Often, the decision is obvious. But, there are times that a coach will immediately signal for a 2-point conversion attempt and I have no idea what the logic is behind the decision.
For instance, in the SB last night, NE trailed Sea 29-7, a 22-point differential. So, theoretically, NE needs 3 TDs, 2 extra points and one 2-point conversion to tie. They cannot catch up with two TDs, they must score 3. In that particular game, it was obvious they weren't going to catch Seattle, but, still. NE does score a TD, making the score 29-13, a 16-point differential. And they go for 2 and do not convert. I told my wife before they scored the TD that NE would go for 2 and I have no logical explanation as to why they would choose to do so.
My thinking: NE needs 3 TDs and, to tie, must make ONE 2-point conversion. Upon making the first TD, why in the world would you go for 2 when you still need 2 more TDs and, if you fail (as they did), you now have to make TWO 2-point conversions to tie? I knew they'd try for 2, but I cannot understand the logic. Wouldn't it be smarter to kick the XP, at least on the first TD? A successful conversion and you still only need one 2-point conversion to tie. If you have a ton of confidence in your offense at that point, maybe, and I mean MAYBE, you consider going for 2 when you score the second TD (although I'd still kick the XP and go for 2 for the winner). Even if you don't convert on the 2nd one, you can tie with a 2-point conversion on the 3rd TD. The way NE played it, they HAD to get 2-point conversions on both the 2nd and 3rd TDs just to tie.
Can someone explain why NE made the right choice, supposedly? The SB was just one of about 10 different instances of coaches going for 2 when I could see no reason to do so at that point in the game (and don't get me started on the coaches going for 4th down instead of kicking chip shot FGs).
For instance, in the SB last night, NE trailed Sea 29-7, a 22-point differential. So, theoretically, NE needs 3 TDs, 2 extra points and one 2-point conversion to tie. They cannot catch up with two TDs, they must score 3. In that particular game, it was obvious they weren't going to catch Seattle, but, still. NE does score a TD, making the score 29-13, a 16-point differential. And they go for 2 and do not convert. I told my wife before they scored the TD that NE would go for 2 and I have no logical explanation as to why they would choose to do so.
My thinking: NE needs 3 TDs and, to tie, must make ONE 2-point conversion. Upon making the first TD, why in the world would you go for 2 when you still need 2 more TDs and, if you fail (as they did), you now have to make TWO 2-point conversions to tie? I knew they'd try for 2, but I cannot understand the logic. Wouldn't it be smarter to kick the XP, at least on the first TD? A successful conversion and you still only need one 2-point conversion to tie. If you have a ton of confidence in your offense at that point, maybe, and I mean MAYBE, you consider going for 2 when you score the second TD (although I'd still kick the XP and go for 2 for the winner). Even if you don't convert on the 2nd one, you can tie with a 2-point conversion on the 3rd TD. The way NE played it, they HAD to get 2-point conversions on both the 2nd and 3rd TDs just to tie.
Can someone explain why NE made the right choice, supposedly? The SB was just one of about 10 different instances of coaches going for 2 when I could see no reason to do so at that point in the game (and don't get me started on the coaches going for 4th down instead of kicking chip shot FGs).
Comment