NFL 2009-10: Part One

[speedracer]

When Belichick's arrogance catches up to him, it is fucking sweet.

What percentage of the time do you think the Patriots convert the 4th-and-2?

What percentage of the time do you think the Patriots stop the Colts, given they have 2 minutes left and 3 timeouts?

 

[phillyfan26]

That's kind of the ultimate compliment to Manning, though, isn't it? "We're going to do whatever it takes to keep you off the field."

Really, though, you have to believe in your defense.

 

[phanan]

When Belichick's arrogance catches up to him, it is fucking sweet.

How the fuck is that arrogance? Were we just watching the same game? The NE defense was shot; I don't like their chances there with two minutes to go against Manning.

I'm not sure I would've done that, but I can certainly understand why he did it. It has nothing to do with arrogance. It was his best chance to win the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Unbelievable. The Patriots dominated that game.

I kinda like the call to go for it on 4th there, but maybe toss it up to Randy "They can't jump with me" Moss instead of going to Faulk? I don't know. Hard to second guess Belichick.

And, yeah, they should have let Addai walk it in at the end. So many what ifs and could haves in that one. Just surprising to see the Pats with no timeouts left when they really needed them.

 

[LemonMelon]

OMG, Bellichik has the biggest balls ever. Going for it on the opposing team's 25??

Terrible call, especially the play call itself. I have no idea what they were thinking, except that the Colts would score all in one play, leaving them enough time to kick a winning field goal. But, since that's asinine, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I realize this is a hindsight deal, and Belichick would have looked like a genius had it worked, but...fucking hell.

 

[phillyfan26]

Terrible call, especially the play call itself. I have no idea what they were thinking, except that the Colts would score all in one play, leaving them enough time to kick a winning field goal. But, since that's asinine, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I realize this is a hindsight deal, and Belichick would have looked like a genius had it worked, but...fucking hell.

No, he was thinking they would probably get it.

 

[phanan]

What is worse than going for it on 4th down there was blowing those timeouts. By not having any more timeouts by that point, the Patriots couldn't challenge that spot. I have a feeling if they had been able to, the spot of the ball might have changed.

 

[LemonMelon]

No, he was thinking they would probably get it.

And that would be a realistic thought, if the play call itself wasn't so awful. I understand the logic behind going for it in that situation (although I would not have chosen to do so, no fucking way), but that is not the right call for the Pats offense.

The spot was incorrect IMO. To that end, I sympathize with the Pats right now. I think they were screwed out of the win, to some extent, though wasting the timeouts was their own fault.

 

[Jive Turkey]

How the fuck is that arrogance? Were we just watching the same game? The NE defense was shot; I don't like their chances there with two minutes to go against Manning.

I'm not sure I would've done that, but I can certainly understand why he did it. It has nothing to do with arrogance. It was his best chance to win the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

4th down on your own, what, 30 yard line and up by 6? You punt the fucking ball. Any other coach in the league would've punted. Belichick took a huge gamble and cost his team the game. Arrogance

 

[speedracer]

4th down on your own, what, 30 yard line and up by 6? You punt the fucking ball. Any other coach in the league would've punted. Belichick took a huge gamble and cost his team the game. Arrogance

Why back up your argument when you can just yell louder?

According to Advanced NFL Stats, average offenses convert 4th-and-2 on a long field about 59% of the time against average defenses. I'd put NE's chances against Indy at about 65%. If they get the first down, they're, say, 98% to win.

If they don't, Indy gets the ball back with 30 yards to go. NE prevents a TD, what, maybe 30% of the time there? So NE's chances of winning are .65*.98 + .35*.30 = .742 (74.2%).

Now if NE punts, Indy has the ball with 2 minutes and 1 timeout left (not 3 as I incorrectly stated earlier), with about 70 yards to go, and NE has pretty much no chance of getting the ball back. If Indy scores more than 25.8% of the time in that situation, then Belichick is correct to go for it on 4th down.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Why back up your argument when you can just yell louder?

Who's yelling, Chief?

And you've only given us one real stat. The others you've decided on your own. Doesnt help your argument much. You also didnt take into account cost/benefit. If it was at the 45/50? sure, go for it. No other coach would've done what Belichick did in that situation. The risk was too high

 

[phillyfan26]

It's got nothing to do with arrogance. I'd say it's more fear than arrogance.

 

[Screwtape2]

How the fuck is that arrogance? Were we just watching the same game? The NE defense was shot; I don't like their chances there with two minutes to go against Manning.

I completely agree. It was not arrogance. Let's not forget that the Colts had a TD drive in 1 1/2 minutes not too long before that. As a Colts fan I can tell you it was a smarter play than it looked. The Colts struggle on 3rd and 4th down defense. Faulk always gives the team trouble. The chances of converting on that play are far better than the chances of stopping Peyton. Now I'm not saying I would do it but it wasn't as dumb as it looked. The Pats looked great and their fans should take some major positives out it.

Oh and I think the spot of the ball on that play may be as analyzed as that lateral in the Music City Miracle.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

time for a new thread, guys.