New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick's gamble backfired last night against the Indianapolis Colts, but is it that hubris that makes him great?
lucygirl1: dammed if you do dammed if you don't.....BILL BELICHICK.......
mikeawells: Belichick plays to win and that is what he was doing. It was the receiver's responsibility to catch the ball in first down territory. Everyo...
Make a Comment | All Comments (17)
He blew it. It serves him right. Pure egotism. Came back to bite him in the rear end. HAHAHAHA... cheater
November 16, 2009 12:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Let's not forget it's a game, the predictable, conventional plays weaken the sport. I'm not a New England fan as I lived there for many years and know of the New England chill, but this one was good for the sport!
November 16, 2009 1:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Yes the man is a complete egotistical fool! New England should fire him today, and the Redskins should hire him tomorrow!
Michael Wilbon is a fraud - BTW, what about the officials who handed the game to the Colts with a phoney interference call? It was like the game wasn't going the "right" way, so they made a "judgement" call - both players went for the ball at the exact same time - no foul. But game given to Colts.
November 16, 2009 1:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
That kind of call is why head NFL coaches get paid the big bucks. With four Super Bowl appearances and three victories, he appears to have been pretty successful making all kinds of football decisions. If he has a big ego, please name a NFL head coach who doesn't. He is not annoyingly more outspoken than any other successful head coach. His team will likely progress to the playoffs this year in spite of this loss. Furthermore, being a man with an intellectual bent, and knowing that the NFL is all about entertainment, he probably realizes that the teapot tempest stirred up by his decision will most likely revive interest in an increasingly predictable product.
November 16, 2009 2:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Mathematically, either decision could have gone either way, according to the statisticians. Both choices had the odds in favor of the final outcome, either 30% or 28-29% in favor of either working.
November 16, 2009 3:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Why all the shock? He's done a lot of statistic pushing in the past - gotten away with it or no. Could have just as easily worked. Hey, these guys aren't the Redskins and while a loss is a loss, these teams may meet again in Indianapolis.
I wonder what trickle down Dan Snyder will purchase when the best of these players has outlived his talents, but still wants to play.
November 16, 2009 3:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I don't think it was ego. If Peyton got the ball back, he was going to score. The Pats D does this fairly often, particularly once the team gets a big lead -- they go soft, and then can't get their edge back. Belichick gambled that they could pick up the first down and keep the ball out of Peyton's hands entirely, rather than see him march back down the field and score anyway after a punt. Oh, and newsflash: they almost DID get the first down (and in fact might have on a replay challenge).
What WAS stupid was not letting Peyton immediately score once the ball went over on downs, and then let Brady march them back the other way for a winning field goal. Everyone knew Peyton was going to score, so why waste precious clock time when the result was inevitable? Belichick took a clever gamble -- which I supported as it happened -- but then somehow thought his defense would hold anyway, when the whole point of the gamble was that it wouldn't if Peyton got the ball back. They should have let Peyton score, and then had well over a minute to get into field goal range.
November 16, 2009 4:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
It was a good call by Belichick. However, it was a better defensive play by the Colts.
In the end, the Pats did not loose the game; the Colts won it. The only option the Pats had for winning the game was to make a first down. Anything else and the Colts were going to win.
November 16, 2009 5:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Getting that ONE YARD would have won the game. Kicking would have given Manning and the Colts the ball near midfield with over two minutes left. This decision is a tossup. Certainly not open and shut. Maybe the Pats should have gotten the first down on the previous play. That would have been clever.
November 16, 2009 9:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Anyone who didn't think the choice was at least a toss-up didn't watch the preceding one and a half minutes in which Manning cut through the Pat's defense like butter. Much worse than the call was New England's sudden inability to get their players on the field in time and save time-outs so Brady could have one more shot at it after Indy scored.
November 17, 2009 7:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
What an egomaniac, he thought his offense could gain two yards! I'd rather have a coach who is trying to win a game than one who cowers in fear that some pinhead will rip him in the press.
November 17, 2009 8:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The decision was absolutely terrible. Going for it with two minutes left on your own 28, with NO TIMEOUTS left in the contest while clinging to a six point lead is simply bad strategy. The circumstances practically force you to punt by default, because turning the ball over on downs at that point of the field is handing your opponent the game. Frankly, I find his line of reasoning untenable. Joe Gibbs would never have reached such an absurd conclusion (with a six point lead!), but I digress...
November 17, 2009 8:49 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Ego has nothing to do with it. It was a poor decision, nothing more. You critics don't have to make it personal. Patriots looked like the better team for 3 and a half quarters. They will beat Indy in the playoffs.
November 17, 2009 10:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
dammed if you do dammed if you don't.....BILL BELICHICK....
November 26, 2009 10:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
November 26, 2009 11:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Belichick plays to win and that is what he was doing. It was the receiver's responsibility to catch the ball in first down territory. Everyone knew that when the receiver caught the ball he would be tackled. It was his responsibility to cross the first down first, then catch the ball. He didn't. You know Belichick has some words to that player about that.
November 26, 2009 9:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments