---

It's amazing how many people feel the need to come running to Bill Belichick's defense over the infamous fourth-and-2 decision in Sunday night's game.

Coaches and pundits from coast to coast seem to be leaping out of the woodwork to praise Belichick for taking the "gutsy" choice to go for a first down that could have essentially ended the game instead of punting the ball away and making Peyton Manning and the Colts go at least 70 yards (admittedly, there was no assurance of that) to win the game in the last two minutes of play.

I get the sense that many of these opinions have been put forth because Belichick's decision was so universally ridiculed initially, the coaches and pundits feel the need to tout their allegedly superior knowledge of the sport by taking the contrarian line.

Belichick also took some heavy heat from two of his former defensive standouts, NBC's Rodney Harrison and ESPN Boston's Tedy Bruschi. Both of them decried the fact that Belichick didn't give his defense a chance to do what it was trained to do. Bruschi went as far to say that the decision would have made his blood boil.

Amazing what these guys will tell the public now that they're not playing any more, isn't it? In any event, you're not going to read any revisionist theories here. I hated the decision when Belichick made it and I still hate it now. Football is a game of territorial advantage, and simple logic dictates that it would have been more difficult for the Colts to traverse 70 yards to score the winning touchdown than it was for them to go 30.

I can certainly understand all of the reasons why Belichick would have wanted to try to end the game with a 2-yard pickup that would have given the Patriots the opportunity to run out the clock - an exhausted defense as opposed to the confidence he had in his offense to move a short distance foremost among them.

Understand, yes. Agree? Not now, nor ever - or at least as long as it matters, which probably will be about another two or three days, and then we'll move on (unless the Patriots fail to make the playoffs).

What's of more concern to me is the notion in the eyes of many fans that Belichick can do no wrong.

One thing has to be considered above all else. Was this just a momentary mental short-circuit, or a trend?

What has Belichick won lately? Super Bowl XXXIX was on Feb. 6, 2005 - almost four full years ago.

In the 2005 season, the Patriots bowed out of the playoffs in the second round.

In 2006, they had a commanding lead in the AFC Championship Game in Indianapolis and couldn't hold it.

In 2007, they won 18 straight games before letting down in the only game that truly counted, failing to adjust to the defensive schemes of a team they had defeated in the regular-season finale.

Last year, they didn't make the playoffs - understandable after losing the franchise quarterback after the first seven minutes of the season. But they were still in position to make it, and it could be argued that sideline mistakes and a lack of discipline cost them a win in Indianapolis that could have changed the entire landscape of the season. In that time, the Patriots have grown older in some areas, younger in others, and there's a serious question about whether the locker-room culture that created a dynasty is a thing of a past because of a lack of veteran leadership, particularly on defense.

And it wasn't just the fourth-and-2 decision that raised eyebrows Sunday night. That actually may have been the least of it. Of more concern was a lack of sideline organization that resulted in burned timeouts and indecision prior to the fateful call. The punt team was running onto the field when Belichick wanted to go for it, and where was the communication on that?

Over the years, the Patriots' "braintrust" has lost a lot of brainpower to other teams. That's a natural part of the game; you succeed at a high level, and those who helped that happen are going to get the chance to advance themselves.

But now, a decade into the Belichick Era, it has to be wondered if the right replacements have been made, if the right coaches and personnel people are in place, and if the franchise is rising or declining. No team stays on top of the heap forever, but a lot of people seem to think that the Patriots are somehow immune from decline solely because of the man in the hooded sweatshirt.

Well, the NFL has proven time after time that no team stays good forever. Even Don Shula lost his job.

Make no mistake, this is not a panicky call for Belichick's dismissal in the wake of one lousy night in Indianapolis. That would be ludicrous. But it's not unfair to consider whether Sunday was an anomaly, or an indicator of what may be ahead. Four years is a long time for such high expectations to be maintained by a fan base that tends to forget that there are 31 other teams trying to get where the Patriots have been.

Granted, no one is used to seeing Bill Belichick act like Clive Rush or Rod Rust. I get the feeling we won't see that again for a while, but then again, I didn't think I'd see the same sort of brain burps this year as I saw last year in Indianapolis.

Humanity is not a bad thing - but given what Belichick built, what's expected from him every day, and what the reality of the NFL may dictate down the road, Patriots' fans may have gotten their first notice Sunday that it's time to adjust their expectations.

MARK FARINELLA may be reached at 508-236-0315 or via e-mail at mfarinel@thesunchronicle.com. Read Farinella's blog, "Blogging Fearlessly," at thesunchronicle.com/farinella.