That makes a lot of sense. Intellectually, I know you're right: If you're outperforming them, don't give them a chance to screw all that up by getting lucky. It's just....
From midfield, Brady getting from midfield to FG range against a D GASSED from playing most of the second half AND missing BOTH safeties looked REALLY likely. I felt like our exhausted injury-depleted D HAD to stop the 2PAT, because if we went to OT the toss wouldn't matter: The offense that had just gone three-and-out three times straight wasn't going to score, and the D sucking its OWN thin air wasn't going to prevent a score. Better question:
Do we need a high variance SB, or to AVOID one? I still can't decide; their record and average victory margin were better, but against FAR worse teams, so who's really the best team? Also, bad line+injured Manning+NFLs best turnover differential=/=a good argument we should air it out and take our chances.
Yet I'm leaning more toward that because 1) I think they genuinely ARE better, so we need variance, 2) they won't be expecting Kubiaks run-heavy team to start an air war and 3) if we DO manage to jump out to a big early lead, their proud but inexperienced team may crumble under the pressure.
As for the 2PAT Int though, my brain says you're right even while my gut quivers at the memory: Buying a second lottery ticket is still awful odds, but TWICE as good as buying just one, and you only have to hit once. So ENDING one of two desperate chances is better than giving it back by trying to end BOTH.