Quote:
Originally Posted by Gattigap
OK, but check out the drive chart. Two of the their 3 4Q possessions resulted in TDs prior to that. And both drives were 79 yards. So there's a decent probability that the Colts score a TD, even from a ways back on the field.
Compare that to a 100% probability that the Pats win the game if they make that 4th down play. With 8.7 yards per pass and 4.0 yards per rush, there's also a pretty good probability that they make that first down. |
I hate this kind of argument. The Patriots were up big. You can't tell me that the touchdown given up when the Pats were up 20 should be compared to the stand they had to make at the end of the game. If you can't count on your defense to hold another team for
another 80 yard drive when the game is on the line, then why wouldn't you
always go for it with 3 yards or less on 4th down? And, given your argument, at what spot on the field should he have
not gone for it? On the 20? On the 10? The 1 yard line? According to you (and the yards per pass or rush you quoted), the gamble is the same, no?
Yeah, if they make it it's a sure win. But if they don't, you give Manning a short field with 2 minutes and 3 timeouts. That's fucking suicide. And it's a really stupid play. If Mangini makes that call for the Browns, no matter how many yards they're averaging per play that game, I doubt you argue the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gattigap
Now here, we agree. Among plays they could've run, the screen did seem like a dumb choice.
|
What I don't get is why they didn't let the Colts score with a 1:30 left. Why tackle the guy at the 5 or wherever it was? Clearly you have no faith that your defense can stop Manning, so why not let him score and hope Brady can get you within field goal range to win it?
Belichick fucked that game up. From the blown timeouts to his play calling to his decision to go for it. I don't know how anyone looks at his decisions at the end of the game without thinking they were exceedingly stupid.
TM
