tom Brady and his offense to execute a 2 yard play. I can't fault him for that, even if the results weren't there.

[Stewburtx8 67]

even if you have a 99% chance of success............you dont go for it with Peyton freaking manning.......A 1% fail rate is still too high when you have peyton mannning.........pats had the lead just kick the ball away.

 

This is stupid logic. If you are that scared of Peyton Manning then what is the difference between him going 70 yards or 30 yards? I'd say that 40 yard difference was well worth the gamble to go for it and let your best players try to win the game.

 

Peyton Manning said it himself when he saw the Patriots were going for it. He didn't like it. He was scared that the Patriots would convert and he wouldn't even get a chance. This is exactly how Belichick was thinking...don't give Peyton Manning a chance against your tired defense.

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

This is stupid logic. If you are that scared of Peyton Manning then what is the difference between him going 70 yards or 30 yards? I'd say that 40 yard difference was well worth the gamble to go for it and let your best players try to win the game.

 

Peyton Manning said it himself when he saw the Patriots were going for it. He didn't like it. He was scared that the Patriots would convert and he wouldn't even get a chance. This is exactly how Belichick was thinking...don't give Peyton Manning a chance against your tired defense.

rather have my tired D have 70 yards to stop manning as opposed to 28

[parrot 789]

No, your point was that you believe it to be a wiser decision to put the ball in the hands off an offense that hadn't been any more successful than the one who's hands you were trying to keep the ball out of.

 

As long as you define success as scoring and ignore things like the fact that on one of those inept drives they marched eighty yards before fumbling on the one yard line.

 

My point is that I think the offense had a very good chance to get two yards. I think this is true in general in the NFL, and I think it was certainly true last night, regardless of how the last couple drives went. I think that was more a result of the Pats getting overly conservative than anything else. If you'd like to criticise BB for that, or blowing timeouts and not being able to offer a challenge that would have won him the game IMO, feel free, you'll get no argument here.

 

 

And my point is that, yes, the reward of getting that 1st down is most likely a win, however it doesn't compensate for the risk if you fail.

 

I disagree. As I said I think there's a very high likelihood that Manning drives them right back to that area in fairly short order and if the defense was going to make a stand it still would have been from that general area of the field. Sure there would have been less time, but I think it would have been marginal and as it was they had time to burn (and a timeout they never used). Thus the chance to put the game away outweighed the potential minimal benefits of the punt.

 

To be clear, I would have been fine with a punt, as I think the decision was marginal either way, but it was marginal, and not some bone-headed ego-driven ploy that so many are trying so hard to make it out to be.

 

Going back to what was said earlier. If Belicheat punts and the Colts go up the field and score, nobody is second guessing him for making Manning work for it.

 

Yes, if Bill punts it away no one questions him. That's the way we've been conditioned to think, and intutitively it makes sense, that doesn't mean it's necessarily right. If he had punted a couple years ago rather than taking an intentional safety, no one would have questioned him then either. It doesn't mean that taking the safety wasn't the correct play as far as maximizing their chances for a win.

 

But he pretty much snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by handing it Peyton on a silver platter with the call he made there.

 

This is the part of the whole thing that really doesn't make sense to me; how do people simultaneously think that asking Manning to go thirty yards and score a TD is virtually automatic, but asking him to go seventy yards is such a long shot and basically is a lock for the Pats. It just don't add up, pardon the math pun.

[Stewburtx8 67]

rather have my tired D have 70 yards to stop manning as opposed to 28

 

 

Obviously that is the case if those are the only options. But the option was to give Tom Brady and your offense a chance to gain 2 yards and not EVER let Peyton Manning see the field again. Your only looking at the results.

[KYSteel 0]

It seems alot of people are saying:

 

Go for it because Manning would drive down the field. He just DID it the drive before so he is likely to do it again. But, also saying..

 

Go for it on 4th down, they are likely to make it because you DIDNT make it on 3rd?

 

Doesn't make sense to me.

[spongeballer 2]

It was a bad decision. Let me use a poker analogy to explain.

 

If you think you are the better player in a 2 man game and you have the chip lead, you would never go "all in" with a marginal hand. That just gives your opponent a great chance to beat you by luck. Instead, you would just keep playing poker figuring your talent will win in the end.

 

Last night, Bellicheat went "all in" while he WAS WINNING! He put the game's outcome on the fate of one play - a 50% chance, at best. Why take a gamble like that? It doesn't make sense.

[spongeballer 2]

This is the part of the whole thing that really doesn't make sense to me; how do people simultaneously think that asking Manning to go thirty yards and score a TD is virtually automatic, but asking him to go seventy yards is such a long shot and basically is a lock for the Pats. It just don't add up, pardon the math pun.

 

It's not automatic but more bad things can happen to an offense on a 10 play, 70 yard drive than on a 4 play, 30 yard drive. That's why you punt. You have the lead. Make 'em make plays to take it away from you.

[KC Deuce 1]

It was the wrong call and it would've been the wrong call even if they made it. 4th and 2 on the Colts' 30-35 and facing a long FG - okay. On your own 28? Err, no. Maybe if the Pats punt the Colts march right down the field and score anyway, but at least you're forcing them to play the clock. By handing the ball over to Indy on the 30, the Pats not only gave away the ball but they let the Colts take their time and drain the entire clock before scoring.

 

Stupidest call since Belichick went for it on 4th and 10 rather than attempt a long FG in the Super Bowl.

 

Pats fans are most all apparently stupid homers that aren't ever going to admit that their coach put the game and potentially the season in jeopardy with his decision.

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

It's not automatic but more bad things can happen to an offense on a 10 play, 70 yard drive than on a 4 play, 30 yard drive. That's why you punt. You have the lead. Make 'em make plays to take it away from you.

yep, the odds of stopping manning are higher the longer the drive is .............real simple...manning would probably still score after a punt.....but I like the odds of getting a sack, fumble or int alot better from 70 yards away than 28.

[mambokings 0]

When the game is on the line, you put the chances of winning or losing in the hands of your best players.

 

In New England's case, those players are on the offensive side of the football. If the Patriots had gotten that first down, which upon further review it seems they actually did, they win the game. Bill had to consider, defensively, at that stage of the game, they had no answers for Peyton Manning and what the Colts were doing on offense. He didn't want to take his best players off the field, with a chance to win, replacing them with a unit that was almost non-existent and clearly an exploited weak spot. The Patriots would have been putting the ball in the hands of the opposing team's BEST player, giving HIM a chance to win, instead of putting the ball in the hands of THEIR best players, giving THEM a chance to win.

[nobody 2,667]

It looks like the new vogue thing is to say the Pats actually got the first. Not true. Now ay that call was going to be overturned. They hardly ever overturn spots.

[kmbryant09 1]

If you believe that's true, then what is the chance they score from 60-70 yards? Especially considering that in situations like these the first 20-30 yards are often basically given away?

Please find me where its written that the first 20-30 yards are basically given away???? And let's see...By not punting the ball, BB essentially said "I don't think my DEF can stop Manning from going 70 yards...#%&@# didn't get the first, now go stop Manning from going 29 yards." It's ridiculous how much he threw his DEF under the bus. And don't for a second underestimate Momentum. Not only did the Colts have home field advantage, but BB just fired up the fans, coaching staff, defense, and offense by getting stopped on 4th down. If he punted, the DEF takes the field with a much different mentality, more confidence, and less in the way of momentum/crowd factor. Also, punting the ball forces the Colts to be one-dimensional, instead of opening up the entire playbook from the 29 yardline...as evidenced by their 2nd play-call, a 14 yard RUN down to the 1 yard line.

 

If you really think the only difference in getting stuffed on 4th down and punting the ball is a matter of "20-30 yards", than you clearly have never been a part of competitve sports.

[Jonny_P 0]

and I still agree with it, 100%

 

Going for it was the right call, just because they didn't make it, doesn't change that fact it was the right move. No one knows what would have happened if they punted, they very well still could have lost.

 

I do not agree with the play call, or the execution. If you're going to go for it, why not run it twice or try something else. If you watch the play, Welker was open for 5 yards over the middle too.

 

Well, when I plug my best guesses into this calculator, I get that it was the wrong decision, but only marginally. Plenty of reasonable numbers say it was the right choice.

http://belichick-decision.heroku.com/

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

When the game is on the line, you put the chances of winning or losing in the hands of your best players.

 

In New England's case, those players are on the offensive side of the football. If the Patriots had gotten that first down, which upon further review it seems they actually did, they win the game. Bill had to consider, defensively, at that stage of the game, they had no answers for Peyton Manning and what the Colts were doing on offense. He didn't want to take his best players off the field, with a chance to win, replacing them with a unit that was almost non-existent and clearly an exploited weak spot. The Patriots would have been putting the ball in the hands of the opposing team's BEST player, giving HIM a chance to win, instead of putting the ball in the hands of THEIR best players, giving THEM a chance to win.

 

[KSB2424 3,148]

Dumb call, no matter how you sugar coat it with made up percentages. You are on you own 28 yard line for cyring out loud. This is what happens when you try to outthink yourself and get cute.

 

Ya'll can spin how you want. It was stoopid. Even if they converted it was stoopid, he just would've gotten away with it.

[enoto 0]

Another big screw up is tackling Addia twice inside the 5 yard line......would have given them over a minute to go into FG range for the win. (even though I would have lost my FF game if they did get that FG). But I'm sure they were hoping for a turn over....

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

Arm Chair Coaching at it's best, not factoring everything.

 

Anyone that says BB was in the wrong, thinks they are smarter and a better coach than him?

 

You don't have to claim to be smarter or a better coach to realize the guy made a poor call.

 

 

hold on... carry the 2, move the zero, invert the square root...

 

OK.

I've got it in there.

 

STILL comes out to a 64.2% chance Manning marches down the field to win it.

 

Belichick's best odds to win are going for it on 4th down.

 

please stop posting.

 

 

Nope, he's lucky if they make it. And it's still the wrong call.

 

It's a fairly marginal decision. People can spout off percentages, but they are at best used as a guide. The Pats and Colts have never been in this exact same situation so all you can do is estimate the chances of things going down. I don't think going either way would be especially horrible or great. Based on my assessment, I give the slight edge to going for it. I mean you have to figure they have a pretty good shot at getting 2 yards.

 

for the last time, how "good a shot" they had to convert on 4th and 2 is of little importance. You have to look at the circumstances of the game. At your own 28 yard line and LEADING by 6. Players are amped up, crowd is at its loudest, etc etc... past %'s and all that don't mean a thing.

 

Dumb call, no matter how you sugar coat it with made up percentages. You are on you own 28 yard line for cyring out loud. This is what happens when you try to outthink yourself and get cute.

 

Ya'll can spin how you want. It was stoopid. Even if they converted it was stoopid, he just would've gotten away with it.

 

I was starting to think you and I would never agree again. Im glad I was wrong!

[WhiteWonder 2,734]

I would also like to pose something for consideration

 

If the Patriots punt the ball away and Manning drives 80 yards down the field in 2 minutes, with 1 timeout and scores....

None of you would be here last night or today posting that they should have gone for it on 4th and 2 from their own 28 yard line.

 

Im sure some of you will claim you would have but I am almost positive that most people are simply defending a bad call that they wouldn't have even considered otherwise.

 

and im sad no one responded to this.

 

I was really looking forward to the comments about how you were screaming at your TV's that they needed to go for it as soon as 3rd down was over.

[TD Ryan2 316]

To be clear, I would have been fine with a punt, as I think the decision was marginal either way, but it was marginal, and not some bone-headed ego-driven ploy that so many are trying so hard to make it out to be.

 

THIS

[parrot 789]

Dumb call, no matter how you sugar coat it with made up percentages. You are on you own 28 yard line for cyring out loud. This is what happens when you try to outthink yourself and get cute.

 

Ya'll can spin how you want. It was stoopid. Even if they converted it was stoopid, he just would've gotten away with it.

 

If you get TWO YARDS you win the game. It's sad that you guys can't grasp that simple concept.

[parrot 789]

and im sad no one responded to this.

 

I was really looking forward to the comments about how you were screaming at your TV's that they needed to go for it as soon as 3rd down was over.

 

Maybe that's because most of us have already conceded that we would have been fine with a punt as well. A punt would have been the safe play. To go for it was the more aggressive play. Either play was an acceptable play and going for it actually give them a better chance to win IMO. The fact that they lost doesn't change that.

[parrot 789]

for the last time, how "good a shot" they had to convert on 4th and 2 is of little importance.

 

Congrats. You wrote one of the dumbest things ever posted here. No small feat there.

[KSB2424 3,148]

If you get TWO YARDS you win the game. It's sad that you guys can't grasp that simple concept.

Huh? I grasp it fine.

 

The only reason anybody is even talking about this is because it's Bill Belichick, so they give him the benefit of the doubt and try to find ways to agree with him. Any other coach and the collective football nation would have went:

 

Was it the worse call ever? No

Was there an upside to doing it? Of course

Was it ballsy? Sure

 

Was it the smart play? Of course not

Did he over-think himself? You betcha

[TD Ryan2 316]

Maybe that's because most of us have already conceded that we would have been fine with a punt as well. A punt would have been the safe play. To go for it was the more aggressive play. Either play was an acceptable play and going for it actually give them a better chance to win IMO. The fact that they lost doesn't change that.

 

and the flip side of this is:

 

How many Colts fans WANTED a punt there? I'd bet many were happy at the thought of getting the ball back and at least having a chance to win on Manning's arm.

[parrot 789]

Was it the smart play? Of course not

Did he over-think himself? You betcha

 

You can keep posting this all you want, it doesn't make it true. It was the smart play, it just wasn't the normally accepted play.

[Stewburtx8 67]

and im sad no one responded to this.

 

I was really looking forward to the comments about how you were screaming at your TV's that they needed to go for it as soon as 3rd down was over.

 

 

I don't really think I could say they definitely SHOULD of gone for it. I assumed they would punt and was suprised when they went for it. But that is because coaches in the NFL are not inclined to think outside the box. They do things based on the past and make many decisions based on what is perceived to be right. I'm an Eagles fan and know all to well the last few weeks at how bad Andy Reid is at making decisions to go for it or not in short yardage situations. Talk about yelling at the tv. I would love to have Bill Belichick making those decisions instead.

 

In this case I can completely understand why Belichick went for it and I just do not think it was a bad call, or NEAR as bad as some people are making it out to be. I think the decision was pretty marginal. He wanted to keep Peyton Manning off the field. It was Peyton Manning on the sidelines, a completely different set of rules and circumstances are at play here. This is a guy who has led 40 4th quarter comebacks. Instead of giving Manning a guarenteed "chance" at winning the game, Belichick decided to try to take that chance COMPLETELY away. Also, its not like Belichick was sending out Mark Sanchez at QB, he was sending out Tom Brady, a Hall of Famer himself. I think Belichick was completely confident that he had a play that could get 2 yards and that Brady would execute it. In my opinion he did and the refs missed the spot, but thats in the past now. The only mistake i think they made was calling the timeout to set up the play. I think they should of just ran the play in the flow of the offense and not allowed Indy the time to prepare or crowd the line of scrimmage, forcing a tighter throw.

 

The only reason I think their is complete outrage is because its the Patriots and Belichick who everyone loves to hate, and also because we've been watching football over the years where coaches make decisions based on what everyone thinks they should do, instead of what they truly think is right. I like that Belichick was willing to make a gutsy call against popular opinion to give his team what he believed was the best chance to win the football game. I can't fault him for that, even though I'm as much of a Patriot hater as anyone.

[KSB2424 3,148]

You can keep posting this all you want, it doesn't make it true. It was the smart play, it just wasn't the normally accepted play.

Same can be said for you too. You can keep defending it, doesn't make it true.

 

There is a reason why teams punt the ball in their own territory even with a 4th and one, let alone two. There is a reason why things are normally accepted, it's because common sense is 'normal'.

 

I admire Bill for going for it. I see the 'upside' of getting the first down. It's not that I don't understand why he did it. It's just that I think it was a dumb call. Is that okay with you?

[parrot 789]

I don't really think I could say they definitely SHOULD of gone for it. I assumed they would punt and was suprised when they went for it. But that is because coaches in the NFL are not inclined to think outside the box. They do things based on the past and make many decisions based on what is perceived to be right. I'm an Eagles fan and know all to well the last few weeks at how bad Andy Reid is at making decisions to go for it or not in short yardage situations. Talk about yelling at the tv. I would love to have Bill Belichick making those decisions instead.

 

In this case I can completely understand why Belichick went for it and I just do not think it was a bad call, or NEAR as bad as some people are making it out to be. I think the decision was pretty marginal. He wanted to keep Peyton Manning off the field. It was Peyton Manning on the sidelines, a completely different set of rules and circumstances are at play here. This is a guy who has led 40 4th quarter comebacks. Instead of giving Manning a guarenteed "chance" at winning the game, Belichick decided to try to take that chance COMPLETELY away. Also, its not like Belichick was sending out Mark Sanchez at QB, he was sending out Tom Brady, a Hall of Famer himself. I think Belichick was completely confident that he had a play that could get 2 yards and that Brady would execute it. In my opinion he did and the refs missed the spot, but thats in the past now. The only mistake i think they made was calling the timeout to set up the play. I think they should of just ran the play in the flow of the offense and not allowed Indy the time to prepare or crowd the line of scrimmage, forcing a tighter throw.

 

The only reason I think their is complete outrage is because its the Patriots and Belichick who everyone loves to hate, and also because we've been watching football over the years where coaches make decisions based on what everyone thinks they should do, instead of what they truly think is right. I like that Belichick was willing to make a gutsy call against popular opinion to give his team what he believed was the best chance to win the football game. I can't fault him for that, even though I'm as much of a Patriot hater as anyone.

 

Great take Stew. It's nice to know even some Pats haters are able to take a dispassionate look at it and actually analyze the situation without having to make it all about Belichick, or having their thinking clouded by what most coaches would do in this situation.

[edjr 6,580]

I get a kick out of everyone assuming just because you don't get the 1st down, the other team is going to automatically score. Sure the Colts did score, but go back to before that play happened. Was it a lock the Colts would score from the Pats 29 if the Pats didn't get the 1st down? No. Just like you can't assume they would have scored from their own 30.

[parrot 789]

Same can be said for you to there big guy. You can keep defending it, doesn't make it true.

 

There is a reason why teams punt the ball in their own territory even with a 4th and one, let alone two. There is a reason why things are normally accepted, it's because common sense is 'normal'.

 

I admire Bill going for it. I see the 'upside' of getting the first down. It's not that I don't understand why he did it. It's just that I think it was a dumb call.

 

Is that okay with you?

 

The difference is I've actually offered some reasoning as to why it is the smart play, supported by generally accepted numbers and probabilities.

[parrot 789]

I get a kick out of everyone assuming just because you don't get the 1st down, the other team is going to automatically score. Sure the Colts did score, but go back to before that play happened. Was it a lock the Colts would score from the Pats 29 if the Pats didn't get the 1st down? No. Just like you can't assume they would have scored from their own 30.

 

Exactly. They're a lock to score from thirty yards out, but their chances of scoring from 70 are somehow worse than the Patriot offense's chances of converting a fourth and two. Don't make no sense.

[TD Ryan2 316]

ARTICLE LINK

Belichick had the numbers on his side

 

By Adam Kilgore, Globe Staff | November 17, 2009

 

FOXBOROUGH - Among the countless criticisms hurled at Patriots coach Bill Belichick for his decision to go for it on fourth down Sunday night, former Colts coach Tony Dungy summed up the most popular when, speaking on NBC, he said, “You have got to play the percentages and punt the ball.’’

 

What Dungy did not realize, though, is that “the percentages’’ dictated that Belichick do exactly what he did.

The Patriots coach has been lampooned by experts, fans, and former players for his call. All of them followed football’s rigid dogma and not what mattered: Did the Patriots have a better chance to beat the Colts if they went for it on fourth and 2 than if they punted? The answer is yes.

 

While Dungy spoke and football-watching mobs sharpened pitchforks, a former Navy pilot named Brian Burke ambled to the computer in his Reston, Va., home so he could determine if Belichick had made the right decision.

 

Burke is a football-crazed, math-inclined single father who works for a military contractor. Three years ago, he found himself with nothing to do once he put his children to bed. “I was pretty bored,’’ Burke said. He used software leftover from grad school to create a simulation tool that could solve football arguments for his friends at work. When they stopped paying attention, he put his findings on a website.

 

The result is AdvancedNFLStats.com, a site devoted primarily to determining win probability for football teams. Burke’s simulation engine is perfectly suited to solve debates such as, say, whether a team should go for it on fourth and 2 from their 28 with two minutes left while leading by 6.

 

Late Sunday night, Burke compiled the data and ran the numbers. When Burke began, even though he believes coaches are too conservative, his gut told him Belichick had made the incorrect decision. His outcome proved him wrong.

 

According to Burke’s tabulation, going for the first down gave the Patriots a 79 percent chance of winning. Punting gave them a 70-percent chance to win. Even after Burke made tweaks, the win probability never dipped in favor of the punt. If anything, factoring in how explosive the Colts’ offense is, the team-specific adjustments only made going for it more favorable.

 

“A lot of criticism is probably way over the top,’’ Burke said. “At the very least, it’s defensible. It’s not crazy. It’s not reckless.’’

 

Sheer data, which Burke has compiled and stored like a librarian, argues the point. On average, an offense operating outside the red zone will make the first down on fourth and 2 60 percent of the time. When teams face the situation the Colts would have had if the Patriots failed - two minutes left, needing a touchdown, at roughly the opposing 30 - they score 53 percent of the time.

 

The Patriots would certainly win the 60 percent of the time they convert. They would also win the 47 percent of the time they’d stop the Colts. Overall, going for it gave them a 79 percent chance to win.

 

Now, what if the Patriots had punted? On average, the net punt would have been 38 yards, and the Colts would have taken over on their 34. Statistically, teams will score 30 percent of the time in that situation, meaning a punt gave the Patriots a 70 percent chance to win.

 

Burke is not the only statistically minded football source to draw the conclusion. The ZEUS program, developed by a pair of champion backgammon players, was made to simulate specific football situations and spit out probability. One of the developers told the New York Times that Belichick had made the right call, their numbers similar to Burke’s.

 

Critics of Belichick made two mistakes. First, they underestimated the chances of converting a fourth and 2 and overestimated the difference a punt makes. Playing with abandon against a preventative defense, an offense can typically pick up the yardage from a punt in a matter of three plays and 30 seconds, Burke said.

 

(Burke, it should be noted, did not wholly absolve Belichick. Burke believes Belichick, who knew he was going to go for the fourth down if necessary before third down, should have run the ball rather than pass on third down.)

 

“The one thing people aren’t looking at is that third-down call,’’ Burke said. “An unsuccessful pass on third down gives you fourth and 2. An unsuccessful run is going to give you a real short fourth down and make your chances of winning better.’’

 

Second, they mistook convention for truth. Football is a conservative sport coached by conservative men. In moments of uncertainty, when a fast, important decision is required, they revert to what they know, what has been passed down, what is safe.

 

“The traditional decision has always fallen back on the punt,’’ Burke said. “That’s how human beings have evolved to make decisions. They fall back on the punt.

 

“Maybe 30 years ago, that made a lot of sense. You didn’t have a lot of high-powered offenses. The math was different. Punting on fourth down made a lot of sense then. Now, you have guys like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.’’

 

Burke is often frustrated by the unwillingness of coaches to break their tendency for the safe. “Belichick,’’ he said, “is the exception to the rule in a lot of ways.’’

 

And Sunday night, that helped him make the right decision. All he had to do was play the percentages.

[KYSteel 0]

Obviously that is the case if those are the only options. But the option was to give Tom Brady and your offense a chance to gain 2 yards and not EVER let Peyton Manning see the field again. Your only looking at the results.

 

Isn't that all that matters?