Injuries

[BirdofParadise]

yea but really if i remember correctly (which doesnt often happen) its was late in the game and we needed two points to make it a touchdown + field goal game, with 1 point or none we still needed two TDs to take the lead....so really wasnt it already an easy call to make with or without the injury?

i could be remembering it wrong, my short term memory isnt very reliable but I thought it was the only call to make in that situation

The chance to cut the lead to eight evaporated when we went for two and failed earlier. Had we kicked the point, it would have been an eight point game.

Coaches will never learn. YOu go for two when you HAVE to.

[Turbine]

The chance to cut the lead to eight evaporated when we went for two and failed earlier. Had we kicked the point, it would have been an eight point game.

Coaches will never learn. YOu go for two when you HAVE to.

Going for 2 based only on current points without regard to the clock can even ruin a Super Bowl.

Thank you John Fox.

[TuffGuy84]

The chance to cut the lead to eight evaporated when we went for two and failed earlier. Had we kicked the point, it would have been an eight point game.

Coaches will never learn. YOu go for two when you HAVE to.

I disagree. Because we went for 2, we knew later in the game what we had to do to win which meant we had to get TD's instead of FG's. Its like opting to get the ball second in OT, you want to know what you need to do.

[Cajunsmike]

The chance to cut the lead to eight evaporated when we went for two and failed earlier. Had we kicked the point, it would have been an eight point game.

Coaches will never learn. YOu go for two when you HAVE to.

I still don't understand why we went for two. I guess it was so we could reduce the deficit to three but it was so early in the game to be thinking that way.