I don't usually listen to analysts. Well, I hear them, but I don't listen to them. But, when you hear BB's former players talking so adamantly (Harrison, Bruschi), it kind of makes you think there may actually be something wrong with his decision to go for it. Practically, I think it makes sense. But, does it send a negative message to your own defense? According to Bruschi and Harrison, yes. I can see what they mean. You are a defensive player, you are payed to play defense. When the coach denies you the chance to defend the two-minute drill, you have to feel a little pissed, don't you? Does anybody think they went out there to their own 29 yard line with a little bit of disdain for BB? Maybe that made things easier for Manning and the boys. Maybe that's utter BS. Who knows? I don't think dissing your own defense is really a big deal, especially when you are only trying to win the game the best way you think you can. Apparently Bruschi and Harrison feel differently, that the defense is owed a chance to redeem themselves after letting the Colts go on two quick scoring drives late in the game. I feel the opposite, but these are former NFL players that are saying these things. It makes you think.

Maybe, possibly, somewhere in the dust of football's past, there is an unwritten agreement with the powers-that-be: If you are protecting a lead and need to get a first down to seal the game, you get 3 shots. If you can't do in 3 downs, you better punt the ball. Or else. I think BB pissed somebody off and is getting the brunt of it through the press.

You should note though, that CHFF was totally on that hate bill bandwagon. Their original article talked about the probabilities being against it, and how it was a stupid decision, without citing any damn statisticts.

Actually, now i can't find the article to link to. I swear I read it....but disregard that comment.

I actually defended Belichick on Stampede Blue earlier. I seriously had to be restrained from lighting myself on fire.

OH GOD I JUST REALIZED THIS IS HIS PLAN HE'S MAKING US SYMPATHETIC STOCKHOLM SYNDROME NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

The Big Lead linked to this probability calculator (although it's really not a complicated computation) that will help discern whether it was a good idea or not.

http://belichick-decision.heroku.com/

But there's an easier way to think of it. In my opinion, the probability of the Pats converting on 4th and 2 at that point in the game was about the same as the probability of the Colts scoring if the Pats punted to them. You may disagree with that assessment, but given the two offenses and the trends late in the game, I think they were both about 50/50 propositions. Given that fact, even if the Colts were GUARANTEED to score if the 4th and 2 failed, then it's at worst a coin flip whether to go for it or punt. If it's only a 99% chance, the numbers favor going for it.

But this is all missing the larger point, which you made. The Pats should have never let themselves get put into that position by passing on 3rd and 2; and once they failed to convert, they should have let Addai score right away and they would have gotten the ball back with over a minute and a really good shot at getting in field goal range. THOSE were the coaching decisions that cost them the game, not the 4th and 2.

I think Bruschi and Harrison are viewing the Pats from the perspective of when they (meaning the players) were in their prime. Then, the Pats D was the dominant side of the ball and it would have been unthinkable to take the game out of their hands in circumstances like these. The 2009 Pats are a different animal entirely.

Lost in the good/bad coaching decisions was that the Pats could have played soft once the Colts got the ball and let Joe score on his first run. They would have had the ball back with about 1:10 and only needing a FG to win.

Sure, that's a no-no, but so is going for it on 4th and 2 in your own territory.

Stockholm syndrome LOL

But seriously I've been wondering for almost a year: let's go back in time to the San Diego game. 3rd and 2. Instead of dropping back to throw... let's run. TWICE. The sack made going for it an impossibility. But what if it had been incomplete? I would have wanted Tony to go for it. I said so to DZ at the time.

To this day I think the Colts win that game if they run twice. Even with the horrible line.

Notice that the mainstream media never enters into a discussion of the odds, because even if that process showed that BB made a mistake, it would just be an honest mistake, a miscalculation. They want it to be about hubris and arrogance. This is a problem all through the world today. Having pride and confidence to break with convention makes everyone else look bad, and the mob loves to tear people down and remind them that they're no better than everyone else. It is disgusting.

Guy, I don't much care what Bruschi and Harrison said because they're both morons overlooking one important fact: Their D DID have a chance to win the game. In fact, they were being trusted with MORE responsibility to hold them at the 29.

Their 2003 defense would've boasted about the trust that was shown to them by that play. They'd say "BB trusted us to win that game even with our backs against the wall." Ray Lewis would relish that chance. Yet now suddenly Bruschi's logic is that they didn't have a chance? Duh. They just had less of a chance. But they still could've stopped them. Instead, it basically took 2 plays to go 30 yards.

First off, right on Willy D--the D did have a chance--and a much tougher one. Maybe BB was saying "I think we can get the 2 yards, but if not, I have faith in our D." (if so, he was the only one in the bldg) Frankly That's the mentality the players HAVE TO HAVE on the field, but Roidney and Tedy are now looking at it from outside. They should take off the skirts and be men and accept the steeper challenge. Be right back, there's someone atthe door. mghmphgh... oops, thanks for waiting while I removed Tedy Bruschi's fist from my esophagus.

Monkey Biz: To paraphrase from the movie Die Hard: "Stockholm Syndrome. From the capital of Finland." The clueless reporter was just pitch-perfect. BB is truly a genius. I agreed with him so much that just today I agreed to have his child in an online chat room. And I'm (1) a guy and (2) straight. !Dios Mio! (DZ, how do I do the upside-down exclamation mark on a standard US keyboard?)

smonroe and W, we can say that as viewers, but never as players/coaches. They have to have faith in their D and if they ALLOWED the Colts to score fast (cue Addai taking a knee like MJD to screw 'em), that's REALLY showing no faith in your D. I suspect that if they played like that, the D would be "lost" for the season. And what if the "super smart coaching maneuver" of letting Indy score ASAP (which it could be) was foiled by a Colt taking a knee at the 1? Then the super-smart maneuver looks super-stupid. Even if we took a knee and scored the next play, that consumes about 45 seconds which NE could have run off maybe 5 pass plays.

DS, regarding last year's infamous "third and 2" I had never considered running twice, but now that you mention it... eh, I am still ambivalent. It does sound like the smart thing to do--for one thing, EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET knew it was going to be a Manning pass, much like with Brady--put the ball in your best player's hands. Of course, the element of surprise might even things out a little, and eliminate some of the potential negatives like an INT or sack.... Given some more time, I might come around to that POV. I'd start out lined up in a shotgun with 18 pointing out the blitzers and protection stuff, then maybe moving up to center at the last minute. A shotgun-handoff takes a little more time to develop, which might offset the element of surprise. Maybe not--when they see a shotgun snap, they might automatically be in pass-rush/pass-defense mode. Ah crap, not you have me reliving last year. Could we have beaten Pitt twice in their house? Probably a 50/50 proposition. Okay, now I am officially miserable all over again. Thanks a bundle.