Should Chiefs Have Gone for Two?

With less than 30 seconds left in a home tilt against the Dallas Cowboys, the Kansas City Chiefs had the opportunity to win their first game of the season -- which would have also been the first win of Todd Haley's head coaching career. After a Dwayne Bowe touchdown, the Chiefs trailed by the Cowboys 20-19 with a conversion on the way. They could have converted a two-pointer and won the game. Instead, they opted to kick the extra point and tie the game.

The Chiefs eventually lost in overtime to the Cowboys, so let the second-guessing begin. Should Haley have gone for the 2-pointer and the victory?

Yes

The Chiefs are clearly the inferior team. They had allowed the Cowboys to romp for 202 yards on three second half drives, which accounted for 17 of the Cowboys' 20 points. They had no answer for Tony Romo or Miles Austin through the air and weren't exactly stuffing the run (the 'Boys averaged 5.8 yards per carry on the game). Simply put: it was pretty obvious the Chiefs' defense wasn't going to stop Dallas if they were on the field in overtime.

Thus, why not go for two? You are 0-4. It's only two yards. If, heading into the game, someone told the Chiefs you have one play to gain two yards to win the football game, don't you think they would have loved that? I guess not, because Haley didn't go for it. He took the safe way out when he should be doing everything he can to capture that elusive first victory.

No

You are at home and have all the momentum. Why chance losing the game on an unsuccessful two-point conversion when you can go for the sure thing and tie the football game? Plus, the Chiefs had just mounted their most successful drive of the game, going 74 yards in just 10 plays to tie the game. For the first time in three weeks, Bowe and Matt Cassel seemed to be on the same page.

It's easy to sit here and second guess, but what if the Chiefs had gone for two and been unsuccessful? Wouldn't everyone be crucifying them for not taking the tie and heading to overtime at home?

If the Chiefs won the toss in overtime, it seems pretty reasonable that they could have moved the ball into field goal range -- and Ryan Succop had already nailed a 47-yarder earlier in the game.

So, which was it? Vote in the poll to let us know and feel free to argue your case in the comments section.

http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,localizationConfig,entry&id=743784&pid=743783&uts=1255335243

http://www.aolcdn.com/ke/media_gallery/v1/ke_media_gallery_wrapper.swf

NFL Throwback Uniforms

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the American Football League (AFL), several teams have worn throwback uniforms this year. Tom Brady's New England Patriots were one of four teams in retro duds for Week 5. Click through to check out the rest.

Jed Jacobsohn, Getty Image,

NFL Throwback Uniforms

Jed Jacobsohn, Getty Image,

Denver Broncos or Wyoming Cowboys? The Broncos' AFL eyesores looked very similar to those currently worn by Wyoming of the Mountain West conference. Ugly or not, they worked -- Denver upset New England in overtime.

Barry Gutierrez, AP

At first glance, the Kansas City Chiefs' uniforms on Sunday, which they sported for an overtime loss to the Cowboys, didn't look that dissimilar from their current gear. But looks can be deceiving ...

Jamie Squire, Getty Images

... While the Chiefs got to keep their red and white on, they also wore the helmet of the Dallas Texans -- the AFL squad that moved to K.C. after 1962. It made for an odd scene with "Dallas" playing Dallas in Kansas City.

Jamie Squire, Getty Images

The Rams wore what may be the most recognizable of all the throwbacks, suiting up in their well-known yellow and blue jerseys with the ram-horn helmet. It's a look that St. Louis still has in the rotation as an alternate jersey.

Ronald Martinez, Getty Images