Whether it was logical or not, I was afraid of the 2 point try at the end. I'm glad they sent it to the coin toss, especially with the benefit of hindsight.
??? Someone posted 51%. I replied saying, where'd you get that? He gave me a link (which is still in this thread). I read link he gave me, it said 44%. I replied stating that. Read the thread before asking for stuff that's already here.
Your numbers mean nothing to me. The Pats were completing practically everything in the final quarter as long as it was short-to-intermediate. Welker was unstoppable. Faulk was unstoppable. Moss had just caught an amazing pass. Our D-line wasn't even trying to penetrate. They had the momentum. Face it. Belichick left fate up to a coin toss instead of taking it into his own hands. Bill Belichick made a coaching mistake. It is actually possible. You percentages only have meaning after the fact. Sometime I wonder if you consult a calculator to determine your daily decisions.
The difference is that good teams at home shouldn't have to go for 2. I was scared that they would go for it, but it's no guarantee they make it. Their offense was unstoppable, largely because we played the prevent. Then Cassel threw the best pass I've ever seen over to Moss to tie it. It was devastating, but getting 2 yards on one play, win if you make it, lose if you don't, is much harder than it sounds. Mangini would have called time out to rally the troops.
Belichick probably thought his team had all the momentum, were at home, and his team always owns in OT. So he decided to prolong the game. He made the safe choice but the win was there for the taking. Nevertheless, you would most likely see underdogs (most likely with a tired defense) go for 2 (Chiefs for example) as prolonging the game would almost certainly mean a loss. Boise State against Oklahoma is another example. Playing not to lose won't help the underdogs with tired defenses. In the end, Belichick had his reasons for not going for 2, but if he has a play for this do-or-die situation (and I'm pretty sure he does), then he should've as the Jets pretty much never stop 2-point conversions and were completely shellshocked.
That for some reason never crossed my mind. I Figured they were down all game and made a huge come back why chance that with a 2 point conversion when you can go into OT and win. Well for them me and they were wrong cause they lost.
I didn't even consider it at the time but I disagree - sure they were on a hell of a roll but it's one play - they would have passed and they'd be a tip or a bad throw or a missed block from failing to complete the comeback. They did the right thing to send it into OT, they probably...I think...would have won if the coin had fallen on heads...but you know...tails never fails.
If Belichik kicks the XP he gets to OT and everything else you said is still true about how the Jets and Pats were playing. If he goes for the 2 point conversion and they get stopped on a single play (which is always possible) he loses the game. It really wasn't a hard call. You go for 2 on that play when you don't believe you can stop the other team from scoring if they win the coin flip. That's about the only scenario you do that in. The Jets scored 7 points in the second half. I'm pretty sure Belichik thought the Pats would stop them if they won the flip.
Now that I think about it, maybe the reason BB was teary at the post game was because he knew he blew it by not going for 2.
I touwld have been ajust a little different since this battle was for first and KC is out of the race. That is something you try when you have nothing to lose not when you have 1st place on the line.
I didn't consider it until later, but going for 2 would have scared the hell out of me. Glad things worked out the way they did.
I watched the Herminator last Sunday, so at 31-30, the thought popped immediately into my head and boy was I feeling sick! What a relief when Gostkowski trotted on the field. I bet Belly wishes he tried it now! ats_suck:
Also, Belichick knew that if he won the coin toss the game was his because the defense was exhausted, and also thought that its the Jets - they lost in OT before, they'll do it again. The odds were in the Pats favor at that time. Right after the TD, either choice was the way to go. In hindsight, going for two is the way to go.
It actually never entered my head that the Pats would go for two. If they had lined up for a two-point conversion I think I would have died right there and then. I think they would have had something like a 75% chance of making it, the way the Jets D was shell-shocked. If that had happened it would have been every bit as devastating as the "Fake Spike" game in 1994. In that game also the Jets blew a healthy lead when it looked they were ready to take over the division. I'm not sure that I could have coped with that happening again. I may well have needed professional help to come to terms with it.
The thing that people don't seem to realize (or choose to ignore) in this situation it's going to come down to one play whether or not you go into overtime. Even in overtime there will likely be a play where it comes down to "do or die". If you get the ball chances are you are going to have to at least make one third down play and if you're on defense you are certainly going have to stop them on third down play (to get the ball back). Me, if I just scored on the last play of the game and the defense is really befuddled and tired I go for the two point conversion right then and there. There are numerous plays that allow Cassel the run / pass option and he proved very capable in gettting yards himself. Look at the last two-point conversion. The Pats converted with ease. Why leave it up to a coin-flip? There are too many variables with overtime - possible returned kickoff (either for a TD or for excellent FG kicking position).
Another reason the Pats may not have wne t for 2 points to clinch the game was the hurry up nature of that final drive. I counted at least 2 may be three hurry up to the line and spike to stop the clock. That in itself would have brought a lot of pressure and may be the thought was don't risk a poor executuon PAT takes to OT and the mentality of Pats via Jets? Just a thought
