4th and 8 was my 62-7 moment for the Ballard/Steichen regime.

[YDFL Commish]

Originally Posted by omahacolt

on the 2 run plays, Jones has to be allowed to check out of the run. period. we weren't going anywhere against that front.

but yeah. all that said, still go for it on 4th and 8

Correct, Jones has to own the offense and get out of bad plays. If Steichen only had 1 play call, then shame on him.

[albany ed]

Does anyone know of how often if ever, Jones audibles out of a play called by the Coach?

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

I don't agree with that premise. If they go for it on 4th and 8, the defense is built in. The defense is: that's Patrick Mahomes on the other sideline, we were 18 yards away from a score that wins us the game and doesn't give him any more chances to win it. That's not stupid, it's choosing to go down swinging rather than giving Mahomes any more chances. If anyone second guessed that decision, they don't understand football.

That was the Belichek defense when he went for it on fourth and 2. Everone agreed with him at the time.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

That was the Belichek defense when he went for it on fourth and 2. Everone agreed with him at the time.

I shied away from using that example because honestly in that situation I feel like Belichick actually would've had a better chance in that game had he punted.

[albany ed]

There's a huge difference between going for it on 4th and 2 with the GOAT at QB and going for it on 4th and 8 with DJ. Here's a quick list

BB > Steichen
Brady > DJ
Patriots offense > Current Colts offense
4th and 2 easier to convert than 4th and 8

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by albany ed

There's a huge difference between going for it on 4th and 2 with the GOAT at QB and going for it on 4th and 8 with DJ. Here's a quick list

BB > Steichen
Brady > DJ
Patriots offense > Current Colts offense
4th and 2 easier to convert than 4th and 8

Add one more:

2009 Patriots D >> 2026 Colts D

Patriots had a much better shot of stopping the Colts than the Colts did of stopping Mahomes and KC.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by albany ed

There's a huge difference between going for it on 4th and 2 with the GOAT at QB and going for it on 4th and 8 with DJ. Here's a quick list

BB > Steichen
Brady > DJ
Patriots offense > Current Colts offense
4th and 2 easier to convert than 4th and 8

Nothing you wrote is false. However, my point was that SS would have been given more of a pass for going for it and not getting it than he did for how it played out. Same as BB got a pass for not punting to the real GOAT, Peyton.

[Colts And Orioles]

o


When Bill Belichick went for it on 4th-and-2, he was not going for it because of Tom Brady ...... he was going for it because of Peyton Manning.

If Matt Cassell had been the Patriots QB in the same exact situation, I would bet $100 that Belichick still would have went for it ...... he didn't want to give the ball back to Peyton Manning with the game on the line if he could avoid it.

And if Anthony Richardson or Daniel Jones had been the Colts' QB in that same exact situation, I believe that Belichick would have punted ...... regardless of whether or not Tom Brady was his quarterback.


I think that it was the right call, largely because it gave the Patriots 2 chances to win the game ...... either by getting the 1st down, or by stopping Manning on a short, compacted field. If he had punted the ball, the only chance that the Patriots would have had would have been to stop Manning on a long, open field with 2 minutes to play.

o

[albany ed]

Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles

o



Frankly, I think that the Patriots got the 1st down, and the referees gave them a bad spot ...... but I don't feel sorry for the Patriots, since they were the beneficiaries of the referees' generosity towards them on so many other occasions when Brady played for them.

o

I believe there's a difference between crossing the goal line and where the line to gain is on the rest of the field. When the pass was caught, the receiver was in the air and probably past the line to gain. He was met there and pushed back and his progress when he landed was short of the first down. Had he been at the goal line, a TD would have been awarded because once the ball breaks the goal line, the play is over.
That was the explanation and I buy it.

[Colts And Orioles]

Originally Posted by albany ed

I believe there's a difference between crossing the goal line and where the line to gain is on the rest of the field. When the pass was caught, the receiver was in the air and probably past the line to gain. He was met there and pushed back and his progress when he landed was short of the first down. Had he been at the goal line, a TD would have been awarded because once the ball breaks the goal line, the play is over.

That was the explanation, and I buy it.

o

Maybe he was short of the 1st down, but that was hardly the overall point of my post.

o