Going for 2
 

Well, this is really one of the few complaints I had from the Patriots game. Haslet again early on in a game goes for 2 after a td rather than taking the (so called, right Carney?) easy point.

Yet again it didn't really come back to haunt us, but it could have. After Henderson's TD the score in the 3rd qtr was 22-27 and Has decides to go for 2 to make it 24-27. Why? With so much time left there's no telling how things will work out and that point he gave up in trying in vain to get within 3 might have been the difference between a victory and a loss.

Later in the game, we score the next TD. Rather than kicking an extra point to go up by 3, we are now forced with needing a 2-point conversion to go up by three because of the earlier failed conversion.

I know the game didn't go bad, but, had we failed on the second 2-point conversion as well, NE would have only needed a FG to WIN the game. If Jim had just taken the easy points, he could have kept us out of that possible game losing situation.

Again, I know things went differently and it turned out not to matter because we scored on the second 2 pointer and then got a DT TD, but Jim has a habit of doing this type of thing. Time and time again it comes back to at least make things a little bit closer than they needed to be.

I implore you Jim. Go for two only when it's need to tie the game in the last few minutes of the game or when your team is down by 20+. Stop making things harder than they have to be.

RE: Going for 2
 

...are you sure that was the third quarter? It was a good time for it... you put yourself in position to tie the came up with a field goal. Hinesight is always better than foresight... also you are in preseaon and gives you a chance to see what the unit can do going for 2.

PRESEASON DOGG>>>
Relax.......
D looks awight.......

PRESEASON DOGG>>>
Relax.......
D looks awight.......

It was the third qtr...I looked it up to make sure before I posted.

And preseason is no excuse. I could understand if this happens only in preseason. The problem is he does it 2, 3 or 4 time a year or more. I've been hating him for going for two for a while now...at least two years. Like I said, thankfully, in the past it hasn't hurt us. I don't know of one time that it actually came back to haunt us. What I can tell you is many times when he does these things later in the games it comes back to at least threaten a victory.

This really isn't a hindsight/foresight issue. My view on this come from the many times over the years that that one point COULD have been a factor. Jim has just gotten real lucky that it didn't backfire against him.

Rather than worry about when we go for 2......worry about our play selection when we do so.

The play call to Stecker was good...............but that "fade route" or whatever to Joe Horn just had "bad idea" written all over it. I absolutely HATE that play. Either run it in.......or drill a WR right between the numbers....but do not start trying to play "jump ball" from the 5 yards out.....this isn't basketball.

I actually agree with going for two in that situation. You go for two to try to be down by 3 instead of 4. If you miss it, than you are down by five and need a TD. If you go for the extra point, you are down by 4 and STILL need a TD. I say go for two and try to make it a 3 point game. If it fails, you aren't out anything. You just are down bey 5 sinstead of 4. If you think we are down by 4 if make the extra point. Ok, we still need two field goals to win the game. Same as if we are down by five. Thats just my take on it. I hope it never does backfire on us.

I actually agree with going for two in that situation. You go for two to try to be down by 3 instead of 4. If you miss it, than you are down by five and need a TD. If you go for the extra point, you are down by 4 and STILL need a TD. I say go for two and try to make it a 3 point game. If it fails, you aren't out anything. You just are down bey 5 sinstead of 4. If you think we are down by 4 if make the extra point. Ok, we still need two field goals to win the game. Same as if we are down by five. Thats just my take on it. I hope it never does backfire on us.

I agree. If you're the Saints, your best option would be to do as you have stated. However, if you are a team playing the Saints, its probably better to used a fade route. It seems, in the past, that Saints DBs do worse covering a fade route around the end zone than any other route. We also have a pretty decent defense against the run when it gets down to the goalline...or atleast we did in previous years.

They probablywent to the fade route cause last season when AB tried to "drill the WR between the numbers" he threw several red zone INTs. A fade route allows either for the WR to make the play, or noone. But you don't turn the ball over, which would be 100000% better than our QB leading the league in red zone turnovers again. It it stops the turnovers in the red zone, fade away.