Ainge on Belichick

[Brickowski]

Ainge has a very interesting comment when asked on the radio yesterday about the infamous 4th and 2 scenario.  IMHO Ainge was 100% correct and made a point that has been missed by every national commentator.

After failing to get the first down, the Patriots had to lay down and let the Colts score on the very next play.  That leaves them behind by one, but Brady would have nearly two minutes to move the ball downfield for a winning fg.

[Roy Hobbs]

Ainge has a very interesting comment when asked on the radio yesterday about the infamous 4th and 2 scenario.  IMHO Ainge was 100% correct and made a point that has been missed by every national commentator.

After failing to get the first down, the Patriots had to lay down and let the Colts score on the very next play.  That leaves them behind by one, but Brady would have nearly two minutes to move the ball downfield for a winning fg.

Wait...  Ainge said the Pats should have just conceded 30 yards and a TD?  I disagree with that thinking.  If you 1) got for it on 4th-and-2, and 2) then tell your defense to intentionally let the other side score, you've basically said you have absolutely no faith in your D.  You'd lose players on that side of the ball for the rest of the season. 

Also, of course, if Brady wasn't able to move the ball 50 or so yards for the winning FG, Belechick would be even more criticized than he was.  He would have then made two horrible decisions, rather than just one.

I agree with that thinking if the ball is on the 1.  However, to concede 29 yards is ludicrous to me.

[Rondo2287]

Ainge has a very interesting comment when asked on the radio yesterday about the infamous 4th and 2 scenario.  IMHO Ainge was 100% correct and made a point that has been missed by every national commentator.

After failing to get the first down, the Patriots had to lay down and let the Colts score on the very next play.  That leaves them behind by one, but Brady would have nearly two minutes to move the ball downfield for a winning fg.

Wait...  Ainge said the Pats should have just conceded 30 yards and a TD?  I disagree with that thinking.  If you 1) got for it on 4th-and-2, and 2) then tell your defense to intentionally let the other side score, you've basically said you have absolutely no faith in your D.  You'd lose players on that side of the ball for the rest of the season. 

Also, of course, if Brady wasn't able to move the ball 50 or so yards for the winning FG, Belechick would be even more criticized than he was.  He would have then made two horrible decisions, rather than just one.

I agree with that thinking if the ball is on the 1.  However, to concede 29 yards is ludicrous to me.

I agree that I wouldnt have let them score, but I dont buy into the, "Losing guys for the season mentality."  As Bruschi said, it would get your blood boiling, to me that makes me think they would play harder down the road.  I mean Belichick didnt lose Adalius Thomas when he sat him down for a game.  I think when you have a defense thats full of alot of guys that are either young players looking to prove themselves or more experienced guys who were undrafted like Wright, Mcgowan, and Bodden, and play with a chip on their shoulder, there isnt much that will lose them because they know if they dont come with everything they got they probably wont play at all.  Again see what Bill did with Adalius.  Everybody on that team has that over their heads, "If we dont play hard we dont play."

[Brickowski]

Why is it ludicrous?  With the way Manning was playing and an exhausted Patriots defense, you knew the Colts would score a TD.  That's why Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 in the first place.

If they let the Colts score immediately, they are 75% or better to win the game, because all the Pats need to do when the get the ball back is kick a fg.

[Roy Hobbs]

Ainge has a very interesting comment when asked on the radio yesterday about the infamous 4th and 2 scenario.  IMHO Ainge was 100% correct and made a point that has been missed by every national commentator.

After failing to get the first down, the Patriots had to lay down and let the Colts score on the very next play.  That leaves them behind by one, but Brady would have nearly two minutes to move the ball downfield for a winning fg.

Wait...  Ainge said the Pats should have just conceded 30 yards and a TD?  I disagree with that thinking.  If you 1) got for it on 4th-and-2, and 2) then tell your defense to intentionally let the other side score, you've basically said you have absolutely no faith in your D.  You'd lose players on that side of the ball for the rest of the season. 

Also, of course, if Brady wasn't able to move the ball 50 or so yards for the winning FG, Belechick would be even more criticized than he was.  He would have then made two horrible decisions, rather than just one.

I agree with that thinking if the ball is on the 1.  However, to concede 29 yards is ludicrous to me.

I agree that I wouldnt have let them score, but I dont buy into the, "Losing guys for the season mentality."  As Bruschi said, it would get your blood boiling, to me that makes me think they would play harder down the road.  I mean Belichick didnt lose Adalius Thomas when he sat him down for a game.  I think when you have a defense thats full of alot of guys that are either young players looking to prove themselves or more experienced guys who were undrafted like Wright, Mcgowan, and Bodden, and play with a chip on their shoulder, there isnt much that will lose them because they know if they dont come with everything they got they probably wont play at all.  Again see what Bill did with Adalius.  Everybody on that team has that over their heads, "If we dont play hard we dont play."

I think there's a huge difference between sitting a guy because he's not performing, and treating your defense like it doesn't exist. 

[Roy Hobbs]

Why is it ludicrous?  With the way Manning was playing and an exhausted Patriots defense, you knew the Colts would score a TD.  That's why Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 in the first place.

If they let the Colts score immediately, they are 75% or better to win the game, because all the Pats need to do when the get the ball back is kick a fg.

75% or more?  They couldn't move the ball ten yards to get a first down on their previous play.  Why is there a 75% chance that they'd move the ball 50 or so yards (assuming they get the ball around the 25) to score a FG?

[Rondo2287]

Ainge has a very interesting comment when asked on the radio yesterday about the infamous 4th and 2 scenario.  IMHO Ainge was 100% correct and made a point that has been missed by every national commentator.

After failing to get the first down, the Patriots had to lay down and let the Colts score on the very next play.  That leaves them behind by one, but Brady would have nearly two minutes to move the ball downfield for a winning fg.

Wait...  Ainge said the Pats should have just conceded 30 yards and a TD?  I disagree with that thinking.  If you 1) got for it on 4th-and-2, and 2) then tell your defense to intentionally let the other side score, you've basically said you have absolutely no faith in your D.  You'd lose players on that side of the ball for the rest of the season. 

Also, of course, if Brady wasn't able to move the ball 50 or so yards for the winning FG, Belechick would be even more criticized than he was.  He would have then made two horrible decisions, rather than just one.

I agree with that thinking if the ball is on the 1.  However, to concede 29 yards is ludicrous to me.

I agree that I wouldnt have let them score, but I dont buy into the, "Losing guys for the season mentality."  As Bruschi said, it would get your blood boiling, to me that makes me think they would play harder down the road.  I mean Belichick didnt lose Adalius Thomas when he sat him down for a game.  I think when you have a defense thats full of alot of guys that are either young players looking to prove themselves or more experienced guys who were undrafted like Wright, Mcgowan, and Bodden, and play with a chip on their shoulder, there isnt much that will lose them because they know if they dont come with everything they got they probably wont play at all.  Again see what Bill did with Adalius.  Everybody on that team has that over their heads, "If we dont play hard we dont play."

I think there's a huge difference between sitting a guy because he's not performing, and treating your defense like it doesn't exist. 

I agree, but I think based on the track record there isnt much of a chance of, "Losing them"

[Fafnir]

Ainge has a very interesting comment when asked on the radio yesterday about the infamous 4th and 2 scenario.  IMHO Ainge was 100% correct and made a point that has been missed by every national commentator.

After failing to get the first down, the Patriots had to lay down and let the Colts score on the very next play.  That leaves them behind by one, but Brady would have nearly two minutes to move the ball downfield for a winning fg.

Wait...  Ainge said the Pats should have just conceded 30 yards and a TD?  I disagree with that thinking.  If you 1) got for it on 4th-and-2, and 2) then tell your defense to intentionally let the other side score, you've basically said you have absolutely no faith in your D.  You'd lose players on that side of the ball for the rest of the season. 

Also, of course, if Brady wasn't able to move the ball 50 or so yards for the winning FG, Belechick would be even more criticized than he was.  He would have then made two horrible decisions, rather than just one.

I agree with that thinking if the ball is on the 1.  However, to concede 29 yards is ludicrous to me.

I agree that I wouldnt have let them score, but I dont buy into the, "Losing guys for the season mentality."  As Bruschi said, it would get your blood boiling, to me that makes me think they would play harder down the road.  I mean Belichick didnt lose Adalius Thomas when he sat him down for a game.  I think when you have a defense thats full of alot of guys that are either young players looking to prove themselves or more experienced guys who were undrafted like Wright, Mcgowan, and Bodden, and play with a chip on their shoulder, there isnt much that will lose them because they know if they dont come with everything they got they probably wont play at all.  Again see what Bill did with Adalius.  Everybody on that team has that over their heads, "If we dont play hard we dont play."

I think there's a huge difference between sitting a guy because he's not performing, and treating your defense like it doesn't exist. 

Once Addai busted through the line their secondary should have let him go into the endzone.

[ma11l]

I actually agree with what Smerlas said the Pats should have done on defense after that 4th and 2 miss.  They should have brought the house on an all out blitz.  Either way one team is going to make a big play.  If it was the Pats defense then they would've had a chance to stop the Colts.  If the Colts scored a touchdown on that first play then Brady would have had plenty of time to drive the team into field goal range and win the game.

[scoop]

Belichick made the right decision, it was the optimal decision ex ante.

[Brickowski]

Why is it ludicrous?  With the way Manning was playing and an exhausted Patriots defense, you knew the Colts would score a TD.  That's why Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 in the first place.

If they let the Colts score immediately, they are 75% or better to win the game, because all the Pats need to do when the get the ball back is kick a fg.

75% or more?  They couldn't move the ball ten yards to get a first down on their previous play.  Why is there a 75% chance that they'd move the ball 50 or so yards (assuming they get the ball around the 25) to score a FG?

Because at that point Brady pulls out all the stops. Every play is a pass.

The point is, that if you want your offense to win the game for you, carry that philosophy to its logical conclusion.

Let me add that Faulk in fact had the first down on the play, which was taken away by a poor call.  He was not juggling the ball.

[Rondo2287]

Why is it ludicrous?  With the way Manning was playing and an exhausted Patriots defense, you knew the Colts would score a TD.  That's why Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 in the first place.

If they let the Colts score immediately, they are 75% or better to win the game, because all the Pats need to do when the get the ball back is kick a fg.

75% or more?  They couldn't move the ball ten yards to get a first down on their previous play.  Why is there a 75% chance that they'd move the ball 50 or so yards (assuming they get the ball around the 25) to score a FG?

Because at that point Brady pulls out all the stops. Every play is a pass.

The point is, that if you want your offense to win the game for you, carry that philosophy to its logical conclusion.

Let me add that Faulk in fact had the first down on the play, which was taken away by a poor call.  He was not juggling the ball.

Brick I agree with you but please for the love of god can we not talk about whether he made it again.  I think sunday night took at least 3 years off my life expectancy.

[Fan from VT]

Ainge has a very interesting comment when asked on the radio yesterday about the infamous 4th and 2 scenario.  IMHO Ainge was 100% correct and made a point that has been missed by every national commentator.

After failing to get the first down, the Patriots had to lay down and let the Colts score on the very next play.  That leaves them behind by one, but Brady would have nearly two minutes to move the ball downfield for a winning fg.

Wait...  Ainge said the Pats should have just conceded 30 yards and a TD?  I disagree with that thinking.  If you 1) got for it on 4th-and-2, and 2) then tell your defense to intentionally let the other side score, you've basically said you have absolutely no faith in your D.  You'd lose players on that side of the ball for the rest of the season. 

Also, of course, if Brady wasn't able to move the ball 50 or so yards for the winning FG, Belechick would be even more criticized than he was.  He would have then made two horrible decisions, rather than just one.

I agree with that thinking if the ball is on the 1.  However, to concede 29 yards is ludicrous to me.

First off, i am not defending Belichek's decision, I say in that situation punt and make them go the distance.

But,

According to Bellichek's logic by which he went for it on 4th and 2, he definitely should have conceded the touchdown right away.

Here's why:

The reason to go for it on 4th and 2 is because you think that you cannot prevent Manning from going 70 yards and getting a touchdown with 3 timeouts in 2 minutes. Essentially, you are conceding that the Colts will definitely score from 70 yards out in 2 minutes. Therefore, you definitely aren't going to stop him from going 28 yards in 2 minutes with 3 timeouts. So the best case backup plan, once you've decided you can't stop them from 70 yards so you need to go for it on 4th and 2, is to allow a quick score to give your team a chance to win.

This is not an outlandish strategy. Football is by far the least creatively most conservatively coached sport. Belichek conceded a safety once in order to give his team the best chance to win. That time it worked. Last week the jets tried to concede a touchdown, but the jags were prepared, so MJD took a knee on the 1 yard line. It was a double switch dose of unconventional thinking, and by being prepared for it the jags sacrificed some points but gave themselves the best chance to win. and did.

I think punting would have given the pats the best chance to win. second to that would have been allowing a quick score and then going for a field goal for the win. 3rd best was what they did sunday: go for it, then waste time delaying the inevitable (that you already knew was inevitable because you went for it at your own 28)

[CDawg834]

Ainge has a very interesting comment when asked on the radio yesterday about the infamous 4th and 2 scenario.  IMHO Ainge was 100% correct and made a point that has been missed by every national commentator.

After failing to get the first down, the Patriots had to lay down and let the Colts score on the very next play.  That leaves them behind by one, but Brady would have nearly two minutes to move the ball downfield for a winning fg.

Wait...  Ainge said the Pats should have just conceded 30 yards and a TD?  I disagree with that thinking.  If you 1) got for it on 4th-and-2, and 2) then tell your defense to intentionally let the other side score, you've basically said you have absolutely no faith in your D.  You'd lose players on that side of the ball for the rest of the season. 

Also, of course, if Brady wasn't able to move the ball 50 or so yards for the winning FG, Belechick would be even more criticized than he was.  He would have then made two horrible decisions, rather than just one.

I agree with that thinking if the ball is on the 1.  However, to concede 29 yards is ludicrous to me.

When Addai got to the 3 and broke a tackle, then they should have let him in instead of tackling him on the 1, as Addai clearly wasn't making a move to take a knee to eat some time up.  Unfortunately, instinct kicked in, and instead of getting the ball back with over a minute to play, they got it with 13 seconds to play.  IMO, that was the true mistake.

Belichick said on EEI he didn't believe in giving the other team points, but that's what one him that Denver game several years back, when they intentionally took a safety for field position reasons.

[Michael Anthony]

If given the option "gain two yards and win", in private, every coach and player in the league would take it.

Now, as Tusday Morning Quarterback author Gregg Estabrook of ESPN.com points out (a must read imho), the bad call was on 3rd and 2 when they attempted a pass. If you are in four down territory for a victory, you run it on both plays. Not only do you have a legit shot at gaining the yards, but you keep the clock ticking.