The Los Angeles Rams became the first team in history to give up three successful two-point conversions in the fourth quarter and overtime, but it may have been the normally aggressive Sean McVay’s indecision to kick extra points that cost his team the win. When Matthew Stafford threw a 1-yard touchdown to Puka Nacua early in the fourth quarter to extend the lead to 29-14, I wondered to myself, “Why wouldn’t you go for 2 here?”
If the Rams kick the extra point, it’s a two-possession game.
If the Rams miss the extra point, it’s a two-possession game.
If the Rams go for two and fail, it’s a two-possession game.
Everything other than a converted two-pointer has the same outcome: They were all two-possession game outcomes. It would either be 30-14 or 29-14. In the modern NFL, with teams working on their two-point plays so much more often than they did in the past, it makes little difference to be up 15 or 16.
But if the Rams went for two there and converted, then all of a sudden it becomes a three-possession game. The Rams should have gone for two and tried to make it a 17-point lead, meaning that even when the Seahawks scored two touchdowns in two minutes, L.A. would have still been ahead. And that’s not the only time that McVay should have gone for two before Seattle did.
The new normal in overtime is for the team that wins the coin toss to kick rather than receive, which is what teams did for basically the entire history of overtime. Remember that one time a team won the coin toss and kicked off and lost? Strategy changes with the rules.
Because teams get a possession even if the other team scores a touchdown (unless that team uses all 10 minutes), everybody wants to get the ball second so that they already know how many points they need to win. Seattle was always going to go for 2 in overtime if they were down 37-36 and you know who should know this?
Sean McVay.
McVay said that he never even considered letting the Rams-49ers game end in a tie on Thursday earlier this season, a decision that could cause L.A. to now fall behind San Francisco in the standings. So when the Rams scored a touchdown on their possession in overtime, they should have gone for two.
An extra point only means that the Seahawks could lose by 1, but it also guarantees that the Rams could lose by 1 and they won’t be the ones in control of the play. Wouldn’t you rather go for 2 than defend a team going for 2? If it’s for the win, don’t you want the ball and decide the win for yourself?
That’s not what McVay did though. The Rams kicked the extra point and Seattle drove down the field with ease — as you might expect after 65 minutes of football — scoring a touchdown and then having the option to tie or go for the win. Like McVay, Mike Macdonald never considered letting the game end in a tie. The Seahawks went for two, scored it, and won.
Whereas if the Rams had gone for two and made it, then the Seahawks would need to convert two points just to tie it. Not to win it. Then the Rams would have another possession and could just kick a field goal to win.
It wasn’t just two point conversion plays that cost the Rams the win, there was a lot more to this game than that, but when the rules allow a team to come back from 16 points with help from those conversions, you have to know as a coach how you can make those rules work in your favor instead.
McVay didn’t do that on Thursday. Maybe more coaches will take notice and realize that the difference between 16 points and 17 points is far greater than the difference between 15 points and 16 points.
See More:
