4th and 2

It seems everyone else on the planet has voiced their opinion in the argument over whether Bill Belichick made the right choice going for it on that now infamous 4th down on Sunday Night, so I might as well have a crack to. First of all, I don't want to hear about statistics or percentages. All too often I think people try and break down the game of football into percentages and chances of xyz happening, that it's all about mathematics, without realising that their are human beings involved (and not to mention the weather). Football is nothing like flipping a coin or spinning a roulette wheel. There are a ton of variables to consider. Take for example the stat that I keep seeing people batting around. Every football mathematician (for want of a better word) keeps repeating the same percentage: that the Pats had a 65% shot of making it on first down. Really? Because looking at the numbers, prior to this 4th down attempt the Pats had completed just 5 of 10 on 4th down attempts. Now, I'm no expert on numbers, but I'm pretty bloody sure that equals 50%, not 65%. And that's for all fourth downs, even ones that were just inches. What are their stats at going 4th and 2? And then I keep hearing about the percentage chances of stopping the Colts etc and I cant help but think "hang on a second, what about the Colts chances of stopping the Pats on 4th"? Are we to assume that it only matters how successful the Pats have been in the past at getting the first down? Don't certain defenses have better chances of stopping teams than others? Or are you really going to sit there and argue that the Cleveland Browns are just as good at making stops on 4th down as the Pittsburgh Steelers? (In case you're wondering the Steelers now have an 80% success rate against 4th down attempts, while the Browns have just a 46% success rate, tied with the Colts who've now made 5 stops on 11 attempts). But I digress. First of all, something very important must be understood about this decision. If that choice had been made by say, Norv Turner or Tom Cable, they would probably be unemployed right now. It's Belichick though, which is the only reason so many people are sticking up for him. If it was Mangini, everyone in the world would be ridiculing him (and rightly so). Secondly, why, for the love of god, didn't the Pats run the ball on the third down? I know the old argument, that Welker is one of their best players etc and you think he can do it blah, blah. But it was 2 yards. Two. Give the ball to Kevin Faulk. You're a pass first team that everyone knows will try and throw it. So don't. Line up with 4 guys wide and run the ball two measly yards for the win. If you don't get it, it doesn't matter. You let the clock run to the two minute warning. Now anything that happens afterwards is reviewable from the booth. For example, if you now tried to throw for the 4th down and the refs incorrectly marked the spot...... Third, why call out your punt team, then recall them, then burn a timeout. If you're gonna punt, punt. If you're gonna go for it, go for it. If you're not sure, punt. Clock management here was terrible, and that's really unlike the Pats. And don't give me any of that "they weren't sure what play to go with" nonsense. Belichick is a student of the Bill Walsh method of coaching. He and his team will have practiced 4th and 2 before. He and his team would know exactly what play they were gonna run (your very best short yardage play). It was just poor coaching. Fourth, I found a beautiful analogy while I was reading comments that people had made about this very topic on another site. I present it here in full for you: "State of mind plays a role. If I bet you $100 that you couldn’t throw an egg 12″ in the air and catch it, would you take the bet? What if the bet was $10 million? What if you lost, your arm would be amputated? Or you were executed? In all scenarios, it’s throwing an egg 12″ in the air and catching it. Do you still think the success rates are the same?" In short, do you think Faulk bobbling the ball would have happened if it had been on the Colts 29 yard line and not the Pats? Fifth and finally, let's look at what happens if you fail to make it versus punting the ball. By all estimations, if the Pats punt the Colts would have started on about their own 30, there or there abouts. Obviously Peyton Manning is going to have a much easier time scoring from 29 yards than from 70. But there are two factors we really need to consider that make the choice of going for it on 4th down a bad move: 1) You've basically just said to your D, "Punt? Are you guys f***ing kidding me?! I'd rather ask my offense to try and go for it on 4th and lose the game if we fail, than trust you guys to stop Manning going 70 yards!" 2) Yes Manning put together two drives in the 70+ range in that quarter, but he also threw a pick in between those two drives. Manning is good, but with only around two minutes left in the half he can't use the run game at any point, he really has to pass to win. And with Austin Collie and Pierre Garcon dropping balls all over the shop, that's a chance I'd be willing to take. Let's not forget that the Colts had been far from stellar in this game. The only reason they scored on their previous drive was really the terrible pass interference call that put them in range. Yeah I know Manning is good, but on this day I think the Pats would have made the stop. I think Belichick made a horrible choice. And I think no amount of number crunching can take that away. Even if he'd made it, I still would have put it down as a bad choice. Ultimately it cost the Patriots the game, and could come back to haunt them in January.