Down 15 in the 4th and you score. Chiefs DC did it right.

[Ring 6]

Chiefs were down 15 in the 4th and scored a TD.
Take the 1 or go for 2?

If you are playing to win the game you have to go for 2. They did.
Reasoning? You must make a 2 pointer to tie the game.
You need to score again. If you miss the 2, you need 2 more scores.
By going for 2 the first time you know, at the earliest possible point whether you need 1 or 2 more scores. You play knowing whether one score is enough or not.

If you take the 1 you think you are down one score and you play to get one more score. If you miss the 2 it’s too late.

You will make different decisions knowing you need 1 score than knowing you need 2

 

[ctpatsfan77]

If you take the 1 you think you are down one score and you play to get one more score. If you miss the 2 it’s too late.

You will make different decisions knowing you need 1 score than knowing you need 2

In a purely mathematical sense, you are correct. But given that there are human beings involved, I'm not sure that it's correct from a psychological standpoint (screwing up the first 2PC can then put significantly more pressure on the team).

 

[Ring 6]

In a purely mathematical sense, you are correct. But given that there are human beings involved, I'm not sure that it's correct from a psychological standpoint (screwing up the first 2PC can then put significantly more pressure on the team).

But you want to put significant pressure on them because you need to score twice. Keeping them smiling and duped into thinking one score is enough does no good.

That’s exactly my point. If you miss the 2 you need, or needed to have more urgency. Better to know in advance than too late.

The logic of going for 1 is you get a better chance to lose by a closer score.

 

[jmt57]

The problem I have always have with the mathematical rationale to go for two or not, is that it does not factor in the possibility of an opponent scoring again. It also typically does not factor in what happens if the offense does not score the conversion.

Go ahead with seven points, see how the game plays out, and if needed go for two (8 points later).

Otherwise you are boxing yourself into having to score twice, too early.

If you genuinely believe the opposing defense is gassed and defeated, that's a different story.



Carolina going for two against the Patriots in SB39 is an example of going-for-two biting a team in the butt.

 

[NFL Mystique]

The problem I have always have with the mathematical rationale to go for two or not, is that it does not factor in the possibility of an opponent scoring again. It also typically does not factor in what happens if the offense does not score the conversion.

Go ahead with seven points, see how the game plays out, and if needed go for two (8 points later).

Otherwise you are boxing yourself into having to score twice, too early.

If you genuinely believe the opposing defense is gassed and defeated, that's a different story.



Carolina going for two against the Patriots in SB39 is an example of going-for-two biting a team in the butt.

First thing I thought of. Cost them points and ultimately a SB.

 

[patchick]

In a purely mathematical sense, you are correct. But given that there are human beings involved, I'm not sure that it's correct from a psychological standpoint (screwing up the first 2PC can then put significantly more pressure on the team).

I hear you, but IMO the psychological equation is more complex than that. E.g. if you succeed in cutting the deficit to seven, that puts a lot more pressure on your opponent. Maybe they take more chances.

So on balance I’m with the OP. Go for two to maximize the chance of winning, not just delay the moment when you know you’ve lost.

 

[TommyD4207]

I hear you, but IMO the psychological equation is more complex than that. E.g. if you succeed in cutting the deficit to seven, that puts a lot more pressure on your opponent. Maybe they take more chances.

So on balance I’m with the OP. Go for two to maximize the chance of winning, not just delay the moment when you know you’ve lost.

The time left in the game had a lot to do with it.

With 12+ minutes left, you're probably getting the ball back twice, so going for 2 there makes more sense.

 

[Nehalem]

Its the difference in playing to win vs playing to make your fans think you are still in it.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Steelers did us a favor by beating the Colts. Now we are neck and neck for that first round playoff bye.

But Chiefs could not do us the favor of beating the Bills. This division race looks like it will go down to the wire.

 

[Brick27]

Think a lot of it can be circumstantial with pace of the game, volume of scoring on both sides, team you have, etc.

First look always like the idea of being able to cut it to a one score game with a much higher percentage PAT vs. taking more risk with putting yourself at two scores down. I’d like knowing I’m down one score vs. being down two scores. Goes for any point of the game. Seems a lot of the time the assumption/approach is that the other team won’t score again since this sort of thing tends to happen later in games.

If the thought is the other team will score again..
Do you kick a higher percentage PAT to make it an 8 point deficit, with the understanding the other team getting a FG (-11 deficit) keeps me at needing a TD (+ 2pt) and FG to tie it?…or do you go for a 2pt knowing if missed and down 9 points, a FG from the other team now requires going the length of the field for 2 TD (-12) period?

Didn’t see the Chiefs situation earlier so don’t know how the “feel” was. Definitely understand each mindset and how could lean one vs. the other on circumstance.

 

[1960Pats]

Carolina going for two against the Patriots in SB39 is an example of going-for-two biting a team in the butt.

And they did it twice.

I have another question. If you're down 17 with 4 or 5 minutes left do you go for 2? I saw a HC do that this year and I thought it was dumb with a capital D.

 

[aluminum seats]

Steelers did us a favor by beating the Colts. Now we are neck and neck for that first round playoff bye.

But Chiefs could not do us the favor of beating the Bills. This division race looks like it will go down to the wire.

But the Chiefs losing is always a Good Thing

 

[Ring 6]

The problem I have always have with the mathematical rationale to go for two or not, is that it does not factor in the possibility of an opponent scoring again. It also typically does not factor in what happens if the offense does not score the conversion.

Go ahead with seven points, see how the game plays out, and if needed go for two (8 points later).

Otherwise you are boxing yourself into having to score twice, too early.

If you genuinely believe the opposing defense is gassed and defeated, that's a different story.



Carolina going for two against the Patriots in SB39 is an example of going-for-two biting a team in the butt.

If you aren’t making the 2 you must score twice. Better to know with 6 minutes left and play accordingly than to play for 1 score and find out it’s not enough.