you're the one whose argument boils down to taking calculated risks having no place in sports and that playing it safe always wins the day. since that's pretty foolish on the surface and you've already been provided with one example and i want to go to sleep for work tomorrow, i don't think i'll do a lot of research proving you more wrong.
Which makes it that much worse. In the "it doesn't work" scenario, the Colts still had to go 30 yards (which they did, easily, wasting tons of time in the process). Nebraska had to go 0 to tie, 30 to win.
If i'm a championship-team calibur defense, I'd rather make a team go 70+ yards for a TD. The reason why its different is that a FG is a far easier thing for an offense to obtain, despite field position. A TD is not that easy, unless you give a team epic field position. You make the team drive the field. If you lose, you lose.... but you have to give your defense a shot.
That's actually a good point. I know if that was a Texans game I was watching and the other team decided to go for it in that situation, I'd be pissing myself.
Where did I say "never take a risk"? I said that I'd give a chance for my defense to hold a team that hadn't exactly been juggernaut all day. Hell, two drives before that Peyton throws a WTF interception.
which is exactly what every UT fan was thinking in the rose bowl. just give the ball back to vince, i don't care if it's at the 1 yard line, we're going to score. but i was scared to death they'd plow over us for 2 yards. oh, and Nick, i've got another one. the rams/pats super bowl. everyone thought the pats should just kneel the ball and go to OT instead of risking a turnover or quick punt. the pats play the aggressor, drive down the field, and win the super bowl. guess they should've just taken their chances with the coin flip. playing it safe FTW!
If the Pats punt, and the Colts only need a FG, they would have only had to go ~30-40 yards for a FG (which as you said, they did with ease). They woud have had to go ~ 70 yards for a TD. You don't see the difference in that?
But the Patriots defense is NOT a "championship caliber defense". Their *offense* is the championship caliber part of the team. The defense gave up 30 yards in something like 3 plays and had just given up two 80 yard 2-minute TD drives to the Colts in the 4th quarter. What makes you think they could have stopped them on a longer field? As f4p pointed out, the odds of winning were higher for the Pats by going for it than not. Here are the two options: Go for it: You can win if you get it OR if you stop them on a 30 yard field. Punt: Other team could get a big run back but if not, you get a a 70 yard field. If you assign odds to everything, you'll find that the "go for it" gives you a better chance to win.
Most of the time on 4th down & short, the team on defense wants the offense to punt the ball in a situation like that. That doesn't mean going for it wasn't dumb. You can argue it and rationalize all you want (maybe just for the sake of argument), but that was an incredibly dumb decision by Belichik. If this was a clueless doofus like Romeo Crennel, Charlie Weiss or an arrogant chump like Rex Ryan, I wonder if this debate would be happening. But since it's Bill Belichik he gets more benefit of the doubt than another coach. Even great coaches make stupid decisions, which is what happened tonight. I couldn't believe it when the ball was snapped.
WTF? The Pats were not winning that game at the time. It was tied, and all they needed was a FG to win. Taking a chance on a coin flip is not "playing it safe." If you think the scenario you just cited is remotely even close to being the same situation, you're really grasping at air...
Exactly my thoughts. Any other coach (besides a select few) make this same call and there is no debate. Belicheck makes the call and is labeled a genius? Yeah that makes sense.
You can assign odds to Peyton throwing another WTF interception, which he had already thrown 2 of in the second half. You can assign odds to any of their inexperinced recievers not being able to bring in the long pass. In the end, you can assign odds to the Colts converting a 30 yard drive for a TD, vs. converting a 70 yard drive for a TD. Suddenly, if you really assign odds to "everything"... it doesn't look as genius.
But the difference is on the other side. With the Pats, if they don't make it, the Colts still have to go 30 yards. So the added gain from punting is 40 yards - same as the Nebraska situation. Nebraska and Indy both have to gain an additional 40 yards if you punt. If you don't make it, however, New England still wins if they can stop the Colts from driving 30 yards. Texas automatically is in overtime at best if they stop Nebraska (or loses at worst). Texas HAD to make it. New England didn't - they still had a second chance to win. So the risk was even higher for Texas.
Agreed - and whatever the difference in those odds, it's probably lower than the likelihood of getting the 4th and 2.
I've seen more failed 3rd or 4th and shorts (even from elite offenses) than I have seen 70 yard game winning TD drives. Regardless, you let your defense have a shot to win that game. Hell, if this was the Texans paltry defense, I'd still have wanted Kubiak to punt that ball. If he would have done something like this, he would have been crucified.
I see where Francis4prez is coming from but If the Colts end up scoring after the Pats had to punt I guarantee nobody is saying Belichik made a dumb decision.
Absolutely - the reason for that is they feel that gives them the best chance to win the game. So that means that the other option (going for it) gives the defensive team less of a chance to win the game. Just because it wasn't the conservative, conventional wisdom decision doesn't mean it was the wrong decision.
