Interesting decision by Belichick in 1994

[sheajets]

Browns @ Colts from the RCA Dome. Week 4 of the 1994 season

Browns lead Indy 21-14 and are trying to put the game away. On a 3rd and 7 from the Colts 27, Testaverde hands to Byner who goes for 2 yards. Colts are out of time outs and Cleveland lets the clock bleed down to 49 seconds and take a time out. It would be a 42 yard field goal attempt for Stover to make it a 2 possession game with 40 something seconds to go. It would ice the game completely. The kick would be indoors, on astroturf (Stover would go on to lead the league in field goal percentage in 1994 (26/28 and 8/8 from 40-49)

Belichick decides to not even try the field goal and opts to send out Tupa to punt. Tupa does his job and pins the Colts on their 4 yard line

It seems like the Colts make a nice play to at least set up a hailmary as Harbaugh hits Faulk who goes out of bounds at midfield with 1 second to go. However a flag was thrown and and pushes the Colts back inside the red zone and they go out with a whimper. Cleveland wins 21-14.

To me that was far too makeable a field goal to pass up, especially indoors and on astroturf. If it was say...50 yards or more then ok punt it and make them come down a long field with no time outs.

Even if he misses it the Colts would still have to go 68 yards in 45 seconds with no timeouts. If it is blocked, chances are the block would not be returned for a TD, that's a rare oddball occurrence and the absolute worst case scenario. Blocked kicks were not something that happened all that often either. This was early in the 1994 season but in 1993 there were 22 blocked field goals all year. Stover didn't have one blocked in 1993 or 1994. This can't be something you fear so much that you pass up the opportunity to try a makeable field goal to ice the game.

There are perils with punting it too. The snap could sail over his head, he could mishandle the ball, not get it off in time and get engulfed by a defender. It could also get blocked, or it could just land into the endzone where you gain little from it and regret not at least trying the 42 yarder.

What's your take? Try the field goal or punt?

I'm trying the field goal. Seems like the odds of making it are too good, and if he does the game is over. Even with a great punt you are still giving the Colts the ball back in a one possession game without even attempting a knockout blow. I'm taking the chance that he misses it and my D has to stop them from their own 32 yard line...that's the most likely bad outcome. The odds of him making it are probably over 80%. Too good to pass up

[ChrisBabcock]

Even in 1994 a 42 yard field goal would have been very makeable.
However.... Maybe this was going through Hoodie's head.... 1994 was the first year of the 2 point conversion. Maybe he was thinking if he misses the FG, the Colts then get great field position, drive for a TD, and go for 2 for the win. I dunno. *shrug*

[sluggermatt15]

To me punting here is a very conservative coaching call. BB could have been thinking most about field position, which is why he opted for the punt. He could have felt a lot of faith in his defense too, that it would have been too much of a reach for the Colts to drive down the field to tie the game. In other words, for that to happen, it would be a Murphy's Law situation. So, he played the percentages. I don't think in 1994 they had all the analytics they do today, so he figured his defense had the best chance to win him the game.

[sheajets]

Even in 1994 a 42 yard field goal would have been very makeable.
However.... Maybe this was going through Hoodie's head.... 1994 was the first year of the 2 point conversion. Maybe he was thinking if he misses the FG, the Colts then get great field position, drive for a TD, and go for 2 for the win. I dunno. *shrug*

He DEFINITELY would be thinking that in 1994. However we were still in the very early stages of the first year of the 2 pt conversion. I don't know if there were any other coaches except him in the league that, if they had scored very late to make it 20-21 would go for a single play 2pt conversion to either win or lose and pass up on an almost sure thing XP and pretty much guarantee overtime. You see it more now...back then I feel it would be looked at as unnecessarily reckless

[Sonny9]

Under 1 minute before the punt, Indy has no timeouts and the Browns have one of the best, if not the best defense in the league. Less than a minute back then wasn't enough time for a successful drive imo

[Reaser]

Conservative but not overly so. In 1994 you were allowed to play defense, as opposed to now where the Colts would just complete a couple easy passes to wide-open receivers downfield and still have time for a shot or 3 at the endzone from roughly just outside the redzone.

In '94 odds of them going 96 yards in less than a minute or Stover making the FG don't have the wide win percentage difference/gap of "now."

[JohnTurney]

Browns @ Colts from the RCA Dome. Week 4 of the 1994 season

What's your take? Try the field goal or punt?

Just watched the end. Had not watched that before. and the punt is not on the YT copy I found --- frustrating

The announcers (Jim Donovan and Beasley Reese) even saying "can't risk a field goal right here" Against 9-man box Belichick threw for a first down just prior to the 3 runs that burned the rest of the timeouts. So he got to where he wanted to me.

Announcers also talked about the fact Belichick told them Tupa good at pinning teams with "pooches" at least that's what they said he said.

You mention Stover --- just devil's advocate ... he missed a 32-yarder two weeks before. Tupa had 7-8-9 punts inside the 20 in the first part of the season and maybe some of them were "pooches", perhaps enough for Belichick to mention it. The kick Stover missed --- good weather, on grass ... but we don't know if that had anything to do with it at all. Just a data point to add to the discussion.

The mechanics of a field goal a little harder than a punt, you have the extra guy handling the ball -- one more X-factor, even if small.

Possibly Ernie Adams had some analytics at what was the better choice. Maybe Tupa was giving CLE coaches more confidence at that point in the season so they were confident that Tupa would pin them inside the 10 at least --- and that turned out to be right.

All things considered, punting would have been the right choice.

Back then, going the length field in that little time was hard --- rare and let's say it was a bad kick - a touchback, worst case scenario.
They thing that really can beat you fast, that is largely out of your control, is a blocked FG.

Maybe the rarity of a blocked field goal vs the rarity of a 80-90 yards drive with no times outs and 44 seconds favors punting ... according to Adams? Of course, maybe it was just Belichick's gut. If Colts had the ball, he could control the defense more on a drive like that than a crazy ball bouncing around.

It today's game the decisions would likely be different.

[CSKreager]

Cleveland still got the win

A more questionable Belichick decision that year came in the huge week 16 at Pittsburgh.

They trailed 17-7 late but rather than kick a FG to cut it to a 1 score game they went for a TD and didn’t get it

Take the 3 points and take your chances with the onside kick (heck the 94 Browns had one of the best DVOA scores for a special teams unit)

[Bryan]

What's your take? Try the field goal or punt?

I would have done a fake punt with Tom Tupa throwing a pass to Van Waiters for the game-clinching 42-yard TD.