An apologetic Bill Belichick explained some of the more curious parts of Saturday night's loss to the Colts.
"Look, fellas, I apologize," Belichick said. "I seemed like I was a little short with you after the game. Obviously, a frustrating game. Down 20-0, we didn’t do anything well enough. There isn’t really much to say at that point without watching the film. Clearly, we had problems in every area. There was no simple answer. Every play could have been better. Every area of coaching could have been better. Every area of playing could have been better. Any of that would have helped. Not really trying to be short, but honestly, there wasn’t too much to say. I don’t know there’s a whole lot more to say now, but it’s not your fault."
Ok then. Not sure what Belichick that was via Zoom, but it certainly wasn't the normal grumpy Monday post-loss Bill (he went a day later with a Saturday game, so maybe he was just better rested), and we'll take it. His explanations were appreciated, and it didn't give away any state secrets when he explained his thinking in a few areas.
On the decision to kick a field goal with 9:00 left and 4th and 7:
"It’s still a two-possession game and now it’s a field goal. I thought there was enough time left that we would have enough possessions to be able to score 10 points, which we conceivably could have. It would have been, was it 4th-and-goal on the 7? Is that what it would’ve been? I didn’t feel great about converting 4th-and-goal from the 7. Had there been less time and there’s a situation where you would go for it or I would go for it on 4th-and-goal at the 7, absolutely. I didn’t think, in that game situation, that would’ve been the best decision. I thought that would’ve passed up three points and that would’ve taken two touchdowns. At the end of the game, especially in the dome, having a chance at a 50-plus yard field goal, I think it’s a lot better chance than scoring a touchdown and having a six-point differential as opposed to a three-point differential, relative to the chances of converting a 4th-and-7. At some point, I definitely would have kept the offense on the field on 4th-and-7 with less time or no timeouts. You can, certainly, take that scenario further, so then you get into the grey area of which one would you do if there’s less time, fewer timeouts, whatever."
Allowing a 20-yard return with 2:21 left in the game.
"It was poorly executed on our part. That wasn’t what we were looking for at all. Either you pin them back and play extra yards of field position, tackle them on the 20 and gain five yards of field position, we need a field goal, or you touchback it and keep the extra seconds on the clock. We did neither. We didn’t get the field position and we wasted five seconds which, at the end of the game, is another play. Like a lot of things in the game, it was bad coaching, bad playing, bad execution. Just not good enough."
BEDARD'S ANALYSIS
While Belichick's reasoning for kicking the field goal was sound and it did nearly work before the touchdown run by Jonathan Taylor, that doesn't necessarily mean it was 100 percent correct. I still disagree with it, in theory — not that I'm hellbent on going for it being the only way. It's definitely a close call. Let me explain.
First of all, you are trailing 20-7 at that point. There are 9 minutes left. Time is not really an issue. Points are. The Patriots had never been this deep in Indy territory the entire night. The TD was worth the risk. Whether you convert or not, you still need two more possessions. And by taking the field goal, you are definitely playing for overtime instead of winning the game in regulation. A big risk on the road in that play. Plus, with the effort it takes to come back from 20-0 down, how much would the Patriots have left in overtime?
If you make it, it's 20-14 and an eternity left. The Colts get very, very tight being one possession from trailing.
Even if you fail, the Colts are backed up to the 7-yard line (if not closer to the goal line) and they will be very conservative on offense. You get a quick stop, you have the ball at midfield with about 7 minutes left with the best field position other than the Carson Wentz INT (average field position NE 27). You're in the same situation as you are in kicking the field goal.
The Colts being up 20-10 is an entirely different playcalling situation than 20-14.
As it was, the Colts ran 8 plays and used 5:09 of game clock going 19 yards.
It looked like Belichick's strategy worked only because 5:09 was wasted. If the Patriots played better defense — and the Patriots would have been more aggressive at 20-7 and the Colts more conservative — then they could have:
a) Had the ball around midfield with 7 minutes left;
b) Scored at 5 minutes;
c) Used timeouts to get ball back with 4 minutes;
d) Had the two-minute warning to use to score the game-winning TD in regulation.
Remember, that's the worst-case scenario.
If the Patriots score on 4th and 7 and it's 20-14, you're looking at:
a) Colts get really choky and probably allow Wentz to throw because the Colts know now they need at least a field goal;
b) Chances of a turnover skyrocket at 20-14 instead of 20-10 because with a two-score lead, the Colts are playing the clock only.
c) Colts will stop the clock themselves with pass attempts.
d) As long as the Patriots hold at some point, you're looking at least 4-5 minutes left and the chance to win the game on the road and no overtime.
To me, the touchdown was worth the risk. By kicking the field goal, you really only have one very narrow path to victory — and it failed. By going for the TD, you're either in the driver's seat with the Colts feeling pressure at 20-14, or they get conservative deep in their own territory and you get a better chance at scoring the first TD needed with better field position. And you're in the similar same position as 20-10 without the TD upside. Plus, you are banking on overtime when I'm not sure that would have been best for the Patriots on the road. The Colts had shelved their real gameplan up 20-0, and now it's back in when you have to defend the run and pass.
To me, the Patriots' only path to victory on the road after being down 20-0 was in regulation, and that meant going for the TD.
But, like I said, it wasn't a clear-cut call. I don't have a huge issue with either decision, I just think the TD was worth the reward and either way it goes, the Colts call the game differently make or miss and it would benefit the Patriots more. 20-10 didn't help a whole lot, evidenced by the Colts using 5:09 of clock.
