I would be very curious of the number of data points making up that chart posted here. When down 14 and scoring a TD, going for 2 on the first TD is the much better choice and coaches mess it up all the time.
There are two primary advantages: (1) it’s easier to got 1/2 than 1/1 on a 2 pt conversion. So, if you make the first great, but if you don’t you have the second shot at it to at least tie. And since odds on a 2 pt conversion are about 50/50 and going for the win is understandable (1 play to win va additional risks of OT), this strategy makes sense.
(2)(and here is where I think it broke down Saturday) is it leaves the most optionality. For instance, if you get the 2 pts and are down 6, and end up with 4th and 15 due to a penalty or a sack and have enough TOs left, you leave a fg option to need just a fg to tie. Similarly, if you miss both 2 pt conversions you can adjust strategy to try to get enough time for an onside kick and work for a game winning FG. Essentially, you leave the most possible outs and an ability to adjust if the comeback plan doesn’t go perfectly.
In our instance, the difference of going for 2 on the first Td, isn’t necessarily going for the win VS going for OT. That was the mindset but the options he leaves are far different. Ideally there, because you need two TDs and a fg is to maintain that need to leave you the most flexibility of game scenarios, including the far more likely scenario of getting another TD and FG, instead of a 3 TDs, which is exactly what played out.
The benefit of the 1/2 VS 1/1 two point conversion odds seem far set off by risking needing 3 TDs within the last few minutes opposed to just 1TD and a FG. Another strategy option is to kick the fg right away if you are only down 10 and then go for the inside with about 1 minute still left. That option is also completely off the table once you miss after the 2 pt try on the first attempt.