Going for it on 4th down was CORRECT...here's why...

[Danger Zone]

You just don't get the point of the conversation I guess...

Pretend we're not talking about the Pats vs the Broncos, but Football Team A (offense) vs Football Team B (defense). Then rejoin the conversation and give your opinion.

If you don't like doing that, then don't join this thread. It's really a waste of time to scold other people for having the conversation, and pretty arrogant/pathetic to suggest you're a better fan than they are because you have tickets to the game and are above ever criticizing or questioning your team's decisions in a win.

What I and Joker [might be] responding to is the need by the wanna-be-headcoaches to hyper-critically put Belichick under the microscope even after a win.

There is a difference between discussing the hypotheticals of football scenarios.. and referring our headcoach as

Mind numbingly stupid

My point is: the people defending Belichick are just as valid in their opinion as the people tearing him down after every game.. Its at the very least more understandable given the fact that we are supposed to be Patriots fans.

 

[DaBruinz]

No, I am not. Your link shows that punting the ball would have decreased their chance of scoring a TD by only a small percentage and a field goal (which they also could have used) by hardly anything. Being up by three scores meant the main objective was lowering the number of opportunities Indy would get to score, which meant keeping the ball and running the clock off more.

BSR - just a side note. You keep saying Indy, but you mean Denver.. This is the 2nd time you've done it in the thread. Horseface is with Denver now..

 

[BSR]

BSR - just a side note. You keep saying Indy, but you mean Denver.. This is the 2nd time you've done it in the thread. Horseface is with Denver now..

LOL...thanks for pointing it out.

 

[BSR]

A drive of 80 yards or more only results in a touchdown on average less than 20% of the time.

Advanced NFL Stats: Drive Results

That's not statistically irrelevant.

The main objective is to make the opposition utilize as much time and drive the longest possible route, if a touchdown is to be scored at all.

I disagree. Your own offense is going to run down the clock better than the opposing offense is. You are up by three scores. You are not going to lose the game if they score on the next possession. As such, making their TD 20% or so harder isn't as important as spending more time running out the clock yourself.

The ironic thing is that the stats probably indicate, given the score, that the actual decision was really immaterial to the outcome of the game. Its just that dramatically bad results of the play emphasized it.

 

[mcsully]

my feeling, Josh McDaniels called a good game but sometimes on critical plays in the 4th quarter he makes me scratch my head. Similar to the ravens game, he went to a no back set and let the defense key off on Brady while jamming the receivers..

Going for it on 4th down was the right call. It was 3rd and 5 on the 35 (something like that) and he went to shotgun twice.. Why not run the ball? Its been effective all game and if it doesn't work, then you give the team the ball on the 30-35.. Smart game management..

 

[RayClay]

I hadn't realized we were on the 37. In that case, it was the thing to do, but it sure didn't seem like a safe play. Oh well, that's hindsight, stuff happens.

 

[Joker]

you're absolutely right,Hovis,... Team A lost to Team B 21-31 and you should rip and tear away at them the rest of the night because YOU are the all knowing knower of one sided bad things...go crazy...worst almost 1-4 team EVER!!!!! THAT'S why fans should log on a Patriots fan board...so IMMEDIATELY after the Pats WIN you can rip them to shreds from behind your all encompassing terminal.

 

[ATippett56]

I disagree. Your own offense is going to run down the clock better than the opposing offense is. You are up by three scores. You are not going to lose the game if they score on the next possession. As such, making their TD 20% or so harder isn't as important as spending more time running out the clock yourself.

You have not proven statistically that the New England Patriots offense faced with a 4th and 5 have a statistically better chance of success than punting in that situation.

The ironic thing is that the stats probably indicate, given the score, that the actual decision was really immaterial to the outcome of the game. Its just that dramatically bad results of the play emphasized it.

I would like to see more faith from the New England Patriots organization that the 2012 New England Patriots defense can get the job done, especially in the fourth quarter with a seventeen point lead.

 

[BSR]

You have not proven statistically that the New England Patriots offense faced with a 4th and 5 have a statistically better chance of success than punting in that situation.

And you haven't proven that they don't. Unless either of us are statisticians with access to all the relevant data of a Brady led team versus a Manning lead team then its a pointless question.

I would like to see more faith from the New England Patriots organization that the 2012 New England Patriots defense can get the job done, especially in the fourth quarter with a seventeen point lead.

Again, I think it has less to do with not having faith in the defense and more to do with liking their opportunity to convert and run out the clock.

 

[ATippett56]

And you haven't proven that they don't. Unless either of us are statisticians with access to all the relevant data of a Brady led team versus a Manning lead team then its a pointless question.

Tom Brady is not even a career 70% passer.

A drive of 80 yards or more only results in a touchdown on average less than 20% of the time.

 

[jcdavey]

it was a dumb call because of the clock situation

if any other coach makes that call, it's universally lambasted here

 

[pazrul72]

I loved the 4th and 2 call in Indy so please don't take this as being adverse to risky unconvential play calling because I believe BB is the best coach in NFL history. All of that said I was screaming at the TV when he made this one. Based on the score and the time left on the clock I would have had Brady line up in the shotgun and try to get them to jump then pooch kick it out of bounds. Our D is better then it has been in years and I thought we should have had faith in them and set them up with the best position possable. I don't care what the result of the play was I would have said it was a bad call even if they got the first down. I was saying that when I saw them line up to go for it. Pats won anyway so it's not that big a deal but I 100% disagree with the call in this case.

 

[Joker]

Tom Brady is not even a career 70% passer.

.

LMAO!!!...OK...off topic a sec...tell me, Tip...heh...(laughing hard as I type this)...please enlighten me as to the career passing percentage of Murk Surcharge...er...Sanchaise...

 

[ATippett56]

LMAO!!!...OK...off topic a sec...tell me, Tip...heh...(laughing hard as I type this)...please enlighten me as to the career passing percentage of Murk Surcharge...er...Sanchaise...

I could care less about Sanchez right now since I doubt he will even be a 50% passer Monday Night, that's if he survives the evening.

 

[BSR]

Tom Brady is not even a career 70% passer.

A drive of 80 yards or more only results in a touchdown on average less than 20% of the time.

And? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. There more than those two figures that go into the equation. Many more.

If the Pats punt:
- There is a small chance the punt is blocked
- There is a small chance the punt is fumbled
- There is a small chance of a good return
etc, etc...

Plus, I think looking at league average statistics is a mistake. Manning is not even close to the league average. There is much that would need to go into the equation then I am sure anyone would want to calculate.

All that being said, those statisticians I have read, including those at Advanced Football Statistics and Football Outsiders often advocate going for it more often on 4th down, especially in that part of the field.

 

[Yehoodi]

it was the correct call . . . indeed i even call it on third down, that is we were in 4 down territory . . . and was not surpirse that we went for it on fourth down

listen guys you have remember we were in no mans land on teh 37 yards line, kind of far to kick a FG, 54 yarder, and it would of given the ball to the broncos on 44 yard line . . . also a punt, even if we backed up our punter 5 yards with an intentional delay of game, had a likelihood of going into the endzone for a touchback placing the ball on the 20 would result in a "whopping" 17 yards of field position for our defense . . . given the fact that we were in BB's favorite Dean Smith four corners defense and playing prevent D, its is very likely that the broncos would of gotten the ball back to the 37 yard line without too much trouble and time . . .

so we really we really were not "losing" much by trying for it on 4th down, as a punt would of highly likely seen teh broncos back at the 37 in no time . . . so the cost was not that great

but on the other hand the benefit has termendous, if we get the first down, we at least kill another 2 mins and likely get a FG to be up by 20 with bout 6 mins . . . not to mention the opportunity to continue the drive further for more time off the clock and/or a TD, which basically is game set and match . .

so from a cost benefit anaylsis it seems pretty straight forward to me . . .

the fact that we had this weird, once in a career, negative 20 yard strip fumble by Brady does not change my opinion . . .the fact that a one in a career event happens is a anormally as opposed to the predicted norm . . .

 

[BSR]

I loved the 4th and 2 call in Indy so please don't take this as being adverse to risky unconvential play calling because I believe BB is the best coach in NFL history. All of that said I was screaming at the TV when he made this one. Based on the score and the time left on the clock I would have had Brady line up in the shotgun and try to get them to jump then pooch kick it out of bounds. Our D is better then it has been in years and I thought we should have had faith in them and set them up with the best position possable. I don't care what the result of the play was I would have said it was a bad call even if they got the first down. I was saying that when I saw them line up to go for it. Pats won anyway so it's not that big a deal but I 100% disagree with the call in this case.

Based on the score and time left on the clock the call was fairly inconsequential either way. The evidence of this was the fact that the result of the play was about as bad a result as Denver could have hoped for, which was then followed up with another disastrous turnover on the next possession and they still won by 10 running out the last 4 minutes of the game.

 

[Joker]

the fact that we had this weird, once in a career, negative 20 yard strip fumble by Brady does not change my opinion . . .the fact that a one in a career event happens is a anormally as opposed to the predicted norm . . .

hey Yehoodi...stop confusing everybody with facts...last time I'm gonna tell ya'...

 

[pazrul72]

Based on the score and time left on the clock the call was fairly inconsequential either way. The evidence of this was the fact that the result of the play was about as bad a result as Denver could have hoped for, which was then followed up with another disastrous turnover on the next possession and they still won by 10 running out the last 4 minutes of the game.

Which they won because the D did it's job and got a fumble. Set the D up with as many chances to make a play as possable. The one time brady punted it was a pretty damn good punt and he doesn't have the leg mesko has so it probably wouldn't have reached the endzone and would have caught the bronco's with no one to return it thus making Manning drive 90 yards instead of 60. I love it when Bill is aggresive, I am 100% on board with the 4th and 2 call in Indy (Which Faulk got btw) but in today's game I was screaming at the TV. Got it or not, and I said as much at the snap, i believe it was a dumb call.

 

[ATippett56]

And? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. There more than those two figures that go into the equation. Many more.

If the Pats punt:
- There is a small chance the punt is blocked
- There is a small chance the punt is fumbled
- There is a small chance of a good return
etc, etc...

What if, What if, What if! Blah! Blah! Blah!

What if Mesko punts it out of bounds at the one yard line? What if the Denver Broncos run into the punter? What if the Denver Broncos rough the punter?

Plus, I think looking at league average statistics is a mistake. Manning is not even close to the league average. There is much that would need to go into the equation then I am sure anyone would want to calculate.

Meanwhile, Bill Belichick is a defensive genius which negates the Peyton "past his prime" Manning factor.

All that being said, those statisticians I have read, including those at Advanced Football Statistics and Football Outsiders often advocate going for it more often on 4th down, especially in that part of the field.

Then prove that the offense would have a greater than 80% success rate which is the defensive success rate.