Yes I Said it First

YES, I SAID IT FIRST.

Weekly Article and Sports Magazine

www.yesisaiditfirst.com

Saturday, November 21, 2009
Volume 7; Article Number 21
Issue #178

THE GREAT DEBATE

By Patrick Morand, Senior Editor, “YES, I SAID IT FIRST”

Only one man in pro football could inspire such a debate as Bill Belichick stirred this week.

With a six point lead and the ball at New England’s own 28-yard line with 2:08 remaining, Belichick chose to keep the offense out there to try and get the first down just two yards away which would have iced the game and blemished the Indianapolis Colts unbeaten record.

Instead of punting the ball away and putting the defense back on the field to defend a longer field against the game’s best two minute quarterback who was in his groove and had a few timeouts to help the Patriots took a risk.

They failed and they lost. Now the second guessing has been going on ever since.

Even though Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady appeared to complete the pass for over two yards his receiver Kevin Faulk actually bobbled the ball long enough that he was not credited with forward motion to establish the first down. The Colts safety, Melvin Bullitt ploughed him back saving the night for the Colts.

You see lost among all this banter of “he shouldn’t have or should have made that call” we often forget there are two teams in the game.

The Colts were ecstatic to be getting the ball back.

Even when they stopped the Patriots short on third down Peyton Manning told reporters after the game they were already motivated by the expectation that they would field a punt and have all that time and timeouts to go back on the field and complete a drive to win.

Manning also admitted he was very scared when the Patriots decided to “go for it” on 4th. That was the game for him. If they would have made it, and they usually have, the game would have been over. The Colts sideline was very tense, and Bullitt ended up being the real hero of the game.

Fact is all we can go on. Statistics are how a game is planned and the periscope through which coaches in all sports hedge their bets with strategy.

Obviously the Colts strategy was to be aggressive enough to cause turnovers and get the ball back. It worked.

The Patriots (since Brady arrived in 2001) have been something like 76 percent successful going for it on 4th down in those types of situations.

What probably makes this decision bad in the eyes of some is that it appears Belichick had no escape plan for if it failed.

That means despite all those naysayers that say that his decision was a kick in the teeth of the confidence of his own defense who he “did not trust to stop Manning” I still see it as a major vote of confidence in his quarterback, offensive line and receivers to make a simple two yard play to win the game.

Most coaches when given one shot with 76 percent chance of success will take that one shot even if to miss is to lose the game.

If that one shot is not taken then it takes several more perfect plays to escape a loss.

A sport I watch often in the winter is curling. In curling whoever throws the last rock in theory has the “hammer” on the game. Their play is the final one determining scores.

Sometimes the best defense is to be behind coming into the last end because whoever scored the most recent does not have hammer.

The great debate in curling is always do I want a one point lead without hammer or a one point deficit with it. The answer is 95% of the time the one that gives the team control. Hammer is worth the potential two points that might help you win or tie and force an extra end. Having no hammer is at the mercy of the other guy. There is no bailout plan.

The real debate for me with the Belichick missed play is why did he not let the Colts who needed a touchdown score on the very next play with ample time still on the clock? The Colts were trailing by six so they needed at touchdown.

Then it would have been like a mulligan in golf and the Patriots would have got the ball back for a “do-over” for Brady with time on the clock down one – enough for a half field romp to the field goal range.

Football is a fluid game as long as time is on the clock there is still time to make plays. However, for some reason the Colts were allowed to use the whole two minutes moving the ball to score just 28 yards?

Perhaps this dispels the notion that Belichick had zero confidence in his defense abilities in that he thought they just might intercept or stop one of Manning’s winning attempts. So no gimmicks were called for.

In every coaches decision there is a: who, what, when, where, why, and how to make it work.

I think except for that last part of a backup plan to get the ball back with enough time that Belichick was reading this game correctly.

There are those who want to make his poor outcome show his arrogance and lack of respect, but I see the complete opposite.

Belichick had respect for the “who”: Peyton Manning. Every team makes their game around avoiding what this guy can do with the ball.

If you doubt for one minute that Manning would have still scored a touchdown from eighty or sixty yards back with that much time and timeouts you just have not watched much NFL.

There is a trail of burned bridges of Manning regrets. Former coach Jon Gruden recalls Manning leading his team back against him in Tampa Bay from a 28 point deficit.

In the 2007 AFC Championship game the Patriots held a huge lead at the half over the Colts, and Manning led them back on their way to a Superbowl.

A few weeks ago the Miami Dolphins kept the ball from Manning for 45 minutes of a 60 minute game. They still lost. He simply does much with very little time.

The decision to punt was not about 28 yards or 80 yards. It was about two minutes and a net of really 38 yards. That’s because on average a punt would be returned to some point on the field.

The real question is would any coach trade a 76% chance to win immediately for a more valuable 38 yards in field position with Manning the leader on the other team?

There was a second “who” in the game and that was the New England defense - completely gassed by that stage of the game. The Colts just scored on them on the previous possession and they were tired.

Belichick actually did the defense a favor by not asking them to defend the longer distance against Manning. Coaches know when the defense is being broken apart and are tired. Tired defences never succeed, and that would hurt any young confidence even more.

I have said over and over that this defense in New England is very average at best, and far from the experience and versatility of the old Teddy Bruschi and Rodney Harrison defense.

Belichick also knows with seven weeks left he might not want the defense exposed on film any more than they were.

As for the “when” – Belichick may have punted the ball if Manning did not have three time outs left. For that matter he may have challenged the play he tried if he would have had a timeout.

Why were all those timeouts gone from the Patriots ledger? They were used because the defense got caught not ready, and sometimes Manning rushes up to the line and plays no huddle.

If the Colts were ecstatic to get the pending ball back after the 3rd down stop it means they had all the momentum and confidence. The only thing that scared the Colts was Brady attempting the 4th down. That was because he usually made those.

In baseball many teams take weird chances in the 8th inning when playing against the New York Yankees because they want to try and tie the game before Mariano Rivera comes in from the bullpen to shut things down. There sometimes is a bad time to hold back. Holding back was the wrong decision in Belichick’s eyes.

The “where” part of the decision we often have no problem associating with decisions in other sports.

In baseball teams often go for it on the road as far as stealing bases, hit and run and manufacturing plays with bunts. They usually have less of an advantage in extra innings as a road team.

In football on the road teams have to take some chances. The boldest chances come when a team already has the lead. One possession is hard to protect on the road. That is why many find the Belichick play questionable. They did not need any more points. They did need less time on the clock and the clock rules in football.

There was also the chance that they could have surprised Indianapolis and pulled the Colts offside. A first down would have been automatic. If that had happened we all would be debating whether the Colts should have used one of their timeouts.

In review the “what, how and why” can be rolled all into one for decisions like last Sunday.

For the Patriots their quarterback and his receivers are their best players.

They really lack a running game and will not take many chances that expose their quarterback to injury like the sneak plays can.

They only had a pass option that may have worked. So that is why they chose that play, and it is something they practice several times a week.

The important thing to know is that Belichick and Brady were very comfortable with the play they tried. It did not work, but that is why we play the game – things happen.

Lost in all this debate is how fortunate the Colts were that Bullitt read the play.

Belichick is accused of not giving his defense respect, but the Patriots have an identity and defense is no longer that identity. Even in their winningest years defense came a peg below the offense in that identity.

They gave the ball to their best players to make the one play to end all and failed.

They gave respect to the Colts and Manning, and maybe too much respect, but it is hard to argue with results.

There is no doubt of what Manning would have tried to do with that much time wherever the ball started against that depleted Patriots defense.

The object of football is to make plays with the best players.

At that place of the field position the options were limited to a punter and punt coverage team or the offense with just 2 yards to move.

What probably is the most significant evaluation of the game is that even with the lead the Patriots looked like and acted like underdogs that they were.

There is nothing wrong with giving respect to the other team and attempting to prevent them from beating you. However, teams that have to devise their entire plan around what the other guy will do before the game has even started are often fighting an uphill climb.

Interestingly on the same Sunday Jack Del Rio and the Jacksonville Jaguars made a similar criticized strategy decision that worked in their game against New York Jets.

Jacksonville down 22-21 had the ball on a drive that took them the length of the field to the Jets 10 with a first down and two minutes left. The Jets had no timeouts and the Jets were going to let Jacksonville score a touchdown just so they could get the ball back.

The Jaguars discussed this possibility and the running back elected instead to sit on the one yard line.

Instead of taking the sure touchdown the Jaguars preferred to run down the clock in victory formation to give the field goal kicker, Josh Scobee one shot at a win. They won 24-22 and left no time for the Jets.

If Scobee had missed that strategy would have been second guessed.

Was Del Rio being disrespectful to his own defense? One of the worst passing defenses in the NFL which was on the field too much in that second half? Del Rio a defensive player’s coach?

No he was not disrespectful either. He had 100% confidence in his kicker doing his job and gave him the vote of confidence to do it. Football is a team game – they all mess up and all bail each other out.

One hundred percent confidence in a kicker named Scobee?

So then what would be wrong with a little faith in Tom Brady at his own 28?

YES, I SAID IT FIRST is a weekly Internet article
from the Media Division of OJC-Inc.

TAFriend Tap the mail button to share this article with a friend!

Site Map