Someone help me out here. The TD puts you up 21-17. If you get the 2 points, you are up 23-17. A touchdown and extra point still beats you. On the other hand if you kick the extra point ur up 22-17. Then after they score a TD you win the game with a field goal 25-24 instead of looking at overtime 24-24.
Beats me man, I was thinking the exact same thing, we will probably never know.
The theory was it would put us up two field goals, so they couldn't kick two field goals and beat us, but there's two flaws in this strategy: 1) there was so little time left that they wouldn't have time to kick a field goal, get the ball back, and kick another field goal. The only justification there was that they could have gotten an onside kick after the first field goal, which wasn't likely; 2) exactly what happened: we go for two, don't get it, then they score, and a last minute drive by us to set up a field goal only ties, instead of putting us up one if we had just kicked the PAT.
The point in goin for two was having the chance to block the extra point attempt by Seattle. If we woulda succeeded the game woulda been tied.
Bengal Cat Wrote:Someone help me out here. The TD puts you up 21-17. If you get the 2 points, you are up 23-17. A touchdown and extra point still beats you. On the other hand if you kick the extra point ur up 22-17. Then after they score a TD you win the game with a field goal 25-24 instead of looking at overtime 24-24.
did not understand that myself and why stop running Rudi can't stop him every down.
Redneck Wrote:The point in goin for two was having the chance to block the extra point attempt by Seattle. If we woulda succeeded the game woulda been tied.
Oh yeah.....that was their reasoning. Whens the last time the Bengals blocked a field goal.......let alone an extra point? It was a bad decision on the Bengals part. Marvin Lewis has forgotten more about football than I'll ever know. Butthat was a bad decision.
Maybe it's because they suck.
Bengal Cat Wrote:Oh yeah.....that was their reasoning. Whens the last time the Bengals blocked a field goal.......let alone an extra point? It was a bad decision on the Bengals part. Marvin Lewis has forgotten more about football than I'll ever know. Butthat was a bad decision.
Your complaining about this like it's what cost you guys the game..It wasn't that bad of a decision and actually makes sense.
BCFan Wrote:Your complaining about this like it's what cost you guys the game..It wasn't that bad of a decision and actually makes sense.
First of all please point out in my post where I said it cost us the game? Dumb mistakes in clutch situations cost us the game. Second.....lets hear your reasoning as to why you supported it. I'm open minded....maybe we can find common ground.
Bengal Cat Wrote:Oh yeah.....that was their reasoning. Whens the last time the Bengals blocked a field goal.......let alone an extra point? It was a bad decision on the Bengals part. Marvin Lewis has forgotten more about football than I'll ever know. Butthat was a bad decision.
I have played enough football and watched enough football in my life to know that's why they went for two. You will see it alot more this year out of alot of different teams both college and NFL when they get in that same situation. With the time that was left on the clock when Seattle got the ball, I'm suprised the Bengals even had a chance for a return and enough time to run a few plays. If Holt wouldn't have been carryin the ball like a loaf of bread he wouldn't have fumbled the return to begin with and the Bengals woulda had a chance to win.
The coaches apparently have a list they go by, where it says to go for two in that situation. And it was the wrong decision. As others have said, the reason to try to make it a 6 point lead was so that if the Seahawks got a TD, they would have a chance to block the extra point and keep it tied. The problem is, the odds of that happening are almost zero. I know it happened to the Bengals last year, but very rarely does an NFL kicker actually miss an extra point or have it blocked.
On the other hand, say they kicked the point and gave themselves a 5 point lead. Then, when the Seahawks scored a TD, they would've been up 1 and would have then gone for two themselves to try to get to a 3 point lead. But two point conversions have a low success rate, meaning there would've been a good chance the Bengals would've gotten the ball back only down 1, and a FG could've won it.
Although Holt's fumble made it all moot, it was still a bad decision by the coaching staff, plain and simple.
It was a bad decision I agree, I was just statin that's why they went for two.
Bengal Cat Wrote:First of all please point out in my post where I said it cost us the game? Dumb mistakes in clutch situations cost us the game. Second.....lets hear your reasoning as to why you supported it. I'm open minded....maybe we can find common ground.
Why NOT go for 2? Seriously. If you get it, it's a 6 point game, 2 field goals, or if they score the POSSIBILITY of a blocked field goal is at least there. It wasn't anything to look back on and say "why would you do this", what you should be worried about is your secondary.
The only problem is.......with less than 3 minutes remaining there would not hardly be time for Seattle to get 2 possessions to kick 2 field goals, unless you factor in an onside kick which is another low pecentage play. If we kick the PAT then we're up 5. Then if Seattle gets a td (like they did) if they go for 2 and make it, then a field goal ties, but if they miss the 2 point conversion, a field goal wins the game. By going for 2.....we made the decision for Holmgren.... Now, having said that.....Marvin Lewis said today in his presser when asked why he went for 2 there, he pretty much said it was a mistake......here's the quote. "we should have kicked the extra point.....but I went for 2....we'll leave it at that." Now thats coming straight from the mouth of the guy that made the
decision.
BCFan Wrote:Why NOT go for 2? Seriously. If you get it, it's a 6 point game, 2 field goals, or if they score the POSSIBILITY of a blocked field goal is at least there. It wasn't anything to look back on and say "why would you do this", what you should be worried about is your secondary.
Because this is a discussion forum and I wanted to discuss that decision..........Is that OK with you?
Bengal Cat Wrote:The only problem is.......with less than 3 minutes remaining there would not hardly be time for Seattle to get 2 possessions to kick 2 field goals, unless you factor in an onside kick which is another low pecentage play. If we kick the PAT then we're up 5. Then if Seattle gets a td (like they did) if they go for 2 and make it, then a field goal ties, but if they miss the 2 point conversion, a field goal wins the game. By going for 2.....we made the decision for Holmgren.... Now, having said that.....Marvin Lewis said today in his presser when asked why he went for 2 there, he pretty much said it was a mistake......here's the quote. "we should have kicked the extra point.....but I went for 2....we'll leave it at that." Now thats coming straight from the mouth of the guy that made the
decision.
Well it's also a pretty low percentage that you kick the extra point, they score and you also have time to march down the field and get in field go range. Way to many ifs and thens for there to be a valid "oh god, why did we do that".
The way it turned out BCFan, had Holt not fumbled, they would have had a little over a minute and 3 timeouts. But after Holt fumbled, it didn't matter anyway. I know its Monday morning quarterbacking and its easy to second guess, but a lot of fans and especially the media around Cincinnati have questioned Marvins clock management and decision making in crucial situations. But after Marvin saying today that he should have kicked the extra point, that will probably just make things worse in the media. On the same token.....you have to respect a man that can say he was wrong.
BCFan Wrote:Well it's also a pretty low percentage that you kick the extra point, they score and you also have time to march down the field and get in field go range. Way to many ifs and thens for there to be a valid "oh god, why did we do that".
The Bengals had plenty of time left to march down the field. There was over a minute left and they had all 3 timeouts, which is enough time for Carson Palmer to lead the team to a game-winning touchdown, much less a tying field goal. The fumble by Holt does not change the fact that going for the two was the wrong decision.