Albert Breer finally gets something right

Uncle Rico said:

Next tweet mentions the 4th and 2 call as the exception, but that's reasonable enough.

Click to expand...

At least 4th and 2 was actually questionable, as opposed to objectively stupid. I still maintain that going for it on 4th and 2 was the right call, and that the Pats technically probably got the necessary yardage. It was just a rough spot and a failure in execution to let it even come down to the spot, plus a great play by the Indy D.

Observer said:

Belichick has immunized himself to questions by winning a ridiculous percentage of games.

Click to expand...

You'd think, but this board/every Boston newspaper after a loss suggests otherwise.

PatsDeb said:

I thought he got it too, but I also am one of the minority here who think it was a terrible call. As patchick said though, water under the bridge.

Click to expand...

Yea.... Regardless of all of the statistical mumbo-jumbo that says he made the right call, I think that because he didn't have any timeouts left and PM shredded his D in 2 of the 3 previous drives he felt like he had to go for it. If he had the 03 defense or even the 2014 D he would have punted

robertweathers said:

Yea.... Regardless of all of the statistical mumbo-jumbo that says he made the right call, I think that because he didn't have any timeouts left and PM shredded his D in 2 of the 3 previous drives he felt like he had to go for it. If he had the 03 defense or even the 2014 D he would have punted

Click to expand...

Understood, but I thought it was dumb not to give his D the chance to make a play. We were up at the point of this play and basically gave the game away. Just punt for cripes sake. I am sure Colts fans had the same reaction to Snapfu last night. They were down by less than a TD.

Listen there's the correct call and the wrong call

And there's tough calls

The 4th and 2 was a tough call vut with replay it was exposed as the wrong call

Faulk had the 1st, that's not negotioble

BradyFTW! said:

At least 4th and 2 was actually questionable, as opposed to objectively stupid. I still maintain that going for it on 4th and 2 was the right call, and that the Pats technically probably got the necessary yardage. It was just a rough spot and a failure in execution to let it even come down to the spot, plus a great play by the Indy D.

Click to expand...

My problem with it (aside from the ref robbing Faulk) was that if they were going to for it on 4th-and-short they should have called the previous plays with that in mind. So I don't mind the decision to go for it (in fact, I agree with it) but the whole sequence wasn't well thought out enough. It was like they decided at the last second to go for it on 4th down. They should have been planning for it for the entire set of downs and the playcalls didn't bear out that they were.

PatsDeb said:

Understood, but I thought it was dumb not to give his D the chance to make a play. We were up at the point of this play and basically gave the game away. Just punt for cripes sake. I am sure Colts fans had the same reaction to Snapfu last night. They were down by less than a TD.

Click to expand...

Yep. Goes without saying he just didn't trust the D.

Whats crazy is that last night you pretty much had that same friggan situation unfolding. 34-21....4th qtr....

Would have been crazy if he had a 4th and 2 w/ 2min to go after they made it 34-27. lol.

QuantumMechanic said:

My problem with it (aside from the ref robbing Faulk) was that if they were going to for it on 4th-and-short they should have called the previous plays with that in mind. So I don't mind the decision to go for it (in fact, I agree with it) but the whole sequence wasn't well thought out enough. It was like they decided at the last second to go for it on 4th down. They should have been planning for it for the entire set of downs and the playcalls didn't bear out that they were.

Click to expand...

That whole 2009 team was never on the same page. Players, coaches...

BOB was new. Pees was on the outs.

4th and 2 was idiotic. It's probably BB's biggest in-game decision blunder. It's ok for people to accept that. BB's more than made up for it over the course of his NE career.

Pagano, on the other hand, likely won't be getting future opportunities as the Colts HC to make up for yesterday's fake.

Deus Irae said:

4th and 2 was idiotic. It's probably BB's biggest in-game decision blunder. It's ok for people to accept that. BB's more than made up for it over the course of his NE career.

Pagano, on the other hand, likely won't be getting future opportunities as the Colts HC to make up for yesterday's fake.

Click to expand...

That play and failing to let the Ghost try a field goal (albeit a long one) towards the end of the game in the Game-That-Shall-Not- Be-Named are the only two times I can think of where I thought BB was utterly wrong in his play calling and cost us big. Two times in 15 years is a pretty good ratio, as you say.

Deus Irae said:

4th and 2 was idiotic. It's probably BB's biggest in-game decision blunder. It's ok for people to accept that. BB's more than made up for it over the course of his NE career.

Click to expand...

Whether 4th and 2 was objectively right, a gut call, or objectively wrong depends on probabilities.

P(losing, not go for it) = likelihood of Colts scoring TD after the punt + return
P(losing, going for it) = (likelihood of not converting) x (likelihood of Colts scoring TD after TO on downs)

If you think that the first number is much smaller than the second, then, yes, going for it was idiotic. If you think the first number is much larger, than punting would be idiotic.

If you think that the two are roughly the same—and that's where many of us are today—then both calls are defensible.

QuantumMechanic said:

My problem with it (aside from the ref robbing Faulk) was that if they were going to for it on 4th-and-short they should have called the previous plays with that in mind. So I don't mind the decision to go for it (in fact, I agree with it) but the whole sequence wasn't well thought out enough. It was like they decided at the last second to go for it on 4th down. They should have been planning for it for the entire set of downs and the playcalls didn't bear out that they were.

Click to expand...

Disagree. What you are saying is that they should have been planning to fail. Better to call each play as the one having the best chance of success. Not a good idea to be calling plays with the idea that when they fail you'll be set up for another risky decision.

PatsDeb said:

That play and failing to let the Ghost try a field goal (albeit a long one) towards the end of the game in the Game-That-Shall-Not- Be-Named are the only two times I can think of where I thought BB was utterly wrong in his play calling and cost us big. Two times in 15 years is a pretty good ratio, as you say.

Click to expand...

Actually, the one that gets me is going for it on 4th and long in the 2nd quarter. Specifically, it was 4th and 13 from the NYG 31. For some reason, BB had no trust in Ghost that day.

ctpatsfan77 said:

Whether 4th and 2 was objectively right, a gut call, or objectively wrong depends on probabilities.

P(losing, not go for it) = likelihood of Colts scoring TD after the punt + return
P(losing, going for it) = (likelihood of not converting) x (likelihood of Colts scoring TD after TO on downs)

If you think that the first number is much smaller than the second, then, yes, going for it was idiotic. If you think the first number is much larger, than punting would be idiotic.

If you think that the two are roughly the same—and that's where many of us are today—then both calls are defensible.

Click to expand...

If you think the two were roughly the same, you weren't paying attention to the game. The decision to go for it in those circumstances was the sort of stupid decision that gets coaches fired. That was as boneheaded a decision as leaving Pedro in, and we know what happened to Grady Little.

Deus Irae said:

If you think the two were roughly the same, you weren't paying attention to the game. The decision to go for it in those circumstances was the sort of stupid decision that gets coaches fired. That was as boneheaded a decision as leaving Pedro in, and we know what happened to Grady Little.

Click to expand...

Under Brady, the Pats convert 4th and 2 about 65% of the time, meaning they fail about 35% of the time. So the likelihood of giving up a 30-yard TD rather than a 70ish-yard TD would have to be significantly more than three times higher before 4th-and-2 becomes "idiotic." And remember that the Colts had just scored an 80-yard TD on their previous drive, in almost exactly the same amount of time.

Galeb said:

That would be great, but I was sorta hoping for something more like what the Warden did at the end of Shawshank Redemption.

Click to expand...

That's cold, Bro!

n6249c said:

Disagree. What you are saying is that they should have been planning to fail. Better to call each play as the one having the best chance of success. Not a good idea to be calling plays with the idea that when they fail you'll be set up for another risky decision.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you plan the series up front as containing potentially four offensive plays instead of three. You have -- and you know you have -- four plays to gain 10 yards instead of only three. It doesn't mean you try to take all four plays -- that's stupid. However, the availability of an extra play can and should affect your playcalling because it means you can do things that give you a greater chance of picking up the first down when it's all said and done.

smg93 said:

I agree 100%. Also, I was convinced Faulk just made it but got a terrible spot... Eh, water under the bridge I guess.

Click to expand...

We weren't going anywhere in the playoffs that year regardless, and the Colts would get theirs in the end.

Deus Irae said:

4th and 2 was idiotic. It's probably BB's biggest in-game decision blunder. It's ok for people to accept that. BB's more than made up for it over the course of his NE career.

Pagano, on the other hand, likely won't be getting future opportunities as the Colts HC to make up for yesterday's fake.

Click to expand...

Deus,

What's idiotic is your contention that only your conclusion about the play call is right.

It would be helpful if you acknowledge that you take your position on this issue despite the fact that statistically the Patriots had a significantly higher % chance of winning by going for it based on average NFL teams in that exact same situation (which has been brought to your attention). Clearly that puts going for it at least in the conversation and far from brain dead.

QuantumMechanic said:

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you plan the series up front as containing potentially four offensive plays instead of three. You have -- and you know you have -- four plays to gain 10 yards instead of only three. It doesn't mean you try to take all four plays -- that's stupid. However, the availability of an extra play can and should affect your playcalling because it means you can do things that give you a greater chance of picking up the first down when it's all said and done.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. If you decide it's a 4 down situation, then you can approach the play calling differently.

Also, I thought that if Faulk had managed to secure the ball when he first touched it, instead of bobbling it slightly, the spot would have been obvious, instead of gray. Not a criticism of Faulk, it was a tough pass to secure.