Going for 1 when trailing by 2

[michaelredd9]

Does anyone believe that Andy Reid made the right decision kicking the extra point instead of trying a 2-point conversion?

 

[Shaft]

The final score will tell. 

[Shaft]

Up by 3 now. If they missed the two point conversion, they would only be up by 2. 

[Big John]

A rule of thumb is to go for 1 before the 4th quarter.

[Inziladun]

Considering how this one ended, I don't think it was a mistake at all to kick the PAT as opposed to the two point conversion. If I was the coach I'd have gone for 2 though.

[Gopher]

I think that, while it seemed odd on a very surface level, it actually made sense when you think about the possible outcomes.  There was basically zero chance that neither team would score again.  And, kicking the PAT basically eliminates the chance that New England's next score makes it a two-score ball game.  In other words....

 

- If KC kicks the PAT, and NE comes back with a TD, KC needs a TD and 2-pt conversion to tie.  No different than they were before, except you always wait as long as possible to try that 2-pt conversion.  In other words, kick the PAT until you absolutely have to go for 2.  Granted, that theory made more sense when PAT's were basically a chip shot, but with the kickers tonight, I think it still holds pretty true.  If NE gets a FG, rather than a TD, KC can go up by 3 with a TD of their own.  

 

- On the other hand, if KC goes for 2, there are obviously two outcomes.  One, they tie the game.  Still a quarter left, lots can happen.... It doesn't really change much, in comparison to the alternative.  But, if they fail, they put themselves in a spot where they're down by 9 if NE scores a TD (and kicks the PAT).  Not only that, but a NE FG puts them up by 5, rather than 4.  

 

Bottom line.... The cons of not getting the 2 might outweigh the pros of getting it.  Going for 2 isn't a bad move, but it's certainly not the only move that made sense.  But, it felt to me like going for 2 there would be chasing points unnecessarily, or something like that.  Kick the PAT, and figure out later on if you even need to go for 2, depending on what the 4th quarter brings.  That game had almost no punts.... If it was a low-scoring affair, that might change things.  

[Gourdeau]

The game shouldn't have been this close. 4 fgs on 4th and very short yardage. At what point will coaches realize that fgs will not cut it ? When the AfC title game is in KC with Eric Berry and Justin Houston back this will be a kc win 

[stethant]

3 hours ago, Gourdeau said:

The game shouldn't have been this close. 4 fgs on 4th and very short yardage. At what point will coaches realize that fgs will not cut it ? When the AfC title game is in KC with Eric Berry and Justin Houston back this will be a kc win 

Yeah I would think that regardless of venue when they play again, this will be a KC win. Mahomes grew up quick in that game, the Pats DST is actually really bad, or both.

[Gourdeau]

I won't go that far.. I respect Tom and Bill too much to call out right win but at home with a healthy def is take KC 

[stevegrab]

13 hours ago, Gopher said:

I think that, while it seemed odd on a very surface level, it actually made sense when you think about the possible outcomes.  There was basically zero chance that neither team would score again.  And, kicking the PAT basically eliminates the chance that New England's next score makes it a two-score ball game.  In other words....

 

- If KC kicks the PAT, and NE comes back with a TD, KC needs a TD and 2-pt conversion to tie.  No different than they were before, except you always wait as long as possible to try that 2-pt conversion.  In other words, kick the PAT until you absolutely have to go for 2.  Granted, that theory made more sense when PAT's were basically a chip shot, but with the kickers tonight, I think it still holds pretty true.  If NE gets a FG, rather than a TD, KC can go up by 3 with a TD of their own.  

 

- On the other hand, if KC goes for 2, there are obviously two outcomes.  One, they tie the game.  Still a quarter left, lots can happen.... It doesn't really change much, in comparison to the alternative.  But, if they fail, they put themselves in a spot where they're down by 9 if NE scores a TD (and kicks the PAT).  Not only that, but a NE FG puts them up by 5, rather than 4.  

 

Bottom line.... The cons of not getting the 2 might outweigh the pros of getting it.  Going for 2 isn't a bad move, but it's certainly not the only move that made sense.  But, it felt to me like going for 2 there would be chasing points unnecessarily, or something like that.  Kick the PAT, and figure out later on if you even need to go for 2, depending on what the 4th quarter brings.  That game had almost no punts.... If it was a low-scoring affair, that might change things.  

 

Agree completely, don't go for 2 until you have to. Same goes for being down 15, you score a TD, kick the XP, instead of going for 2 on the first TD. Because if you miss that, you're in a bigger hole. I might tweak that some based on the scoring in the game, but generally don't think its worth the gamble. 

 

There was one punt all game, first NFL game with only one punt in about 15 years. 

[stevegrab]

9 hours ago, Gourdeau said:

The game shouldn't have been this close. 4 fgs on 4th and very short yardage. At what point will coaches realize that fgs will not cut it ? When the AfC title game is in KC with Eric Berry and Justin Houston back this will be a kc win 

 

This people want to talk about things that happened in the last few minutes, the Chiefs inability to capitalize in the first half were their undoing. No big comeback is needed if they get a TD instead of one of those 4 FGs, or if they don't turn it over and give an immediate TD.

 

Down 28-9 at half, its amazing they came back, without that early deficit I think its different, even in NE. Pats don't take their foot off the gas, so I doubt 2nd half is much different with a closer score. 

[Gopher]

1 minute ago, stevegrab said:

 

Agree completely, don't go for 2 until you have to. Same goes for being down 15, you score a TD, kick the XP, instead of going for 2 on the first TD. Because if you miss that, you're in a bigger hole. I might tweak that some based on the scoring in the game, but generally don't think its worth the gamble. 

 

There was one punt all game, first NFL game with only one punt in about 15 years. 

 

I do think the scoring in the game makes a difference.  If it's a 14-12 game at that point, you might be more inclined to try to tie it.  And, I think the change in distance of PAT's changes things as well.  If your kicker sucks, and it's not an automatic that he's going to make it, I might be slightly more inclined to go for two.  But, yeah, in general, I think you don't want to go for 2 unless you get to the point where you have to.  At best, it's a 50/50 proposition, and the downside is putting yourself in position where you might be down two scores after New England's next possession.  At the point in last night's game where it became a question, there were still 30+ points to be scored in that game.    Not even close to the point where you have to force the 2-pt conversion.  Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but let's face it... pretty much everybody could see that neither defense was really slowing the opposing offense down.  It was almost a guarantee that both teams were going to score at least one more time.  It was just a matter of how many times, and how many points (TD vs FG).  

[stevegrab]

Just now, Gopher said:

 

I do think the scoring in the game makes a difference.  If it's a 14-12 game at that point, you might be more inclined to try to tie it.  And, I think the change in distance of PAT's changes things as well.  If your kicker sucks, and it's not an automatic that he's going to make it, I might be slightly more inclined to go for two.  But, yeah, in general, I think you don't want to go for 2 unless you get to the point where you have to.  At best, it's a 50/50 proposition, and the downside is putting yourself in position where you might be down two scores after New England's next possession.  At the point in last night's game where it became a question, there were still 30+ points to be scored in that game.    Not even close to the point where you have to force the 2-pt conversion.  Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but let's face it... pretty much everybody could see that neither defense was really slowing the opposing offense down.  It was almost a guarantee that both teams were going to score at least one more time.  It was just a matter of how many times, and how many points (TD vs FG).  

 

I recall a couple recent cases where teams down 15 scored a TD and people screamed that they must go for 2 on that first TD. Some reasoned that if you cannot convert you want to know now, while there is more time, instead of trying to convert the 2P try when game is almost down, and if you fail losing is a near certainty. 

[Big John]

Speaking of punting, there were 3 games with no punts, 2 of them in 2014.