You're down by 15 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (1 Viewer)

[Sam Quentin]

I don't see how the "go for 2" guys don't understand that if you miss your 2pt conversion it becomes much more difficult to score again because your offensive play selection is limited and your opponent really only needs to convert one first down to lock up the game.

I'm not sure whether it'll affect your thinking, but what if I told you that the "go for 2" guys do understand that, but would go for 2 anyway?Think of it this way. There are two possibilities: that you will make your two-point conversion (whenever you try it), or that you will miss it.

If you make your two-point conversion, it doesn't much matter what order you do your conversions in. Either way, if you score twice and prevent your opponent from scoring, you'll end regulation in a tie.

If you miss your two-point conversion, are you more screwed if you miss it with 7 minutes left, or are you more screwed if you miss it with 1 minute left? I would argue that if you miss your two-point conversion, you are more screwed the later it happens, because there will be less you can do to make up for it.

If you think your offensive play selection is limited after missing a two-point conversion with 7 minutes left, try missing your two-point conversion with 1 minute left. Your offensive play selection will be less than limited: it will be nil.

You are more screwed if you miss with 7 minutes left. Your opponent knows that you have to pass and your opponent knows that you have to have at least 2 possessions.

as opposed to the opposite scenario where you have your whole playbook open, so you can methodically drive down the field, get your TD and miss the conversion to lose by two.

 

[ponchsox]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but you could have at least 3 more possessions within a 7 minute span. Down 8, you can go for 2 later in the game if you need to or even kick FG and then go for a TD, or another FG and onside kick if you have less than 7 minutes left.

 

[dagwood]

No brainer.

Kick the extra point.

 

[rick6668]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but you could have at least 3 more possessions within a 7 minute span. Down 8, you can go for 2 later in the game if you need to or even kick FG and then go for a TD, or another FG and onside kick if you have less than 7 minutes left.

If a coach is down by 8 with 3 minutes left and kicks a field goal, he should be fired.

 

[ArlingtonTerp]

What you do know is that all things being equal, if I kick this PAT, I can still tie with one possession. If I go for 2 and miss, I can't tie in one possession.

Actually, if you miss the two point conversion when down 8, you can't tie in one possession. You need to compare apples to apples. The chance of missing the two-point conversion is the same either way.

You're being purposely ignorant. You scored the TD. You're down 9. You kick a PAT. You can now tie in one possession with a TD and 2pt conversion. You scored the TD. You're down 9. You make the 2 pt conversion. You can now now tie in one possession with a TD and a PAT. You scored the TD. You're down 9. You miss the 2 pt conversion. You now can't tie with one possession. So when the probability, explained earlier in the thread, is 96% that you'll make the PAT vs 45% that you'll make the 2 pt conversion, why would you take the higher risk scenario of making it a 2 possession game to tie?

You don't understand basic probability or something. If you miss the two point conversion, it's going to take another possession. It doesn't matter when you miss it. It is not a higher risk that you will miss it earlier than later, and therefore it is not a higher risk for losing the game. It is a higher risk of being out of contention earlier, but that is not important. If you kick first and score later, you still have to convert that 45% 2 point conversion. You may try and miss the conversion with the first score, and be down by 9 with 7 minutes kicking off, or there is the same chance you will miss it later if you kicked first, so that even if you get the touchdown, your still down 2, likely with not enough time to get the ball back. Which scenario of missed 2 point conversions is better?

 

[The Iguana]

You are more screwed if you miss with 7 minutes left. Your opponent knows that you have to pass and your opponent knows that you have to have at least 2 possessions.

I'm on your side of the argument but this is wrong. You are equally screwed if you miss with 7 minutes left or after the 2nd score.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Football plus math is pretty cool. I think that's why I like fantasy football.

 

[sn0mm1s]

I don't see how the "go for 2" guys don't understand that if you miss your 2pt conversion it becomes much more difficult to score again because your offensive play selection is limited and your opponent really only needs to convert one first down to lock up the game.

I'm not sure whether it'll affect your thinking, but what if I told you that the "go for 2" guys do understand that, but would go for 2 anyway?Think of it this way. There are two possibilities: that you will make your two-point conversion (whenever you try it), or that you will miss it.

If you make your two-point conversion, it doesn't much matter what order you do your conversions in. Either way, if you score twice and prevent your opponent from scoring, you'll end regulation in a tie.

If you miss your two-point conversion, are you more screwed if you miss it with 7 minutes left, or are you more screwed if you miss it with 1 minute left? I would argue that if you miss your two-point conversion, you are more screwed the later it happens, because there will be less you can do to make up for it.

If you think your offensive play selection is limited after missing a two-point conversion with 7 minutes left, try missing your two-point conversion with 1 minute left. Your offensive play selection will be less than limited: it will be nil.

You are more screwed if you miss with 7 minutes left. Your opponent knows that you have to pass and your opponent knows that you have to have at least 2 possessions.

as opposed to the opposite scenario where you have your whole playbook open, so you can methodically drive down the field, get your TD and miss the conversion to lose by two.

Yep, much easier to drive down the field when the opponent doesn't know what you are doing and you aren't playing against the clock. Even if you miss, you still have a shot at an onside kick + FG recovery.Let me put it this way. The minute you miss your 2pt conversion your offense becomes predictable, the opposing offense has no pressure on it, and the opposing team can play the clock. Would you rather have 7 minutes of this disadvantage or 1 minute (assuming running a balanced offense gets you a TD at the 1 minute mark and you miss the 2pt conversion).

 

[The Iguana]

If you couldn't tell, this is a favorite topic of mine- why NFL coaches are so incredibly risk-averse, and also why fans and the media don't really grasp strategy and risk, and as a result essentially pressure their coaches into making decisions that hurt their favorite football team. This one is a favorite, but I like the two point conversion stuff too. Hope Chase keeps 'em coming.

Funny thing is I completely agree with you about nfl coaches being too risk averse. The "fraidy cat punts" and other similar issues that TMQ laments about on a regular basis are ridiculous plays. I agree with many of them. Coaches need more desire to try to win rather than to minimize the amount they lose by. I just don't think this discussion fits that criteria.

I disagree of course, although I do think it's less clear because of the emotional or psychological factors, like renesauz says. I just think those kinds of things are pretty insignificant in the case of professional football players with plenty of time left on the clock, and clearly outweighed by the strategic factors.

I think you underestimate this. Is it less significant than Joe Smoe on the street? Yes. Is it a non-existant factor? No way. It will also affect the coaches and the plays they call. Those calls will have a higher risk factor and lower success potential. The same is true for the opposition. The more they believe the game is in question, the more likely they are to make a tactical mistake. Again, that is mitigated to some degree because they are also professionals but I think it is still significant enough to not take it out of their minds.That's the basic difference between my argument and most of you arguing to go for 2. Again, I think the little you gain by making it early is outweighed by what you lose if you miss.

 

[The Iguana]

Football plus math is pretty cool. I think that's why I like fantasy football.

Problem here for me is how to quantify the mental aspect of this equation?

 

[sn0mm1s]

You are more screwed if you miss with 7 minutes left. Your opponent knows that you have to pass and your opponent knows that you have to have at least 2 possessions.

I'm on your side of the argument but this is wrong. You are equally screwed if you miss with 7 minutes left or after the 2nd score.

You aren't though, providing you didn't miss the second conversion with essentially no time left on the clock and no possibility of onside kick + FG.

 

[rick6668]

I don't see how the "go for 2" guys don't understand that if you miss your 2pt conversion it becomes much more difficult to score again because your offensive play selection is limited and your opponent really only needs to convert one first down to lock up the game.

I'm not sure whether it'll affect your thinking, but what if I told you that the "go for 2" guys do understand that, but would go for 2 anyway?Think of it this way. There are two possibilities: that you will make your two-point conversion (whenever you try it), or that you will miss it.

If you make your two-point conversion, it doesn't much matter what order you do your conversions in. Either way, if you score twice and prevent your opponent from scoring, you'll end regulation in a tie.

If you miss your two-point conversion, are you more screwed if you miss it with 7 minutes left, or are you more screwed if you miss it with 1 minute left? I would argue that if you miss your two-point conversion, you are more screwed the later it happens, because there will be less you can do to make up for it.

If you think your offensive play selection is limited after missing a two-point conversion with 7 minutes left, try missing your two-point conversion with 1 minute left. Your offensive play selection will be less than limited: it will be nil.

You are more screwed if you miss with 7 minutes left. Your opponent knows that you have to pass and your opponent knows that you have to have at least 2 possessions.

as opposed to the opposite scenario where you have your whole playbook open, so you can methodically drive down the field, get your TD and miss the conversion to lose by two.

Yep, much easier to drive down the field when the opponent doesn't know what you are doing and you aren't playing against the clock. Even if you miss, you still have a shot at an onside kick + FG recovery.Let me put it this way. The minute you miss your 2pt conversion your offense becomes predictable, the opposing offense has no pressure on it, and the opposing team can play the clock. Would you rather have 7 minutes of this disadvantage or 1 minute (assuming running a balanced offense gets you a TD at the 1 minute mark and you miss the 2pt conversion).

What happens when you score the 2nd TD with :00 on the clock and you miss the 2pts? 100% chance you lose. You are much more concerned about using up the clock when you KNOW beforehand whether you need 1 or 2 scores.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I don't see how the "go for 2" guys don't understand that if you miss your 2pt conversion it becomes much more difficult to score again because your offensive play selection is limited and your opponent really only needs to convert one first down to lock up the game.

I'm not sure whether it'll affect your thinking, but what if I told you that the "go for 2" guys do understand that, but would go for 2 anyway?Think of it this way. There are two possibilities: that you will make your two-point conversion (whenever you try it), or that you will miss it.

If you make your two-point conversion, it doesn't much matter what order you do your conversions in. Either way, if you score twice and prevent your opponent from scoring, you'll end regulation in a tie.

If you miss your two-point conversion, are you more screwed if you miss it with 7 minutes left, or are you more screwed if you miss it with 1 minute left? I would argue that if you miss your two-point conversion, you are more screwed the later it happens, because there will be less you can do to make up for it.

If you think your offensive play selection is limited after missing a two-point conversion with 7 minutes left, try missing your two-point conversion with 1 minute left. Your offensive play selection will be less than limited: it will be nil.

You are more screwed if you miss with 7 minutes left. Your opponent knows that you have to pass and your opponent knows that you have to have at least 2 possessions.

as opposed to the opposite scenario where you have your whole playbook open, so you can methodically drive down the field, get your TD and miss the conversion to lose by two.

Yep, much easier to drive down the field when the opponent doesn't know what you are doing and you aren't playing against the clock. Even if you miss, you still have a shot at an onside kick + FG recovery.Let me put it this way. The minute you miss your 2pt conversion your offense becomes predictable, the opposing offense has no pressure on it, and the opposing team can play the clock. Would you rather have 7 minutes of this disadvantage or 1 minute (assuming running a balanced offense gets you a TD at the 1 minute mark and you miss the 2pt conversion).

Would you rather be down 9 and kicking off with 7 minutes left or down 2 and kicking off with 1 minute left?

 

[SSOG]

SSOG

What about the opposing offense scoring a fg? If you miss your 2pt and they put up 3, you now need two tds as opposed to fg and 1td with 2pt. If you are eliminating the possibility of the other team ever scoring then why wouldn't you always go for two? Is 7 mins left in the 4th with full tos really close enough to the end for you?

It's not really relevant. As it stands, you need a TD, a 2pc, and an XP (in one order or another) to tie the game. If the other team kicks a FG in there somewhere, then you'd need a TD, a FG, a 2pc, and an XP (in one order or another) to tie the game. You're assuming that the team misses the 2pc if they go for it early, and then comparing that to a situation where the team MAKES the 2pc if they go for it late. The difference there isn't that the other team kicked a FG, it's that you're assuming team A missed the 2pc and team B made it.

I think we're on the same page but you said it in a confusing way. Staying in the game does give you the best chance of winning. Getting a 2pt conversion has about the same chance of success no matter when you do it. If you miss the 2pt conversion earlier, you just lowered your chance of winning because you're down 9. Kicking the PAT increases your chance of winning because you're down 8. Going for 2 and making it doesn't increase your chance of winning that much more than going for 1.

The bolded is absolutely, positively, certainly, 100% without question not true. Typically, 2pcs get converted about 40% of the time. Therefore, if we assume that you score another TD at some point (because if you don't, the entire discussion is irrelevant), you have a 95% chance of tying the game (that's the success rate for an XP). If you kick the XP now and score another TD, you only have a 40% chance of tying the game (because that's the success rate for a 2pc). Going for 2 and making it now radically, dramatically, substantially increases your chances of winning vs. going for 1 and making it.

The two point play after the first TD is only a smart move if it's successful.

Terrible, terrible logic. Let's say I offered to play a game with you- I would roll a 100-sided die, and if it came up "34" you pay me $5, but if it came up anything else, I'd pay you $5. Only an idiot would refuse to take me up on that offer. Let's say we played, and through sheer dumb luck it came up "34". Would you then say that playing the game was a dumb idea? If I offered to play again for double or nothing, would you say "nah man, obviously playing in the first place was a stupid idea"? If something is a smart move, it remains a smart move independent of the outcome. Period.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If you couldn't tell, this is a favorite topic of mine- why NFL coaches are so incredibly risk-averse, and also why fans and the media don't really grasp strategy and risk, and as a result essentially pressure their coaches into making decisions that hurt their favorite football team. This one is a favorite, but I like the two point conversion stuff too. Hope Chase keeps 'em coming.

Funny thing is I completely agree with you about nfl coaches being too risk averse. The "fraidy cat punts" and other similar issues that TMQ laments about on a regular basis are ridiculous plays. I agree with many of them. Coaches need more desire to try to win rather than to minimize the amount they lose by. I just don't think this discussion fits that criteria.

I disagree of course, although I do think it's less clear because of the emotional or psychological factors, like renesauz says. I just think those kinds of things are pretty insignificant in the case of professional football players with plenty of time left on the clock, and clearly outweighed by the strategic factors.

I think you underestimate this. Is it less significant than Joe Smoe on the street? Yes. Is it a non-existant factor? No way. It will also affect the coaches and the plays they call. Those calls will have a higher risk factor and lower success potential. The same is true for the opposition. The more they believe the game is in question, the more likely they are to make a tactical mistake. Again, that is mitigated to some degree because they are also professionals but I think it is still significant enough to not take it out of their minds.That's the basic difference between my argument and most of you arguing to go for 2. Again, I think the little you gain by making it early is outweighed by what you lose if you miss.

Fair points. We just disagree on relative benefits and detriments, and I don't think there's a solution. Frankly I'm just amazed we could reach a point of compromise after the way we started off.

 

[sn0mm1s]

What happens when you score the 2nd TD with :00 on the clock and you miss the 2pts? 100% chance you lose. You are much more concerned about using up the clock when you KNOW beforehand whether you need 1 or 2 scores.

Irrelevant - I can just as easily say what happens if, because I can run a balanced offense, I complete a long play action pass and score a quick TD making it a 2pt game with 5 minutes left. There are all sorts of "what ifs". My point is that the minute your team is predictable and the other team isn't under any pressure your chances of winning go down. You are predictable much longer if you miss 2 early than late.

 

[cheese]

I vote go for 2 to the OP because you gain more info about what you need and as a result what your strategy should be sooner.Slight tangent....I'm also curious why teams don't go for 2 when they score a TD down 14 very late (last 3 mins?) in games.If you assume for a second that whether you go for 1 or 2 only matters in the case you score another TD also...1. 45% chance you take lead/win by getting conversion and kicking XP on the 2nd TD.2. 20% chance you tie/go to OT by missing 1st conversion and get 2nd.3. 35% chance you miss both and lose.This seems better than ~100% chance of tie/OT right?Also, if you get the 1st conversion, you get other minor advantages such as eliminating the "take an intentional safety" strategy by the other team.

Because going for 2 has a success rate under 50%, while OT has a rate (pre-coin flip) of 50%. The only time you'd consider going for 2 would be on the second score, on the road, when you know you got very lucky to score the second TD (IE: They've dominated you, but you scored when the corner and safety tripped each other, or some other highly improbable and lucky scene). IN other words, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would consider such a poll even remotely serious given the animosity in this poll, and the condescending, somewhat fececious attitude displayed by a few of the "kick it" proponents. When the 14 poll was posted, I took it to be a condescending joke. I did that because that math is relatively easy to see. If I was incorrect, apologies.

You don't need the conversion rate to be 50%. You need your odds of scoring more than 14 pts to be higher than your odds of scoring less than 14 points for it to be better than just taking the 14. The math says going for 2 does this unless you're disputing the numbers in my original post.You aren't just going for 2 conversions. You're going for 1 conversion, then either quitting while you're ahead on conversions or doing it again if you miss it. It doesn't matter that you will score less points overall because losing by 2 is the same as losing by 1.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Would you rather be down 9 and kicking off with 7 minutes left or down 2 and kicking off with 1 minute left?

With parameters outlined in previous posts?Down 2 with 1 minute left.

 

[coolnerd]

Not read the entire thread closely, but is there a break down bewteen the two- conversion when teams are in a must go for situation say the final two minutes versus the rest of the game when they are making a true choice.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Wait, who is my kicker? Does he play for Indianapolis and is he currently drunk? This may affect my decision.

 

[humpback]

The two point play after the first TD is only a smart move if it's successful.

Terrible, terrible logic. Let's say I offered to play a game with you- I would roll a 100-sided die, and if it came up "34" you pay me $5, but if it came up anything else, I'd pay you $5. Only an idiot would refuse to take me up on that offer. Let's say we played, and through sheer dumb luck it came up "34". Would you then say that playing the game was a dumb idea? If I offered to play again for double or nothing, would you say "nah man, obviously playing in the first place was a stupid idea"? If something is a smart move, it remains a smart move independent of the outcome. Period.

Here's the problem- in the dice roll analogy, the odds are very simple (and indisputable) to calculate. In this "go for 2" hypothetical, they are not- there are any number of variables to factor in and no definite values for their inputs. You can say with certainty which bet is the smart move on the dice roll- you can't do that with going for 2, no matter how much you want to argue. (Edit- I mean the collective "you"- lot's of people are passing off their opinions as facts in this thread).

 

[Insein]

What you do know is that all things being equal, if I kick this PAT, I can still tie with one possession. If I go for 2 and miss, I can't tie in one possession.

Actually, if you miss the two point conversion when down 8, you can't tie in one possession. You need to compare apples to apples. The chance of missing the two-point conversion is the same either way.

You're being purposely ignorant. You scored the TD. You're down 9. You kick a PAT. You can now tie in one possession with a TD and 2pt conversion. You scored the TD. You're down 9. You make the 2 pt conversion. You can now now tie in one possession with a TD and a PAT. You scored the TD. You're down 9. You miss the 2 pt conversion. You now can't tie with one possession. So when the probability, explained earlier in the thread, is 96% that you'll make the PAT vs 45% that you'll make the 2 pt conversion, why would you take the higher risk scenario of making it a 2 possession game to tie?

You don't understand basic probability or something. If you miss the two point conversion, it's going to take another possession. It doesn't matter when you miss it. It is not a higher risk that you will miss it earlier than later, and therefore it is not a higher risk for losing the game. It is a higher risk of being out of contention earlier, but that is not important. If you kick first and score later, you still have to convert that 45% 2 point conversion. You may try and miss the conversion with the first score, and be down by 9 with 7 minutes kicking off, or there is the same chance you will miss it later if you kicked first, so that even if you get the touchdown, your still down 2, likely with not enough time to get the ball back. Which scenario of missed 2 point conversions is better?

Its not a scenario of a missed 2pt conversion. Its a scenario of how many possessions does it take to stay alive. You kick the extra pt, it takes one possession to stay alive. You miss the 2 pt conversion, it takes two. Thats the bottomline. The clock is the enemy. You can't assume that you will have more than one extra possession in regulation. Your goal in this scenario should be to extend the game as long as you can to have a chance to win. Whether thats OT or regualtion depends on how close you are. If you already eliminated your chance of tieing in one possession, then you've severely limited your chance of winning.

 

[Sam Quentin]

What you do know is that all things being equal, if I kick this PAT, I can still tie with one possession. If I go for 2 and miss, I can't tie in one possession.

Actually, if you miss the two point conversion when down 8, you can't tie in one possession. You need to compare apples to apples. The chance of missing the two-point conversion is the same either way.

You're being purposely ignorant. You scored the TD. You're down 9. You kick a PAT. You can now tie in one possession with a TD and 2pt conversion. You scored the TD. You're down 9. You make the 2 pt conversion. You can now now tie in one possession with a TD and a PAT. You scored the TD. You're down 9. You miss the 2 pt conversion. You now can't tie with one possession. So when the probability, explained earlier in the thread, is 96% that you'll make the PAT vs 45% that you'll make the 2 pt conversion, why would you take the higher risk scenario of making it a 2 possession game to tie?

You don't understand basic probability or something. If you miss the two point conversion, it's going to take another possession. It doesn't matter when you miss it. It is not a higher risk that you will miss it earlier than later, and therefore it is not a higher risk for losing the game. It is a higher risk of being out of contention earlier, but that is not important. If you kick first and score later, you still have to convert that 45% 2 point conversion. You may try and miss the conversion with the first score, and be down by 9 with 7 minutes kicking off, or there is the same chance you will miss it later if you kicked first, so that even if you get the touchdown, your still down 2, likely with not enough time to get the ball back. Which scenario of missed 2 point conversions is better?

Its not a scenario of a missed 2pt conversion. Its a scenario of how many possessions does it take to stay alive. You kick the extra pt, it takes one possession to stay alive. You miss the 2 pt conversion, it takes two. Thats the bottomline. The clock is the enemy. You can't assume that you will have more than one extra possession in regulation. Your goal in this scenario should be to extend the game as long as you can to have a chance to win. Whether thats OT or regualtion depends on how close you are. If you already eliminated your chance of tieing in one possession, then you've severely limited your chance of winning.

But the goal not to stay alive as long as possible, the goal is to win the game

 

[SSOG]

Because going for 2 has a success rate under 50%, while OT has a rate (pre-coin flip) of 50%. The only time you'd consider going for 2 would be on the second score, on the road, when you know you got very lucky to score the second TD (IE: They've dominated you, but you scored when the corner and safety tripped each other, or some other highly improbable and lucky scene).

IN other words, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would consider such a poll even remotely serious given the animosity in this poll, and the condescending, somewhat fececious attitude displayed by a few of the "kick it" proponents. When the 14 poll was posted, I took it to be a condescending joke. I did that because that math is relatively easy to see.

If I was incorrect, apologies.

My first impression at the idea was also that it had to be a joke, but upon reflection, I think it's clear that going for it is the smart play.Assume a 40% conversion percentage on 2pcs and a 95% conversion percentage on XPs (both assumptions are conservative). Also assume that you will score a second TD (because otherwise the entire discussion is irrelevant). Finally, assume that overtime is a 50/50 proposition. Here are all the possible outcomes:

1. Make the 2pc, kick the XP on the 2nd TD (38% probability)

2. Make the 2pc, miss the XP on the 2nd TD (2% probability)

3. Miss the 2pc, make the 2nd 2pc (24% probability)

4. Miss the 2pc, miss the 2nd 2pc (36% probability)

Scenario 1 results in victory (38%), scenario 4 results in defeat (36%), and scenarios 2 and 3 result in overtime (26%). Of those 26% of scenarios that result in overtime, 13% will result in a win and 13% will result in a loss. Overall, given our assumptions (that you score the second TD), going for 2 early gives you a 51% chance of winning and a 49% chance of losing.

Here are the outcomes if you kick the XP after the first TD:

1. Make the XP, make the 2nd XP (90.25% probability)

2. Make the XP, miss the second XP (4.75% probability)

3. Miss the first XP, make the 2pc on the 2nd TD (2% probability)

4. Miss the first XP, miss the 2pc on the 2nd TD (3% probability)

Scenarios 2 and 4 result in outright defeat (7.75%). Scenarios 1 and 3 result in overtime (92.25%). Of those 92.25% of scenarios that result in overtime, 46.125% will result in a win and 46.125% will result in a loss. Overall, given our assumptions (that you score the second TD), going for the XP early gives you a 46.125% chance of winning and a 53.875% chance of losing.

By those numbers, it's clear that the smart play is going for 2 after you score a TD when down by 14.

Now, you can get into the assumptions a bit and discuss the possibility of both teams getting extra possessions, but it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as you'd think, and the math isn't nearly as obvious as it first appears.

I'm not sure whether it'll affect your thinking, but what if I told you that the "go for 2" guys do understand that, but would go for 2 anyway?

Think of it this way. There are two possibilities: that you will make your two-point conversion (whenever you try it), or that you will miss it.

If you make your two-point conversion, it doesn't much matter what order you do your conversions in. Either way, if you score twice and prevent your opponent from scoring, you'll end regulation in a tie.

If you miss your two-point conversion, are you more screwed if you miss it with 7 minutes left, or are you more screwed if you miss it with 1 minute left? I would argue that if you miss your two-point conversion, you are more screwed the later it happens, because there will be less you can do to make up for it.

If you think your offensive play selection is limited after missing a two-point conversion with 7 minutes left, try missing your two-point conversion with 1 minute left. Your offensive play selection will be less than limited: it will be nil.

An excellent summation, but at this point it's like banging your head on a brick wall. That analysis has been posted, reposted, and repackaged several times now.If you make the 2pc, it does not matter whether you go for it early or late. If you miss the 2pc, it's better to miss it early than miss it late. Therefore, it's better to go for the 2pc early. The only potential flaw in the analysis is that it assumes that the 2pc and the ensuing TD are independent events- an assumption that the idea of "momentum" calls into question. Personally, though, I think the idea of momentum is pretty much just hogwash. I think basketball illustrates that concept far more clearly than football does, simply because there's a much higher volume of scores. Teams go on runs all the time and the announcers start talking about how they have "momentum", but the simple mathematical truth is that every single run is ended by a run from the other team, an outcome that suggests that the order of the scores is far more dependent on random chance than it is on any idea of momentum.

For those who'd go for two (which includes me), how many minutes would have to be left for you to change your mind? What if there were 13 minutes left, or 25, or 45?

As I said earlier in the thread, in my opinion, there are 3 criteria necessary for going for 2 to be a sound decision.
[*]I must be down by X scores

[*]I must be confident that each team will have X or fewer possessions remaining.

[*]I must need at least one 2pc at some point.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What you do know is that all things being equal, if I kick this PAT, I can still tie with one possession. If I go for 2 and miss, I can't tie in one possession.

Actually, if you miss the two point conversion when down 8, you can't tie in one possession. You need to compare apples to apples. The chance of missing the two-point conversion is the same either way.

You're being purposely ignorant. You scored the TD. You're down 9. You kick a PAT. You can now tie in one possession with a TD and 2pt conversion.

You scored the TD. You're down 9. You make the 2 pt conversion. You can now now tie in one possession with a TD and a PAT.

You scored the TD. You're down 9. You miss the 2 pt conversion. You now can't tie with one possession.

So when the probability, explained earlier in the thread, is 96% that you'll make the PAT vs 45% that you'll make the 2 pt conversion, why would you take the higher risk scenario of making it a 2 possession game to tie?

You don't understand basic probability or something. If you miss the two point conversion, it's going to take another possession. It doesn't matter when you miss it. It is not a higher risk that you will miss it earlier than later, and therefore it is not a higher risk for losing the game. It is a higher risk of being out of contention earlier, but that is not important. If you kick first and score later, you still have to convert that 45% 2 point conversion. You may try and miss the conversion with the first score, and be down by 9 with 7 minutes kicking off, or there is the same chance you will miss it later if you kicked first, so that even if you get the touchdown, your still down 2, likely with not enough time to get the ball back. Which scenario of missed 2 point conversions is better?

Its not a scenario of a missed 2pt conversion. Its a scenario of how many possessions does it take to stay alive. You kick the extra pt, it takes one possession to stay alive. You miss the 2 pt conversion, it takes two. Thats the bottomline. The clock is the enemy. You can't assume that you will have more than one extra possession in regulation. Your goal in this scenario should be to extend the game as long as you can to have a chance to win. Whether thats OT or regualtion depends on how close you are. If you already eliminated your chance of tieing in one possession, then you've severely limited your chance of winning.

I was under the impression that the "bottom line" was to win, and the goal in this scenario (and any scenario) is to give yourself the best chance to win.Let's say you are down 10 with five minutes left. It's fourth and goal, and you're on the one inch line. You've got Emmitt Smith, Anthony Munoz and John Hannah, all in their primes, on your team.

Do you kick the field goal? After all, that way you guarantee that you're "still alive" for at least the next possession, and you've "extended the game as long as you can to have a chance to win." But if you go for the TD and don't get it, then it takes two possessions to win, and you hvaen't extended the game, right? Should be an easy call based on your criteria.

 

[Insein]

I think we're on the same page but you said it in a confusing way. Staying in the game does give you the best chance of winning. Getting a 2pt conversion has about the same chance of success no matter when you do it. If you miss the 2pt conversion earlier, you just lowered your chance of winning because you're down 9. Kicking the PAT increases your chance of winning because you're down 8. Going for 2 and making it doesn't increase your chance of winning that much more than going for 1.

The bolded is absolutely, positively, certainly, 100% without question not true. Typically, 2pcs get converted about 40% of the time. Therefore, if we assume that you score another TD at some point (because if you don't, the entire discussion is irrelevant), you have a 95% chance of tying the game (that's the success rate for an XP). If you kick the XP now and score another TD, you only have a 40% chance of tying the game (because that's the success rate for a 2pc). Going for 2 and making it now radically, dramatically, substantially increases your chances of winning vs. going for 1 and making it.

Ok I see what you're saying there, but taking in the whole situation of being down by 9 at the time; Going for 2 vs going for 1, which one gives you the higher probability of staying alive at that point in time?

 

[cheese]

1. What are the odds that morale drops due to being down by two scores with 7 minutes to go?

2. What are the odds of scoring twice when morale drops with 7 minutes to go?

1. Maybe pretty high.2. Much better than the odds of scoring twice when you think you need only one score to tie.

What's the morale of a team with a minute to go down by 2 because they just missed the 2 point conversion and now has to recover an onside kick or force a 3 and out?What's the morale of a team with a minute to go down by 2 that missed the 2 point conversion earlier but just scored again to give themselves a chance to win if they recover the onside kick or use all 3 of their timeouts and force a 3 and out?

Just like the argument being made by the "go for it late" guys, I think it's likely that the morale would be much higher for the second group than the first group. And that morale would be even more prone to big swings and more important in this scenario.

At this point, you're discussing whether it makes it more likely to even get a 2nd touchdown the 1st place, which changes this from a math/probabilities discussion, to a completely subjective decision for which their is no "right" answer (I only mean you won't be able to prove that kicking an extra point does or doesn't make your team play better the rest of the game). You may or may not be right, but it makes the discussion pretty pointless so I choose to ignore that angle.

 

[SSOG]

Not read the entire thread closely, but is there a break down bewteen the two- conversion when teams are in a must go for situation say the final two minutes versus the rest of the game when they are making a true choice.

The only difference I can imagine it would have is that if you go for 2 early, you retain the possibility of running a fake (because in order for a fake to be effective, it has to present a credible threat). If you go for it late, you do not have that possibility. If that has any measurable impact, it only increases the likelihood of converting if you go for it early vs. if you go for it late.

The two point play after the first TD is only a smart move if it's successful.

Terrible, terrible logic. Let's say I offered to play a game with you- I would roll a 100-sided die, and if it came up "34" you pay me $5, but if it came up anything else, I'd pay you $5. Only an idiot would refuse to take me up on that offer. Let's say we played, and through sheer dumb luck it came up "34". Would you then say that playing the game was a dumb idea? If I offered to play again for double or nothing, would you say "nah man, obviously playing in the first place was a stupid idea"? If something is a smart move, it remains a smart move independent of the outcome. Period.

Here's the problem- in the dice roll analogy, the odds are very simple (and indisputable) to calculate. In this "go for 2" hypothetical, they are not- there are any number of variables to factor in and no definite values for their inputs. You can say with certainty which bet is the smart move on the dice roll- you can't do that with going for 2, no matter how much you want to argue. (Edit- I mean the collective "you"- lot's of people are passing off their opinions as facts in this thread).

I'm not disputing that football has a lot more variables than dice rolling. I'm simply disputing the claim that something is only a smart move if it is successful, and only a dumb move if it is unsuccessful. That's quite simply not true. If you make the right play from a probability standpoint and it fails, then it was still a smart move despite being unsuccessful. If you make the wrong play from a probability standpoint and it succeeds, then it was still a dumb move despite being successful.

 

[cheese]

SSOG- I'm not going to quote it, but thanks for explaining what I was saying 100X better than I could have on the 14 points discussion.

 

[Insein]

I was under the impression that the "bottom line" was to win, and the goal in this scenario (and any scenario) is to give yourself the best chance to win.Let's say you are down 10 with five minutes left. It's fourth and goal, and you're on the one inch line. You've got Emmitt Smith, Anthony Munoz and John Hannah, all in their primes, on your team. Do you kick the field goal? After all, that way you guarantee that you're "still alive" for at least the next possession, and you've "extended the game as long as you can to have a chance to win." But if you go for the TD and don't get it, then it takes two possessions to win, and you hvaen't extended the game, right? Should be an easy call based on your criteria.

Adding player info adds new variables. This scenario was taken as all players being equal, what is the choice to make when down X points with X time remaining. In most situations, your above would be a huge difference if the ball was on the 2 vs the inch line. Inch line, logic would say, your odds of scoring the TD here are better than later. Down on the 2, the odds would be different. Totally different scenario with different variables.

 

[SSOG]

Ok I see what you're saying there, but taking in the whole situation of being down by 9 at the time; Going for 2 vs going for 1, which one gives you the higher probability of staying alive at that point in time?

Going for 2 will always reduce your probability of "staying alive". That's true whether you do it early or do it late. If you miss the 2pc early, you're screwed. If you miss it late, you're EVEN MORE SCREWED. If you miss it early, at least you have time to do something about it. If you miss it late, you don't have any time to do anything about it.Are you familiar with the game Yahtzee? In that game, it is to your benefit to play for a Yahtzee (or any other difficult category, such as your large straight) early in the match, because it gives you more opportunities to land one. If you've filled in every other category and you're on your last roll, and all you have left to go for is "Yahtzee", then you're in a difficult position. Sure, you might have "stayed alive" by filling in solid scores in the other categories, but the simple fact is that the only thing keeping you alive is a very low-percentage play. You might technically be alive, but you're you life support. Similarly, if you kick the XP, you might technically still be alive, but your odds of winning are on life support because you still need to convert that 2pc (a sub 50% proposition).There is no value in "staying alive". There is value in "winning". You don't get partial wins based on how long you were "in it". It doesn't matter whether you stayed alive for 53 minutes or for 59 minutes, if you don't win then you don't win. Period. If you make the 2pc, it doesn't matter when you made it... but if you miss the 2pc, it's better to miss it early so you can adjust your strategy accordingly.

 

[Insein]

Ok I see what you're saying there, but taking in the whole situation of being down by 9 at the time; Going for 2 vs going for 1, which one gives you the higher probability of staying alive at that point in time?

Going for 2 will always reduce your probability of "staying alive". That's true whether you do it early or do it late. If you miss the 2pc early, you're screwed. If you miss it late, you're EVEN MORE SCREWED. If you miss it early, at least you have time to do something about it. If you miss it late, you don't have any time to do anything about it.Are you familiar with the game Yahtzee? In that game, it is to your benefit to play for a Yahtzee (or any other difficult category, such as your large straight) early in the match, because it gives you more opportunities to land one. If you've filled in every other category and you're on your last roll, and all you have left to go for is "Yahtzee", then you're in a difficult position. Sure, you might have "stayed alive" by filling in solid scores in the other categories, but the simple fact is that the only thing keeping you alive is a very low-percentage play. You might technically be alive, but you're you life support. Similarly, if you kick the XP, you might technically still be alive, but your odds of winning are on life support because you still need to convert that 2pc (a sub 50% proposition).There is no value in "staying alive". There is value in "winning". You don't get partial wins based on how long you were "in it". It doesn't matter whether you stayed alive for 53 minutes or for 59 minutes, if you don't win then you don't win. Period. If you make the 2pc, it doesn't matter when you made it... but if you miss the 2pc, it's better to miss it early so you can adjust your strategy accordingly.

I look at it this way though. Staying alive opens up for the chances of something happening in your favor. If your down by 9 and the other team is running out the clock, but by some fluke they fumble, you scoop it and score. Now your still down 2 if you kick the PAT. So depending on the time left, you still need to get the ball back and try again. If your down 8, you have the option of tieing it right there. If you miss, you're no worse off than the down 9 scenario but if you make it, you can't lose from them running the clock out.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I was under the impression that the "bottom line" was to win, and the goal in this scenario (and any scenario) is to give yourself the best chance to win.Let's say you are down 10 with five minutes left. It's fourth and goal, and you're on the one inch line. You've got Emmitt Smith, Anthony Munoz and John Hannah, all in their primes, on your team. Do you kick the field goal? After all, that way you guarantee that you're "still alive" for at least the next possession, and you've "extended the game as long as you can to have a chance to win." But if you go for the TD and don't get it, then it takes two possessions to win, and you hvaen't extended the game, right? Should be an easy call based on your criteria.

Adding player info adds new variables. This scenario was taken as all players being equal, what is the choice to make when down X points with X time remaining. In most situations, your above would be a huge difference if the ball was on the 2 vs the inch line. Inch line, logic would say, your odds of scoring the TD here are better than later. Down on the 2, the odds would be different. Totally different scenario with different variables.

You're missing the point. I was trying to demonstrate that the goal isn't, and never should be, to "extend the game." The only goal is to win, and all decisions should be made with that goal in mind. Of course variables enter into the picture ... but only after you understand the goal of the decisionmaking process. Making decisions intended to ensure that you "extend the game" can often be counterproductive if your goal is winning the game. My hypo was designed to give one obvious example of that. Kicking an extra point when down 9 after a TD in the fourth quarter is a less obvious example of the same principle.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In the abstract, suppose that with ten minutes left, you could choose Strategy A or Strategy B. Strategy A gives you a 9% chance of winning; and whether you win or lose you will be in the game pretty much until the end. Strategy B gives you a 10% chance of winning; but about 70% of the time the game will be effectively over on the next play because you'll dig too deep a hole to crawl out of.

Is there anybody here who thinks Strategy A is preferable to Strategy B?

(I know we can't calculate those 9% and 10% figures with any degree of confidence in real life. But suppose those are our very best estimates.)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

In the abstract, suppose that with ten minutes left, you could choose Strategy A or Strategy B. Strategy A gives you a 9% chance of winning; and whether you win or lose you will be in the game pretty much until the end. Strategy B gives you a 10% chance of winning; but about 70% of the time the game will be effectively over on the next play because you'll dig too deep a hole to crawl out of.Is there anybody here who thinks Strategy A is preferable to Strategy B?(I know we can't calculate those 9% and 10% figures with any degree of confidence in real life. But suppose those are our very best estimates.)

You're going to find a lot of people think Strategy A is preferable. And it will likely be because they don't understand that the benefit of "staying alive" has already been factored into the 9%.

 

[Insein]

I was under the impression that the "bottom line" was to win, and the goal in this scenario (and any scenario) is to give yourself the best chance to win.Let's say you are down 10 with five minutes left. It's fourth and goal, and you're on the one inch line. You've got Emmitt Smith, Anthony Munoz and John Hannah, all in their primes, on your team. Do you kick the field goal? After all, that way you guarantee that you're "still alive" for at least the next possession, and you've "extended the game as long as you can to have a chance to win." But if you go for the TD and don't get it, then it takes two possessions to win, and you hvaen't extended the game, right? Should be an easy call based on your criteria.

Adding player info adds new variables. This scenario was taken as all players being equal, what is the choice to make when down X points with X time remaining. In most situations, your above would be a huge difference if the ball was on the 2 vs the inch line. Inch line, logic would say, your odds of scoring the TD here are better than later. Down on the 2, the odds would be different. Totally different scenario with different variables.

You're missing the point. I was trying to demonstrate that the goal isn't, and never should be, to "extend the game." The only goal is to win, and all decisions should be made with that goal in mind. Of course variables enter into the picture ... but only after you understand the goal of the decisionmaking process. Making decisions intended to ensure that you "extend the game" can often be counterproductive if your goal is winning the game. My hypo was designed to give one obvious example of that. Kicking an extra point when down 9 after a TD in the fourth quarter is a less obvious example of the same principle.

Extending the game gives you the best chance of winning for the scenario in the OP. Other scenarios (and other variables) would change the decision.

 

[Insein]

In the abstract, suppose that with ten minutes left, you could choose Strategy A or Strategy B. Strategy A gives you a 9% chance of winning; and whether you win or lose you will be in the game pretty much until the end. Strategy B gives you a 10% chance of winning; but about 70% of the time the game will be effectively over on the next play because you'll dig too deep a hole to crawl out of.Is there anybody here who thinks Strategy A is preferable to Strategy B?(I know we can't calculate those 9% and 10% figures with any degree of confidence in real life. But suppose those are our very best estimates.)

That wouldn't make sense. If strategy A gives you a 9% chance of winning, then it means it gives you a 91% chance of losing (obviously there are ties so one could include that possibility in the argument). You would always take the strategy with the higher chance of winning. I'm saying that kicking the PAT gives you that higher chance.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

It makes me sad that the majority of the SP is still wrong on this issue. 60% says wait? Really?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

This isn't even the biggest thing wrong with coaching today. Teams down 20+ points in the 4th quarter and punting pisses me off more.

 

[Insein]

It makes me sad that the majority of the SP is still wrong on this issue. 60% says wait? Really?

Again, how is it wrong?

 

[Liquid Tension]

Let's start this over... easy for me as I just got here and have read only a few of these so far...

I concede the fact that it doesn't matter if you miss early or late, either way, you are in a heap of trouble and need a 3rd score. So, it doesn't matter if you miss the 2 early or late, you are up a creek.

So, that being said, I think it's pretty obvious to have your team think that victory is possible as long as you can. Once you lose hope, then you lose productivity. With 7 minutes left and needing just one score, the team knows that victory is still very possible. Doesn't matter if that 1 score is 7 points or 8. It's 1 possession. Going for 2 early gives you virtually no advantage if you make it but gives your opponent a massive advantage if you miss.

I can't believe some of the posts...or the % of the vote.

if one can't even understand how much worse it is to be down by 1 with 1 second left (or 20 seconds left in the game) where you are about to kick off than down by 9 with 7 minutes left then there is zero hope for any of us who are actually searching for the truth and not trying to defend some position. I made all my posts earlier and won't reissue them, but the ONLY argument for not going for 2 first is the one where someone may just feel strongly that 7 minutes is too much time, but if it were 5 they would go for 2 1st and that I could understand at least the thought process, but if you will have to go for 2, without question, it is ALWAYS better to do it first so that you have a chance to overcome the possible miss.

 

[Insein]

Let's start this over... easy for me as I just got here and have read only a few of these so far...

I concede the fact that it doesn't matter if you miss early or late, either way, you are in a heap of trouble and need a 3rd score. So, it doesn't matter if you miss the 2 early or late, you are up a creek.

So, that being said, I think it's pretty obvious to have your team think that victory is possible as long as you can. Once you lose hope, then you lose productivity. With 7 minutes left and needing just one score, the team knows that victory is still very possible. Doesn't matter if that 1 score is 7 points or 8. It's 1 possession. Going for 2 early gives you virtually no advantage if you make it but gives your opponent a massive advantage if you miss.

I can't believe some of the posts...or the % of the vote.

if one can't even understand how much worse it is to be down by 1 with 1 second left (or 20 seconds left in the game) where you are about to kick off than down by 9 with 7 minutes left then there is zero hope for any of us who are actually searching for the truth and not trying to defend some position. I made all my posts earlier and won't reissue them, but the ONLY argument for not going for 2 is the one where someone may just feel strongly that 7 minutes is too much time, but if it were 5 they would go for 2 1st and that I could understand at least the thought process, but if you will have to go for 2 without question it is ALWAYS better to do it first so that you have a chance to overcome the miss.

Then why not just always go for 2? That way if you miss it, you have most of the game to make it up.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

About the only reasonable argument for going for two late is that the defense will be 7 minutes more tired and you will have a better chance of converting then.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There's some great discussion in this thread, but there's also some pretty awful logic. You can make an argument that the psychological value of "momentum" gained by kicking a PAT outweighs the tangible value of the information gained by going for two, or something along those lines - I disagree, but that's largely unquantifiable and subjective.

But a lot of these arguments in favor of kicking the PAT are just plain wrong. They're just illogical and demonstrably wrong, and it's probably because of our natural aversion to loss. A lot of people on the "kick the PAT" side are undervaluing or completely ignoring the benefits of going for two. Countless posts say things along the lines of "If you go for two first and miss, then..." and "If you kick the PAT first, then..." And that's what people do - they overestimate the possible negative consequences of a risky proposition, and they underestimate the possible gains.

The goal is to win the game, not maintain some vague notion of "staying alive" the longest. It makes no sense to say that going for two early is a bad idea because you might miss, and then in the same breath say you should kick the PAT because then you only need one score.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Other things that piss me off.

Kicking a FG on 4th and goal from the two yard line or better when you will have to go for a 2-pt conversion later.

 

[footballnerd]

Just checking in to see the votes.

more or less....

86 for 2pc

268 for kick

This poll might be over.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Then why not just always go for 2? That way if you miss it, you have most of the game to make it up.

Because if we ignore time constraints, the expected value of a 2-point play with a 40% success rate is lower than the expected value of a 1-point play with a 96% success rate. But because the clock limits the potential number of possessions remaining, the value of the 2-point conversion increases as the game goes on. In the extreme case, say there's 1 second left and you are down by 2 - a PAT in that situation has no value whatsoever. The amount of time remaining and the score differential affects how you value going for 1 vs. going for 2.

 

[Liquid Tension]

This thread is putting on a clinic for the well-known point I raised earlier. People are just naturally really bad at assessing risk.

This is surprising. I figured some people would take the conventional wisdom play, because they would confuse coaches protecting themselves and looking out for their own best interests with the decision that gives you the best chance to win. But I can't believe how many people are getting it wrong.

Maybe this will help- don't think of being down 8 as being "down one score," because it's not. It's a 50% chance that you're down one score.

Consider a coin toss right after you get into the end zone. If it's heads, you get six points for the TD (and still need two scores), if it's tails, you get eight (and are within a TD and XP of tying the game). The coin's been flipped. It's lying on the ground. Do you want to see if it's heads or tails right now? Or do you want to wait to look at it until after you score again? And yeah, if you look at the coin, so does the coach of the team in the lead. So what? If it's heads he's gonna keep the ball on the ground to kill the clock and avoid turnovers, if it's tails he's gonna keep the ball on the ground to kill the clock and avoid turnovers.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Just checking in to see the votes.more or less....86 for 2pc268 for kickThis poll might be over.

Thanks Mike.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Ok I see what you're saying there, but taking in the whole situation of being down by 9 at the time; Going for 2 vs going for 1, which one gives you the higher probability of staying alive at that point in time?

Going for 2 will always reduce your probability of "staying alive". That's true whether you do it early or do it late. If you miss the 2pc early, you're screwed. If you miss it late, you're EVEN MORE SCREWED. If you miss it early, at least you have time to do something about it. If you miss it late, you don't have any time to do anything about it.Are you familiar with the game Yahtzee? In that game, it is to your benefit to play for a Yahtzee (or any other difficult category, such as your large straight) early in the match, because it gives you more opportunities to land one. If you've filled in every other category and you're on your last roll, and all you have left to go for is "Yahtzee", then you're in a difficult position. Sure, you might have "stayed alive" by filling in solid scores in the other categories, but the simple fact is that the only thing keeping you alive is a very low-percentage play. You might technically be alive, but you're you life support. Similarly, if you kick the XP, you might technically still be alive, but your odds of winning are on life support because you still need to convert that 2pc (a sub 50% proposition).There is no value in "staying alive". There is value in "winning". You don't get partial wins based on how long you were "in it". It doesn't matter whether you stayed alive for 53 minutes or for 59 minutes, if you don't win then you don't win. Period. If you make the 2pc, it doesn't matter when you made it... but if you miss the 2pc, it's better to miss it early so you can adjust your strategy accordingly.

I look at it this way though. Staying alive opens up for the chances of something happening in your favor. If your down by 9 and the other team is running out the clock, but by some fluke they fumble, you scoop it and score. Now your still down 2 if you kick the PAT. So depending on the time left, you still need to get the ball back and try again. If your down 8, you have the option of tieing it right there. If you miss, you're no worse off than the down 9 scenario but if you make it, you can't lose from them running the clock out.

If you're arguing that 1 >0 then it is true that 1 >0It seems you're assumimg that you will miss the two point conversion in the first scenario and make it in the second.if a fluke fumble happens, and in either scenario you miss or have missed the conversion, you are still down two either way."staying alive" in this scenario is meaningless