Bill Belichick is a moron...

[mldardy]

It wasn't as stupid as it will be made out to be, but it was certainly arrogant. What I like about it is that you win the game right away, Indy has to score a TD, and Manning looked hard to stop on the previous drive.

What's bad about it is pretty obvious. Short field, you lose if they score.

One thing I would have done different: If I knew I were going to go for it on fourth down I would have run the ball on third down.

It was stupid all the way around, however you look at it. I don't care if Manning looked hard to stop. I would take my chances with him driving about 70-80 yards to score a TD then 30 yards any day of the week.

 

[jimmy40]

I don't think the Pats are too scared to come back to Indy in the playoffs.

 

[hendog]

No, he gets a pass because hes has multiple rings.

Did anyone else see his bodyguard throw a NFL camera man to the ground?

I did but I'm sure nothing will become of it.

 

[JD_KaPow]

It was stupid all the way around, however you look at it. I don't care if Manning looked hard to stop. I would take my chances with him driving about 70-80 yards to score a TD then 30 yards any day of the week.

But that's not the calculation. It's the chance of stopping Manning from driving 70-80 yards vs. the chance of EITHER making the 1st down (very high) OR stopping Manning from 30 yards out. I think the odds favor the call he made.

 

[The30YardSlant]

I can't disagree with you at all. I still respect him as the game's greatest coach, but that was idiotic.

You do that against a Jason Campbell (shut up Wade, don't even think it), not a Peyton Manning.

I've seen teams do it in college, but that is a different game. An NFL defense should be given the opportunity to stop a team from going 60-80 yards in 2 minutes

 

[JD_KaPow]

I can't disagree with you at all. I still respect him as the game's greatest coach, but that was idiotic.

You do that against a Jason Campbell (shut up Wade, don't even think it), not a Peyton Manning.

I don't get that at all - I'd love to make Campbell drive 70 yards for a TD with 2 minutes left. I hate giving the ball to Manning with 2 minutes left, and I'll do anything I can to keep the ball out of his hands.

 

[kmd24]

It was stupid all the way around, however you look at it. I don't care if Manning looked hard to stop. I would take my chances with him driving about 70-80 yards to score a TD then 30 yards any day of the week.

Why?

Here are some rough numbers. Suppose that Indy is 80% to score from the NE 29, but only 30% to score from their 30. Then New England only has to convert on 4th down 62.5% of the time to make it a break-even decision.

And that ignores the possibility that Indy could score quickly from the 29 and give NE a chance to win with a FG.

Bottom line, it was probably a bad decision, but it wasn't a terrible one.

 

[yimyammer]

Why?

Here are some rough numbers. Suppose that Indy is 80% to score from the NE 29, but only 30% to score from their 30. Then New England only has to convert on 4th down 62.5% of the time to make it a break-even decision.

And that ignores the possibility that Indy could score quickly and give NE a chance to win with a FG.

Bottom line, it was probably a bad decision, but it wasn't a terrible one.

I can tell you play poker

 

[mldardy]

But that's not the calculation. It's the chance of stopping Manning from driving 70-80 yards vs. the chance of EITHER making the 1st down (very high) OR stopping Manning from 30 yards out. I think the odds favor the call he made.

I just wouldn't take that chance. You have to give your defense a chance to make a stop. Doing that you are putting your defense in a serious hole.

 

[VietCowboy]

Why?

Here are some rough numbers. Suppose that Indy is 80% to score from the NE 29, but only 30% to score from their 30. Then New England only has to convert on 4th down 62.5% of the time to make it a break-even decision.

And that ignores the possibility that Indy could score quickly from the 29 and give NE a chance to win with a FG.

Bottom line, it was probably a bad decision, but it wasn't a terrible one.

You need to reduce it based on home field - Indy was at home. I didn't watch the end of the game, so I don't know how the O's and D's of both teams were playing, but, from watching the replay, I'm not sure he didn't get the first down.

 

[Hostile]

I don't get that at all - I'd love to make Campbell drive 70 yards for a TD with 2 minutes left. I hate giving the ball to Manning with 2 minutes left, and I'll do anything I can to keep the ball out of his hands.

So you would have gone for it too?

 

[kmd24]

I don't get that at all - I'd love to make Campbell drive 70 yards for a TD with 2 minutes left. I hate giving the ball to Manning with 2 minutes left, and I'll do anything I can to keep the ball out of his hands.

This.

 

[mldardy]

Why?

Here are some rough numbers. Suppose that Indy is 80% to score from the NE 29, but only 30% to score from their 30. Then New England only has to convert on 4th down 62.5% of the time to make it a break-even decision.

And that ignores the possibility that Indy could score quickly from the 29 and give NE a chance to win with a FG.

Bottom line, it was probably a bad decision, but it wasn't a terrible one.

Suppose I don't give a crap about those numbers. The best thing to do in that situation is to punt the ball and make Manning beat you with 70-80 yards to go instead of 30 yards to go. That was just too easy for Manning to work on a short field like that with a timeout left. You have to make a team work for it no matter what.

 

[Avaj]

On the flipside if they did get the 4th and 2 we would say genius. Is it wrong for a coach to believe in his team??

 

[Hostile]

On the flipside if they did get the 4th and 2 we would say genius. Is it wrong for a coach to believe in his team??

No, I wouldn't say genius. I would still say it took nads. But I can't say it was smart, not even if it had worked.

 

[big dog cowboy]

On the flipside if they did get the 4th and 2 we would say genius.

Not genius. Gutsy. Big difference.

 

[JD_KaPow]

So you would have gone for it too?

It honestly never occurred to me, but as soon as I saw them lining up, I loved the call. I still think it was the right call. On the other hand, against a lesser offense (like the 'Skins), I would punt 100 times out of 100.

With 20/20 hindsight, I realize that you shouldn't do it without a timeout in your pocket. But that's the only caveat.

 

[Avaj]

No, I wouldn't say genius. I would still say it took nads. But I can't say it was smart, not even if it had worked.

But is it wrong for a coach to believe in his team?? Take it further he believe Brady is better then Manning, that he would get the 2 yards.

 

[VietCowboy]

It honestly never occurred to me, but as soon as I saw them lining up, I loved the call. I still think it was the right call. On the other hand, against a lesser offense (like the 'Skins), I would punt 100 times out of 100.

With 20/20 hindsight, I realize that you shouldn't do it without a timeout in your pocket. But that's the only caveat.

I would have gone for it against the 'Skins. They would have had a much higher percentage of making the 4th down against the Skins than a good team. Plus, if we didn't, we'd also have a higher percentage of stopping them, even with a short field. Against a really good time? i'd have punted.

 

[mldardy]

On the flipside if they did get the 4th and 2 we would say genius. Is it wrong for a coach to believe in his team??

No I wouldn't I would still say it was stupid. Like the play before when they threw it towards the sidelines and it almost got picked off. That was Garrettesque play calling. Just run the ball. They could have gotten 2 yards running the football and time would be running off the clock. Instead the Colts got the ball AT the 2 minute warning.