1. We would only have to drive into FG range.
We did this how many times in the 2nd half?
2. Our chance of going the 40-50 yards for a field goal are a whole lot better than doing what we weren't able to do that last drive - go two yards in one play.
I have no doubt you believe this. That doesn't make you right though. sorry.
3. When you have a great RB who can run for two yards, you might go for two. When you don't have RBs who can rush for two yards, then you don't. Is this hard to understand?
So, you think the only way to get a 2 point conversion is to have a franchise RB? In your mind, run plays are the only successful 2pt plays, huh?
4. Our offense is a whole lot better than it used to be, thanks to Gailey getting to open the playbook, signing Bradley, starting Thigpen, and getting that gimp Croyle finally off the team.
Agreed. The fact remains though, that the Chiefs only had ONE first down the entire 2nd half before the TD. Also, you're argument is still relying on the hope that the Chiefs win the toss. There's no way that defense who was already gassed, comes up with another stand in overtime. They did good enough just getting the ball back in time for the Chiefs to drive and score.
So, I take it you couldn't come up with one instance of a HC being booed for going for OT?
This is just dumb. When you're at home with a healthy team who's been at the very least getting first downs, you play for overtime.
Not when you're on the road giving up 400 yards of offense, letting the other team keep the ball for the majority of the game and hoping your 3rd and 4th team, off the street free agents who haven't had a whole week of practice defense can keep the 6th ranked passing defense from driving (what was it you said, 40-50 yards) into field goal range. OR when you have an offense who doesn't have a rushing attack and who has only been able to manage 1 first down the first 28 minutes of the 2nd half.
But guess what, the Chiefs, have both.
Bookmarks