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

[frdbtr]

I guess Belichek was trying to lose by 1 rather than win by 6. It's the exact same argument when BYU lost to Stanford in 2003. BYU was winning, went for an ill-advised 4th down late in the game. They didn't make it. Crowton later said I was trying to win by 9 not 2. I understand the logic of both decisions to go for it. If you make the yard or two needed the game is over. You'd like to think your offense can get the necessary 36 or 72 inches. Both were bad decisions. Understandable, but poor.

You are remembering incorrectly. It was not a 4th down play in that BYU loss, it was a first down pass when BYU could have just run the ball in order to run out the clock. Beck threw an interception and Stanford scored soon after to win the game.

[bostoncoug]

I guess Belichek was trying to lose by 1 rather than win by 6. It's the exact same argument when BYU lost to Stanford in 2003. BYU was winning, went for an ill-advised 4th down late in the game. They didn't make it. Crowton later said I was trying to win by 9 not 2. I understand the logic of both decisions to go for it. If you make the yard or two needed the game is over. You'd like to think your offense can get the necessary 36 or 72 inches. Both were bad decisions. Understandable, but poor.

You are remembering incorrectly. It was not a 4th down play in that BYU loss, it was a first down pass when BYU could have just run the ball in order to run out the clock. Beck threw an interception and Stanford scored soon after to win the game.

Sooooo, your saying he misremembered?

[Y 4 Ever]

I'm probably more aggressively minded than most football fans. Every time there's a 4th down, I want the team to go for it. Always. There's just something about the "all or nothing" aspect of 4th down that I like. I'd even be happy if they eliminated the punt from college football (at least, right up until BYU had a 4th and 18 from their own ten....oh, wait)

Anyway, that being said, I thought that was the STUPIDEST decision in the history of football (or close to it). There's about 1 1/2 minutes left in the game. And you give the ball back to the Colts at your own 30, instead of punting it away and putting them back at about their own 25-30.

He must have had ZERO confidence in his D's ability to stop the Colts.

Couldn't believe what I was seeing. Not that I didn't love it - 4th down and all, and I like to watch Hoodie lose - but that was dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

[Ygridiron4ever]

I don't think he was dissing the defense. If the defense could stop them with 70 yards to go, why shouldn't they be able to stop them with 30? Do you think that if New England had punted the ball and Indy had to go 70 yards to score, the Patriots could play 'bend-don't-break' defense? I personally hate that stance. Stopping the offense means stopping them, no matter what the field position is.

Maybe the Patriots all wanted to make a statement that Brady is better than Mannig, and they all thought that was the best way to show it.

As far as the dumbest call in the history of football; it has to be the concept of taking a knee on the one yard line when you could easily walk in and score. Now that was stupid!

[SpiffCoug]

I guess Belichek was trying to lose by 1 rather than win by 6. It's the exact same argument when BYU lost to Stanford in 2003. BYU was winning, went for an ill-advised 4th down late in the game. They didn't make it. Crowton later said I was trying to win by 9 not 2. I understand the logic of both decisions to go for it. If you make the yard or two needed the game is over. You'd like to think your offense can get the necessary 36 or 72 inches. Both were bad decisions. Understandable, but poor.

You are remembering incorrectly. It was not a 4th down play in that BYU loss, it was a first down pass when BYU could have just run the ball in order to run out the clock. Beck threw an interception and Stanford scored soon after to win the game.

Sooooo, your saying he misremembered?

Sorry, I stand corrected on it not being a 4th down. Still, I think the analogy holds. Crowton said he was trying to win by 9 and not 2. Belicheck was thinking (correctly) that the game was over if they convert. He was asking himself the wrong question. The question he should have been asking was, "Which scenario does my defense stand a better chance of accomplishing? Stopping Indy and Manning from their own 25 or 30 with two minutes and two timeouts needing a touchdown or stopping Indy and Manning from our 28 with two minutes and two timeouts?"

The answer to that question is the former. Gutsy call to go for it on 4th? Definitely. Understandable thinking you could convert and end the game? Absolutely. Was the correct call? Definitively not.

[mormonrasta]

I realize there isn't much of a BYU connection here, besides Austin's contributions to the win by the Colts over the Pats last night, but the other thread about the game prompted me to request your collective opinion:

What do you think of the call at the end of the game by Belichick? Everybody and their chicken are second-guessing the guy, but you know what? I think it was the right decision on his part.

The media keeps saying he was stupid for risking giving Manning a 30 yard field to win the game, but the way I see it, if Belichick was sold on going for it, it meant he was expecting Manning to be able to knock off 70 yards in two minutes anyway. Agreed, it's MORE likely the Pats defense could find a way to stop him in 70 yards than 30, but apparently that wasn't more likely ENOUGH to get Belichick to change his mind. If I were him, I'd have banked on my team getting 2 yards in one play for the guaranteed win, than keeping the best quarterback in the game from getting into the endzone from 70 yards out in 2 minutes. Has little to do with trust or distrust of a defense. It has everything to do with what you can control and what you can't. Sucks for him his team didn't make it, but he'd have been a hero if it'd worked, and nobody'd have thought another thing of it.

In my opinion, Belichick's STUPID call of the game wasn't the 4th and 2, it was the two timeouts BEFORE it. After looking at the replay of the non-forward progress call, I can't help but think a booth replay wouldn't have given the guy a better spot. Ref said because of the bobble he didn't HAVE posession til he hit the ground, and while he didn't have it AT first contact with his hands, he did GAIN it BEFORE he was pushed that far back. Who knows where they'd have spotted it taking exactly when he gained posession of the ball before accounting for forward progress. There's NO excuse for Belichick pissing away his only option for instant replay on the biggest play of the game, since it was outside the 2 minute warning and wouldn't automatically be reviewed. THAT, in my opinion is what lost the game for him, not the 4th and 2 call.

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.

I agree with what you are saying.

I liked the call. New England's D was out of gas and Manning runs the 2nd best 2 minute drill in the history of the NFL behind Joe Montana. New England's defense wasn't going to stop Indy from 30 yards or 80 yards. Meanwhile, New England's offense was moving the ball quite well against Indy. A first down clinches the game. Why not put it in the hands of arguably the best player in the game today?

[Schmoe]

I don't think he was dissing the defense. If the defense could stop them with 70 yards to go, why shouldn't they be able to stop them with 30?

No disrespect intended, but do you REALLY mean this? REALLY? If the answer is yes, then I question your knowledge of anything football and logic in general...

[GolfDiveNCougs]

I agree with what you are saying.

Okay, now you're starting to scare me!

[dank80]

I don't care how great Tom Brady is, it was the wrong choice. Even if the odds of getting two yards and a first down are 80-90%, the ramifications of not succeeding make the call too risky.

Belichick is such an arrogant coach. His bravodo got the best of him.

[Ygridiron4ever]

No disrespect intended, but do you REALLY mean this? REALLY? If the answer is yes, then I question your knowledge of anything football and logic in general...

No disrespect taken. I certainly don't claim to be an expert. And I honestly could not believe what I was watching last night when the Pats lined-up to go for it. I immediately considered all the ramifications of making it, and of coming up short.

Yes, in theory it should take more time to go 70 yards than 30 - and time was a commodity in that instance as well.

I'm just trying to communicate this concept:
All day long the radio and TV sports shows have been talking about how Belichick was communicating his lack of trust in the defense. And I wonder if he wasn't actually doing just the opposite. Is it possible that if he had the time to confer with the defensive coaches, he would have said: "hey guys, we got a big decision to make and a big chance to make a statement. I would like to show these colts that we can't be stopped. I don't just want to win, but I want to show them that with our backs against the wall we can shove it down their throat! "Now, here's the deal. I want to go for it on 4th down and silence this crowd, and send a message. IF (and I don't think it will) this fails, then I am trusting you guys to step up to the plate and not let them get a touchdown!"?

His dialogue might have continued: "and by the way, if we punt this ball now and give it over to them, it is not enough to simply keep them from scoring. I don't want them TO GET A SINGLE FIRST DOWN!" "And if you can do that on their 30, then you ought to be able to do it on ours!"

I know the odds, I know that 70 is greater than 30. I know that 98 times out of 100 every single coach at every level (little league to pros) is going to punt the ball away. And I really don't like the Pats (any much of anything from the Northeast).

I'm just sayin......