…at least according to Gregg Easterbrook.

Indianapolis had only one timeout, so a first down would have all but won the game. On the night, the Patriots had averaged 6.6 yards per play, so the chance of gaining 2 yards was auspicious. As Tim Graham of ESPN.com has noted, since Tom Brady became New England’s starting quarterback, the Patriots have converted 76 percent of their fourth-and-short attempts. A 3-in-4 chance to win is a pretty inviting opportunity.

Which seems like a better gamble — 2 yards to win the game, or two minutes to shut down Peyton Manning when the Colts are hot? In 2007, AccuScore did thousands of computer simulations of the punt-or-go-for-it question for TMQ. One finding was that between your own 21-yard line and your own 35, you should go for it on fourth-and-2 or less. In test after test, doing this improved a team’s chance of victory — though, of course, there is no guarantee. No coach can control what happens on the field. Had New England punted, Indianapolis might have run the kick back for a touchdown, for instance. All the coach can do is make a decision that improves the team’s odds. Belichick made such a decision.

Two things to note:

1. While the Pats did average 6.6 yards per play on the night, they only averaged 2.8 yards per play in their final three possessions (not including Faulk’s 1-yard catch). The New England offense wasn’t as productive in the fourth quarter as it was during the first three.

2. While Brady may own a 76% success rate on fourth down, during those last three drives, just six of the preceding 16 plays (38%) went for more than two yards. That didn’t bode well for the Pats’ 4th-and-2.

I have no problem with computer simulations, but there is something about a 4th-and-whatever with the game on the line that can’t be quantified. Emotions are higher and everyone tightens up. It becomes tougher to execute. Officials are less likely to call a penalty, thinking that unless it’s obvious, players should decide the outcome (especially when the home crowd isn’t going to like your call).

Belichick’s reasoning is understandable. Tom Brady is his best player and he’d rather have the ball in his hands then punt it to Peyton Manning, who just made short work of his tired defense on the previous possession. Had Faulk caught the ball cleanly, we’d all be talking about how gutsy (and brilliant?) it was to go for the first down to win the game.

But it didn’t work out, and Belichick is left with egg on his face.

In his latest edition Monday Morning Quarterback, Peter King of SI.com wants to know what those teams that won on Sunday all have in common with each other. If it wasn’t obvious before it is now: Peter King would love to make babies with the New England Patriots.

Check out his first two paragraphs:

Look at Sunday’s big winners and tell me what they have in common.

Baltimore, Tennessee, Arizona, the New York Giants, Atlanta, Indianapolis and New England. Yes, New England, even after an 18-15 loss to the Colts in Indianapolis.

What? Look at Sunday’s big winners and there’s mention of a Patriot team that choked against the Colts?

King did explain himself:

I include New England in this group for a simple reason: Tom Brady has played for eight minutes in 2008, and the Patriots are 5-3. There are lots of good stories in the first half of the season, but none are as surprising as New England sharing the AFC East lead with Matt Cassel playing quarterback for 31 of the team’s 32 quarters. The Cassel story illustrates why the Bill Belichick/Scott Pioli way is so effective. Remember the hue and cry to go get Chris Simms, Daunte Culpepper or Tim Rattay when Brady went down? The Patriots said: No, we’ll stay in-house for our quarterback, because how can a Simms or a Rattay learn the offense as much as Matt Cassel, who’s been here four years? If we’ve trusted Cassel to back up Brady, why don’t we trust him to play?

And I believe this: If Cassel gets hurt at some point down the stretch, or when he leaves in free-agency after the season, the Patriots will put 2008 third-round pick Kevin O’Connell under center, or use him to back up Brady. The quarterback is develop-able. That’s the New England mantra. Brady got developed. Cassel got developed. And O’Connell will too.

He makes a good point, but I still think it’s kind of funny that King chose the words he did. The Patriots didn’t win and quite frankly played dumb football against the Colts on Sunday night and King essentially called them winners. I might be getting too technical, but why not just say, “Even though they lost, I’m going to include the Patriots in my discussion and here’s why.”

But Petey can’t help but lather himself in Patriot soap every week and take a nice long bath.

There are sometimes when Bill Belichick is too smart for his own good. Case in point, the Colts’ 18-15 win over the Patriots on Sunday Night Football.

Three weeks ago the Pats drummed the Broncos in front of a national audience on Monday Night Football. Belichick was so aggressive that he was even instructing Matt Cassel to run the no-huddle offense up by three scores in the second half. Belichick wanted to make the point that the Patriots weren’t done even though Tom Brady had been lost for the year, and that they could still shove the ball down their opponents’ throats if they wanted to.

Fast forward to Sunday night. Instead of taking advantage of an inexperienced Indy secondary that was starting a street free agent at one of its corner spots, Belichick decided to play things close to the vest and stick to the running game. It made sense considering Indy has struggled mightily against the run and he also wanted to keep Peyton Manning and the explosive Colts offense on the sidelines. But Indy sold out to stop the run last week against Tennessee and also was getting back safety Bob Sanders – their best run-stuffer.

Why run the no-huddle three weeks ago to prove a point against Denver, but play ultra-conservative against a secondary begging to be attacked? Belichick continuously stayed with draws and screens, which had some success, but ultimately played into a smaller, quicker Colts’ defense that flies around to the football. It’s mind-boggling.

Belichick and stone-hands Jabar Gaffney cost the Pats a victory last night because once again, the Colts weren’t too impressive and could have easily been had.