Easterbrook is entertaining read, though he did annoy me quite a bit during the spygate era.
He does make two good points, which was exactly my thinking while I was watching the game -
"I'd give Belichick a hard time not for his fourth-down call but for the third-down call on New England's previous possession. The Flying Elvii led 31-21 and faced third-and-8 on the Indianapolis 18 with 4:22 remaining. The Patriots threw incomplete, stopping the clock, then kicked a field goal. Had New England simply run up the middle for no gain, the clock would have kept advancing. The Colts either would have burned a precious timeout, or have gotten the ball back, down 34-21, with about 3:30 remaining rather than 4:07. The situation would have seemed a lot less promising; the Indianapolis players and crowd might not have been so jacked up."
" I'd criticize New England for calling a pass on third-and-2, the snap before the decisive down. As noted by reader Todd Asmuth of Madison, Wis., Belichick should have been looking ahead, using "two-down thinking" -- if you're going for it on fourth down, you run on third down, to keep the clock ticking and better the chance that either you make it on third down or fourth down is a fourth-and-1, not fourth-and-2. I'd also give Belichick a hard time for going empty backfield on the fourth-and-2. Yes, the Patriots operate efficiently from the five-wide and were lining up against an injury-depleted Indianapolis secondary, which included two rookies. But the Patriots took a timeout to think about it, and the best they could come up with was a five-wide rinky-dink short out to Kevin Faulk. Two of New England's previous three pass attempts had been junky-looking quick outs to the same side, and neither worked; in fact, both were jumped by an Indianapolis defense expecting quick outs. Plus there were two receivers in the same spot -- the throw almost looked like it was to Randy Moss, standing behind Faulk. This kind of bollix is very un-Patriots-like. The whole play was sloppy."
