Like Pats fans in general, he’s outraged. His podcast is already up.
Then I’m even more confused by the steadfast conviction that Bellicheck’s boneheaded move is anything but a morality tale on being too smart for ones own good.
Ah, my bad. So you’re saying if the Colts only need a FG to win, punting wins 55% while going for it wins 48%. What are the odds if they need a TD?
I strongly disagree. It was clearly a bad call that might have won but was by no means a sure thing.
I don’t know about the other posters who think it was a terrible call, but speaking just for myself I think the disagreement boils down to a fundamental difference in how we view football. I personally consider defense to be the absolute equal of offense, and special teams are a non-trivial aspect as well. If I had to put percentages on it, I’d say 40% offense, 40% defense and 20% special teams.
This basic philosophy is why I get offended by complaints about the overtime format. Many people feel that a team isn’t represented if the offense doesn’t get a chance. I say the defense is just as representative of your team as the offense is.
Going for it like Belichick did seems like part of the “my team is my offense” mentality that devalues defense in a way I hate. Rex Ryan claiming that the Jets outplayed Miami elevated offense to be synonymous with whole team, which is particularly repugnant when said by the head coach whose job it is to coach up the entire team. Changing overtime rules to give each offense a possession is saying that unless your offense gets a chance, your team didn’t get a chance. Which equates the team with the offense, which offends me.
I will never be convinced that offense is more important than defense, and as such I will never be convinced that abandoning your defense is a smart move. The fact that the NE punting unit had done such an outstanding job all game long makes it even less likely that I’ll ever think Belichick’s decision was remotely defensible.
Defense has been playing very good, punting has been great, can’t trust those guys because all my team is is my offense so go win it offense even though you are clearly struggling right now. It’s just patently stupid, IMO.
I live in Indianapolis.
What were you feeling when:
- The Patriots first lined up to go for it on fourth down
- Brady called his last time out
- The Patriots lined up to go for it the second (and final) time?
I was rooting for the Patriots simply because I don’t like Peyton’s cheese tactics. (Belichick is a big cheeser too, but Peyton’s worse.) When they first lined up, I was thinking “Noooo!” When they called a timeout I thought “Phew, they came to their senses.” When they lined up again I thought “NOOOOOOOOOO!!!”
EDIT: Just to clarify for those who don’t know me, I’m a NY fan. Diehard Giants, secondary Jets.
Ellis – why don’t do that utility and tell us exactly what you think the odds were?
Any truth to the rumour that when Gregg Easterbrook saw the Pats lined up to go for it on fourth down that he wrote “Game over” in his notebook and changed the channel?
Ooo, he’s a day early. Gimme gimme.
I think maybe we do view things differently. I consider defense to be just as improtant as offense. I value good defensive play as much as good offensive play, and I enjoy watching well-played defensive games as much as well-played offensive games. But I don’t see why anything we’ve been talking about has anything to do with abandoning your defense. Belichick thought he had a better chance to win by going for it. That’s it. He wasn’t abandoning his defense any more than punting would’ve been abandoning his offense.
Bruschi has an article about how this is a slap in the face to the defensive players. He makes them sound like a bunch of oversensitive 8 year olds who care more about some perceived insult than about winning the game. If they want more respect they should demonstrate they deserve it by not giving up three touchdowns in the fourth quarter.
My estimate for needing a TD (i.e. the actual situation) was that the Pats convert 55%, fail to convert but win 33.3%, and punt and win 60%. In that case, Punting wins 60% and Going For It wins 69.9%. You could tweak my numbers to be still reasonable and make the two options equally good, so any opinion that says it’s a pretty close decision seems just fine to me.
As for the rest, I hear you. That’s actually about where I figured you were coming from (btw, I don’t think **cricetus **is your brother on this; you have almost a moral objection, whereas he, IMO, just can’t quite wrap his head around the idea that what didn’t happen easily could have).
And I agree that defense is just as important as offense, and that going for it last night would *seem *like a repudiation of that idea because it’s taking a job that has traditionally belonged to the defense and giving it to the offense. But just because something is traditional doesn’t necessarily make it right. If defense is just as important as offense, then offense is just as important as defense, and sometimes you’re better off relying on your offense than your defense, even if it’s usually not done that way. Personally, I think last night was one of those times.
- Surprise.
- Happiness, because it shows they’re not sure what they’re doing and because they might need that TO.
- Still surprise. You basically never see this, so I didn’t have enough experience with the situation to have gut reaction beyond “Wow, they’re going for it.” Also, I did immediately guess that it was close enough, so I didn’t have an immediately negative reaction (unlike going for it if it was 4th & 15, which you also never see).
Cousin Sal should be equally entertaining.
Yes, he is also displeased.
But what’s important isn’t just that teams don’t defend the deep ball in goal line situations, but why they don’t. Teams in goal line situations don’t stop defending the long pass because it doesn’t matter, but rather because it can’t be done – there’s no downfield to throw to. The main reason that converting 4th downs becomes harder the closer you get to the goal line is that the field gets compressed, not because a TD is somehow a magical situation. In fact, I’m pretty sure that converting on any down gets harder the closer you get to the end zone. But in the situation last night, the field wasn’t compressed, so the defense can’t afford to ignore the deep ball. If your point is that the Patriots weren’t going to try the deep ball, then your beef is with the play-call after the decision to go for it was made, not the decision itself.
Manning had already thrown some wounded duck passes on the night. A longer field would have given more chances for an interception.
I’m having trouble replying to this is a meaningful way because the specific “job” you reference is a bit of a nebulous thing. What, exactly, is the “job” you refer to that is normally the defense’s but in this case was given to the offense?
You said you were rooting hard for the Colts, which I take to mean you weren’t a dispassionate observer running through EV scenarios. What was your gut feeling? The two extremes would be:
“Yeah, go for it so Indy can stop you and get the ball back in your own territory”
“You suck, that’s such cheese to pick up the easy 4th down and kneel it out.”
Since I was rooting against Indy, my gut reaction was “You fool! You’re going to choke this just like on 3rd down and hand the game to the Colts wrapped up in a nice bow.”
Huh – I was rooting for Indy, and my gut reaction was “Oh crap – there’s no way Brady and co. don’t convert this!” Maybe we’re just pessimists by nature 
Except for the fact that they did. Watch the replay. Nobody deep. Every DB playing about as tight as it is possible to play, most jamming the WRs. There’re playing it exactly as they’d play 4th-and-goal from the 2. This is not only correct, but probably predictable.
You are right that the Pats could have theoretically run a 20 yard fade pattern, which is out of the question on the goal line; but the Colts gave them that. If the Pats wanted to run a downfield pattern, they would have had a pretty good shot at going 72 yards. The Colts didn’t care, because 3 yards beat them just as much as 72, and so they played tight, and relied on their pass rush to help take away the 72. This is not only correct, but probably predictable.
I am quite surprised that people here care what Easterbrook and Simmons think.
No, it’s not why, it’s how. This situation was similar to goal line because the Colts could happily put 11 men in the box. Sure the corners would stick with their man if they went deep, but in this situation you would gladly leave your corners on an island instead of giving them safety help over the top. Your safeties are much better spent stuffing the run and covering short.
Playing your safeties up is what makes it harder to get short yardage, though it has a higher chance of giving up the deep ball. But that higher chance deep ball against 1 on 1 coverage still isn’t high enough to risk the game on.
I thought and continue to think it was the obvious correct decision.
The Colts score touchdowns a bit above 50% from inside the 20. This drive started at the 30. The red zone is the easiest part of the field to defend since there is less space to cover. Getting to the red zone is much easier as the defense is more worried about the big play than stopping first downs.
Mathematically, it was clearly the right decision. They probably convert, and even if they don’t they can stop the Colts. The only thing they lose out on is being able to stop the Colts before the Colts can get to the 30, which was highly unlikely.
heh, quite possible.
I’ve long held the belief that if you fail to get yards on 3rd down you have no business going for it on 4th because you just demonstrated your inability to convert.