Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Maybe, maybe not. They stopped him 6 times in the first half and a couple more in the second half. So the question is why he thought they didn't stand a decent chance of doing it this time. I think in the press conferences he basically said what you did, although not explicitly, which is he figured the odds of getting the first down were better than the odds of holding them on a ~70 yard drive. As for the stats, good points, if he failed to account for them. Although I doubt the data are rich enough to determine meaningfully how the Pats convert on 4th and 2 (1 for 1 I think) this year.
|
I like King's take on it.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...mqb/index.html
"Two things had to factor in here. One: Belichick didn't want to give Manning the ball with two minutes to go; he'd just seen Manning take the Colts 79 yards in six plays for a touchdown. Two: He trusted Brady to get two yards. Let's place the odds of Brady getting two yards at 60, 65 percent. The odds of Manning going 72 yards to score a touchdown in less than two minutes ... that's maybe 35 percent.
You might say Manning's chance of taking his team 72 yards are better than 35 percent. Not sure I would. On his previous seven possessions, covering about 30 minutes of game time, Manning had done the following:
· Six plays, 79 yards, touchdown.
· One play, zero yards, interception.
· Five plays, 79 yards, touchdown.
· Six plays, 16 yards, punt.
· Four plays, 24 yards, interception.
· Five plays, 16 yards, punt.
· Three plays, no yards, punt.
Three punts, two interceptions, two touchdowns. Now, maybe Belichick thought his defense was tired. Maybe he feared Manning. Maybe he trusted Brady. Whatever, the faulty logic here is that Manning was a sure thing to ram it down the Patriots' throats. Yes, he'd just done that, but on the series previous to that one he'd thrown a interception, his second of the night. So if the theory was Manning was going to score for sure, I don't buy it."
TM
