If "purely analytics" says to go for 2 when down by 2 scores in the 4th q because IF you succeed then your team will win the game with another TD and PAT, then why don't they save the 2 point conversion attempt for the 2ND TD? Almost no one is going to do that. They will play for the tie and try to win in OT. The only exception would be a horrible team like Miami somehow, against all odds, getting within 1 point of tying New England with 10 seconds to go.

If purely analytics is correct it shouldn't matter if you go for 2 on the first or 2nd TD as long as you do so on one of the two.

"Purely analytics" also says you don't need to punt. Every team should be able to get 2.5 yards per play. That means, according to analytics you get a first down every 4 plays. Even the Jets who have the worst total yards offense averages more than 4 yards per play.

---

Nobody factors in that when the other team is only up six they’re going to be more aggressive on offense. It’s a stupid argument to go for two, in my opinion

---

I actually said that out loud, to not be greedy here and take the points. I’m glad it didn’t come back to bite us.

---

Yup. I literally spent the rest of the game saying "Gee, sure would be nice to be up three more points."

As did I knowing full well I was one of the fans screaming to go for the TD.

---

What fans and reporters (and probably owners) forget is that in football, as in poker, the value of playing the odds rarely manifests over the course of a single game. It only becomes evident over time—across entire seasons and even multiple seasons. Just as there's never a guarantee that pocket aces will beat K-10 suited or that 7-2 offsuit won't produce a full house at the flop, there's no guarantee that going for it on fourth down instead of punting or going for the touchdown instead of taking the easy three will win you the game. Indeed, the seminal paper  on this topic estimated that going for it on fourth down within 60 yards of the goal line would only net on average one extra win every three years. But over hundreds and thousands of hands, mathematically sound players who have the intestinal fortitude to withstand the short term variability tend to inexorably build their bankrolls, just as appropriately aggressive coaches who are able to weather the fan and media scrutiny tend to pile up the wins and championships.

I know which side of that equation I'd rather be on.

---

man, u use big words

---

Common mechanism for over compensation.

---

Is that kind of like guys that drive fancy expensive cars to make up for OTHER....uh......”shortcomings”???😂

---

You should have typed it like this:
“Man, u shure nuff duz youse bigg wurds!”😂

---