Up 33-21 with 12:48 remaining, should Pats have gone for 2?

Sicilian · Oct 20, 2015

BradyFTW! said:
12:48 is enough time that a TD and 2 FGs is still in play, especially if you know you're about to take the air out of the ball imminently anyway.

Oswlek · Oct 20, 2015

BradyFTW! said:
12:48 is enough time that a TD and 2 FGs is still in play, especially if you know you're about to take the air out of the ball imminently anyway. I think either decision could be justified; given how much the Colts had struggled to move the ball up to that point, it's reasonable to want to make sure a TD and 2 FGs won't beat you. I do think it made more sense to go for 2 though.

If you are worried that your offense will be so ineffective that the Colts will have time for three long possessions..... then you should be far more worried about two of those drives ending in touchdowns. From a strategic standpoint, it makes no sense to not go for it, Bill just apparently thought, "we got this ****."

RobertWeathers · Oct 20, 2015

Oswlek said:
If you are worried that your offense will be so ineffective that the Colts will have time for three long possessions..... then you should be far more worried about two of those drives ending in touchdowns. From a strategic standpoint, it makes no sense to not go for it, Bill just apparently thought, "we got this ****."

In golf terminology, he laid up.

If that was the Colts circa 2005 and PM just lit up his defense 3 straight possessions he would have played it differently.

TommyD4207 · Oct 20, 2015

Oswlek said:
If you are worried that your offense will be so ineffective that the Colts will have time for three long possessions..... then you should be far more worried about two of those drives ending in touchdowns. From a strategic standpoint, it makes no sense to not go for it, Bill just apparently thought, "we got this ****."

No need to chase points in that situation when you're ahead. Especially when your defense is clicking like that.

What if you go for two and they pick it off and bring it back? Now it's a 10-point game, and they just need a TD and a FG to tie.

That's something that needs to be factored into the decision process now, whereas before it didn't matter.

Considering there had already been one INT brought back in that game, it's not overthinking it IMO to consider that strongly there.

TheBostonStraggler · Oct 20, 2015

I'm not a big believer in going for 2 unless there is a very acute and specific late need for it.
IMHO always take the sure point otherwise. Every single point can be critical -- why risk it without that specific pressing need?

Joey007 · Oct 20, 2015

I would say so. To me I don't see as big of a difference between being up by 12 to 13 as I do 13 to 14.

Oswlek · Oct 20, 2015

As a contrasting example, Belichick pointed to Sunday's Denver-Cleveland game when Cleveland went ahead 20-16 with 8:07 left.

After their touchdown, the Browns went for the two-point conversion but were denied.

"It was a good example when Cleveland went for two to make it 22-16 and they got stopped. So now it was 20-16," Belichick said.

"Then Denver scored and it’s 23-20 instead of 23-21. Now you’ve got the field goal to tie instead of the field goal to win.

I absolutely hated this decision for the very reasons that played out.... yet when I looked at the win probability of each decision, the gap is pretty close

6pt - 82%
5pt - 78%
4pt - 73%

SalemPats · Oct 20, 2015

I was kind of surprised that we didn't go for 2 since there was only 11min to go. I guess BB was thinking Indy FG, quick 3 and out, Indy FG, 3 and out and then Indy TD. I probably would have gone for 2, but this might be a newsflash to may here, I have never coached in the NFL.

SVN · Oct 20, 2015

Our offense went cold. That was the problem .Even in a tie game at the end we wouldnt have won if we continued 3 and outs.

Bartmac36 · Oct 20, 2015

Joey007 said:
I would say so. To me I don't see as big of a difference between being up by 12 to 13 as I do 13 to 14.

EXACTLY. Whether youre up by 12 or 13 they can still take a lead with two touchdowns, but with a 14 point lead the most they can do is tie (unless the other team gets REALLY ballsy and goes for a win on a 2 point conversion).

id take the risk of the two point conversion every time since youre relying on your defense to not give up 2 touchdowns in any scenario anyway.

I was actually expecting them to go for 2 when they got the gronk TD to start the 3rd quarter and go up 28-21.

Bartmac36 · Oct 20, 2015

Oswlek said:
I absolutely hated this decision for the very reasons that played out.... yet when I looked at the win probability of each decision, the gap is pretty close

6pt - 82%
5pt - 78%
4pt - 73%

The difference between this scenario and the patriots decision to not go for 2 is that it made no sense for Cleveland to go for 2.

unless you can go up by a full touchdown theres no reason to go for 2 IMO. Yeah you can say they wanted it in case the Broncos scored and missed the extra point, but those are some incredibly small odds.

PatsDeb · Oct 20, 2015

Galeb said:
I think it can be argued either way, but part of it may have been that they figured they had a good chance of blocking the Colts next PAT attempt.

Funny as it seems, this is what I think. They had that play on tap. One of the guys after the game (maybe McCourty? It was so late and I was trying to stay awake) said the Colts like to go low to block on extra points and FGs, so that was one of the reasons they used that play in this game. He said (almost as an aside), "Yeah it's too bad other teams will be looking for that play now." I think they figured if the Colts scored again they would try the extra point block to make it a 7 pt. game, rather than go for 2, which if they missed it, would make a later extra point block irrelevant. Since the Colts weren't playing great by then, there was also a good chance they wouldn't score again, so you could hold that play in your back pocket for another team that blocks low on XPs and FGs.

Galeb · Oct 20, 2015

PatsDeb said:
Funny as it seems, this is what I think. They had that play on tap. One of the guys after the game (maybe McCourty? It was so late and I was trying to stay awake) said the Colts like to go low to block on extra points and FGs, so that was one of the reasons they used that play in this game. He said (almost as an aside), "Yeah it's too bad other teams will be looking for that play now." I think they figured if the Colts scored again they would try the extra point block to make it a 7 pt. game, rather than go for 2, which if they missed it, would make a later extra point block irrelevant. Since the Colts weren't playing great by then, there was also a good chance they wouldn't score again, so you could hold that play in your back pocket for another team that blocks low on XPs and FGs.

Agreed. I'm sure the Pats scouted this and likely practiced it. I'm not sure what was funny about my post either.

PatsDeb · Oct 20, 2015

Galeb said:
Agreed. I'm sure the Pats scouted this and likely practiced it. I'm not sure what was funny about my post either.

Someone rated it funny, so I guess it was amusing!

Galeb · Oct 20, 2015

PatsDeb said:
Someone rated it funny, so I guess it was amusing!

TinhWoodhead · Oct 20, 2015

varjao said:
BB's explanation makes sense, too much time left on the clock, put guaranteed points in the scoreboard, the Colts were the team needing to take risks.

Too much time left yet the offense was playing like they had a 3 td lead with 4mins to go.

Oswlek · Oct 20, 2015

Bartmac36 said:
The difference between this scenario and the patriots decision to not go for 2 is that it made no sense for Cleveland to go for 2.

unless you can go up by a full touchdown theres no reason to go for 2 IMO. Yeah you can say they wanted it in case the Broncos scored and missed the extra point, but those are some incredibly small odds.

That's what I thought at the time, but thinking back, Denver hadn't scored an offensive touchdown all game. It was reasonable to try to avoid a situation where Denver kicks a FG, forces a stop and gets the ball back only down 2.

Up 33-21 with 12:48 remaining, should Pats have gone for 2?

Sicilian

PatsFans.com Supporter

Oswlek

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

RobertWeathers

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

TommyD4207

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

TheBostonStraggler

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Joey007

Pro Bowl Player

Oswlek

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

SalemPats

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

SVN

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Bartmac36

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Bartmac36

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsDeb

PatsFans.com Supporter

Galeb

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsDeb

PatsFans.com Supporter

Galeb

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

TinhWoodhead

In the Starting Line-Up

Oswlek

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Similar threads