Unpopular Opinion: I think Reich made the right call.

[Joey007]

I’ve noticed that everyone has been absolutely ridiculing Colts HC Frank Reich for the decision of going for it on 4th down.

But why?

In my opinion, you NEVER play for a tie. You play to win. It was a 4th and 4. That’s very convertible. There’s no reason why you wouldn’t put the fate of the game in your best player’s hands.

This reminds me of people criticizing Bill for the 4th and 2 call. A little different of a situation. But ultimately, you can’t treat going for it on 4th as giving up a win. The idea is that you have to take risks in order to WIN games. I can’t fault that strategy.

 

[luuked]

The issue from my pov is that he should had made that decision earlier and call accordingly on third down.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

Whatever, let them stew over this on a short week.

 

[RobertWeathers]

What does Ernie's sliderule say?

 

[dustcover]

His decision does not surprise me. One must remember for a time, Reich had the distinction of having led his team to the biggest comeback victory ever in both the college and NFL ranks, including a 32-point comeback for the Bills in 1993.

On November 10, 1984 at the Orange Bowl Stadium, Reich came off the bench to replace QB Stan Gelbaugh. Quarterback Bernie Kosar had led Miami to a 31–0 halftime lead. At the start of the third quarter, Reich led the Terrapins on multiple scoring drives. Three touchdowns in the third quarter and a fourth at the start of the final quarter turned what was a blowout into a close game. Reich led Maryland to a 42–9 second half, and won 42–40, completing what was then the biggest comeback in NCAA history.

So it should not surprise anyone that Reich is one ballsy guy that wants to WIN.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

I’m glad it didn’t work, but I don’t blame the coach for trying. Have hated the irsay colts since they snuck out of town on that snowy night in Baltimore. There isn’t enough pain and anguish that can be leveled on that franchise to me.

 

[XLIX]

He was on the wrong side of the 50. Even if they got the 1st down, they would still have to have moved the ball about 25 yards in 20 seconds with only 1 TO.

Atrocious decision.

The 4th and 2 call was a WAY different situation. That was nothing more than Coach Belichick saying "I think our chances of gaining 2 yards are greater than our chances of stopping Peyton Manning".

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

His decision does not surprise me. One must remember for a time, Reich had the distinction of having led his team to the biggest comeback victory ever in both the college and NFL ranks, including a 32-point comeback for the Bills in 1993.

On November 10, 1984 at the Orange Bowl Stadium, Reich came off the bench to replace QB Stan Gelbaugh. Quarterback Bernie Kosar had led Miami to a 31–0 halftime lead. At the start of the third quarter, Reich led the Terrapins on multiple scoring drives. Three touchdowns in the third quarter and a fourth at the start of the final quarter turned what was a blowout into a close game. Reich led Maryland to a 42–9 second half, and won 42–40, completing what was then the biggest comeback in NCAA history.

So it should not surprise anyone that Reich is one ballsy guy that wants to WIN.

He played with abandon both times. But he was the back up both times, so he really had nothing to lose, he was just going back to the bench, win or lose, and he had a good team backing him. Now, he doesn’t have that out now of being the back up. He just has a team that sucks, and will find ways to lose a few more times this year.

 

[Joey007]

He was on the wrong side of the 50. Even if they got the 1st down, they would still have to have moved the ball about 25 yards in 20 seconds with only 1 TO.

Atrocious decision.

And would have had a near zero percent chance of WINNING had they punted.

Not an atrocious decision.

 

[XLIX]

And would have had a near zero percent chance of WINNING had they punted.

Not an atrocious decision.

That's right. A punt guaranteed a tie. Instead, he accepted a great chance of losing in exchange for a slim chance of winning.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Are there any memes for it yet - or banners?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The issue from my pov is that he should had made that decision earlier and call accordingly on third down.

Are you talking about Reich or Belichick? (I didn't see the end of the Colts game.)

In any event, at least with respect to 4th-and-2, my only problem with it was that despite what BB said after the game, NE clearly was winging it and was not planning for 4-down football there. The plays called made no sense if they had really decided ahead of time they were playing 4-down football.

 

[luuked]

Are you talking about Reich or Belichick? (I didn't see the end of the Colts game.)

In any event, at least with respect to 4th-and-2, my only problem with it was that despite what BB said after the game, NE clearly was winging it and was not planning for 4-down football there. The plays called made no sense if they had really decided ahead of time they were playing 4-down football.

Reich. But BB as well back then.

 

[Oswlek]

And would have had a near zero percent chance of WINNING had they punted.

Not an atrocious decision.

That he would have a near zero chance of winning with a punt is not particularly important. How much would a conversion improve the odds of victory? How much would a failure improve the odds of loss? These are the important questions. And a decision that marginally improves the former while virtually guaranteeing the latter is not a good one. For that game, at least. Maybe he's also trying to install a new attitude, which could be a factor as well.

 

[Joey007]

Edit: wrong thread

 

[nabwong]

I’d rather tie with a division opponent than almost with certainty lose to them. You gave them much needed momentum and this counts like 1.5 losses.

But F the colts.

 

[lancerman]

I’ve noticed that everyone has been absolutely ridiculing Colts HC Frank Reich for the decision of going for it on 4th down.

But why?

In my opinion, you NEVER play for a tie. You play to win. It was a 4th and 4. That’s very convertible. There’s no reason why you wouldn’t put the fate of the game in your best player’s hands.

This reminds me of people criticizing Bill for the 4th and 2 call. A little different of a situation. But ultimately, you can’t treat going for it on 4th as giving up a win. The idea is that you have to take risks in order to WIN games. I can’t fault that strategy.

This is absolutely asinine and reeks of stupid macho fan **** that has no logical or tactical purpose.

1. Fact, for the purposes of records, a win is essentially +1, a loss is -1, and a tie is 0. Going 0-0-16 is the equivalent of going .500. So a tie IS BETTER than a loss.

2. That was a divisional game. The Colts tying that game puts the Texans at 0-3-1 and the Colts at 1-2-1. NOW because of that preposterous decision both teams are at 1-3 and BECAUSE the Colts didn't tie the game and LOST the game they actually rank lower than Texans in the standings than they would have if they tied. The Colts had more to lose by not tying.

3. Just off basic football logic, 4th and 4 is not in go for it territory unless you are losing and don't have time. Just off basic football logic, that field position was terrible in a game that could be decided by a field goal.

4. Bill Belichick was trying to win a game he had no faith in his defense stopping Peyton Manning in. He did not have control of the outcome. If he punted he was at the mercy of a Colts team that nearly went undefeated in a Peyton Manning MVP year. Reich pretty much had control of the outcome. His team would not have lost if they punted that ball. Belichick's team had a very good chance of losing if they punted that ball.

 

[lancerman]

And would have had a near zero percent chance of WINNING had they punted.

Not an atrocious decision.

Which is stupid. He had an incredibly high chance of tying by punting it and a slim chance of losing. He traded that for a moderately lower chance of tying and slightly higher chance of winning if they made it and a near certain chance of losing if they failed.

In a situation where a tie was far superior to a loss. They actively hurt themselves in the rankings by losing that game. A tie was far more beneficial.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

It was an awful call. Assuming that you haven’t already given up on trying to compete for your division and still have (albeit far fetched) hopes to be in the race, a tie is far better than a loss. I can see your take on a team that is 2-12 and nothing but pride on the line but youre 2 games behind the division leader with 12 games to go.

Even if the gamble pays off and he catches that first down, you are still in your own territory with 24 seconds and the clock running, and a noodle arm qb. So a huge gamble where its STILL gonna be a battle trying to get in reasonable fg range. Extreme risk, moderate reward= awful call.

Its not comparable whatsoever to 4th and 2 for a number of reasons but the main ones are because a) the game is over if the patriots convert the first down and b) reich doesn’t have Tom Brady.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Great 1st year coach. It will be a tough game Thursday