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

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I am glad stout defense, Jamie Collins, and a recovered inside kick made this a moot point. However, I cannot figure out why the Patriots would kick the extra point in that situation. I believe the Colts did end up getting three more possessions, but two were more likely at the time AND I didn't see any way the Colts would settle for a field goal and not be in four down mode the rest of the game.

Thoughts?

 

[Oswlek]

I think so.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I posted that question in the gameday thread.

BB said he gave it strong consideration but because of the time remaining didn't think it was necessary.

 

[smg93]

No. Too many variables that can happen with so much time left in the game. Kicking the XP created a lead the equivalent of a TD and 2 FG. The reason it became a concern after that last Colt TD (and before Jamie Collins' blocked XP) had more to do with the weird "playing not to lose" offensive play calling rather than not going for 2 at that point of the game in my opinion.

 

[Galeb]

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.

 

[BobDigital]

I think the reason they didn't is they knew they had that Collins block play in their back pocket and if they missed the 2 they didn't think he could get away with the same play twice.

 

[PatriotReign]

I absolutely hate 6 and 13 point leads.

 

[mosi]

Yup, BB made the point that he did not think those would be the last points they would have scored.

 

[Concussion Protocol]

"The chart" doesn't take into account future scoring by the team that's ahead. If the Colts answered with a quick TD and the Pats drove for a FG instead of punt-punt-punt, the 1 point would've been the better choice, as they'd go up by 9. Turns out they probably should've gone for 2.

The Panthers went for 2 early in the 4th quarter of SB38 and the end result was instead of a 31-31 game going to OT, they lost 32-29. It's all guesswork and anticipating future scores based on the flow of the game.

 

[Froob]

Absolutely, in the fourth quarter I think you have to. We've made that mistake before and it's cost the Patriots games vs the Colts in 09 and the Ravens in 12 (although we win that game if the field goal is called correctly...). And with the Collins play, what do you do to even stop that?

 

[varjao]

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.

 

[Jackson 2]

Yes. I said it at the time.

 

[aluminum seats]

Nah, keep getting points, keep the train rolling. Hurts momentum if you don't get it, and even if you do there's a undertone of "now when you guys outscore us by 2 TDs from here on out, at least we'll be tied." Bah.

 

[Sicilian]

I think flow of the game is a factor too. At that point, we were playing great defense and the fake punt disaster (turning into a TD) had 100% of the momentum on our side. At that point giving the defense a chance to break up a 2-pt conversion gives them a little bit of jump. With less time that's not a big deal, but with over 12 minutes, that may have been part of the decision.

 

[shmessy]

I posted that question in the gameday thread.

BB said he gave it strong consideration but because of the time remaining didn't think it was necessary.

Yup, I did too in that thread at the time.

I still can't understand why they didn't. There was only upside, nothing to lose.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

 

[newenglandsports11]

Patriots vs. Colts - Game Summary - November 15, 2009 - ESPN

All I will say is you are lying if this game wasn't in the back of your mind up 13. Obviously Luck isn't prime-Manning but he is still a good QB when he has time to throw (which he did when we magically stopped blitzing and went to the 3 man rush) and this had me worried as well.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Yup, I did too in that thread at the time.

I still can't understand why they didn't. There was only upside, nothing to lose.

If you play it out....

If they make it it's 35-21 w/ 12min to go...Colts need 2 TDs to tie it.

If they miss its 33-21.

If the Colts get two TDs its 35-33, Colts. Pats would just need a FG to win which would be the same if it was 35-34, Colts.

So with that logic, BB should have gone for it.

 

[SVN]

Did Bill Belichick make mistake in not going for 2-point conversion? - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN

"There was strong consideration given to going for two there," Belichick acknowledged Monday in his weekly day-after-game conference call, "and as it turned out that would have been the right thing to do to go for two. "

But that doesn't necessarily mean Belichick was wrong at the time.

As he explained Monday, the time remaining in the game (12:48) was a primary factor in kicking the extra point instead. Essentially, Belichick figured there would be more points scored in the game (he wasn't banking on his offense producing three straight three-and-outs) and thus the traditional chart that coaches sometimes use when determining whether to go for two was passed over.

"At that point, if you had told me that those were going to be the final points scored in the game until a minute to go; it just didn’t look like that’s the way the game was going at that point. But as it turned out, whether you’re up by 12 or you’re up by 13 with less than two minutes to go in the game, it doesn’t really make any difference. You’d be better off to be up by 14 than up by 13 or 12 for that matter," he said. "That’s why I’m saying the closer you get to the end of the game, the more you can rely on the chart."

so we had 3 3 and outs..blame it on the offense. We scored 34 pts in 48 mins of the game and did do anything the rest of the way. and i like how he pointed about cleveland's blunder

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.

 

[Concussion Protocol]

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.