On 3rd and short if you are looking at that as two down territory you should at least run the ball on 3rd down. With Indy pretty much blitzing the house their best chance of converting that was running a screen play.
The bottom line plainly stated. The Colts are undefeated but I wouldn't pick them over the Bengals, Steelers or even the Pats. Even if they get home-field advantage, the Colts will be very vulnerable in the playoffs with the injuries they've suffered.
word of advice, if you're going to disagree with someone pretend you understand the argument. you disagree with playing the odds and think there was obviously a 100% chance of these things playing out the way they did apparently. got it.
ahh yes, better to go with the long and glorious history of "playing it safe." that's never cost anybody a game. no one should take risks because sometimes they don't work. "here peyton, take this ball and shove it up our (&*& for the game-winning TD, please."
You are supporting Belicheck's decision to go for it, and comparing it to Pete Carroll's decision to go for it. That didn't just write itself.
i've seen suicide squeezes not work. should no one ever call a suicide squeeze? i've seen golfers go for the green in two and hit it in the water. should everyone lay up? i've seen people go for it on 4th down and not make it. should no one go for it on 4th down? people always second guess when calculated risks don't work because they just assume that obviously it wasn't going to work. if tom brady gets a 4th and 2 (not that hard) and peyton never touches the ball again, it's a good call. just because it's the tried and true thing to do in sports doesn't always mean it's right. doesn't mean it's wrong. but like i said, i'm guessing every colts fan wanted them to punt and just get the ball to peyton. having to stop brady for 2 yards probably looked a lot more daunting at the time. feel free to disagree all you want because you don't understand odds.
That is one of the worst coaching decisions I've ever seen. I could understand if it was 4th and inches. But 4th and 2? On your own 30??
perhaps so. i'm just talking about the 4th down call. it wasn't as black and white as some people would like to make it. and i'm a colts fan/patriots hater so i'm glad as hell it worked out this way. but i sure wanted them to punt. that was the path of least resistance.
I don't recall anyone called Mackovic anything but a genius for doing the exact same thing to win the B12 Title in 1996. No one suggested it was a dumb risk. And in that scenario, Nebraska only needed a field goal to tie, and they were already in field goal range.
Can you name one single time where this has happened? Better yet, can you name the time where the Pats did this (because you said earlier that they did this all the time). The Colts have been a jekyl and hyde team all year. Peyton Manning did throw a 4th quarter interception last week, and the threw another one this week. He could have easily thrown one had they made him use the whole length of the field. Instead they don't trust their defense, and they lose the game. I've seen the Patriots' defense win them plenty of games... I've seen it win them Super Bowls. I've never seen Belicheck NOT give his defense a chance to hold the game.
4th and 2 at your own 30 without a timeout to challenge the position. Not having a timeout is probably the reason why it was a bad call. You have to know that the defense is trying to stop you from going exactly 2 yards, and the offense is trying to get exactly 2 yards. So there's obviously going to be a good chance that the positioning of the ball is going to be very important, and therefore you must keep a timeout to challenge. Bad decision by Bellicheat.
when has converting a key 4th down ever worked? i'm guessing lots of times. Major already brought up the UT/nebraska 4th down call in the 1996 Big 12 Title game. that was from about the same spot on the field with even bigger implications. i'll let you look up all the other times that taking a risk based on the odds worked out.
i figured you'd have an excuse for that one handy. not sure how only needing a fg and them already being in fg range makes it even less risky. the pats still had to give up 30 yards. UT had to give up 0 yards to give up the lead.
This is the perfect way to look at it. If you asked Peyton and the Colts whether they'd prefer the Patriots to go for it or punt, they'd take the punt every time.
