Going For Two When Down By 14 (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Pasquino]

Ok,

I think I got to most of everyone's comments and replied, but since this is "Page 2" I'll summarize my thoughts:

1. I realize this is not conventional.

2. I also realize that the case here is mathematical.

3. Sometimes you do have to go with your gut.

4. Even though I have a math background, I realize that you have to balance 2 and 3. Believe me, I'm not purely in either camp at all, but when I see evidence on either side I have to take a look at both sides to make up my mind.

5. Hopefully the math wasn't too complicated for everybody, but it does seem to say that you win more often than you lose if you have >40% success on your 2-Pt tries if you go for 2 after the TD.

6. Yes, I simplified it a bit to make it easier to follow - only 2 TDs from your team will be scored and the other team isn't going to score. However, sometimes you have to make that assumption in real games (such as you just scored with 2-3 minutes left and there's only time for one more possession if you're lucky) so it is a real scenario.

7. Yes, 43% success is an average, and yes, your 2nd play for 2pts could be worse than your first (and likely is). However, if you agree that you need to have more depth in your playbook for 2pts based on the knowledge here (and that you could be calling more 2-pt plays from here on out) then teams will adapt.

 

[3nOut]

If you've just driven 80 yards and picked up 5 yards a carry, including a red zone touchdown, why not punish that weakened defense and get two points? Again, ultimately the goal is to win the game, and just like in college overtime you want to know what you need to do on your next (and possibly final) possession to win or at worst tie he game.

I think thats a fine argument for making it a better decision to go for 2 (capping a long, grinding drive), but that's exactly what Im talking about - you only know whether it is the right call in the context of the game. You are trying to make a general rule that is ALWAYS correct (go for 2 down for 14 on the first TD), and I just don't think football can be boiled down to rules that are that simple. You know what you need to do on the final possession with just as much clarity if you take the XP as you do if you make or miss the 2 pt, I dont find that argument compelling as a reason to go for two.

The last comment is the one that I am starting to question.Are you trying to play to win or play to tie?

You know that if you made the 2-point play you can now win in regulation and you haven't eliminated your ability to send the game to overtime - just hurt your odds of forcing that tie in the first place.

Even if you say that the XPs are locks (100%), you only have a 50% chance of winning the game in overtime.

If you are playing for the win, the 2-point play after the first score - statistically - gives you a decided leg up on winning the game.

Your statement was:

you want to know what you need to do on your next (and possibly final) possession to win or at worst tie he game.

If you take the XP, you know that you need to get a TD+2 to win, and a TD+1 to tie. I dont see how going for 2 helps you "know what you need to do" any more than goes for 1 does.

This is why you need to go for 2 the first time - if you miss it, you have the opportunity to tie the game after then 2nd TD with a 2-PT conversion and take your chances in OT. If you settle for the XP after the first TD, you miss the chance to win (~42% of the time). Yes 57+% of the time you'll be down by 8, but you took the chance of greatly increasing your odds of winning.

If you do as you state (kick XP first, then decide to go for 2 if you want to win then) the odds are now against you (43% vs 57%), so then the numbers say don't do it. That's the difference. You gave up on the possibility of getting the 2-PTer to tie, which is a realistic scenario even if it is only your second best play for it.

The difference lies in the opportunity of winning at a higher rate if you go for 2 after the first TD.

Just as I was beginning to understand your math, your logic confuses me once again. You said yourself in the beginning that the idea is to WIN. All you need is 15 points, not 16, thats why you kick the second time around, correct? If so, then it's irrelevant whch order you get the 15 points. 7+8 = 8+ 7. If you go for two the first time, odds are you are going to miss. The second time you HAVE to try for two again. But i don't understand why you think your odds are higher than 42% this time around. This is an independent event, irrelevant of the outcome of the first try. The only difference this time around is that now you need the points and your 42% chance is for TYING the game not winning. But the odds of you scoring THIS time is still only 42%. Second, wouldn't the cumulative odds of getting TWO two-point conversions in a row be lower than 43%? Wouldn't it be 43% x 43% = 18.49%? Sorry I wasn't very good at Math.

Also, you are assuming that the 42% success rate is the same for all teams. Maybe some teams have a higher success rate. Maybe 85%. Maybe YOUR team is successful only 10% of the time. WOuld you still propose going for 2?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

If you've just driven 80 yards and picked up 5 yards a carry, including a red zone touchdown, why not punish that weakened defense and get two points? Again, ultimately the goal is to win the game, and just like in college overtime you want to know what you need to do on your next (and possibly final) possession to win or at worst tie he game.

I think thats a fine argument for making it a better decision to go for 2 (capping a long, grinding drive), but that's exactly what Im talking about - you only know whether it is the right call in the context of the game. You are trying to make a general rule that is ALWAYS correct (go for 2 down for 14 on the first TD), and I just don't think football can be boiled down to rules that are that simple. You know what you need to do on the final possession with just as much clarity if you take the XP as you do if you make or miss the 2 pt, I dont find that argument compelling as a reason to go for two.

The last comment is the one that I am starting to question.Are you trying to play to win or play to tie?

You know that if you made the 2-point play you can now win in regulation and you haven't eliminated your ability to send the game to overtime - just hurt your odds of forcing that tie in the first place.

Even if you say that the XPs are locks (100%), you only have a 50% chance of winning the game in overtime.

If you are playing for the win, the 2-point play after the first score - statistically - gives you a decided leg up on winning the game.

Your statement was:

you want to know what you need to do on your next (and possibly final) possession to win or at worst tie he game.

If you take the XP, you know that you need to get a TD+2 to win, and a TD+1 to tie. I dont see how going for 2 helps you "know what you need to do" any more than goes for 1 does.

This is why you need to go for 2 the first time - if you miss it, you have the opportunity to tie the game after then 2nd TD with a 2-PT conversion and take your chances in OT. If you settle for the XP after the first TD, you miss the chance to win (~42% of the time). Yes 57+% of the time you'll be down by 8, but you took the chance of greatly increasing your odds of winning.

If you do as you state (kick XP first, then decide to go for 2 if you want to win then) the odds are now against you (43% vs 57%), so then the numbers say don't do it. That's the difference. You gave up on the possibility of getting the 2-PTer to tie, which is a realistic scenario even if it is only your second best play for it.

The difference lies in the opportunity of winning at a higher rate if you go for 2 after the first TD.

Several questions here, so I'll walk through....

Just as I was beginning to understand your math, your logic confuses me once again. You said yourself in the beginning that the idea is to WIN. All you need is 15 points, not 16, thats why you kick the second time around, correct? If so, then it's irrelevant which order you get the 15 points. 7+8 = 8+ 7.

Incorrect.If you go for two the first time, you can get 6 or 8. Then you know you need 8 to tie (if you missed) or 7 to win (if you made it).

If you kick the first time, you're locked at 7. Now you must kick again to tie or go for two, which is a win or a loss proposition - nothing inbetween. The right play from a math standpoint is to kick, as we've assumed OT is 50/50 to win or lose. Going for two would be a loss 57% of the time, so that's a bad play.

So what I'm advocating is going for two the first time around, as you'll win about 55% of the time and lose about 45%. That's the unconventional part of this whole thing.

If you go for two the first time, odds are you are going to miss. The second time you HAVE to try for two again. But i don't understand why you think your odds are higher than 42% this time around. This is an independent event, irrelevant of the outcome of the first try. The only difference this time around is that now you need the points and your 42% chance is for TYING the game not winning. But the odds of you scoring THIS time is still only 42%.

I agree with all of this.

Also, you are assuming that the 42% success rate is the same for all teams. Maybe some teams have a higher success rate. Maybe 85%. Maybe YOUR team is successful only 10% of the time. WOuld you still propose going for 2?

I believe I mentioned this earlier, but it is "breakeven" at about a 39% success rate. So if your team is 40+% successful on 2PTs, you will win more than you lose over time if you go for two after the first touchdown.

 

[3nOut]

Jeff, I addeddthis to my post while you were responding:

Second, wouldn't the cumulative odds of getting TWO two-point conversions in a row be lower than 43%? Wouldn't it be 43% x 43% = 18.49%? Sorry I wasn't very good at Math.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I apologize in advance that I have not done the math YET to verify what you are saying is right, but one factor that is very important is WHEN you take the lead. My take is having the lead at the end of the 2nd score is the key. In other words how much time is left on the clock when you take a lead? If you take the lead with 1 minute left in the game going for 2 is stupid when an extra point ties the game. The reason is that you are giving the other team 4 downs to only get a game winning FG.

Going for 2 is an option at the end of the game with NO time left on the clock because then it is a win or a loss. Although, the numbers would say that if you are not successful more than 50% of the time (assuming making the XP), then you should go into OT. Of course if the defenses are getting torched you might feel a greater than 50% chance. But under no circumstance should you go for 2 with time left on the clock (depending on timeouts).

LT,I wouldn't recommend going for 2 when down by 1 with 1 minute remaining. That's not the scenario here at all.

In this scenario, you're either down by 8 or 6 after the first TD (and you went for 2). Then you are tied or down by 2 after the second 6-pt TD, so you either kick the XP for the lead or go for 2 again to tie.

No, my wording was poor as I was hurried...What I am saying is if you are down by 7 and you score a TD late in the game, it is a terrible decision to go for the win (go for 2) if there is time on the clock because of what I wrote above.Assuming from what you wrote above you agree with that (and I think you have to), then this throws out the thoughts of Bloom who originally said you should go for 2 the 2nd time...

Therefore, the only question is whether you go for 2 when down by 14 and you score a TD. The problem with this is that you have NO idea whether the chance you are taking will work because of the risk of going for 2, (which is clearly a risk until making the 2 point conversion is over 50%) because you have no idea if more scoring will happen (how much time is left)

Going back to your original math, the flaw is that you are assuming 15 wins the game for you and that is not correct. It all depends on when your last TD is scored. If you take the lead with 1 minute to go, then the other team has an excellent chance of kicking a FG having 4 downs to get into FG range. I think this blows up your math as your math is "assuming" you score on the last play of the game.

A different scenario is important to me, if you are down by 14 and you score a TD with 1 minute to go in the game and you know you will need to try an onside kick, THEN does it make sense to go for 2 the first time? This is more important to me as the time factor will most likely not leave the other team more than 1 play to score.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I apologize in advance that I have not done the math YET to verify what you are saying is right, but one factor that is very important is WHEN you take the lead. My take is having the lead at the end of the 2nd score is the key. In other words how much time is left on the clock when you take a lead? If you take the lead with 1 minute left in the game going for 2 is stupid when an extra point ties the game. The reason is that you are giving the other team 4 downs to only get a game winning FG.

Going for 2 is an option at the end of the game with NO time left on the clock because then it is a win or a loss. Although, the numbers would say that if you are not successful more than 50% of the time (assuming making the XP), then you should go into OT. Of course if the defenses are getting torched you might feel a greater than 50% chance. But under no circumstance should you go for 2 with time left on the clock (depending on timeouts).

LT,I wouldn't recommend going for 2 when down by 1 with 1 minute remaining. That's not the scenario here at all.

In this scenario, you're either down by 8 or 6 after the first TD (and you went for 2). Then you are tied or down by 2 after the second 6-pt TD, so you either kick the XP for the lead or go for 2 again to tie.

No, my wording was poor as I was hurried...What I am saying is if you are down by 7 and you score a TD late in the game, it is a terrible decision to go for the win (go for 2) if there is time on the clock because of what I wrote above.Assuming from what you wrote above you agree with that (and I think you have to), then this throws out the thoughts of Bloom who originally said you should go for 2 the 2nd time...

Therefore, the only question is whether you go for 2 when down by 14 and you score a TD. The problem with this is that you have NO idea whether the chance you are taking will work because of the risk of going for 2, (which is clearly a risk until making the 2 point conversion is over 50%) because you have no idea if more scoring will happen (how much time is left)

Now let's take a different scenario, you score a TD with 1 minute to go in the game and you know you will need to try an onside kick, THEN does it make sense to go for 2 the first time? This is more important to me as the time factor of other scoring is not calculated in your hypothesis.

Not to hijack, but one of the items that has always bothered me was the scenario where you are down by 15 with oh let's say 4-10 minutes to go. I have always argued that you should go for 2 the first TD you score, not just from the stat side, but I want to know whether I made that 2 pointer so that I have the opportunity to onside kick knowing that I will need 2 more scores. However, every single time this scenario comes up, teams play for the kick the 1st time (I have seen over 15 situations since I was tracking (I am sure I missed some). The point is I want to know how I should play the rest of the game (desperate or not)BTW, you should not be apologetic for being unconventional, I am not so sure if NE shouldn't be going for 2 every single time because when you are scoring like they are, convention IS going for 2.

Good topic.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I'm too lazy to read the entire thread. But basically, your "analysis" says that going for 2-pts after TD #1 = 42.57% chance of winning the game in regulation + 24.51% * 1/2 odds of winning in overtime = 54.82% overall chance of winning.

[note that I'm assuming a 50-50 shot at winning in overtime]

Using similar logic, by kick 2 XPs you have ~98% chance of reaching OT. 98% * 1/2 = 49% chance of winning.

So again, using your assumptions you gain a 5-6% increase in odds of winning the game overall. [which frankly is the only thing coaches should care about]

That said, your assumptions have a huge impact on this analysis. It doesn't take much of a shift....in odds of 2-pt conversion success...to make it a bad decision to go for 2.

I agree with you, but having a better chance of winning is having a better chance of winning, is it not?Again, I'm flying in the face of convention, I realize this. But if the numbers are screaming that you should consider it, I believe that you should consider it.

BTW, the numbers are just the NFL average. If you are a proficient team at 2-PT plays (as one would really have to assume if you practice this more than most teams) then the odds should also go up.

Totally agree, basically I had to do the math and "prove it to myself" that the results held up. Curse of being a math guy LT brings up great points though - there is a related question which basically breaks down as "how do my actions - going for 1 or 2 - impact my opponent's actions". His point is rather difficult to assess...

This is a great thread!

 

[DropKick]

Probability is probability and nothing is assured, but when the overall odds say you win nearly 60% of the time if you go for 2 after the first score and you succeed the first time, you cannot ignore it so easily.

edited to add bolded part.

So the sum of the scenarios:

24.51% chance you tied the game.

32.49% chance you trail by two.

42.57% chance you are ahead by one.

Where do you get 60%? And I thought your objective was to win, not NOT to lose or tie. According to your own statistics, if you add the first two scenarios together, you get a 57% chance (more than half) that you DON'T WIN (you either tie or lose by 2), and only 43% chance that you win. Also, there's only a 25% chance that you tie thegame and go into overtime, when you can have a 99% chance for a tie just by kicking.

As for the 42.57%, you win 42.57% of the time PRIOR TO over time. You didn't calculate the 50% of the time where you win when the score is tied and you head to OT. So the true winning percentage by that math is 42.57% + half of 32.49%, or 58.815%, vs. a 41.185% losing percentage.

This is where the "nearly 60%" comes from.50% of 32.49% (50% chance of winning if tied - heading to OT) plus the 42.57% (odds you are up by 1).

ETA: Whoops. OK - there's the error. It isn't 50% of 32.49%, it is 50% of 24.51%.

The correct answer is 42.57% + 12.505% = 55=%. So you win 10% more often (55% vs. 45%).

Sorry for the confusion.

For starters, my thinking is more in line with Bloom's that the context of the game is more relevant than simple percentages.Also, I think it is a great question. Why not put conventional thinking to the test?

Even with a slight mathematical advantage, history shows us that few (if any) NFL coach thinks this way. Reasons for that? In general, they tend to more conservative. Why? It's a short season for one - 16 games. Unlike other sports, EVERY game is potentially season altering. In the play-offs.. it's one and done - even more risk. The second guessing and potential criticism, especially for a less "proven" coach, would be tremendous.

How often are teams in that position? Are there enough occurences for the odds to play out? We know a coin flip is 50/50, but you could easily get several "heads" in a row. You fail in these football situations 2 or 3 times in a row and there are likely consequences. You may not get the chance to see the odds come back in your favor.

Also, I think many coaches would question the 43% rate. Maybe their teams have only converted at 38%... The point is it doesn't take a big shift in the success rate to change the outcome of your analysis.

ETA: I wonder what the success rate of extra points really is? Is it 99% or a little less? Seems to me to occur a little more frequently than 1% of the time....

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Good analysis. I think other intangibles go into the discussion, though. If the defense is playing well later in the game, it would make sense to "play for the tie" because you have a great chance of winning on a turnover of stopping their offense for an OT score. Things like momentum, weather and injuries can make a difference. Going for the guaranteed(?) point would often make sense in the course of the game.

That doesn't count the psychology of missing a conversion, either. The high of a TD would be dampened by missing the two-pointer, and give the other team a boost they don't need.

 

[jabarony]

I think one could argue that if the head coach feels his OL is dominating the DL, he might as well press that advantage by going for 2 every time. In that scenario the conversion rate might be higher than ~43% though.

One other thing that may bump the 43% number down a bit, and thus lower the OPs final #'s, is that you don't know the scenario of all the 2pointers ever ran. If a team is up by 30, they may not really care about defending the 2 pt play, or there may be backups in etc. that could artificially inflate the #. It's probably not much, but it could reduce to ~41% (total guess).

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Jeff, I addeddthis to my post while you were responding:Second, wouldn't the cumulative odds of getting TWO two-point conversions in a row be lower than 43%? Wouldn't it be 43% x 43% = 18.49%? Sorry I wasn't very good at Math.

Yes it would, but I'm not advocating going for a 2nd 2PT conversion if you are successful on the first one.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I'll even go another step, and say a team should ALWAYS go for two points - at ANY point of the game.

I think breaking it down to pure numbers doesn't account for the reality that NFL teams generally have two different offensive philosophies at work, regardless of their individual offensive system - A) Building a lead

B) Defending a lead

Your offensive philosophy changes because your opponent also changes as well. If you build a lead in the first half, in the second half, the other team will probably throw the ball a little more. Nothing happens in a vacuum. I would say the basic NFL offensive does not go from aggressive to conservative, I think it goes from

A) Conservative ( to get the lead)

Then it splits to either -

B) Ultra Conservative (to maintain the lead)

or

C) Desperation (to get any points you can because the other team has the lead and time is running out)

To go simply by the math negates factoring in what your opponent is doing in reaction to your lead. Going for two all the time might be the best option for the most POINTS, but is it the best counter against sheer DESPERATION that is growing and growing on the other sideline as time runs out?

I also think you aren't considering the raw 43 percent success rate. That's out of the total number of 2 point attempts AS OF RIGHT NOW. If you increase the number of attempts, there is nothing given in evidence that the success rate will REMAIN at 43 percent. I'd wager it will go down. Look at the number of 4th down conversions in the NFL. Are those numbers really fair as true data to determine what would really happen if all teams went for it on 4th down all the time? I don't think it would be good evidence. Teams who go for it on 4th down are either DESPERATE or it's a HIGH PERCENTAGE MOVE for the offense given the situation. I would wager 2 point conversions are the same way, it's about DESPERATION or it's a HIGH PERCENTAGE MOVE given the circumstances.

Across the board, if you made more 2 point attempts, I fully believe the number of successful attempts would go down dramatically. There are just way more variables in play for a 2 point conversion (Offensive line blocking, timing between QB and WR, defensive packages presented, penalties, etc, etc) than kicking a PAT (you need a good snap, a good hold and the boot is almost a gimme at that range for an NFL grade kicker) Once those numbers drop, your percentages argument would probably begin to buckle. Once the math buckles, using a baseball example here, getting the sure out at first base (taking the PAT) is going to make more sense than trying to get a double play (a 2 point conversion) where you might get no one out.

The one occasion where I think consistently going for it will help is if you are a team playing against an offense like this years Patriots or Colts. Where you have no chance to win unless you max out the number of points on the board period, where your odds of losing are very high anyway and you have nothing to lose but everything to gain. Against a juggernaut offense, I think going for two on every touchdown and going on every fourth down might be a good move. I.E. you will probably get to DESPERATION anyway, you might as well come out firing and accept that DESPERATION and see if the natural reaction is for the other team to go ULTRA CONSERVATIVE on you.

I think over time and given enough attempts plus factoring in what the opponent will do, going for 2 all the time will eventually hurt you more than help you.

Hi GG,This is a pretty good argument here, but I will say that if the current numbers are in the 40-45% range and you practice it, I would say that you have a reasonable expectation of at least achieving close to the NFL average.

I am making an assumption here that you can get 2 yards when you want to over 40% of the time, which is basically based upon the 43% we've mentioned several times here. Also the NFL rushing average is about 4 yards per carry, which also aids in the discussion.

This sort of runs parallel to the onside kick success rate. Surprise onside kicks are far more successful than expected ones, so if you say the same about 2 PT tries than I would agree with your argument.

The counter to all that would be practicing it more, knowing that you are more likely to win if you are more successful at 2PT conversions.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Probability is probability and nothing is assured, but when the overall odds say you win nearly 60% of the time if you go for 2 after the first score and you succeed the first time, you cannot ignore it so easily.

edited to add bolded part.

So the sum of the scenarios:

24.51% chance you tied the game.

32.49% chance you trail by two.

42.57% chance you are ahead by one.

Where do you get 60%? And I thought your objective was to win, not NOT to lose or tie. According to your own statistics, if you add the first two scenarios together, you get a 57% chance (more than half) that you DON'T WIN (you either tie or lose by 2), and only 43% chance that you win. Also, there's only a 25% chance that you tie thegame and go into overtime, when you can have a 99% chance for a tie just by kicking.

As for the 42.57%, you win 42.57% of the time PRIOR TO over time. You didn't calculate the 50% of the time where you win when the score is tied and you head to OT. So the true winning percentage by that math is 42.57% + half of 32.49%, or 58.815%, vs. a 41.185% losing percentage.

This is where the "nearly 60%" comes from.50% of 32.49% (50% chance of winning if tied - heading to OT) plus the 42.57% (odds you are up by 1).

ETA: Whoops. OK - there's the error. It isn't 50% of 32.49%, it is 50% of 24.51%.

The correct answer is 42.57% + 12.505% = 55=%. So you win 10% more often (55% vs. 45%).

Sorry for the confusion.

For starters, my thinking is more in line with Bloom's that the context of the game is more relevant than simple percentages.Also, I think it is a great question. Why not put conventional thinking to the test?

Even with a slight mathematical advantage, history shows us that few (if any) NFL coach thinks this way. Reasons for that? In general, they tend to more conservative. Why? It's a short season for one - 16 games. Unlike other sports, EVERY game is potentially season altering. In the play-offs.. it's one and done - even more risk. The second guessing and potential criticism, especially for a less "proven" coach, would be tremendous.

How often are teams in that position? Are there enough occurences for the odds to play out? We know a coin flip is 50/50, but you could easily get several "heads" in a row. You fail in these football situations 2 or 3 times in a row and there are likely consequences. You may not get the chance to see the odds come back in your favor.

Also, I think many coaches would question the 43% rate. Maybe their teams have only converted at 38%... The point is it doesn't take a big shift in the success rate to change the outcome of your analysis.

ETA: I wonder what the success rate of extra points really is? Is it 99% or a little less? Seems to me to occur a little more frequently than 1% of the time....

There's a study out there regarding going for it on 4th down (I'm sure someone can find the link - a professor did a study and it comes up every year). It clearly states that NFL teams should go for it on 4th rather than punting far more often than they typically do - which goes against your empirical analysis. That's the problem of using the conventional practices as proof that you should or should not do something. The thought was similar - head coaches don't want to be viewed as mavericks and cost themselves their current (and future) jobs. That's why they don't go for it as often on 4th and short. The same could possibly be said about going for two.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Here's the "Going for fourth down conversions" study. It's pretty good.

4th down study

 

[Maroney=Speed]

I'd like to subscribve to your newsletter Jeff

[hijack] Also, if you get some time Jeff...what does the math say about going for 2 when a team is up by 1 and scores a touchdown? I've always believed that in the 4th quarter of a game the offensive team should go for 2 in this situation. If they play it safe and kick the extra point they are up by 8 (one possession). If the try doesn't work they are up by 7, but if they 2 point try works they are up by 9 (2 possessions).[/hijack]

Good question.According to the link provided earlier in this thread ( Chart ) it says go for 2 in the 4th quarter if you're up by 1.

Why not just go for 2 after every TD? Your team would get better at it, therefor increasing your odds.

 

[toppshelff]

Here's the "Going for fourth down conversions" study. It's pretty good.

4th down study

Really interesting...Again, back to 10 points down in the 4th, what are the factors to decide to go for it or to kick the field goal. I'd suggest that the only inputs into the decision are: distance to go for 1st and distance to go for TD. If time is running lvery low, perhaps it might come into the decision, but I doubt it. I'm sure there is an upwards boundary for time left for the calculation to be valid, as well.

I bet the formula is quite simple.

Wish I had a pet PhD student to entertain me with fun analyses like that.

 

[Tau837]

Hi GG,

This is a pretty good argument here, but I will say that if the current numbers are in the 40-45% range and you practice it, I would say that you have a reasonable expectation of at least achieving close to the NFL average.

I am making an assumption here that you can get 2 yards when you want to over 40% of the time, which is basically based upon the 43% we've mentioned several times here. Also the NFL rushing average is about 4 yards per carry, which also aids in the discussion.

This sort of runs parallel to the onside kick success rate. Surprise onside kicks are far more successful than expected ones, so if you say the same about 2 PT tries than I would agree with your argument.

The counter to all that would be practicing it more, knowing that you are more likely to win if you are more successful at 2PT conversions.

I think I must not understand your bolded point. Surely you aren't citing the NFL ypc average as if it is relevant to 2 point conversion success...?Out of curiosity, I used the DD to find out the rushing numbers for all positions between opponent's 5 and opponent's goal, with 2 to 3 yards to go, on any down, regardless of score, for the 2007 season. The average ypc is 0.97 ypc. I would think that is more relevant to this discussion than the average you cited. I would expect teams to attempt most of their 2 point conversions via the pass, anyway.

 

[westbrook36]

You never go for 2 until you absolutely must. Even if you are down 8 points, you always go for 1 when you score a touch down. The only time you go for 2 is in the 4th quarter.

Never chase points. It will hurt you in the end if you fail.

 

[JBPH]

1. The assumption here is that the goal is to getting a tie. That's a fatal flaw in the argument. You need 15 to win the game, so that's the real goal.

The fatal flaw continues to be that there is absolutely no guarantee you need 15 to win the game. You need one more than your opponent, which may or may not be 15.

But you do concede that you need AT LEAST 15 to win, correct?

Yes.Do you concede that if the other team scores (not really a radical assumption since you were down 14-0), and that if you missed your two point try (happens more often than not), that the number is now 16, though?In other words, there is a really good chance that your decision to go for two make the game more out of reach than it was if you didn't.And honestly, if you can make the assumption that the other team WILL NOT score and you will (which is your whole premise), then I would argue that you absolutely kick the extra point. You can't lose. You'll go into overtime, and have 15 minutes to score. The other team can't score, remember? The worst you can do is tie.

 

[Rockchild]

Interesting. I'm all for shaking up conventional thinking. The NFL can be frustrating at times in its conservativeness(is that a word?). If a team is going to go for 2 points or on 4th down, they have to get much more imaginiative in there plays. I hate QB sneaks on 4th and inches. Roll your QB out with a couple of short and mid crossing patterns with a QB option. Make the defenses move and think!!! Pull your guards and centers!!! Are you going to fail sometimes? Yes, but at some point you would think you're going to succeed more than you fail.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Seattle should have tried this, problem is they would have tried a running play.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'll even go another step, and say a team should ALWAYS go for two points - at ANY point of the game.

I think breaking it down to pure numbers doesn't account for the reality that NFL teams generally have two different offensive philosophies at work, regardless of their individual offensive system - A) Building a lead

B) Defending a lead

Your offensive philosophy changes because your opponent also changes as well. If you build a lead in the first half, in the second half, the other team will probably throw the ball a little more. Nothing happens in a vacuum. I would say the basic NFL offensive does not go from aggressive to conservative, I think it goes from

A) Conservative ( to get the lead)

Then it splits to either -

B) Ultra Conservative (to maintain the lead)

or

C) Desperation (to get any points you can because the other team has the lead and time is running out)

To go simply by the math negates factoring in what your opponent is doing in reaction to your lead. Going for two all the time might be the best option for the most POINTS, but is it the best counter against sheer DESPERATION that is growing and growing on the other sideline as time runs out?

I also think you aren't considering the raw 43 percent success rate. That's out of the total number of 2 point attempts AS OF RIGHT NOW. If you increase the number of attempts, there is nothing given in evidence that the success rate will REMAIN at 43 percent. I'd wager it will go down. Look at the number of 4th down conversions in the NFL. Are those numbers really fair as true data to determine what would really happen if all teams went for it on 4th down all the time? I don't think it would be good evidence. Teams who go for it on 4th down are either DESPERATE or it's a HIGH PERCENTAGE MOVE for the offense given the situation. I would wager 2 point conversions are the same way, it's about DESPERATION or it's a HIGH PERCENTAGE MOVE given the circumstances.

Across the board, if you made more 2 point attempts, I fully believe the number of successful attempts would go down dramatically. There are just way more variables in play for a 2 point conversion (Offensive line blocking, timing between QB and WR, defensive packages presented, penalties, etc, etc) than kicking a PAT (you need a good snap, a good hold and the boot is almost a gimme at that range for an NFL grade kicker) Once those numbers drop, your percentages argument would probably begin to buckle. Once the math buckles, using a baseball example here, getting the sure out at first base (taking the PAT) is going to make more sense than trying to get a double play (a 2 point conversion) where you might get no one out.

The one occasion where I think consistently going for it will help is if you are a team playing against an offense like this years Patriots or Colts. Where you have no chance to win unless you max out the number of points on the board period, where your odds of losing are very high anyway and you have nothing to lose but everything to gain. Against a juggernaut offense, I think going for two on every touchdown and going on every fourth down might be a good move. I.E. you will probably get to DESPERATION anyway, you might as well come out firing and accept that DESPERATION and see if the natural reaction is for the other team to go ULTRA CONSERVATIVE on you.

I think over time and given enough attempts plus factoring in what the opponent will do, going for 2 all the time will eventually hurt you more than help you.

Hi GG,This is a pretty good argument here, but I will say that if the current numbers are in the 40-45% range and you practice it, I would say that you have a reasonable expectation of at least achieving close to the NFL average.

I am making an assumption here that you can get 2 yards when you want to over 40% of the time, which is basically based upon the 43% we've mentioned several times here. Also the NFL rushing average is about 4 yards per carry, which also aids in the discussion.

This sort of runs parallel to the onside kick success rate. Surprise onside kicks are far more successful than expected ones, so if you say the same about 2 PT tries than I would agree with your argument.

The counter to all that would be practicing it more, knowing that you are more likely to win if you are more successful at 2PT conversions.

The bolded part is irrelevant as the average YPC from the 2 yard line is less than 2 yards...guaranteed

 

[Liquid Tension]

I apologize in advance that I have not done the math YET to verify what you are saying is right, but one factor that is very important is WHEN you take the lead. My take is having the lead at the end of the 2nd score is the key. In other words how much time is left on the clock when you take a lead? If you take the lead with 1 minute left in the game going for 2 is stupid when an extra point ties the game. The reason is that you are giving the other team 4 downs to only get a game winning FG.

Going for 2 is an option at the end of the game with NO time left on the clock because then it is a win or a loss. Although, the numbers would say that if you are not successful more than 50% of the time (assuming making the XP), then you should go into OT. Of course if the defenses are getting torched you might feel a greater than 50% chance. But under no circumstance should you go for 2 with time left on the clock (depending on timeouts).

LT,I wouldn't recommend going for 2 when down by 1 with 1 minute remaining. That's not the scenario here at all.

In this scenario, you're either down by 8 or 6 after the first TD (and you went for 2). Then you are tied or down by 2 after the second 6-pt TD, so you either kick the XP for the lead or go for 2 again to tie.

No, my wording was poor as I was hurried...What I am saying is if you are down by 7 and you score a TD late in the game, it is a terrible decision to go for the win (go for 2) if there is time on the clock because of what I wrote above.Assuming from what you wrote above you agree with that (and I think you have to), then this throws out the thoughts of Bloom who originally said you should go for 2 the 2nd time...

Therefore, the only question is whether you go for 2 when down by 14 and you score a TD. The problem with this is that you have NO idea whether the chance you are taking will work because of the risk of going for 2, (which is clearly a risk until making the 2 point conversion is over 50%) because you have no idea if more scoring will happen (how much time is left)

Now let's take a different scenario, you score a TD with 1 minute to go in the game and you know you will need to try an onside kick, THEN does it make sense to go for 2 the first time? This is more important to me as the time factor of other scoring is not calculated in your hypothesis.

Not to hijack, but one of the items that has always bothered me was the scenario where you are down by 15 with oh let's say 4-10 minutes to go. I have always argued that you should go for 2 the first TD you score, not just from the stat side, but I want to know whether I made that 2 pointer so that I have the opportunity to onside kick knowing that I will need 2 more scores. However, every single time this scenario comes up, teams play for the kick the 1st time (I have seen over 15 situations since I was tracking (I am sure I missed some). The point is I want to know how I should play the rest of the game (desperate or not)BTW, you should not be apologetic for being unconventional, I am not so sure if NE shouldn't be going for 2 every single time because when you are scoring like they are, convention IS going for 2.

Good topic.

Jeff,You didn't comment on my above and I wanted to add one item. I think part of the question needs to be with how much time left does it make sense to consider your hypothesis? As I stated, if you are up by one point and leave time on the clock after your 2nd score (to go up by one) you have a good chance to lose the game (as the other team has 4 downs to move the ball and get a FG). This is a huge factor IMO.