Shanoff's WUC: Belichick Made The Right Call

No doubt it was the right choice by BB. I’m waiting to see a little bit more about that horrendous spot and the juggling call by a ref who might have seen the juggle but had no idea when Faulk actually caught the ball. But before all that the Patriots lost two chances to score in the third quarter. If you’re a Pats fan, with a two game lead in the division, you have to be happy with how the Patriots played in Indy. Especially since you know they’re thinking they’ll be there again in January.

I’m not buying what you’re selling.

Even if the Pat’s had converted that 4th down, they still had to get another first down to seal the game.  The clock had stopped for the two minute warning and the Colts still had a TO. 

So: the decision was go for it on 4th deep in your own territory AND get another first down vs. punt and trust your defense’s ability to stop the Colts from deep in their territory.

you can claim the Colts would have scored, but you can’t claim it would have been just as easy.  They only needed to move 28 yards, as opposed to at least 50 yards with a punt.  That extra 20 yards could have been the difference.

shanoff is a total friggin fraud. that was a disastrous call by belichek…and anyone that denies is a complete fraud of a writer….a belicheat disciple wanna-be…or an outright idiot. he spit in his defenses face….poor little billy….when he cheated…they won ALL the close games….now, not so much. what a joke you are shanoff.

Of course you can’t know anything with certainty about what the Colts would have done with a longer field against a prevent D (though we saw what they did the previous possession)…

but what you can know with certainty is the statistical analysis of teams needing a TD within the last two minutes v. going for it on fourth down and 2, and that analysis says BB made the right call, like it or not:

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-belichicks-fourth-down-decision/?hp

I certainly didn’t like the outcome, but it doesn’t surprise me that BB’s seemingly wacky decision comes down on the right side of the numbers after all.

it was the right call.  the only problem was, the patriots(belichick) failed to look past "what happens if we don’t get the first down?"  what sould have happened, and this is really what i thought belichick was thinking at the time, was that the patriots let the colts score right away and take the 1 point lead.  then brady would have had almost 2 minutes to work with to get in field goal range for the win.  so the initial call by belichick was correct in going for it, but he failed on the contingency plan.  i was surprised.

@CorrND: the pats would not have had to get another first down; they would have been able to run the clock down to about 30 seconds before punting, which means colts get the ball with about 25 seconds or so having to go approx 70 yards with no timeouts at that point; very unlikely they could have scored a TD in that situation

If it didn’t work, it was a bad call.  Period.  That’s how sports works.
The result is the final judgment – not speculation about how
it might have gone the other way.

@azickert: My line was “they still had to get another first down to seal the game.” If the Pats had run the clock down to 30s and punted, they would not have sealed the game. They would have given the Colts a chance, no matter how small it was.

Semantics aside, my comment was meant to point out that the game was not over if the Pats had converted that 4th down, which is what many people are implying.

@CorrND: you can have your semantics; the Pats, barring a miracle, would have won the game had they converted

the pats are so used to getting an extra yard on every spot that they never considered not making it. that play is a first down in foxborrough.

Shanoff your argument that this call was the right one regardless of the pats’ field position is ridiculous.  There are two minutes left and the pats defense should be asked to stop a 70 yard drive rather than a 30yd one.  I dont care how good any offense is; on fourth downs good defenses step up.

You have no basis to your argument that punting would have allowed the colts to win anyway.  Th pats defense was playing well in coverage for most of this game.  Football is a team sport and the truly strong teams have a balanced offense and defense.  The pats are a terrific team with a good defensive scheme but BB thought he could win the game using just offense.  Foolish of him.  The decision to punt on your own 28 with a 4th and 2 and a 5pt lead cannot even be classified as a conservative decision- it is just plain logical.

shanoff is such a joke….how can anyone be surprised ?

I just read the analysis in that ‘other publication’ as I’m sure you all did. PK is teed off at BB. But his analysis has flaws.

He sets the odds of Brady getting the 1st down at 65%. He sets the odds of Manning going about 72 yards in 2 minutes at 35%. That would put his odds of NOT going 72 yards at 65%. Sounds like a tie to me, and that’s assuming Manning’s odds were only 35%. I think they were higher. Brady’s odds of getting 2 yards at 65% sounds ok to me.

What’s left therefore is what matters. The odds of Hansen getting off another good punt with no return are not 100%. And the odds of Manning scoring from the Pats’ 30 are not 100%. Both work in favor of the decision to go for it.

sorry radatz…it’s a terrible call and we all know that. there is no other arguement. every team in the league would sign up for a lead with two minutes left….EVERY ONE OF THEM. belichek is a great coach…but he makes mistakes too….and he made a big one last night. he also let the rest of the world know that he’s scared $hitless of peyton….how do you think the rematch will work out now ????

<!—[if gte mso 9]>

Normal
0


false
false
false

<![endif]—><!—[if gte mso 9]>

<![endif]—>
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
<!—[if gte mso 10]>

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:“Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:“Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

<![endif]—>

Belichik’s coaching call is not really the issue but the
marking of the ball. It wouldn’t have mattered if it was thrid and two or
fourth and two, the bad spot of the ball was the significatn factor in the
outcome. NFL rules advise the "when an airborne player makes a catch,
forward progress is the farthest point of advancement after he possesses the
ball if contacted by a defender".  Faulk had complete possession of
the ball when his left foot was on the the 30 yard line. If you look at the two
replay angles, you can see his left foot on the 30 when he secured the ball and
his body was falling along the 30 yard line.  He was contacted by a
defender on the 30 who pushed him back across it. His forward progress should
have been marked at the 30.

I dunno, seems like an uber-analytical decision-making genius like Belichick might have saved a timeout so he could get that spot reviewed…

Lordhlatts, it was certainly a controversial call no matter what. It wasn’t why they lost though. They ‘let ’em off the hook’. Two consecutive turnovers in scoring territory ultimately did them in, even though they got the ball back each time and finally scored. They were poised at that point to drive the stake in. The lost timeouts didn’t help either, but it was the missed ops (especially Maroney’s fumble) that ultimately cost them the game.

Manning knows they respect him and vice versa. I don’t buy any of the ‘message’ stuff. The rematch will be what it always is… close.

CorrND, I agree, that spot review would have been interesting. I’m sure it would have produced the old ‘insufficient to overturn’ but still interesting. I have to wonder if Belichick would be getting the flak he’s gotten today if it had gone the other way.