Out of Context, Why Belichick made the right call on 4th and 2

by ColtsEvangelist on Nov 16, 2009 4:40 PM EST Comment 8 comments

First of all, let's revisit the situation one last time: 4th and 2 on the Patriot's 28 yard line, 2:23 to play, leading the Colts by six points. They choose to try and convert, throwing a short out to first down machine, Kevin Faulk. It fails, the rest is history. That's what we see as fans when casually observing, but let's consider the decision in a parallel context.

Instead of being up by a touchdown, let's imaging the patriots having just scored a touchdown bringing themselves within an extra point of the Colts at the end of the game. The classic question is, "Do you kick the extra point and force overtime or do you go for two ending the game right then?" Ever since the infamous Hail Mary Boise State pulled against Oklahoma three years ago, the chic answer has become the latter, with coaches desperate to prove their onions. Especially since coaches usually have a built-in excuse if they fail, "I was playing to win." No one questions that. As players, you have one chance from three yards away to put the ball in the endzone. Succeed? Game over, you win. Fail? Game over, they win. It's the ultimate all or nothing.

Belichick and the Patriots found themselves in the exact same situation, but with BETTER ODDS! If they go for it on forth down and convert, then that's the same as getting the two point conversion, since they would have been able to virtually run out the clock. If they punt, it's the same as kicking the extra point and forcing overtime. If they fail, then instead of the game being over, they're defense still has a chance to stop Peyton and Colts from scoring. While the odds of doing so are bleak, they're infinitely better than their chance of winning if they fail the two-point conversion, which are zero.

So here's my question. If you have the second best quarterback in football, the best red zone receiver in Randy Moss, the best slot receiver in Wes Welker, an incredible receiving back in Kevin Faulk, and an offensive line that had shut down the best pass rusher in the game for four quarters, do you go for two? Or do you kick the extra point giving the best quarterback, who has made great halftime adjustments and created unstoppable momentum, a chance to drive down the field and win in overtime? I think the choice is obvious. Belichick has onions, I will give him that.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Stampede Blue's writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'm with you, though we're apparently in the minority

I thought it was the right call, too. Of course, as he said, Tony Dungy would have punted on 4th and 2, but who didn’t see that coming? Tony’s a conservative coach; Belichick is not. This was a great call: you’ve got a brilliant quarterback, the protection’s been good (not great—thanks to Mathis) and you have (a) the best big receiver maybe ever and (b) the best slot receiver in the game now. Oh, and throw in an excellent pass-catching veteran back. You have the weapons. Plus you still force the Colts to go 30 yards and score a touchdown. Even if the D is gassed, they’re playing on a short field, with the attendant advantage to the defenders of covering more targets in less space. Belichick has huge brass balls; I firmly believe he’ll do this again if he gets the chance.

Here’s how, in retropsect, I tested whether this was the right call for the Pats. Did you honestly think on 3rd and 2, if you knew it was two-down territory, that the Pats couldn’t get two yards? Can you say, as you were watching, that you were certain—even just reasonably so—that the Colts would stop them? I have to say I was damn sure the Pats could get 2, hell, maybe 22, as disappointing as that would have been. So, that’s why it was so pleasing for Powers to defense the 3rd down pass to Welker and for Bullitt to blow up Faulk. It took stepping up and making plays, and the Colts did. But that doesn’t detract from Belichick’s decision to win it right there. That Brady and Faulk couldn’t execute (my, how good that phrased looks) is no reason to say it was unsound thinking.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.

by Coltsfan58 on Nov 16, 2009 5:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wholeheartedly agree

The primary source I go to to tell me that his was the right call was my blood pressure. I was nervous on 3rd-and-2, and downright scared on 4th-and-2. I didn’t think lightning would strike twice… glad it did.

How can you not love a team that does this?

by LovinBlue on Nov 16, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I said from the beginning

that I thought it was the right call. Football decisions are usually about gambling and taking the lowest risk of failure. I think the lowest risk for the Pats was to try to close out the game and get the first down. It was a fluke that they didn’t get it. Not to take anything away from the great defensive play by Bullitt, but 90% of the time they’re going to get that first down. So, I believe it was definitely the right call, and apparently a lot of other people think that too.

by Ayrshire on Nov 17, 2009 8:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are right! Plus,

Peyton would have covered that 60-70 yards had they punted anyway. The Patriot D was gassed and we had the momentum!

by SupermanWearsBobSander'sPJs on Nov 16, 2009 5:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely

The wrong play call here….and I’ll explain…

I don’t have a problem with what Belichump did actually, but when you almost get a pick on a 3rd and 2 play, you do not give Manning a short field. You punt the ball.

Here’s the thing, if you are even considering it to be 2 down territory with 2 minutes to go, you do not play the outside. You either run the ball on 3rd down, increasing your chances of a QB sneak or something to that extent, or you throw the ball to your moneymaker WR. That would be one Randy Moss.

Moss got 1 pass in the 4th quarter that was relevant. This was the TD catch. Otherwise, he disappeared. How do you NOT go to Moss on 3rd or 4th down?

At the very least, why did you not attempt a run? Running the ball could have killed the clock more forcing a different set of events possibly, even gaining a first down.

Belichump made the right call on 4th down, but he made the wrong decision on both the playcalling and the decisions leading up to the 4th down.

by DevilsReject on Nov 16, 2009 5:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

(a) Welker was HIGHLY likely to get open, since he had all night;
(b) Obviously the Colts couldn’t stop Moss all night, so why not look for him;
© Once the Colts brought 6, Brady must have instantly known he had single coverage and only needed to stay upright long enough to find someone
(d) They should have run on 3rd; when they didn’t make it, they should have run on 4th. And that’s with those two excellent receivers.

I think Faulk might have hurried and run a shallower route; maybe he caught 6 coming too. Veterans don’t usually fail to get past the marker.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.

by Coltsfan58 on Nov 16, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs