KnightRider Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Why would Mike Shannahan go for two at the end of the game against the Chargers? He probably wanted to just stick a fork in San Diego. But the 2-point conversion struck me as Shanny saying "okay, we got a break...but I'm giving you chance to take it away, San Diego." Am I just imagining things? PTR I think you're imagining things. If my D had allowed that many points, and their D was just as suspect, I'd go for two, too! Throw in the probability that SD was still distracted by the fumble that wasn't, and the question becomes why wouldn't you go for the kill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Here it is at the bottom of the third paragraph. Charges should have few complaints. They had two plays after the disputed play and lost them both and the game along with it. What - were they thinking it's okay, we'll win it in OT? No sympathy here, not with the luck we've had over the decades. Thanks Nanker. It's an interesting concept......though from memory during OT the team that loses the coin toss wins 55% of the time....nobody would elect to kick off though. Personally I think I'd only ever go for it when my team was actually being well outperformed on the field and I was lucky to be that close to the win. In that situation a 50-50 on a 2pter would be better odds than trying to go down the field and score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Why would Mike Shannahan go for two at the end of the game against the Chargers? He probably wanted to just stick a fork in San Diego. But the 2-point conversion struck me as Shanny saying "okay, we got a break...but I'm giving you chance to take it away, San Diego." Am I just imagining things? PTR I don't buy it, but If you watched the game, the announcers eluded to that numerous time after the decision was made. But I believe he didn't want the game to come down to a coin toss. The way both teams were cruising up and down the field, whoever got the ball to start overtime was most likely going to score. So why take a chance on a coin flip, when you have the opportunity to win the game. Don't know if I agree with this philosophy, but that's what I believe the decision came down to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Going for 2 keeps your destiny in your hands rather than gambling on a coin flip. Given how easily both teams were scoring, I doubt that the loser of the coin flip would have been able to get a stop outside FG range. Denver had a chance to win it right there so, under those circumstances, I can see why they went for it. I agree, that was what he kind of said after the game as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 If you're waiting for overtime, to win the coin toss, to move down the whole length of the field, just for a shot at some points to win the game..... wasn't he already at that point before the 2pt conversion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts