Belichek lost this one

**Brett A** · 11-16-2009, 01:58 PM

You dont often see a coach lose a game, but thats what happened on Sunday night. I dont see the problem with him going for it on 4th down. What is the difference between 30 yards and 70 yards to Manning with 2 minutes and 2 timeouts left. The way i see it, Belicheck blew it by wasting his last 2 timeouts and not leaving enough time for his own team.

**spaceboy761** · 11-16-2009, 02:01 PM

Guys here have been talking about it all day and showing all kinds of stats and support for both sides.

**BerkB33** · 11-16-2009, 03:28 PM

Obviously two schools of thought...go for it on 4th down and don't let Manning get his hands on the ball again...or...punt it away and put faith in your defense to hold them for whatever time's left. What's the coaches' job? My answer is to put your team in the best position to win. That said, the percentages are with punting the ball away...field position was their own 28 yard line, not exactly a long way to go when and if you don't get the first down...and in THIS case it turned out to be WHEN. Second, Belichick showed little "faith" in his defense's ability to contain the Colts for just under 2 minutes. They did need a touchdown...a field goal was of no help. The "extra" yardage needed to score the touchdown after a punt could have eaten the clock up, having to "run" more plays also provides more opportunity for turnovers and offensive mistakes. Not to mention the Colts were out of time outs! Punt it!

**Brett A** · 11-16-2009, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by BerkB33

Obviously two schools of thought...go for it on 4th down and don't let Manning get his hands on the ball again...or...punt it away and put faith in your defense to hold them for whatever time's left. What's the coaches' job? My answer is to put your team in the best position to win. That said, the percentages are with punting the ball away...field position was their own 28 yard line, not exactly a long way to go when and if you don't get the first down...and in THIS case it turned out to be WHEN. Second, Belichick showed little "faith" in his defense's ability to contain the Colts for just under 2 minutes. They did need a touchdown...a field goal was of no help. The "extra" yardage needed to score the touchdown after a punt could have eaten the clock up, having to "run" more plays also provides more opportunity for turnovers and offensive mistakes. Not to mention the Colts were out of time outs! Punt it!

Can you blame him for not having confidence in his defense, they had just let them drive down on a quick drive to score. I dont know the exact numbers but i heard they had 2 rookies at db becuase of injuries. I think your train of thought is good for every team except Indy. 2 minutes 2 timeouts 70 yards or 30 yards i do not think it would have mattered. Of course we will never know for sure, the fact is had they made the first down on 4th and 2 everyone would have said what genius he was. The fact is he wasted those 2timeouts and could have gotten the ball back with around 45 seconds to 1 minute left. Its all coulda woulda and shoulda.

**maverick35** · 11-16-2009, 10:29 PM

Old Mav realizes it is a old pro football managers kind of golden and so iron clad rule that up on fourth 4 th down at the 28 yard line u punt butt alas guess he no not cared about that hard and so fast rule and so the last time this happened wuz in 1956 and so with the exactly same disasterious results sorry right... sorry old Mav

**spaceboy761** · 11-17-2009, 10:38 AM

You basically consider three percentages:

A. Chance of converting the 4th and 2.
B. Chance of Colts scoring getting the ball on the Pats' 30.
C. Chance of Colts scoring getting the ball on their own 30.

(1-A)*B = C ... whichever side is bigger, that's your answer.

Not sure how Indy's 2 timeouts factor in either. Let's sat that Faulk actually makes the first down. The Pats are still not in a position to run out the clock without getting another first down since the Colts could use both timeouts and the two-minute warning to get the ball back with about 1 minute left. Maybe his idea was to give Indy the short field so that if they scored, the Pats would still have time to drive for a field goal?

**billybob** · 11-17-2009, 11:38 AM

personally I thought the decision was just plain stupid but his defense did look exhausted. But its better to make a team drive 70 yards versus 30, and I did that calculation with out a computer or slide rule.

**spaceboy761** · 11-17-2009, 01:27 PM

Seeing as Belichik was smart enough to graduate from Wesleyan, I figured he could handle the math.

We're also making the assumption that a 40-yard net on a punt is a given here. As a former punter at the high school level, I assure you that it's not. 40 yards is a very optimistic net in the NFL and 35 is more realistic. You also run the risk of a big return or a bad snap.

However it turned out, I have no idea why they chose a running play with Faulk on 4th and 2 when you have Tom Brady and a freakishly tall and athletic receiver in Randy Moss... that's like having a Ferrari in the garage and taking the minivan. At least run a screen to Welker or the other little white guy and try to make a play there. Just don't ram the thing off-tackle!

**spaceboy761** · 11-17-2009, 01:50 PM

Belichick Gets Heat for Not Punting - WSJ.com

Well, here we go. The article says that your chances are better going for it in that situation instead of punting. Of course, this is a general number and doesn't consider the teams on the field, but it's at least some support for the decision.

**maverick35** · 11-17-2009, 02:15 PM

Old Mav realizes S boy exactly some thing like this did happen this season B F drove the length of the pro football field and so scored up on the last final play of the game to win and so thus punting may be would have been better odds in your own favor in this situation and so positiuon butt of course this is all suppose and so conjecture u play the game and so New England lost and so old Mav rather play the Colts then New England sorry right butt then u r right RIGHT again S boy why a run up the middle harder to do than a sweep and or a pass butt again both r still dangerous New England claims they made it butt the referee did no not see it right RIGHT again happens all the time a blown call happens all the time which is exactly why old Mav would punt u know the referees gonna do all they may to cost u the yards they love to make blown calls to cost u the game alas they helped the Giants beat New England in that big Super Bowl game couple of years ago which the Giants won around the last final minute of the game and so thus u know the referees r against u and so u punt butt alas that is exactly why u play the game and so mistakes r made and so the referees may cost u the game with a blown call and so B F knows this about the referees he is no not gonna letta the referees blow a call to cost the local Vikes the Super Bowl 2010 B F is referee savy smart whutever and so he knows how to use utilize the referees right RIGHT sorry right which is why he is such a big aset for the local Vikes sorry right... sorry old Mav