A Giant Dilemma

We all know that the Packers are destined to go 19-0 or 21-0 every year until Favre dies. (That is a joke.) The New York Giants almost wrecked fate last Sunday, when they tied the Packers with 58 seconds left. We all know how the game ended.

Down eight, they got near the endzone with some time left. They had a decision to make: with a touchdown assured if they don't turn it over or turn it over on downs, do they run some clock and assume that they will convert the 2-pt conversion, not leaving them a realistic amount of time to kick a field goal if they recover the onside kick; or do they try to score as quick as possible, leaving them perhaps a minute to drive for a field goal if they miss the 2-pt conversion, but also leaving the Pakcers time to kick a winning field goal?

I've always thought that when you're losing, priority #1 is to score. You can't care about the clock. I'm rethinking that position.

What do yinz think?

 

When you have an Elite QB and offensive playmakers, you must have faith on your 2pt chances.
I'd let the clock go down to 25 and run 3 or 4 plays from there. And go for 2 with a 5 receiver set.

 

I meant for this to be a general discussion about scoring vs. killing clock, as that game has got me rethinking my position. Let me ask a slightly different question:

What would you have done if GB's lead had been 4-7 points?

I think it's different in this situation. Once I get into the red zone, I would assume that I would score if I didn't turn it over or fail to convert a 4th down; time isn't the issue. Also, The Packers would have scored 35 points against my defense. What makes me think that I can suddenly stop them?

Compare that to a game where the touchdown gives you a 10-10 tie, instead, and the score had been 10-3 since the first half. I would score whenever I had the chance and assume that my defense would continue to kick butt.

Differing opinions?