home

Monday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:04:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Did Bill Belicheck make the right call last night? For those who missed it, New England led the Colts 34-28 with 2:11 to go. On 4th and 2 at the NE 28, Belicheck decided to go for it instead of punting.

The argument for Belicheck takes the view that the Pats had about a 60% chance of making the first down (and sealing the game) and failing on the attempt provided the Colts a 53% chance of scoring a touchdown - giving the Pats a 79% chance of winning using Belicheck's alternative as opposed to punting, where the Colts would have had a 30% chance of scoring and winning (or a 70% chance of the Pats winning.) By this measure, Belicheck improved the Pats' chance of winning by 9%.

Here's my problem with these numbers - this was not an average "4th and 2" (For good and bad - Brady is obviously better than the average QB, the Colts would sell out to stop the conversion as opposed to a 4 and 2 at midfield in the 1st quarter, etc.) The numbers of much more interest, if they are available, are the specific results of the Pats and the Colts in the relevant scenarios - conversions on 4th down in similar situations, Colts' success in the last 2 minutes needing a TD, Pats defensive success in stopping 2 minutes drives, etc. "Historic numbers" involving all teams are not particularly relevant imo to the decision Belicheck had to make. Without knowing those numbers, it seems impossible to evaluate the Belicheck decision (of course, having failed on the 4th down and having the Colts score the winning TD, we can all say he should have punted, but that is not evaluating his decision.)

This is an Open Thread.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Manly Men? Say No More >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Afternoon Open Thread | 132 comments (132 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Two of my good friends (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:17:18 PM EST
    from the world of backgammon have written a computer program that analyzes situations like this, and it agrees with Belichick's decision.

    It all depends on the inputs, of course, but the answer isn't likely to change from their findings by a major degree.  Maybe the Patriots were better than 60% to convert because Brady is clutch, maybe they're worse than 60% because they have no running game, but it's not going to be THAT far off the average.  And as my friends point out, surely Peyton Manning is better in a 2-minute situation than the average NFL quarterback, but that improves the Colts' odds in both scenarios.

    If it was the wrong decision it certainly wasn't wrong by much - certainly not bad enough to justify all the people on the postgame show ranting about how it was one of the worst coaching decisions ever.  (Worse than the Lions winning the coin toss in overtime and opting to kick off?  Really?)

    One of the reasons my friends have gotten no takers for their computer program among NFL teams is that a coach without Belichick's job security wouldn't have the fortitude to make a call like this, no matter what the computer tells him to do.  Let's say you're a typical NFL head coach, and you have a choice between a by-the-book strategy that will win the game 70% of the time, and an avante-garde strategy that will win the game 80% of the time but will get you criticized big-time if it fails.  For most coaches, the rational self-interested decision is to adopt the worse strategy, since there's no downside for them personally.  Knowing you picked the better strategy is no consolation if you lose your job!

    Now that Belichick is a guy who (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:20:40 PM EST
    isn't afraid to spend some political capital. Is he a Democrat?

    Parent
    You read my mind (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    See link below.

    As he states coaches are more afraid of being fired then losing.

    Parent

    I do admire a risk taker (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:32:15 PM EST
    or at least an apparent risk taker. And as we see, statistically he made the less risky choice. Really, I cringe when my team is less than 8 pts ahead and voluntarily gives the ball away with 2 minutes left. Seems like teams lose most times they do that. Again, the Bears are my reference point, so I may be skewed toward the losing side.

    Not the same situation, since he was losing anyway, but it reminds me of McCain's choice of Palin as the hail mary pass. He looks kind of stupid now, but really it was the only chance he had.

    Parent

    I don't buy the (none / 0) (#68)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    fancy stats noted at the top.  Were I Bella, I would have forced the other guy to beat me by causing him to make a series of perfectly executed plays to drive 60+ yrds for the TD in 2 minutes.  Incredible pressure there for Manning et al, and as we know Archie ... no, Peyton .. Peyton was far from perfect when you consider the entirety of that game.  Coupla picks against his good name, and, well, even the great ones don't always make the clutch plays every time.  

    As for the McC-SP analogy, I kinda like it.  Both Bella and St Mac acted kinda erratic or panicky in crunch time and went with the very unorthodox choice which, as it turned out, was too cleverly bold by half.  Both times the principle player gave a little too much credit perhaps to the oppo's big guy -- Bella to Manning, Mac to Obama -- instead of staying steady and true with a less risky option.

    Parent

    There's no fancy stats (none / 0) (#96)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:39:06 PM EST
    The only thing at issue here is whether people understand a simple concept: giving yourself two ways to win.  If you go for it on 4th down, you can win instantly by gaining 2 yards, or you can also win by stopping Manning from going 28 yards.  If you punt, you have only one way to win.

    The only relevant question is whether A + B is more than C.  Instead, most people seem to analyze it like "well, if A fails, then you're left with B, which is worse than C so you shouldn't do it!"  They can't process the concept that in Belichick's scenario, the Colts need a parlay of two separate events in order to win: they need to stop Brady on 4th down AND they need to score a TD afterwards.

    Parent

    Disagree that it boils down to such (none / 0) (#115)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    simple numbers and limited  factors favoring one side.   (Ironically, it reminds me of those ultraconservative "3 yards and a cloud of dust" college football coaches from yesteryear -- Woody Hayes types, who used to argue that there are three things that can happen when you throw the ball -- and two of them are bad.)

    There would have been many more opportunities for the Pats, looked at in a broader real world perspective, each time the Colts lined up after the punt and put the ball in play -- opportunities for a fumble, an interception, a fourth and out final stop, etc.

    And the pressure cooker/emotions need to be factored in:  it's entirely possible the Pats defense, given the confidence and challenge from their popular coach, would have come through for him in the end by stopping the not-always-perfect Peyton or causing a miscue by one of his receivers.  

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#125)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:13:53 PM EST
    and it's entirely possible that the Patriots would have gained 2 yards and won the game.  And it's entirely possible that they would have made a defensive stop even after turning the ball over at the 28-yard line.

    I honestly can't believe I laid out the irrational thought process for you and yet you persist in it.  You can't just assume that the 4th-and-2 will fail!  More than half the time, you're going to win the game right there!  You can't just say "oh, but if you punt, just think of all the good things that could happen," while ignoring the very important fact that you win the game on the next play 60% of the time.

    Parent

    Yup, this is a criminal defense blog :) (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:32:35 PM EST
    Somewhere between Dancing with the Stars, sports, and calling the whole left blogosphere out on their hypocrisies.....this is a criminal defense blog.

    No segue: what do you think of (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    Gordon Brown calling for a meet up to discuss time line for withdrawal from Afghanistan?

    Parent
    Nobody fights harder in Afghanistan (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:49:19 PM EST
    than the Brits.  They've taken such a beating lately though in Helmand.  My heart has gone out to them.  They took a horrible beating in Basra too.....and for what?  Great Britain wants to know now For What? they fight.  They no longer blindly trust the ugly Yankee Doodle Dandy, and they shouldn't.  And nobody should blindly trust Karzai.  Suddenly everyone wants their money's worth.  I can't argue with that.  Just don't leave bands of soldiers defending far flung outposts.  We have special forces taking care of particular problems.  Never thought I would type something like that as if it were a good thing, but times have changed.  And they did walk into Somalia recently and remove a major Al Qaeda player and then just leave.  Are we going to expend giant sums of treasure and blood though for corrupt governments?  If there is no valid government what do we do?  They had better lay off the airstrikes though.  The Biden plan had better only be used in a no other option way.  They aren't even that good at them anyhow.  When they aren't taking out weddings they are taking out our own guys.

    Parent
    Good answer (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    that was a good bit of lawyering.

    Parent
    Fyi, Tracy -- a Fort Hood followup (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:19:22 PM EST
    from last week:  Flags at half-staff here today, as the last of our local losses in the Fort Hood massacre finally was released to the family -- the wife and the son both students at my campus -- for the funeral today.  Still no explanation for the delay, so later hearings may make clear why this one was held for so long before being released.

    Still several injured from my state not fully stabilized yet -- all from the unit here of mental health professionals, nurses, etc., that Hasan was supposed to accompany to Afghanistan.  So he apparently targeted that unit.  So awful, as these were many soldiers whom other soldiers there need.

    Parent

    Oh God, I'd heard rumors (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:59:29 PM EST
    but knew nothing definite.....his own unit.  Well, he obviously thought he was making a statement.  It is a different statement though to each of us based on our own perspective.  Going after your own unit IS even more of a betrayal to me.  He had not been in combat yet, and I don't know how it goes for mental health professionals....if they become as bonded as everyone else does during a combat zone deployment due to the hardships.  He has to know though from listening to other soldiers that your bond to your unit can become as strong as your bond to your own blood family.

    Parent
    Yep -- it hasn't been reported (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:19:49 PM EST
    by national media, but media here where the unit is based -- Madison, Wisconsin -- put it together within a couple of days, as a disproportionate number of fatalities and injured were from this state.  They just had arrived a day or two before from home, as -- as you know -- Fort Hood is the deployment center.  So it hit so hard for families who had just seen their soldiers only hours before.

    Btw, the one buried today was a 52-year-old guy, a mental health nurse at the Vets Administration here -- the oldest one in the country -- and a teacher here, who figured that once his own son was in college, it was time to go overseas to help troops there.  So now his son, and the other kids, are fatherless -- and need therapy themselves. . . .

    Parent

    Bless his family (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:40:00 PM EST
    I remember his story from the day after the shooting.  What a guy.  It means a lot for many people to go do this though under this President.  It is a chance to gain closure for our country, tend to the real business of how we came under attack, bring to a close the war in Iraq which should have never been.  It means a great great deal to many people going right now.  My spouse went in the midst of his first serious attack of RA.  He is swollen two days out of every seven while he's taking that soup they start you out on with RA, and when I asked him if he needed to come home yesterday he laughed in my face like I'm the idiot here.  I couldn't drag him home with all the ponies in the blogosphere.  The swelling doesn't affect the job he does there and if this first course of treatment fails to put him into remission he will come home around the time they can begin something like Enbrel.  So the jackass fought to go....argued to go....said nothing would be different for him being there or being stateside.  They gave up arguing with him and let him go.

    Parent
    Criminal Defense Topic (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:04:54 PM EST
    From 1910, but still...

    I just got done reading a book called "American Lightning". It is about what in 1910 was considered the crime of the century, the bombing of the LA Times building, killing 21 people. It turned out to have been perpetrated by union members who carried out a series of bombings against non-union operations(the book describes the detective work that went in to solving the crime, plus there were confessions, so there is really no doubt about the perpetrators).  Clarence Darrow defended the two McNamara brothers, one who was the brains of the plot, and the other who planted the bomb. He defended them mainly because it was a death penalty case - he did not want to see anyone executed. In the end, he negotiated a plea bargain for life in prison for the brother that planted the bomb, and 15 yrs for the mastermind.

    Not a fan of the writing style of the author - maybe he was trying to imitate the purple prose of the time period - but it was an interesting story about union history and also, for me, the role of the death penalty in cases like this.

    I wonder if it is generally true, as it was in this case, that taking the death penalty out of the picture brings down the emotion level substantially and helps the state secure a favorable outcome. but is that another type of 'Bellichek decision' that most prosecutors are afraid to make?

    In terrorism news (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:07:54 PM EST
    it looks like they are finally reopening the subway stop across from the World Trade Center, after 8 years.  Take that, terrorists!

    TSA posted heightened alert (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    at airports this weekend.  Why?  Ft. Hood?  Bringing Gitmo detainees to U.S. for trial?  Even so, forgot to pull out liquids plus plastic bag at security screening.  No problem.

    Parent
    Facebook fans of national terror alert: (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:34:52 PM EST
    National Terror Alert has 3,2623,261 Fans.

    Oh, and Lieberman's statements re Ft. Hood suspect are posted on Homeland Security website.

    Parent

    Nice analysis, but misses the key ingredient: (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by pluege on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:34:07 PM EST
    Belichek's ego - all numbers and analysis out the window.

    Jeez - what took so long? (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:13:38 PM EST
    (Newser) - A mere 65 years after her unforgettable screen debut, Lauren Bacall has won an Academy Award. The honorary Oscar was a high point of a ceremony last night in Los Angeles that also celebrated the careers of filmmaker Roger Corman, cinematographer Gordon Willis, and producer John Calley. "I can't believe it, a man at last!" the 85-year-old Bacall joked as she hoisted her new hardware.


    Wrong wrong wrong (none / 0) (#1)
    by DFLer on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    plus the wasting of time outs.

    1. they were too deep in their own territory for this call
    2. defend @ 80 yards as opposed to @ 30 in two minutes?,...duh!
    3. this said "I really don't trust my defense.
    Maybe he didn't trust his dfense for a reason (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    also you are working on the assumption that his D was more likely to have stopped them.

    As BTD points out the stats don't back up that premise.

    So logically what are you left with?  Simple coaching 101 logic that is based on not screwing up instead of playing to win.

    Parent

    You are obviously mistaken (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    to assume they can gain 50 yards of field position by punting.  Historical NFL stats show that the average punt from that field position nets 38 yards.

    But I think most people would choose to analyze the situation just as you did.  They would seek to minimize their worst-case scenario, even at the cost of giving themselves no upside whatsoever (and of course, there are still really bad scenarios, like a blocked punt or a big return).  The idea that a strategy that wins the game immediately 60% of the time might be superior wouldn't occur to them, because they focus solely on the downside risk.

    Parent

    Yes - how many times have I seen (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    this situation where they choose to punt, and end up in only a marginally better situation? I'm a Bears fan, so let me tell you - it's a lot.

    Parent
    It was a 50/50 call and should be boiled down more (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    simply...

    Who does the coach trust more?

    His 3time Super Bowl winning QB or his defense?

    He made the right call.  The bigger coaching mistake was playing prevent on the plays before and the biggest player mistake was not scoring when Morone (sp?) fumbled going in to the end zone.

    Since you bring it up it is a well documented fact that simple statistics dictate coaches don't go for 4th down enough.

    See High School Coach who NEVER PUNTS!

    Yup - put another way (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:15:08 PM EST
    Who do you trust more, the defense that has already given up 28 points, or the offense that has scored 34?  I know who I would go with.

    Parent
    Great topic BTD (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:20:51 PM EST
    This explores a greater point that can relate to politics.  Conventional logic.

    Conventional logic says he screwed up.  Coaches should always punt.   The assumption is that most coaches would have done the same thing so since he didn't do it he should have punted.  I would say conventional logic is wrong.  

    Back to the link above listen to attached link of the coach who never punts and his reasoning why he doesn't, why he never kicks field goals, onside kicks every kickoff and doesn't attempt to return or block punts.

    In the interview he has a great quote...summarized..."Most coaches tell me they'd love to do the same thing but they are more scared of being fired then losing the game."

    Bellicheck isn't scared of being fired so he is freed up to try and win the game.  

    Remember we "Play to win the game!".

    Parent

    You had to (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:27:24 PM EST
    do a thread...

    some of us are just trying to let it go and move on with our lives

    At least you're still two games up... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:44:46 PM EST
    so the decision didn't cost you any in division standings...if the Jets didn't sh*t the bed against the Jags it would be even hotter in the NE kitchen.

    Be grateful to have a coach who isn't afraid to play to win...not all teams can say that.

    OTOH, if you are a Pats defensive player, you can't be happy with the coach having so little faith in your unit...thats the only problem I have with the call, you're telling your own defense they suck with seven games to play.  It was a big game, but not a make or break game...was it worth throwing your D under the bus over, even if it had worked out?  Thats my only question...

    Parent

    The quote I read (none / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:46:12 PM EST
    in the NYT today from a Pats' defender, "we're just employees" said it all to me.

    Parent
    or not, (none / 0) (#36)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:47:42 PM EST
    that was Faulk.

    Parent
    That does say it all.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    At least one Pats defender feels as though they're under the bus.

    There is more to coaching than x's and o's, punt or go for it...there is the psyche and confidence of your players to consider...in that sense, it was a terrible call.  Going by the numbers or the best chance to win this one game, it was a reasonable call.

    Parent

    NYT also included opinion the (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    defense had already trashed themselves for the day.  Such an esoteric article though.  I need to master the intricacies b/4 picking up my tutoree.  Where to look?  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    if you want to look at it in terms of hurt feelings, if you punt you're telling the offense that you think they can gain 2 yards.  I'm sure the offense is confident they can get a first down the same way the defense is confident they can stop Manning.  Your job as the coach is to make the best decision, not to make sure no one's feelings get hurt.

    Parent
    I don't think... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    the Patriot Offense's psyche would have been hurt by punting...they were on their own 28.  If they were on the Colts 40 and punt, then you'd have a point...no faith in the O to win the game.

    There is more than one way to look at a decision such as this...the short term and the long term.  Belicheck was thinking short term, best chance to win this one game.  If they punt and the D makes a stop they've got that much more confidence in their unit...thats a big thing in football...confidence.      

    Parent

    It's one play (none / 0) (#58)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:21:55 PM EST
    you make the first down, you win the game, doesn't matter where you are.  By your logic, absolutely no reason the offense shouldn't feel thrown under the bus if the coach tells them he doesn't trust them to gain 2 yards with the game on the line.

    I personally think the idea that this decision was crushing to the psyche of the Patriots' defensive unit is six kinds of crazy.

    Parent

    True... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    it only matters where you are on the field when the 4th down conversion fails...and fail it did.  Of course it doesn't matter if you make it.  You can't just say "its only 2 yards" without factoring field position.

    Speaking as a rec league defensive specialist, its a huge confidence boost when the QB/Coach punts on 4th and goal from the 20, showing faith in the D to stop 'em from going the length of the field...if they go for it and fail the D takes the field dejected with a short field to defend.  I think its crazy to think the D wouldn't be effected mentally by such a decision.

    Parent

    But apparently (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:25:47 PM EST
    the offense doesn't care at all when the coach orders them off the field, even though a gain of 2 measly yards wins the game right then and there?  Come on, don't kid a kidder.  Of course the offense would be disappointed.  Will they be nervous on 3rd and short in the next game, knowing the coach lacks the confidence to let them have another try on 4th down?  I have no idea, but it's no less likely than your suggestion that the defense's morale will be crushed for the rest of the season.

    Parent
    Again... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:37:10 PM EST
    4th and 2 from the Indy 40 is a whole different ballgame...your nuts not to go for it from the Indy 40, let the O try and win it, if you fail Indy still gotta go 60.  But from your own 28?  If Tom and Co. would feel disrespected by a punt there, they are the only offense in the league that would be.

    For a guy who usually sees all the angles Steve, I'm surprised the field position concept is flying over right your head.  The key element here isn't the distance, its the field position.

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    either the offense or defense would've been deeply offended by either call.

    The conventional call was punt.  But the Pats go for 4th downs a lot more than most teams, so I don't see the defense being that caught off guard either.

    Of course they might be a little ticked off, but I really don't see it as a confidence killer in this case.

    Parent

    To be clear... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:49:53 PM EST
    I'm generally a fan of going for it...I'm with TMQ, too many fraidy-cat punts in this league, too much playing not to lose.

    But I wouldn't make a habit of going for it inside your own 40...unless you're not gonna carry a punter like this coach.

    Parent

    Field position matters (none / 0) (#99)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:42:51 PM EST
    except that 60% of the time it makes no difference where you are on the field because your offense has already won the game.

    You're acting like it's virtually automatic for the Colts to go 30 yards and score a TD but it would be incredibly hard for them to go 65 yards.  I don't think it works like that.  The percentages are not as different as you think they are.

    Parent

    The percentages are not... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:00:32 PM EST
    that different, but do the percentages measure momentum?  Confidence?  

    If I was a Pats cornerback and we punt, I go on the field fired up to make a stop and win the game...taking the field at our own 28 after a failed 4th down conversion I'm coming out flat, and its almost like you can't help but come out flat in that situation.

    Parent

    I could see going for it... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:21:46 PM EST
    ... if it was a very short-yardage, obvious running situation, and the Pats were good at those, neither of which was true. Punting on fourth and two does not insult your offense, because something can always go wrong when you throw the ball.

    Parent
    But of course (none / 0) (#60)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:26:29 PM EST
    nothing can go wrong when you hand the ball over to the other team with 2 minutes to go.  Yep, the defense should be totally insulted because everyone knows a competent defense will always stop Peyton Manning from going 65 yards with 2 minutes to play.

    Parent
    A defense that's any good... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    ... will always be insulted in that situation, regardless of who they are playing, and whether or not they are right. The offense would simply accept that you are making the choice coaches make 98% of the time.

    Parent
    Defense insulted? (none / 0) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    I didn't see the game, but I presume the Pat's defense was on the field those last two minutes.

    They had their chance to shine; what happened?

    Parent

    Their coach and offense... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:01:12 PM EST
    left them behind the 8-ball.

    Parent
    Oh of course (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    the offense always just shrugs it off when the coach decides to punt on 4th and short.  All those times I've seen them with an upset reaction they were probably just mugging for the TV cameras.

    Parent
    I don't think you've seen that reaction (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:40:23 PM EST
    when the ball is spotted inside their own 35 Steve...maybe in Pop Warner, but not the NFL:)

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#103)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:47:12 PM EST
    if they gain 2 yards they WIN THE GAME.  You don't think a professional athlete believes in his ability to gain 2 yards with the game on the line?

    If the Patriots punt and the Colts score the winning TD you better believe the offense would be grumbling all week about how they would have won the game if they had been given the chance.  They wouldn't be like "oh well, we were inside our own 35, kdog and the guys on the Internet say you never go for it in that situation."  This is basic human nature.


    Parent

    I think Tom and Randy... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    would be grumbling about the D getting lit up in the 2nd half, not so much the decision to punt:)

    Don't get me wrong, I agree it wasn't the worst decision ever, it was simply too bold a call in my view, based on the field position.  But I am a defender talkin':)...I'm big on pinning 'em and make 'em earn every yard.  The boldness is to be admired though...what a testament to Belichecks job security eh? Is there another coach who makes that call?

    Parent

    Is there another coach who makes that call? (none / 0) (#121)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 05:10:09 PM EST
    Heh!  Not in Washington anyway.

    20 Oct -

    With a pained expression, Washington Redskins coach Zorn announced Monday that the front office "strongly suggested" that he yield his play-calling duties to a consultant hired only two weeks ago. While he didn't say he was given an ultimatum, Zorn said he would comply with the request "because I want to stay here and win."

    "Sometimes we have to do things that are uncomfortable," Zorn said.




    Parent
    You are right (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:50:39 PM EST
    computer models are fine but the game is played on the field. A good punt and Indy has 69... a fine punt and Indy has 70 yards.

    Either way a good defense doesn't let'em score a TD.

    Parent

    yea... (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:55:45 PM EST
    or you could say he was trying to give the offense a boost, although I don't know that they needed it at that point.

    It was not the end of the world, I'd much rather lose to the Colts now than in the playoffs.  And we will probably still make the playoffs.  It still would've been nice to win...

    Parent

    Does Bill Belicheck read BTD on FDR? (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:28:01 PM EST


    Which is more important? Punt v. try to (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:29:24 PM EST
    to make first down?  Or bow to Japanese emperor or shake hands a la Cheney?

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:31:39 PM EST
    I have no problem with Obama conforming to local customs when in other countries.  I also have no problem with being up front and not conforming.   It's a matter of the circumstance and attempting to criticize him over it is petty to me.

    I mean it's not like he threw up ala Bush I right?

    Parent

    And Michelle touched the Queen (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    who didn't give a flick.......but others, others flicked out :)

    Parent
    On those others... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by vicndabx on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:26:29 PM EST
    they were like....what the flick was that shirt about?!

    Parent
    I tried to find a link to Adam Sandler's (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:52:56 PM EST
    Thanksgiving song for 2009.  I heard it on the radio this morning but can't find a link to it on the net yet.  Don't know if one will even surface.  He got Michelle Obama's Attractive Guns in there for this year's addition....and something very catchy about dad drinks beer seeking employment.

    Parent
    Yes, much more diplomatic to (none / 0) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    bow than barf.

    Parent
    It isn't local customs (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:53:02 PM EST
    it is international protocol, which says they shake. Obama blew it. Agin. What.Is.New?

    Parent
    First down (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:33:28 PM EST


    Parent
    One photo tells all re "the bow." (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:38:29 PM EST
    But this football stuff?  I need a diagram.

    Parent
    I have a basic understanding of football (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:57:42 PM EST
    because of cheerleading.  If you don't know what's going on you don't know what cheer to do.  Not that the old guys in the first row care that much.  I always thought it was better to go down fighting. Knowing when to punt has never been my strength.

    Parent
    I just spent two weeks (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:36:52 PM EST
    giving the half bow to every Japanese train agent and barista I encountered.  I have no problem with Obama following local traditions.

    At least they weren't holding hands like Bush and the shiek!

    Parent

    It wasn't a half-bow (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    and Obama needs practice at that.  Other presidents have done it almost or even perfectly.  (We got lessons in class from a Japanese student once.:-)

    Obama's was a bow from the waist to the point that it was almost perpendicular, perhaps owing to his height compared to that of his hosts.  But that is the bow hardly ever done anymore -- as it is to indicate obeisance and even subservience to royalty.  And we abolished royalty there a few wars ago. . . .

    Parent

    Yeah, I hate to be even remotely (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    on the same side as the RWers, but on this one I think Obama went too far.  

    A bow from the neck, briefly, I could live with that.  But not one that starts at the waist and goes nearly 90º.

    I just don't believe the leader of the most important democracy in the world should be bowing to royalty, anywhere.  That includes Queen Liz and all the rest of that crowd.  

    I thought that was why we had ambassadors ...

    Parent

    The entire founding of this country (none / 0) (#137)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 11:02:23 PM EST
    was based on the premise that royalty was by definition illegitimate.  I was taught growing up that Americans are always respectful, but never, ever bow or curtsey to some other country's royalty.  Us ordinary Americans, never mind the president.

    It's a matter of basic philosophical principle, IMHO.  I really, really, really hate seeing that he does it-- twice now, the Saudi guy and the Japanese emperor.  Hate it.  He should not do it.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:49:41 PM EST
    I haven't seen the pictures and assumed it was the little polite bow we all do over there. I don't know...It sounds like bad optics and we're going to hear about it for a while, but in the big scheme of things I can't get too excited about it.

    Parent
    Or. God forbid, letting Obama (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    put his hand on your shoulder a la Charlie Crist!!!

    Parent
    I know, poor Charlie (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    He is really catching hell down here. Almost makes me want to vote for him, or at least switch parties to Rep so I can vote for him in the primary. But he's really not worth the effort.

    Parent
    Can a Dem. candidate named "Meek" (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    win?  

    Parent
    He shall inherit the earth! (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:45:36 PM EST


    Parent
    After watching that documentary (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    'Outrage' I think he super sux.  How can I trust a politician so comfortable with the worst kinds of personal betrayal?

    Parent
    Didn't see it but I know what you mean (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:14:07 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't have a problem with him conforming (none / 0) (#71)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    to local traditions when he visits other countries. In fact, I think doing so properly is a sign of respect. Doing so improperly, on the other hand, is insulting. How hard can it be to find out what proper etiquette is, and do it correctly?


    Parent
    I don't either -- but it's gauche (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    to do it badly.  Others from afar doing business here get the hang of the handshake beforehand as a sign of respect of the culture -- or just to not have distractions from the business at hand.

    But Obama'ss bad bow does have the benefit of raising the blood pressure of conservatives.

    Parent

    It was a great decision (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    because it made them lose!  Ha ha ha!!

    Actually, unless I got the timing wrong (I think it was a hair before 2 minutes, right), what I did not get was going for it with no timeouts and no ability to challenge.  Had the challenge been available it would have been a more defensible call for me.  Instead, they went for it, and left the Colts not only in great field position but with total clock control.

    What is also lost in all this (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:38:14 PM EST
    and I say this as an Indiana resident is Faulk caught the ball for a first down but was ruled to have juggled the ball slightly and therefor wasn't given forward progress.

    This was an extremely close judgement call and replays seemed to me to show he made it.

    I'm not clear on the forward progress rule and the lazy ESPN media hasn't explored this.

    Instead they jumped to defend conventional logic and paint Belicheck as blowing it.

    If the Patriots had not had to blow a (none / 0) (#54)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:10:07 PM EST
    timeout when Brady realized he had the wrong personnel on the field for the play he was going to run, they would have had one left to challenge that Faulk reception.  From what I could see from the replays, I have to wonder if the call would have been overturned resulting in a first down.

    It wasn't just Belichick's call, it was the three plays that came before it.

    Parent

    ESPN announcers sd. Fault caught the (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:48:56 PM EST
    ball and, having just seen the video, it certainly looks like it never touched the ground.  

    Parent
    It's not whether or not he caught it (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:54:25 PM EST
    it's where he was when the ball was "caught" - as in "under complete control".  He bobbled the ball a bit as he took a step back, so they counted it as a catch, but not with enough yardage for a first down, since the place where he had complete control was a step back from the first down point.

    it was certainly a debatable call, but there was no timeout for a challenge.

    Parent

    Yeah, on a pass you (none / 0) (#75)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:14:07 PM EST
    need to establish control of the ball before forward progress can be counted.  Control means ball stabilized with no bobbling as the feet come down.

    Tough luck for the Pats, but ferchrissakes why do footballers cut it so close on these 4th down plays?  Take the extra .3/sec and go another 2-3 yrds beyond the yardage needed, then toss the ball.  The coaching staff, before the next game with the Colts, need to work on giving their players a little more margin for error in these situations -- yards instead of inches.

    Whatever.  Just a reg season game for the Pats.  They'll have another chance to get it all right in crunch time come the playoffs.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#78)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:21:28 PM EST
    couldn't have Brady thrown it to someone a little further down field?  I don't remember him being under tremendous pressure or anything.

    Parent
    He was definitely under some pressure (none / 0) (#80)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    and I bet the guys down the field were too.

    Parent
    For what it's worth (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:39:11 PM EST
    I have no real problem with the call, although as one of my friends said, it does seem as if "Belichek has been playing too much Madden".

    What I do have a problem with is the timeout situation combined with the fact that they had MANY opportunities to bury the Colts and it should never have gotten to that point to begin with.  Two turnovers in the endzone is just ugly.

    Yeah, I was going to add that (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:44:15 PM EST
    these games that seem to come down to the last key play were usually won or lost a long time before that.

    Parent
    this one wasn't (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    "won or lost" before that play.  But it really should have been.

    Parent
    Is baseball "America's sport"? Doesn't (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    look to be.

    I thought it was Japan's (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:51:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Such a great game. (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    And during the time-out before the play when Belichick and Brady had their chat, I saw Brady say some stuff and Bill nodded his head and agreed with it and I told my kids "I think Brady just talked Belicheck into going for it."

    And that right there made me, a life-long Giants fan, want to root for the Pats - if only for that one play.

    The only thing (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    that would make me want to root for the Patriots is if they put on Eagles jerseys.

    Parent
    Yep, I hear you. (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:05:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I thought it was a terrible call. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    Computer programs notwithstanding, in the heat of the moment, after you have just seen your team fail in both clock management and execution of the plays called, to take the risk of failing on 4th-and-2, and Manning getting the ball on New England's 30-yard line, versus the Colts having to field a punt well into their own territory, has Big Giant Ego written all over it.

    Not a Colts fan, myself, but the satisfaction that attached to seeing Belichick make the wrong call was worth the resulting Colts win.

    That's going to stay with him for a long time.

    The Pats lost (none / 0) (#59)
    by rdandrea on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    So it was a bad call.

    If they had won, he'd be a freakin' genius.

    What I would have done (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 02:44:24 PM EST
    Punt it I think.

    That night, the Patriot defense had been pretty effective against Manning.

    I think Belicheck's big failure was in clock management. He should have made the Colts burn all their timeouts.

    Maybe it ends up with Manning having 2 shots at the end zone anyway. But those 2 shots are different from the drive Manning had to put together from the Pats' 29 with 2 minutes and a timeout left.  

    NYT (Judy Battista): (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:05:19 PM EST
    ¶He was right in thinking his defense was gassed and would probably not have stopped Manning no matter where the drive started. The Patriots had just allowed two 79-yard touchdown drives that took about two minutes each in the fourth quarter. Right or wrong, Belichick decided the Patriots would win or lose with the ball in Brady's hands, a conventional approach and often a good bet.



    Parent
    Not exactly correct (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:16:37 PM EST
    Manning threw an interception between the TD drives.

    Parent
    If Brady had Percy he (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    woulda got the first down, right?

    Parent
    True however what are the (none / 0) (#85)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:26:52 PM EST
    odd's Peyton throws 3?  

    Also keep in mind Peyton would have 2 plus minutes, the two minute warning and 2 timeouts.

    There is no reason to believe that with 4 downs the defense would have kept Peyton Manning from getting to at least the 28yd line with 30 seconds to go.  The only way they would have done that is if they forced a 4 and out.  

    So now riddle me this.  What does it matter if it's a 4 and out at their 30yd line or your 30yd line?  You still have to forcc a 4 and out.    


    Parent

    It was a bad call that went bad (none / 0) (#79)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:22:49 PM EST
    to go along with horrific clock management.

    Had the Pats punted there were all kinds of things that might have happened.  A botched return and fumble, an interception or fumble.  Manning would not have had the luxury of eating up the clock, leaving the Pats with some time to get a FG.

    I am a lifelong Pats fan but cannot believe that was the call by the guy who won three Super Bowls.  They gave the ball back to Manning on their own 29 yard line.  

    Gotta love that 31 yard pass interference call on the Colts previous possession.  Kinda reminded me of a similar call made against Ellis Hobbs who was covering Reggie Wayne a few years ago.  As if Manning needs that sort of help.  

    Had the Pats gone for it (none / 0) (#87)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    they win the game right there on that play more than half the time.

    By giving up the ball, sure there are all kinds of things that could happen.  Some of them are bad, by the way, like a blocked kick or a big return.  But even setting that aside, do the probabilities of all those bad things add up to enough to compensate for not even trying to win the game on offense?

    I'm starting to think that the human mind is just really really poor at processing the concept of a parlay.  This much I am confident of, if it was the wrong call, it certainly wasn't wrong by much.

    Parent

    How about this. Pats "go for it" but (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:37:05 PM EST
    rushing, not passing.

    Parent
    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    clearly, Belichick has no clue about anything.  Next week all the play calls will be determined by a fan poll on espn.com.

    Parent
    Question from a non-fan: is there a way (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:45:46 PM EST
    Pats could have pretended they would punt but then actually ran or passed the ball?

    Parent
    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by rdandrea on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:08:13 PM EST
    Washington burned Denver for a touchdown that way on a fourth down yesterday.  They lined up in field goal formation, shifted to punt formation, and the punter took a direct snap and passed for a touchdown.

    You can watch it here.

    Not a high-percentage play, though.  Certainly not something you'd want to risk in poor field position.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#105)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    You can run a pass or run from the punt formation.

    Problem is you have players not used to running/throwing the ball executing plays they don't execute in practice (unless you plan to run a fake punt the week of the game).

    Fake punts are typically run in obvious punting situations because the other team or more simply put when you have the greatest odds to surprise the other team.

    In this case the Colts would have most likely chosen to play safe on the punt to prevent a surprise.

    Parent

    OK. Could have. Why didn't they? (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:58:38 PM EST


    Parent
    because (none / 0) (#109)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:01:32 PM EST
    on a 4th and 2 they'd rather have the play of the game in the hands of tom brady and the rest of their pretty stellar offense than in the hands of the special teams unit.

    Parent
    Depends on the skill set of (none / 0) (#112)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:12:41 PM EST
    your personnel -- i.e. the punter.  Can he deliver the short pass and accurately, or quickly run with the ball after showing a credible fake?   Has this play been practiced enough, and recently?

    Interestingly, Bella used to be an assistant for Coach Parcells (G-Men I believe), who was famous for his fake punts on 4th down (usually the punter would pass the ball, iirc).

    But if dim memory serves, Parcells' fake punts on 4th, often successful, were rarely if ever tried from deep in the G-Men's own territory -- and deep into the final minutes of the game.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:06:26 PM EST
    but a fake punt is much much riskier.  You're essentially gambling on catching the defense by surprise.  On 4th-and-2 you stand a good chance of gaining the 2 yards just by running a normal play, so there's no need for gimmicks.

    I did see a play like you describe in a Florida State-Clemson game from like 10-15 years ago, though.  Minute left in the game, 4th down at their own 20, tie score, Florida State's coach decides he doesn't feel like settling for a tie and calls a fake punt.  Punter runs 79 yards and Florida State wins.  If the fake fails, Clemson can kick an immediate field goal and win, so it was a far riskier play than what we're talking about from last night.

    Parent

    Not to mention that in (none / 0) (#116)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:30:23 PM EST
    the event Bella, with a history of fake punts and going for it on 4th down, had ordered up a punt, the Colts defense would have been playing cautiously -- not to block the kick, not to retreat to set up a good return, but solely to prevent the fake punt.

    A fake punt, iow, almost certainly wouldn't have been called.

    Parent

    Another analogy I like. (none / 0) (#84)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:26:43 PM EST
    Except I'd say Lee's blunder was 100 times stupider than Bella's.  You try that charge 100 times and 100 times it's a disaster.  Bella in comparison would have come out ahead, maybe 2 out of 5, given a few more tries over time.

    i didn't watch the game (none / 0) (#89)
    by Turkana on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    but to me, going on fourth down, so deep in your own territory, sends a signal that you don't have confidence in your defense. i don't care about percentages- this is football, not baseball- punt and make the colts prove themselves.

    It was only a matter of time (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:33:49 PM EST
    but the militias are back...

    Couldn't stand the tea-partiers having all the fun I suppose.

    And about the tea-partiers, in case anyone thought they were not an all-purpose Republican noise machine, they were heckling Al Gore giving a talk on climate change in Miami this weekend.

    Regarding the "defensive pshyche" (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:37:51 PM EST
    of going for it on fourth down...

    this might be a problem on a lot of teams, but I have noticed that the Pats tend to go for it on 4th down a lot more than other teams, often in clutch situations, sometimes not, and I've seen them do it before in bad field position.  I've even seen them go for it on 4th and long every now and then.  Belicheck likes going for 4th downs.  In general, I am a fan of this.  Of course, last night it didn't work out, and I wasn't a huge fan at the time of the call, but it could have gone either way.

    I guess what I'm saying is, this defense should be used to that call by now, and I doubt it will effect them much.

    Probably won't damage the D (none / 0) (#117)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:35:15 PM EST
    for that long -- given a few months and some professional counseling paid for by the team, along with the optional pharmaceuticals.

    Interestingly, I saw two ex-Pats interviewed on post-game clips I saw this morning, both of them superstar defenders.

    Both were surprised by the move and hated Bella's call.  One of them -- Theodore "Teddy" Brewski -- said it was a slap at the D and would affect them for a while but probably not forever ...

    Parent

    Who cares about the feelings of the defense? (none / 0) (#100)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 03:43:28 PM EST
    They're professionals, and they weren't getting the job done.  It's not about feelings.  It's about performance.  You don't want your feelings hurt?  Then stop the other team in their tracks.  That will do wonders for your precious "feelings."

    Belichick's only mistake was in not letting the Colts score right off the bat.  The defense should have laid down and let the Colts score on their first play.  That way, they'd have had about 1:50 to score a field goal and win the game.  

    LA announcing dog-fighting (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    24-hour tip line and up to $5000 for tip leading to arrest or conviction.  LAT

    Hopefully, for any dogs they rescue, (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    they are on board with the "each dog is an individual and needs to be evaluated as such" and don't go the mass euth route. HSUS doesn't have the best record, but supposedly has had their eyes opened . . .

    That said, good news for the doggies :)

    Parent

    Since this is a lawyer blog (none / 0) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:59:59 PM EST
    the best answer should come from a lawyer.

    Law school grad Mike Leach, now head football coach at Texas Tech, when asked why he went for it on 4th and long from deep in his own territory in the first quarter...his response...the purpose of the game is to score points, not to punt.

    That's a dumb answer imo (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 05:14:03 PM EST


    Parent
    It is (none / 0) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    but he's also a person with zero football background who has damn near mastered coaching football offenses, after graduating from law school, because he decided he'd like to be a football coach. He threw the unwritten rule book for coaches out the window.

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:41:46 PM EST
    I think it's brilliant

    Parent
    This is a criminal defense blog. Must be (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 05:24:43 PM EST
    some criminal defendant professional football coach wannabee around here somewhere.

    Parent
    How about... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:30:58 PM EST
    a professional potential criminal defendant wannabe head coach?

    Parent
    I've got it. How about the Oakland (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:04:27 AM EST
    coach who is an alleged spouse abuser?

    Parent
    It was the right call (none / 0) (#138)
    by FreakyBeaky on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 11:32:37 PM EST
    Randy Moss is on my fantasy team.  Any play that gives him one more chance to catch the ball is the right play.  Who cares who the hell won the game?

    Monday Afternoon Open Thread | 132 comments (132 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment