WTF was Belicheat thinking?

[johnk5150]

I have no opinion of Belichick onewayorantther,but Tuesday Morning QB has me convince if you're playing %s, it was absolutely the right thing to do.

"Tuesday Morning Quarterback has been stumping for years on the notion that head coaches should go for it more often on fourth down, even if the ball is in their own territory. On Sunday night in Indianapolis, Bill Belichick, with his team leading 34-28 just before the two-minute warning, went for it on fourth-and-2 from his own 28. As I'm guessing you heard, the try failed. Had it worked, Belichick might have floated off the field and directly into the Hall of Fame in Canton. OK, he would have had to float through an exit -- the stadium's sliding roof was closed. Though the try failed, Belichick did exactly the right thing. Who expected to read those words in Tuesday Morning Quarterback?

Indianapolis had only one timeout, so a first down would have all but won the game. On the night, the Patriots had averaged 6.6 yards per play, so the chance of gaining 2 yards was auspicious. As Tim Graham of ESPN.com has noted, since Tom Brady became New England's starting quarterback, the Patriots have converted 76 percent of their fourth-and-short attempts. A 3-in-4 chance to win is a pretty inviting opportunity. (Here, Graham uses incredibly scientifically advanced reasoning to calculate that going for it improved the Patriots' "win probability.") More importantly, had New England punted, Indianapolis' fast-paced offense would have had the ball in decent field position, with two minutes to win the game. Belichick had just seen Indianapolis, on its previous possession, go 79 yards for a touchdown in 1:40, without using a timeout. Belichick had seen the Colts' adjustments to the Patriots' defensive tactics, and he knew the adjustments were working. The situation might have reminded Belichick of the Colts and Pats' 2007 playoff meeting, in which the Colts came back and won by moving the ball pretty much at will in the fourth quarter.

Which seems like a better gamble -- 2 yards to win the game, or two minutes to shut down Peyton Manning when the Colts are hot? 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. No coach can control what happens on the field. Had New England punted, Indianapolis might have run the kick back for a touchdown, for instance. All the coach can do is make a decision that improves the team's odds. Belichick made such a decision.


Bill Belichick went for it on fourth-and-2 from his own 28 with the lead and two minutes remaining at Indianapolis. Was this:
The right call, it just didn't work
The worst call since George Lazenby was cast as James Bond
The worst call since Sardinia declared war on Austria in 1848
The final revenge of the football gods for Spygate

Belichick also knew the Flying Elvii defense was exhausted, sucking air from defending against the Colts' no-huddle attack. Playing defense is more tiring than playing offense, and the Pats were tired. On the previous Indianapolis series, the Colts' offensive line had been shoving the New England front seven around. Even second-year middle linebacker Jerod Mayo, who ought to be bursting with energy, looked exhausted and was jogging during plays rather than sprinting.

Belichick correctly calculated that if he punted, the hot Indianapolis offense was likely to beat his tired defense -- while if he went for the first down, New England was likely to win. The decision just didn't work out. Lots of reasonable-seeming decisions don't work out -- it seemed reasonable at the time for United Artists to back "Heaven's Gate." (For those who have forgotten, this mega-flop put the studio out of business, though the United Artists name recently was revived.) And bear in mind, though the fourth-down try failed, Belichick might still profit down the road. By being hyper-aggressive, he challenged his young Patriots offense to show it can finish games. TMQ contends that a team can be better off going for the first down and failing -- which challenges the team -- than shrugging and punting.

See more on Patriots vs. Colts below; for now, let the recriminations begin! "Belichick's Blunder" read the main headline on NFL.com on Monday. Former Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi, now an ESPN analyst, denounced Bill Belichick for "failing to show faith in his defense." So it's wrong to show faith in your offense? "Belichick's Arrogant Decision" was the headline of Michael Wilbon's column in The Washington Post, which essentially scolded Belichick for trying to win outright rather than playing to avoid losing. Part of being treated by the media as great -- whether in sports, politics or culture -- is taking pains to shift blame to others. Belichick didn't shift the blame -- what's the matter with him? 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."

[NeverSurrender]

That's the kind of shit you just do in Madden football.

Never. I will always ount in that situation on madden.

Belicheat was afraid of Manning. And Jake, Manning is not unstoppable. He doesn't win every 2 minute drill he starts.Most, but not all. The old Pats would've punted it, but Bill knows his D ain't what it once was.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

I have no opinion of Belichick onewayorantther,but Tuesday Morning QB has me convince if you're playing %s, it was absolutely the right thing to do.

"Tuesday Morning Quarterback has been stumping for years on the notion that head coaches should go for it more often on fourth down, even if the ball is in their own territory. On Sunday night in Indianapolis, Bill Belichick, with his team leading 34-28 just before the two-minute warning, went for it on fourth-and-2 from his own 28. As I'm guessing you heard, the try failed. Had it worked, Belichick might have floated off the field and directly into the Hall of Fame in Canton. OK, he would have had to float through an exit -- the stadium's sliding roof was closed. Though the try failed, Belichick did exactly the right thing. Who expected to read those words in Tuesday Morning Quarterback?

Indianapolis had only one timeout, so a first down would have all but won the game. On the night, the Patriots had averaged 6.6 yards per play, so the chance of gaining 2 yards was auspicious. As Tim Graham of ESPN.com has noted, since Tom Brady became New England's starting quarterback, the Patriots have converted 76 percent of their fourth-and-short attempts. A 3-in-4 chance to win is a pretty inviting opportunity. (Here, Graham uses incredibly scientifically advanced reasoning to calculate that going for it improved the Patriots' "win probability.") More importantly, had New England punted, Indianapolis' fast-paced offense would have had the ball in decent field position, with two minutes to win the game. Belichick had just seen Indianapolis, on its previous possession, go 79 yards for a touchdown in 1:40, without using a timeout. Belichick had seen the Colts' adjustments to the Patriots' defensive tactics, and he knew the adjustments were working. The situation might have reminded Belichick of the Colts and Pats' 2007 playoff meeting, in which the Colts came back and won by moving the ball pretty much at will in the fourth quarter.

Which seems like a better gamble -- 2 yards to win the game, or two minutes to shut down Peyton Manning when the Colts are hot? 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. No coach can control what happens on the field. Had New England punted, Indianapolis might have run the kick back for a touchdown, for instance. All the coach can do is make a decision that improves the team's odds. Belichick made such a decision.


Bill Belichick went for it on fourth-and-2 from his own 28 with the lead and two minutes remaining at Indianapolis. Was this:
The right call, it just didn't work
The worst call since George Lazenby was cast as James Bond
The worst call since Sardinia declared war on Austria in 1848
The final revenge of the football gods for Spygate

Belichick also knew the Flying Elvii defense was exhausted, sucking air from defending against the Colts' no-huddle attack. Playing defense is more tiring than playing offense, and the Pats were tired. On the previous Indianapolis series, the Colts' offensive line had been shoving the New England front seven around. Even second-year middle linebacker Jerod Mayo, who ought to be bursting with energy, looked exhausted and was jogging during plays rather than sprinting.

Belichick correctly calculated that if he punted, the hot Indianapolis offense was likely to beat his tired defense -- while if he went for the first down, New England was likely to win. The decision just didn't work out. Lots of reasonable-seeming decisions don't work out -- it seemed reasonable at the time for United Artists to back "Heaven's Gate." (For those who have forgotten, this mega-flop put the studio out of business, though the United Artists name recently was revived.) And bear in mind, though the fourth-down try failed, Belichick might still profit down the road. By being hyper-aggressive, he challenged his young Patriots offense to show it can finish games. TMQ contends that a team can be better off going for the first down and failing -- which challenges the team -- than shrugging and punting.

See more on Patriots vs. Colts below; for now, let the recriminations begin! "Belichick's Blunder" read the main headline on NFL.com on Monday. Former Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi, now an ESPN analyst, denounced Bill Belichick for "failing to show faith in his defense." So it's wrong to show faith in your offense? "Belichick's Arrogant Decision" was the headline of Michael Wilbon's column in The Washington Post, which essentially scolded Belichick for trying to win outright rather than playing to avoid losing. Part of being treated by the media as great -- whether in sports, politics or culture -- is taking pains to shift blame to others. Belichick didn't shift the blame -- what's the matter with him? 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."

I don't recall Tom Landry, Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, or any of the other great coaches ever going for it in that situation... so therefore I can only come to the conclusion that it was not the best way to play the percentages. It was way too high risk/high reward.

[johnk5150]

I don't recall Tom Landry, Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, or any of the other great coaches ever going for it in that situation... so therefore I can only come to the conclusion that it was not the best way to play the percentages. It was way too high risk/high reward.

You don't recall it because it's much easier to kick the ball away and if they lose it's easy to blame the players. I have no opinion of the the Patriots one way or another, but it takes stones to make a decision like that and take the blame. I think Belichik is on the strong side of arrogant, but I respect that move.

[thejuggernaut]

I don't recall Tom Landry, Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, or any of the other great coaches ever going for it in that situation... so therefore I can only come to the conclusion that it was not the best way to play the percentages. It was way too high risk/high reward.

You don't recall it because it's much easier to kick the ball away and if they lose it's easy to blame the players. I have no opinion of the the Patriots one way or another, but it takes stones to make a decision like that and take the blame. I think Belichik is on the strong side of arrogant, but I respect that move.

Funny because I remember plenty of blown leads by the Marino era Dolphins because Shula wouldn't run the fucking ball in the second half with a big lead.

[makaveli]

I left early

[johnk5150]

After reading the Sports Guy's Friday column I changed my mind. It was a dumb call.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... cks/091120

[thejuggernaut]

There are certain coaches that can make those calls and not get flogged for it. Les Miles is another one...reason being, 80% of the time it works. They take chances and most of the time because it's the WRONGEST possible thing to do, it lulls the opponent into thinking there's not chance. I hate the Pats to and there could not have been a game played that I gave less of a shit about. But 9 times out of 10, Belachick makes that call, he'll get the yards.

Les Miles got away with it for one year.

He has used up his currency.

He is now looking an awful lot like the new Larry Coker.

There's a strong chance he'll be turfed within by 2012.