The most bone headed coaching decision

[Savage58]

I liked the decision, it suprised me, but I liked it. He went for it(pun). His team just didn't execute the play well enough. Kudos to him for doing what he thought was in his teams best interest.

In today's NFL, the rules are skewed so far in favor of the offense, I can see this type of decision become more common in the future. Can you say trend setter?

 

[Gizmo Williams]

Indy's other TD drives:

8 plays, 90 yards, 3:28
8 plays, 61 yards, 3:02
5 plays, 79 yards, 2:04 (4th quarter)
6 plays, 48 yards, 1:49 (4th quarter)

To those saying that Belicheck had no faith in his defense--faith is something you earn. His D did not earn it.

Factor in the fact that the Pats offense had produced 477 yards to that point with the drives that Indy had produced in the 4th and I think he made a sane call to go for it.

Also, Peyton and the Colts would be playing with 4 downs for the rest of the game which makes it that much more difficult to stop them than on the previous drives.

 

[Duckjake]

Thing is, it's not playing it safe, from a statistical standpoint (though it's definitely playing it safe from a "keep my head coaching job" standpoint).

What is being overlooked by most posters is the penalty for failure. The odds being bandied about of picking up a first down on 4th and short are about the same* whether its from the opponents 1 yard line, their 10 yard line or your own 30. But the penalty for failing from your own 30 is far more severe than failing from their 10.

*Slightly different inside the opponents 5 yard line because you don't have as much field to work with.

 

[Pariah]

I think we're so conditioned as to a "typical" playcall in the NFL (ie punt on 4th) that we forget that there is no right or wrong. It's a decision made to try to defeat your opponent. If there were a "right" call and a "wrong" call in these situations there wouldn't be much left to chance, offenses would be so scripted that they'd be easy to defend.

I think this is a decent call considering the circumstances. I'd feel that about ANY coach for any team (well, provided they're not the Browns for which 2 yards seem insurmountable).

JMHO

 

[Duckjake]

I think we're so conditioned as to a "typical" playcall in the NFL (ie punt on 4th) that we forget that there is no right or wrong. It's a decision made to try to defeat your opponent. If there were a "right" call and a "wrong" call in these situations there wouldn't be much left to chance, offenses would be so scripted that they'd be easy to defend.

I think this is a decent call considering the circumstances. I'd feel that about ANY coach for any team (well, provided they're not the Browns for which 2 yards seem insurmountable).

JMHO

But like I said you punt on 4th down from your own 30 and go for it on 4th down on their 2 because the penalty for failure to convert is far more severe for the former than for the latter.

 

[JeffGollin]

If it works, you're a genius. If it doesn't, you're a bum.

That aside - It sure looked to me as if the guy caught it for a first down and had stopped juggling the ball before he got pushed back too far.

 

[Buckybird]

But like I said you punt on 4th down from your own 30 and go for it on 4th down on their 2 because the penalty for failure to convert is far more severe for the former than for the latter.

Thx for using common sense Duck. 99% of the people on this board would be asking for our coaches head if he would have made the same decision. I remember people yelling & screaming because of fake FG last year in Carolina, even though the play was open it was a poorly thrown ball from the holder. And that wasn't even a call with the game on the line.

 

[gusmahler]

What is being overlooked by most posters is the penalty for failure. The odds being bandied about of picking up a first down on 4th and short are about the same* whether its from the opponents 1 yard line, their 10 yard line or your own 30. But the penalty for failing from your own 30 is far more severe than failing from their 10.

*Slightly different inside the opponents 5 yard line because you don't have as much field to work with.

No one on either side of the argument is overlooking that.

The "it was a good decision" crowd thinks that the chance of making the 4th combined with the chance of stopping Indy from scoring from the NE 30 is greater than the chance of stopping Indy from the Indy 30.

The "it was a bad decision" crowd thinks that the penalty for not making the 4th is so high, it practically doesn't matter what the chance of making the 4th down conversion is.

 

[Pariah]

Thx for using common sense Duck. 99% of the people on this board would be asking for our coaches head if he would have made the same decision.

I guess I'm a 1%er.

I've ALWAYS thought teams should go for it more often on 4th and short. Combine that school of thought with the Pats defense being unable to stop the Colts in the 4th quarter and the proficient nature of the Pats offense, I think this is the call I would have preferred were I a NE fan.

JMHO (I recognize yours differs)

 

[BirdMan21]

I guess I'm a 1%er.

I've ALWAYS thought teams should go for it more often on 4th and short. Combine that school of thought with the Pats defense being unable to stop the Colts in the 4th quarter and the proficient nature of the Pats offense, I think this is the call I would have preferred were I a NE fan.

JMHO (I recognize yours differs)

I'm right there with you. Just didn't work out for him this time....but had Faulk caught the ball cleanly would we even be talking this much about it? Or just another ballsy call in his coaching history?

 

[Gizmo Williams]

But like I said you punt on 4th down from your own 30 and go for it on 4th down on their 2 because the penalty for failure to convert is far more severe for the former than for the latter.

Not really...it just seems that way and you have to factor in several things. There is a huge penalty for going for it from the 2...you are taking 3 points off the board and that has to be factored into the decision. The Expected Value of Kicking the Field Goal is like 2.94 points (.98*3 points). If your team converts and scores a touchdown more than 42% (.42*7 points = 2.98 points) of the time...then it is a good call. If the team is converting and scoring a touchdown at a 20% clip...then it is a dumb coaching decision.

It is also based on game situation. If there is less than 2 minutes left and you are down by 12...you go for it but if you are up by 6 you kick the field goal. As someone else said...there is no right or wrong decision.

The Pats could have just as easily have lost if they kicked the ball away. People act like punting was guaranteeing a win which it was not. I think Manning and the Colts may have put up a game winning drive or two in his career.

Given who was involved and the situation....it really is not that boneheaded of a decision.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Thx for using common sense Duck. 99% of the people on this board would be asking for our coaches head if he would have made the same decision. I remember people yelling & screaming because of fake FG last year in Carolina, even though the play was open it was a poorly thrown ball from the holder. And that wasn't even a call with the game on the line.

Bucky, you keep making a failed comparison to this decision and Whiz... It's appples and oranges dude.
Once again, if and only if Whiz had recently won 3 Super Bowls with the same QB (Belichik and Brady), and if and only if he was facing Manning, then and only then can you attempt to make a comparison. Brady and Manning are the ONLY reasons why this decision made. Belichik would never make this decision had he been facing any other QB, or had he not had Brady at QB. No other QB's in the game would have produced this decision...
So, while I believe the correct call would have been to punt the ball, I can totally understand why and how Belichik made the decision.
Whiz or any other coach in the NFL would of course punt... they don't have Brady who was facing Manning... Warner vs Delhomme is about as distant a comparison as is Joe Montana and Chris Sims!

 

[gusmahler]

The Pats could have just as easily have lost if they kicked the ball away. People act like punting was not guaranteeing a win which it was not. I think Manning and the Colts may have put up a game winning drive or two in his career.

This is true. Everyone who's on the pro-punting side ignores that Indy had 2 sub 2-minute TD drives in the 4th quarter.

Plus, there's always the chance that the punt returner takes it back for a TD (just ask Dennis Green).

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I'm right there with you. Just didn't work out for him this time....but had Faulk caught the ball cleanly would we even be talking this much about it? Or just another ballsy call in his coaching history?

Even with him not catching it cleanly, I thought it was damn close with forward progress.

 

[Duckjake]

This is true. Everyone who's on the pro-punting side ignores that Indy had 2 sub 2-minute TD drives in the 4th quarter.

Plus, there's always the chance that the punt returner takes it back for a TD (just ask Dennis Green).

On the other hand Manning had thrown an interception in the 4th quarter just minutes earlier (7:52)

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

On the other hand Manning had thrown an interception in the 4th quarter just minutes earlier (7:52)

Which all but guarantee's that wasn't gonna happen again soon.

 

[Duckjake]

.it just seems that way and you have to factor in several things. There is a huge penalty for going for it from the 2...you are taking 3 points off the board and that has to be factored into the decision.

True but if you go for it and fail from your 30 you are putting 3 points on the board for your opponent. So to me it would almost be a wash.

 

[gusmahler]

Whether or not the decision to go for it was correct, you have to admit the thread title is excessive, right? "The most bone headed coaching decision"? Really?

Worse than Andy Reid kicking a FG when he's down 20-13 with 5 minutes left in the game? Why didn't that decision get a 110+ post thread when it was 10 times worse.

(In case you don't remember the game: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009110811/2009/REG9/cowboys@eagles

Eagles were facing a 4th and 11 from the Dallas 34 with 4:33 left. He kicked the FG, then followed it up with a traditional kickoff. Eagles never the ball back. Two incredibly stupid decisions here. 1) Before the FG, the eagles were a TD behind. After the FG the Eagles were a TD behind. So a FG is useless. 2) The ONLY way a FG can help is if you get the ball back. So why not try an onside kick!

 

[gusmahler]

What is being overlooked by most posters is the penalty for failure.

And what's overlooked by you is the
reward for success. Make the first down, the game's basically over. Punt, you still have top stop a team that has a history of scoring quickly.

 

[Duckjake]

And what's overlooked by you is the
reward for success. Make the first down, the game's basically over. Punt, you still have top stop a team that has a history of scoring quickly.

If you go for it and make it from your opponents 30 you still win the game so that is irrelevant for comparison.

Whereas if you fail in the first case your opponent only has to go 30 yards to score a TD and has a very good chance of getting 3 points even if they don't gain a yard. In the latter they have to go 70 for the TD and at least 40 for the same length FG.

 

[Gizmo Williams]

If you go for it and make it from your opponents 30 you still win the game so that is irrelevant for comparison.

How is that irrelevant? That is the entire point of the argument. Belichek thought that his chances were better to win the game by putting the ball in Brady's hand to get the first down rather than punt and put the ball in Peyton's hands with about 2 minutes left.

It was not a stupid decision...it was very much based on the situation at hand. It just did not work out in his favor....but there was no guarantee that punting would have resulted in a win either.

 

[gusmahler]

If you go for it and make it from your opponents 30 you still win the game so that is irrelevant for comparison.

Whereas if you fail in the first case your opponent only has to go 30 yards to score a TD and has a very good chance of getting 3 points even if they don't gain a yard. In the latter they have to go 70 for the TD and at least 40 for the same length FG.

In the game in question a FG is completely useless.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Whether or not the decision to go for it was correct, you have to admit the thread title is excessive, right? "The most bone headed coaching decision"? Really?

Worse than Andy Reid kicking a FG when he's down 20-13 with 5 minutes left in the game? Why didn't that decision get a 110+ post thread when it was 10 times worse.

(In case you don't remember the game: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009110811/2009/REG9/cowboys@eagles

Eagles were facing a 4th and 11 from the Dallas 34 with 4:33 left. He kicked the FG, then followed it up with a traditional kickoff. Eagles never the ball back. Two incredibly stupid decisions here. 1) Before the FG, the eagles were a TD behind. After the FG the Eagles were a TD behind. So a FG is useless. 2) The ONLY way a FG can help is if you get the ball back. So why not try an onside kick!

I don't think that is that bad of a play. 4th and 11 and you want him to go for it? The defense has 5 minutes on the clock? Reid made the right calls here.

 

[Gaddabout]

Every time I watch Tin Cup I think true professionals are incapable of that kind of meltdown. Then I watch stuff like this and realize Tin Cup is the greatest sports movie ever.

 

[gusmahler]

I don't think that is that bad of a play. 4th and 11 and you want him to go for it? The defense has 5 minutes on the clock? Reid made the right calls here.

Go for it and fail: Dallas gets the ball somewhere between their 23 and their 33 with a 7 point lead.

Make a FG, then kick off: Dallas gets the ball somewhere between their 15 and 30 with a 4 point lead.

What's the difference?

A better way to look at it is look at what happens if you succeed. What would you rather have:

1) 1st and 10 at the 22 with 4.5 minutes left, down by 7

2) Other team has 1st and 10 at the 22 with 4.5 minutes left, up by 4.

If you kick the FG, at least do an onside kick. Sure, Dallas gets the ball back between the PHI 40 and PHI 30 yard line. But field position is irrelevant. All Dallas wants to do is get a first down. If they get a first down, they go to victory formation and don't even attempt to score. So kicking the ball off gives PHI absolutely nothing.