the titans want to thank the bears and broncos who both supplied players who are making a difference.
i wonder if lovie smith is beating his head ever time hood makes another interception.
He has no emotions.
NFL Football 2009
- Thread starter tomalak301
- Start date
He has no emotions.
I agree that was a poor decision. As several of you have said, they needed to punt it away. However, if they were hell-bent on going for it, then they should have run it. Go into that wide passing formation again, snap it to Brady in the shotgun, and then have him charge up the middle. Passing in that formation was obvious, and the route was cut way too close to the first down marker.
I've been listening to comments on Mike & Mike, and as puzzling as the decision was earlier... I'm beginning to feel less puzzled. According to them, the Pats' defense was pretty clearly tiring out in the fourth quarter. Even though they had dominated the game to that point, they were consistently allowing the Colts to drive the ball more and more. While I'd probably never make that call (I don't have those kinds of guts), I can see what seems to be the logic. Manning was going to drive the ball no matter what. Granted, I'd rather he have to drive it 70 yds instead of 30 yds. The best defense would be to keep the ball away from him. The replays actually make it look like the call worked. The receiver (I forget who it was) bobbled the ball, so it had to be marked farther back. Had he caught it cleanly, I bet he has a first down, and we aren't having this discussion.
ETA: Read Peter King's MMQB column today. The page linked to here has an article about Mike Zimmer, the Bengals' defensive coordinator. Read that, and it will help keep things in perspective.
ETA: Read Peter King's MMQB column today. The page linked to here has an article about Mike Zimmer, the Bengals' defensive coordinator. Read that, and it will help keep things in perspective.
Last edited:
I understand the strategy part, as in "If we can run one play for two yards, we win." USC tried that against Texas, with the same results.
Still seems like a terrible call to me. The downside was way too big, as was proven.
Yeah, I can't see any reason to call that play where they were in the field considering how they were doing. The Colts defense stopped them too many times before (even when they had big plays, they also had drives where Brady looked like crap and they went three and out). They were having a drive where they looked like crap. They should at least have forced Manning to go a longer distance. Maybe they could've been lucky and run out the clock.
Pats fan checking in...
That play kills me, but I can see what they're going for there. Manning and the offense are hot, the Pats undermanned D is sucking wind. Pats offense has moved the ball well all night. You kick it there, the Colts have 2 minutes left and 1 timeout from say their own 30. Plenty of time left to have a chance to do something.
Say you get the first down there. Worst case is there's a timout, the 2 minute warning, and you run 40 seconds off the clock on 3rd down. Indy gets the ball back at the 30 with 1:10 left and no timeouts. Much hard to convert there. But still in my opinion doesn't get you much more than kicking it on that 4th down would have. The risk isn't worth the reward.
I can see why they went for it, but I would have punted. Make the Colts go 70 yards instead of 30. More chance of a pick, fumble, turnover on downs, etc.
I think they operated under the assumption that Indy would score regardless of when and where they got the ball back.
That play kills me, but I can see what they're going for there. Manning and the offense are hot, the Pats undermanned D is sucking wind. Pats offense has moved the ball well all night. You kick it there, the Colts have 2 minutes left and 1 timeout from say their own 30. Plenty of time left to have a chance to do something.
Say you get the first down there. Worst case is there's a timout, the 2 minute warning, and you run 40 seconds off the clock on 3rd down. Indy gets the ball back at the 30 with 1:10 left and no timeouts. Much hard to convert there. But still in my opinion doesn't get you much more than kicking it on that 4th down would have. The risk isn't worth the reward.
I can see why they went for it, but I would have punted. Make the Colts go 70 yards instead of 30. More chance of a pick, fumble, turnover on downs, etc.
I think they operated under the assumption that Indy would score regardless of when and where they got the ball back.
Even with the defense clearly worn out and Peyton Manning on the other side, I would have punted that football. The Colts would have had plenty of time to march 99 yards if need be, but punting would have been my call. Now, that said, it was one hell of a gutsy call by the Patriots. A first down would not necessarily have won them the game in that situation, but it would have put even more pressure on the Colts and taken some wind out of their sails.
As a Colts fan, I'll be honest. I was scared when I saw Brady come back onto the field for the fourth down try. I really though they would get it, but the bobble saved the Colts' chance for a winning touchdown.
It was just a really, really great game in a series of really, really great games. Add another one to the list.
As a Colts fan, I'll be honest. I was scared when I saw Brady come back onto the field for the fourth down try. I really though they would get it, but the bobble saved the Colts' chance for a winning touchdown.
It was just a really, really great game in a series of really, really great games. Add another one to the list.
It shows a good discipline, too. mean... there's the endzone just a yard away, with nobody to stop you. And it gets you more points, guaranteed, as well. Yet MJD stuck to what he was coached to do, and they won. I have no idea what kind of person he is, but that showed me a good disciplined player
Yep. They can try to justify the call all they want, but I still think it was a stupid move. Why gamble away your lead like that?
Smart play, but I would have been pissed if I had Jones-Drew on any of my fantasy teams.
In the post game presser, he apologized to anybody who had him in their fantasy leagues.
That's a silly way of looking at it though. You're basically segregating losses into categories of "losses that will haunt you" and "losses that you can live with". The NFL makes no such distinction when it does playoff seedings though. A head coach's job should be to make whatever calls will maximize his team's chances of victory, regardless of how victory or defeat is achieved.
In this particular case, the four numbers to consider are:
Probability of winning the game if you punt
Probability of successfully converting the 4th down if you go for it on 4th and 2
Probability of winning the game if you go for it on 4th and 2 and convert
Probability of winning the game if you go for it on 4th and 2 and fail to convert
Here is a breakdown of this analysis, arguing that Belichick's decision was the right one, in the sense that it gave the Pats a better probability of winning than they would have had if he'd ordered a punt:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/belichik-was-right
(Also see discussion here, starting from about comment #575: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/discussion/week-10-open-discussion-thread-1?page=1 )
I don't know if the numbers they're using are right. But if they are, then he made the best call, and going for it wasn't really "taking a huge gamble". It was just playing the percentages.
The reason why we consider it a huge gamble is because coaches rarely ever go for it in situations like this, which skews our perceptions of how risky it is. And the reason coaches never go for it in cases like this is because they're afraid of being fired if it backfires. If they go for it, and it fails, then the coach himself receives all the criticism (as we're seeing now). However, if they'd punted, and the Colts still managed to win, it's the Pats defense who would be criticized, not Belichick. Punting is "safer" from the perspective of the coach escaping criticism, but not necessarily safer from the perspective of winning the game.
I guess the question is, would you rather have the responsibility of winning a game or stopping the other team from winning the game. I'd rather have the latter since the pressure is more on them.
I agree that it was a good call to go for it. If they make it, then it's the game. They can run the clock down without issue. What I disagree with is how the play call. Again, the fact that they were going to throw it was pretty bloody obvious. Also, the reciever should have gone a bit further out. Receivers go out and sit on the first down marker all the time, but that gives them no wiggle room for when something goes wrong, like trying to get possession while being tackled. They don't have to go way past it, but a couple yards. I doubt a 4 or 5 yard pass would much tougher than a 2 yard pass.
Similar threads
