16
2009
Go For It On Fourth? Why Not?
An article by WhoDey
Obviously, the controversial call in last night’s Colts-Patriots showdown was Belichick’s decision to go for it on 4th and 2 at his own 28 – just before the two minute warning, while nursing a 6 point lead. Most people seem to think it was an egregiously bad call – I’m here to play the contrarian.
First, let’s put this game into context – because that’s what the Patriots are best known for. Every week, week-by-week. Outside of the overblown “rivalry of the decade”, what did this game mean for the Patriots? It’s not a division game, and it’s unlikely they will be anything less than division champs at the end of the season anyway. So, really, they were playing for playoff seeding. I’m not saying that’s not important – but a loss here wasn’t devastating.
Now, putting the play into context – both offenses had been rolling. The Patriots were able to move the ball up and down the field all game. In fact, two turnovers in the end zone kept the game as close as it was. The Colts had just turned it on in the 4th quarter, as they often do. So Belichick had every reason to a) think his offense could pick up 2 yards, and b) think that if he gave the ball back to the Colts with 2 minutes remaining, they were going to score, no matter where on the field they were.
So – why not go for it on fourth down? You’re sending a message – we’re going to win this game or lose, but we’re going to control it and go out on our terms. I like that. It’s unconventional, and that’s what makes people uncomfortable, but I don’t think it’s lunacy. Would I have done it? No. But Belichick has made a career out of breaking the mold, and it’s made him the success that he is today. The decision was a combination of things – sure, he probably had little faith in his defense, and yes, he was probably a bit cocky. But that’s what I want out of my coach.
Now, if you want to criticize the timeout management, I’m all for that. That was very un-Patriot-like, and it cost them the chance to challenge the spot on the 4th down play. I’m not sure how that would have worked out; I think it was likely a bad spot, but there’s no way to say that it would have been overturned given the video evidence available. And give the Colts credit – the play was well defensed and that’s what made the spot so close and such a question.
Kudos to Belichick for having some stones. You win some and you lose some – but there’s something to be said for doing it “Your Way”.
Related Posts
The People’s Guide to the Super Bowl
Poll: 2010, the year of Brett Favre
The Miseducation of Rex Ryan
The Weekly: Really? (NFL “Professionals”, Physics, and Nascar)
About the Author: Who Dey
5 Comments + Add Comment
Leave a comment
Subscribe to 23/7 Sports
Recent Comments
- Oliver Davis on A Brief Look at Why Desmond Howard Sucks
- @briankelly_ on A Brief Look at Why Desmond Howard Sucks
- briankellyf2 on A Brief Look at Why Desmond Howard Sucks
- Tweets that mention The People’s Guide to the Super Bowl « 23/7 Sports -- Topsy.com on The People’s Guide to the Super Bowl
- @briankelly_ on The People’s Guide to the Super Bowl
I agree. I didnt see the big deal. He was trying to keep it out of Peytons hands so they could run out the clock. I get it.
Are you comparing Belichick to Sinatra by saying they did it their "Way"? At least Bill didn't leave the stadium with 4 mins left in the 4th. That would have really been a disaster… Trust me, it is.
I do think this is rivalry of the decade, nothing more, but exactly that. Besides Favre or Broncos Cutler/ D Bag Rivers, no game is bigger in the last 10 years consistently. But this from the guy that left so… grain of salt and FML
I agree with the decision to go for it. I disagree with the play call. Run the ball up the gut, you get the first down, you win the game.
It was a good call. The play was right to. It was only unsuccessful b/c of Faulk not the play call. Frankly, we should be thankful for a guy like Belichek to make the game interesting. This had nothing to do with trusting his D because it arguably put more trust in his defense. I agree timeouts were a bigger problem. They wasted 2 timeouts at the end which at the very least could've been used to stop the clock on the Colts' game-winning drive. That would've left plenty of time for the Pats to get in FG range with a deep ball to Randy Moss (which was there all day). In fact, that was more uncharacteristic of Bill than the 4th and 2 was. Why are we surprised by that? He does that all the time. And it's got him 3 rings.
What's lost in all this is that the old Pats D would've stopped the Colts even from the 30. in '04 I think, that was the infamous 1st and goal from like the 4 yard line that the Pats stuffed. Ending with Willie McGinnest stopping the 4th down run. This Pats D couldn't stop them from the 30 in the last minute.
Dead on. It's amazing to see how successful the Pats still are despite a massive change in philosophy. At the start of their "dynasty", they were a superb defense with a serviceable, mistake-free offense. Now, they've got a fantastic offense, especially in the passing game, and a defense that can keep them in games when not asked to do too much. The Colts have taken the opposite path, although their change has been more of an "adjustment" and less of a drastic change in direction. Say what you want about Belichick, but it's a damn impressive coaching job to see what he's done with this franchise in this decade.