Why not GO FOR 2 POINTS????

[Chief Henry]

I said it at the time and I'll say it again - WHY didn't Gun go for the 2 point conversion instead of the extra point????? Gun chose NOT to try and tie the score at 14. Instaed he SETTLED for the extra point making the score 14 - 13. If we failed on the 2 point conversion, a field goal STILL BEATS US. since we settled for 1, a field goal STILL BEATS US - IT DID! How STUPID, or should I say PAR FOR THE CPURSE with this staff. LOL!

[Big Daddy]

I really don't know why either. I mean, it's not even because we have the benefit of hindsight do we question this call. If you are down by 2, you go for 2. It does not matter if you are down by 1 or 2 points, so why not try to tie.

I laughed at the stupidity of the coaching in the four previous games prior to this one. I've come to expect idiotic calls like this from a Gunther coached team. Too bad he'll be here next year.

[Buzzbait]

I thought the exact same thing. The only thing I can think of, playing devil's advocate, was that there was still a lot of time left in the game. That is the only thing I can think of. The better question is why was Moon playing the second half? Is Collins that bad? I remember thinking about "next year" in November back in '88 and it feels even worse today...

AZ

[Mile High Mania]

because every damn sane person in the world knew that we would go for two so gun decided he would fool them all and just kick the extra point

------------------
~R.I.P. Tupac Shakur~

[Cormac]

Mother #$$#@@#$'s!

Cost me some $$$$ and I had KC (even).

Stupid not going for 2.... also, trailing by 1 with a minute something left.... why not just give up the TD on the first play.... That way you'd be down 8 with the ball back and the chance to tie.....
Friggen' useless Moooooooon

[This message has been edited by hawaiianboy (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Chief Henry]

I l ike Slim's answer! *grin*
Any sane person WOULD go for 2! I'm really starting to question Gun's mentality. There are stats that show when to go for 2 and when not to. I bet that in that situation the stats showed 100% in FAVOR of going for 2. That play right there is just one BONE HEAD move in a season full of BONE HEAD MOVES that PROVES how utterly CONFUSED our WHOLE staff really is. It's honestly FUNNY!

[broncosrule]

I REALLY hope the media has a field day with this decision. I just don't see ANY justification for not going for two. In no way does it make any sense. By the way, it's kind of weird that the Star guys, whit and pos, were actually both right in their columns today.

------------------
GO PITT!

[Devin Vierth]

Bennett was using the can! http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[ddpatterson]

Maybe I'm not sane, but it wasn't an absolutely idiotic decision to go for one IMO. There was still plenty of time in the game and we had no idea how it would play out. Had we missed the 2 pointer, we wouldn't have been helped anyway either. In hindsight, yes, the 2 pointer would have been good. But had the game turned out differently we would have been criticizing Gun for his move (had we missed). I think the bigger issue is we actually needed a 2pt conversion to beat the lowly Chargers.

[ddpatterson]

Make that "TIE the Chargers."

[Big Daddy]

I'll bet you anything that Gun will say that he was talking with his offense and when he turned around they already kicked the extra point. He'll say,"Obviuosly in hindsight it was something that should have taken place. I'm going to sit down with the special teams this week and you can darn bet that will never happen again."

Yeah right

[Big Daddy]

I'll bet you anything that Gun will say that he was talking with his offense and when he turned around they already kicked the extra point. He'll say,"Obviuosly in hindsight it was something that should have taken place. I'm going to sit down with the special teams this week and you can darn bet that will never happen again."

Yeah right

[Big Daddy]

G-Man, going for two wouldn't have changed anything, except give you a chance to tie the game. If you go for it and miss, you're still down two needing a field goal to win.<P>

[Chief Henry]

Donkhater,
That's exactly my point.

Coogs,
LOL! Bennett was using the can! THAT'S FUNNY!

[Chief Henry]

Have any of you locals gotten the "official" explination on this one yet? Someone had to have posed the question to Gun or Carl. I can't wait to hear the reason.

[Baby Lee]

I really don't have a problem with the call to go for 1. The only reason I don't is because the touchdown was scored so early in the 3rd quarter. If it was going to happen at the same point in the 4th quarter, I would feel different.



------------------
Brian K.

The future is much like the present, only longer.

[i]Don Quisenberry </I>

[wutamess]

Steve,

Here it is, from Gun's press conference:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>
Q: Why didn't you go for the two-points during the San Diego game last week ?

CUNNINGHAM: "The last time we played Denver at Mile High they went for the two- point early. What happened to them was we stopped them with our extra point block team. They missed the two-point conversion and the (final) score was 23-22 (Chiefs). I thought about going for the two points early, we talked about it, and we felt like the points were going to unfold that the best decision was to kick. We did that but we still had an opportunity to kick the field goal and we got the ball intercepted. "I thought we'd score at least another touchdown and have the ability to go for two, and/or kick several field goals to put them out (of a chance) to score a touchdown and kick the extra point in win. I thought if I could force them to score a touchdown and go for two than the ball would be in our court."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[Chief Henry]

Cormac,
Thanks for the info. I figured that would be the case. Gun's problem is he doesn't get anough and he thinks too much. Not a good combination.
Did ANYONE bother to tell Gun the following?

The reason you go for 2 is because KC's offense hadnt sniffed the endzone the whole game. Titus summed it up nicely -

1. KC had mounted 0 drives on offense. All of our points were the result of defensive turnovers 2 of which in the first half resulted in 6 points.

If you fail to convert, you still have to kick a FG to win, only you win by 1 pt instead of 2.

IMHO it was a NO BRAINER to go for 2 in that situation especially since the Chiefs were having trouble scoring. <P>