# Going for 2?!?!? Can anyone explain the reason

OK I know it is a small point considering everything else that went wrong on Labour Day, but can anyone tell me what the @@#% Taffe was thinking when he was down by 20 points, the team scores, and he opts to go for 2. WTF

I mean with a single you need two TD’s to win by one, If you make the 2 you still need two TD’s to win, (although now you win by 2 …ooohhh) and if you miss the attempt you now need two TD’s just to tie the game.

There IS no possible explanation.

You still needed 2 TD’s.

His math is okay, it’s his timing that stunk.

I understand his thought process…but wish he had waited until we scored at least one more time.

We would have been down by 12 with the 2 point convert. Therefore, while we could have won with 2 tds... we could also have won with 1 td and 2 field goals.

There would be no reason to go for 2 on any TDs (based on the score at the time). 3 7-point TDs put you up by 1. But missing the 2-pointer means 2 more TDs only ties it.

I think he was honestly trying to give the team a psychological boost by going for it and getting it. It would have kept the momentum swinging in our favour, in theory.

The margin of error for our team is razor thin though, and by that I mean the slightest screw up and we seem to roll over and lose momentum. So I don't think it was a good idea.

Unless going for two reduces the number of possessions needed to at least tie, it makes no sense to go for it that early in ANY CASE, IMHO.

The flipside is applying a two-point dagger to a team when ahead and the defence is clearly on the ropes in the fourth quarter -- like making a two-possession game a three-possession lead. It would be nice to be faced with that consideration.

The rouge eliminates some of the sting that a two-point conversion can unleash. That is why I see it as a late-game issue. Taaffe's decision today marks the second time where I've been baffled by his conversion gambles (the first being in the BC game out in Vancouver earlier this season).

Oski Wee Arithmetic,

Exactly right!
I was at a loss to explain to my sons any potential merit of his two point decision in BC, and the same yesterday.
Taaffe is using a coaching strategy that I've never encountered in my 35 years of Canadian football...

if toronto goes for and hits the 50 yd plus fg late in the game we are down 17 and need three scores, we should have kicked the 1 point for a 13 point game. the 2 pointer was the wrong call.