NFFC Message Boards

Before I make my point or ask the questions I am going to ask, let me state that I personally believe Belichick absolutely should have punted the ball away and given his defense a chance to win the game and at the very least force Manning and the Colts to drive 70+ yards to win the game.

So please do not misunderstand my questions and assume I think Belichick made the right call. I also do not hide how much I hate Belichick and the Pats.

I think we have a lot of expert level NFL minds here and would like some feedback from people on a few questions.

-Given how the game was going, how good Manning is, and how the Colts had moved the ball in the 4th quarter... what would you say the percent chance was that the Manning lead Colts would have driven to a game winning TD even if the Pats had punted the ball away? They had more than enough time (with timeouts and 2 minute warning) so time wasn't an issue.

Most knowledgable football people I have asked this question to have said there was a 70-80% chance, given the rhythm that offense was in, that Manning would have driven down the field and scored even if the Pats punted.

NEXT QUESTION...

-What percent of the time do you think the Patiot offense converts on 4th and 2? Again, the number has been repeatedly set at 75%ish.

So if punting the ball results in a good chance the Colts win anyway... and going for it on 4th down usually would result in a first down (that would essentially win the game for the Pats)... and failing on 4th down still requires the Colts drive 30 yards and score a TD...

Was the decision THAT bad?

I am fully aware that after it fails it is easy to jump all over someone for doing something that is unconventional. Had they converted that first down (like I think they would 80% of the time) we would hear how Belichick is a genius and plays to win.

But since they came up short he gets attacked as an easy target.

Again, I say all of this thinking they should have punted and forced Manning to have to make more plays to get to the endzone than ultimately he ended up needing to. I also HATE Belichick for being a poor sportsmanship run up the score type coach. SO this isn't about me feeling bad for that coach or organization.

Just wanted feedback on the two questions I asked....

[ November 16, 2009, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Renman ]

I think people are over blowing it saying how terrible a call it was and that it was the worst coaching decision ever.

I agree he should have punted but it was not that crazy of a decision. You punt the ball back to the colts with 1.30 and 2-3 timeouts and a touchdown beats you, I'd say its 75% chance the colts score a td with basically no time left for you to get the ball back.

By the way I still think he gained possession while having the first down.

Field position was the key.

On the other side of the 50 yard line...no problem with going for it.

Winning by less than 7 and being on the wrong side of midfield...foolish and risky even in a game of Madden.

Flex,

That is my point. If the numbers are right that I am getting from people...

Punt = 75% chance of losing if you are the pats.

Go for it on 4th = a 75% chance of making it and you win the game.

It isn't as cut and dry as some make it, me included when in that moment he went for it and I was knocking him for it (even though it helped me as a Reggie Wayne fantasy owner).

from a statistical perspective, i don't think it was a bad call. I would put the odds of them converting that 4th and 2 are roughly 70% and then the odds of the Colts Scoring a td from where they were at was 67%. That leaves a 20% chance of failure... but then theres also a 20% chance the pats would have had enough time to go down and get a fg... so i put the total odds of failure at 16%. With punting, the odds of the colts scoring driving the field and scoring a td were well above that.

I will go out on a limb and say it was a smart call.

I admire that he had to balls to make what might have been the statisically sound call in the face of all the criticism he knew he would endure if it didn't work out. A shame it didn't work out because it wasn't that dumb.

Chris,

That is my point. The more I think about it the less dumb it gets.

Up to that point in the game...IND had 12 possesions resulting in 4 TD's.

I'd say punting at that point would have allowed New England closer to a 66% chance of winning the game.

...and with the 2 min. warning and the timeouts remaining...getting the first down would not have iced the game anyway...making the risk even more stupid.

[ November 16, 2009, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

Sportsbettingman,

I wondered what the numbers were. Though I do think the Colt offense was in a much better rhythm and sync in the 4th quarter than they were to start the game so I would say their chances might be a little higher than if you just take the % of TD's per possession for the entire game.

But even if your numbers punting resulted in a 66% chance of losing the game. If you have a 75% chance of converting on 4th and 2 and winning the game, the decision looks less radical.

the patriots defense had run out of gas though... combine that with the more aggressive mentality of a 2 minute drill, and 4 downs, i think the colts have a 50% shot at scoring if you punt.

Well by no means scientific, based on what I wrote above, I think Belichicks decision had more like a 16% chance of failure

I'm still waiting for my dream to come true, and an NFL coach NEVER PUNTS the entire season. All 3rd downs are just another down, and only 4th downs are critical. Use all 4 downs to get those 10 yards like I do in Madden to great success.

It will not happen...but if a coach did it as an experiment, and had great success (high five!)...it would spread like a Wild(cat)fire!