Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I remember users on here being confused last year when the Bills went for the 2 first when down by 9 against the Ravens and the same thing came up again when the Cowboys went for 2 first when down by 9.

 

Why is this even up for debate? It's not "new math", it's more common sense....right?

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted

Personally, I'd kick the PAT to make it an 8 point game in that situation.   You have to ensure you get it down to a one score game.

 

If you go and miss, you give the other team the ability to strategize how to play the clock with a two score lead.

  • Like (+1) 6
Posted (edited)

I agree and I noticed it too. Its pretty simple imo but somehow even some announcers don't get it. I am quite new to NFL, so judging from comment I'd say teams traditionally went for PAT first, which is weird. I guess people don't realize that you just need to covert one 2pt anyway and you only get a chance to adjust gameplan accordingly if you fail to convert it on first attempt.

Edited by No_Matter_What
  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
7 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

Personally, I'd kick the PAT to make it an 8 point game in that situation.   You have to ensure you get it down to a one score game.

 

If you go and miss, you give the other team the ability to strategize how to play the clock with a two score lead.

But what do you do when you miss the two point conversion and there is no time left on the clock to make it up? You also give yourself the ability to strategize on how to play the clock down two scores.

 

You can't assume you're going to convert the two on a play that historically has around a 50% conversion rate.

Posted (edited)

The entire point is you have to go for it at some point anyway might as well do it sooner so you know what situation your dealing with.

Edited by Warcodered
  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
Just now, Warcodered said:

The entire point is you habe to go for it at some point anyway might as well do it sooner so you know what situation your dealing with.


There’s psychology behind it too, right? If you get to within one score (8) it seems much more doable to the O. A two score deficit can seem too daunting. 
 

We can whine that it’s not reality but there’s a reason teams get sports psychologists. 
 

This, however, is just my opinion. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, buffalobillswin said:

But what do you do when you miss the two point conversion and there is no time left on the clock to make it up? You also give yourself the ability to strategize on how to play the clock down two scores.

 

You can't assume you're going to convert the two on a play that historically has around a 50% conversion rate.

 

If you're behind late in the game you are already playing with urgency.

Posted
15 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

Personally, I'd kick the PAT to make it an 8 point game in that situation.   You have to ensure you get it down to a one score game.

 

If you go and miss, you give the other team the ability to strategize how to play the clock with a two score lead.

agree, either way its a one score game

Posted

Whatever time is left on the clock, I'd want my team playing it with the mindset that they were playing down only one possession.  To go for 2 and miss it is to give your team a dose of negative energy.  I'd think it to be deflating.  

 

I understand the "better to know asap" thinking but there may be a teamwide negative psychological effect associated with a two point failure and a 9 point deficit.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

Whatever time is left on the clock, I'd want my team playing it with the mindset that they were playing down only one possession.  To go for 2 and miss it is to give your team a dose of negative energy.  I'd think it to be deflating.  

 

I understand the "better to know asap" thinking but there may be a teamwide negative psychological effect associated with a two point failure and a 9 point deficit.

yes because it's less deflating when it happens later and they have less time left.🙄

Edited by Warcodered
Posted

It's not as simple as those simple, stupid cheat-sheets that coaches initially went of off would indicate.

You have to consider the probability of each outcome & the corresponding utility of each.  Granted, the closer you come to the end of the game, the more clear cut the equations are.  Frankly, I'm kinda disappointed that more teams don't make going for 2 a more regular part of their repertoire.  If you've got a good offense against a weaker defense, one would think your expected outcome would be better going for 2 (ie you'd make it more than 50%, so your expected # of points is > 1.0 and "early" in the game I'd contend a point is a point).

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

yes because it's less deflating when it happens later and they have less time left.🙄

 

For all practical purposes, if you don't make the two-point conversion, regardless of when you attempt it, the game is over. So it's not simply a matter of delaying the deflating feeling, it's making sure that you have an opportunity to win for as much of the game as possible. Missing the 2PC early means there's no hope. Kicking the PAT keeps hope alive a while longer, along with the confidence that comes with having just scored a TD.

Edited by WhoTom
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, WhoTom said:

 

For all practical purposes, if you don't make the two-point conversion, regardless of when you attempt it, the game is over. So it's not simply a matter of delaying the deflating feeling, it's making sure that you have an opportunity to win for as much of the game as possible. Missing the 2PC early means there's no hope. Kicking the PAT keeps hope alive a while longer.

Right but on one end you have more of a chance than the other so you might as well go with that one.

Posted (edited)

Yes. Would much rather miss a 2 point conversion and be down 9 with 8 minutes left than miss a two point conversion and be down 2 with 10 seconds left.

 

Kind of along the same lines, when you’re down by a touchdown and a field goal (ie. between 9 and 11 points) with time running out to a degree that you KNOW that if you score you’ll have to attempt an onside kick, I’d almost always kick the field goal immediately when you get into safe field goal range, and then go for the touchdown if you recover the onside kick. I think it’s easily the best strategy in that situation.

 

But you usually see the trailing team waste time trying to get into the end zone, end up having to kick the field goal anyway, and have no time left for another possession.

Edited by Ecmic82
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

I thought they made the right choice. It gives them more information. If they miss it now they still have a bit of time to adjust. If they miss it later they have no time to adjust.

Posted
1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

yes because it's less deflating when it happens later and they have less time left.🙄

It's game over then anyways.  Playing half the 4th quarter feeling like you're within 1 score vs knowing you need two possessions to have any chance is a big deal, imo. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

It's game over then anyways.  Playing half the 4th quarter feeling like you're within 1 score vs knowing you need two possessions to have any chance is a big deal, imo. 

Yeah I'd prefer to keep trying to win rather than cede the game to the results of the 2pt conversation.

Posted
2 hours ago, TroutDog said:


There’s psychology behind it too, right? If you get to within one score (8) it seems much more doable to the O. A two score deficit can seem too daunting. 
 

We can whine that it’s not reality but there’s a reason teams get sports psychologists. 
 

This, however, is just my opinion. 


you mean the psychology of making bad decisions to feel better about yourself?

 

not my favorite but definitely a common thing.

  • Like (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...