What do you think of the Pats' call on 4th and 2?

Dang gridiron! After reading that, I'M psyched up! If coaching was just coming up with a good peptalk, I'd be asking to see your Superbowl rings! That was AWESOME! I'm hearing Rocky music in my head and ready to HIT something! Seriously!

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
Dang gridiron! After reading that, I'M psyched up! If coaching was just coming up with a good peptalk, I'd be asking to see your Superbowl rings! That was AWESOME! I'm hearing Rocky music in my head and ready to HIT something! Seriously!

Very clever! The funny thing is, I agree with your original post and think its kind of funny that people are so critical of the choice - especially people (like me) who really have no right to.



I'm just trying to look at Belichick's decision from every possible angle. Clearly I don't have any Superbowl rings, but Belichick does, and he must have thought something along those lines.



Do you really think his decision was based solely on his fear that his defense sucked? Do you think that faith in the D had some factor as well?The same defense that practically shut Manning and the Colts down for more than half the game? It looked like a blowout in the first half because the Pats D looked pretty darn good.



And finally, when the the defensive players heard the decision, do you think they hung their heads and said "coach doesn't trust us?" or did they say: "hell ya, go for it! If you need us to step up if the offense stumbles, we're ready!"



Sorry, its just the psychologist in me. Hope I didn't hit another nerve.

If you make the 4th and 2 then all week, you are a gutsy genius. Fortunately for me (since I hate the patiots), he gets to be the moron who went for it on 4th and 2 when he should have punted and made manning drive the whole field. :D

I'm not going to quote everything, because it would be really long, but I agree with Ygridiron that Coach BiliCHEAT wasn't intending to dis his defense. However, I think that when you go away from the traditional conventions and wisdom of the game, you inadvertently send messages. I would feel bad if I were on the Pat's D, even if the O did convert the two yards, because that's not what you do when you're barely out of your own redzone. Anyway, it turned out to be the wrong call, hindsight is 20-20, but he probably wouldn't have to make that decision in the first place if he had coached a little better throughout the rest of the game.

Gridiron, I fear I made the tone of my last comment too ambiguous, and you took it as sarcasm. I'm really sorry. I guess when I default to writing in a humorous style, the folks on here tend not to expect anything else. I was being serious, and very sincere. I thought that was an AWESOME pep-talk you wrote. You're quite good at it! I'm sorry my tone made you think I was mocking you. And thanks for agreeing with me. Makes a guy feel good to have others in his corner when he sticks his neck out in support of the less popular opinion.



As for the defense, I agree with you. While I'm sure many of them DID take it as disrespect, well, that sucks, but I doubt Belichick took the time to CARE what feelings he'd hurt. He did what he thought was his best chance at winning. That's one thing that makes him one of the best coaches in the game.



And you know, to any defender who DID happen to get all butt-hurt, well, they shoulda thought of that when they let the Colts march the length of the field in two minutes to bring it within six! You're worried about your coach trusting you??? Then why the hell do you think HE would think you can stop them the second time in the exact same scenario (length of the field in two minutes) if you were CLEARLY unable to do it the first???



I agree with you gridiron, a good defense in that situation says to the offense,"Win it if you can, we can handle ourselves from the our own 30 even if you can't." Lucky for me, since I dislike the Patriots, I can enjoy the fact that the offense AND the defense, AND (in terms of the timeout blunder, NOT the 4th down playcall,) the coaching staff, each proved they're impotent. Ha!

ESPN.com's Gregg Easterbrook (The Tuesday Morning Quarterback) is probably the biggest proponent of going for it on 4th down that I've ever heard of, and here are some parts from today's articleI found interesting:

In 2007, AccuScore did thousands of computer simulations of the punt-or-go-for-it question for TMQ. One finding was that between your own 21-yard line and your own 35, you should go for it on fourth-and-2 or less. In test after test, doing this improved a team's chance of victory -- though, of course, there is no guarantee... All the coach can do is make a decision that improves the team's odds. Belichick made such a decision.

...

A core reason coaches order short-yardage punts is that if a fourth-down try fails, they will be criticized -- whereas, if the ball is punted and then the defense surrenders a score, players get the criticism.