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

[Danger Zone]

It was mind numbingly stupid to go for it there. Then again, they'd already shown a willingness to do really stupid things in this game at the end of the first half.

BB owes Ninkovich a bonus for bailing his ass out. He might want to send a thank you card and flowers to McGahee while he's at it.

I think the root of your criticism of Belichick is that he doesn't come to the Patsfan forum and seek your approval before he makes any move at all.

I take it you don't have a cell phone?

 

[hovis]

Maybe a little more "enjoying the win" and a little less "I know better than Belichick" might not be a bad thing.

His reaction is just as valid as yours... and hell of a lot more understandable from a Patriots fan.

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.

 

[DaBruinz]

No question the payoff of converting is great, but the downside of not converting, even by an inch, makes it a bad call IMHO. And the Pats don't have an aging, flu-ridden D like 2006, and they're definitely better than the 4th and 2 D. Not to mention the resurgence of the run game. Luckily, the D really solidified the game and put the O in the position to clinch at the end. Otherwise this call could have been infamous.

The Pats O-line wasn't flu-ridden in 2006 and it sure wasn't aging with the likes of Matt Light, Dan Koppen, Mankins, Neal and Kaczur. None of them were "aging" by any stretch of the imagination. And, I'm fairly certain none of them had the flu then. The flu was in the 2007 SB..

However, you need to go back and stop for a second. What is the "downside" of failing to make it by only getting to the 32.5 yard line? You take time off the clock, don't you? And the ball is at the 32.5 yard line of Denver. And they have 69.5 yards to go for a TD. Now, I could see your point had they run the ball on 3rd down and forced Denver to use another T.O. But they didn't.. They tried passing to Lloyd.. If you want to question that call, ok. I can see that one.

 

[ATippett56]

They marched right down the field in less than 2 minutes at which point McGahee fumbled. By your logic, I guess Denver should have gone for the field goal there since the play resulted in a fumble.

The Denver Broncos turned over the football!

 

[DaBruinz]

If you don't know, you didn't watch the game.

That is your opinion. Not fact. Unfortunately for you, I DID watch the game.

No, I'm not

Yes you are.

Yes, it was

No, it wasn't. Again, that is only your opinion. Not fact. And you've offered NOTHING to support your opinion. Nothing at all.

Going by a book without bothering to feel the game is asinine. You should have learned that lesson with the Colts loss.

What is asinine is you pretending that you have more knowledge than Belichick. Different situation. But far be it from you to concede that.

You had no problem with the Patriots being mind numbingly stupid, then. That's really all I need to know.

Again, it's only your worthless unsupported and factless opinion that it was "mind-numbingly stupid." That and $20 will get me a case of Coors Light.

Why don't you offer up something other than your BS conjecture. Like some hard facts. OR can't you be bothered?

 

[TomPatriot]

I liked the call. I think the OP is right. It could have put the game away and the most likely outcomes range from slightly negative to excellent. The offense didn't execute. On this play one of the less likely outcomes occurred - a fumble costing the 20 yards.

 

[ATippett56]

Manning was throwing for over 70% completion percentage. You think that giving that was the better percentage to go with?

The Denver Broncos are currently ranked 26th in the NFL in turnovers per offensive drive.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2012 DRIVE STATS

 

[BSR]

Prove to me that statistically fact.

I go based on the facts:

Advanced NFL Stats: Drive Results

You link proves it statistically and that's an average offense, not a Peyton Manning led one.

 

[ATippett56]

You link proves it statistically and that's an average offense, not a Peyton Manning led one.

You are moving the goal posts.

 

[ZoisKing]

I liked the call. I think the OP is right. It could have put the game away and the most likely outcomes range from slightly negative to excellent. The offense didn't execute. On this play one of the less likely outcomes occurred - a fumble costing the 20 yards.

I had no issues with the call either. Terrible execution was to blame. That play would have been a back breaker, and it actually got me excited to see that call made.

 

[zoostation]

I agree with the call in Indy....not so much today.

 

[hovis]

The Pats O-line wasn't flu-ridden in 2006 and it sure wasn't aging with the likes of Matt Light, Dan Koppen, Mankins, Neal and Kaczur. None of them were "aging" by any stretch of the imagination. And, I'm fairly certain none of them had the flu then. The flu was in the 2007 SB..

However, you need to go back and stop for a second. What is the "downside" of failing to make it by only getting to the 32.5 yard line? You take time off the clock, don't you? And the ball is at the 32.5 yard line of Denver. And they have 69.5 yards to go for a TD. Now, I could see your point had they run the ball on 3rd down and forced Denver to use another T.O. But they didn't.. They tried passing to Lloyd.. If you want to question that call, ok. I can see that one.

I'm not sure what your point is about the O-line is, I never mentioned anything about them.

The downside of it just that, an extra 30 yards vs. the punt. That can be significant, especially if you pin the opposition against the goalline. People that like the 4th and 5 call assume the Broncos would've moved the ball now matter what, but I think the D's performance throughout the entire game proved otherwise.

In regards to the Lloyd pass call, I agree with it if you plan to punt on 4th; but disagree if you think you're in four down territory.

 

[BSR]

The Denver Broncos are currently ranked 26th in the NFL in turnovers per offensive drive.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2012 DRIVE STATS

And you think that is relevant because you think Denver was going to run the ball if they were pinned back inside the 20 instead of letting Manning throw it?

 

[ATippett56]

And you think that is relevant because you think Denver was going to run the ball if they were pinned back inside the 20 instead of letting Manning throw it?

Wide receivers, tight ends, running backs don't fumble the football? Rewatch the first quarter, a Denver Broncos wide receiver fumbled the football.

 

[ATippett56]

And you think that is relevant because you think Denver was going to run the ball if they were pinned back inside the 20 instead of letting Manning throw it?

The Denver Broncos ran the football at least once on the following drive.

 

[BSR]

You are moving the goal posts.

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.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

FWIW, the study that Management Secrets of the Patriots cited points out that, between the 20s, if you have fourth-and-not-WTF (e.g., 4th-and-20), it's better to go for it essentially 100% of the time.

Personally, I have no problem with the 4th-and-2, I have no problem with today's call. I do have a problem with 4th-and-13 in "that game."

 

[BSR]

Wide receivers, tight ends, running backs don't fumble the football? Rewatch the first quarter, a Denver Broncos wide receiver fumbled the football.

Good point, but at the same time, Patriots had already exceeded fumble luck by that point having recovered greater than 50% of the fumbles.

 

[DaBruinz]

I'm not sure what your point is about the O-line is, I never mentioned anything about them.

Sorry, Read the D as a O.. Happens..

The downside of it just that, an extra 30 yards vs. the punt. That can be significant, especially if you pin the opposition against the goalline. People that like the 4th and 5 call assume the Broncos would've moved the ball now matter what, but I think the D's performance throughout the entire game proved otherwise.

In regards to the Lloyd pass call, I agree with it if you plan to punt on 4th; but disagree if you think you're in four down territory.

You're making a SWAG that the Pats would have gotten the ball to the 2 yard line and not a TB. So, it's not an extra 30 yards.

Really? The D's performance proved otherwise. You missed the just over 3 minute drive where Manning went 90 yards on them that took place just a few minutes before that punt I guess. I sure didn't miss it.

 

[ATippett56]

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.

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.

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.

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.