Video: Maybe the dumbest football decision ever
posted at 10:55 am on November 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
How dumb was the decision by New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick to go for a fourth down on his own 28 … while leading by six points and with just two minutes on the clock? His defense had kept the Indianapolis Colts bottled up for most of the game, although they had tired a bit in the fourth quarter. A punt would have forced Peyton Manning to drive 70 yards in two minutes with one timeout, and Manning had thrown two interceptions and probably should have had another two passes picked in the game. Instead, Belichick — normally one of the brightest men in the sport — decided to roll the dice, and even Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth couldn’t believe he was serious until they saw the ball snapped:
The Boston Globe raises the specter of another BB — Bill Buckner (via Tom Maguire):
This was as bad as anything the Red Sox ever did. Had it been a playoff game, it would be right up there with Bucky Dent, Bill Buckner, Aaron Boone, and History Derailed in Glendale, Ariz.
And Bill Belichick played the part of Grady Little.
The Patriots lost to the undefeated Colts in unbelievable fashion last night. Leading, 31-14 in the fourth quarter, and 34-21 with 2:30 remaining, the Patriots took the choke and lost to their hated rivals, 35-34.
So the conference is gone, the playoff bye is probably bye-bye, and the (6-3) Patriots are saddled with a loss that will haunt them for the rest of the season.
And Belichick gets the blame. Too smart for his own good this time. The sin of hubris.
I almost turned this game off in the fourth quarter. When the Pats lead by two TDs at that stage of the game, they don’t lose, or at least they didn’t until last night. Hubris is exactly right; Belichick thought that his offense couldn’t be stopped, even though Tom Brady had almost thrown a pick on the previous play, another quick out to the flat.
Unbelievable.
Update: Collinsworth, not Cunningham. Need … more … coffee, especially after staying up too late watching the end of that game.
Update II: You never know with these threads. They either get a dozen comments, or 300. Meanwhile, King Banaian crunches the numbers in the Green Room to defend Belichick.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Of course Bellicek didn’t have confidence in his defense. They proved in the fourth quarter they couldn’t stop Manning. Why would he think anything would be different on the potential last series? Moreover, if the defense really was capable of stopping Manning, why didn’t they stop him even from the 30 yard line? Shouldn’t matter where you are on the field if your defense is capable of stopping the offense. How many goal line stands have we seen good NFL defenses pull off?
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I think you are right, but are the rules different when the goal line is involved?
dedalus on November 16, 2009 at 3:59 PM
from my perspective Belichek is a horrible human being and any time he encounters a humiliating moment, I’m all for it; perhaps it will lead to some time of redemption
Willie on November 16, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Good point. That kind of gets lost in all the percentages. The Colts are the better team and they had a good chance of making the plays no matter what Belichick called.
RightOFLeft on November 16, 2009 at 4:01 PM
oh, some “type” of redemption; my bad
Willie on November 16, 2009 at 4:06 PM
And the Colts had also scored on two 79 yard drives in the fourth quarter, taking just 2:00 each drive. So, they’d proven they could quickly conver 70+ yards in the potential time left.
Conversely,the Pats had converted seven times in 14 third-down opportunities, most with more than 2 yards to go. They had converted third-down plays needing 3, 2, 5 and 1 yard against the Colts in the second half alone. So, which percentages would you play given the success in short yardage you had been having in the game?
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Bill Belichick is reverting back to Giants Epic Stupid Mode. Wow.
Mr. Joe on November 16, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Not sure what you are asking. This wasn’t a goal line play we are discussing.
To answer your specific question: on a goal line play, it’s a matter of where the ball is in relation to the FRONT of the goal line during progress. Once the ball crosses the front plane of the goal line, the play is over and any progress, or lack thereof, is moot.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Not related to last night’s game. My question, based on your officiating experience, is whether the “forward progress” rules are different regarding the goal line. (e.g., WR makes a leaping catch and breaks the plane but doesn’t get feet down before the DB pushes him out of the end zone and to the ground at the one yard line).
I’m not sure what the call would be, my guess is that it’s a TD.
dedalus on November 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Complete garbage. If it were true a defensive back could literally catch a leaping receiver and carry him back through the reciever’s endzone for a safety as long as he kept the receiver from touching the ground.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 4:19 PM
It’s not the forward progress rule you don’t understand (which I don’t think you do); it’s the “possession” rule you don’t understand. Faulk goes up to catch the ball, he is still bobbling it when his foot lands BEHIND the 30 yard line. Nevertheless, even if he did have possession he needs to get TWO feet down, or any other part of his body (except the hands)landing in bounds– WITH POSSESION– before it can be ruled possession, or a catch. That happens when Faulk’s butt (aka, other part of his body) lands on the 28 or 29 yard line. Thus, well short of the first down marker. He doesn’t have possession until he lands on the ground, regardless of where the defender initially hit him.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 4:25 PM
More plays, more chance of mistakes.
Johan Klaus on November 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Complete garbage. If it were true a defensive back could literally catch a leaping receiver and carry him back through the reciever’s endzone for a safety as long as he kept the receiver from touching the ground.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
I don’t know who you are but you are clueless. Whether his foot is behind the 30 yard line when he has possession is irrelevant. The position of the ball is what matters and it was in front of the 30 yard line. The video clearly shows the ball tucked to his chest at exactly the moment you describe.
He has possession of the ball past the 30. The only thing that can change that spot after that point is if he loses possession of the ball, he doesn’t, or if he moves backward of his own volition, he doesn’t. He is driven back by the defender. The play is ruled a catch because he lands safely without losing possession.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 4:37 PM
That is a judgment call by the official. If in the official’s judgment the receiver would have landed in bounds with possession had he not been pushed out of bounds by the defender,it would be a catch. If the catch put the ball beyond the goal line, it would be a score.
These are very tricky calls. The official has to judge the force and the movement of the receiver. If the receiver looks like he would have landed out of bounds anyway, it matters not how much force the defender puts on him to push him out of bounds.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
So what you are saying is a DB could catch a leaping receiver, carry him back behind the line of scrimmage 20 yards, put him down and that’s where the spot would be. With the receiver clearly holding the ball in his lap the entire time. And we are supposed to believe you know what you are talking about?
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
What people seem to forget is that Tedy Bruschi, the heart of the Pats D, retired prior to this season. And another one of their D old fogies, Junior Seau, didn’t even join the team until 4 weeks ago.
Had Bill had both of those guys on the D last night, his decision might have been very different.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Give it up, I’ve tried to get through to this numbskull a few times. It’s a fruitless waste of time.
rollthedice on November 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Freakanomics guy likes it
Rich on November 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Again, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, as you fail to understand the NFL definition of possession. Did Faulk, by DEFINITION, have possession of the ball at or beyond the 30 yard line? Yes or no? Again, you have to apply the definition of POSSESSION before answering. You can’t, by definition, have POSSESSION, if you are still in the air with the ball.
This video CLEARLY shows ONE foot first comes down BEHIND the 30 yard line. But, by the NFL rule of possession, Faulk has yet to secure possession, because he has yet to get either BOTH FEET, or another part of his body landing in bounds, WITH POSSESSION of the ball. And when he does he is BEHIND the 30 yard line.
Again, read a rule book.
Can someone else try to clue this guy in? He apparently refuses to listen to logic, or believe his own eyes.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Thanks for the info. It sounds like you know more than some of the announcers (in some cases though, that doesn’t take much).
dedalus on November 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Rich on November 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM
trying again to link freakanomics blog
Rich on November 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM
And if the Colts had Johnny Unitas or Bert Jones and Raymond Berry or Marshall Faulk the decision might also have been different, what’s your point?
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 4:52 PM
And BTW. There only definition of possession of the ball is control of it. He was never juggling the ball it bounced how his hands once and he grabbed it. At that point the ball was beyond the 30 yard line. The only thing to be determined now is if it is a Legal catch. Possession is not dependent on the legal catch, it’s the other way round. It’s a legal catch because he ALREADY had possession of the ball.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Belichick was intimidated by Manning. He was afraid of him, it’s that simple.
fossten on November 16, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Uh, that the poster I was responding to was correct in stating that
A lot of casual football fans are unaware that Bruschi retired the end of August, or that Seau came out of retirement and joined the team last month.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM
You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. You example doesn’t apply to the Faulk play because the defender was not holding on to Faulk and preventing him from landing in bounds.
In your ridiculous example the same ruling would apply that is applied to landing in bounds or out of bounds by force of a defender. If, in the official’s judgment the receiver would have landed legally in bounds WITH POSSESSION of the ball had he not been prevented from doing so by the defender, then his forward progress would be marked at the spot where the defender “caught” him. But again, none of that applies to the Faulk play. The defender was attempting to tackle Faulk, Faulk was still bobbling the ball when the defender hit him, he gained possession when he landed on his butt–BEHIND the 30 yard line.
I’m done with you and your ridiculous examples that make no sense and show your ignorance of football rules.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Johan Klaus on November 16, 2009 at 5:01 PM
What you are describing is the definition of a legal catch, not possession. They are not the same thing. If they were the ridiculous example ofthe DB carrying the receiver all over the field would be true. It isn’t.
Rocks on November 16, 2009 at 5:02 PM
In Bill we trust. ‘Nuff said.
After watching our horrendous defense squander the lead Brady had carefully built, I wouldn’t have had any faith in them either. We came about 6 inches away from sealing the game.
Meanwhile, people don’t notice that the Patriots almost beat an undefeated Colts team and virtually beat themselves. If anyone still thinks the Colts are better than the Pats after this game, they’re nuts.
Sixth Guard on November 16, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Had he landed with TWO feet or any other part of his body (other than his hands) in bounds BEYOND the 30 yard line once he was in FINAL possession of the ball? yes or no? The answer to that is your progress/possession ruling. I know what you WANT the answer to be. But what do the facts show?
I will repeat, ONCE AGAIN, the NFL DEFINITION of POSSESSION:
Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds.
So, it seems by your own admission, Faulk did not control the ball (by definition) until it stopped “bouncing out of his hands”. At that point, by definition, possession was behind the 30 yard line.
Thanks for finally admitting it.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 5:07 PM
The Smart Football blog covers this, and comes to this conclusion
It is one of those calls that if the Pats make it, Belichick is considered a stinking genius as they run out the clock, instead of simply just stinking.
I R A Darth Aggie on November 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM
It was Bush’s fault!
chickasaw42 on November 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Please cite the NFL definition of “legal catch”? You won’t be able to, because there is no such definition in the NFL Rule Book. “Legal catch” is the same as “possession”. Please prove me otherwise. Don’t bother, because you won’t be able to.
You are quoting “announcer-speak” by using the term “legal catch”. There is no such definition in either the HS, NCAA, or NFL rule books. The rule books have a section on “definitions” for a reason. They are terms used when making rulings. Again, “legal catch” and “possession” are the same things. But, “possession” is what matters because it applies in more scenarios than merely catching the ball.
And I also must correct myself in a previous post. The “force out” rule was eliminated from the NFL rule book in 2008. So, now a defender can legally push a receiver out of bounds while in the air in the act of attempting to possess the ball.
So, even in the Faulk play the act of the defender pushing Faulk back before he secures legal possession of the ball is a legal play and factors into determining his forward progress. D’oh!!!!!!
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Please check your link-I just tried to open it, and it took me to a dead zone.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM
This is the same coach that has had his starters in the game late up by 35+ points and still throwing deep and going for it on 4th down.
Two seasons ago he embarrassed the Redskins by something like 58-7.
Hubris indeed.
manofaiki on November 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM
http://smartfootball.com/
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM
This is almost a duplicate of the ending to the 1973 Tennessee- Georgia game; and it was the beginning of the end of Bill Battle’s tenure at Tennessee. In 1973 Bill Battle had Tennessee go for a first down instead of punting in the waning minutes. He did not think that the Vol defense could stop Georgia. The Vols failed to get a first down and Georgia won 35-31.
Bill Battle Belichick.
Holger on November 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Patriots have converted a whopping 78% of 4th downs in the past few years, according to the NFL Network.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Here’s a lively read from a football blogger…
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM
As long as my chargers won,I’m happy :)
FontanaConservative on November 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I’m a little tired of the people who claim that the line judge messed up when spotting the ball on the fourth down play. Assuming for the sake of argument that he did, his blown spot still did not cost the Patriots the game.
The fourth down play occurred before the the two-minute warning, so the Patriots could have challenged the spot of the ball if they had any time outs remaining. But they did not have any time outs because they wasted one before the first play of their last drive when they put the wrong players on the field for the package they wanted to run. Neither the Patriots nor their fans can blame the refs for the Patriots failure to preserve their timeouts and ability to challenge the refs’ calls.
Bru on November 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM
For someone who is the epitome of hard work with a life …you sure are on here a lot.
/
Dang your chain is so easily yanked.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Johan Klaus, That is the “force out” rule which was eliminated this year.
Pelayo on November 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM
I agree.
dogsoldier on November 16, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Not even close. Minnesota Viking’s Hershel Walker trade blows that out of the water by a mile!
chickasaw42 on November 16, 2009 at 5:51 PM
LOL! Oh, please.
Running up the score is nothing new. Da Bears beat the Redskins 73-0 in 1940, and ran up the score against the (guess who?) New England Patriots 46-10 in the first Super Bowl the Pats played in.
Earlier this year, the Browns lost 2 games by a combined score of 61-9. And last month, Seattle ran up the score on Jax, 41-0.
I also remember the SF 49ers regularly run up the score in games. See their Super Bowl win against Denver, 55-10.
And the Niners themselves lost a playoff game in the 1980s when the Giants ran up the score on them 49-3. Earlier in those same playoffs, the Niners beat their opponents 41-13 and 30-3.
This isn’t Little League Baseball where the game is suspended when one team gets 10 runs. Today’s NFL has some very good teams, and some very bad teams. They are played to play, not to call off the game if one team gets too many points.
The old saw that “on any given Sunday a bad team can beat a good team” seems to be a thing of the past.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM
I can think of two other idiot decisions, both involving the New Orleans Saints. One bad, one good.
The bad? Coach Dicka mortgaging the Saint’s future for a single draft pick, name of R. Williams.
The good? Miami’s foolish decision to pass on Drew Brees.
Oh, and another stupid decision was the one that allowed Reggie Bush to slip to #2 in the draft. The Saints got him, and although he’s had a slow start this season he scored 2 touchdowns yesterday.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Oops, they are paid to play.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 6:04 PM
If it has anything to do with “dumb”, where was Obama on this?
Cybergeezer on November 16, 2009 at 6:12 PM
I think that the possession rule is the same, bobbling is not possession and forward progress is measured only with possession.
Johan Klaus on November 16, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Bill “Cheater” Belichick used to be a good coach.
jaime on November 16, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Really? That would explain the almost total lack of posts from me all day Friday 11/13 and Saturday 11/14. Had professional continuing education classes all day both days.
Jealous?
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Indeed! The NFL is entertainment. I’m sure the Patriot fans enjoyed seeing the high score. It was up to the Redskins to stop them. Sucks to be the Redskins.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Where are you getting that from? Because the NFL got rid of the force out rule this year, so if a receiver catches the ball in mid-air a defender can shove him out of bounds before he lands and the pass is incomplete.
And it’s killing me to see people STILL talking about the location of Faulk’s feet like they somehow matter on this play. They don’t. The only things that matter here are (1) when did the receiver gain possession, and (2) when did the defender make contact with him.
If the receiver gained possession beyond the 30 (or exact first down spot) and the defender also first contacted him beyond the 30, it’s a first down. It doesn’t matter where the receiver ended up or where his feet touched the ground. Forward progress is measured by the location of the ball at its most forward point, provided the receiver has possession.
If the receiver bobbled the ball (which seems to be the major point of contention) and didn’t gain possession until behind the 30, whether carried there by his own momentum or the defender’s, it’s not a first down. The feet have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this was a first down.
BadgerHawk on November 16, 2009 at 6:40 PM
from my perspective Belichek is a horrible human being and any time he encounters a humiliating moment, I’m all for it; perhaps it will lead to some time of redemption
Willie on November 16, 2009 at 4:00 PM
_________________________________________________________
Oh, so, I guess you know Bill personally, then, right?
Dopenstrange on November 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Could you please change the title to the SECOND dumbest play ever??
Being a Giants fan, this qualifies as THE DUMBEST play of all time…
Miracle in the Meadowlands
HarryStar on November 16, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Thank you! Another voice of reason. And thanks for bringing up the change in the force out rule, which I corrected my self on in a previous post. I’d forgotten about that rule change.
Now, one minor correction…possession is defined has having control of the ball with both feet, or a body part in bounds. So, the feet would matter (in relationship to the position of the ball, of course) as to the spot of the ball.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 6:59 PM
From the NFL’s own website:
However, under this scenario, if a receiver catches the ball in mid-air a defender could basically just catch them and run them backwards 10 or 20 yards. The refs are still going to award forward progress based off of where the receiver gained possession (minus the feet).
And for whatever reason, the NFL site has no definition for ‘forward progress’ which seems like a basic enough term that they should define it.
BadgerHawk on November 16, 2009 at 7:05 PM
arrrgh!Cut Bill Buckner some slack!The Red Sox had the game,and the World Series won,when they scored 2 runs to take the lead in the 10th inning.Then the Mets got 2 quick outs(the shea stadium scoreboard even momentarily flashed *Congradulations World Champion Boston Red Sox*),then *dinkdinkdink* a bunch of singles tied the game…by then the atmosphere in Shea stadium was NUCLEAR,the momentum was all in the mets favor.One way or the other that comeback convinced everyone watching the mets were gonna win that game,then go on to win the series.If anyones to blame,its the Sox bullpen/manager!
theTarCzar on November 16, 2009 at 7:36 PM
M’amer sir- the fact that you mark you calendar for the dates you post on HA says much.Have a good night.
CWforFreedom on November 16, 2009 at 8:07 PM
I am an earnest Patriots fan, but while the loss was disappointing, it is only a game. The enjoyable part of a game is to see good competitions. I do not fault BB for going for it. In life, one has have some balls and dare to take chances to win.
One should watch the game to enjoyat skills of some players like Randy Moss. I think he would have a better career stat over Jerry Rice if he always had a first rate QB like Brady, Montana or Manning to throw to him. Until 2 years ago, his talent was wasted in Minnesota and Oakland.
bayview on November 16, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Don’t feel too bad Ed, I’m a Redskin fan. I’m getting quite used to disappointment in Washington. That said, aren’t we all getting used to disappointment from Washington?
M-14 2go on November 16, 2009 at 8:19 PM
28 OR 29 MY ASS. YOU’RE EITHER AN IDIOT OR YOU CAN’T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES! WATCH THIS VIDEO—NOT THE ONE MORRISSEY SUPPLYS IN THIS POST—-IT WAS A FIRST DOWN MORON. END OF STORY!
Rovin on November 16, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Harry,
I don’t even have to look at the link. Remember the play well. And it was pretty dumb. You did get some restitution with Sims and Co. in their SB win. I still have visions of McConkey waving his stupid towel.
Rovin on November 16, 2009 at 8:42 PM
+ 1
jgapinoy on November 16, 2009 at 8:57 PM
In this extreme and ridiculous scenario the referee would rule forward progress as being stopped at the point where the ball became dead. The “dead ball”rule covers the extreme scenario you describe. There are many definitions of a dead ball. In the scenario you describe a dead ball would be:
NCAA Rule 4.1.3 states: When an airborne receiver from either team is so held and subsequently carried that he is immediately prevented from returning to the ground.
The NFL rule is much simpler:
Rule 7.4.1 (d): when a runner is so held or otherwise restrained that his forward progress ends.
Believe me, the rules cover every possible scenario you can come up with, and there are rules and definitions for every scenario you can imagine.
Official spend hours each week going through such scenarios are asked to apply the rules to such.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 9:02 PM
The coach of Pulaski Acadamy in Little Rock, AR has done the math, and they NEVER PUNT (well, 3 times in 2 seasons) and always go for the 2 point conversion. ESPN interview here.
DaveS on November 16, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Sorry, they don’t always go for 2 point conversion… they always onside kick.
DaveS on November 16, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Disclaimer: I have been a Pats fan since 1978.
I actually called this play (to my TV) before Belichek did.
The Pats have a pretty good record of “going for it” on 4th and short. Heck in week 6 against the Titans some haters accused them running up the score because they went for it.
Some other blogs that track this stuff more then I also say that he made the correct decision percentage wise.
As a Pats fan, I did not want Manning to get the ball at ALL during the last 2 minutes of the game, anywhere on the field. That guy is good, 30 yards or 70 yards probably would not have mattered much in the last 2 minutes of a game.
As far as the “no respect for defense” BS. I think the Belichek thought process consisted of…if we don’t make this…then our defense will have to stop them at the 30 instead of the 70.
Was the play unconventional/unexpected? Yes. Did I have faith in the Pats offense that they could pull this off yes?
Hindsight being 20/20 and all that we now that it was perhaps not the best call, but the dumbest football decision ever? Hardly
Heck, if it worked, it would probably be called one of the greatest plays of the game.
F15Mech on November 16, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Hey! Great! Another clueless,idiot Pat fan that is ignorant of the NFL Rules. Thanks for providing much clearer video evidence that it indeed was NOT a first down. Please re-read the NFL Rule definition of “possession”, then either show me or tell me where Faulk gained possession- BY DEFINITION—of the ball at or beyond the 30 yard line. Don’t bother, because you can’t. The video you linked clearly shows Faulk FIRST touches the ground in bounds — with one foot—at about the 29 1/2. Even by NCAA rules that would be ruled short of the first down. But, because the NFL definition of posession states that the runner must have TWO feet in bounds, and control of the ball, OR any other part of his body (other than his hands) landing in bounds with possession of the ball, the video clearly shows Faulk does NOT have possession of the ball until his ass hits the turf at around the 28 or 29. Again, I know what Pat fans WANT to see in the video. But what they WANT to see and what is actually accurate are two different things. Just because he may have TOUCHED the ball at or beyond the 30 doesn’t mean that by rule he had possession.
Read a rule book.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 9:12 PM
For whats it worth…this
agrees with you.
F15Mech on November 16, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Does that still make me a clueless,idiot Pat fan that is ignorant of the NFL Rules.?
Just wondering?
F15Mech on November 16, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Too funny-all Google will show me about Spygate is articles written by the NY Press.
What I would like to know is why did all of the people who cover the NFL all season who live outside the NY-PHL-PIT cocoon ignore the advice of their more educated peers in O’bama-Land, and name Bill NFL Coach of the Year in 2007? That was well after these allegations had been made public.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Don’t waste your time.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Wait! Don’t tell me you are so clueless as to think the red line in the video is the line-to-gain, are you?
I see the video you link shows it being paused at the point where Faulk first touches the ball. Indeed it does seem to show he first touches the ball at or beyond the line-to-gain. But touching is not possession. Sure, he may have “caught” the ball, but catching is not possession.
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 9:33 PM
LOL! That was beautiful to watch.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 9:35 PM
I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t been watching it…
Khun Joe on November 16, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Dunno. Are you a Pat fan? Do you know the football definition of “possession” and “line-to-gain”?
Fed45 on November 16, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Ed talks as though Indianapolis would not have been able to drive 70 yards or so if the Patriots had instead chosen to punt. Well, let’s look at the facts. In the 4th quarter, Peyton Manning engineering TWO drives of 79 yards. The first drive took only 5 plays and 2:04 off the clock. The second drive took 6 plays in 1:49. Neither drive required even a single timeout. So much for the Colts not being able to move the ball quickly in the 4th quarter. Ed, you give Belichick for being such a brilliant football mind, but you are disingenuous if you don’t give Peyton Manning some credit too.
Log on November 16, 2009 at 9:54 PM
I’m confused–what logic dictates that you need to know anyone personally to reach a personal opinion that he or she is a “horrible human being?” Did all the wacko lefties know “W” personally or something?
Napolean on November 16, 2009 at 9:59 PM
That’s team profiling. O’bama doesn’t allow that.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Exactly right. And I’m sure this game will be one of the NFL Network replay games all week, along with the Saints-Rams game.
I would advise you Pats-bashers to watch the last few minutes of that Saints game. An inferior team came roaring back and almost beat them on the final drive of the game, by marching down the field with NO time outs left.
And since that Saints game ended 3 hours before the Pats game, and was carried all over by Fox for the final minute or so, you know Bill or one of his lackeys saw what happened.
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 10:15 PM
One of the reasons I don’t comment on HA anymore.
F15Mech on November 16, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Thought it was a good, gutsy decision. They almost had it. The Pat’s offense had been doing very well all night, so trying to get a mere two yards was in no way beyond their capability.
Still, glad the Colts won (quite a long way for these two teams since the infamous “Stupor Bowl” where they were playing for the next season’s first round draft pick…anyone remember that?).
Dr. ZhivBlago on November 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM
I think what was being asked of you was to tell us why you think Bill is a “horrible human being”?. On what evidence do you base your opinion?
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 10:43 PM
I’m confused–what logic dictates that you need to know anyone personally to reach a personal opinion that he or she is a “horrible human being?” Did all the wacko lefties know “W” personally or something?
Napolean on November 16, 2009 at 9:59 PM
__________________________________________________________
Yeah, and I’m confused, too. “What logic dictates…” ??? If you’re going to say that someone is a “horrible human being”, I would assume that you know more about that individual than just his public persona. If you want to criticize what is readily observable (ie: you think he’s a bad coach), fine — knock yourself out and say he’s a bad coach; you’re entitled to your opinion. Hey, I can’t stand Obama, but only because of his politics. I would have no business saying that he’s a “horrible human being” because I have no idea what kind of human being he is. As for your comment, ” Did all the wacko lefties know “W” personally or something?” No, — they didn’t – and that’s my point exactly.
Dopenstrange on November 16, 2009 at 10:52 PM
I think what was being asked of you was to tell us why you think Bill is a “horrible human being”?. On what evidence do you base your opinion?
Del Dolemonte on November 16, 2009 at 10:43 PM
__________________________________________________________
Thanks, Del. You said it much more succinctly than I did.
Dopenstrange on November 16, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Had the Pats punted, the Colts would have had to go 70+ yards in 2 minuites and 1 timeout to win. I think that the smart move in this particular case was to punt the ball and force the Colts to get into the end-zone under pressure. To make a reliable mathematical analysis you really need to look at more specialized statistics such as the history of the players on the field and the match-ups that existed that night rather than simply looking at league trends and averages. I know that Manning is a great QB who comes close to living up to all the hype but he’s not God, Belichick blew it.
Dollayo on November 17, 2009 at 12:08 AM
I don’t like the call; but does anyone not think that Manning was gonna move the ball 70 yrs and score? I think NE as lost a game or two by giving manning the ball thinking he won’t score in 2 min. Then again, he already has 2 interceptions so you gotta give your defense more respect than that.
tdavisjr on November 17, 2009 at 12:15 AM
The Giants’ handoff/fumble was dumb as heck, but only cost one game.
`
The Herschel Walker trade set up the Dallas powerhouse teams to follow with the 18 or however many draft choices they got for him, so it was a much bigger blunder.
`
Close was also Steeler Coach Chuck Noll’s annoyance with local fans who keep telling him he “had” to draft a local college QB to groom as replacement for the aging Terry Bradshaw.
`
Noll looked down at his Super Bowl rings and decided the fans had no right to tell him, the great coach, what to do, so he passed on Pitt’s Dan Marino.
`
How many more Super Bowls would the Steelers have won if Marino had succeeded Bradshaw? I’m thinking, “several . . . ”
`
Adjoran on November 17, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Belichick and Brady screaming Manning, Manning in thier
dreams for the rest of thier football careers. : )
Best game I ever missed for the first three quarters.
Rivals the NY Gaints/Patriots superbowl.
Texyank on November 17, 2009 at 12:27 AM
You play to win, especially on the road…
Belichick knew that the game was going to come down to one key play no matter where Indy started with the ball. I agree with him: I would rather take my chances that Brady and Company could get two yards on one play, rather than hope that the Patriots defense would stop Manning for 70 yards. While the Pats defense had played well, it had run out of gas.
It is very simple: Belichick plays to win. He doesn’t play to “not lose.” That is why he has been a head coach or defensive coordinator in 7 Super Bowls with five victories…
RedSoxNation on November 17, 2009 at 1:27 AM
With that said, this loss really, really hurt. It was not as bad as the Giants Super Bowl, but it was close…And no, it was also not as bad as Buckner…
RedSoxNation on November 17, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Apparently ex-Pat’s Tedy Bruschi and Rodney Harrison so.
Fed45 on November 17, 2009 at 2:50 AM
The sight of a coach leaving his starters in the game up by 40+ points in the 4th quarter, still throwing deep and going for it on 4th down IS highly unusual Del.
Spin it all you want.
manofaiki on November 17, 2009 at 5:36 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »