have you ever seen a coach (BB) so completely outsmart himself? wow.

Not sure what he was thinking in that situation.

What an f'in game......wow.

Bilicheat cost me my fantasy game, this week. -.-

He was right though, it just failed. You never give a superior opponent like Manning the chance to beat you. 'cuz he will. He made the right choice, but they just came up short.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/be...n-vs-colts.html

Commentary by the network was pathetic. He wasn't dissing his defense, but trusting his offense to make the likely conversion. They just didn't--it happens sometimes.

A punt is a turnover--each and every time. You are handing the ball to the opponent and begging him to beat you. If you have three braincells still intact you never give Payton Manning that opportunity.

I like the call. It was the smart, and correct, decision. It just didn't pan out. Manning was red hot - if you put the ball in his hands, he's going to score. So Belichick decided rather than put the game in Manning's hand, he'd keep it in Brady's - unfortunately, they came up short. It may not have worked, but it was still a good decision.

They had already hung 500 yards on the Colts D, they have Brady, Moss, Faulk, Welker. Heck yeah it was the right call.

Plus Manning flat out spanked the Pats defense the series before. It was humiliating actually. In just a few plays they had already driven 60+ yards and were knocking on the door for a TD. I don't blame Bellichick at all. Manning is simply a brilliant QB that might be the most cerebral QB to ever play the game. He can take advantage of any mismatch he sees. This Pats defense is significantly younger than in years past and I just don't think Bellichick trusted them in that situation. Manning made it look awfully easy the series before and there was a history of Manning beating the Pats late in games before.

I can't believe that most of you think this was the right call?!

Going for it on 4th and 2 from your own 28... Repeat that in your head one more time for extra measure. Let it soak in a bit.

This has to be one of the craziest, and most idiotic calls in recent regular season history and I'm thrilled it belongs to the 'evil genius' BB.

Lemme get one thing straight, here, too, to say the Colts "dominated" the Pats the D is a huge overstatement. If you look at the past 7 drives Manning and the Colts put together before the final 28 yard possession, you'd find 3 punts, 2 INT's, and 2 TD's. Hardly dominated, if you ask me. Throw in a weak PI call on Collie, and you're definitely catching my drift, here.

I've heard all day, 'Oh, you should see BB's and the Pats conversion rate on 4th down? It's like 60-70% percent good everytime'. Yeah? How successful is he on 4th down from his own 28? Oh-fer. Squa-dooosh. Zip. Zero. Nadda.

Basically, what BB told his defense is this: 'I have no faith in you to make a stop here'. How are you going to instill a vote of confidence in these young talented guys with coaching moves like that? The biggest problem, though? There is not one veteran leader on the defensive side of the ball to communicate with Bill, to say, 'Hey look, we can do this'. Harrison? Gone. Vrabel? Gone. Bruschi? Gone. Wilfork? Hardly the leader type..

So that leaves Brady. On the other side of the ball. BB's own 'rah-rah' guy.

This was a disaster of a move that handed the Colts the game, ended the Pats chances at home field advantage in the playoffs, and split his own lockerroom (Lots of outlets are reporting a very unhappy sidelines at the end of the game, can't blame 'em).

I for one, love it.

My first reaction was "that was really stupid". My 2nd reaction after hearing the debate was "maybe not".

I guess what was more likely? The Pats converting there and ending the game. Or the Pats punting there and their defense holding to win the game.

As someone already posted, the Math geeks say it's the former.

There is an psychological component, though. That has to be a bit demorolizing to the Pats D that they weren't trusted to hold the lead when the Pats needed a full TD and likely 65-70 yards. But BB will be able to spin his way out of that mess. He's got the 3 rings which gives him credibility. This is the game guy who was able to convince his team that they were the victims in the whole spygate scandle instead of the perpetrators.

But I love it that he's taking the serious heat, deserved or not.

Same here, Jeremy. I was stunned when I first heard the call. But after reflecting, I'm not sure it was the wrong one.

Then again, I did say this to a co-worker this morning:

"Going for it in that situation, there are 3 possible outcomes. 2 of those outcomes involve Manning getting the ball back, so already, there's a good chance, Peyton is going to have his shot. From there, it's up to whether you want him to have to go 28 yards, or potentially 70+ yards."


When I said that, I swear it made sense. I'm still pretty torn on the call. If push came to shove, I would have punted. But I can't fault the guy for going for it. Because well, he has 3 Super Bowl rings that say he's right

I firmly believe Manning was going to get in the end zone, whether he had to drive 30 yards or 70 yards. There's very little doubt of that in my mind. Given that scenario, your situation is the following:

The game is on the line. Do I want to keep the game in Tom Brady's hands, or do I want to put the ball in Manning's hand and give him the chance to beat me? Personally, there aren't many scenarios where I'd want to give Manning the ball back with over 2 minutes left and only needing a touchdown.

The only thing I hate is that Belichick's decision didn't work, because now we have to listen to all these people talking about what a stupid decision it was. It was a good, daring, smart and instinctive decision. Unfortunately, it failed. Failure doesn't mean the decision was poor.

I agree 100% with Belichick's call. There were a number of times last year where we (the Packers) punted the ball away with a narrow lead in the 4th quarter. I just knew that the opposing offense was going to drive down and score. And they did.

I've heard that all day too, Heat, and I just can't for the life of me find logic in that.

Your past successes don't forgive your present and future failures. Period. There has to be some accountability for the decisions you make right now.

On 'The Herd' today, Cowherd's analogy was "If you're a great husband for 28 years and you come home and say, 'Yeah, I, uh, knocked up the secretary'. You're wife's not forgiving you based on the first 28 years."

the call would have been fine at the 50. but at your own 28? plus he had called a few passes beforehand, and burned a couple timeouts as well.

the percentages on successful 4th and 2 conversions don't tell the whole story, because the data isn't from the same situation. it might be the same down and distance, but those attempts weren't all from the 28 with the game on the line and in the last 2 minutes. what the percentages don't tell you is that the defense is pretty much keyed up to stopping either a run/sneak or a short pass.

you can't make these decisions in a vacuum because there are consequences and factors that statistical probabilities can't account for. as far as the consequences go, if you really think giving the Colts the ball at their 30 and your 28 is the same thing, well ok then. but i see a difference.

I honestly thought it was a good call. Even though people are saying Bilicheat didn't trust his D in this situation, don't you think the players would want to prove him wrong and hold Indy? Two straight 13 yard plays after Indy got the ball back suggested to me that the D was not ready to stop Indy. So, 30 yards or 70 yards, it would not have mattered. When you have a chance to end the game, you take the chance, IMO.