I believe you're asking why they (the Rams) didn't go for the two-point conversion instead of the extra point, and the answer is that if they missed - and since the Pats have an excellent run-defence, missing was a distinct probability - they would've been down 17 to 16, and probably lost the game right there.Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I can't believe I got the numbers mixed up in my post. I meant to say why after making it 17-16, they didn't go for the two-point conversion (the name of the term itself I obviously forgot) instead of just the extra point. Thanks for the explanation. They can go for a two-point conversion after any TD if they're willing to take the risk though, right?
The two-point conversion is hardly a given. I believe there is less than a 50% success rate. Had the Rams gone for two and not made it, the Pats would have gotten the ball back with a one-point lead with 1:48 left. With no time out left on either side, all they would have needed to do was make one first down and then kneel on the ball for the rest of the game.
Bear in mind that even had the Rams succeeded in a two-point conversion, the Patriots field goal still would have won the game.