I like your logic, though I disagree with it because it suggests that field position is irrelevant to the game of football.
EDIT: I just realized that the “bit above 50%” is the Colts redzone percentage.
I just mean that it’s 4th down, and you can either turn the game over to your defense, or rely on your offense for what will be the single biggest play of the game. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes you’ll want to go with your defense, and sometimes you’ll want go with your offense.
It really was *mostly *neutral. If it had been 4th & 15, it would have been, “Wow! They’re out of their minds; that’s great!” As it was, it was new enough and (intuitively) close enough that the bulk of my emotional response was, “Wow! That’s interesting.”
If anything, though, it made me more nervous. I was looking forward to Manning’s upcoming drive, and the notion that the Patriots could keep the ball out of his hands and win it right there was unsettling. But that was a weak reaction, unlike most instances when the team I’m rooting against goes for it and I *really *wish they were punting.
As a Pats fan, I’m ambivalent about the call. I know what the stats say, but intangibles like being in the last 3 minutes of the game, etc. make it not nearly as black and white as some would like to paint it. After all, it is a sporting event, played by people, not an blackboard exercise in statistics.
In the end, I don’t think it made much difference. As folks have pointed out, the Pats D was worn out and even if they had punted, I’m pretty confident the Colts would have scored anyway.
There are a few other things that could generate more outrage than that play.
You’re confusing caring with being entertained by.
Ha, you just reminded me of the Superbowl when no doubt both of us were having that exact “Wow! They’re out of their minds; that’s great!” reaction when Belichick went for it on 4th and 13 from within field goal range (+31) halfway through the third quarter.
But that’s when they’re playing three-down football. How much of a difference does fourth down make?
That just about the only time I can remember when I saw the other team’s offense stay on the field and my gut reaction wasn’t “Damn!” but, rather, “Um, heheh, okaaay.”
Ah. 
Yes, you’re right.
To steal another Simmons gag I think it’s high time people started making fun of Jim Caldwell. NFL Network in their coverage of the Indy-Colts game showed opposing sideline reactions when Manning completed the winning TD pass. Belichick was stressed, arms crossed, rubbing his face and obviously invested in the action as he watched the game slip away. On the Colts sideline the players simultaneously erupt into celebration, leaping and running onto the field and going nuts, coaches and staff included. In the middle of it all is Caldwell, standing there like a statue without any reaction or motion of any kind. No smile. Not saying a word to anyone. Not directing his FG-PAT unit onto field. Not talking into his headset. I’m not even sure he’s looking at the proper endzone. The guy is a mannequin or a robot, maybe he’s dead like Bernie.
I was at the bar last night watching the game a repeating the Caldwell isn’t alive and Manning is coaching the team jokes to my friends and the gimmick took on a life of it’s own every time they showed him on camera. We never once saw him talk or move in any way. We could have started a drinking game around it. I mean, you’d think the guy would at least want to relay a message from the booth or bark some encouragement at some point. It’s really amazing.
Good question.
-
How many of their touchdowns did they already use 4 downs. Occasionally going for it is already included in their percentage.
-
How many of their non-touchdowns were field goals, as opposed to a turnover. The ones that ended in field goals are the only ones they could have improved.
-
How many of their 4th down situations that they didn’t attempt were 4th and short.
I’m guessing their chances would go up to 65-70% in this scenario. 75% is not believable, because that would mean every single drive in the red zone ended in at least a field goal, and every 4th down was short.
Also, the extra 10 yards to the 30 would decrease their chances. I’ll say 65%.
So, 50-55% chance the Patriots convert, 35% chance they stop the Colts even if they don’t make it.
Definitely seems like the right move to me.
All the numbers being posited, with the requisite disclaimers, show how it is not a simple exercise in statistics, despite what some would have us believe.
In the end analysis, if Belichik had thought his defense had a good chance of stopping the Colts from driving 70+ yards, he probably would have punted the ball. His decision to go for it demonstrates a strong lack of confidence in his team’s ability to defend against a short-time drive. The only way to know if he was corrrect would be if all of a sudden teams in the same situation for the next few years start doing the same thing, then we can compare the stats. After the failure of the Pats last night, that’s highly unlikely to happen. 
I think you may be missing a crucial point here: this particular iteration of the New England Patriots has a much better offense than defense.
I hate the Patriots, and if I wasn’t a Buccaneers fan I’d be a Colts fan, even now that Dungy has left.
I don’t care what Easterbrook and Simmons think - I mention Easterbrook simply because he is a vocal proponent of going for it (and in general, I think he is correct).
As reported in this NY Times blog, the decision is a virtual coin flip according to this computer simulation.
I am curious to know what you mean by this.
I think you have too great an attachment to your emotional ideas of how things should be, rather than what they are.
I don’t think anyone here advocating for the call is thinking in terms of viewing offense more important than defense or anything like that. I think they’re simply viewing the reality that the Pats offense is better than the Pats defense, especially with the Pats defense having 2 injured starting pass rushers in the game and being gassed. Also a factor is that they were lining up against arguably the guy you’d most want in the league with 2 minutes left to go down by a touchdown.
To make it more extreme to demonstrate what’s going on here, imagine the team in question had the best offense and history and worst defense in history - and their opponent had a similar lineup, with a bad defense and a great offense. It’s not a grand rejection of the value of a defensive unit to say that in this particular case it’s better to acknowledge the reality that your offense is way more capable in this instance than your defense.
The other issue is… you say that failing to convert on 3rd down is evidence that you should not try to go for it on fourth down, since you just proved you failed at it. Wouldn’t it make some sense to apply the same logic to the Pats defense? They let Manning score a touchdown off a long drive in under two minutes twice in the last quarter, including just a few minutes before the decision in question. They’d proven they’d fail to stop him, and they were worse off than before, since if they were gassed they had very little rest time since then. Wouldn’t this push the decision towards leaving the chance in the hands of your offense?
Btw, ESPN just showed the result of a poll that asked “Who would’ve won the game if the Pats had punted?” and 53% of respondents said “the Colts” - which is an interesting result. I thought the vast majority would say the Pats. So at least a lot of people acknowledge that the Colts probably score there if they get the ball back.
Wow, that Brady Quinn, he’s a…a…mammal.
At some point, the Browns really just needed to start throwing the ball downfield and crossing their fingers. It’s not like they were accomplishing anything throwing quick outs anyway.
Quinn has trouble keeping it in the field of play throwing it downfield. NFL Europe wasn’t this bad.
Wow, and Cribbs was hurt on the useless last-gasp play. Things actually can get worse.
Bengals v Browns prediction: 52-48 Bengals in a shootout between Palmer and Brett Ratliff.
Write it down.