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

[TruthSeeker]

When it's late in the game and you've got a lead that can be overcome, time is important. When time's important, field position is EXTREMELY important. The strategy on that entire drive was maddening. They should have been killing the clock and willing to punt. I love aggressive playcalling as much as anyone, but there's a difference between aggressive and stupid.

This is exactly what loses games.

 

[TruthSeeker]

My point is NO ONE makes this thread if the Pats lose the game......it's always easy to say it was the right call AFTER they win,very obvious.

Actually, there are people out there with integrity even if you don't seem to know them...

 

[resdubwhite]

What was a horrible call? Going for it? If so, why? Because the OP gave reasons as to why he (and others including myself) thought it was a good call. Going 'nuh-uh' doesn't pass for a rebuttal, this isn't the presidential debates for crissakes.

As far as the actual play called? I'm fine with it. We had run a lot on 3rd and medium today I think another run might have been too obvious. If we execute on this play we're not having this discussion.

I'd have to look at the play again. But my memory was of an empty backfield with Broncos lining up for the blitz. One of my bug bears is that We didn't even dare show run or have them even guess run. I know its 5 yards. and a little over a short yardage gain, but still. The defense only had one target in mind, and that target was the franchise.


now in my mind with half a quarter to go, in enmy territory at 17 points up, you play percentage game. I freely admit thats not BB's MO.

punt it. let them play it from their half. You chew some clock.
end result is probably another Td anyway, but don't gift wrap the TD.

Of this their is no doubt. It was a risk that went wrong. I admire the coaching staff for having the guts to do this, just in this occasion it went wrong. Nearly drastically wrong.

Opinions are what Discussion boards are all about. we don't have to agree on everything.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

now in my mind with half a quarter to go, in enmy territory at 17 points up, you play percentage game. I freely admit thats not BB's MO.

punt it. let them play it from their half. You chew some clock.
end result is probably another Td anyway, but don't gift wrap the TD.

Of this their is no doubt. It was a risk that went wrong. I admire the coaching staff for having the guts to do this, just in this occasion it went wrong. Nearly drastically wrong.

I think that our coaching staff was playing the percentage game. Their analysis says that a punt from the opponent's 35-40 yard line is not a percentage play. They rarely ever do it.

The options from the 37/38 are:

1) 55 yard field goal. While perhaps makable, there would be a 50-50 chance of turning it over at the 45. No. The benefit here is a 20 point lead rather than 17, so still 3 scores. Not enough benefit for the risk.

2) punt. Interesting, but it's hard to pull off a 30 yard punt. It's not normal punt mechanics or punt coverage. Most likely you will net 17 yards, a very small field position reward.

3) Go for it. Again IMO perhaps a 50-50 proposition. If you succeed, you likely have killed enough clock to have no chance to lose. If you fail, you likely turn it over at the 37/38 (incomplete) or closer to the 34 (tackled short of 1st down). You have a QB known for not making mistakes. The chance of a strip sack are also very small. Unfortunately that happened though, and blew up the odds analysis.

 

[brdmaverick]

To me this one was soooo different from Indy. I fully supported the Indy decision, but when Brady trotted back on the field this time I was like "what are they doing?". By saying that before the snap I know for a fact I am NOT being 'results oriented'.

I just thought pinning them back to their own goal line and forcing them to waste time moving the ball up the field was the best play there.

Was I thinking there would be a fumble that would give them the ball on our side of the field? Of course not, BUT I was thinking an incompletion would still give them the ball on their side of the field between the 40 and 45, still really good field position in my book.

I think it was a bad decision, especially when you consider that the passing game was in a rut during the second half.

Bad decision in my book........BUT I still am glad that we have a head coach that has the guts to make these unconventional decisions.

 

[UK_Pat37]

I have no real issue with the decision. We were at the Broncos' 37 and its the same old mantra of the best way to beat manning is to keep the ball yourself. Brady has to protect that football and get it out quickly. We were three scores up and, without the fumble, it wouldn't have looked as bad.

Nothing wrong with Belichicks's call. You'd be calling hm a genius if it had worked. Actually, no, you'd be hailing Tom Brady and ignoring anexcellent play call. That's what half the fans do...credit players for a good play and then blame the coaches when a play call isn't executed.

 

[resdubwhite]

I think that our coaching staff was
2) punt. Interesting, but it's hard to pull off a 30 yard punt. It's not normal punt mechanics or punt coverage. Most likely you will net 17 yards, a very small field position reward.

Obviously my background isn't football.

But in Rugby the "punter" or we call the kicker will kick for territory. Force the punt over the sideline at any angle inside the twenty. Do we ever see something like that in football.

I know in madden I do it all of the time :bricks:
appreciate what you are saying about the percentage game too.

 

[BSR]

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?

Its not what if, its everything that you have to consider when trying to calculate the percentages.

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

Are you seriously suggesting that Belichick made a stupid move partly because Belichick is such a defensive genius?

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

It doesn't need to be better than an 80% defensive success rate. It just needs to be better between the 80% defensive success rate and the defensive success rate they would have if they don't succeed. On average that is about a 20% differential.

 

[BSR]

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.

They did't win because the D got a fumble. They won because the offense ran off the last 4 minutes of the game. If they let up a score there all it did was change their margin of victory.

You were screaming at your TV because you did't understand it. The call was fine.

 

[abdul7]

I must admit i am confused about this call. Up 17 late in the 4th Quarter, was shocked to see TB go back in. However my main worry would be is what kind of a message did we send to the D ? I know they let some big plays but for once in a long time i have so much faith in our Defense. Still the main thing is we WON .

 

[Seacoast Fan]

I haven't read all 15 pages of this thread so forgive me if someone else has said this before, but the problem I had with the decision to go for it was what the Pats did on third AND fourth down. Late in the game, trying to kill the clock, your RBs have been running great all day....so with five yards for a first, and two downs to get it, I thought they should have run it twice. Maybe you get stuffed twice but at worst you still run another minute off the clock.
I don't have a problem with the decision. As others have said, pushing the broncos back another20 yes or so at that point I don't think would have made a huge difference.

 

[pazrul72]

They did't win because the D got a fumble. They won because the offense ran off the last 4 minutes of the game. If they let up a score there all it did was change their margin of victory.

You were screaming at your TV because you did't understand it. The call was fine.

I understand the call just fine, like I've said multiple times I get and support the call in INDY that was risky and unconventional. This was different and you're clearly forgetting the late McGhee fumble Ninkovich caused. That's the play the defense made that won the game. Otherwise Denver was going in for a TD and being down by only 3 might have changed how the rest of the game was played. The only reason the offense was allowed to go on that 4 minute drive was the defense did it's job and I think the call should have been to give the defense the most oppurtunities to make that play. The pats won so it's not a big deal

 

[BSR]

I understand the call just fine, like I've said multiple times I get and support the call in INDY that was risky and unconventional. This was different and you're clearly forgetting the late McGhee fumble Ninkovich caused. That's the play the defense made that won the game. Otherwise Denver was going in for a TD and being down by only 3 might have changed how the rest of the game was played. The only reason the offense was allowed to go on that 4 minute drive was the defense did it's job and I think the call should have been to give the defense the most oppurtunities to make that play. The pats won so it's not a big deal

How does it change the way the game is played? That is a huge assumption on your part. All we know is if they scored a TD there, even more time would have been run off the clock meaning that it would have been even easier for them to run time off the clock. Plus you are also forgetting that the only reason that so much time was left on the clock was because of Ridley's disastrous fumble.

Its the poor execution resulting in fumbles on two plays that was the problem not the call on 4th and 5.

 

[brdmaverick]

I haven't read all 15 pages of this thread so forgive me if someone else has said this before, but the problem I had with the decision to go for it was what the Pats did on third AND fourth down. Late in the game, trying to kill the clock, your RBs have been running great all day....so with five yards for a first, and two downs to get it, I thought they should have run it twice. Maybe you get stuffed twice but at worst you still run another minute off the clock.
I don't have a problem with the decision. As others have said, pushing the broncos back another20 yes or so at that point I don't think would have made a huge difference.

That actually is a VERY good point. If Belichick was already thinking fourth down, you'd think he would have run it on two plays (at least killing clock on the first play). More importantly, it was the run game that was still working in the second half (not the pass).

 

[brdmaverick]

When the Pats offense is hitting on all cylinders, I say go for it on fourth down all the time....but that was not the case here. The offense line was shaky in pass protection causing Brady to be extremely skittish in the pocket. Brady was certainly uncomfortable out there and thus did not inspire confidence.

 

[lamafist]

That actually is a VERY good point. If Belichick was already thinking fourth down, you'd think he would have run it on two plays (at least killing clock on the first play). More importantly, it was the run game that was still working in the second half (not the pass).

There was still 8:22 remaining in the game. That's WAY too early to be worrying about clock-stoppage on an incomplete pass. At that point of the game, the best way to kill clock is to keep moving the chains. Any play call that is sub-optimal in terms of getting a first down would be counterproductive.

Like at any other point in the game, Brady's going to go to the line, read the defense, and run the play he thinks has the best shot of working. It's hard to say whether or not he made the right call, because any play executed as poorly as that 4th down play would have disastrous resultes.

 

[BadMoFo]

If going for it on fourth down was the right call, why not just run the ball on third and fourth. Kill the clock, plus a better chance of converting.

That fourth down play reminded me of the calls we made at the end of the Baltimore game. Must be something that the opposing defense is seeing that is allowing them to blitz and bring pressure with no problems.

 

[PatsDeb]

I didn't have a problem with going for it on 4th down per se, but I had a big problem with the play call, which almost got Brady killed. Why not give it to one of the running backs who had been lighting them up all day? Sheesh.

 

[ralmat55]

I haven't read all 15 pages of this thread so forgive me if someone else has said this before, but the problem I had with the decision to go for it was what the Pats did on third AND fourth down. Late in the game, trying to kill the clock, your RBs have been running great all day....so with five yards for a first, and two downs to get it, I thought they should have run it twice. Maybe you get stuffed twice but at worst you still run another minute off the clock.
I don't have a problem with the decision. As others have said, pushing the broncos back another20 yes or so at that point I don't think would have made a huge difference.

Poor me! I did read most of those 15 pages looking for someone to make your point. I'd have run the ball on 3rd down if I had decided to go for it on 4th down anyway. I have no problem with them going for it on 4th and 5, and I'd have thrown for it, but Brady would have been under center and Ridley would have been lined up behind him.

 

[brdmaverick]

There was still 8:22 remaining in the game.

That's arguable with a three score lead.