I can't believe I'm defending Bill Belichick
Written by Nate Dunlevy   
Monday, 16 November 2009 07:56

Bill Belichick did a lot of dumb things on Sunday night.

Not punting wasn't one of them.

Let me begin by saying that Belichick screwed up the end game royally.  Facing a 3rd and 2, and a team with 1 timeout left, Belichick had an easy call:  RUN THE FOOTBALL.

Indy has the 26th ranked 'Power' defense in the league. They only stop runs on third and fourth and two about 27% of the time.  Conversely, NE is 5th in power running, converting 76% of all power runs.  Running the ball on third down would have (at least) forced the Colts to burn their last timeout.  Assuming Indy made the stop (which is a HUGE assumption), perhaps punting to them would be more palatable knowing they would be out of timeouts.  Even had they been stopped on third down however, the odds of Indy stopping them on consecutive runs would be impossibly low. Add in the wasted timeouts, and it was a very un-Patriotlike final drive.  The Pats screwed it up, just not how everyone thinks.

Let's tackle the popular reasons that people are citing for attacking Belichick's decision:

1.  "You have to play the odds"-Tony Dungy.

He did play the odds.  The odds favor going for it. Speaking strictly in mathematical terms, in a vacuum Belichick made the right call.  PERIOD.  Going for it was the high percentage play.  Now, football isn't played in a vacuum, of course so add in these factors:

1.  Your offense has scored 34 points and moved the ball effectively all night.
2.  You have a Hall of Fame quarterback, perhaps one of the 5-10 best players in history.
3.  You are playing against a Hall of Fame quarterback, perhaps one of the 5-10 best players in history.
4.  That same QB has put up 28 points on your defense already, and he runs an offense specifically designed to score quickly in two minute circumstance.

Going for it was a no-brainer.  It was a simple decision. It didn't work.  That doesn't make it wrong.

2.  He said to his defense, "I don't trust you"

So what?  Why should he have trusted his defense? Instead he said to his offense, "I do trust you".  This is nothing but emotional blather.  So let's say he trusts his defense, and Manning drives 70 yards for the winning score on them.  Wouldn't that be MORE devastating than BB not trusting them by going for it?  Moreover, if he doesn't trust his defense, what good does it do to tell them he does?  This is just stupid talk.  His defense had already allowed 14 points on two 79 yard drives that lasted 2:04 and 1:49 IN THAT SAME QUARTER.  What possible sense does it make to trust your defense?

3.  No one would do that in that situation.

Oh ok.  The Patriots won three Super Bowls doing things unlike any other franchise in the NFL, and now BB is supposed to punt because that's what everyone would do?  No way.  That's an argument for cowards and the morally weak.  I don't want my son to grow up to be like Bill Belichick in almost any respect but one:  I want him to have the courage and intelligence to do what no one else would do when it's the right decision.

4.  He opened himself up to criticism.

He did that the moment he picked up a headset.  If anything, he successfully distracted the world from the fact that his team folded like a house of cards.

The Pats offense did NOTHING in the final 2.5 quarters.  They scored 10 points on drives that started from the Indy 7 and the Indy 31. They also turned the ball over twice. That's the definition of doing nothing.

The Pats defense gave up 28 points already and was about to have Peyton Manning drive the length of the field on them.

Instead, Belichick flipped the script.  Instead of the headlines being, "PATS WEAK", "PATS BLOW LEAD", "PATS DEFENSE SOFT", "BRADY GREAT IN FIRST HALF, WEAK IN SECOND HALF" everyone is focused on what an idiot Belichick is, as if he gives two craps what they say.

Bill Belichick fell on his sword for his team Sunday night.  They folded, and he took responsibility in the most manly way possible.  No one is questioning the players about their mistakes.  They are all focused on the coach.  It's brilliant.

Let me end by saying this:  Belichick might have killed the Colts on Sunday night. By being aggressive and failing, he has opened the door for Jim Caldwell to play passive the rest of the year and get away with it.  Now when Jim punts instead of going for it, the local fans and media will embrace the conservative calls.  This possibility terrifies me.  Don't listen to the pundits.  Belichick did the right thing.  I can only hope Caldwell has the balls to do the same when it matters.



Digg! Reddit! Facebook! Technorati! StumbleUpon! BallHype: hype it up!
Comments (46)Add Comment
...
written by DemondSanders, November 16, 2009
"Belichick might have killed the Colts on Sunday night. By being aggressive and failing, he has opened the door for Jim Caldwell to play passive the rest of the year and get away with it. Now when Jim punts instead of going for it, the local fans and media will embrace the conservative calls. This possibility terrifies me."

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
...
written by ColtsHeadBen, November 16, 2009
You couldn't be more wrong.

Going for it on 4th down inside your own 30 is always a bad idea. But let's not forget, HE WAS UP SIX POINTS. Colts have burned two TOs already, the punt play probably burns the two-minute warning, and they need a TD, not a field goal. Maybe, MAYBE Manning walks the field and manages to punch it in. It's a possibility, but with all the miscues and drops, by no means a likely outcome.

Giving your D 70 yards to stop Manning is within the realm of possibility. Setting him up with a rolling offense on your own 28 is game over. Game effing over. So Belicheck basically went all-in even though he had a six-point lead. Bad, awful, terrible, no good call, and if Caldwell does it I will flip my lid because it's just. plain. stupid.
...
written by DZ, November 16, 2009
@Coltsheadben
Make an actual argument and I'll respond.

Fourth quarter: Colts had three drives. Two 79 yard TD drives lasting 2:04 and 1:49 and one pick based on a miscommunication.

The math says go for it.

Do you REALLY think 30-40 more yards would have made any difference to the Colts offense?
...
written by ColtsHeadBen, November 16, 2009
Here's my argument: When your playcalling makes the opposing team jump for joy, you made the wrong call.
...
written by DZ, November 16, 2009
The Colts were jumping for joy after third down because they thought they were getting the ball back.

When NE decided to go for it, everyone was nervous because they knew the odds were very much in their favor.

When they lined up to go for the only Colts fans jumping for joy were the ones who are bad at math.
...
written by 35er, November 16, 2009
I think his call to go for it also says a lot about what he thinks of our defense.
Amen DZ
written by Westside-Rob, November 16, 2009
DZ,
You are 100% correct in your analysis. I told my wife before the play it was the right call and I figured they'd convert. If Manning was going to score he was going to do it from the opposing 30 just as sure as he did from the Pats 30. Their best chance was to keep Peyton off the field. I couldn't believe myself either that I'm yelling at the TV after the game defending Billy B, but I was. He made the RIGHT call, the GUTSY call, and his team failed to execute. I also agree that Bill fell on the sword for his team. I'm guessing he went into the locker room after the game and told his team. "I lost this game for you. Don't lose faith in yourselves because I screwed up." What better way to protect your teams psyche and build their faith in you. I think it was probably the one of the best coaching decisions in the big picture I've ever seen. Unfortunately for him it didn't work out, but Bill has shown time and time again he could care less about what the media and public think of him.

Manning was going to win that game either way, the only hope they had was to convert on 4th. They failed. These are two great teams. Led by two of the greatest quarterbacks EVER, and it was a pleasure to see them both perform. How lucky are we to be fans of these teams in this time. Fans of 30 other teams WISH they were us.
...
written by DZ, November 16, 2009
Sure. Another reason they should have run the ball.

Two runs there and NE wins.
...
written by Uno Ocho, November 16, 2009
I think this was absolutely the right call. Why? Because I hated that it happened. When the opposing team's fans dislike the call, it is probably right. While you can question the play calls on 3rd and 4th down, I think the decision to go for it was correct.

Everyone points out that giving the Colts the ball on NE 30 as opposed to their own 30 is suicide, but which situation would you rather be in
1) Peyton Manning with 2:00 and any amount of distance to go or
2) 50ish% chance (conservatively) of never even allowing Peyton Manning to touch the ball.

How often have we all lambasted Dungy/Caldwell for punting 4th and 1 midfield and then having the ball already at that point after 2-3 plays? The way the Colts were moving the ball and the amount of time left, those 40 yards probably don't matter. The hardest part is scoring in the red zone. If this happened at the NE 10 or something it's a different scenario, but your defense still has the chance to stop them from scoring a TD from the 30.
I'm not going to debate...
written by Doug England, November 16, 2009
But...
(1) Those situations are totally different than going against even a standard short yardage D. Despite the added pressure of the moment, everyone not in press coverage is shooting the gaps and attacking. So what if you get gashed for a TD, the game is over anyway.

(2) Do you think it was the right call only because it was Manning on the other side. Say, it was Big Ben, or Rivers or Brees... still the right call?
...
written by Westside-Rob, November 16, 2009
I'd say that it is more heavily the right call because it's Manning on the other sideline. I think it's probably the right call if Brady was on the "other" sideline. After that maybe Big Ben, and Brees or Favre. After those guys punting becomes the right call, because they aren't likely to go 70 yards in less than 2 minutes with 1 timeout.
...
written by DZ, November 16, 2009
Given the other factors (especially the two fourth quarter TD drives in about 2 min each), I still go for it.

The basic math says go for it, but that's not enough. You obviously wouldn't go for it in a 6-0 game against Matt Stafford. But in a 34-28 game against an elite offense that has ripped you apart in the 4th quarter...you have to go for it.

So yes, all things being equal, I don't punt to Roethlisberger or Brees either.
...
written by Uno Ocho, November 16, 2009
I think the personnel involved definitely was unique. Take a random team, the 49ers for example. If you replace the Pats with them, you don't put the game in the hands of Alex Smith. You punt and hope your defense holds. Now replace the Colts with the 49ers. You punt and bet that Alex Smith is not going to beat you in a two minute drill.

Belicheat put the ball in the hands of his best player in order to make a play to win the game and keep the ball out of the hands of the Colts best player.
The Percentages
written by Drew Funk, November 16, 2009
Twice last night I heard or read someone say, "You have to go with the percentages there." Dungy said it on post-game, then on NFL.com's capsule reviews of each game, Bucky Brooks gave a list of reasons it wasn't necessarily a bad call, but then finished with "While conventional wisdom says you always punt in that situation, putting the ball in the hands of one of the NFL's top clutch players was too enticing for Belichick to play the percentages."

Why doesn't anyone ask these people exactly what the percentges they claim to know so well are? Really, is it that hard to press them to figure out if they have studies backing this up?
Unconventional Clock Management?
written by Nickaveli, November 16, 2009
I think maybe Bill figured that, on the 50% chance that they don't convert the 4th and 2, Peyton only has to go 30 yards, and he may do it very quickly, leaving his offense more time to try and get a last second field goal. If Peyton has to go 70 yards, if he manages to do it, there is definitely no time left for Brady. Unfortunately for him, the Colts countered that brilliance with their own brillance and patience by being able to run the clock down to 13 seconds left and still get the ball in the end zone. Although if Joe breaks one more leg tackle on his big run, the Pats would have had a legit shot at another score.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I way over thinking it???
...
written by DZ, November 16, 2009
I've noted that theory else where. It plays into the decision, but I doubt he parsed it down that far.

He basically had a 65% chance of converting.

Those are better odds than people think.
re: clock mngmt
written by m@, November 16, 2009
totally w/you on this Nickaveli - when Joe was running, I was actually thinking I'd be yelling for him to take an MJD knee at the 1. Though he may have killed my wife's fantasy team with that, I did not want to give the Pats the ball back that quickly. Considering all they would have needed was a FG, you have to think they throw a long jump ball to Moss.
I liked the call
written by Nacho from Buenos Aires, November 16, 2009
"con el diario del lunes" as we say here in Argentina, is very simple to give an opinion of Belichick´s call.
I prefer a Coach with belichick´s big balls, even when things can go wrong, rather than a converservative one... if a am a Patriots fan i prefer losing the game like this, rather than watching Manning driving 80yds for the winning touch-down... the interesting thing is to watch how BB respects Peyton... and to me Peyton deserves that respect. from BB and from any other coach. If you give him 2 minutes with 80yds to go, he will eat you. No doubt. and please do not confuse respect with fear.
The Patriots lost showing they are a great team, that respects peyton, and has NO FEAR and enough confidence in themselves to win the game in one single play. Stupid? maybe. But they show they think big.
Again: with the result on the table, every single analyst will explain how wrong the call was. If they ve got the 2 yards, the same analyst would be explaining how the Mathemathics were on New England side and how smart BB is...

I hate the patriots, but for things like this call, i respect them.
...
written by Monkey Business, November 16, 2009
Belichick's call was absolutely right. From there, I'd punt to anyone EXCEPT Peyton Manning. If your punter is decent, they'll start somewhere between the goal line and the 30. Against Brees, Big Ben, Palmer, Rivers, etc., I'd dare them to go 70+ yards in two minutes. But Peyton Manning? No. Peyton can make up the 50 yard difference in a single play. He can move the length of the field in a buck fifty.

Basically, Peyton Manning got into Bill Belichick's head. Belichick KNEW that if he gave Manning the ball back, he was going to lose. So, he did the only thing he could, and tried to win it right there.
...
written by Nacho from Buenos Aires, November 16, 2009
(my english sucks!! i know, i hace to practice more!!)
regards from the south!
...
written by jpjandrade, November 16, 2009
Well, here's a little gif for everyone
...
written by 35er, November 16, 2009
Hey DZ, where did you get that '65% chance of converting' stat?

(not calling you out; just wondering)
I'm not Deshawn, but if I may answer in his place
written by A.J., November 16, 2009
written by 35er, November 16, 2009

Hey DZ, where did you get that '65% chance of converting' stat?

(not calling you out; just wondering)


Comes from here:
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-3.html
...
written by A.J., November 16, 2009
Whoops. URL didn't autoform; I'm too used to other blog sites. Here's a linkified correction:
http://www.advancednflstats.co...art-3.html
...
written by JEM, November 16, 2009
Two thoughts:

1. I don't love thinking only in terms of statistics. I think there is something to be said for guts and feel in coaching. Otherwise, why not have robots coach?

2. Regardless, I think DZ and Demond are right. Here is a short explanation:

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-belichicks-fourth-down-decision/
...
written by Timbuk3, November 16, 2009
as a Pats fan, it is a shame that I've come here to be cheered up.

That said, I don't have a problem with that play call. Brady is converting 69% for the night, 66% for the season, and 5/10 on 4th down before that final attempt. You are 50/50 or better to be 100% victorious with the ball in the hands of your best player. Easy decision to punt against other teams, but Peyton was playing lights out and this was a measure of true respect for him. As others have said, Bill took one for the team in some sense and many fans will respect him for that.
Not buying the analysis
written by Merr, November 16, 2009
I've seen much of the analysis (NFL Reference, Advanced Stats) Many flaws in the analysis. Namely, how many games have team's gone for it on 4th and 2 from inside their own 35 with 2:00 left, while holding a 6 point lead? That's a sample size problem.

This is very different from the general "punt" versus "go for it when you're on the opponent's 40" question - there is a significant amount of statistical evidence supporting that strategy.

In fact, I think we're all helping to kill the trend of going for it more on 4th. The Belichik decision is off on its own with no statistical evidence to either support or refute it.
...
written by DZ, November 16, 2009
The success rate of fourth and two are independent of the position on the field. That's all been taken into account.

The analysis only fails if you are saying the Pats had a significantly lower than 60-65% chance of converting that play.

If that's what you are saying, I'd like to know why...
Seriously
written by Craigga, November 16, 2009
Absolutely correct. As a Pats fan, I also agree that he made the right choice. These are the two best QBs in the league this decade. You can either trust it in the hands of yours (Mine = TB) or hand it over to the other teams (PM). In every case, I would rather have the game in our hands rather than the other guys'. Did a big post on this on my site too. http://www.4sportboston.com/20...-an-idiot/
...
written by Merr, November 16, 2009
OK. Leave field position out of it. I still don't buy that there's that much data available on team's that have been up by 6 with 2:00 left, going for it on 4th down and 2, no timeouts, the other team has one time out, etc. No freakin' way. Maybe once per decade and Advanced Stats cover 9 years.

I am guessing the average 2-point conversion percentage is closer. Similar distance, similar psychology and probably similar play calling. 45% chance of success. Should've punted. At the time, I thought going for it was OK.
Simulations
written by Matt the Geologist, November 16, 2009
The NY Times ran the situation through the ZEUS computer, and their results show that the "real" probabilities were pretty close, with about a 2% margin in favor of going for it. I think no matter how the probabilities break down, it is a close enough call that going for it isn't a bad decision.
The other thing that is clear from reading several blogs is that the majority of football fans have an extremely poor understanding of statistics.

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes...-down-bid/
...
written by DZ, November 16, 2009
That's not how they calculate the odds. There is plenty of data on 4th and 2s.

There is plenty of data on probabilities of Indy scoring from their own 30 and from NEs 30.

No, there is no one analogous situation, but there are plenty of situations that are similar in the components.

Why would standard 2 point conversion data be any more valuable than specific data that says NE converts 4th and 2 at a 65% rate over the last several years? Standard 2 point rate includes things like muffed snaps as well. It also includes data from teams like Detroit.

The data is pretty clear. It was the right call.
...
written by DZ, November 16, 2009
Thanks Matt! Great find.
...
written by DZ, November 16, 2009
What really interests me about the Zeus numbers is that it confirms that NE had about a 75% chance of winning either way. The players failed. Not the coach. Belichick has deflect the criticism away from them brilliantly.
...
written by Willy Duer, November 16, 2009
I also love the Bruschi analysis that it "didn't give his defense a chance to win the game" - uh, Tedi? He put them out on the field with 2 minutes left and the lead and a chance to win the game.

It's not the same chance as the ball on the other 30, of course, but they had a chance. A pretty good one. And something tells me that if you were still playing or this was 2003, you'd have been fired up as all hell and would say "he trusted our defense to win the game and we did!" or something to that effect.

So now it's not trusting the defense?

He went by the numbers. Let's not forget that even numbers assuming average teams favor the call. Let's also keep in mind that it took a bobble and great hit and favorable spot to even make the conversion fail. Everything went the Colts way and they barely got it.

My only issue with it was that he didn't make the decision before 3rd down. Running a 3rd down play with 4th down in mind likely would've guaranteed success due to better play calling.

My sincere hope is that now that this cat's out of the bag, Belichick starts running a no-punt offense in an attempt to prove that he's right. Or at the very least follows the chart on AdvancedNFLStats.com that dictates when to kick vs go in any spot/distance. That would be awesome. And you bet your ass I would root for the Pats the rest of the way.
...
written by Timbuk3, November 16, 2009
and is it likely that after punting, 3 or 4 plays later, with ~a minute or less, Manning would be right back at the Colts 30 in the same situation?

Brady ~60-70% likely to convert and win it all, vs giving the ball to Manning who might be 60-70% likely to reach the end zone himself, who do you trust if you are Belichek? Your own team with the ball in Brady's hands... and in fact he did put the ball in the hands of a player in position to make that play but who just couldn't get it done.

I haven't found too many people in my office today who have been swayed by the data. It seems like most people who hate Brady also hated the play call, not sure what the correlation is on that little nugget.

Anyway, good job Peyton and the Colts, see you around...
...
written by 35er, November 16, 2009
Lol, everyone over at ESPN is saying the exact opposite of DZ's post, and Hoge is getting ripped for being the only one to agree with BB decision. Some of the analysis that goes on over there is extremely horrible. It feels like most of them watch highlights rather then the actual game and base their analysis off of a 5 minute highlight reel.

OT: Anyone see the piece before the game where the players talked about the rivalry and hear what Bruschi had to say about it? He seemed to have no respect for the Colts whatsoever. He talked about how he hated us cause he thought we whined too much, asked for rule changes (which is kind of funny now), that we're soft, etc. He even got on us for wearing white jerseys! You wear white jerseys when you leave Foxboro too, jackass!!
Warning: Lengthy post ahead.
written by A.J., November 16, 2009
Even if I discard all the statistics regarding the matter of 4th down and 2 yards percentage wins, I still come to the same conclusion about Bellichick's call when I make a non-quantitative analysis. If your object is to win the game - and there is zero doubt that this is always the case - and if you're stuck with a single play to win the game, with failure of that play not eliminating your chance to win (remember, the Colts still had to score), then the real choice is whether you want the ball in the hands of your team's best player, or of your opposition's.

Why would Bellichick trust anyone other than Brady to win the game for him? There's a difference between trusting Manning to lose and trusting Brady to win: In only one of those scenarios does Bellichick have real control. And it's not the one where Manning gets the ball.

Honest people will differ on this. There is a legitimate argument that being on defense is easier philisophically because your goal is only to react and disrupt, not build. Building is difficult. It can be interfered with. It can be upset. It can be dismantled. But I say that the argument saying "trust your own offense" is at least as legitimate; it accepts the notion of being in personal control of your own destiny, and not being dictated to by the opposition. Sure, the opposition could fail. But the question is, why give them any chance to succeed? If you execute, and if your confidence in your ability to execute has been validated by play up until that point, why cede control? Force them to stop you. That's the logical thing to do.

Napoleon is purported to have said "The logical end of defensive warfare is surrender". The ultimate point behind that is that you do not have initiative, nor are you in control when you are on the defensive. If you have an offense capable of imposing its will - and who here doubts that New England does? - why remove them from the game? Why give up control? Especially when your offense is at worst equally capable of winning, and by trusting that offense you end up keeping the initiative?

Remember, New England's failure only resulted in Indianapolis getting the ball back, albeit in favorable field position. And the Colts had to be both lucky (in having the DB Bullitt be where he was at) as well as good (in being able to not only make the tackle, but disrupt in a way that prevented the first down) simply to gain control of the ball. Recall: If it weren't for the bobble, the Patriots would have converted. You haven't ceded the touchdown if you fail, and you've kept control the entire time while daring the opponent to wrest it away from you. That Indianapolis did in fact grab it away does not change the equation: You hold the ball, you say to them "Mine", and you challenge them to stop you. And you do this with an offense completely capable of succeeding. You force Indianapolis to be not only lucky, but good as well just to gain the chance to win. And all you give up is field position.

Isn't that a better than even trade?

Ask a professional poker player whether he'd rather force an opponent to be both lucky and good while holding the initiative, dictating play, and letting the win come naturally from his normal method of execution. Or, whether he'd rather cede control and be completely dependent on what the opponent does in order to win. Ask a combat general the very same question. The answer may not be 100% crystal clear, and would of course partially depend on circumstance, but it would hardly be murky: You don't cede initiative. You don't cede control.

This long and windy post basically boils down to whether you want to be in control of what happens or not. And Bellichick wanted to be in control. Rightfully so. You can make a quantitative analysis if you want, but even when you approach the problem from another angle, you still come up with the same answer.
...
written by DZ, November 16, 2009
Thanks, AJ.

I enjoyed that. Nice job.
...
written by jpjandrade, November 16, 2009
Great post AJ
...
written by A.J., November 16, 2009
Thanks, guys. smilies/grin.gif
...
written by bubbadeez, November 17, 2009
I totally agree with going for it. I don't agree with the play selection. Line up big and run it twice. 3rd and two, run it and take the 2 min warning away from Indy, make it or not. THen decide whether to go on 4th or not (if you no gain, convert, or less than 2 but gain, do it again.)

I hate the Patriots, but they deserved it.

How can people not see that.

I would also like to add this, to help settle the better qb argument.

3 rings and 1 MVP (from a tainted season with scandal)
= better teams

1 ring (at least) and 3 (at least, maybe 4 this year) MVPs = better qb.

period.
...
written by bubbadeez, November 17, 2009
And that was an awesome well thought out post AJ. I totally agree and wish I could have come up with it myself.
It all comes down to one thing...
written by teecee, November 17, 2009
The best way to keep Peyton Manning from scoring is to keep him sitting on the bench.

We are lucky that Belichek didn't anticipate that situation. If he had more time to script it out things may have looked a bit different.

Going for it in that situation was the right call.
...
written by Nacho from Buenos Aires, November 17, 2009
I totally agree with AJ post.

And about BB not trusting his defense: it`s true, he didnt. When Indy recovered the ball, it was clear why he was right in not trusting them. Indianapolis scored the last TD too easily. There were still 30yds to go... Patriots defense didn`t show up. NE had to stop Peyton, cause getting the ball back would be useless with no timeouts left.
When the colts recovered the ball, it felt like NE has just lost the game...

In the same situation i would prefer Indy to punt, even when going for it in 4th down would be a good call. i trust Colts defense too much against any QB in the league. and to me, that was the biggest difference between those 2 teams. Colts defense wins game. Lots of game, and you can trust they ll do it!

...
written by npb1985, November 17, 2009
ESPN is just bitter that their favorite team got beat. The decision was not a great one, but that is because they did not convert. Belichick's awful decision was the play called, not to go for it. Also for using all his time outs. Going for it was a questionable decision, but he knew that the odds were in his favor if he kept the ball and the game was over if Peyton had the ball, regardless of where he started from. Brady got lucky; it should be him taking the blame, but lucky for him Powers did not hold onto a sure pick six, and Mathis' great D actually helped Brady's pass get overthrown, for had it not, it would have been a pick six for Lacey. The patriots lost to a better team in the 4th quarter (which is where great teams show up), Belichick's call just sealed sealed a loss that the team had given him. Yet, I could not be happier that a classless d bag like Billy has been getting his face rubbed in the dirt by analysts and his former players.

Write comment

busy
 

Visit our Sponsors

 

 

 

Get more sports at Dish Network Indianapolis


About Bloguin

Bloguin is the revolutionary blog network specifically focused on helping bloggers get the most out of their websites. We're currently working on building a large network of online communities and hope to expand our blogging coverage to include a wide range of topics.

Advertisers

The Bloguin Network allows advertisers to promote their products and services to our ever-growing number of visitors. We offer both site-specific ad placements as well as the ability to run a network-wide campaign. If you're interested in working with Bloguin to meet your advertising needs, please contact us.

Bloggers Wanted

The Bloguin Network is always looking to expand. We're specifically looking for blogs in the sports, entertainment, and video games field, but are open to adding any type of quality site.. If you're a blogger and interested in joining our network, please fill out our application form.

The Bloguin Login

The Bloguin Login gives you full access to everything our network has to offer. Your name and password will work for each and every one of our sites. Signing up is simple, and will allow you to post in all our forums, create member blogs, and access other cool features! What are you waiting for? Create an Account!