T1B

....as evidenced by going for it on 4th and 2 at his own 28 yard line with just over 2 minutes. What a DUMBSHIT move- you never ever ever ever give Peyton Manning a short field with the game on the line.

EVER!

He punts that thing away and makes that guy work for the winning TD...instead he shows the whole world just how completely fucking ARROGANT he really is, and hands the Colts a "W". The looks on Tom Brady's grille said it all too, like "What the fuck are we doing here?".

Sorry to whomever is behind the Belicheat troll, but this is a troll free zone.

Paul -- while the merits of the call are a great talking point, please refrain from lying about "the look on Brady's face."

He wanted to go for it. I saw him mouth the words "go, go" before the timeout was taken. Furthermore, driving into work this morning... I heard the local am station play some footage it ripped from the game of Belichick and Brady discussing whether or not to go for it and Brady was 100% for it.

Lastly, I don't recall seeing this look you speak of. Can you please show me... "the look" on Brady's face? Feel free copy/paste this from another source. TIA.

Risk/reward was slanted pretty heavily toward RISK on that gamble because the very same reward that you get by gaining the two yards on 4th down might be had by punting the ball away.

But as I see it, Belichick's going for that is a VERY big compliment given to Peyton Manning.

Dumb fucking decision, though.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Paul -- while the merits of the call are a great talking point, please refrain from lying about "the look on Brady's face."

He wanted to go for it. I saw him mouth the words "go, go" before the timeout was taken. Furthermore, driving into work this morning... I heard the local am station play some footage it ripped from the game of Belichick and Brady discussing whether or not to go for it and Brady was 100% for it.

Lastly, I don't recall seeing this look you speak of. Can you please show me... "the look" on Brady's face? Feel free copy/paste this from another source. TIA.

I didn't see him mouth the words "go, go" before the timeout was taken. I also didn't hear your local am station play some footage it ripped from the game of Belichick and Brady discussing whether or not to go for it and Brady was 100% for it. If that was the case then so be it, but to me he still looked like he was rather incredulous at the decision to go for it at that time. Doesn't matter though- it was STILL retarded to go for it in that situation.

It's Belicheats decision, not Brady's. And Brady did have a strange look on his face. Who knows or cares why.

And Rodney Harrison came on after the game and said that was Cheats worst decision ever.

Great stuff.

trev wrote:And Brady did have a strange look on his face.

Another liar. Can you define the look? How did it differ from his normal look? May I please have a link to this "strange" look? What's next, you and Paul have done extensive studies on Brady's "body language" and knew exactly what was going through his mind? What's with this "look", bullshit? Brady wanted to go for it. No doubt in my mind... Winners always want the ball... when the game is on the line.


Bottom line. I did not agree with the call, though I am fairly certain Manning would have led his team down the field no matter where he was starting from. Still, much like a G-Pete jerk... you gotta make him earn it.

I thought the call was pretty dumb at the time. Still, it took a great tackle to prevent the first down. If it had worked it would have been just a "gutsy" call that won the game for the Pats.

I don't recall seeing any closeup of Brady during the time between 3rd and 4th down. He did look pretty disgusted after the game was over, though.

Mikey wrote:He did look pretty disgusted after the game was over, though.

I'm buying that, it was a shitty fucking defeat. Outrushed/passed/gained Indy /+10 min TOP/17 pt 4th Qtr lead/LOSS.

I am fairly certain I fell asleep with a disgusted look on my face. Or maybe that's my "normal" look. HHHhhhhmmmmm.... Trev? Paul? Can I get a ruling?

mvscal wrote:It's only dumb if you don't make it. He took a shot and came up short. It happens.

Yea, but it showed zero confidence in his defense - which can't have perked them up to much when they went out there.

It was a wrong decision - even if Manning had led them 60 yds insteadd of only 30, that's still one-three more plays they have to execute.

He also fucked up with burning the time outs - it was almost "Haleyesque" in his decision making

...the look mentioned above was Brady on the sideline AFTER manning threw the one yard strike to Wayne ( I had the same freeking look as it gave the Cro-mags 7 more points when they could have run the sucker in !$@#^*%)*%(%$%$)

You feel asleep after that? I was up till 2:00AM trying to figure that out......

Belichick figured it was their only chance to win. D was gassed and Peyton was marching all over them in the 4th quarter. I still would have rather seen them march 70 yards to do it though. Dumb call. With the AFC East practically wrapped up already then maybe a risk worth taking. Like MV says it is only a bad call if you don't make it.....

KC Scott wrote:Yea, but it showed zero confidence in his defense.

The funniest part about this whole thing was reading some of the Indy defensive player's quotes about Belichick showing them no respect by going for it and then also saying "that's what you get"...

:?

Um, tards? He was "disrespecting" his own defense. Furthermore, after giving up over 450 yards and 6 scores, you really shouldn't be running your mouths either. Just be glad that Moroney bailed you out with a fumble at the goal line or else we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I am fairly certain I fell asleep with a disgusted look on my face. Or maybe that's my "normal" look. HHHhhhhmmmmm.... Trev? Paul? Can I get a ruling?

It's clearly a difference of opinions, ucunt....get over it already.

Paul wrote:It's clearly a difference of opinions, ucunt....get over it already.

Actually, Paul, there's a quite a distinction between an opinion and statement of fact.

Your claim about Brady's "look" will not be backed up by any evidence. Ever. Link it up or STFU.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Paul wrote:It's clearly a difference of opinions, ucunt....get over it already.

Actually, Paul, there's a quite a distinction between an opinion and statement of fact.

Your claim about Brady's "look" will not be backed up by any evidence. Ever. Link it up or STFU.

Others here shared my opinion. Enough said.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:
I am fairly certain I fell asleep with a disgusted look on my face. Or maybe that's my "normal" look. HHHhhhhmmmmm.... Trev? Paul? Can I get a ruling?

If I were shutyomouth, I'd say you and Tom both had a look on your faces similiar to having a big black cock go up your poop shute.

But, I'm not shutyomouth....

trev wrote:
But, I'm not shutyomouth....

Are you sure?
I mean, absolutely sure?

mvscal wrote: Just out of curiousity, who is your go to guy with the game on the line? The punt team? The defense? Or Tom Brady?

That question ALWAYS has to be put in situational context.

4th down & 3 from my own 27 with under two minutes left?
I gotta say punt and make 'em drive it 60+ yds rather than 27.

it goes back to what I said earlier about making Indy execute 2 or 3 more plays - rather than just the 3 they needed to score.

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote:

mvscal wrote: Just out of curiousity, who is your go to guy with the game on the line? The punt team? The defense? Or Tom Brady?

That question ALWAYS has to be put in situational context.

The "situational context" is that the game is on the line. Do or die.

So...who's it going to be?

Leading by 6 + under two minutes to play + 4th and 3 from my own 27 = Punt

I don't care who my QB is - It's smart Football

4th and about 1.75, btw. Not 3.

mvscal wrote: Personally, I would put my best unit on the field which in New England's case happens to be the offense lead by one of the most clutch QBs to ever play the game. I wouldn't even have to think twice about it.

Well I guess that's why I've coached in two Truman Bowls (Pop Warner championships) and you haven't

:D :D :D

New England's punter averages 39 per. With net, it's down to 34.

Brady hits at 66% and was 70% on the night.

The decision isn't the no-brainer some of you are making it out to be.

If it's Chris Simms or Jamarcus Russell, yeah, I'm giving them 65 yards instead of 30 and I'll take my chances. Hell, if it's Jamarcus, I'm punting the ball on first down. For Peyton, 65 yards in two minutes is not exactly a minefield.

The misuse of the timeouts is another story, though. No excuse for that.

KC Scott wrote:Yea, but it showed zero confidence in his defense

To me it showed more overconfidence in his offense than lack of confidence in his defense. If he lacked confidence in his defense, why did he risk giving Manning the ball at the 28 with a chance to score the game winning TD?

I thought they should have punted, but...

I also thought they made the 1st down it and got hosed by a terrible spot.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:If he lacked confidence in his defense, why did he risk giving Manning the ball at the 28 with a chance to score the game winning TD?

Knock, knock... hello?

If almost any other coach in the league had made such a foolish decision he would have been laffed at for decades, and NFL Films prolly would have included the debacle in one of their specials -- sandwiched right inbetween Jim Marshall running the wrong way for a TD and Joe Pisarcik dropping the ball to Herm Edwards.

"Remember the time Hoodie gave Peyton Manning a 28 yd field to execute a game-winning drive by GOING FOR IT on 4th and 2 deep in his own end with 2 minutes left in the game?"

BWAAAA HAHAHA


Because it was Belichick we've got tools mesmerized into thinking that there must be some rational for it.

Scott is right, it was very stoopid.

But at least BB isn't AP.

Read my first post.

The risk/reward is slanted way too far toward risk if you go for it on 4th down in that situation.

The reward of making the first down might be the same reward you receive by punting the ball away.
But the punishment for taking the gamble and failing is severe.

Hoodie gave Peyton a 28 yd field in which to engineer a game-winning drive.

By punting, the odds are you give him a, what, 60 yd field in which to engineer the game-winning drive?

mvscal wrote:It would take a total moron to punt it away in that situation.

Punting was a no-brainer, @ssclown.

Look at the scoreboard.


Patriot offense (To Coach Belichick): You fucked up. You trusted us.

Mvscal, the number of things that can go wrong on a "simple" 4th and 2 play would make a very extensive list.

I guess we'll have to chalk this up to a difference of opinion on this situation.

Sort of what makes this board go 'round.

mvscal wrote:If you had actually seen the game you would have been watching Manning shred the defense on the previous two possessions. If they couldn't stop him from 80 yards out, what makes you think they could stop him from 60 yards?

I did watch the game and regardless of what had happened on the previous two possesions, punting the fucking ball is and always will be the right call in that situation.

Btw, punting from the 28 yard line with a decent kick angled toward the sidelines = Indy probably getting the ball back around their 25 and having 75 yards to go in less than 2 minutes.

No brainer. Punt the fucking ball. Just because you failed to stop them before, doesn't mean you can't stop them now, with the game on the line. Peyton isn't God and is prone to mistakes under pressure. I want those mistakes to happen 75 yards from my goal line, not 30.

mvscal wrote:And nothing can go wrong on a punt?

lol

If the number of things that can go wrong on a punt were anywhere close to the number of things that can go wrong by going for it on 4th and 2 from your own 28 yds line, we'd see teams going for these 4th downs much more frequently, no?

I can't believe you brought that lame take.

So Manning has just consecutively driven 80 yds in "easy" fashion.
As Wagon said, you MAKE him drive the field for a 3rd straight time.
You make him make the plays, you don't risk handing him the ball on your 28 yd line so he can EASILY take it up your @ss.

Shit, with your game management ideas you seem to be a perfect fit for Raider coach in 2010.

Get your resume polished up.

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:Mvscal, the number of things that can go wrong on a "simple" 4th and 2 play would make a very extensive list.

And nothing can go wrong on a punt? If you had actually seen the game you would have been watching Manning shred the defense on the previous two possessions. If they couldn't stop him from 80 yards out, what makes you think they could stop him from 60 yards?

still, a longer field gives you a better chance for a tipped ball or muffed handoff. that shit can happen no matter how good Peyton is playing.....

he shoulda punted. end of story.

I'm gonna call bullshit on the NY Times article, Jsc.

The writer claims that historically teams score a TD 30% of the time when they begin a drive from their own 34 yd line.

Maybe true.


But with 2:00 left and just one timeout remaining, I DO NOT believe teams score 30% of the time beginning from their own 34.

I think he conveniently left out the ... important little details -- 2:00 left and only one timeout remaining.

I'd venture to say teams prolly score a TD in the 10% of the time range under those circumstances.

Maybe less.

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:By punting, the odds are you give him a, what, 60 yd field in which to engineer the game-winning drive?

that 30 yard difference in field position doesn't mean jack shit.

Exactly. And it's not as pressure-packed as some of you are making it out to be. Sure, Manning is prone to mistakes, but against the 2003 Patriots defense, not against this one.

You know damn well that with two minutes left, at, say their own 40, they are going to be right back at the New England 30 in about two plays. All of the sudden it's 1:30 left at the 30, and that punt really didn't help. You can't tell me that the Patriots were going to step up and pressure him and close it out on defense Sunday night.

Much of this comes back to one question- which would you regret more? Letting them go 65 yards or not being able to get 2 yards? I think that as a head coach, you let Manning go 65 yards and you regret not going for it MUCH more than if you fail to get the two yards and then Manning goes 28 yards.

It's sort of like...."at least we put the ball in our best player's hand and gave HIM the shot to finish this thing, because the defense was going to fuck up either way." At least that's what I would be thinking.

You guys act like Indy driving 60 or 70 yds for a TD would have been a given, and it is pretty damn hysterical.

The Clots were 5-12 on 3rd downs in the game.
Think about that.

The Clots had 14 drives and scored on "just" 5 of them.
They were forced to punt 7 times and they were forced into a turnover 2 times.

Statistically, the rate of 4th down conversions in the NFL is right around 50%.
And MOST of those are 4th and 1's.

This was 4th and 2.

So statistically speaking, NE had a greater than 50% chance of handing the ball over to Peyton at the 28 yd line by going for that 4th down.

Fucking DUMB, and fucking DUMBER that people are actually trying to spin this into a wise decision.

^^^^^^^^^^
Gets it.


Not to mention the FACT that Manning tossed not one but TWO really baffling INTs in the 2nd half. Bottom line, Belichick made the dumbest in-game decision of his career going for it, and it simply cannot be defended logically.

Paul wrote:Belichick made the dumbest in-game decision of his career going for it.

Wrong. Going for it on 4th and 13 from the 31 instead of attempting a 48 yard FG in the Super Bowl against NYG was his worst decision... ever.

It's not even close.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Paul wrote:Belichick made the dumbest in-game decision of his career going for it.

Wrong. Going for it on 4th and 13 from the 31 instead of attempting a 48 yard FG in the Super Bowl against NYG was his worst decision... ever.

It's not even close.

My bad...I completely forgot that he did that.

mvscal wrote:

Paul wrote:Not to mention the FACT that Manning tossed not one but TWO really baffling INTs in the 2nd half.

What is so baffling about a young receiver running the wrong route?

That is not baffling at all. However, with potentially having much further to drive, there is more opportunity for it to happen again (more plays, riskier plays, etc.) More opportunity for sack and a fumble, INT, fumble, etc. Everyone in their right mind inside the stadium it seemed did a collective "huh?" when they lined up to go for it on 4th and 2.

That being said, we all just "knew" the Pats would convert the 4th and game over. It was just one of those nights for Indy that everything ended up going their way. Maroney's fumble at the 1 and then Faulk's bobble on what would have been a 1st down had he pulled it in right away handed the game to the Colts. Yeah, turnovers happen and they happened both ways. Just because it happens at the end of the game doesn't make it better or worse early on.

I would have punted and taken my chances, but I don't blame Belicheat for going for it. The man has more skins on the wall than most who are questioning him. He was in a damned if you do and damned if you don't position and took the ballsy route. Had he punted and Peyton taken it to the house from 60/70, no one would question the call. And had they converted, "the genius" lore would have continued to build.

So, I would not say good call or bad call. Just a big balls call and it turned out bad. Any Colt fan should NOT want to face the Pats again in the playoffs, especially with how depleted they are in the secondary and it will likely only get worse.

IndyFrisco wrote:Moroney's fumble.

Fixed.