Jump to content

Why did we go for two?


LWC611

Recommended Posts

Why on earth did the Jets go for two in last night's game. What was the spread? Assuming that two points would keep the bengals from covering it is almost as if ythat was the intent of the move. Unless it was to have Chad go out knowing that his last two passes were for scoring plays...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth did the Jets go for two in last night's game. What was the spread? Assuming that two points would keep the bengals from covering it is almost as if ythat was the intent of the move. Unless it was to have Chad go out knowing that his last two passes were for scoring plays...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mangini had a bet that they'd lose by 7? I don't know that last series was odd.

Marvin Lewis calls a timeout and Mangini goes for two. It was like both coaches didn't comprehend the clock read 00:00 and there is no such thing as a 8 point Extra Point Play.

That or either both made bets on the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mangini had a bet that they'd lose by 7? I don't know that last series was odd.

Marvin Lewis calls a timeout and Mangini goes for two. It was like both coaches didn't comprehend the clock read 00:00 and there is no such thing as a 8 point Extra Point Play.

That or either both made bets on the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the spread was yesterday, but I saw it at 6 points on Thursday night, so unless it moved between then and kickoff, that would not have been the reasoning. I would have liked to see someone ask him about that in the post game interview. There was no need for that 2 point play. That was one of the strangest ending I have seen to a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the spread was yesterday, but I saw it at 6 points on Thursday night, so unless it moved between then and kickoff, that would not have been the reasoning. I would have liked to see someone ask him about that in the post game interview. There was no need for that 2 point play. That was one of the strangest ending I have seen to a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The broadcasters said that the Rule is if you score with 0:00 showing on the clock (and no chance of tying or taking the lead with a PAT) then you must attempt the 2 pt conversion. That's actually why Marvin Lewis called a timeout, he needed to send a defense on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The broadcasters said that the Rule is if you score with 0:00 showing on the clock (and no chance of tying or taking the lead with a PAT) then you must attempt the 2 pt conversion. That's actually why Marvin Lewis called a timeout, he needed to send a defense on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The broadcasters said that the Rule is if you score with 0:00 showing on the clock (and no chance of tying or taking the lead with a PAT) then you must attempt the 2 pt conversion. That's actually why Marvin Lewis called a timeout, he needed to send a defense on the field.

No they didnt and no you dont.

They just said you had to attempt the PAT, that you couldnt just end the game without it being attempted.

They went for 2 cause it looks better I suppose.:confused0082:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The broadcasters said that the Rule is if you score with 0:00 showing on the clock (and no chance of tying or taking the lead with a PAT) then you must attempt the 2 pt conversion. That's actually why Marvin Lewis called a timeout, he needed to send a defense on the field.

No they didnt and no you dont.

They just said you had to attempt the PAT, that you couldnt just end the game without it being attempted.

They went for 2 cause it looks better I suppose.:confused0082:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they didnt and no you dont.

They just said you had to attempt the PAT, that you couldnt just end the game without it being attempted.

They went for 2 cause it looks better I suppose.:confused0082:

Pretty sure they said something about having to go for two but I could be wrong. I did think it was a strange rule at the time so you may very well be right.

Someone else might know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they didnt and no you dont.

They just said you had to attempt the PAT, that you couldnt just end the game without it being attempted.

They went for 2 cause it looks better I suppose.:confused0082:

Pretty sure they said something about having to go for two but I could be wrong. I did think it was a strange rule at the time so you may very well be right.

Someone else might know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The broadcasters said that the Rule is if you score with 0:00 showing on the clock (and no chance of tying or taking the lead with a PAT) then you must attempt the 2 pt conversion. That's actually why Marvin Lewis called a timeout, he needed to send a defense on the field.

No.

In regulation the play continues until the PAT or the 2 point try. But there is no rule that states what you have to do. Can you imagine if they had a rule and the QB got hurt and lost for the year (not Pennington, another QB, lol).

In overtime (sudden death) the game ends when the ball crosses the end zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The broadcasters said that the Rule is if you score with 0:00 showing on the clock (and no chance of tying or taking the lead with a PAT) then you must attempt the 2 pt conversion. That's actually why Marvin Lewis called a timeout, he needed to send a defense on the field.

No.

In regulation the play continues until the PAT or the 2 point try. But there is no rule that states what you have to do. Can you imagine if they had a rule and the QB got hurt and lost for the year (not Pennington, another QB, lol).

In overtime (sudden death) the game ends when the ball crosses the end zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the spread was yesterday, but I saw it at 6 points on Thursday night, so unless it moved between then and kickoff, that would not have been the reasoning. I would have liked to see someone ask him about that in the post game interview. There was no need for that 2 point play. That was one of the strangest ending I have seen to a game.

Ok it just wasn't me then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the spread was yesterday, but I saw it at 6 points on Thursday night, so unless it moved between then and kickoff, that would not have been the reasoning. I would have liked to see someone ask him about that in the post game interview. There was no need for that 2 point play. That was one of the strangest ending I have seen to a game.

Ok it just wasn't me then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not try a 2 point conversion when you're going to lose anyway? The spread was 6 1/2 so it didn't have anything to do with that.

The PS was 7 in some places and the pools I'm in all add 1/2 pt to the whole number spreads so that there are no pushes. That 2 point convert made a difference in some pools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not try a 2 point conversion when you're going to lose anyway? The spread was 6 1/2 so it didn't have anything to do with that.

The PS was 7 in some places and the pools I'm in all add 1/2 pt to the whole number spreads so that there are no pushes. That 2 point convert made a difference in some pools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you go for 2 because you use every opportunity to work on key aspects of the game... a 2pt conversion might be needed to tie a game later this year. Mangini is a coach right till the end. You never know when that will sink in with the players that the coach isnt giving up and neither should they.

Mangini might not be doing a great job this year, but he does know the way to being a good coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they didnt and no you dont.

They just said you had to attempt the PAT, that you couldnt just end the game without it being attempted.

They went for 2 cause it looks better I suppose.:confused0082:

Thanks IJ for clearing that up. HAVING to go for 2 by rule just sounded too weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while it's no secret we need practise getting in the endzone from the redzone, why practise with a q back who hopefully won't be there anyway.

Once Chad threw his INT-TD (I was wondering if he was going to rip off the paying public and not throw one Sunday) I wouldn't have put Clemens in either. It was Pennington's dookie after that pick. No need to rub Kellen's face in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once Chad threw his INT-TD (I was wondering if he was going to rip off the paying public and not throw one Sunday) I wouldn't have put Clemens in either. It was Pennington's dookie after that pick. No need to rub Kellen's face in it.

I mean't kc will hopefully play the next set of downs this coming sunday so why practise a redzone play with penny. kick the stinkin e.p. & go home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean't kc will hopefully play the next set of downs this coming sunday so why practise a redzone play with penny. kick the stinkin e.p. & go home

Maybe Mangini was hoping CP would get hurt b/c he's afraid of what Coles will say when Chad's benched for crappy play that everyone outside of Hofstra can plainly see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...