don't bother
at the end of the day, it's nothing about theory or speculation or strategy, this discussion already happened and the Broncos went all out after Brady to the very end
to argue something else is silly, and if one is doing such you ain't going to convince him otherwise
he either didn't believe his own eyes or he doesn't know what he's watching
That's exactly what I'm saying. Actually, knowing that you can still win the game if you stop the 2 point try might make some guys cover more tightly instead of giving more cushion, everything changes, especially when there are so many people reacting to a stressful situation at the same time. It's like idiot baseball announcers who watch a base runner get thrown out stealing, then watch the next pitch hit for a home saying, "Oh, that cost team X a run." You think pitching with the bases empty might effect your pitch selection as opposed to having a base stealer on might effect pitch selection? How about pitching from a full wind up instead of from the stretch? Maybe Belicheat would've been more prone to go for one of those two field goals if his kicker hadn't missed, you don't know what would've happened, so, don't try and pretend that you do.
Ehh fine, that atleast makes some sense. A team possibly playing more aggressive defensively because they aren't as scared of the result since they know they will get 1 last chance for a stop on the 2pt conversion. I don't think that would apply to the Broncos defense given how aggressive they were the entire game and really the entire season but it is atleast feasible. Teams do play "scared to lose" and too soft in covg late in games all the time, but don't think that was applying to Denver.
As far as the FG, I don't think Gost missing an XP earlier in the game would change whether NE goes or not. He kicked 2 FGs after that.
As far as the FG, I don't think Gost missing an XP earlier in the game would change whether NE goes or not. He kicked 2 FGs after that.
Because if you run and punt, you need to get beat by a two team dog parlay to even have to face overtime. You give up a TD, and you are still a favorite to win in regulation. 8 vs 7 literally more than doubles your chance of winning in regulation. Of course it affected the play calling.
If you are Denver and have the ball, being up 7 or 8 shouldn't matter. I guess it could if your coach is dumb but the 2pt conversion is just the play after the score.
Your only goal should be to prevent them from scoring. It is literally the same exact game at 7 or 8 for Denver the final 8 minutes. Just because there is an added degree of difficulty in needing 2pt over XP shouldn't really change anything else. The 2pt conversion just serves as a last obstacle for NE but it functions on its own really.
The win probability of the game doesn't really matter to your decision making there.
Your only goal should be to prevent them from scoring. It is literally the same exact game at 7 or 8 for Denver the final 8 minutes. Just because there is an added degree of difficulty in needing 2pt over XP shouldn't really change anything else. The 2pt conversion just serves as a last obstacle for NE but it functions on its own really.
The win probability of the game doesn't really matter to your decision making there.
That's YOUR opinion, not a universally held view. It's the flip side of the defensive coin, some teams when up 8 will take more chances offensively, because two bad things have to happen for them to be tied, not one. Other teams will play more conservatively, working the clock, or figuring you don't have to worry about a 2 point conversion if you don't give a TD at all.
Why should it? How does your goal of not allowing the other team to score a TD change? Whether that be killing clock or defensive strategy, etc
The end of the tunnel is a 2pt that is 50/50 instead of a 99% XP but that event is independent of what comes before it.
Am I missing something?
I can see the point that it does change how teams play, but I don't really think it should.
