Two Point Play: Should the Situation limit the Play calls?

[brdmaverick]

So as we all know, the Pats scored the go ahead TD with under 30 seconds to go and we all know the smart move is to go for two points (so that if the Texans are able to get into field goal range then they would only TIE the game as opposed to win the game).

Alright, so I think we're all in agreement there.

Something that my brother brought up that would have been devastating is.........what if the Texans somehow pick off the two point attempt or run a fumble back for their own two points. That would be terrible.

Given that risk do you think that should limit the play call and therefore go to a safer call of a run or quick screen and avoid throws to the sideline? Obviously Cook had his defender beat and the GOAT executed to perfection (as he always does) but those are the kinds of passes that could go the other way.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Brady shouldn't have thrown the pass he did. I trust him, but as a football fan I thought it might be an interesting discussion point. Should the situation the Pats were in dictate a safer two point play as opposed to the a situation when you are going for two in catch up mode?

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

So as we all know, the Pats scored the go ahead TD with under 30 seconds to go and we all know the smart move is to go for two points (so that if the Texans are able to get into field goal range then they would only TIE the game as opposed to win the game).

Alright, so I think we're all in agreement there.

Something that my brother brought up that would have been devastating is.........what if the Texans somehow pick off the two point attempt or run a fumble back for their own two points. That would be terrible.

Given that risk do you think that should limit the play call and therefore go to a safer call of a run or quick screen and avoid throws to the sideline? Obviously Cook had his defender beat and the GOAT executed to perfection (as he always does) but those are the kinds of passes that could go the other way.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Brady shouldn't have thrown the pass he did. I trust him, but as a football fan I thought it might be an interesting discussion point. Should the situation the Pats were in dictate a safer two point play as opposed to the a situation when you are going for two in catch up mode?

I imagine "don't turn the ball over" is something that is built into the foundation of the playbook. It's a risk I imagine the Patriots work to mitigate at every turn.

You raise a good point about the 2 point conversion, it's something I thought about earlier in the game, regarding Gronk's TD and the play immediately preceding it. Tom looked to be throwing the ball with a speed and direction such that only Gronk would be able to touch it, and everything else would result in the ball going out of bounds. Goal #1 there was to get a TD. Goal #2 was to not lose the chance to kick a short field goal (take points off the board) by throwing a pick.

 

[XLIX]

Good question. In that situation, no. If there was less time on the clock then you take a knee. But in a situation where a FG is realistic (improbable but still realistic) go for 2.

 

[Gwedd]

It also depends up who is matched up against your receiver. In both the SB and the Houston game, IIRC both the defenders were DB's, not corners, which meant the WR would be faster and likely be able to get clear quickly.

 

[nabwong]

Great athletes (and artists, actors, stuntmen etc) picture the exact play going right all the time. They never ever think about it going badly. This is different than weighing risks. They already see the play happening before they throw the ball. Which is why Brady trusts some and doesn't others. You won't see him throwing that ball to Dwayne Allen. You only limit the play call on the QB you don't trust to weigh the risks correctly.

 

[supafly]

So as we all know, the Pats scored the go ahead TD with under 30 seconds to go and we all know the smart move is to go for two points (so that if the Texans are able to get into field goal range then they would only TIE the game as opposed to win the game).

Alright, so I think we're all in agreement there.

Something that my brother brought up that would have been devastating is.........what if the Texans somehow pick off the two point attempt or run a fumble back for their own two points. That would be terrible.

Given that risk do you think that should limit the play call and therefore go to a safer call of a run or quick screen and avoid throws to the sideline? Obviously Cook had his defender beat and the GOAT executed to perfection (as he always does) but those are the kinds of passes that could go the other way.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Brady shouldn't have thrown the pass he did. I trust him, but as a football fan I thought it might be an interesting discussion point. Should the situation the Pats were in dictate a safer two point play as opposed to the a situation when you are going for two in catch up mode?

Absolutely.

A play like the direct snap to the RB had the potential to be a complete disaster in this specific situation. This particular scenario would only present itself in (fairly) rare occurrences like the one we saw Sunday.

In that scenario, you need a fail proof play where protecting the ball becomes the main priority and converting the 2 point play comes second. I think the play they called was perfect. They protected against the fumble by calling a pass play, and the designed route was in a place where the risks of an INT were low.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

You answered your own question. Any type of turnover would be costly.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Atlanta lost to KC last year in this exact scenario.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Simpelton]

If we had any other quarterback, maybe. Since we have the GOAT, I honestly think we should go for 2 a lot more often. Over 3-4 touchdowns, it can add up, and our offense is really good at red zone plays.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Atlanta lost to KC last year in this exact scenario.

Regards,
Chris

That can’t be. Their quarterback was the NFL MVP last year, so he couldn’t have abaolutely ctapped his pants by throwing a laughable pick six directly to Eric Berry, right? What’s next, he lost FIVE times more games than the guy who deserved the award?

 

[DarrylS]

A run might have been "safer", but the Pats were not exactly proficient in the run game against Houston, avg. about 3 yards per rush.

They had far more success passing the ball, and with #12 as the QB what they did seems to be the best choice..

 

[brdmaverick]

You answered your own question. Any type of turnover would be costly.

My point wasn't so much ANY turnover but ones that put the other team in a better position to score.

For instance, a pass over the middle may actually have more of a chance of being picked off..........after all, more people around the ball the more bad things that can happen (the ball could be tipped at the line, etc)...........but that it would have a small likelihood of being returned for a two point score (there would be more people around the ball to make the tackle).

So I thought this circumstance was worthy of discussion because it goes beyond just the oversimplification of turnover = bad, score = good.........but instead weighing the balance of the two points with ultimate failure (allowing other team to score). Unlike in the regular run of play, a turnover (not returned) is the same as an incompletion. So in this case instead of 'avoiding a turnover' you're 'avoiding a turnover that gets returned'.

This situation is unique in that it introduces a different mentality.......I liked the way someone else put it........scoring was not the first priority (avoiding a turnover was).........this is different than most other two point attempts in which scoring IS the first priority.