he gave his offense a chance, how is it so different? he's got one of the best qb's of all-time, who is as clutch as anyone ever and he needs 2 yards. this ain't brady quinn and the browns offense here. he gives tom brady a chance to get 2 yards, and even in the 30-40% chance it fails, his D still has to give up 30 yards. so you're taking a 30-40% chance your D has to hold them to less than 30 yards or a 100% chance you have to hold them to less than 70 yards. considering the quality of the qb/offense on the other side of the ball, i'm not seeing how the 2nd option is any more palatable. would i think he was crazy for doing the conventional thing and punting? of course not. but going on the offensive wasn't a bad call. it seems like in either scenario, the punt leaves your opponent 40 yards further from their desired score than not getting the conversion. in the "you don't convert" scenario, the colts still needed 30 yards and had to at least move the ball whereas nebraska was already in range.
But that's not the comparison. The comparison is the difference in likelihood of a 30yd vs 70yd drive. What do you think the likelihood of each would be?
If they had punted, and the Colts still had scored a 70 yard TD, nobody would be saying that Belicheck made the "wrong" decision by punting, and not going for it. Just because something has a chance of being "genius" if its right... doesn't mean it was the right decision. See Reggie Bush's lateral in the Rose Bowl.
Yes, there are a lot of other factors, but forget about what coaches traditionally do. Forget traditionally conservative NFL thinking. Pretend you're the New England coach, and the NFL gives you two options to decide the game. 1) Tom Brady and your world-class offense need to pick up 2 yards, after torching the Colts' defense for 400+ yards in the game and 375 through the air 2) Your defense needs to stop Peyton Manning from scoring a TD with 2 minutes and a timeout, something he's already done on two occasions in the same quarter Which is the higher percentage option? I think it's 1, and I don't think it's close. By the way, Faulk had the first down, and that definitely wasn't close. All the ball had to do was touch the 30. Look where he has it after the bobble.
I could see if you had the guy from Oakland throwing the ball on the other side then yea go for it. But you have one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game and you give him that short of a field. I think that was the worse call I've ever seen.
But the 40 yards is the same in either case. Nebraska would have had to go 40 instead of 0. Colts would have had to go 70 instead of 30. So the benefit of punting is the same. The risk of not punting is more. Texas gives up the tying field goal. New England still has 30 yards to go. There's no question Texas' decision had more risk to it. Especially if you add the fact that Nebraska was purely a running team, so going 40 yards is even more difficult in an end-of-game situation.
I missed the end of the game, but if this happened under 2:00, was it reviewed by the booth? And if not, why not?
I don't want coaches making decisions so they don't get criticized after the fact. I want them making the smart decision. And yet, in this scenario, the odds were in Belicheck's favor. That's what made it a smart decision, not that it was gutsy.
Yup like I said too much of a risk to me. I thought maybe they were trying to draw them offsides at first.
What do you believe are the odds of each of the following (same question for Nick): 1. Odds of getting the 4th down conversation 2. Odds of Colts driving 30 yards 3. Odds of Colts driving 70 yards
i don't think anyone is throwing the genius label around (at least i'm not). i'm just saying the odds were on his side. guys like romeo crennel have chumps like brady quinn playing qb. belichick has a proven clutch guy/super bowl winner playing qb for him. if my choice is let tom brady try to come through where he's come through many times before or hope my defense stops being shredded, i take option A. i hate belichick but i respect playing the odds even when unconventional, and relying on the actual strength of the team, tom brady, and not something that isn't the strength of the team, stopping peyton manning.
Major, you know I respect your opinions, but on this one, I think you are way off. If this was Dom Capers during his last season as Texans coach, he probably would have been fired after the game. I understand the points you are trying to make, but your conclusion is wrong. The great coach made an unbelievably idiotic decision and only his sterling record will save him from being roasted even more than he is. If Eric Mangini did this, they would probably chop his head off in effigy. But Belichik could afford to blow this one. Once they failed to get the first down, I think everybody knew the Colts would score, including the Pats defense. If the Pats had punted, the whole dynamic would have been different. Think about it: A 70-yard drive vs. a 30-yard drive after a failed, risky 4th down. It wasn't just a matter of 40 yards. IMO, the odds of scoring on the 30-yard drive after the failure were about 80-90%. If the Pats had punted, they dynamics would have been different. I still can't believe this happened.
Depends - if the goal is to avoid criticism, then yes, it was not a smart decision. If the goal is to give you team the best likelihood of winning the game, it was absolutely the smart decision.
Same question to you - what do you the think the odds are for each of the following: 1. Odds of getting the 4th down conversation 2. Odds of Colts driving 30 yards 3. Odds of Colts driving 70 yards From there, we can figure out the math of which is the better decision.
Its not just a 30 yard drive though. As soon as you don't make that 4th down, you give a team all sorts of extra hope, momentum, and belief. At the same time, you basically are pissing all over your own defense telling them that you didn't have much faith in them at all. After a punt, the defense simply has to go out there and do their job... something they were able to do throughout the game tonight, until they had it taken away from them. Because of the risk of not getting it. Plain and simple. Also, I'm sure the Colts defense would rather get a chance to defend a 4th and 2, when the Pats aren't considering going long to Moss or Welker.
I will agree that the odds of them getting that 4th down conversation was greater than the rest of what you mentioned but I would be thinking what if I didn't get it. Then the odds of the Colts driving 30 yards are great. Guess that is why I'm not a coach though.
really? i feel like i've certainly seen many game winning TD drives. and a disproportionate percentage of them from teams with hall of fame quarterbacks. similarly, a disproportionate percentage of the converted 3rd/4th and shorts have probably come from teams with hall of fame quarterbacks. i don't think anyone would have any real confidence the texans would pull off a pressure packed 4th and 2. nothing in their history says they could do it with any sort of regularity. everything about the last decade of the pats says they could. all the things that could go wrong on a 70 yd drive could still go wrong on a 30 yd drive, just with fewer plays for them to go wrong obviously. nothing was stopping the pats from forcing a few imcompletions or getting a sack and setting up a 4th and long and then a game-sealing incompletion. the fact the colts needed 2 plays to get to the 1 doesn't seem to give much reason to think the 70 yd drive would have been so unlikely.
