PDA

View Full Version : 4th and 2: Belichick's Call


hockey619
11-16-2009, 10:56 AM
Belichick's call on 4th and 2 at his own 28 last night has gotten a lot of pub and has brought him under scrutiny. What is all of your thoughts on the call, what would you have done? This isnt here to talk about the spot of the ball, the call is what it is, im curious on everyones thoughts on the call to go for it.

Personally, I thought it was the right call to go for it, and if not for Faulk's bobbling of the ball it wouldve worked. It comes down to who do you trust more, your O to get just two yards with the game on the line or your D to stop Peyton who wouldve had two minutes to work with? I think going with his offense here was the right call, Peyton had really come on toward the end of the game, and giving him the ball late like that was taking a greater chance than trying to keep it away from the Colts O.

Thoughts?

Boston
11-16-2009, 10:58 AM
How was it not the right call? He had a choice to either put the game in Brady's hands or in Manning's, and of course he chose Brady. If Tom Brady can't gain two yards on a consistent basis then he shouldn't even come close to being mentioned with the best QB's in the league.

EvilNixon
11-16-2009, 11:01 AM
It was a good call to go for it,but why not run on 3rd and 2 and at least make the Colts waste another timeout.

tjsunstein
11-16-2009, 11:01 AM
Is this what we do now? We play arm chair coach the day after? I liked the idea of going for it but not the play call. It was risky, it was do or die. It made the game all that much better. Without the bobble, it was a first and Belichick is a genius. With the bobble, it backfires. Belichick gets questioned.

It was great entertainment. Great TV. Added to a growing rivalry. Put another chapter in the book of Brady vs. Manning.

tjsunstein
11-16-2009, 11:03 AM
It was a good call to go for it,but why not run on 3rd and 2 and at least make the Colts waste another timeout.

If I remember correctly, wasn't the two minute warning quickly approaching? They wouldn't have had to use a timeout if that were the case.

EvilNixon
11-16-2009, 11:05 AM
If I remember correctly, wasn't the two minute warning quickly approaching? They wouldn't have had to use a timeout if that were the case.

They were already expending timeouts before the 3rd down.

Go_Eagles77
11-16-2009, 11:09 AM
He had more trust in his offense to pick up 2 yards than he did in his defense to stop Peyton Manning. I liked the call.

wicket
11-16-2009, 11:18 AM
is it me or am i the only one who actually thought he got it pretty easily.
I know BB was out of challenges but the forward progress was a 1st down imo.

either way it was the right call for the situation imo

drowe
11-16-2009, 11:24 AM
i liked the call. as the game was going, it really looked like whoever had the ball last would win. on 4th and 2, BB saw it like that too. and punting would've assured that Peyton Manning and the Colts would get the ball last.

yeah, it looked like he didn't trust his defense, but really, all he was saying is, he trusted his offense more than his defense..and given the score, and who they were playing, that was the right judgement.

Brent
11-16-2009, 11:26 AM
Mike Sando of ESPN put it well:

The Patriots had gained 468 yards to that point in the game. They had converted seven times in 14 third-down opportunities, most with more than 2 yards to go. They had converted third-down plays needing 3, 2, 5 and 1 yard against the Colts in the second half alone.

Given the way the Patriots were functioning, Belichick reasonably could have expected Brady to convert a fourth-and-2 against that defense a high percentage of the time, perhaps three out of four. And if the Patriots managed to convert, they almost certainly would have won the game.

I would have punted, but I see why he went for it, and certainly wouldn't oppose to the call if I were a Pats fan.

diabsoule
11-16-2009, 11:32 AM
I would have punted, but I see why he went for it, and certainly wouldn't oppose to the call if I were a Pats fan.

I would have punted as well. I would have rather made Manning try to march what could have been 80+ yards down field in under two minutes than risk going for it on fourth and two. I understand why he went for it but felt he took much unneeded risk in doing so.

no bare feet
11-16-2009, 11:33 AM
Way to have faith in your defense Bill. Manning's previous 7 possessions: 3 punts, 2 INTS, 2 TDS. Peyton was not on that much of a roll.

D-Unit
11-16-2009, 11:42 AM
Belichick's call? More like Brady's... He's the one who called TO and told Bill to go for it.

Forward progress was not enough to gain the first down. The ball was bobbled. The ball was not placed at the exact location that the receiver landed. It was placed in front of where he landed.

Patriots had balls to go for it, but simply got a little too cocky for their own good. Brady is a cocky mofo and I'm glad he got put in his place. I'm not surprised that the Patriots did not show any class in the loss.

TitleTown088
11-16-2009, 11:44 AM
Yo Bill, maybe you could trust your defense more if you wouldn't have traded back instead of taking Clay Matthews. Thanks bro. :)

no bare feet
11-16-2009, 11:44 AM
Belichick's call? More like Brady's... He's the one who called TO and told Bill to go for it.

Forward progress was not enough to gain the first down. The ball was bobbled. The ball was not placed at the exact location that the receiver landed. It was placed in front of where he landed.

Patriots had balls to go for it, but simply got a little too cocky for their own good. Brady is a cocky mofo and I'm glad he got put in his place. I'm not surprised that the Patriots did not show any class in the loss.

I did notice Brady vehemently pleading to Bill to go for it after the 3rd down play. I almost forgot about that. So who's call was it really? Too much faith in the QB, did Tom see something?

D-Unit
11-16-2009, 11:52 AM
I did notice Brady vehemently pleading to Bill to go for it after the 3rd down play. I almost forgot about that. So who's call was it really? Too much faith in the QB, did Tom see something?
Ultimately it was Bill's call, but he trusted his QB. Damn ballsy move though.

Belichick should've known better though. Parcells would've punted and told his QB to shut up and sit on the bench.

Smooth Criminal
11-16-2009, 11:55 AM
I don't think it was a bad call. Honestly, do you trust Brady to get you 2 yards or your defense to stop Manning?

I disagree more with the play call than the decision to go for it. No runningback in the backfield? Atleast make them have to defend the potential for a run.

Jughead10
11-16-2009, 11:56 AM
I think it was right the call. The Pat's offense is by far the superior unit compared to their defense. The percentage of picking up the 4th and 2 is probably higher than the defense stopping Manning from going 70 yards in 2 minutes with 2 timeouts. He might have had all 3, I forget.

In my opinion, if they punt, there is no doubt in my mind Peyton drives the field and scores leaving the Pats with no time. I also think Bill thought if they didn't pick up the 4th down, Peyton would have scored quickly enough to leave them another chance with the ball. That didn't happen though.

Smooth Criminal
11-16-2009, 11:56 AM
I'm not surprised that the Patriots did not show any class in the loss.

I don't think anyone is. That team doesn't show any class in anything they do.

killxswitch
11-16-2009, 12:13 PM
I would've punted, but I get why he made the call. The Pats D was gassed and not stopping the Colts offense. However, it didn't work, so it was a bad call. Hindsight is a *****.

Ness
11-16-2009, 12:13 PM
I would have punted, but I see why he went for it, and certainly wouldn't oppose to the call if I were a Pats fan.

Yes I agree 100%.

Shiver
11-16-2009, 12:19 PM
You play to win the game; you do not play to not lose. I love the call.

2 Live Crew
11-16-2009, 12:29 PM
I think the biggest mistake was not letting Addai score that TD after they missed the 4th down. That would have left them about 1:30 I think, more than enough time for Brady to drive for a FG.

I don't have a problem with the play call there...but when you miss it, you have to let the Colts score quickly so you can get it back. That should've been part of the strategy going into the 4th down call.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
11-16-2009, 12:30 PM
I think it is the perfect call. If the 1st down is made everyone thinks BB is a genious. Since they didn't get it the decision is in question. IMO it was a first down but the refs always screw up and that is why you have to save a timeout for challenge. Great game.

Jughead10
11-16-2009, 12:31 PM
I think the biggest mistake was not letting Addai score that TD after they missed the 4th down. That would have left them about 1:30 I think, more than enough time for Brady to drive for a FG.

I don't have a problem with the play call there...but when you miss it, you have to let the Colts score quickly so you can get it back. That should've been part of the strategy going into the 4th down call.

Agreed about this. I think Bill thought the worst case scenario would be Peyton gets the ball and scores and we have time left to try and win the game. With the Pats offense they could have done that easily.

CC.SD
11-16-2009, 12:50 PM
I think it was right the call. The Pat's offense is by far the superior unit compared to their defense. The percentage of picking up the 4th and 2 is probably higher than the defense stopping Manning from going 70 yards in 2 minutes with 2 timeouts. He might have had all 3, I forget.

In my opinion, if they punt, there is no doubt in my mind Peyton drives the field and scores leaving the Pats with no time. I also think Bill thought if they didn't pick up the 4th down, Peyton would have scored quickly enough to leave them another chance with the ball. That didn't happen though.


It wasn't the right call. I don't care if you have the Sisters of the Blind as your defense, if you have a 6 point lead there is no such thing as going for it on 4th down from your own 28 yard line. This is BB taking a dump on the D that he built and oversees, and it's got a serious chance of having long term repercussions not just in the playoff standings, but in how these guys play for him from here on out.

FlyingElvis
11-16-2009, 12:56 PM
Yo Bill, maybe you could trust your defense more if you wouldn't have traded back instead of taking Clay Matthews. Thanks bro. :)
And many other solid prospects at LB/DE. "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TitleTown088 again." :( lol

I did notice Brady vehemently pleading to Bill to go for it after the 3rd down play. I almost forgot about that. So who's call was it really? Too much faith in the QB, did Tom see something?
Either way the play was right and should have worked, but for a bobble.
The more important point, imo was:
I think the biggest mistake was not letting Addai score that TD after they missed the 4th down. That would have left them about 1:30 I think, more than enough time for Brady to drive for a FG.

I don't have a problem with the play call there...but when you miss it, you have to let the Colts score quickly so you can get it back. That should've been part of the strategy going into the 4th down call.

. . . poor clock management. With no timeouts to challenge or prevent the Colts from running out the clock it was a terrible decision. The ability to stop the clock and save time for the offense in the event of a Colts score was paramount, and BB failed to account for that.

While I completely understand the support BB receives for making the "ballsy" decision, it was stupid in this instance.

Give the D a chance with Peyton basically forced to pass for 70-80 yards, rather than turn the ball over at the 30 and allow the Colts to use their entire playbook and beat you running the ball.

FlyingElvis
11-16-2009, 12:58 PM
http://www.weei.com/sites/default/files/1.jpg

Giantsfan1080
11-16-2009, 12:59 PM
It wasn't the right call. I don't care if you have the Sisters of the Blind as your defense, if you have a 6 point lead there is no such thing as going for it on 4th down from your own 28 yard line. This is BB taking a dump on the D that he built and oversees, and it's got a serious chance of having long term repercussions not just in the playoff standings, but in how these guys play for him from here on out.

Exactly. If you can count on your defense in that spot you might as well pack it up because you threw the whole unit under the bus. Also, by giving more opportunities to the Colts offense it creates a chance that there is a turnover or a mistake by one of the Colts young WR's. You also have the possibility of bad clock management which could result in a hurried or flustered offense. If the Pats were on the 50 I'd understand the decision better but this was just a big mistake.

Jughead10
11-16-2009, 01:05 PM
It wasn't the right call. I don't care if you have the Sisters of the Blind as your defense, if you have a 6 point lead there is no such thing as going for it on 4th down from your own 28 yard line. This is BB taking a dump on the D that he built and oversees, and it's got a serious chance of having long term repercussions not just in the playoff standings, but in how these guys play for him from here on out.

Oh it is him telling the D that he didn't have faith in them there. But regardless it still gave him the better chance to win that game. He has another 6 or 7 weeks to build his D's confidence back up. He can sleepwalk into the playoffs right now with a shaky D. He was trying to get the number 1 seed last night. With that out of the window he can just sleepwalk now.

Babylon
11-16-2009, 01:14 PM
I think Bellichik was pretty much on his own here as far as sound strategy goes. If you asked ten HOF coaches what they would have done they would have said kick it. I say that because i cant ever remember anyone going for it from their own 28 on 4th and 2 with a 6 point lead.

CC.SD
11-16-2009, 01:15 PM
How was it not the right call? He had a choice to either put the game in Brady's hands or in Manning's, and of course he chose Brady. If Tom Brady can't gain two yards on a consistent basis then he shouldn't even come close to being mentioned with the best QB's in the league.

You're right...why did they ever punt? Why even pay the defense?

I know it was against the Colts but BB made one of the greatest decisions of ALL time.

Jughead10
11-16-2009, 01:18 PM
You're right...why did they ever punt? Why even pay the defense?

I know it was against the Colts but BB made one of the greatest decisions of ALL time.

When the Pats went 16-0 in the regular season, Bill went for it on 4th down all the time. To the point where people thought it was bad for the game and he was running scores up. With that offense he has a better chance coverting the 4th down then stopping Manning. The funny thing is, I think they did get the first down.

gsorace
11-16-2009, 01:23 PM
If this was any other coach everybody on here would be calling for his head.

Jughead10
11-16-2009, 01:25 PM
If this was any other coach everybody on here would be calling for his head.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It's a unique situation because of the talent of the offense that was on the field, and the talent of the QB they would have been punting the ball to.

AntoinCD
11-16-2009, 01:26 PM
Absolutely I think the call to go for it was right but I'm not sure I liked the call firstly on the pass to Welker in 3rd then te pass to Faulk. They went for it simply because the defensive line was gassed. Vince Wilfork who doesn't normally play on passing downs played about 90% of the snaps. Banta Cain and Rob Kninkovich were both lost early too. It ended up being no one available to rotate up front which meant no pressure was put on Manning. He would have picked the defense apart from 75 yards

Babylon
11-16-2009, 01:26 PM
If this was any other coach everybody on here would be calling for his head.

Imagine Mangini pulling that? naw he wouldnt take any heat in here.

hockey619
11-16-2009, 01:29 PM
It wasn't the right call. I don't care if you have the Sisters of the Blind as your defense, if you have a 6 point lead there is no such thing as going for it on 4th down from your own 28 yard line. This is BB taking a dump on the D that he built and oversees, and it's got a serious chance of having long term repercussions not just in the playoff standings, but in how these guys play for him from here on out.



I agree with this to an extent, the players on D are going to be pissed he didnt give them a shot to stop the Colts.

But he's not 'taking a dumb' on his D as much as hes saying he thought Tom Brady had a better chance of gaining 2 yards then of the Pats D stopping Peyton from going 70 in 2 minutes and he was right. The Colts had just had two TD drives, both 79 yards in the 4th quarter, one was 2:04 and one was 1:49. Two recent TD drives that were very fast showed the Colts were coming together.

sweetness34
11-16-2009, 01:49 PM
Brady did get the first down, but his receiver bobbled the ball and that's why it was marked short. Kind of unlucky for the Patriots in that regard.

Personally, I kick it deep and make Manning drive the 80 or so yards to beat me. Can't really say it was a bad call though. I understood Brady and Belichick's logic in going for it but it backfired in their face.

I think also it was where the ball was. I believe it was on the 30 yard line, correct me if I'm wrong. I would have been more inclined to go for it if it was near the 50 but giving Manning a short field is playing with fire.

I definitely don't think it was a bad call though. Just one that backfired.

d34ng3l021
11-16-2009, 02:24 PM
It was the right call in my opinion, just like you guys have mentioned. You look at the circumstances, and it makes perfect sense to go for it.

1. Tom Brady is completing 66% of his passes in 2009.
2. Tom Brady was 29/42 (69%) for 375 yards (8.9 ypa), and the Patriots offense had accumulated 477 total yards of offense.
3. Since Tom Brady took over in 2001, the Patiots have converted 76% of their 4th and 2's or less.
4. A gassed and injured defense.

5. Opposition: Peyton Manning. By punting, you gaurantee that Manning (who is having the best season of his career) has the last possession. The difference between failing to convert and punting is about 40-50 yards. I'll take my chances trying to gain 2 yards, after the offense had already accumulated 450+, to keep MVP Manning on the sidelines and end the game, than give him an extra 45 yards (and the 2 min. warning?) to deal with.

I am really surprised that this decision is being talked about so much. The Patriots utilize a lot of short passes (Welker and Faulk) and have one of the best QBs ever, and people are questioning their decision to keep the offense on the field so the HoF QB on the other sideline doesn't get a chance? If the Patriots gain those 2 yards, Manning doesn't see the field (or maybe with less than 30 seconds to go) and its game over, brilliant decision by Brady and Belichick.

Staubach12
11-16-2009, 02:31 PM
The plays failure was not a function of bad design or strategy, it was a function of Faulks inability to make that play. I would have done the same thing, trying to keep the ball out of the hands of the best QB in the last ten years, maybe ever. Makes sense to me.

Vox Populi
11-16-2009, 02:54 PM
I understand the decision, and if it weren't for a bobble thats a first down from forward progress, but I would have punted it there every time no matter what. Yeah, the Colts offense was clicking and all, but even with a 35 yard punt you double the field they have to go if your offense doesn't make the first down.

AntoinCD
11-16-2009, 03:04 PM
The problem with even doubling the length of the field is the Colts scored their TD without using a timeout, with a running play and by letting the clock run down. The two previous TD drives took approximately the same amount of time as there was left. Bottom line if Manning got the ball back last night he was going to score know matter where from.

FlyingElvis
11-16-2009, 03:13 PM
The problem with even doubling the length of the field is the Colts scored their TD without using a timeout, with a running play and by letting the clock run down. The two previous TD drives took approximately the same amount of time as there was left. Bottom line if Manning got the ball back last night he was going to score know matter where from.

A very real possibility. Or NE could have recorded INT # 3 of the night. Either way, at least force the Colts to actually win the game. Failing on the 4th down conversion with no ability to stop the clock was a give away. I'd rather Manning prove it.

Like GiantsFan mentioned - with ~70 yards to go NE would have many more chances to make a big play. 2 mins & 30 yards was just asking for what we got - kill the clock before scoring the go ahead points.

gsorace
11-16-2009, 03:14 PM
I am really surprised that this decision is being talked about so much.

Really? Because i'm surprised it's being defended by so many people.

Like I said before, the only reason this is even a debate is because of who the coach is, anybody else and there isn't even a question as to weather or not he made the right call.

CC.SD
11-16-2009, 03:20 PM
The problem with even doubling the length of the field is the Colts scored their TD without using a timeout, with a running play and by letting the clock run down. The two previous TD drives took approximately the same amount of time as there was left. Bottom line if Manning got the ball back last night he was going to score know matter where from.

Peyton is the best but you can't say he's automatic in any situation...unless that situation is 28 yards out.

P-L
11-16-2009, 03:20 PM
It was only a bad call because it didn't work. If Faulk catches the ball cleanly, without the bobble New England wins the game and everyone is praising Belichick. Like someone pointed out, Tom Brady has converted 76% of his career 4th & 2 (or less). Does anyone think New England had a higher than 76% chance of stopping the Colts? Especially after giving up 108 yards on 10 plays over the previous two possessions in a combined 3:31.

You play the odds and the odds said that gaining two yards was more likely than stopping an offense that had just walked all over your defense two possessions in a row.

CC.SD
11-16-2009, 03:22 PM
It was only a bad call because it didn't work. If Faulk catches the ball cleanly, without the bobble New England wins the game and everyone is praising Belichick. Like someone pointed out, Tom Brady has converted 76% of his career 4th & 2 (or less). Does anyone think New England had a higher than 76% chance of stopping the Colts? Especially after giving up 108 yards on 10 plays over the previous two possessions in a combined 3:31.

You play the odds and the odds said that gaining two yards was more likely than stopping an offense that had just walked all over your defense two possessions in a row.


I donno PL, if it had worked I still think it would have been a bad call, just one that they got away with.

Honestly it's probably best for the Pats that this blew up in BB's face. If he really thinks he can get away with this kind of crap then he needed a big time ego check.

FlyingElvis
11-16-2009, 03:24 PM
I donno PL, if it had worked I still think it would have been a bad call, just one that they got away with.
Same here. Bad call either way. If they converted the 4th down I would still say it was dumb.

Hurricanes25
11-16-2009, 04:10 PM
If they would have gotten the 1st down, there would be no discussion and Bill would be a genius. They didn't get it so now we are second guessing him.

Personally, I would have punted and made Manning drive the length of the field and score a TD.

Again, if Faulk doesn't bobble that pass, Bill is a genius.

Flyboy
11-16-2009, 07:20 PM
I think it was a bad call only because of where they were on the field. Had they have been in Indy's territory, I would have loved it.

Bills2083
11-16-2009, 07:53 PM
You play to win the game; you do not play to not lose. I love the call.

http://stlsportsmag.com/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dick-jauron.jpg


says,

http://blog.pharmalive.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/o_rly.jpg


anyway, back on topic...
I can understand why the Pats went for it. They were having a great game offensively and assumed that it would work out again. However, I don't think I would have taken that big of a risk, considering that if you don't convert, you're essentially giving away the game to Manning and co. IMO, he should have put his faith in his defense to not give up ~80 yards.

wogitalia
11-16-2009, 09:03 PM
I love the call.

I hate the media reaction.

What Bill has done is not a diss on his defense. It is a compliment to both the offense and the defense.

He has told his offense that feels they are good enough to win the game right there and then. Put it away.

He has told the defense that he has perfect faith in them to stop the Colts from 30 yards. If I'm on that defense that is how I take it, you have people in the media talking about how it was a lack of faith, how is saying, I back you guys to stop Peyton Manning with 30 yards and 2 minutes an insult, that is the ultimate respect.

The fact that his defense failed to reward that faith is why he is being double guessed.

Anytime you go for it on 4th down you are saying that, you are telling the offense you believe in them, you tell the defense you don't think they need extra yardage to get the job done, you are telling the whole team you are going after the win, not playing not to lose.

Great call, sure it backfired and it's easy to critique it as a result, but it was a great call that showed complete faith in his team, really selling out in belief of the team. Sometimes things just aren't meant to be.

On a side note, poor timeout management to not be able to challenge was the "bad" coaching move that is being swept under by overreaction to the actual call. That is where Belichek should be copping any heat.

Saints-Tigers
11-16-2009, 09:26 PM
I go for it. I'd rather put the game in Tom BRady's hands with all of NE's weapons, than give the ball back to Peyton after he's marching around the field.

sweetness34
11-16-2009, 09:31 PM
It was only a bad call because it didn't work. If Faulk catches the ball cleanly, without the bobble New England wins the game and everyone is praising Belichick. Like someone pointed out, Tom Brady has converted 76% of his career 4th & 2 (or less). Does anyone think New England had a higher than 76% chance of stopping the Colts? Especially after giving up 108 yards on 10 plays over the previous two possessions in a combined 3:31.

You play the odds and the odds said that gaining two yards was more likely than stopping an offense that had just walked all over your defense two possessions in a row.

I disagreed with it before the snap. Field position was a key factor in this decision. If the ball was near midfield I think it would have been a better call.

I will say this though, the old adage is that you play for the win on the road.

I may have disagreed with the call but it wasn't as bad as some are making it out to be. I certainly think that a legit argument can be made that it was a good call because the Patriots didn't want to give the ball back to Peyton.

I was surprised Belichick didn't challenge the call until I realized that a challenge in that situation can only be made if it is ruled a first down, which is a **** rule IMO. If that was the case, the official should have ruled it a first and had the play reviewed. I still believe after watching the replays that Faulk may have gotten that first down after gaining possession of the pass.

wogitalia
11-16-2009, 10:01 PM
I was surprised Belichick didn't challenge the call until I realized that a challenge in that situation can only be made if it is ruled a first down, which is a **** rule IMO. If that was the case, the official should have ruled it a first and had the play reviewed. I still believe after watching the replays that Faulk may have gotten that first down after gaining possession of the pass.

The problem isn't the rule, spot of the ball can be challenged. What happened is that as New England had no Timeouts left they could not instigate a challenge, had it been a first down, the clock would have run down to the 2 minute warning, which could have triggered an automatic review. Basically, bad timeout management by BB was the reason they didn't/couldn't challenge, that one is on Bill, not the refs and that was the part that "lost them the game", though the Eagles/Cowboys game shows that refs hate to correct a ball spot as it undermines their mates call so I doubt it really mattered.

sweetness34
11-16-2009, 10:15 PM
Good call on that, forgot New England was out of timeouts. I thought I heard though that the spot of the ball can't be challenged unless it is ruled a first down.

wogitalia
11-16-2009, 10:19 PM
Good call on that, forgot New England was out of timeouts. I thought I heard though that the spot of the ball can't be challenged unless it is ruled a first down.

Philly challenged it last week so Im pretty sure you can. Fumble recoveries are not challengable, I think that seems to be the most contentious issue that can't be challenged.

vikes_28
11-17-2009, 12:44 AM
I liked the call. Just happened to have a little bad luck.

AntoinCD
11-17-2009, 09:03 AM
I really don't understand why it's such a horrible call. It didn't work but if that's what makes it a bad decision then any coaching call should be based that way.

Good things about the call:

1. If you get the two yards the game is over without Manning touching the ball
2. The offense had it's way all day
3. The defense couldn't stop Manning in the 4th quarter
4. Potential of bad snap on punt, bad punt or a good return by the Colts
5. If it fails the Colts still have to score a TD
6. If Addai scores on his run the Pats have over a minute to score a
FG

Bad things about the call:

1. If failed Manning has 2 minutes to go 30 yards
2. It showed a lack of faith in the defense
3. Chris Hanson had been punting very well with little or no returns


Overall it was a gamble and it backfired but that doesn't mean it was wrong.

Jughead10
11-17-2009, 09:13 AM
It all depends how likely you think Manning would have led that offense down the field for a TD.

Jughead10
11-17-2009, 09:31 AM
I'm curious about the Addai run as well. I hope Bill told his team to let him in and his player just made a dumb play.

Saints-Tigers
11-17-2009, 09:59 AM
Failing to convert doesn't automatically make the call wrong, just like getting it doesn't automatically make it right.

wordofi
11-17-2009, 10:20 AM
The call was dumb even if the Pariots converted the play. Potentially giving Peyton Manning less than 30 yards to score a touchdown is like giving the game away. They should've punted, made Manning go 70 yards to score a touchdown, and lived with the results.

bigbluedefense
11-17-2009, 10:37 AM
I'm old school. I wouldve punted.

I rather make Manning go 80 yards for the TD. Your defensive gameplan is totally different in that situation.

I wouldn't assume that Manning drives it down anyway.

I can see why he did it, but I wouldve punted. You gotta have faith in your defense.

Regardless, if you're a Pats fan, you have to like how the Pats are looking right now. Brady is back and healthy, the offense looks great, and the defense is still growing and getting better.

This team will be dangerous come playoff time.

Saints-Tigers
11-17-2009, 10:40 AM
i don't see that at all. they went for it and failed to get it = wrong call. period.

they win/lose if they kick it. we know they lose by not kicking it. thus, the hypothetical a still has a better potential end result than the real consequence of b.

what's worth discussing is whether you'd have made the same call, or if you agreed with belichick's motives before the play.

said another way, they tried, failed AND lost. there's no way to justify that series of events as the right move.


I would have went somewhere else. With guys like Moss and Welker, there is really no reason that the game should be in Kevin Faulk's hands.

Do you think going for it was absolutely wrong, or the playcall itself?

I don't think going for the first down was absolutely the wrong idea, but I wasn't a big fan of the playcall. Either way, this whole thing is being blown out of proportion IMO.

2 Live Crew
11-17-2009, 10:51 AM
yes, it very obviously means it was wrong. because you lost. there's no other possible choice. if you'd made it, it would've been the right decision for the same reason. but i'm sure at some point people will stop repeating this nonsense.

So many things wrong with this statement.

d34ng3l021
11-17-2009, 12:23 PM
so we're already down to a 66% chance of success?

the patriots total offense is clearly an important factor on a passing play.

however, the pats 4th down conversion rate with deion branch, troy brown and an offensive line that could block is clearly of the utmost importance. i don't know why i didn't think of this before.

The points weren't meant to be looked at individually. In general, Tom Brady was having a good season, their passing offense was dominant for that game (375 passing yards to 475 total yards. what does it make a difference in terms of the point that was trying to be made?), and had historically done well on 4th and shorts (yeah. instead of deion branch and troy brown, the patriots now have randy moss and wes welker. a hurt pass blocking line, sure, but we are talking about a 2 yard gain. i am sure their chances of converting a 4th and short have decreased because of those personnel differences...). Based on those odds and how the game was playing out, why not try to gain 2 yards to put the nail in the coffin?

gassed until the timeout.

Timeouts are great, but they don't nullify the effects of a whole game.

only by yardage. his best year in terms of scoring was, statistically, twice as good as what he's doing this year (10% tds, vs 5%). and since we're talking about touchdowns, that somehow seems more relevant.

It is hard to argue against Peyton's 04 season, but the fact that he is doing so much on his own without any help on offense is just as impressive as his 49 TDs in my eyes.

I guess a huge factor in judging this decision is how one thinks Peyton Manning would have done with about 2:15, 1 timeout, and 75 yards to go. I am on the boat that thinks that Peyton would have found a way to drive down for the game winning score (how often has he done that already?) even if he had to start at his own 30. Based on that, going for it to make sure Manning doesn't get the ball doesn't seem like a good idea. However, the chances of Peyton making a mistake, along with the very unproven offense, is there as well, in which case punting makes a lot of sense.

hockey619
11-17-2009, 12:28 PM
[QUOTE=njx9;1882703]no, he wasn't right. he very clearly wasn't right. because the play failed.


Based on the information he had AT THE TIME OF THE CALL, it was the right decision. You keep suggesting that it was wrong because it failed, but thats real easy to say after the fact. They didnt know it was going to fail or they wouldnt have done it. With the facts they had at the time it was the right call.

And you say that the colts hadnt been dominating on O because of the INT, but that was on a clear wrong route/miscommunication, so for a guy who keeps saying people dont back up what they say with facts you sure seem to let that one slide no problem. Other than that they scored on two drives of 79 yards in about 2 minutes in the fourth quarter. They had just proven that they could beast right through that defense in very little time with ease, why challenge them for a threepeat performance? if brady has the ball, the patriots get to determine the outcome of the game. The colts were heating up and had all the momentum save for a the hiccup with the INT. And the Pats D line was gassed as all hell, they were shot by the end of the third and it was showing big time, keeping off the field was theyre best shot.

and for everyone who keeps saying it shows a lack of faith in the defense: your looking at it wrong.

Belichick was saying he trusted the matchup of Pats O vs Colts D better than Colts O vs Pats D and the repercussions that came with each.

Gay Ork Wang
11-17-2009, 12:35 PM
no, he wasn't right. he very clearly wasn't right. because the play failed.


Based on the information he had AT THE TIME OF THE CALL, it was the right decision. You keep suggesting that it was wrong because it failed, but thats real easy to say after the fact. They didnt know it was going to fail or they wouldnt have done it. With the facts they had at the time it was the right call.

And you say that the colts hadnt been dominating on O because of the INT, but that was on a clear wrong route/miscommunication, so for a guy who keeps saying people dont back up what they say with facts you sure seem to let that one slide no problem. Other than that they scored on two drives of 79 yards in about 2 minutes in the fourth quarter. They had just proven that they could beast right through that defense in very little time with ease, why challenge them for a threepeat performance? if brady has the ball, the patriots get to determine the outcome of the game. The colts were heating up and had all the momentum save for a the hiccup with the INT. And the Pats D line was gassed as all hell, they were shot by the end of the third and it was showing big time, keeping off the field was theyre best shot.

and for everyone who keeps saying it shows a lack of faith in the defense: your looking at it wrong.

Belichick was saying he trusted the matchup of Pats O vs Colts D better than Colts O vs Pats D and the repercussions that came with each.
it was not the right decision. it was a good decision.

lets see

we have a door with 60% to win, a 40% door and a door with only 10%

obviously the door with 60% is maybe the best decision, but if it isnt the right door it was not the right decision. see the right and wrong depend on the outcome. Here the outcome was a loss. so the decision was wrong.

2 Live Crew
11-17-2009, 01:03 PM
i'm glad you pointed that out. i would've thought you might've, you know, referenced or refuted some of them, but since you didn't, i'll just assume you have no idea what you're talking about and just couldn't resist the submit button. let me know when you have something borderline worthwhile to add.


Do you have any concept of statistical probabilities?

d34ng3l021
11-17-2009, 01:54 PM
um, ok. should i not then suggest that some of them were weak and/or irrelevant?

Feel free to bring up any problems with the points, but don't try to refute for the sake of refuting, like the following:

they weren't going to run the ball, thus, referencing rushing yards is irrelevant.

Okay. Instead of the 475 total yards of offense, I will only reference the 375 yards of passing offense (the leagues best passing offense averages 315 yards a game). The point of the matter still remains the same: they were having success on offense.

which isn't the point. it's not relevant how they did on 4th down in 2002 because, shockingly, this is not 2002. it's not, relatively, remotely close to 2002. feel free to reference relevant stats from this season, if you'd like to continue that point.

The stats that I brought up aren't restricted to only 2002. The percentages were since Tom Brady took over in 2001. Spanning from 2001-now. It may not be the same cast that converted 76% of those 4th and shorts, but it does give people an idea of the relative success that Belichick has had going for it on 4th and 2 or less.

why not play defense? i mean, they'd already picked peyton off twice. they have a long history of outplaying him defensively in big games. and they'd already gotten stops in the game. it's not like manning was suddenly some unstoppable force.

That is definitely the argument for punting, and it is a valid one. Who knows what Peyton would have done. Yes, he has had trouble against the New England defense in the past, but as of late:

09: 28 of 44 (63.6) for 327 yards and 4 TDs with 2 picks. W
08: 21 of 29 (72.4) for 254 yards and 2 TDs with 0 picks. W
07: 16 of 27 (59.3) for 225 yards and 1 TD with 1 pick. L
06*: 27 of 47 (57.4) for 349 yards and 1 TD with 1 pick. W
06: 20 of 36 (55.6) for 326 yards and 2 TDs with 1 pick. W

* = playoffs.

yeah, who the **** is reggie wayne, anyways?

Yeah. Or Pierre Garcon. Or Austin Collie. Or the 29th ranked rushing attack.

2 Live Crew
11-17-2009, 03:42 PM
i assume at some point you'll actually make an attempt to understand the difference between making the best choice and making the correct choice. but since simple logic doesn't seem to be your forte, i won't hold my breath.

The answer to my question would be no then.

Lets say you're playing blackjack, and you are dealt a 15. The dealer is showing a 5. What do you do? Odds say that you stay everytime and do not hit because the probability of the dealer busting is high. However, you may still lose the hand because there is always a chance the dealer hits a 17-21.

If you stay and lose, it is not the wrong decision. You can win or lose either way. Sometimes you will lose no matter what choice you make (and vice versa). A sample size of 1 hand does not mean anything. Over the long haul, if you stay everytime, you will come out ahead more times than not. There is no 100% probability.

In Belicheck's mind, the best probability was going for it and not punting. He could have lost even if he punted it. I'm not even saying I agree or disagree with his decision. You do whatever you think gives your team the best probability of winning.

You can disagree with the decision. But to say it is wrong because it didn't work this one time is shortsighted.

d34ng3l021
11-17-2009, 04:35 PM
then don't bring up irrelevant information that doesn't help your argument.

Just because you don't find it relevant, it doesn't make the information itself irrelevant. If you refuse to acknowledge certain pieces of info or misread what I have to say, then of course you are going to see it as irrelevant information.

so since 2001? well that makes it more relevant. denver used to stop a lot of third downs in the late 90's. this is relevant to all future discussions involving denver because they still play defense.

?

I understand you're trying to show how that statistic is irrelevant, but the example you have used doesn't really do anything. late 90s =/= 2001-now. That fact is, when Bill Belichick decides to go for it on 4th and 2 or less and has Tom Brady as his QB, he converts 76% of the time. On Sunday, Bill Belichick had Tom Brady as his QB and decided to go for it. The chance of success may not be 76% exactly, but the fact that Brady has had success in these situations for basically his whole starting career whenever Belichick has decided to go for it has to factor into the decision.

he's had some good games. and i'm not and haven't yet suggested that they would've certainly stopped him. but none of those numbers are really world-beating.

Of course we'll never know what would have happened if Peyton had the ball at his own 30, but to suggest that Peyton might have been able to overcome his NE woes from earlier in his career is certainly more plausible now that it was before, seeing his recent success against NE. No QB is going to put up world-beating numbers on a Belichick defense (the man is a genius), but what Peyton has done recently is about as good as your going to do.

or dallas clark. :rolleyes: or the second fewest rushing attempts in the league. or the 12th most rushing tds in the league. i can do this all day. saying he has no help is ridiculous and obviously untrue.

There's a reason as to why they have the 2nd fewest rushing attempts. When your running game averages 3.9 yards per carry (good for 23rd in the league), even after the opposing defenses have to account for Manning, then you obviously aren't going to run it much. His receivers (wayne, clark) are good, but if you give Peyton Manning any receiver that can catch on a consistent basis and run routes well, then Manning can make him into a star. That is just my opinion and a different debate all together, but think about it. Watch a Marvin Harrison highlight tape and tell me if he ever broke any tackles, made some crazy jumps, or beat the defense without a double move. A Marvin Harrison highlight tape consists of a double move and then catching the ball either in between the numbers or with outstretched hands - nothing more.

D-Rod
11-17-2009, 05:43 PM
odds have absolutely nothing to do with the correct and incorrect decision. they have everything to do with the decision that might pay off most of the time. if i flip a coin, odds are that i'll get heads 50% of the time. if i call heads and it lands tails, i still made the WRONG choice. it's not really that bloody difficult to understand.

right. whichever choice led to you losing was the wrong decision in that case. if i stay and win, i made the right call. if i stay and a 6 comes up, i made the right decision. again, none of this is remotely difficult to comprehend.

and it was the wrong choice. it may have been one of two wrong choices. but it was a choice that was proven to be incorrect and was also one i disagreed with at the time.

it was the wrong choice. he only got one chance. the fact that the "odds" may have pointed to it working differently on a second try are irrelevant. it failed to win the game 100% of the time. thus, it was the (an) incorrect decision.

It's an interesting point, and one that doesn't merit the kind of condescension you are showing. You could argue the point rationally either way.

For example, a statement as to a presently existing fact can clearly be "right" or "wrong." "Tom Brady is male" would be a correct, "right" statement (well, so far as I know!).

You could also argue that a prediction can be proven "right" or "wrong"; someone who predicted in the 60s that man would be living on Mars by the year 2000 would have been proven "wrong" in that prediction (although whether he was "wrong" at any time up to 2000 is another question).

Was BB predicting that by going for it he would win the game? No (in my opinion), he was choosing the option that gave the Patriots the best chance of winning. You can make the choice that gives you the best chance of winning, still lose, and not have made the "wrong" decision. You only exercise a limited control over the variables (play call, personnel, etc), and all you can do is align those variables so that it gives you the best chance of achieving that aim.

It may be that BB chose the wrong variables. But I don't think that the "logic" that you invoke demands that the failure to achieve the goal proves the decision "wrong", just as success in the ultimate goal does not render the decision "right" (as in the case, one might argue, of MJD).

You could also argue - as you are rather condescendingly premising - that a choice as between two options, designed to achieve a particular goal, is right if it achieves that goal, and wrong if it doesn't. I don't personally agree, but I'd be very interested to hear your reasoning. I don't think it's "bloody obvious," and I don't think it does you any credit to say so.

I don't mean to be a pretentious a**hole, and you may well be right; I just think you might show a little more respect to others on an issue that is not as black and white as you paint it.

CC.SD
11-17-2009, 05:50 PM
This thread is getting a little repetitive.

Saints-Tigers
11-17-2009, 05:55 PM
i'm glad you pointed that out. i would've thought you might've, you know, referenced or refuted some of them, but since you didn't, i'll just assume you have no idea what you're talking about and just couldn't resist the submit button. let me know when you have something borderline worthwhile to add.



i'd start with the playcall. it's like that crap madden always used to rail on. if you need 2 yards, you don't run a route at 2 yards. you run it to 3 or 4 yards. i tend to think welker on a quick slant would've been a better option (the same play that would've beat denver) if you wanted to go for it.

that said, i'll take a belichick defense against peyton manning for 70 yards almost every single time.



i'd agree but. the pats needed that game for homefield in the playoffs. and not, obviously, that they can't beat the colts in indy, but it seems unlikely that the colts would have good odds in foxboro in january.

*shrug*

i certainly think it matters more than the call in the jacksonville game.

I think we are on the same line of thinking then.

Edit: And for people applying statistical probabilities to that situation... lolol, have you ever played football?

Don Vito
11-17-2009, 05:57 PM
I still don't like the call, but I'm a Pats fan so it obviously stung to see us not make it. I could see how some would think it was smart, but our defese had been playing decently considering what we were up against and I would have much rather have punted that ball away. Putting Manning on the 28 yard line with that little time in the dome is suicide, no matter how well Brady was playing.

Gay Ork Wang
11-17-2009, 05:59 PM
?

I understand you're trying to show how that statistic is irrelevant, but the example you have used doesn't really do anything. late 90s =/= 2001-now. That fact is, when Bill Belichick decides to go for it on 4th and 2 or less and has Tom Brady as his QB, he converts 76% of the time. On Sunday, Bill Belichick had Tom Brady as his QB and decided to go for it. The chance of success may not be 76% exactly, but the fact that Brady has had success in these situations for basically his whole starting career whenever Belichick has decided to go for it has to factor into the decision.

Okay, im gonna help njx out on this one.

Since 2005 the bears have been ranked amongst the top with takeways. This does not help me in any sort with this year, even though most of the guys are back. I mean just look at all the external effects like a rookie LT, a knee surgery and losing the QB coach. There is just no use in bringing in evidence of years past when discussing this year. There is a big difference between two seasons, ask the Titans. And you are looking at almost 8 seasons. How many players Tom played with in 2001 are still on that offense? how many from 2002?



Of course we'll never know what would have happened if Peyton had the ball at his own 30, but to suggest that Peyton might have been able to overcome his NE woes from earlier in his career is certainly more plausible now that it was before, seeing his recent success against NE. No QB is going to put up world-beating numbers on a Belichick defense (the man is a genius), but what Peyton has done recently is about as good as your going to do.

The thing is that you are looking at stats over the whole game. i mean just look back at 2007 when Peyton got the ball with 3:15 left, 4 points down and he fumbled. obviously that was against a different defense, but its not like Peyton will magically make the ball disappear and appear in the endzone without any chance of stopping it.


There's a reason as to why they have the 2nd fewest rushing attempts. When your running game averages 3.9 yards per carry (good for 23rd in the league), even after the opposing defenses have to account for Manning, then you obviously aren't going to run it much. His receivers (wayne, clark) are good, but if you give Peyton Manning any receiver that can catch on a consistent basis and run routes well, then Manning can make him into a star. That is just my opinion and a different debate all together, but think about it. Watch a Marvin Harrison highlight tape and tell me if he ever broke any tackles, made some crazy jumps, or beat the defense without a double move. A Marvin Harrison highlight tape consists of a double move and then catching the ball either in between the numbers or with outstretched hands - nothing more.
Marvin harrisons hands are as good as it gets. Great rout running helps every good quarterback. im not sure what your point is. Dallas Clark is having the best stats for a TE with maybe Vernon Davis, and Reggie Wayne is constantly making almost impossible catches. Peyton manning does make players better. that doesnt mean you can throw in any scrub and he will magically be a 1000 yard receiver. Also, addai is a great receiver out of the backfield. i think even without Manning, the colts have a great great weapon arsenal

d34ng3l021
11-17-2009, 06:35 PM
Okay, im gonna help njx out on this one.

Since 2005 the bears have been ranked amongst the top with takeways. This does not help me in any sort with this year, even though most of the guys are back. I mean just look at all the external effects like a rookie LT, a knee surgery and losing the QB coach. There is just no use in bringing in evidence of years past when discussing this year. There is a big difference between two seasons, ask the Titans. And you are looking at almost 8 seasons. How many players Tom played with in 2001 are still on that offense? how many from 2002?


I see the point you are trying to make, and it is a valid one. The changes that teams undergo is tremendous, but in a way, that 76% encompasses all those changes. He may not have Troy Brown and Deion Branch anymore, but part of that 76% is with the new group of guys too. In 07, with nearly the same supporting cast (Vollmer or whatever in for Light isn't going to make a difference when trying to gain 2 yards), Tom Brady was 4/4 for 15 yards on 4th and 0-2.

The thing is that you are looking at stats over the whole game. i mean just look back at 2007 when Peyton got the ball with 3:15 left, 4 points down and he fumbled. obviously that was against a different defense, but its not like Peyton will magically make the ball disappear and appear in the endzone without any chance of stopping it.

And I am not trying to say he would have. What Peyton Manning would have done with the ball at his own 30 is unknown, but like I said: the opinion of the call depends directly on what you think Peyton Manning would have done. I thought Peyton Manning would have been capable of driving it down the field for a TD, so I thought it was the right call (right, good, whatever) to try to gain the extra 2 yards so that wouldn't happen. The people who thought Manning would not score in that situation are obviously the ones who disagreed with the calls. And it is not simply black and white like that, of course, but you have to weigh in those options. Is the 60-70% chance (or whatever % you want) that you keep Manning on the sidelines worth those extra 45 yards? Belichick obviously thought it was.

Marvin harrisons hands are as good as it gets. Great rout running helps every good quarterback. im not sure what your point is. Dallas Clark is having the best stats for a TE with maybe Vernon Davis, and Reggie Wayne is constantly making almost impossible catches. Peyton manning does make players better. that doesnt mean you can throw in any scrub and he will magically be a 1000 yard receiver. Also, addai is a great receiver out of the backfield. i think even without Manning, the colts have a great great weapon arsenal

And I didn't say that you could throw in any scrub and he will have success. If you can run routes well and catch on a consistent basis (Wayne, Harrison, Clark), Manning can do wonders for your career. Those players definitely excel at catching and running routes, but outside of that? Top flight speed? Strength? Great vertical? What I was trying to say to say was that the Colts WRs aren't overly physically talented, and don't need to be with Manning. I think without Manning, the Colts would fall apart. Great route running is an asset to all QBs, but Manning is the one who utilizes it most with his accuracy and understanding of the game; some QBs can get by by throwing it up to talented receivers. Once again, a whole new debate.

Gay Ork Wang
11-17-2009, 06:49 PM
I see the point you are trying to make, and it is a valid one. The changes that teams undergo is tremendous, but in a way, that 76% encompasses all those changes. He may not have Troy Brown and Deion Branch anymore, but part of that 76% is with the new group of guys too. In 07, with nearly the same supporting cast (Vollmer or whatever in for Light isn't going to make a difference when trying to gain 2 yards), Tom Brady was 4/4 for 15 yards on 4th and 0-2.
Thing is, thats the same with the bears defense. u incorporate the changes, but the changes are not in important. juts like the WRs he had before. the only important thing is the cast around him right NOW.



And I am not trying to say he would have. What Peyton Manning would have done with the ball at his own 30 is unknown, but like I said: the opinion of the call depends directly on what you think Peyton Manning would have done. I thought Peyton Manning would have been capable of driving it down the field for a TD, so I thought it was the right call (right, good, whatever) to try to gain the extra 2 yards so that wouldn't happen. The people who thought Manning would not score in that situation are obviously the ones who disagreed with the calls. And it is not simply black and white like that, of course, but you have to weigh in those options. Is the 60-70% chance (or whatever % you want) that you keep Manning on the sidelines worth those extra 45 yards? Belichick obviously thought it was.
im dont think njx said hed ever score, but u seemed to give all those stats to say he would have definitely scored. which is not true. but if you are saying you think he would have scored, its basically the same as saying he wouldnt have. the important thing now after the play is, that we know this decision didnt play out. the other decision might have lead to manning making the TD or being stopped. we'll never know. all we know is that they MIGHT have won that way. obviously he didnt with this call.



And I didn't say that you could throw in any scrub and he will have success. If you can run routes well and catch on a consistent basis (Wayne, Harrison, Clark), Manning can do wonders for your career. Those players definitely excel at catching and running routes, but outside of that? Top flight speed? Strength? Great vertical? What I was trying to say to say was that the Colts WRs aren't overly physically talented, and don't need to be with Manning. I think without Manning, the Colts would fall apart. Great route running is an asset to all QBs, but Manning is the one who utilizes it most with his accuracy and understanding of the game; some QBs can get by by throwing it up to talented receivers. Once again, a whole new debate.
[/quote]
Im pretty sure Wayne ran a 4.4 which is pretty fast and he beats players constantly on deep routes too. I mean they might not be the bruises like say Anquan Boldin, but why should they be? they are basically tory holts. Im not really sure about rice, but was he big bruiser or was overly fast or extreme vertical?
They might not be the physical specimens as others nowadays but they are sure as hell talented. Those grabs they are making are not made by guys with no talent. but yea different debate

Trivia
11-17-2009, 07:07 PM
How was it not the right call? He had a choice to either put the game in Brady's hands or in Manning's, and of course he chose Brady. If Tom Brady can't gain two yards on a consistent basis then he shouldn't even come close to being mentioned with the best QB's in the league.

You can't say that ****... That makes no sense... you act as if that there is no defense there to cover.
Stupid cheese head.

Imo bad coaches call... You can't do that that far in your own end with the lead.

LonghornsLegend
11-17-2009, 07:42 PM
Only way I can understand going for it is if you run on 3rd down, passing two straight times I didn't understand. If you think you may want to go for it on 4th down you almost have to run it on 3rd and 2 to try and get an extra yard, or at least run the clock down.

d34ng3l021
11-17-2009, 07:46 PM
Thing is, thats the same with the bears defense. u incorporate the changes, but the changes are not in important. juts like the WRs he had before. the only important thing is the cast around him right NOW.

Definitely, but I am one of those people that think the QB is all-important on offense. If you have a top flight QB for a period of time, a lot of your success is going to come because of him; everything else is secondary. Tom Brady was there before, converting those 4th and shorts, and Tom Brady was there taking the snap. It isn't a great argument, but that is how I feel.

im dont think njx said hed ever score, but u seemed to give all those stats to say he would have definitely scored. which is not true. but if you are saying you think he would have scored, its basically the same as saying he wouldnt have. the important thing now after the play is, that we know this decision didnt play out. the other decision might have lead to manning making the TD or being stopped. we'll never know. all we know is that they MIGHT have won that way. obviously he didnt with this call.

But the thing is, he could've won with that call. It was a matter of execution that failed Belichick. If Faulk doesn't bobble the catch and the Patriots gain that first down, the Colts most likely get the ball back at their 20-30 yard line with no time outs and less than 40 seconds to go (that is, if they stop the first down again). You can't blame Belichick for making that call at that time, knowing in hindsight that it will fail.

Most teams leave it to their defense to stop the offense from gaining 75 yards to win a game. Belichick left it to his offense to gain 2 yards to win a game. I don't see what is wrong with that, especially if your defense is facing Peyton Manning and your offense features Tom Brady.


Im pretty sure Wayne ran a 4.4 which is pretty fast and he beats players constantly on deep routes too. I mean they might not be the bruises like say Anquan Boldin, but why should they be? they are basically tory holts. Im not really sure about rice, but was he big bruiser or was overly fast or extreme vertical?
They might not be the physical specimens as others nowadays but they are sure as hell talented. Those grabs they are making are not made by guys with no talent. but yea different debate

Every receiver below the height of 6'2" should be running 4.4 40s in the NFL, especially Wayne at 6'0". Receivers running in the 4.5 range are the 6'4" possession/redzone/beast guys; Wayne is not that. But those are just 40 times. The point I was trying to make was that Manning doesn't need physically outstanding receivers in the mold of Randy Moss or Marques Colston to put up insane numbers. He simply relies on his accuracy and timing to match up with his WRs routes and hands.

All right, I am done debating this. Time flies way too much making these arguments.

Gay Ork Wang
11-17-2009, 07:50 PM
But the thing is, he could've won with that call. It was a matter of execution that failed Belichick. If Faulk doesn't bobble the catch and the Patriots gain that first down, the Colts most likely get the ball back at their 20-30 yard line with no time outs and less than 40 seconds to go (that is, if they stop the first down again). You can't blame Belichick for making that call at that time, knowing in hindsight that it will fail.


couldve wouldve shouldve. he didnt win. He might have won with the other, but thats beside the point. he lost. so it was maybe a good decision but he was wrong. And njx never said it was a bad decision. he just say he was wrong as in, in the end he lost.

d34ng3l021
11-17-2009, 07:56 PM
couldve wouldve shouldve. he didnt win. He might have won with the other, but thats beside the point. he lost. so it was maybe a good decision but he was wrong. And njx never said it was a bad decision. he just say he was wrong as in, in the end he lost.

Using hindsight to judge a decision is pointless. I was defending his decision to go for it at that time.

Sniper
11-17-2009, 08:00 PM
Good decision, bad outcome.

Gay Ork Wang
11-17-2009, 08:03 PM
Using hindsight to judge a decision is pointless. I was defending his decision to go for it at that time.
thing is, without hindsight u cant say if it was the right or wrong decision cause right and wrong depends on the outcome

Bengalsrocket
11-17-2009, 08:57 PM
thing is, without hindsight u cant say if it was the right or wrong decision cause right and wrong depends on the outcome

Well that's why this is a debate. If it was so straight forward as "right" or "wrong" before the snap, then Bellichick would have known what to do anyways, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.


There is no right or wrong, before or after, the call. The decision to go for it can, is not and never will be defined as such. Maybe it was the wrong play, or poor execution and maybe even bad preparation, but the decision to go for it was not "wrong".

ShutDwn
11-17-2009, 09:21 PM
What I don't get about all of this is that people chose to look at this one way, at least the media.

Everyone bashes him, saying he was implying " I have no confidence in my defense to stop Peyton"

Then they go on to say how that hurts the players and their relationship.

The argument AFTER the game, is that you don't give Peyton another chance because due to history, he is too dangerous.

But I've been seeing it this way:

He probably had confidence in his defense, he believed that they wouldn't give up a touchdown, people act as if the Colts had won the game if they stopped them. The Colts offense and Peyton Manning is very dangerous, but that night it had been far from consistent. That, and the fact that the Patriots offense had basically worked the Colts sparing a couple drives. So, you could say he gave both units votes of high confidence. He believed that the offense would get the first down, and if they didn't the defense would not give up a touchdown.

His confidence in his team got him this game, but I think that it could and more than likely will pay dividends in the long run.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Patriots dominate the rest of the season, that's just how they seem to respond to this kind of stuff.

Brent
11-17-2009, 11:37 PM
i'm just not capable of being pleasant in explaining this anymore when it's literally been repeated 75 times.
l9K4BKkLaCI

wogitalia
11-18-2009, 12:32 AM
please reference previous posts before i blow a gasket explaining the difference between making the choice you think gives you the best chance, and making the wrong choice. i'm just not capable of being pleasant in explaining this anymore when it's literally been repeated 75 times.

There is a difference here. It is perfectly possible that there was no right choice to be made and that Belichek took the "better" of two wrong choices. If there was no right choice(ie. Punt=loss also) then he in fact made the right choice even though it was also wrong, because he in fact made the better of two wrong choices.

right. he didn't trust their defense to get a stop. i don't see what point you're failing to make here.

On the contrary, and a point that seems to be completely missed by everyone, he actually had faith, he said to his defense, I don't think you need 70 yards, I believe you can stop them with 30 yards.

I find it funny, normally when a coach goes for it "against the grain" on 4th down, he is "showing faith in his defense" by believing they can defend a shortened field, yet somehow Belichek has dissed his defense in this situation, seems to be a double standard in that somewhere, either everyone else is also dissing the defense or Bill is not.

whereas, if they're on defense, they're essentially passive observers. at least, they might be if you don't have any idea what football is.

Given their efforts, you could actually argue they were, though I completely agree with you, punt or no punt, they still had a perfectly good chance to win the game, lets remember, the Colts need a converted touchdown to win, thats 30 yards to stop the TD and a PAT to force overtime, the defense failed to get it done in both situations, which in many ways, reinforces that the decision to go for it presented the best chance to win.

or dallas clark. or the second fewest rushing attempts in the league. or the 12th most rushing tds in the league. i can do this all day. saying he has no help is ridiculous and obviously untrue.

Spot on, part of that offense is Manning, but he has a very solid OL that whilst lacking stars, does a good job along with Manning. Just because they aren't big names does not mean that Garcon and Collie can't play either. Being a rookie or young doesn't mean you can't be good and their is a lag in becoming recognised, especially on an offense with Manning, Wayne and Clark.

odds have absolutely nothing to do with the correct and incorrect decision. they have everything to do with the decision that might pay off most of the time. if i flip a coin, odds are that i'll get heads 50% of the time. if i call heads and it lands tails, i still made the WRONG choice. it's not really that bloody difficult to understand.

That's not the same situation though. I agree that in this case his decision was "wrong". In that he made the decision and lost, ie he called heads. The problem with the example is that you are assuming that "tails" is the only other possibility, in this case you are saying that if he punts he wins, the possibility of neither happening must exist to be able to relate it to football. He still made the "best" decision, if not the right one.

I think that is the point on that side of things. The "right" decision to take is the "best" decision, not the one that turns out correct. Take a game of two up to extend your coin flip example(2up is 2 coins). If you guess one of each, you have a 50% chance of winning. 2 of either heads or tails is 25% each. That means that one of each is the "best" choice, thus it is the right choice(assuming the intent to maximise winnings) to make every time. It can still be the wrong choice though, but that is based on hindsight and not the time the choice has to be made. So Belichek has made the "right" choice and gotten it "wrong". In this situation, going for it is guessing one of each. You then having the punt option, which gives you 2 heads(say Colts win) or 2 tails(say Pats win), whats to say he doesn't guess two tails and get two heads and in that case he still got it wrong, only he went against what was the best choice to do it. He can also get it right obviously, but that doesn't make it the best choice or give the best chance of winning consistently. I see what you are saying, basically you are arguing that the outcome dictates wrong or right, you aren't considering that there may not be a right choice here, in which case, you need to make best choice.

Imagine you have siamese twins. Doctor says to you, I can separate them and you will almost certainly lose one kid or keep them together and both die. Both these choices are wrong as you almost certainly lose a kid, but you still have a best choice or better choice.

Gay Ork Wang
11-18-2009, 02:17 AM
There is a difference here. It is perfectly possible that there was no right choice to be made and that Belichek took the "better" of two wrong choices. If there was no right choice(ie. Punt=loss also) then he in fact made the right choice even though it was also wrong, because he in fact made the better of two wrong choices.

Jesus ************* christ, how hard is this to understand. That he made the better decision for him, its what we are saying all a long. but if there were two wrong choices he made one of the wrong choices. just because the other decision is also wrong doesnt make the one right.

Going back to the door example. door1 60%, door 2 30%, door 3 10%.
Door 3 is the winning door but you can only choose between door1 and door2. the best decision would be door 1 obviously. but thats still the wrong door. then look at door 2, its also wrong, but just because both, door1 and door2 are the wrong doors, doesnt make door1 the right door. seriously, is this so hard to understand?


On the contrary, and a point that seems to be completely missed by everyone, he actually had faith, he said to his defense, I don't think you need 70 yards, I believe you can stop them with 30 yards.
Lol. He didnt want the defense to go on the field. its not like he went out there knee'd and said: "hey defense, ill give u a short field". no. he went out and didnt want his defense to come on the field anymore.


I find it funny, normally when a coach goes for it "against the grain" on 4th down, he is "showing faith in his defense" by believing they can defend a shortened field, yet somehow Belichek has dissed his defense in this situation, seems to be a double standard in that somewhere, either everyone else is also dissing the defense or Bill is not.

This is because its with the game on the line. its not like taking the risk of a shortened field is okay cause the defense will make it. thats not the reason he went for it here. Correlation doesnt imply causation. just because it was a shortened field doesnt mean he automatically trusts his defense. cause then this decision would have made no sense.

Considering its not abouts scoring points here, the only reason to go for it is to win the game/run out the clock. now, if you trust your defense anyway, why go for it and risk a short field?


Given their efforts, you could actually argue they were, though I completely agree with you, punt or no punt, they still had a perfectly good chance to win the game, lets remember, the Colts need a converted touchdown to win, thats 30 yards to stop the TD and a PAT to force overtime, the defense failed to get it done in both situations, which in many ways, reinforces that the decision to go for it presented the best chance to win.
and no one saying they didnt have a chance. but they didnt win. thats whats important now.



That's not the same situation though. I agree that in this case his decision was "wrong". In that he made the decision and lost, ie he called heads. The problem with the example is that you are assuming that "tails" is the only other possibility, in this case you are saying that if he punts he wins, the possibility of neither happening must exist to be able to relate it to football. He still made the "best" decision, if not the right one.
see door example.

I think that is the point on that side of things. The "right" decision to take is the "best" decision, not the one that turns out correct. Take a game of two up to extend your coin flip example(2up is 2 coins). If you guess one of each, you have a 50% chance of winning. 2 of either heads or tails is 25% each. That means that one of each is the "best" choice, thus it is the right choice(assuming the intent to maximise winnings) to make every time. It can still be the wrong choice though, but that is based on hindsight and not the time the choice has to be made. So Belichek has made the "right" choice and gotten it "wrong". In this situation, going for it is guessing one of each. You then having the punt option, which gives you 2 heads(say Colts win) or 2 tails(say Pats win), whats to say he doesn't guess two tails and get two heads and in that case he still got it wrong, only he went against what was the best choice to do it. He can also get it right obviously, but that doesn't make it the best choice or give the best chance of winning consistently. I see what you are saying, basically you are arguing that the outcome dictates wrong or right, you aren't considering that there may not be a right choice here, in which case, you need to make best choice.
The right decision is the right decision. its that simple. the right decision would be the one that lead to a win. thats whats right. thats what the intention is and thats what it played out. The best decision could be still *******, but does ti make it right? to make the best decision at that moment in this caes was not making the decision that ultimately lead to a win. Door 1 is the best decision but its wrong, cause its the wrong door.

Imagine you have siamese twins. Doctor says to you, I can separate them and you will almost certainly lose one kid or keep them together and both die. Both these choices are wrong as you almost certainly lose a kid, but you still have a best choice or better choice.
yes, but we dont have this situation since we dont know the outcome. and in this case there is no right and wrong. cause there is no intention you want. thats a totally wrong analogy

Shiver
11-18-2009, 09:09 PM
Freakonomics and famous Economist Steven Levitt:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/bill-belichick-is-great/#more-21859

I respect Bill Belichick more today than I ever have.
Last night he made a decision in the final minutes that led his team the New England Patriots to defeat. It will likely go down as one of the most criticized decisions any coach has ever made. With his team leading by six points and just over two minutes left in the game, he elected to go for it on fourth down on his own side of the field. His offense failed to get the first down, and the Indianapolis Colts promptly drove for a touchdown.
He has been excoriated (http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1212305&srvc=home&position=comment) for the choice he made. Everyone seems to agree it was a terrible blunder.
Here is why I respect Belichick so much. The data suggest that he actually probably did the right thing if his objective was to win the game. Economist David Romer studied years worth of data and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, teams seem to punt way too much (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/%7Edromer/papers/JPE_April06.pdf). Going for a first down on fourth and short yardage in your end zone is likely to increase the chance your team wins (albeit slightly). But Belichick had to know that if it failed, he would be subjected to endless criticism.
If his team had gotten the first down and the Patriots won, he would have gotten far less credit than he got blame for failing. This introduces what economists call a “principal-agent problem.” Even though going for it increases his team’s chance of winning, a coach who cares about his reputation will want to do the wrong thing. He will punt, just because he doesn’t want to be the goat. (I’ve seen the same thing in my research on penalty kicks in soccer; it looks like kicking it right down the middle is the best strategy, but it is so embarrassing when it fails that players don’t do it often enough.) What Belichick proved by going for it last night is that 1) he understands the data, and 2) he cares more about winning than anything else.
So hats off to Bill Belichick. This decision may have hurt his chances for the Football Hall of Fame, but it guarantees his induction into the Freakonomics Hall of Fame.

nrk
11-18-2009, 10:24 PM
People were talking about chances/probabilities of getting the fourth down.

What about the chances of Manning driving 30 yards against Manning driving from wherever your punter punts it. You have to consider the worst case scenario. I'd be safe and smart, punt the ball. I understand the decision though, he went for the win.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
11-18-2009, 11:56 PM
Hurt his chances for the football HOF? Really?

wogitalia
11-19-2009, 12:04 AM
Lol. He didnt want the defense to go on the field. its not like he went out there knee'd and said: "hey defense, ill give u a short field". no. he went out and didnt want his defense to come on the field anymore.

Of course he didn't want his defense on the field anymore, if they don't take the field, then the Pats should win(obviously always the defensive TD possibility). What he said is my offense can win this right here and now, if they fail my defense still has a chance to win this.

Punting says my defense has a better chance to win this but you don't go for it without thinking that the defense is still capable of getting the stop and you have in fact put more faith in them by shortening their field, in the event of the fail.

Considering its not abouts scoring points here, the only reason to go for it is to win the game/run out the clock. now, if you trust your defense anyway, why go for it and risk a short field?

Many things factor into it. The above 50% chance to win the game right now surely factors in, that is why you play offense there but he also has the chance that his defense stops them, it had happened plenty in the game already. He is putting his faith in his defense still being able to get the stop.

strongly disagree. i don't think any rational observer really thought his defense had a strong chance at getting that stop after they failed on 4th.

Why not? The league average is only 50% or so to score a redzone TD. Add another 10 yards. The Colts are good, I don't know anyone who actually thinks the Pats would have stopped them going 80 yards either, but you could win it right there and then, have a good shot at still winning. Colts needed a TD, if it was a FG, things change completely.

i don't think anyone has ever said a coach was showing faith in his defense for going for it from his own 30. if you find an example, i'll certainly take that back. if you go for it on the opponent's 40, or the 50, sure. but 50-60 yards is substantially different than 30, and is even more different when there are only 2 minutes to go and the other team needs a touchdown.

How does the yard line change anything, if anything, the closer to your own endzone, the more faith you are showing. This is a unique situation though in that a FG was of no consideration, so they had to score a TD which is why he could do it from the 30(which you would normally not consider). But honestly, if it is a sign of faith on the 40 or 50, then it should also be on the 30. You can also consider it stupid, but that does not mean it is not placing faith in your defense. It is also showing a lot of confidence in you offense because you would obviously rather not give the opponent the ball that close to the endzone.

On the "right" decision thing. I am very much on the school of thought that you make the right decision by making the best decision. You can not base your life on what has happened, only what may happen. I see the point, if you want to base it on hindsight, the decision is wrong, plain and simple. However you don't have hindsight when making the decision and most likely never will and as a result the best decision is the right decision to make and the right decision can be wrong in result.

You have a 3 sided dice, you have the option to pick either 1-2 or 3. 1-2 is the right decision to take, whether you win or lose. You have to separate the decision from the result. Hope that clears up what I'm trying to say. Not arguing that the decision ended up wrong, that is obvious to anyone but I would argue to the grave that he made the right decision by making what I believe is the best decision. Sometimes you can do everything right and still end up wrong. Thats just life.

In short... at the time of the decision, it was the right decision, because it was the best decision, imo of course.

Gay Ork Wang
11-19-2009, 02:26 AM
Of course he didn't want his defense on the field anymore, if they don't take the field, then the Pats should win(obviously always the defensive TD possibility). What he said is my offense can win this right here and now, if they fail my defense still has a chance to win this.
obviously there still is a chance. there is always a chance. nothing is given. but hell, going for it doesnt show that he trusts his defense to defend the short field. im gonna say it again: Correlation doesnt imply causation. Just because failing the 4th down would lead to the defense defending a short field doesnt mean he intended that and thought they would make it.

Punting says my defense has a better chance to win this but you don't go for it without thinking that the defense is still capable of getting the stop and you have in fact put more faith in them by shortening their field, in the event of the fail. wtf? you really think there is a coach out there that trust his defense more to defend a short field than a long one?



Many things factor into it. The above 50% chance to win the game right now surely factors in, that is why you play offense there but he also has the chance that his defense stops them, it had happened plenty in the game already. He is putting his faith in his defense still being able to get the stop.

He doesnt, he is lowering the chances of his defense. what its basically saying is: i trust my offense more to win it right now, than you when i punt it, since the chance winning it when going for it with the offense is a lot higher.



Why not? The league average is only 50% or so to score a redzone TD. Add another 10 yards. The Colts are good, I don't know anyone who actually thinks the Pats would have stopped them going 80 yards either, but you could win it right there and then, have a good shot at still winning. Colts needed a TD, if it was a FG, things change completely.

i dont see what the league average has to do with the pats/colts defense.


How does the yard line change anything, if anything, the closer to your own endzone, the more faith you are showing. This is a unique situation though in that a FG was of no consideration, so they had to score a TD which is why he could do it from the 30(which you would normally not consider). But honestly, if it is a sign of faith on the 40 or 50, then it should also be on the 30. You can also consider it stupid, but that does not mean it is not placing faith in your defense. It is also showing a lot of confidence in you offense because you would obviously rather not give the opponent the ball that close to the endzone.
So lets just go for it on 4th down every time, so you can boost the moral of your team? it is exactly what you say in the last part. its showing confidence in your defense rather than your offense. i dont see how going for it there would show any more confidence when he trusts the defense anyway, punt it, let the defense get a 3 and out and prolly get better field position after that.


On the "right" decision thing. I am very much on the school of thought that you make the right decision by making the best decision. You can not base your life on what has happened, only what may happen. I see the point, if you want to base it on hindsight, the decision is wrong, plain and simple. However you don't have hindsight when making the decision and most likely never will and as a result the best decision is the right decision to make and the right decision can be wrong in result.
Yes, thats why no one can be sure that the decision he made is the right one. but now that we are discussing it, and we have to look at his intentions. His intentions were to make it. And even it was the best decision at the time, he still failed. so he failed. it was wrong to do cause the outcome wasnt right. if the intention was: lets make the choice that has the highest probability to win. then it was right. but it was not. no one cares about the chances if at the end you still win.

You have a 3 sided dice, you have the option to pick either 1-2 or 3. 1-2 is the right decision to take, whether you win or lose. You have to separate the decision from the result. Hope that clears up what I'm trying to say. Not arguing that the decision ended up wrong, that is obvious to anyone but I would argue to the grave that he made the right decision by making what I believe is the best decision. Sometimes you can do everything right and still end up wrong. Thats just life.
seriously how is this so hard to get.
right = the outcome you wish for. So if it doesnt come, it was not the right decision. How is this so hard to get? its not rocket science. The result and the decision are related. you cant separate them. you make a decision and wish for a certain outcome. You lose. decision was not right.

[quote
In short... at the time of the decision, it was the right decision, because it was the best decision, imo of course.[/QUOTE]
Best decision is not the right decision. it was the best decision at the time, yes. but you cant say at the time of a decision since a decision is always and will always be related to the outcome and the result.

Bengalsrocket
11-19-2009, 02:32 AM
Best decision is not the right decision. it was the best decision at the time, yes. but you cant say at the time of a decision since a decision is always and will always be related to the outcome and the result.

This is where people will disagree with you. Decisions are not based on the outcome. A good decision to me is one based on evaluation and preparation for said decision, not what comes after.

Also, I think you're entitled to your opinion of basing a good decision off of the outcome. I don't think you're wrong, I just have a different opinion on how I will evaluate decisions that are made.

Gay Ork Wang
11-19-2009, 07:16 AM
This is where people will disagree with you. Decisions are not based on the outcome. A good decision to me is one based on evaluation and preparation for said decision, not what comes after.
yes it is a good decision, no one said it isnt. it just wasnt the right one that lead to a win.

Also, I think you're entitled to your opinion of basing a good decision off of the outcome. I don't think you're wrong, I just have a different opinion on how I will evaluate decisions that are made.
im not saying the decision is bad. id prolly also say it was almost the best possible decision. there is a difference between judging it with good and bad or the best and saying a definite it was right.

wogitalia
11-19-2009, 09:24 PM
Best decision is not the right decision. it was the best decision at the time, yes. but you cant say at the time of a decision since a decision is always and will always be related to the outcome and the result.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. Given that you can not make the decision based on the outcome, only the probability I am a firm and unchanging believer that you can make the right decision and have the wrong outcome. Hence the saying "Sh!t Happens" and also "Hindsight is 20-20". Just my feel, I like to judge the decision, based on the decision because that is all I feel you do and if that is all you can judge on, the best decision is the right decision to make, win or lose.


So lets just go for it on 4th down every time, so you can boost the moral of your team?

To be honest I have no real problem with that school of thought, obviously it is reliant on having both a good defense and offense or it would not work, but the basic premise is fine. Obviously there are exceptions, but certainly if you have 4th and 1 or 2 I would have no problem with a team going for it 100% of the time. I also have no problem with playing the field position game, especially if you are considerably better on one side of the ball, like say the Saints or Vikings of years past.

i dont see what the league average has to do with the pats/colts defense.

Essentially it was an easier figure to find that specific teams defense/offense. I think the point stands though that they still had a very reasonable chance to stop the Colts without punting, combined with a very reasonable chance of winning the game right there and then I still like and support the decision 100%.

Just because failing the 4th down would lead to the defense defending a short field doesnt mean he intended that and thought they would make it.

Getting into what he thought it pushing the boundary on what we can do and he certainly didn't intend to have his defense play but you don't go for it on 4th down if you don't have at least a little faith in your defense to be able to stop them. Unless you are that arrogant that you honestly believe that you can get a first down whenever you want, it is inherent in going for it on 4th down that you may end up playing defense and if you don't think/believe that your defense can stop the opponent with a shortened field, you have no basis to be going for it.

Don't get me wrong here, in now way does Belichek want his defense on the field in that situation, but he obviously felt that they could still stop them if they failed, there is the alternative possibility that he didn't think they had any chance at all regardless of yardage, but I just can't buy that side of it, surely BB believed there was some chance for his defense.

He doesnt, he is lowering the chances of his defense. what its basically saying is: i trust my offense more to win it right now, than you when i punt it, since the chance winning it when going for it with the offense is a lot higher.

He is certainly lowering the defenses chances, to me anytime you make a decision with that outcome it is showing a faith in them, sure he wants the offense to win it and not play d at all, that is the dream so to speak. He is arrogant, but surely not enough so that he believed there was no chance of having to play D.

wtf? you really think there is a coach out there that trust his defense more to defend a short field than a long one?

I have no idea how you have got that impression from the quote or anything I have said. I would hope there isn't a coach out there with that school of thought, funnily enough the team I play on is more likely to give up a TD to a long pass than on a goal line stand, but even then, you always want the long field.

Gay Ork Wang
11-19-2009, 09:43 PM
I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. Given that you can not make the decision based on the outcome, only the probability I am a firm and unchanging believer that you can make the right decision and have the wrong outcome. Hence the saying "Sh!t Happens" and also "Hindsight is 20-20". Just my feel, I like to judge the decision, based on the decision because that is all I feel you do and if that is all you can judge on, the best decision is the right decision to make, win or lose.

Okay, lets play it backwards, someone choses door 3 despite the 10% and he wins. you wanna tell me he made a wrong decision?




To be honest I have no real problem with that school of thought, obviously it is reliant on having both a good defense and offense or it would not work, but the basic premise is fine. Obviously there are exceptions, but certainly if you have 4th and 1 or 2 I would have no problem with a team going for it 100% of the time. I also have no problem with playing the field position game, especially if you are considerably better on one side of the ball, like say the Saints or Vikings of years past.

So basically, what ever a coach does shows faith in your team? thats *******. You show more faith in your offense since you want to keep your defense off the field.



Essentially it was an easier figure to find that specific teams defense/offense. I think the point stands though that they still had a very reasonable chance to stop the Colts without punting, combined with a very reasonable chance of winning the game right there and then I still like and support the decision 100%.
Okay, how about Peyton Manning, in the last 2 minutes with a game on the line? there is a big difference in big pressure moments, and no at that point apparently it wasnt reasonable that they would stop him cause he fully believe the defense wouldnt even stop him go down the whole field. I mean tell me, why would he go for it if he thought his defense is gonna stop him?



Getting into what he thought it pushing the boundary on what we can do and he certainly didn't intend to have his defense play but you don't go for it on 4th down if you don't have at least a little faith in your defense to be able to stop them. Unless you are that arrogant that you honestly believe that you can get a first down whenever you want, it is inherent in going for it on 4th down that you may end up playing defense and if you don't think/believe that your defense can stop the opponent with a shortened field, you have no basis to be going for it.
you dont in a normal game, at the 50 yard line or so. With the game on the line and you decide you need to make a conversion to win, cause it is a higher chance winning than your defense stopping him, shows that you dont trust your defense as much as your offense. thats why bruschi, thats why Harrison were totally upset. they felt that he didnt trust the defense.


Don't get me wrong here, in now way does Belichek want his defense on the field in that situation, but he obviously felt that they could still stop them if they failed, there is the alternative possibility that he didn't think they had any chance at all regardless of yardage, but I just can't buy that side of it, surely BB believed there was some chance for his defense.
okay this is just idiotic. If he doesnt want his defense on the field, how does he trust it? there is a difference in, still having a small chance in winning and trusting your defense making the stop. obviously there is no given. No one says, manning gets the ball equals automatic score. if it was, they wouldnt have played till the TD. but to say he thought the defense had a very good chance is obviously wrong. I dont see it, why would he go for it, when he thought his defense could make it anyway? why?



He is certainly lowering the defenses chances, to me anytime you make a decision with that outcome it is showing a faith in them, sure he wants the offense to win it and not play d at all, that is the dream so to speak. He is arrogant, but surely not enough so that he believed there was no chance of having to play D.

No one says that he thinks there is no chance. there is always a chance as long as they doesnt cross the goalline. doesnt mean he trusts the defense. thats 2 seperate things.


I have no idea how you have got that impression from the quote or anything I have said. I would hope there isn't a coach out there with that school of thought, funnily enough the team I play on is more likely to give up a TD to a long pass than on a goal line stand, but even then, you always want the long field.

Yes, so if he trusted his defense, why wouldnt he let the defense manage it?

BleedBurgundy96
11-19-2009, 10:04 PM
Everyone has different opinions on this decision by Belichick. IMO I dont agree with the call. I always believe you punt the ball on 4th down if you are not at least at the 50 yard line. The only time a team should go for it in their own territory is if its late in the 4th quarter and you are trailing.

I would rather Manning have to drive around 70 yards instead of about 30. Maybe the Colts win either way. Id just never go for it like Belly did b/c if you dont get it you have no chance. Even more so since you are out of timeouts. The Colts just milked the clock and won it.

The call that Belly made didnt make sense to me b/c they had the lead. If they didnt it would of been a no brainer to go for it. I realize their are 2 sides to every debate. This is just my personal opinion.

This is also my first post on these forums. Great site.

wogitalia
11-20-2009, 01:29 AM
Okay, lets play it backwards, someone choses door 3 despite the 10% and he wins. you wanna tell me he made a wrong decision?

It's the wrong decision, but it worked out alright, call it luck. You need to make the decision independent of the result to evaluate the decision. I see your point, I just don't share the view point. All I am saying is that by making the best decision you are making the right decision, it's just simple probability and as with anything that has multiple outcomes you can make the right choice and not have it work out.

Take drink driving as an example... You have too many to drink, the right choice is not to drive(from a getting home safely point of view, not legal) and take a taxi. If you choose to drive home and you make it, it was still the wrong choice, if the taxi crashes, it was still the right choice. It is the decision itself, not the outcome that I am saying is right or wrong. They are two separate things to evaluate, yes, the outcome in the Pats case was wrong, but the choice can still be right.

So basically, what ever a coach does shows faith in your team? thats *******. You show more faith in your offense since you want to keep your defense off the field.

By going for it on 4th down I believe that you do. Something like kneeling out the final minute of a first half with 60 or so yards to go would not be showing faith, basically says to the offense that you believe they are more likely to give up a TD than score.

Going for it on 4th is saying to the offense, I believe you can get this and saying to the defense, if they can't I believe you can hold up your end. The fact that he wants his offense to win it there and then does not say that he doesn't think his defense can stop them, he is saying that he believes his offense is good enough that the defense wont need to stop them.


I mean tell me, why would he go for it if he thought his defense is gonna stop him?

Why play defense and take the chance if you don't have to? Their offense was dominating the Colts for the game, he put it in their hands to end it. Should he have punted or gone for it if the ball moves? I don't really see how where the ball is matters in this situation, the choice is to try and end it now and if you have to play defense, you play defense. Obviously with a guy like Manning, if you can keep him off the field, why not do it?

I dont see it, why would he go for it, when he thought his defense could make it anyway? why?

Why take that chance? You either believe the defense is capable of stopping them or not, the field position doesn't matter to that. If you think the defense can stop Manning scoring then what does it matter where the ball starts? There is a difference though between thinking the defense can win it and your offense being able to win it. Why not go for the win with the offense? It was an aggressive call, but the likelihood of winning on offense is 99% if you get that first down, the likelihood of winning on defense is much lower, regardless of where Manning gets the ball, make one play and win, or punt and put the ball in Manning's hands and hope the defense makes the stop. Punt= 95% chance that Manning gets a shot to win. Going for it on 4th down is roughly 40% chance that Manning gets a shot, the cost being that you increase Manning's chance to win IF he gets it. Play to win is go for it, let the opposition play to win is punt.

No one says that he thinks there is no chance. there is always a chance as long as they doesnt cross the goalline. doesnt mean he trusts the defense. thats 2 seperate things.

No it isnt, if you know there is a strong chance that they will have to take a shortened field is in itself trusting the defense. Punting would also be trusting his defense, it would be entrusting it with 100% responsibility for the W/L, but if he thinks his defense can't defend 70 yards(which is what you are implying his not punting means) why would he give it the very realistic chance of it having to do it in 30. He is saying to the defense that they can make the stop in 30, he is also saying he would rather they not have to make the stop at all. There is just no way you make that call if your belief is that the defense cant make that stop, thats like saying that Manning=autoscore if he has the ball. If you don't believe the defense can make the stop you dont call a play with a roughly 40% chance to lose you the game. You punt and hope the defense makes the stop if you think the defense cant stop them with 30 yards.

Yes, so if he trusted his defense, why wouldnt he let the defense manage it?

Probability. There is a difference between trusting the defense and wanting the defense to have to do it. You can have all the faith in the world and it can still not work. BB sees 60% chance to win the game now, decreasing to 40% chance to win(Colts Red Zone Offense scores a TD on 60% of it's attempts) if they fail, or he can punt it and probably have a 50-60% chance to win on defense(which may be generous even). By going for it, you can win the game now and avoid giving the Colts a realistic chance to win and should you not get it, you still have a good chance to win. Or you can punt and just have the good chance to win.

I just don't see the insult to the defense in telling your very good offense to go out and seal the game, I certainly see a compliment in having enough trust in a) the offense getting 2 yards and b) the defense holding on regardless should they need to. Sure it all blew up in his face because they couldn't do either, but that doesn't mean his trust is misplaced or that his decision was wrong, again imo.

I like the aggressive call, especially given who they were playing, which is a major factor because I believe it gave them the best shot at winning, we can never know what would have happened if they punted, lets be honest, Manning was in the zone in that last Q, it is probably at least 50-50 that he marches the field anyway, can never rule out the punt return, or maybe the muff the kick and it ends there anyway, but all those things are less likely than the 4th down conversion and none can happen if you win right there and then on that 4th down.

Id just never go for it like Belly did b/c if you dont get it you have no chance.

That might be true if they only needed a FG, but the Colts were still only a 60% or so chance to win after the 4th down failed.

I like to look at it from this perspective, Going for it gives both teams a shot at a 60% chance to win, but the Pats get to have it first. Punting makes it a 50-50 game. So effectively, the Pats chose to have a go at their 60% and win it without the Colts even getting a roll of the dice, they lost their roll though, so the Colts then got theirs, and the Colts won theirs. The other door was a coinflip, personally I see better odds on the first situation for the Pats and thus back the decision.

Gay Ork Wang
11-20-2009, 09:09 AM
Bill to his defense was like the nazis towards the jews

FlyingElvis
11-20-2009, 11:58 AM
This thread is getting a little repetitive.

Gay Ork Wang
11-20-2009, 02:11 PM
i cant but repeat the argument. its not that hard to get. i talked to aq today and it took like 5 minutes until she got it.

Gay Ork Wang
11-23-2009, 01:03 PM
she must be slipping. 5 minutes is much longer than i would've expected.
well it took me some time to put my arguments into words and counter hers, since i wasnt raised english its not always easy

49ers1984
11-23-2009, 02:49 PM
I think it was right the call. The Pat's offense is by far the superior unit compared to their defense. The percentage of picking up the 4th and 2 is probably higher than the defense stopping Manning from going 70 yards in 2 minutes with 2 timeouts. He might have had all 3, I forget.

In my opinion, if they punt, there is no doubt in my mind Peyton drives the field and scores leaving the Pats with no time. I also think Bill thought if they didn't pick up the 4th down, Peyton would have scored quickly enough to leave them another chance with the ball. That didn't happen though.

Exactly and what if the Colts blocked the punt of the punter shanked the kick? This reminds of coaches who a small lead and the ball late in the game and just run the ball to eat up time but do not go for the first down and punt. Then the other team comes down and scores. You have to play to win not to try to not lose.

d34ng3l021
11-24-2009, 12:07 AM
yup, defenses can't actually win games. they just lose them. just ask ray lewis and the 2001 ravens.

i love when people add thoughts that've already been refuted several times.

But they weren't the 2001 Ravens and nor did they have the same caliber defense; they had already given up 28 points, including 14 in the 4th. I understand you are exaggerating, but you have to play to your strengths and momentum and go for it because your offense does in fact resemble the record setting 2007 Patriots.