I feel like there's been a lot more talk during the last couple years about football coaches refusing to go for a first down on fourth down and electing to punt instead. This play tactic is common especially among NFL coaches, earning the moniker of the "No Fun League."
I'm all for coaches going for it more often on fourth down. It would bring more excitement and a sense of risk to the game - and it can actually help teams win games. For instance, if a coach, whose team is 3-7, decides to punt against a team that is 7-3 with three minutes left in the game, that's just not a good call. That coach should go for it because the team doesn't have much to lose.
That being said, I absolutely cannot justify Patriots coach Bill Belichick's decision in the game against the Colts on Sunday night. With just more than two minutes left in the game at the Patriots' own 28-yard line and leading 34-28, Belichick decided to go for the first down on fourth-and-2. They did not make it - coming up just a few inches short on a pass from Tom Brady to Kevin Faulk - and Peyton Manning and the Colts took advantage from there, driving the necessary 30 yards pretty easily, culminating in a one-yard touchdown pass to Reggie Wayne with only 13 seconds remaining. The Colts won 35-34, completing a comeback after trailing 31-14 at one point and then 34-21 with four minutes left. Following the matchup and all day Monday, Belichick was largely criticized for his decision by NFL analysts, and I have to agree with their assessment. Belichick is one of the best minds in the game of football, but that had to be the most stupid decision of his career.
Any coach in that situation must punt the ball away. It is the only correct decision. You cannot give Manning a short field with which to work. If you're up by at least four points, the other team must score a touchdown and you want to make that touchdown as difficult to achieve as possible. You fail to do so when you go for it on your own 28, possibly giving your opponent a short field. Belichick should have decided to punt the ball away and make the Colt offense drive 60 to 70 yards to score the touchdown. There would have been plenty of pressure on the Colt offense in a two-minute drill and plenty of possibilities for mistakes because it probably would have been forced into no-huddle play-calling. Additionally, when a team has to drive 60 to 70 yards instead of 30, chances are that more plays will be needed, which means more chances for bad snaps, fumbles, etc. Time left on the clock is rendered basically a non-factor by giving a team the ball on your own 30-yard line with two minutes left. Case in point: Though Virginia's offense has been mostly inept this season, Boston College still chose to punt the ball with just more than two minutes left Saturday because it didn't want to risk giving up the ball around midfield. It's simple. Punt the ball.
I would not give a short field to the most incompetent quarterback in the NFL, and certainly not Manning. Belichick has got to give his defense a chance to win the game and he put it in a really compromising position by not converting the fourth down. One of the reasons I've heard thrown out there as to why it was the right call was that the Patriot defense already had given up two fourth-quarter touchdown drives - one that covered 79 yards in five plays and took only 2:04 to execute, and another that covered 79 yards in six plays and took only 1:49 - so Manning would have scored anyway, no matter how far away the Colts were from the end zone. But even though this is true, it doesn't make it the right call. If Belichick thought Manning was going to score so easily, why make it even easier by possibly setting him up at the 30-yard line where he could throw into the end zone in one play?
The Patriots' defense had been effective for pretty much the entire game and had forced Manning to throw two interceptions. By choosing not to punt, Belichick essentially said he does not trust his defense to stop the Colts by going for it on fourth down. Ironically, however, by not converting, he put it in an even more stressful situation than if he had punted the ball. Rodney Harrison, who played on Belichick's Patriot defense for several years as a safety and is currently a commentator for NBC's Sunday night broadcasts, said the defense may now suffer from a lack of confidence; other commentators across the nation shared similar sentiments. For Harrison, a probable Hall-of-Famer, to say that his Super Bowl-winning coach made the wrong decision speaks volumes.
The Patriot offense played very well all game but wasn't perfect - Brady threw an interception, as well. Even though the offense had been mostly solid, Belichick should not have placed his bets on a single play. Anyone watching the game knew that the Colts would be keying in on short routes, should the Patriots actually go for it, which is what they did. Colt Melvin Bullitt's excellent hit on Faulk made the running back bobble the ball for an instant before gaining full possession, which made the difference in the spot the referees gave to New England.
I've heard that one of the reasons the Colts scored so easily on their other scoring drives during the fourth quarter was because the Patriot defense started playing softer zones and more of a prevent defense. So I'm not so sure whether the players were getting tired or Manning was improving. He's certainly a terrific quarterback, but maybe the scores were so easy because Belichick's defensive schemes were too conservative. Perhaps he should have put more thought into how to stop Manning when it mattered most instead of putting all of his faith in one fourth-down call. I thought defense won championships?
It's also false that Belichick made the right decision even if the Patriots had converted the fourth down. Sure, everyone would be saying he has guts, but it still was not a smart decision, no matter the result. He would have been a gambler just getting lucky.
The bottom line is in that particular kind of situation, going for it on fourth down is definitely not the right call. Now, if it had been fourth-and-inches, or if the ball was on the Colts' side of the field, OK, I could see why you'd maybe go for it there. With only a few inches to convert, most any quarterback can easily sneak up the middle and pick up the necessary yardage. And in your opponents' territory, you don't give them as short a field if you don't convert. But fourth-and-2 on your own 28 when the other team must score a touchdown? No way, no how. You have to punt the ball away, make the other team's offense work for the touchdown from 60 to 70 yards away with a stressful clock management situation and give your defense a chance to win the game. There's way too much risk involved in going for it - and Belichick paid for it.
Read More
Virginia baseball boasts the best catcher in the country — a Division III transfer
By Xander Tilock | 13 hours agoFerence has replaced Teel admirably, and will look to lift Virginia back to the College World Series.
Lacrosse defenseman Cole Kastner announces transfer to Stanford basketball
By Michael Liebermann | YesterdayKastner is reviving a hoops career that has lain dormant since he graduated high school.
Virginia gets second Notre Dame rematch in a dynamic ACC Tournament bout Friday
By Michael Liebermann | 2 days agoThe Cavaliers will get a shot at redemption against a vaunted ACC foe, in a game with serious postseason seeding implications.
