Oh, especially after all the talking heads acted like it was the worst decision since the Germans invaded Russia, it would just be a giant **** you to all of them.

What would have been awesome is if Addai were running free (not being closely pursued like he was in reality) on that play with 1:20 left or whatever, then stopped on the 1/2 yard line in an attempt to run as much time off the clock as possible before scoring. If anyone comes close to him he can stick his hand out for the touchdown.

Then the Patriots would have been like what the hell is going on? And probably try to tackle him short of the end zone, when they should actually make sure to tackle him into the end zone ASAP.

Maybe someday I will get to see a goal line standoff like this.

Also most coverage that I have seen has been saying how smart it was for Maurice Jones-Drew to stop short of the touchdown at the end of the game (which it was).

Does anyone think that if the field goal misses the story is "you always take the score when you can"?

Especially if in a post-game presser he said something along the lines of "FU Dungy and your backwards percentages"

Even funnier, along with that poll is another poll that says "if the Pats punted, who would have won" and 53% say Indy. So the people actually think that the Pats are a dog to win the game if they punt and they still think they should punt even though they're obviously well over 70% to win by going for it.

Grunch: Love the playcall. 90% of the mediatards that are berating BB for this would be licking his ass if they made it.

I'm guessing it adds ~5% to win, maybe up to 10%.

I listen to All Night with Jason Smith a lot before I go to bed, and was expecting the worst since he can often be a typical reactionary sports media guy.

Instead he's saying he liked the call and is now talking about how you can't be results oriented about it. How refreshing.

I was thinking something along these lines too. Yes the Colts had some momentum. But Manning had been throwing up weird ducks, Clark was mostly shut down, and every receiver but Wayne was dropping balls right and left. So it's not like punting the ball back to the 2006 Colts firing on all cylinders.

I'm not sure if this makes a big difference in the math. But I certainly liked the Colts chances of screwing up somewhere with a much longer field to work through (moreso than usual for them).

Let's assume the probabilities worked out exactly to a 50/50 distribution for whatever reason. Do you punt or go for it at 0EV.

It's amazing what giant % of the public isn't even cognizant of the idea that a good decision can still bring a negative result - in anything.

Then you go for it.

punt. and not to avoid media crucification, but to prevent this sort of strategy from even being considered.

This wasn't even the most questionable decision to go for it I have seen this season.
Check out the Ravens play call with :36 left in the 4th quarter of this game (Week 1 vs. KC, Ravens go for it on 4th and goal when leading by 7). Because the play succeeded, it is not even mentioned in the game recap...except to say "Willis McGahee scored from the 1 with 31 seconds remaining to clinch it." So results oriented....

ahhahahahahahaa

Noooo. Go for it because you can.

Actually the very very small potential edge you suggest probably makes you right.

I suppose the right play is to go for it because it involves slightly less chance of your players being injured.

Hmm, now this looks like a bad time to go for it. Surely they drive 99 yards to tie the game less often than blocked kick or score twice with so little time left. Either way the Chiefs are screwed but seems like they would prefer Baltimore to try and score.

Oh, wow I didn't even consider this idea. Agreed.

Addai would get crucified for doing this. It's like how 2nd and 1 > is better than 1st and 10, but you won't see WRs running 9 yard hooks on first down or RBs stepping out after 9 yards.

Listening to this also agreed.

Thanks for reminding me about that ****ing stupid backdoor cover.

I at least skimmed the whole thread and I'm not sure that anyone posted what I think is the correct solution here.

What Bellicheck should have done is go for it (obv) and if he missed he should have LET THE COLTS SCORE ON THE VERY NEXT PLAY. Then pats have about 1:45 and 2 TOs (I think) to get in to field goal range and then make a field goal.

This is the best course of action because I think the chance of pats scoring an FG after a kickoff with 1:45 and 2 TOs is greater than the chance of holding the colts when they get the ball from the 30.


The only possible objection to this is that Indy would be smart enough not to score immediately or would try to stall somehow. However, if executed properly, that's not really possible. On the first play just double cover the guys at the sidelines and leave Clark or someone open in the middle. I guarantee that Clark is going to run with that ball as far as he can, including into the endzone. The best he might do is that he may do what Stokeley did against cincy and shave off a few seconds, but he's not going to stop at the one so that Indy can take a knee a few times. That only works if you need a FG. It doesn't work if you need a TD, because even a TD from the 1 is not automatic.

I know Peyton said in the post game interview that they would have tried to milk the clock. But if the let them score on the very first play, I'm certain that Indy would just take it.

So Bellichek made the right call by going for it. He should have followed through by allowing the Colts to score immediately.

lol

I think the correct play is to do that but blitz huge on first down and see if u can get a big play. Basically you should definitely gamble to create a big play one way or the other so that you get the ball back with time left if they do score.

Pats had no timeouts.
Saying they should let them score from the 30 is ridiculous.
The chance of stopping even the Colts score from the 30 in this situation is better than the chance of going 40+ yard followed by making a long FG.
And even when you try to stop the Colts and they do score, some of the time you can still drive down to make the winning FG anyway.

I would think that trying to stop the Colts at the 30, planning to let them score if they get a quick big play, is clearly better than letting them score from the 30.

when typing this, did you ask yourself why Bill didn't challenge the spot, if he did in fact, have 2 time outs left?

obv not but you should have