…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.
