Should Pats have gone for two-pt conversion?

[SomePatsFan13]

We agree to disagree.

Halftime versus end of regulation in those two games.

A shredded offense today versus a gassed defense in the game 14 years ago.

Players that had been working together for months versus practicing and playing together for only a few weeks (or in some cases a few days).

While quarterback is the most important position on a pro football team, NFL football is the ultimate team sport.

As great a player as Tom Brady is, it's not as simple as Larry Bird or Michael Jordan carrying the rest of his team to a win.

Personally I just don't find the two situations comparable.

Ok, can accept the A2D.

What about the Pats vs the Giants this year?

Much more comparable, with Bolden sort of taking on Jules' role from that game.

I think the situation was tougher in the game winning drive vs the Giants, and Tom, as cold as ice, puts us in FG range like it was nothing.

As long as 12 is under center, we got a chance man. But we have to take that chance

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I was thinking about that at the time however *IF* you fail you are done.

Yes and no. There were a few other factors to consider.

If you failed, you could still go for an onside kick.

If you failed again, you would have around 1:45 with 2 timeouts, potentially getting the ball back with 45 to 50 seconds left.

I was kind of contemplating the 2 points as well. It was a bit of insanity I admit. But it wouldn't have been the end of the game one way or another. Which ultimately made me switch back to thinking we should have kicked the extra point, since there was so much time left where a big play could have decided the game here or there.

 

[jmt57]

Ok, can accept the A2D.

What about the Pats vs the Giants this year?

Much more comparable, with Bolden sort of taking on Jules' role from that game.

I think the situation was tougher in the game winning drive vs the Giants, and Tom, as cold as ice, puts us in FG range like it was nothing.

As long as 12 is under center, we got a chance man. But we have to take that chance

Difference is that against the Giants it was the end of the game; this was halftime.

End of the game and you are behind you have to go for it; nothing to lose.

Halftime deep in your own territory against a solid defense you risk a turnover, or being forced to punt after a sack and giving your opponent an opportunity to score at least a field goal before the half ends.

Plus there is a mile-wide difference between the Jet defense and the Giant defense:

Week 10 Stats & Preview: New England Patriots at New York Giants

Week 16 Stats & Preview: New England Patriots at New York Jets

 

[SomePatsFan13]

Considering the loss, wouldn't you say we should have risked it, assuming everything stays the same if we don't risk it?

I'd take the alternative if it means a different outcome. But this isn't hindsight, as I was saying this during the game. Just picking your brain.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

What the pats should have done is attempt drive down the field at the end of the first half and gotten into field goal range

Yup! What Pats should have done was elect to receive start of OT attempt to drive down for a game winning TD or at worse kick a field goal and take your chances on D. If we lose that way, so be it. We had some momentum after White TD, guys were open on that drive. Flip side is keeping Brady upright and stop from gettin mauled.

 

[Deus Irae]

No


/thread

 

[captain stone]

What the Pats should have done is prevent Brady from throwing the INT that killed a drive likely to have produced at least a FG. They would therefore have been ahead 23-20 and would have forced the jesters
to drive for a game-tying FG.

 

[Froob]

Nope, and I know they'd be tons of crying if they went for it and lost. Only go for 2 if you are a worse and more desperate team. If you think you're the better team you should outlast them in OT.

 

[supafly]

The fact that we're even discussing the prospect of treating the situation like a preseason game should tell you all you need to know.

Who goes for 2 when the score is going to be tied at the end of regulation, unless it's a totally meaningless situation or you have nothing to lose? Unless you're the heavy underdog who is 3-11 and trying to knock off the Carolina Panthers, this is a no brainer.

 

[CISGS]

This isn't hindsight. I thought we would go for it just bc it took all of TB12's GOAT-ness to even tie the game. He was getting killed.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

With gronkowski, chandler and Williams, we have three huge tight ends that will suck up defenders and then we can slide white out of the back field.

We should have gone for 2.

 

[brdmaverick]

Because of our anemic offense, at the time of the TD I actually thought going for two would be our best (and maybe last) chance to take the lead. So I was calling for them to go for two, but in hindsight (yes, even after knowing we lost) I still see that would have been a bad call. Why?

Well, because of the time left on the clock. Let's say you go for the big gamble, go for two, and it is successful!!!

That changes the rest of the game. The Jets would then have the ball with almost a full two minutes and have all four downs to get a game winning field goal. Despite our defense playing well at the time, I fear this would have happened.


So when you talk about the risk of going for two, the question should be........

"How do you feel about the odds have making a successful two point conversion AND preventing the Jets from scoring a winning field goal?"

 

[PatsDeb]

No. That would have been dumber than what happened after that.

 

[Joseph K. Brady]

Because of our anemic offense, at the time of the TD I actually thought going for two would be our best (and maybe last) chance to take the lead. So I was calling for them to go for two, but in hindsight (yes, even after knowing we lost) I still see that would have been a bad call. Why?

Well, because of the time left on the clock. Let's say you go for the big gamble, go for two, and it is successful!!!

That changes the rest of the game. The Jets would then have the ball with almost a full two minutes and have all four downs to get a game winning field goal. Despite our defense playing well at the time, I fear this would have happened.


So when you talk about the risk of going for two, the question should be........

"How do you feel about the odds have making a successful two point conversion AND preventing the Jets from scoring a winning field goal?"

This is a false premise I think. The Pats still lose if the Jets score a FG with the score tied. Nothing is changed in regards to time remaining or time outs by exercising either option. IMO, one way or the other, you have to rely on your offense, however depleted, to win the game for you in this situation. If they can't be given the likelihood of making a game-winning TD drive in OT then they must be tasked with getting 2 yards in regulation. Giving the ball away should never have been an option.

 

[zoostation]

drink?

 

[luuked]

This is a false premise I think. The Pats still lose if the Jets score a FG with the score tied. Nothing is changed in regards to time remaining or time outs by exercising either option. IMO, one way or the other, you have to rely on your offense, however depleted, to win the game for you in this situation. If they can't be given the likelihood of making a game-winning TD drive in OT then they must be tasked with getting 2 yards in regulation. Giving the ball away should never have been an option.

Except you forget the most important benefit the Jets would have had if we had gone for the 2pt conversion.

They could have used four downs to get to field goal range (meaning 40 yards) with 2 minutes on the clock and all of their TOs. This makes no sense from a risk standpoint and would have been a move that should be criticized as much as the correct kicking decision.

 

[aluminum seats]

Hindsight is 20-20.

Patriots were without five starters on offense, playing on the road against one of the NFL's best defenses, and had been unable to do much of anything on offense all day.

The two-minute offense with backups, special teamers filling in and guys just signed off the street is not remotely close to being the same two-minute offense we saw earlier in the season.

It is a stretch to believe that an offense that scored one touchdown all game (and needed a fourth down conversion on that drive) would automatically march 45+ yards down the field in under two minutes.

Needed two 4th down conversions.

Look, I definitely don't think it would have been crazy to try and get something there in the minute plus they had from the 16. When Bolden got up to the 30 on the first play, I would have probably preferred to trust Brady to try and get the 35 yards or so to get in FG range.

What I take issue with is the reflexive demand that that's the only way to go there. They were dealing with a newly makeshift line (again!) from an in-game injury, with another injury to a tackle. Meaning, this is a prime opportunity to knock Brady out for the year by getting him clobbered trying to force something.

Doesn't mean you throw the game, doesn't mean anything other that in a situation where the Pats would typically press ahead, they decided to ease back and be conservative. You can disagree with that, but it's hard to take anyone seriously who doesn't at least acknowledge the circumstances.

 

[TheFlyingWedge]

Our offense was woefully inept for the entire game - no third down conversions all day. Hells to the no.

 

[DarrylS]

If you failed on the two point conversion then McDaniels and BB would have been skewered for that decision...

The Pats have not tried on 2 point conversion all year, and with the current injuries against a very good defense in the Red Zone.. that's very risky.

It seems that we have become so spoiled as fans that we are questioning every decision that this team makes..

 

[Joseph K. Brady]

Except you forget the most important benefit the Jets would have had if we had gone for the 2pt conversion.

They could have used four downs to get to field goal range (meaning 40 yards) with 2 minutes on the clock and all of their TOs. This makes no sense from a risk standpoint and would have been a move that should be criticized as much as the correct kicking decision.

I don't see your point. The Jets would have had 4 downs with either the Pats scoring the extra point or 2-point conversion but they would have to use one of those downs for the FG attempt so they actually have a minimum of 3 downs to get they ball into range. If the Patriots weren't going to take the ball in OT they should have tried to win in regulation. If the Jets get a FG they win either way but at least you put them in a position where they have to score in regulation to win. It makes no sense to trust the defense in OT but not in regulation when they'll be less tired.