of course it is easier to score from the 17 than the 50, but you have to look at the totality of what is needed to win the game, which is a FG and a TD in no particular order. If you kick the FG, you know how much time will remain after you make it and recover the onside (figure ~7-8 seconds to kick the FG and recover the onside). Thus, you now have 25 seconds remaining to get a TD (or, in Lovie's case, 1:05 had he done it at the appropriate time), which theoretically can occur from midfield (a FG cannot).
If you go for the TD first, you have no idea how long it will take you to get it. It could waste all of the remaining clock, leaving you with only enough time to run one play after you recover the onside kick. If that is the case, you are in the same position you would have been had you kicked the FG first, depending on a hail mary.
You need a TD and a FG regardless of which you go for first. However, it's much easier to get a TD from the 17 than it is from the 50 and it takes much less time. If you throw it in the end zone from the 17 it doesn't run much time off the clock at all. It will run much more time off the clock trying to score a TD from the 50 than from the 17. That is unless you try for hail mary's which significantly lessens your chance for scoring, especially when compared to scoring from the 17.
I had the Jets, but they made the right call.
Remember the Kentucky UGA game this season, when Rich Brooks elected not to kick a FG on 4th down at UGA 20 and that was it game over. If they kicked and made it, now you can kick the onside kick and you still have a chance.
Do you know how many times teams have tried to score a TD, and then end up killing the clock? Lovie should have kicked it when FHM44 said, they would have had enough time. Remember if the Bears had kicked at 1:05, they had 2 timeouts remaining. They could have technically gotten the ball back even if they didn' recover the onside kick. Granted there would have been :10 left, but still have a shot.
