Pats-Colts was...interesting. Not really sure how you can go for it there. Or how you run a route that close to the first down. Get a couple of yards of insurance at least.
What nobody will mention is that going for it there may have very well increased their chances of winning. It's completely against the book and it didn't work, so Belichick will get crushed by media/interwebz, but I'd like to see a statistical analysis by Football Outsiders or someone before executing him.
I loved that call. If they get 2 yards they win the game. Had they punted how much would an extra 40 yards or so have actually mattered? If it was a low-scoring defense-dominated game then yeah, I think punting is the right choice. But given the way the game had unfolded it was a better decision than a punt, even though it didn't work.
I wouldn't willingly give Peyton Manning the ball back with two minutes and three timeouts with the game on the line. I agree with Belichick's call, just a poor route.
There is a reason it is 'completely against the book.' The safe play, at that point, was to kick the ball away and force the Colts to march 60 or 70 yards in 2 minutes. The reason it was a bad decision is because it was essentially saying "I don't think my defense can stop Peyton." It showed a total lack of confidence in a defense that, for 3 quarters, hadn't been playing THAT poor of a game. In fact, it spent most of the game pretty well beating the Colts, and shutting down Dallas Clark, plus it had intercepted Manning twice already. He should've counted on his defense to make the stop. Oh, and to Erk33, the Colts only had 1 time out. They had to burn two to stop the clock, after 1st and 2nd down. Plus, the Pats went into that drive with 2 time outs left, and burned them both, one before the first play of the drive. They screwed themselves, because they could've gotten the last play reviewed if they'd have had a Time Out to do it. Belichick fucked himself in every way possible, and horribly managed that entire last offensive drive the Pats had. What would you rather have? Peyton with 1 Time Out and 70 yards to go, or Peyton with 1 time out and 30 yards to go... remembering that he has thrown two interceptions in this game already? Ultimately, it was a bad call, and it cost the Pats the game. Here is something interesting: in two weeks, we'll see the Pats taking on the Saints on a Monday Night. The Saints should remain undefeated going into that game (they play the Bucs next week, a game that they SHOULD completely dominate), so you can bet that they'll be playing up that angle like crazy. If the Saints win, and both they and the Colts remain undefeated in two weeks (The Colts have to go TO Baltimore, and then go TO Houston, so it'll be tough for them the next two weeks), you can bet that the perfect season talk is going to hit record levels. I can already see ESPN devoting hours upon hours to talking about the two undefeated teams trying to have perfect seasons, and the backlash being that everyone will learn to hate the Colts and Saints as much as they hate the Patriots. Well, almost. Fuck, I hate the Patriots.
So everything against the book is wrong? If percentages indicate that the Pats had a slightly higher chance of winning the game by going for it, doesn't it by definition become the "safer play?" The part about it saying that Belichick doesn't trust his defense... that's how YOU perceive it. Someone else can just as easily interpret it as Bill saying "I have a top 5 quarterback in the history of the world in his prime, I will take my chances on 4th and 2." I'm not saying it was the right call, but I'm saying that everyone automatically calling it a terrible call is a bit shortsighted. I fucking hate the Patriots and think Belichick is a monotone cheater, but I commend him for doing something nobody else would do. Even if it was "stupid."
Here's someone actually running the numbers. http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11 ... colts.html It's league baseline so it's not exactly the situation, but you win 79% of the time going for it, and just 70% punting. The reason it's not in the book is that only Belichick has the balls and the job security to go that far against the "safe play" in favor of the actually percentages.
On that fourth and two - do you guys really think Bellichek was 'not in control'? I hate Steven Levy, but he made a good point about Bellichek's postgame conference where he couldn't answer the question of why he went for it other than, "we thought we'd make it." Quite truthfully, I thought he'd make it too. I really did, they were moving the ball at will, what's two yards? And how fucking close was he? Six inches? Pulling for the Colts, I was praying they wouldn't go for it. It was a ballsy move, it just didn't pay off, but I can see why they thought they'd make it.
And that doesn't even weigh Brady's numbers against the Colts, With 350+yards and 3 TDs I like his chances of getting 2 yards a little more than the league average. Also, taking out one bad throw, these were the 2 drives for Manning in the 4th quarter before that play: 5 plays, 79 yards, touchdown. 2:04 6 plays, 79 yards, touchdown. 1:49 Everyone is saying that Belichick showed lack of confidence in the defense, but can you blame him?
That call was like something Andy Reid would do. In fact I'm pretty sure I watched him do almost the exact same thing on a 3rd & 20 yesterday. We can debate all day long whether it made more sense to go for it or punt it, but for fuck's sake at least run a route that gets you the first down if you complete the pass!
I agree. While I'm not surprised by the call, the clock mismanagement (no timeouts to challenge the spot) and Faulk's mental mistake of not getting to the marker are things you almost never see from a Patriots team.
I'm not completely against going for it there, but just a couple things to note. They are not including 1 timeout and 2 minutes time pressure in their analysis (with the colts starting from the 34). I'm not sure how much that would lower their percentage, but it definitely hurts the colts chances of scoring. Secondly, getting the first down doesn't completely end the game. The pats can run it down to about 35 seconds, meaning the colts would still have a slight chance. Albeit, the odds of scoring there are very low, but considering what happened in the bengals/broncos game and vikings/49ers game the possibility is still there. Oh, and one other thing I'm skeptical of: How often have teams had exactly 2 minutes left at the 30 needing a TD? And how far back does this analysis go? Edit: And even if you want to defend Belichick for his call there, you certainly can't defend him for wasting those two timeouts.
A lot of people seem to be making this argument that the route wasn't beyond the marker. That is just incorrect. Faulk did run the route past the marker, but when he caught the ball he bobbled it and didn't gain control until he was back behind the marker. It could be argued that he should have been at least another yard beyond the marker, but frankly, the route wasn't that bad, it was Faulk's hands that cost the Pats the game. Also, it was mentioned that everyone will learn to hate the Colts and Saints if they continue their undefeated streaks, just like the Pats a few years ago. While I will get sick of the talk, I don't see those teams getting the hate that the Pats had. Neither has been caught cheating, neither runs up the score, neither has a coach that acts like a classless dickhead to everyone, and neither is supported by Massholes. The only people I see earning hate will be the '72 Dolphins for running their mouths some more, and coming across as bitter old men who resent the accomplishments of the current players.
Via Football Outsiders http://belichick-decision.heroku.com/ Enter your opinion of the odds of getting the 4th and 2 conversion, Colts TD from their own 30 and of Colts TD from the Pats 30 and it'll run the numbers for you. Cute joke with the D box too.
Bellichick didn't get it because he's not Paul Johnson. What I'm really curious about is if the Pats figured the drive to be four down territory, why didn't they run it on third down? It would've forced the Colts to burn another timeout and it would've had a good chance of setting up a fourth and infinitely shorter.
Well, they were hoping to not have to go for it on fourth. Plus, the colts wouldn't have burned a timeout. They could just wait until the two minute warning.
Can anybody answer me why Eric Man-gina still has a job? He ran both his best receivers out of town, his offense is woefully underperforming and everybody in Cleveland hates him. I really feel for the Browns fans out there just like I felt empathy for all the Jets fans who watched him mismanage just about everything. There are certain coaches who seem to get jobs over and over without ever proving themselves to be even somewhat effective at the job they're paid to do. Eric Mangina is the epitome of that sort of coach in today's NFL. No one person has done more damage to the Browns since Art Modell moved them to Baltimore.
I just came back from the gym, was the crowd this scarce to begin with or are they just walking out in disgust? The empty seats in that stadium could rival a Blue Jays game in mid July.
That was disgust, but I was really hoping that protest worked and the place would be empty at kickoff. Still, it's pretty sad when you are within 2 scores of the lead and half of your crowd bails on you before the 4th quarter. I guess scoring 5 touchdowns all season will do that. Holy shit that offense is terrible.