Carroll's decision to go for 2

[PatsFan2]

Remember if the Sea Hawks Kicker didn't miss that Extra Point they would have been up by 8 at the end. So getting that point back wasn't a bad move. The Patriots earned their yards the hard way...Sea Hawks on the other hand had a very easy time of it.

 

[primetime]

Neither coaches trusted their defenses to beat the other team's offense; both coaches trusted their offenses to beat the other team's defense. In other words, both coaches (rightly) knew they were at an advantage when the ball was in their quarterback's hands.

It's why Carroll went for 2 to ice the game in one play; it's why Belichick wasted a play with that quarterback sneak to force the Seahawks to blow their last timeout in case they scored and still had 30 seconds left.

In both cases the calls were questionable, but I don't think they were unreasonable. That said, I probably would have taken the extra point. The marginal difference in probability making the 2 point conversion versus kicking the extra point is going to come into effect if the Patriots score anyways, and that's even assuming they score.

 

[XLIX]

I liked the call. To me, it was the equivalent of a team trailing by 7 who scores a TD then goes for 2 for the win. Only here, it was actually safer than that because if he missed the 2 (which they did) then he is likely looking at a regulation tie as a worst-case scenario instead of a loss.

 

[BobDigital]

It made sense to me. They played to win often and the Pats played not to lose too often.

You can't play not to lose vs good teams.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Turn it around, If the Pats score to go ahead by 7 and BB went for 2 (he wouldn't) he'd get rightly roasted. It's hard to March down the field near the end of the game and need the 2pt conversion to tie against a good defense like the Hawks, no need to make it a little easier for the other team.

 

[deroc5050]

I mean it definitely wasn't the worst decision I have seen, I would have just kicked the extra point to up by 8. But I understand trying to deliver the knock out blow right then and there. Either way it ended up not mattering because the Patriots messed up their chances at the end.

 

[supafly]

Turn it around, If the Pats score to go ahead by 7 and BB went for 2 (he wouldn't) he'd get rightly roasted. It's hard to March down the field near the end of the game and need the 2pt conversion to tie against a good defense like the Hawks, no need to make it a little easier for the other team.

Yes, all he needed to do was kick the XP and have a comfortable 8 point lead with less than 5 min remaining. The difference between leading by 7 vs. leading by 8 is huge in that situation.

I believe it's just as odd as some claiming that Belichick would've went for 2 had we scored at the end. I think they're playing a little too much "Madden," but that's just my opinion.

 

[tombonneau]

I posted this in another thread but I think it was a simple probability equation that somebody like Ernie Adams worked out. Basically it's a higher expected value of winning percentage when you're up by 9 of the Patriots scoring a TD and then a FG vs the Patriots scoring a TD plus a two point conversion. I bet the new extra point length factored into this and changed the old probability numbers to make going for 2 the better play. I'd be interested to hear Bill speak to this point.

Yup. Without looking at expected win probability I'd guess at that point in the game with like 3 min left or whatever it is something like when you are up

7 = 65%
8= 72%
9=95%

So you gamble to jump 30% points vs only jumping maybe 10% by taking the XP (which btw this does not factor in 10% of missed xp)

I loved the call. I mean as a Pats fan weren't you wishing they tried the xp instead? I know I was. 9 points was death sentence.

 

[luuked]

In the Seahawks situation I would not go for it.

If it were the Pats in that situation I would want them to go for it. As mentioned it comes down to what you have more confidence in........your offense scoring a 2 pt conversion or your defense stopping one. I think it's a no brainer for the pats.

Depends how much time is left on the clock and the score.

By succeeding with a 2pt and going ahead by 1 point you give the other team 4 downs to reach a game winning fieldgoal. If you go for the draw they will be more conservative because they still have something to lose and wanna avoid a turnover (i.e. the KC vs. Carolina scenario).

Which is why I am curious if BB/McD planted the seed of going for 2 with Brady's first sneak being more about running the time down than scoring. Too bad we will never know..

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I laughed when he went for it. Then I thought about it and liked it more. Then I hated it after some more thought.

The math goes based on averages, but another factor to consider is the Seahawks kicker, Steven Hauschka. He's already missed 3 extra points in 19 attempts, and another 2 FGs in the 20-29 yard range. Petey might have thought the odds of going up 8 were significantly lower than many other teams and so why not give it a whirl?

 

[drewskie]

I thought at the time (and still do) that it was exactly the type of aggressive call needed, even as good as their defense is.

Go up 9 and the game is out of reach being up 2 scores. Had they gone for the PAT and kept it at just an 8 pt game, and winning the game for them would be much riskier because even Carroll knew our offense outside of a turnover was likely to march it down the field too...once. But twice with minimal time left? Much more difficult for us.

 

[brdmaverick]

I loved the call. I mean as a Pats fan weren't you wishing they tried the xp instead? I know I was. 9 points was death sentence.

Yes, I was terrified to see them go for two. I just wanted to be 'in the game' at that point. If they trotted out the kicker we still would have been in the game make or miss.

 

[brdmaverick]

call me crazy but I think this could start a new trend