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

[Ministry of Pain]

Worked well for the Titans on MNF

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

+1

+2

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

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.

Probably with momentum/psychological arguments is that they invariably focus only on the worst-case outcome. What about if you make the first two-pointer and are only down 6, as with the Titans the other night? Wouldn't the chance of getting that psychological "boost" equal out the supposed letdown of being down 8?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

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.

It used to be that zero coaches ever did it. In fact, if you look at that older thread people initially thought the idea was laughable and any coach who did it should be fired on the spot. Of course you kick the XP.

First time I remember seeing it was when the Giants did it in a MNF game a few years ago and Booger McFarland's head exploded

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

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.

That call was beyond obvious. Rivera has to know that his odds of winning on the road in OT against a superior opponent are well below the odds of converting a 2PC

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

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.

Analytically, this one is a wash. What the decision ultimately comes down to is whether you are more confident in your offense scoring a 2PC or your defense stopping one.

If I'm the Eagles, I'd much rather put my faith in Hurts to convert. If I'm the Jets, I'm taking the ball out of Zach Wilson's hands and trusting my D

 

[CalBear]

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.

There's an even bigger difference in being down 6 vs. 7, which is why you should go for 2 on the first TD.

 

[CalBear]

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.

That call was beyond obvious. Rivera has to know that his odds of winning on the road in OT against a superior opponent are well below the odds of converting a 2PC

This came up in Cal-USC. We scored to go down by 1 with less than a minute left. We'd lost one of our best defensive players as well as our top two RBs to injury during the game. Felt like our chances in OT were way less than 50%.

We went for 2 and failed. Frickin' USC. But it was the right call.

 

[Deamon]

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.

If you're putting human psyche into it, being down 6 would boost a team significantly instead of being down 7. You basically have won the game with a Td and avoid ot (if you convert).

People will keep trying to spin this to not accept the math, but you should always go for 2 here.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What the analytics nerds fail to consider is what if your left tackle found out his wife was cheating on him the night before the game and all day he's been up in his feelings about it and the edge rusher on the other team found out about it on TMZ at halftime and has been chirping about it the whole second half and if you go for two your left tackle is too sad to block and your quarterback gets sacked because the edge rusher was making fun of your left tackle.

The numbers can't account for that, I kick the extra point there.

 

[Golden Gopher]

I think game script matters in these situations. If it's a high-scoring game in which both teams have moved the ball with relative ease, I think it makes a lot of sense. Conversely, in a low-scoring game where first downs, much less touchdowns, come at a premium? I'd say it's a pretty tough call to go for 2 in that situation.

Of course, I speak as a Vikings fan who just watched my team win 3-0 last week. At one point in the game, they had 10 punts and a missed FG. Hypothetically, let's say the Raiders had gone up 14-0 late in that game, then MIN scores with a few minutes left. I'd have a really hard time saying yes, let's go for 2 in that situation. Take the seven points, try to tie it up, and hope your momentum helps win it in OT.

Of course, the other thing that has changed in the last few years is that PAT's are no longer a gimme. Taking a almost guaranteed point (99% conversion rate) was a lot more attractive, when weighing it against a 50/50 2-pt conversion (roughly), than attempting an XP that is only a 90-94% sure thing like it is today.

Just my two cents.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

What the analytics nerds fail to consider is what if your left tackle found out his wife was cheating on him the night before the game and all day he's been up in his feelings about it and the edge rusher on the other team found out about it on TMZ at halftime and has been chirping about it the whole second half and if you go for two your left tackle is too sad to block and your quarterback gets sacked because the edge rusher was making fun of your left tackle.

The numbers can't account for that, I kick the extra point there.

You (very humorously) highlight my biggest issue with the "Can't just follow the numbers" crowd. Yes, obviously you should consider individual factors in each situation. But it's not enough to simply say there are other factors. You need to show how they argue in favor of not following the analytically supported argument, and also show how their impact alters the equation enough to change the decision.

I think, far too often, when people cite "other factors", what they're really trying to do is come up with a rationalization for clinging to the conventional wisdom. As I mentioned, 10 years ago everyone simply knew that you always kick in that situation, so if you challenge that belief by showing that the math clearly recommends going for it, they search for reasons not to accept it

 

[Gally]

I think, far too often, when people cite "other factors", what they're really trying to do is come up with a rationalization for clinging to the conventional wisdom. As I mentioned, 10 years ago everyone simply knew that you always kick in that situation, so if you challenge that belief by showing that the math clearly recommends going for it, they search for reasons not to accept it

I think this is where the coach should really earn their money. The coach should be taking into account these "other factors" to make the decision to follow the math or not. As I pointed out earlier, the math is also based on average outcomes. It is not based on this specific team vs that specific team. That will sway the math some one way or the other. Good coaches will not always do the same thing. They should have enough knowledge of their team and opponent with regards to strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, current health on both sides, game flow, what worked so far (and what didn't), etc, etc, etc. All this factors into the decision and won't always lead to the same conclusion.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I think, far too often, when people cite "other factors", what they're really trying to do is come up with a rationalization for clinging to the conventional wisdom. As I mentioned, 10 years ago everyone simply knew that you always kick in that situation, so if you challenge that belief by showing that the math clearly recommends going for it, they search for reasons not to accept it

I think this is where the coach should really earn their money. The coach should be taking into account these "other factors" to make the decision to follow the math or not. As I pointed out earlier, the math is also based on average outcomes. It is not based on this specific team vs that specific team. That will sway the math some one way or the other. Good coaches will not always do the same thing. They should have enough knowledge of their team and opponent with regards to strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, current health on both sides, game flow, what worked so far (and what didn't), etc, etc, etc. All this factors into the decision and won't always lead to the same conclusion.

A couple thoughts:

1. Can we please once and for all dispense with the strawman argument that there are coaches or analysts who recommend blindly following the numbers on every occasion? That simply doesn't happen. Of course everyone recognizes that you have to consider other factors. (I'm reminded of the joke William Safire used to tell about his time in the Nixon White House. He would say, "Mr. President -- Do the popular thing! Take the easy way!" Then he would write a speech that said, "Some of my aides have suggested that I do the popular thing, that I should take the easy way. But I have rejected such counsel.")
2. At the same time, the numbers don't provide you with a simple, binary choice. There are 51/49 decisions, 60/40 ones, and 99/1s. And they all have margins of error. If the numbers say it's pretty close, you should probably assume it's within the margin of error, and you're going to put more emphasis on specific factors. But let's say it's a 99/1 decision. You have the ball on the 10 yard line with five seconds left and you're trailing by 2. It's hard to think of any factors that could sway you from the "analytical" call that you should kick the FG. In the scenario described in the OP, going for two is more like a 60/40 decision. So yes, there may be factors that would lead you to go against the analytics. But they would need to be pretty significant ones to erase that entire margin.
3. It's not enough to simply say that other factors exist. You need to show that those other factors cut against making the analytically minded decision. In the FG example I cited above, if your kicker just blew out his Achilles, that might well overwhelm the 99/1 odds that you should kick (unless you have Dare Ogunbawale on your team). But you shouldn't just say, "It's raining" or "I'm worried about momentum" and use that to justify a suboptimal decision.
4. Keep in mind that a big part of this debate stems from the fact that there are human biases that cut against people making the optimal decision. For years, analytics nerds were arguing to go for two in these situations, and yet coaches didn't do it a single time. I'm pretty sure that wasn't because, in every one of those cases, the coach knew the odds but considered additional factors that caused them to kick the XP

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Another thing is that people always say things like "well those numbers are the league averages, but each team will have their own numbers..." Which was of course discussed the first time around ten years ago, and while I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, the conclusion was basically that a team would have to believe they had a historically atrocious probability of converting a 2 point conversion for it to make sense to go away from that decision. When you look at the data, even the worst team in the league should mathematically be going for 2 in this spot (not to mention the additional variance argument made upthread that a bad team should be trying to boil the game down to a single play rather than extending it into OT).

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

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.

If you're putting human psyche into it, being down 6 would boost a team significantly instead of being down 7. You basically have won the game with a Td and avoid ot (if you convert).

People will keep trying to spin this to not accept the math, but you should always go for 2 here.

This sounds like the Titans against the Dolphins. After going for two, they knew that a TD and XP wins the game if it holds.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think game script matters in these situations. If it's a high-scoring game in which both teams have moved the ball with relative ease, I think it makes a lot of sense. Conversely, in a low-scoring game where first downs, much less touchdowns, come at a premium? I'd say it's a pretty tough call to go for 2 in that situation.

Of course, I speak as a Vikings fan who just watched my team win 3-0 last week. At one point in the game, they had 10 punts and a missed FG. Hypothetically, let's say the Raiders had gone up 14-0 late in that game, then MIN scores with a few minutes left. I'd have a really hard time saying yes, let's go for 2 in that situation. Take the seven points, try to tie it up, and hope your momentum helps win it in OT.

Of course, the other thing that has changed in the last few years is that PAT's are no longer a gimme. Taking a almost guaranteed point (99% conversion rate) was a lot more attractive, when weighing it against a 50/50 2-pt conversion (roughly), than attempting an XP that is only a 90-94% sure thing like it is today.

Just my two cents.

I think the odds of converting a two-point conversion are going to be better than scoring two more times in this scenario. Which is why coaches kick here. They aren't honestly expecting the second touchdown anyway so might as well avoid any questions. If you happen into that second touchdown you just talk about how proud you are that your guys never gave up no matter the end result. Now if you want to coach to win...

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Washington faced this scenario in yesterday's game, scoring to make it 28-20 with just under two minutes left (leave aside that they had first and goal on the 1 with 4:47 and somehow managed to waste three minutes trying to punch it in). Still, they had all three timeouts, so it was entirely conceivable they could get the ball back and engineer another scoring drive.

So what did Rivera do? Kick the XP. Which was blocked

 

[Spin]

Washington faced this scenario in yesterday's game, scoring to make it 28-20 with just under two minutes left (leave aside that they had first and goal on the 1 with 4:47 and somehow managed to waste three minutes trying to punch it in). Still, they had all three timeouts, so it was entirely conceivable they could get the ball back and engineer another scoring drive.

So what did Rivera do? Kick the XP. Which was blocked

Did the broadcasters mention about how they should go for 2 at all?

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Washington faced this scenario in yesterday's game, scoring to make it 28-20 with just under two minutes left (leave aside that they had first and goal on the 1 with 4:47 and somehow managed to waste three minutes trying to punch it in). Still, they had all three timeouts, so it was entirely conceivable they could get the ball back and engineer another scoring drive.

So what did Rivera do? Kick the XP. Which was blocked

WAS did not account for the fact they have the worst long snapper in the NFL. Guy couldn't hit water if it was raining.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Washington faced this scenario in yesterday's game, scoring to make it 28-20 with just under two minutes left (leave aside that they had first and goal on the 1 with 4:47 and somehow managed to waste three minutes trying to punch it in). Still, they had all three timeouts, so it was entirely conceivable they could get the ball back and engineer another scoring drive.

So what did Rivera do? Kick the XP. Which was blocked

Did the broadcasters mention about how they should go for 2 at all?

Didn't watch the game. I actually had no idea how that game had ended. All of the late-window games seemed like they were blowouts, so I turned off the TV and it was only later I realized that Washington had made it close.

In general, I'd be surprised if the announcers mentioned it. We've at least reached the stage where they understand it when it happens, but I haven't heard anyone proactively bring it up

 

[FairWarning]

Washington faced this scenario in yesterday's game, scoring to make it 28-20 with just under two minutes left (leave aside that they had first and goal on the 1 with 4:47 and somehow managed to waste three minutes trying to punch it in). Still, they had all three timeouts, so it was entirely conceivable they could get the ball back and engineer another scoring drive.

So what did Rivera do? Kick the XP. Which was blocked

Watched that. Can people stop referring Rivera as “Riverboat Ron”?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Washington faced this scenario in yesterday's game, scoring to make it 28-20 with just under two minutes left (leave aside that they had first and goal on the 1 with 4:47 and somehow managed to waste three minutes trying to punch it in). Still, they had all three timeouts, so it was entirely conceivable they could get the ball back and engineer another scoring drive.

So what did Rivera do? Kick the XP. Which was blocked

Watched that. Can people stop referring Rivera as “Riverboat Ron”?

Disagree. By this time next month, it will be newly appropriate, as he'll likely be working as a greeter on a riverboat

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Washington faced this scenario in yesterday's game, scoring to make it 28-20 with just under two minutes left (leave aside that they had first and goal on the 1 with 4:47 and somehow managed to waste three minutes trying to punch it in). Still, they had all three timeouts, so it was entirely conceivable they could get the ball back and engineer another scoring drive.

So what did Rivera do? Kick the XP. Which was blocked

Watched that. Can people stop referring Rivera as “Riverboat Ron”?

Disagree. By this time next month, it will be newly appropriate, as he'll likely be working as a greeter on a riverboat

I could totally see him as a greeter. Arms crossed welcoming patrons with a blank stare in his eyes. He's got a plush house in Pebble Beach on Monterey Peninsula CC. And $40M of Dan Snyder's money. He could probably buy a riverboat casino .