You have the same risk of failure on defense. That's not a reason to pick letting your defense win it instead of your offense. Disagree here. You ask the Colts, and they'd rather just have the ball in Peyton's hands, no matter the distance.
a class act all the way. And I'm happy to say that the game definitely lived up to the hype. I love defensive, grind it out football, so this was probably one of the most entertaining games this season. and it didn't hurt that it was a Bengals win over the Steelers re: the colts-pats game I wonder how NE's defense feels knowing that their head coach has absolutely ZERO confidence in them.
Right - but if your ultimate goal is to have the best % chance to win the game, then the decision favors going for it. You may not win either way, but if you play this game over and over again from that point, the Patriots will win more often by going for it than they would not going for it. All you can do as a coach is give your team the best odds for winning.
i agree they wouldn't. everyone is always fine with the conventional call. it's probably the better way to keep your job (assuming you don't have belichick-like job security). that doesn't mean the odds (and thus your best chance of winning) say you should go conventional. obviously none of us have exact odds on any of these situations, but the odds of stopping brady on 4th and 2 can't be better than keeping manning from driving 70 yards with a decent amount of time left and a D that may be gassed.
This might warrant it's own thread: <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FTxHuUGG_2c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FTxHuUGG_2c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
Great points made on both sides. I guess it would just depend on how aggressive you are on whether you agree with it or not. If this is the playoffs do you think Belichik goes for it or punts it?
Why are you and F4P giving into this mindset that the Colts were going to score there no matter what the situation, or scenario. That an epic 70-80 yard game winning TD drive was an absolute given? It wasn't. The Colts offense is stoppable/beatable. It was stoppable/beatable THIS VERY GAME! The second you're willing to give them a chance to win the game from a paltry 30 yards vs. a 70 yard field, you're taking a huge risk. Its not just the "risk of failure" for the defense... you also have to take into account the "risk of success" for the Colts offense on a longer field, which is far less. They'd prefer the 30 yard field over the 70 yard field.
The play started with 2:08 left. The clock was at 2 after the play was over, but since the play started before the two minute warning, it couldn't be reviewed by the booth. For anyone who missed it, here's the play below. Don't concentrate on the bobble -- there's no doubt he bobbled it. Concentrate on when he appears to have possession after the bobble, and is he touching the 30? It was a touchback, so the first-down measurement is very simple -- did it touch the 30? imo, he clearly secures it at about the 30-and-a-half, as he's being shoved back. <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PsU-jkmYXyM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PsU-jkmYXyM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
I'm not remotely saying that. In fact, I specifically asked for percentage odds of each. I'll ask again - what do you think the odds are of each: 1. Odds of getting the 4th down conversation 2. Odds of Colts driving 30 yards 3. Odds of Colts driving 70 yards Of course they would. That's not the option they get to choose from, though. They have to choose from: would you rather have... (1) New England punt and give us 2 minutes to go 70 yards and win (2) New England give Tom Brady a chance to get 2 yards and end the game, or if he fails, give us 2 minutes and 30 yards to win They'll take #1 every single time, no questions asked.
If he goes for it in the playoffs and if I'm the owner he's fired, I don't care how many super bowl rings he have.
4th and 2's are not "high percentage" conversions for any offense... no matter how great they are. I already mentioned how you virtually take away the Pats "greatest weapons" in a 4th and 2 situation, as they're not gonna be looking downfield for Moss or Welker.
He very clearly didn't have complete control of the ball until he was on the wrong side of the 30. Belicheat fail.
Pause it at 58 seconds in the above clip. You can clear as day see the bobble, then suddenly you can't -- because it's secured. Look where he's at.
In addition, one aspect that isn't disputable at all - he hits the ground, down by contact, with 2:04 left. See above. If he is short of the first down, which he was ruled, that play is dead right there, and the Pats would've had the two minute warning to stop the clock. Yet the clock operator conveniently let it go down to 2:00, and the officials conveniently did not notice.
1. 4th & 2. 50-60%. If it was 4th and inches and they had the option to run, I would put the percentage higher. But since the Pats were deep in their own territory, the chances of this being a short pass were 100%, the defense knew it and a lot of things could go wrong. This was not your average 4th and short. 2. 80-90%. I put it this high because of the circumstances. You can't ignore the effect of the 4th down failure. I felt certain the Colts would get the TD. 3. 30-40%. This is what I wanted and expected to see. My gut feeling was the Colts would come up short.
First of all, #2 is directly related to #1 failing. It really is between only #1 and #3, as I'll explain later. Second of all, I never thought that 4th down conversion was easy, by any stretch. 4th and inches is one thing. 4th and 2? Far riskier. Considering, that, options 1 and 3 are very very close. 4th and 2's aren't routinely converted by any teams, no matter what the personnel. Also, the Pats aren't a big "short yardage" team. Their ultimate strength is throwing downfield, which you take away from them. Finally, #3 puts a burden of pressure on the Colts offense, something you take away from them if they don't convert it. Option #2 is not just the Colts driving 30 yards. Its the Colts getting all the momentum in the world after their defense just made a huge play for them. Its also got the component of the Pats defense being demoralized. Taking that into account, #2 becomes the most likely scenario to happen (if given the opportunity). If you're the Patriots, there's no margin for error if you don't get that 4th down.... which you HAVE to consider when making this decision. And again, the 4th down was not a "slam dunk"-like play that they just f'd up.... it was a difficult conversion, all-around. If they punt, their defense has a much better shot of stopping the Colts. Also, with a longer field, the Colts offense has a much better chance of stopping themseleves.
