I understand that hindsight is all we have now. I would not have taken either risk, but I don't think that makes them both reckless. I could have been talked into the first half play and my buddy and I talked about it before we knew the result, because it was not a surprise once they kept the offense on the field. "Bold" was one of several terms we used; "big balls" was another. But we both acknowledged that we would have taken the sure three instead. As I noted though, there were good arguments to consider taking that risk--it just bucked conventional wisdom.
Other than the element of surprise, I really don't see any justification for the final play risk. And the only reason you can say it's a surprise is because it's so stupid that no one should consider doing it. I heard some suggest that it was designed to waste time, but that only makes sense to me if you count on an incomplete pass. A completed pass there means an immediate TD and giving the Pats more time than you would presumably eat by pounding it up the middle for a few plays and using your time out if needed to stop the clock. If you are planning on an incomplete pass, you don't throw it over the middle. I just don't see any set of circumstances under which I could be talked into making that call in that spot. Too much risk and not enough reward imo.
So I guess I disagree with your premise that they are a package deal with equal risk/reward. Although I wouldn't have made either choice, I think there are plenty of people who would make the first half call, and I don't think there are very many who would have made the second--not just in hindsight.
