9 months ago
shake n bake
30 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
If it was the right call
then can the D get some credit for getting a game-winning stop? That would be Melvin Bullitt making the big play.
Thanks Shake
That’s about what I thought. I love the media bashing BB and not the team (or praising the Colts!). As Brady said in the post game presser, if they got 7 more inches, it becomes a great call, no?
Going for it on 4th down is the Pats’ bread and butter; I never had a doubt they’d go for it.
Way to go Melvin.
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
i don't disagree with the decision, but the execution
if they are going for it on 4th, i think they need to go run – run on 3rd and 4th. It would have forced the colts to use their last time out, and probably have had a better chance of success.
In conclusion:
1) Colts win?
2) Belichick questioned by the media?
3) Belichick caught on film looking like he wanted the hemlock?
4) Patriots Nation pissing and moaning?
I support the call 100%
Never doubt Peyton Manning, he’ll make you look silly
Im a douchebag, an asshole, and I'm rarely right.
Except that we stuffed the run
The only way they even got close was by passing. Even three runs and a punt would still have given the Colts the ball with two minutes remaining. Slightly better percentage there but do you really want to bet against Peyton in that situation, even with no timeouts left?
Their best chance to win was to get the first down by any means necessary, and they damn near pulled it off.
Like I said below, I think the only true mistake was burning all timeouts and leaving no room to challenge. That’s the part where BB out-coached himself for once.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
You're going to let one run dictate how you play the rest of the game?
Their running had been successful more times than not. They had 2 plays to get 2 yards, I think I would have taken my chances.
Never doubt Peyton Manning, he’ll make you look silly
Im a douchebag, an asshole, and I'm rarely right.
Play call was fine
and they were an official’s spot away from converting.
That said, there wouldn’t have been any issue with simply floating one 5-6 yards down field, high and towards the sideline, and letting Randy Moss just go get it in traffic. Sadly and annoyingly, that’s a high percentage play too.
I think the call was awesome, it terrified me at the time, and I love that it’s exposing all kinds of idiots in the media today. Even some articulate people are showing their inability to understand numbers. Colin Cowherd, for instance, who even had the stats shown to him but suffered a massive logic fail in his decision to ignore them. He could’ve simply acted like Golic and said “I understand it, but I still wouldn’t have done it,” citing emotion, crowd, momentum, etc. Instead he made all kinds of stupid irrelevant and invalid analogies and ended up sounding like a moron.
Not as much of a moron as Dilfer or Deion though. And to think, I usually like and sort of agree with Dilfer.
Bruschi takes the cake though, with his moronic contention that Bill didn’t give his D a chance to win the game. Uh, Tedi – he let them go out there with 2 minutes left and a 6 point lead. They had plenty of opportunities to win it. Isn’t that more of a show of confidence than punting? Your 2003 powerful defense would’ve licked their chops at the chance to close that one out with a big stand there. All your dumbass argument did was reinforce the idea that Manning was winning the battles at that point and that a punt would’ve been pointless.
I thought the spot was correct?
The pattern was too short for that situation, at that point the route, the throw, and the catch all have to be perfect. I said in the quick recap thread that if I’m a Pats fan and I’m going for it and I’m throwing it, and I see them blitzing like that, I’d rather them max protect Brady and just send Welker and Moss out, because you know they are winning those matchups. So yea, protect Brady, Moss on an out route, probably game.
Never doubt Peyton Manning, he’ll make you look silly
Im a douchebag, an asshole, and I'm rarely right.
I find the SportsNation Poll about this to be humerous.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls?pCat=46&sCat=819
Even considering the sample space for the later polls is about 1/3rd of the first, the fans are contradicting themselves. 60 percent say there was no excuse for him to make that call on 4th, and yet 52 percent in the later poll say the colts in anyways. If “they’re going to win anyways” is a generally held consensus, why would Bill not run an offensive play on 4th and short? That would be the only way that the colts do not win, according to the second poll.
I’m totally confused by the lack of logic behind the poll voting.
I think this may be a situation where stats and odds don't tell the whole story
I don’t care what anyone says, this was a bad decision. Even if they had gotten the 4th down conversion, it would have been a bad decision.
"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister
Yeah, I agree
Even if it worked, it would have been stupid. You’re saying “I’m gonna hand this game away if this gamble doesn’t pay off”. There was literally no way the Colts weren’t gonna score if they don’t make the 4th down. Everybody knew it, the Pats D knew it, the Colts O knew it…it gave the game away completely. You make Peyton go 70 yards, and sure, he might do it anyway, but you have way more chances to pick him off or screw him up. It’s not a percentages thing, it’s a momentum thing, and when you’re up 6 points you don’t give the opposing offense all the momentum and set them inside your 30. It’s just fucking stupid. It wasn’t gutsy, it wasn’t ballsy, it was flat-out dumb.
Very well said...
Especially the last sentence!!
"If me and King Kong went into an alley, only one of us would come out. And it wouldn't be the monkey."
"I don't really trust a sane person."
"I never met a man I didn't want to fight." The one and only Lyle Alzado
By the way
I ain’t complaining. But Hoodie wasn’t playing 11th-dimensional chess. He made a shit call, and he knew it.
Colts already had momentum
Everyone already knew that Peyton and the O could definitely go 70 yards with two minutes and a time out. More chances to pick him off also means more chances to give up the big play.
The Colts had just proven twice that they could score on quick long drives. Driving only 30 yards is a different game. In that situation you want to burn as much time as possible. Peyton gives you more time to get set, he’s not running the hurry-up. The clock was almost gone after, what, five plays? It’s not unreasonable to think that your defense can hang on for five or six plays.
And of course this ignores the fact that if you can pick up just two yards on that play, you win the game and Peyton gets no chance to beat you at all. The reward was worth the risk.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
It was the right call
And I wish more coaches would make it.
Going for it was playing to win. Punting was playing to not lose.
I agree that punting looked like the “safe” play but it still puts the ball back in Peyton’s hands with two minutes to work. Picking up two yards was riskier but it was a chance to win the game right then and there. BB knew the odds were good so he went for the kill rather than just sitting back and praying that Peyton would choke on the last drive of a huge game (uh huh, sure).
I wish more coaches would grab those decisive moments rather than just trying to hold on to a crumbling lead as long as possible. Tip my hat to the man, even if it bit him this time.
Where BB really fucked up was in burning all of his timeouts. He wouldn’t have won a challenge but he should have been ready to try anyway. He knew he wouldn’t get a free booth review outside of two minutes.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
I agree there needs to be more...
coaches who play to win..but no way was that the right call! There is no guarantee that if NE punted Manning and the Colts would score a TD…none!! If the Colts would have been in that situation…most would be calling for Caldwell’s head!! No way that is the right call!! He allowed Manning to actually beat him without even being on the field at the time!!
Belicheat better check his pants…he must have crapped them thinking about Manning…
"If me and King Kong went into an alley, only one of us would come out. And it wouldn't be the monkey."
"I don't really trust a sane person."
"I never met a man I didn't want to fight." The one and only Lyle Alzado
That was the right call. The question is what is gained from making manning go an extra 30 yards. The defense is not going to blitz/press in that situation, they will be in prevent to not give up the big play. I find it highly unlikely that the defense wouldn’t give up a few catches to clark or collie in the middle of the field. That would take maybe 45 seconds, then the colts are back at the 30 with the same likelihood of scoring.
I would say that the odds of the pats picking up a first down there are >>> then manning not being able to get his team to the 30 with plenty of time to score.
Exactly
Realistically, the only thing a punt does in that situation is make the Colts drain 30 seconds and a timeout on a few throws over the middle into the soft spots in the zone. Then they’re right back in the same spot, but don’t waste time on purpose.
So say the time spent driving cancels out the time they ended up wasting to kill clock. So basically it’s still a Colts at the 30 situation either way.
Sure, you can say there’s more room for error by making them run more plays, and more chances for a takeaway or stop. This is absolutely true. But the chances of that are smaller than the chances of converting that 4th down, which were VERY HIGH.
When they snapped that ball I thought the game was over. I was certain they’d convert. It took an awesome play by Bullitt, a quick bobble on the catch, and a fortunate spot (it could still easily have been spotted on the line) just to stop them. This wasn’t a 50-50 or even 65-35 play. The Pats were likely 80% to convert there.
I love the call. But I also love that it didn’t work this time.
The Call
I think that going for it was the only way they were going to win that game, so I agree with the call. As soon as we stopped them on 3rd and 2 I knew we were going to win the game. I was more concerned with stopping them on 4th down than I was with Manning driving for the win no matter where he had to start from.
I still don’t understand how the rule affects the spot of the ball though. Since he bobbled the ball at first, does the rule explicitly state that he has no more forward progress and the ball is spotted where he lands? It looked like after he bobbled the ball, he then caught the ball and got one foot down but was driven backwards by Bullitt before he could get the second foot down. If it was ruled that he got the second foot down after the catch, would he be spotted at that point or still be spotted where he landed? If that second foot had come down, I think they would have gotten the first down.
Also, I think that Belichick’s biggest mistake was with the timeouts because a review of that play would have likely resulted in a re-spotting of the ball and a possible first down.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
by AceOfSpades on Nov 16, 2009 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
The pats D looked really bad int hte 4th quarter
The Colts put together 3 quick touchdown drives in 2:04, 1:49 and 1:47. when the Colts took over after the infamous 4th and 2 at the New England 29 with two minutes remaining; they needed only four plays, with Reggie Wayne touchdown pass with 13 seconds to go.
As a coach would you say lets see if they could do that again? or you play to win with an offense that gave you 400+ yards and converts 4th downs 69% of the time? pick your poison, but i think it was the right call as the pats 4th quarter Defense was getting a beating.
It was absolutely the right call
Imagine this different scenario:
Your team is up by 6 with 1:00 left.
You have the ball at midfield.
It’s 2nd-and-1.
What is the “right decision” here? Run the ball up the middle! Get 1 yard, win the game!
Now, suppose your RB fumbles, and they recover and run it back for a TD. You lose.
Questions:
1. Was “running up the middle” the wrong decision?
2. Should teams not run the ball up the middle when they only need 1 yard to ice the game?
3. Should a coach be criticized for calling a run play on 2nd-and-1, up by 6 points? In hindsight, it was “the wrong call”, right? I mean, he fumbled and lost the game.
Of course not. Statistically, running the ball is a safe play, and is likely to result in at least a yard. Even if they stuff the run, it’s only 2nd down and you have another opportunity for a play.
Statistically, a team will convert 60% of their 4th-and-2’s.
So, what’s worse for the Pats:
A. a 100% chance that Peyton Manning gets the ball back needing to go 70 yards for a TD
OR
B. a 60% chance to keep the ball away from Manning AND a 40% chance that Peyton Manning has to go only 29 yards for a TD.
The more you respect Peyton Manning, the more valuable that 60% chance you keep the ball away from Manning by converting that 4th down becomes.
Anything can happen on any given play. But without knowing the future, knowing only the odds in each situation, in last night’s case: the 60% chance of conversion on 4th-and-2, the 53% vs 30% chance of Manning getting a TD whether the Pats fail to convert vs punt, going for it was the right decision.
Now, in hindsight, if Belichik had a magical time machine, would he have called a different play? Of course. He also would have triple-covered David Tyree and have his fourth SB ring.
I’m a Lions fan, but the Colts are the good team I want to see win, and because I need somebody to cheer for during the playoffs. I think Manning is a better QB than Brady. And I hope, for the Colts sake, that if they are ever up by 6, with 2:00 left, at 4th-and-2 from their own 28, I hope they go for it. Because that decision gives them a better chance to win (79% vs 70%).
I would probably go for it if I was going against Manning. Against any other QB, including Brady, I would punt and make him take it 80 or 90 yards to beat me.
9-0 feels oh so good. Bring on the Ravens....
by AceOfSpades on Nov 16, 2009 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
Those stats are useless
The pats have didnt have a 60% chance of making it, it was just that 60% of attempts before had made it, that doesnt mean all teams in the future have a 60% chance.
If the Colts lose 5% of our matches total, that doesnt mean if we go against the Pats we have a 95% chance of winning, it means very very little. The same here with this stat of 60%
No, the stats are relevant for the 4th down conversion
There have been hundreds or thousands of 4th-down conversion attempts to base the decision on. That is a large enough sample set to predict that any given 4th down has a 60% chance of being converted.
Maybe there’s a margin of error in the hundredths of a percent—I don’t know.
But statistically, if your team is up by six, at the 28-yard line, with just over 2:00 left, you are better off going for it.
It’s like having four aces in poker. Do you go all in? Maybe the guy across from you has a straight flush. But the odds are that four aces will win against the majority of hands.
"Do you go all-in?"
Well that depends. If you are playing with an aggressive player, it might be a better move to make a smaller bet and let him hang himself by raising you, for example. It all depends on the situation.
/feels like annoying people
Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.
Man, I need a life...
Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: I turn 19 on Tuesday, November 17. I accept all gifts. If any of you can figure out a way for me not to have a test Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday on the week of my birthday, that would be the best present ever.
It was mathematically the right call to go for it
but they should have run it. The same problem happened to the Colts in San Diego on that 3rd and 2.
They should have run it. On 3rd or 4th and 2 or less, running it has a higher conversion rate than passing it. Football Outsiders puts it at: “Expand that to all third or fourth
downs with 1 or 2 yards to go, and the run is successful
40 percent more often.”
The chances of them passing for the 2 yards has to be less than the chances that Manning drives 70 yards for aTD.
EVH+DLR=BFFr........ God I Hope So!!
Dunno
Averages can only account for so much – the Patriots passing game is much stronger than their running game. If I had to make the call, I’d be throwing it too – I’d rather trust Brady than Maroney or Faulk on the ground, especially as we’d be stopping their run much better in the second half from memory.
I’d say Manning was a much higher chance than the historical NFL average from short field (53%) which makes the WP lower for the failed 4th and 2 – but of course Manning also has a much higher chance from 75 or so yards, and Brady probably has a higher chance than the average of converting 4th and two.
Having seen the stats, I think Belicheck made the right call. It just didn’t work.
by eltharion_doa on Nov 16, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
