Pete Prisco has nothing to say

The Kansas City Chiefs made an interesting move this week. With 23 seconds left, trailing San Diego 20-19, the 1-7 Chiefs decided to go for a two-point conversion. The game was a nail-biter all the way, and Kansas City somehow managed to fail on a point after attempt that would have given them a 14-6 lead in the 2nd quarter. They missed on the two-pointer too, and lost the game 20-19.

The obvious reasoning for the two-point attempt is that the Chiefs, at 1-7, are completely out of the running this season. There are a lot of reasons why going to overtime does them no good. They have also played in a number of close games this year, and have, of course, lost all of them. And there is certainly precedent for the do-or-die two-point attempt. The Denver Broncos did it this year, also against San Diego, in a game that did matter to both teams. They converted. Way back in 2002, the 3-10 Minnesota Vikings went for two after scoring with 10 seconds remaining, trailing the New Orleans Saints 31-30. The Saints were 9-4, and very much in the playoff race. Daunte Culpepper ran in a quarterback draw, and the Vikings played spoiler. 

The most famous two-point conversation attempt came in the 1984 Orange Bowl. The Nebraska Cornhuskers entered the game heavily favored to beat the Miami Hurricanes, and, trailing 31-30 with under a minute remaining, head coach Tom Osborne decided to go for two instead of tying the game. The attempted failed, and Nebraska lost its bid for a national championship.

In the days after Herm Edwards' decision to go for the win, most analysts have applauded the choice. The consensus is basically "Why not?" But, one writer spoke out pretty aggressively against Edwards. Pete Prisco, of CBS.com, in his weekly "grades"(which normally are nothing but proof that Prisco doesn't watch any of the games), he said "Take your F, Herm. You've earned it." Prisco's only argument is that a coach shouldn't put an entire game on one play. He mentions a few times how he has rallied against this decision in the past. He mentions how he argued with Tom Coughlin back in 1995 about it, as if anybody cares. He says Mike Shanahan was wrong in Denver also. 

"At Least if you lose the coin flip, you have more than one play. Stop them. Get the ball back. If defense wins championships like they say, why can't it make a stop in overtime after a lost coin flip?" Well, Pete, if there was any question about the Chiefs winning a championship, this would be a different situation. The Chiefs are awful. They can't win a  championship. That's why if they lost the coin toss, they probably would give up points on the first drive. If they can make a stop, get the ball, and drive for a score, why can't they move the ball two yards and win the game on one play?

Prisco basically says nothing in his column. He has this strong conviction about two-point conversions, but no reasoning behind it. I'm sure there is good reason why he is a columnist on a major sports web site, but when is he ever going to actually say something?