Down 14 with under 5 minutes and you score, do you go for 2? (1 Viewer)

[Spin]

My search-fu sucks, but I remember years ago there was a thread debating this exact scenario with multiple people on each sides of the fence.

https://footballscoop.com/news/coaches-always-go-two-14-late

This article is arguing for why coaches should go for two in this scenario and interestingly enough, the Titans found themselves in this exact situation. Vrabel chose to go for two, and they got it, giving them a chance to win instead of tie on their next possession.

For all the games I've watched, I can't remember it happening, as most coaches still tend to go for 1 here, but seeing it play out last night for the Titans, I'm firmly in the "go for two" camp.

(if someone with much better searching skills than me can link me to that post, feel free to lock this one and we can carry it on there).

 

[abrunn1133]

Doesn’t make sense to go for 2. Why not kick it, then if you are hellbent on going for 2, do it after you score again to take a 1 point lead?

I am a boomer, so WTF do I know about today’s game?

 

[Nugget]

Go for 2

 

[higgins]

+1

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I know some will argue with this but yes at 14, no at 15. Miss it at 14 and you can still tie, miss it at 15 and game over.

 

[elmanx]

I know some will argue with this but yes at 14, no at 15. Miss it at 14 and you can still tie, miss it at 15 and game over.

Well, it's not even really an argument at 15. If you miss the 2pt conversion after the second TD it's also game over. In fact, it's worse.

Would you rather miss that 2pt conversion with more time left in the game or less time left in the game?

 

[joeschmo]

Go for 2 is definitely the right play.

Assumptions (rounded for easier math):
XP make% = 100%
2P make% = 50%
OT Win % = 50%

If you go for 2 on the first TD, then here's how often you win or lose:

Make 2P, Make XP = 50% (50% x 100%) WIN
Miss 2P, Make 2P, Win OT = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%) WIN
Miss 2P, Make 2P, Lose OT = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%) LOSE
Miss 2P, Miss 2P = 25% (50% x 50%) LOSE

Total WIN % = 62.5%


If you kick the XPs, it's 50% WIN

Obviously, these assumptions aren't perfect, but in today's NFL, they're in the ballpark. And the particular situations of each individual game would impact those. But it's hard to imagine a matchup changing the numbers that would be greater than the 12.5% increase in Win %.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's a recent analytics play, starting maybe 3-4 years ago. Surprised this is the first time you've seen it, it's probably done at least half the time these days. Used to just be the analytics heavy coaches (McVay, etc). But now most do it, just the real old schoolers that don't. Jeff Fisher would for sure be kicking that extra point.

The basic premise is that getting one out of two 2pt attempts is roughly the same odds as making two extra points, but going the 2pt route you get the advantage that if the 2pt attempt you make is the first one, you don't have to attempt the second one.

 

[travdogg]

I go for 2 in that scenario, and I think that's the common opinion at this point.

Semi-related, the scenario that really gets me, is when a team is up by 1 and scores a TD late in the game, and they kick the XP to go up by 8. That's always seemed really dumb to me. If its under say, 5 minutes or so, I think that should always be a go for 2 situation. Worst case, you miss and are still up by 7. Best case, you've made it a 2-score game, and pretty much won. Too often I see teams just happy to accept an 8-point lead as if the other team is unlikely to get the 2 pt conversion.

Or when a team is up 4 and scores a TD to go up 11. Go for 2, make the other team need 2 TD's instead of a TD (2 pt) and a FG. There's almost no risk, and an extremely high reward.

 

[jon_mx]

Doesn’t make sense to go for 2. Why not kick it, then if you are hellbent on going for 2, do it after you score again to take a 1 point lead?

I am a boomer, so WTF do I know about today’s game?

Because you know what you need. Your best chance for success is know what you need. If you go for it thr second time you have a 50-50 chance to win or lose. If you go for it first you have a 50-25-25 chance to win-lose-tie.

 

[ZWK]

Previous thread: You're down by 14 with 7:00 minutes left in the game

 

[ZWK]

Yes, you go for two.

If you're down 14 late and then you score two TDs:

* if you kick extra points, then it all comes down to overtime
* if you kick after the first TD and go for 2 after the second TD, then it all comes down to that 2-point conversion
* if you go for 2 after the first TD, then if you make it you win and if you miss you get to call "best two out of three". That is a huge advantage.

 

[elmanx]

It's a recent analytics play, starting maybe 3-4 years ago.

I first heard about it at least 15 yrs ago. As joeschmo pointed out above, the math is pretty trivial. However, getting NFL head coaches to accept math is probably a lot harder than it ought to be.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

When the Commanders scored at the end of their game with the Eagles, I think they should have gone for two. Leave Jalen and company on the bench, and win it outright.

But if the situation had been reversed, I think the Eagles would have been fine kicking it. They're the superior team and I like their chances more in OT. That's a long way of saying I think the worse team has more upside by going for it, but the better team risks more. I think that's another factor to consider.

 

[ghostguy123]

What is the make % of extra points this year?
How much does weather play a factor?

Some teams have much better personnel for a 2 point try than others, some teams have crappy kickers.

Lot of factors to consider, but in general I think going for 2 is a good call in most cases.

 

[Mitchie]

think go for two if big underdog, if Miami in same position kick the xtra point and take chances in OT

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The answer now is the same as it was ten years ago. Go for 2.

 

[JohnnyU]

If said team is going nowhere in 2023, then why not? Might as well go for the win instead of the tie.

 

[IHEARTFF]

yes, you might as well.

what if its 2:53 left and you have a rookie qb and you're on the road trying to spoil a good team's win

 

[Monkian]

I know some will argue with this but yes at 14, no at 15. Miss it at 14 and you can still tie, miss it at 15 and game over.

Well, it's not even really an argument at 15. If you miss the 2pt conversion after the second TD it's also game over. In fact, it's worse.

Would you rather miss that 2pt conversion with more time left in the game or less time left in the game?

Less time. Yes, missing the 2-pt conversion with more time gives you more information, but I think what is overlooked is that it also gives the other team more information. And the more perfect the information, the more likely the EV of the game is to be realized. If you are the underdog (currently losing), you want to introduce as much variance as possible.

From a practical perspective, if you take the XP to go down by 8, the other team will likely treat it as a one score game, perhaps taking some chances (passing) to get a 1st down that, if incomplete, could save you time on the clock, or even get intercepted.

If you go for two and make it (now down 7), the other team will behave in the same manner.

But if you go for two and miss, the other team now knows it's a 2 score game, and can be less aggressive knowing they have 2 chances to burn clock (assuming no onside kick recovery).

I think the extra information, and therefore more optimized gameplay, helps the winning team more than the losing team.

 

[renesauz]

Mathematically, they should USUALLY go for two regardless of score. The conversion rate is a little over 50%, while the XP rate is like 97%

By the math, if you fail to convert the first time, you're still in a pretty good spot to convert on a second TD. MATHEMATICALLY, you'll score 14 or 15 MORE often going for 2 then if you simply try to kick both, with the upside that you'll get that 15 roughly 50% of the time, and 14 still about 75% of the time. It's playing to win, instead of playing not to lose.


Ironically, that same math points out why we should NOT consider a 16 point deficit a two score game (at least until the final few minutes). It's bad thinking because 75% of the time you WON'T score on BOTH two point tries, and by thinking you need two possessions (vs three) there are more mistakes in clock management. I realize at some point 3 more possessions can become unrealistic but play calling and time management is VERY different with 8 minutes on the clock needing three possessions vs two. At 4 minutes on the clock it doesn't matter.

 

[Gally]

What is the make % of extra points this year?
How much does weather play a factor?

Some teams have much better personnel for a 2 point try than others, some teams have crappy kickers.

Lot of factors to consider, but in general I think going for 2 is a good call in most cases.

I think this is where I get hung up on the decision. I agree that all things being equal that the math shows going for two is the "right answer". However, all things are not equal. I think that is where the coach needs to earn his money. How good is your team? How good is their team? Do you have a play you like vs the team you are playing against? How has the game gone thus far? Are you getting stuffed on short yardage plays? Are you easily getting them? Is your QB playing well, injured, etc? Is your O-line injured? Did you just lose your right tackle on the play that scored the TD so you have a back up in?

Just because math says it's the right thing to do doesn't always make it the right thing to do. Just like in black jack.....if you play 10,000 hands then always follow the rules because over time math will win out. But playing a single hand sometimes math will be wrong. In the case of football, you have more information to see if that particular "one hand" is closer to the mathematical optimal choice or does the current environment swing that choice to the "wrong" mathmetical decision? That is where the coach earns his money. It shouldn't be the same answer every time.

 

[Spin]

Previous thread: You're down by 14 with 7:00 minutes left in the game

Ah there it is, thanks!

 

[Spin]

It's a recent analytics play, starting maybe 3-4 years ago. Surprised this is the first time you've seen it, it's probably done at least half the time these days. Used to just be the analytics heavy coaches (McVay, etc). But now most do it, just the real old schoolers that don't. Jeff Fisher would for sure be kicking that extra point.

The basic premise is that getting one out of two 2pt attempts is roughly the same odds as making two extra points, but going the 2pt route you get the advantage that if the 2pt attempt you make is the first one, you don't have to attempt the second one.

Honestly, it may be due to my own viewing habits shrinking lately. I used to watch pretty much every game, lately as my kids get older and Ice Hockey stealing all my free time, it's just 49ers and Titans. Interesting to hear it's happening more and more.

 

[Spin]

What is the make % of extra points this year?
How much does weather play a factor?

Some teams have much better personnel for a 2 point try than others, some teams have crappy kickers.

Lot of factors to consider, but in general I think going for 2 is a good call in most cases.

I think this is where I get hung up on the decision. I agree that all things being equal that the math shows going for two is the "right answer". However, all things are not equal. I think that is where the coach needs to earn his money. How good is your team? How good is their team? Do you have a play you like vs the team you are playing against? How has the game gone thus far? Are you getting stuffed on short yardage plays? Are you easily getting them? Is your QB playing well, injured, etc? Is your O-line injured? Did you just lose your right tackle on the play that scored the TD so you have a back up in?

Just because math says it's the right thing to do doesn't always make it the right thing to do. Just like in black jack.....if you play 10,000 hands then always follow the rules because over time math will win out. But playing a single hand sometimes math will be wrong. In the case of football, you have more information to see if that particular "one hand" is closer to the mathematical optimal choice or does the current environment swing that choice to the "wrong" mathmetical decision? That is where the coach earns his money. It shouldn't be the same answer every time.

This is a good point. Looking at league averages is completely different than looking at individual team's averages. But I'd guess that most teams don't have enough data points in general, which is why I think it's crazy more teams don't go for 2 every time during the preseason.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

What is the make % of extra points this year?
How much does weather play a factor?

Some teams have much better personnel for a 2 point try than others, some teams have crappy kickers.

Lot of factors to consider, but in general I think going for 2 is a good call in most cases.

I think this is where I get hung up on the decision. I agree that all things being equal that the math shows going for two is the "right answer". However, all things are not equal. I think that is where the coach needs to earn his money. How good is your team? How good is their team? Do you have a play you like vs the team you are playing against? How has the game gone thus far? Are you getting stuffed on short yardage plays? Are you easily getting them? Is your QB playing well, injured, etc? Is your O-line injured? Did you just lose your right tackle on the play that scored the TD so you have a back up in?

Just because math says it's the right thing to do doesn't always make it the right thing to do. Just like in black jack.....if you play 10,000 hands then always follow the rules because over time math will win out. But playing a single hand sometimes math will be wrong. In the case of football, you have more information to see if that particular "one hand" is closer to the mathematical optimal choice or does the current environment swing that choice to the "wrong" mathmetical decision? That is where the coach earns his money. It shouldn't be the same answer every time.

That's true, but I think given the way most teams are set up right now it usually makes more sense for the "non-math" reasons to point to going for two even more often.

Most of the good teams in the NFL right now have great offenses. So typically the team playing from behind will most likely be one of the following

1) The underdog
2) A team whose offense is better than their defense

If you're the underdog, it is pretty well known that the fewer significant plays you can reduce the game to, the better your chances are. You'd rather have the game come down to one play than an entire additional quarter.

But of the teams that are not the underdog right now, most of them are built around their offense. So most of them would rather have their offense on the field trying to complete the game winning play, rather than flip in a coin in overtime in a scenario where their offense may never get to see the field again.

Obviously this doesn't cover all cases, but it seems to very often come down to these two things.

 

[Gally]

If you're the underdog, it is pretty well known that the fewer significant plays you can reduce the game to, the better your chances are. You'd rather have the game come down to one play than an entire additional quarter.

I totally agree with this. I don't understand why any lesser team chooses to tie the game on a late XPT rather than go for two. There is a much better chance of winning that one play than an OT situation.

 

[Rubi]

If you strictly follow the analytics you go for 2.
If you want to give yourself the option of going to overtime or winning the game IF you score another TD you go for 1.
Your choice coach.
I'm kicking the point.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If you want to give yourself the option of going to overtime or winning the game IF you score another TD you go for 1.

You still have that option if you go for 2.

 

[Rubi]

If you want to give yourself the option of going to overtime or winning the game IF you score another TD you go for 1.

You still have that option if you go for 2.

If you go for 2 and fail then you have to go for 2 if you score again. Kick the point and you have 2 options after the second td

 

[Spin]

If you want to give yourself the option of going to overtime or winning the game IF you score another TD you go for 1.

You still have that option if you go for 2.

If you go for 2 and fail then you have to go for 2 if you score again. Kick the point and you have 2 options after the second td

Assuming you're going to score, hold the other team, and score again, if you go for two and fail, then you at least know you have to go for two the second time. If you go for one first, then fail when you go for two on the second chance, you're now losing without having a second chance. I think knowing the outcome of the two point attempt is super valuable, and isn't near as risky as going for one first, and then two.

 

[Bri]

Non analytics answer is momentum and anything of the mental part of the game.

Down 14 with five minutes left is significant.
Scoring one TD may be good n all but maybe the team could use some motivation that they can do it again

 

[Insein]

The old thread was also before they pushed the PAT back (at least when it started) so PATs were almost automatic. It made it a bit tougher to decide between guaranteed 1 vs 2. Now the 2 is about the same probability as the PAT.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If you want to give yourself the option of going to overtime or winning the game IF you score another TD you go for 1.

You still have that option if you go for 2.

If you go for 2 and fail then you have to go for 2 if you score again. Kick the point and you have 2 options after the second td

If you go for 1 and fail then you have to go for 2 if you score again. Make the conversion and you have 2 options after the second TD.

 

[Rubi]

If you want to give yourself the option of going to overtime or winning the game IF you score another TD you go for 1.

You still have that option if you go for 2.

If you go for 2 and fail then you have to go for 2 if you score again. Kick the point and you have 2 options after the second td

If you go for 1 and fail then you have to go for 2 if you score again. Make the conversion and you have 2 options after the second TD.

According to NFL official statistics
2 point conversion rate of success...49.4
1 point conversion rate of success...94.1
You are more likely to fail on the 2 point than the 1 point
Take the point,you have double the chance of having 2 options after the second alleged td

 

[Leroy Hoard]

According to NFL official statistics
2 point conversion rate of success...49.4
1 point conversion rate of success...94.1

If this is the case going for 2 is an even better play. 2 x 49.4 = 98.8, vs 1 x 94.1. Forget the specific question of the thread, just go for 2 all the time.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If you want to give yourself the option of going to overtime or winning the game IF you score another TD you go for 1.

You still have that option if you go for 2.

If you go for 2 and fail then you have to go for 2 if you score again. Kick the point and you have 2 options after the second td

If you go for 1 and fail then you have to go for 2 if you score again. Make the conversion and you have 2 options after the second TD.

According to NFL official statistics
2 point conversion rate of success...49.4
1 point conversion rate of success...94.1
You are more likely to fail on the 2 point than the 1 point
Take the point,you have double the chance of having 2 options after the second alleged td

Well now you're doing analytics, and we've already agreed that they say you should go for 2. (Go ahead and do the math if you need to.)

If you strictly follow the analytics you go for 2.

We're waiting for the alleged non-analytical justification for kicking the PAT first.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why does any team ever kick a PAT before the 4th quarter?
Hmmm

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Why does any team ever kick a PAT before the 4th quarter?
Hmmm

Probably the same reason teams still punt in lots of situations they shouldn't, etc. Because that's the way it's always been done. And coaches sense (perhaps correctly) that they're less likely to get fired if they do what's always been done and it doesn't work, than if they try something new and it doesn't work.

 

[Zow]

According to NFL official statistics
2 point conversion rate of success...49.4
1 point conversion rate of success...94.1

If this is the case going for 2 is an even better play. 2 x 49.4 = 98.8, vs 1 x 94.1. Forget the specific question of the thread, just go for 2 all the time.

Didn’t tomlin try this one yet? I remember thinking it was smart, but he got blasted when it arguably cost them a game or something.

 

[ghostguy123]

All sorts of things can cloud your judgement when wondering if teams are making the right call or not, so I try to think of it like this.
If I was rooting for team X, what would I want team Y to do?
If I HOPE team Y does a certain thing, then the opposite must be the right call (such as going for it on 4th, going for 2.....)

 

[elmanx]

It's a recent analytics play, starting maybe 3-4 years ago.

I first heard about it at least 15 yrs ago. As joeschmo pointed out above, the math is pretty trivial. However, getting NFL head coaches to accept math is probably a lot harder than it ought to be.

I know some will argue with this but yes at 14, no at 15. Miss it at 14 and you can still tie, miss it at 15 and game over.

Well, it's not even really an argument at 15. If you miss the 2pt conversion after the second TD it's also game over. In fact, it's worse.

Would you rather miss that 2pt conversion with more time left in the game or less time left in the game?

Less time. Yes, missing the 2-pt conversion with more time gives you more information, but I think what is overlooked is that it also gives the other team more information. And the more perfect the information, the more likely the EV of the game is to be realized. If you are the underdog (currently losing), you want to introduce as much variance as possible.

From a practical perspective, if you take the XP to go down by 8, the other team will likely treat it as a one score game, perhaps taking some chances (passing) to get a 1st down that, if incomplete, could save you time on the clock, or even get intercepted.

If you go for two and make it (now down 7), the other team will behave in the same manner.

But if you go for two and miss, the other team now knows it's a 2 score game, and can be less aggressive knowing they have 2 chances to burn clock (assuming no onside kick recovery).

I think the extra information, and therefore more optimized gameplay, helps the winning team more than the losing team.

I'm not really following this at all. In general, I prefer the opponent to be less aggressive. That's good for us.

 

[elmanx]

What is the make % of extra points this year?
How much does weather play a factor?

Some teams have much better personnel for a 2 point try than others, some teams have crappy kickers.

Lot of factors to consider, but in general I think going for 2 is a good call in most cases.

I think this is where I get hung up on the decision. I agree that all things being equal that the math shows going for two is the "right answer". However, all things are not equal. I think that is where the coach needs to earn his money. How good is your team? How good is their team? Do you have a play you like vs the team you are playing against? How has the game gone thus far? Are you getting stuffed on short yardage plays? Are you easily getting them? Is your QB playing well, injured, etc? Is your O-line injured? Did you just lose your right tackle on the play that scored the TD so you have a back up in?

Just because math says it's the right thing to do doesn't always make it the right thing to do. Just like in black jack.....if you play 10,000 hands then always follow the rules because over time math will win out. But playing a single hand sometimes math will be wrong. In the case of football, you have more information to see if that particular "one hand" is closer to the mathematical optimal choice or does the current environment swing that choice to the "wrong" mathmetical decision? That is where the coach earns his money. It shouldn't be the same answer every time.

This all sounds fine until you start trying to quantify things and put numbers to it. OK, if one kicker is a Justin Tucker and the other is some scrub, what percentage chance difference is there in their PAT conversions (it's very low single digits). ON the other hand if it's Justin Tucker vs Dare Ogubowale, that's a huge difference. But most of the time we're not dealing with that type of kicker disparity.

There is more difference in 2pt conversions, but the issue is the same. So, coach thinks we're less likely to convert? How much less likely exactly? Or even approximately? Once you have that number, then you do the math with that. The problem is that if you talk to these coaches who do dumb stuff, they either come up with ridiculous probability estimates that make no sense based on what is known about football or their estimates are fine, but when you run the numbers with their estimate, the decision is not what they chose.

 

[Rubi]

According to NFL official statistics
2 point conversion rate of success...49.4
1 point conversion rate of success...94.1

If this is the case going for 2 is an even better play. 2 x 49.4 = 98.8, vs 1 x 94.1. Forget the specific question of the thread, just go for 2 all the time

 

[Rubi]

Using your math going for 1 is the best play
2 x 94.1=188.2

 

[Deamon]

It's a recent analytics play, starting maybe 3-4 years ago. Surprised this is the first time you've seen it, it's probably done at least half the time these days. Used to just be the analytics heavy coaches (McVay, etc). But now most do it, just the real old schoolers that don't. Jeff Fisher would for sure be kicking that extra point.

The basic premise is that getting one out of two 2pt attempts is roughly the same odds as making two extra points, but going the 2pt route you get the advantage that if the 2pt attempt you make is the first one, you don't have to attempt the second one.

I don't think anywhere near half the coaches will go for 2 when they're down 8 (after the td).

I 100% believe in the analytics of going for 2. Too many people are scared.

 

[Deamon]

According to NFL official statistics
2 point conversion rate of success...49.4
1 point conversion rate of success...94.1
You are more likely to fail on the 2 point than the 1 point
Take the point,you have double the chance of having 2 options after the second alleged td

Using your math going for 1 is the best play
2 x 94.1=188.2

No offense meant, but you're really failing to grasp the math here.

 

[rockaction]

I know some will argue with this but yes at 14, no at 15. Miss it at 14 and you can still tie, miss it at 15 and game over.

Because that's when game theory comes in. It actually isn't good to have perfect information known by everyone all the time if you're behind. You want to be behind by eight much more than down nine with the chance of missing because then—if you miss—the offense knows they're up by nine and they just let the air out of the ball as opposed to maybe throwing in a one-score game.

But down fourteen, almost always go for two given that all other things are constant with league averages.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

According to NFL official statistics
2 point conversion rate of success...49.4
1 point conversion rate of success...94.1
You are more likely to fail on the 2 point than the 1 point
Take the point,you have double the chance of having 2 options after the second alleged td

Using your math going for 1 is the best play
2 x 94.1=188.2

No offense meant, but you're really failing to grasp the math here.

I really hope he's just trolling because this is grade school stuff.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Sometimes numbers don't cover it all. Yes statistically speaking you should go for 2. However, there is a human psyche element that numbers don't take into account. Mentally there is a big difference in being down 8 vs 7. Down 7 feels like 1 score. Down 8 feels like you need 2 scoring plays (TD + conversion). I take the 1 and feel like we are still in it then decide on the 2 if the time comes. If you go for 2 and miss, I think the air comes out of the team.

And coaches are scared to go for it for a reason .... there are only so many plays you can run from the 2. Gruden has talked about this at length. The other team is only covering 12 yards of ground. It is very congested. It's hard to do a standard run in that situation. So other teams know you are doing some kind of QB rollout, TE leak, WR to the cone, or QB/RB draw.