Don’t Tell Me the Odds, Patriots Should Have Gone For It On Fourth-and-18

So, let’s get this straight if only because the split in philosophy is between those who pledge allegiance to analytics and probability, and those who generally understood the mitigating factors at play.

If Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, electing to go for it on fourth-and-three on New England’s own 49-yard-line with 6:39 remaining – down by five to the Packers – was an admission that giving quarterback Aaron Rodgers too much time would be deadly, then what exactly was the point of attempting a 47-yard field goal with 2:40 on the clock in lieu of going for it again on fourth-and-18 at the Green Bay 29-yard-line?

I’ve yet to hear an explanation that satisfies me.

Against the Jets? Sure.

Against the Green Bay Packers? At Lambeau Field? Where is the logic?

Despite what the statistical outcomes reveal, I still don’t get it. The New York Times’ Fourth Down Bot tipped its hat to Belichick and his decision. Advanced Football Analytics’ fourth-down calculator gives a 12 percent success rate for going for it in that situation, 64 percent success in kicking the field goal. Patriots and kicker Stephen Gostkowski fell on the wrong side of the odds by missing a field goal that would have only managed to cut Green Bay’s lead to two.

Two.

Well, all you had to do was stop the Packers on their ensuing drive and hold them to a three-and-out, then trust Tom Brady enough to drive the field far enough to set up a game-winning field goal. So goes the argument from the “Hey, stupid, you can’t go for it on fourth-and-18” crowd.

Why not?

Mind you, the Patriots hadn’t corralled the Packers to a three-and-out series all evening at Lambeau Field, where the Packers sweated out a 26-21 victory over the Patriots on Sunday. The Packers were 10-for-17 on third down, where the Pats faced them on a fourth-and-three play with 2:28 remaining. That’s when Rodgers found Randall Cobb for seven yards and sealed the game for Green Bay.

Close. But was there really any doubt that this would be how it would play out?

This stop was going to finally, magically happen on their last possession with less than three minutes to play and one timeout in Belichick’s back pocket? Please.

This isn’t a hindsight view cooked up after Gostkowski missed his first field goal attempt seemingly since grade school. What does the three ultimately get you? The chance to play for the win? No. If you assume Rodgers can easily beat you earlier in the drive if you give him the ball back, where is the logic in shifting course a few minutes later at a much more crucial juncture?

And after watching the Packers offense or the better part of four quarters on Sunday, did you have more faith in the defense doing something it hadn’t managed all day, or Brady finding Brandon LaFell or Rob Gronkowski for the first down, and perhaps even a touchdown?

Obviously, Mike Neal’s third-down sack of Brady was the genesis to us even needing to have this debate, but let’s be clear, Belichick would have gone for it on fourth down had it not occurred, or, duh, if the Patriots scored on the play. Just forget about what the probabilities and what the NYT bot have to say. Do either know who Aaron Rodgers is?

Belichick sure as hell does, and he should have made the not-so-lengthy leap that the Patriots were not getting the ball back, field goal or not. That’s not the easiest call to make, but doesn’t going for it truly give the Patriots a better shot at winning, particularly if Brady made the first down, short of the end zone, and time to eat up the clock? Score the touchdown, go for two, and face the possible inevitability of overtime should Rodgers be able to bring the Packers far enough downfield for a field goal attempt of their own.

Maybe that’s pushing the situation into a fairy tale outcome. Just don’t tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s foolish to argue the point, and bring up data that supports the theory.

Great. When the process of breaking down those numbers brings into account the strength of the opposing offense in that situation, then we can have a discussion.

Until then, sorry, the field goal attempt just doesn’t make much sense.