Should Bill Belichick have gone for it on fourth down vs. the Colts?

No, absolutely not. You have 1:57 left in the game on your own 28 or 29 yard-line and one of the greatest quarterbacks on the other side.If you’re afraid of him going 60 or 70 yards, why make it easier for him by pushing him into your territory?I understand his argument that you’re trying to win the game there by getting the first down and having confidence in your offense and all of that.I get that.But, if you’re down by a run with a man on first base with no outs and Robinson Cano at the plate, are you going to have him bunt to put your guy in scoring position, or let him swing away because he’s capable of hitting a home run and winning the game for you? You bunt him, because it’s the more guaranteed of the two.

I understand it’s not the same thing, because the Pats’ situation is 50/50, but you get the gist.Of course, you always want to do what will win you the game and hitting a home run is always what you want to do, but in the Pats’ case, does the risk of failure outweigh the potential reward? Yes!!I understand the percentages of them getting a first down were pretty good and sure, if they get the first down, the game’s over, but if they don’t, what then? Why not punt it?Hansen was kicking bombs all night.At worst, Manning starts at his own 40, but it’s still better than your own 28.

Even putting Brady in the shotgun, snapping it and having him run straight for his own end zone for the safety would have been a better option. Then you kick it out of their end zone and the Colts start at the 20. And if you know that you’re going for it on fourth down no matter what, then why not run the ball on third down? You keep the clock running and (gasp) you might actually get the first down on the ground and not have to worry about fourth down!