Parcells decision to go for 2 (1 Viewer)

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

http://www.footballcommentary.com/analysis2006week9.htm

A routine two-point-conversion decision wouldn't merit inclusion in this year's strategy reviews, but this one was hardly routine: With 12:55 left in the second quarter of the game between Dallas and Washington, Dallas coach Bill Parcells elected to go for two after Dallas scored a touchdown to take a 6-5 lead. This is the earliest two-point attempt we are aware of in a non-preseason NFL game.

This isn't the first time that Parcells has elected to go for two in the first half. Against Seattle in Week 13 of the 2004 season, Parcells went for two when trailing 14-12 with 6:08 left in the second quarter. In our analysisof that game we concluded that Parcells's choice was actually correct—or at least would have been if he hadn't wasted a timeout thinking it over.

Not only did the decision to go for two against Washington come considerably earlier in the game, but leading by 1 is a situation less favorable for two-point conversions than trailing by 2. Calculations using the footballcommentary.com Dynamic Programming Modelindicate that there was little benefit to Dallas from going for two. According to the Model, kicking gives Dallas a win probability of 0.562. If the Cowboys go for two, their win probability becomes either 0.592 or 0.537, according to whether the try succeeds or fails. One can check that the probability of success has to be nearly 0.46 to make going for two worthwile.

Overall success rates on two-point conversions have in fact been running above 46% in recent seasons, so we see no reason to criticize Parcells's decision. Actually, the proper conclusion is that Dallas's probability of winning is almost exactly the same whether they kick or go for two. Even if their probability of success on the two-point conversion is only 0.4, their win probability if they go for two is 0.4 × 0.592 + (1−0.4) × 0.537 = 0.559, which is only 0.003 less than their win probability if they kick. Similarly, even if their success probability is 0.5, going for two yields a win probability of 0.5 × 0.592 + (1−0.5) × 0.537 = 0.565, which is only 0.003 more than can be obtained by kicking.

The Chart we prepared for two-point conversions, using the Model, omits the first half of the game. That's because going for two early in the game will never provide a sustantial increase in win probability. But if going for two early in the game is never required, neither is it ever a significant mistake. In fact, as long as the success probability isn't much below 0.5, going for two early in the game will give about the same win probability as kicking. We explained why in a previous article.

Some alternative thinking for all you "it's too early to go for 2 until you know you need 2" crowd.

 

[kellumsboys]

a stupid #@%$*&@ call that cost them the game more than anything else.

 

[NYCGangGreen]

SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!! They dont get 1 XP.

They still lose by 3!!!!

If T.O. doesnt drop the 75 yd. TD the game is over.

If Vanderjagt doesnt miss the field goal......game is over.

If they dont let Sean Taylor run the ball back to the 44 yd line...they win.

Going for a 2 pt conversion is not what lost the Cowboys the game......if you think it is....then you need a

 

[agent 86]

IMHO, this 2006 Cowboys team is the least Tuna-like of any Tuna-coached teams. Between the 2-pt decisions, strange time-out calls, ill-times penalties, etc. I think he's officially lost it. With all the kissing he was doing in Carolina last week, he may be better served to replacing Bob Barker on "The Price is Right".

 

[Da Guru]

I never liked going for 2 that early in a game.

Too many things can happen over the next three quarters.

This time it did come back to haunt them.

 

[kellumsboys]

SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!! They dont get 1 XP.

They still lose by 3!!!! WRONG

If T.O. doesnt drop the 75 yd. TD the game is over.

If Vanderjagt doesnt miss the field goal......game is over.

If they dont let Sean Taylor run the ball back to the 44 yd line...they win.

Going for a 2 pt conversion is not what lost the Cowboys the game......if you think it is....then you need a

I guess you were not watching the game.if they had made the extra point and been up by 1, then they could have run out the clock at the end instead of having a FG blocked and returned.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Already being discussed in my Question Peter King's Football knowledge thread.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=286454

 

[redman]

I've always disagreed with those who say you should never go for two before the 4th quarter. If you're down by 22 points in the third quarter, you may as well go for two if you score a TD so that you know and can plan for that third additional score from the get-go rather than hoping that when it comes down to needing the play at the very end you hope you can make it or have enough time left to score again if you don't.

If it's such an awful decision, riddle me this: is the chance of making a two-point conversion any less in the first quarter than it is in the 3rd or 4th quarter? If it has the same chance of success, then what's the problem with doing it then?

The truth is that only in hindsight did that decision make a difference, but that's true of every other attempt during the game that came up short, including Vanderjagt's missed FG. I think people play the two-point game too conservatively.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

A 2 pt conversion should never be attempted unless it is midway through the 4th to get within 1 score or very late 3rd or later to get within 2 scores. No reason to give up a free point any earlier in the game than that.

Case in point: years ago Purdue and Georgia were playing in a bowl game. Purdue scores first and misses the PAT. 6-0. They score again and go for 2, failing. 12-0. They score again and go for 2, failing. 18-0. They score again and decide finally to kick. 25-0. Big deal, right? Except Georgia comes storming back with 22 straight points (including a 2pt conversion) that makes it 25-22 instead of 27-21. They are able to kick a late FG to tie and then go on to win in OT. I have seen this happen many many many times in college and pros. There's no reason to try to get up by 3 or 7 that early in the game. Too many additonal scores are going to occur that make the margin moot. TAKE THE POINT.

 

[redman]

A 2 pt conversion should never be attempted unless it is midway through the 4th to get within 1 score or very late 3rd or later to get within 2 scores. No reason to give up a free point any earlier in the game than that.

Case in point: years ago Purdue and Georgia were playing in a bowl game. Purdue scores first and misses the PAT. 6-0. They score again and go for 2, failing. 12-0. They score again and go for 2, failing. 18-0. They score again and decide finally to kick. 25-0. Big deal, right? Except Georgia comes storming back with 22 straight points (including a 2pt conversion) that makes it 25-22 instead of 27-21. They are able to kick a late FG to tie and then go on to win in OT. I have seen this happen many many many times in college and pros. There's no reason to try to get up by 3 or 7 that early in the game. Too many additonal scores are going to occur that make the margin moot. TAKE THE POINT.

You've only analyzed one half of the possible outcomes. Any value to getting an extra point early?

Any value to knowing whether or not you'll need an extra score to catch up (if applicable) sooner than later?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Any value to getting an extra point early? Any value to knowing whether or not you'll need an extra score to catch up (if applicable) sooner than later?

1. No, not really - since it's only a 50/50 proposition at best your expected outcome on a 2pt attempt is only 1pt anyway.2. Need a specific scenario for this.

 

[redman]

Any value to getting an extra point early? Any value to knowing whether or not you'll need an extra score to catch up (if applicable) sooner than later?

1. No, not really - since it's only a 50/50 proposition at best your expected outcome on a 2pt attempt is only 1pt anyway.2. Need a specific scenario for this.

Response to 1: It's a 50/50 proposition late in the game too. Response to 2: You're down 15 in the 2nd quarter and score a TD.

 

[stevegamer]

While I think the 2 point conversion in the NFL is successful somewhere around 45% of the time, making it slightly less than 50/50, I will assume it's 50/50 for discussion, since XP are slightly under 100%, and I will assume PAT kicks are 100%.

I simply would go for 1 every time in the first half, because you do not know what future outcomes will be. You know the point you will get from the XP will be useful and has some expected utility. You do not know if the utility of the 0 or 2 (50% chance of each) is greater than that of getting 1 sure point. In this game, the 1 sure point would have had greater utility, everything else remaining constant up to the decision to try a FG late.

In this case, what Parcells did hurt. If he kicks the XP, the team is winning 20-19 late, and has more options. If they made the 2 point try, it would be 21-19, and they would have the same options as 20-19. The issue is that he went from a 100% chance of winning late to a 50% chance of winning late.

 

[fatness]

if they had made the extra point and been up by 1, then they could have run out the clock at the end instead of having a FG blocked and returned.

That assumes that the Redskin playcalling would have remained the same on their final drive. It would not have. In the game they were tied 19-19, and there is less urgency about getting points in regulation time because overtime is a real possibility that late in the game. Had they been behind 20-19, there would have been more urgency, more need to get close for a FG or into the end zone. The playcalling would have reflected that urgency.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've read some pro-2 point articles, but I just can't be convinced that it was the correct call. He should have kicked the XP.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Any value to getting an extra point early? Any value to knowing whether or not you'll need an extra score to catch up (if applicable) sooner than later?

1. No, not really - since it's only a 50/50 proposition at best your expected outcome on a 2pt attempt is only 1pt anyway.2. Need a specific scenario for this.

Response to 1: It's a 50/50 proposition late in the game too. Response to 2: You're down 15 in the 2nd quarter and score a TD.

1. but late in the game it's the only chance you have to tie or get within one score so you have to try it2. N.O. W.A.Y. That's silly. You're still within 1 score if you kick the PAT.

 

[redman]

While I think the 2 point conversion in the NFL is successful somewhere around 45% of the time, making it slightly less than 50/50, I will assume it's 50/50 for discussion, since XP are slightly under 100%, and I will assume PAT kicks are 100%.

I simply would go for 1 every time in the first half, because you do not know what future outcomes will be. You know the point you will get from the XP will be useful and has some expected utility. You do not know if the utility of the 0 or 2 (50% chance of each) is greater than that of getting 1 sure point. In this game, the 1 sure point would have had greater utility, everything else remaining constant up to the decision to try a FG late.

In this case, what Parcells did hurt. If he kicks the XP, the team is winning 20-19 late, and has more options. If they made the 2 point try, it would be 21-19, and they would have the same options as 20-19. The issue is that he went from a 100% chance of winning late to a 50% chance of winning late.

I will say that going for two early when you already have the lead, like Parcells did, is certainly questionable. If you're trailing, though, you already know that the burden is on your team to score enough points to catch up, so you ought to know as early as possible how many scores you will need to accomplish that.

 

[stevegamer]

I wouldn't go for 2 when down 5 early to get to within 3 or down 10 to get to 8.

I did see your down 15 thought, and even if I scored the TD and was still down 15, I'd kick the PAT. If I can pick up another FG on the opponent before half I'm under 2 TD's.

This is especaiily true if I think I have the better team overall.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I will say that going for two early when you already have the lead, like Parcells did, is certainly questionable. If you're trailing, though, you already know that the burden is on your team to score enough points to catch up, so you ought to know as early as possible how many scores you will need to accomplish that.

How does kicking a PAT prevent you from knowing how many scores you will need to catch up?

 

[Despyzer]

I have to say I was less than a little impressed with Parcell's response to questions regarding this decision at his post-game presser.

"Our chart said we go for two in that situation. I was just following the chart."

Huh? "The chart" is coaching the team now?

 

[redman]

I will say that going for two early when you already have the lead, like Parcells did, is certainly questionable. If you're trailing, though, you already know that the burden is on your team to score enough points to catch up, so you ought to know as early as possible how many scores you will need to accomplish that.

How does kicking a PAT prevent you from knowing how many scores you will need to catch up?

Nice try but *whiff*If you "already have the lead" you don't need to catch up.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I will say that going for two early when you already have the lead, like Parcells did, is certainly questionable. If you're trailing, though, you already know that the burden is on your team to score enough points to catch up, so you ought to know as early as possible how many scores you will need to accomplish that.

How does kicking a PAT prevent you from knowing how many scores you will need to catch up?

Nice try but *whiff*If you "already have the lead" you don't need to catch up.

what the hell are you talking about?"If you're trailing, though, you already know that the burden is on your team to score enough points to catch up, so you ought to know as early as possible how many scores you will need to accomplish that."

Once again (slowly), how...does...kicking...a...PAT... (versus...going...for...2) ...prevent...you...from...knowing...how...many...scores... you...will...need...to...catch...up?

 

[Bankerguy]

Anyone who thinks the game was lost on the 2 point conversion..simply does not undersand Football.

 

[AB in DC]

If that was the correct decision, then teams should always go for two in the first half. There's really no reason why a team should go for two in that situation and not in any others. There's no way of knowing whether you'll need that second point.

 

[kellumsboys]

Anyone who thinks the game was lost on the 2 point conversion..simply does not undersand Football.

no, but it sure would have helped win.but so would the dropped pass from Tr the missed FG for that matter.all the penalties didn't help win either.all that added up to give the Skins a lucky 3 point win.

 

[Bankerguy]

Anyone who thinks the game was lost on the 2 point conversion..simply does not undersand Football.

no, but it sure would have helped win.but so would the dropped pass from Tr the missed FG for that matter.all the penalties didn't help win either.all that added up to give the Skins a lucky 3 point win.

Your last 4 lines are more like it.The 2 point bit is getting way too much attention.The penalties and drops are killing the Cowboys right now.

 

[Bri]

his team would have been up 3

He goes for it on 4th moreso than most coaches(or so it seems).

It's just him and how he rolls. On occasion, it fires up the team

 

[redman]

I will say that going for two early when you already have the lead, like Parcells did, is certainly questionable. If you're trailing, though, you already know that the burden is on your team to score enough points to catch up, so you ought to know as early as possible how many scores you will need to accomplish that.

How does kicking a PAT prevent you from knowing how many scores you will need to catch up?

Nice try but *whiff*If you "already have the lead" you don't need to catch up.

what the hell are you talking about?"If you're trailing, though, you already know that the burden is on your team to score enough points to catch up, so you ought to know as early as possible how many scores you will need to accomplish that."

Once again (slowly), how...does...kicking...a...PAT... (versus...going...for...2) ...prevent...you...from...knowing...how...many...scores... you...will...need...to...catch...up?

We'll speak slowly for your benefit, not mine:Using my hypothetical of trailing by 15 and scoring a TD, by going for two you now know whether you simply need a TD and a PAT to tie (if you convert the 2-pointer), or whether you need a TD and PAT, and another score of some kind in order catch up or take the lead.

Pretty useful info to have, no? Or do you subscribe to the Donovan McNabb school of deficit-be-damned "hurry up offense"?

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I will say that going for two early when you already have the lead, like Parcells did, is certainly questionable. If you're trailing, though, you already know that the burden is on your team to score enough points to catch up, so you ought to know as early as possible how many scores you will need to accomplish that.

How does kicking a PAT prevent you from knowing how many scores you will need to catch up?

Nice try but *whiff*If you "already have the lead" you don't need to catch up.

what the hell are you talking about?"If you're trailing, though, you already know that the burden is on your team to score enough points to catch up, so you ought to know as early as possible how many scores you will need to accomplish that."

Once again (slowly), how...does...kicking...a...PAT... (versus...going...for...2) ...prevent...you...from...knowing...how...many...scores... you...will...need...to...catch...up?

We'll speak slowly for your benefit, not mine:Using my hypothetical of trailing by 15 and scoring a TD, by going for two you now know whether you simply need a TD and a PAT to tie (if you convert the 2-pointer), or whether you need a TD and PAT, and another score of some kind in order catch up or take the lead.

Pretty useful info to have, no? Or do you subscribe to the Donovan McNabb school of deficit-be-damned "hurry up offense"?

If you're down by 15 with over 7 minutes to go you kick the PAT. You do not know how many more times you will get the ball. The other team could fumble the ensuing kick-off.Scenario:

If you went for two and missed, you are now down by 9 points. A field goal and TD will now only tie the game (giving you a 50/50 chance) instead of winning it. I understand that you would want to know if you are going to only need 1 more score, but the advantage of going for 2 on the first TD as opposed to the last TD does not outweigh the fact that you could cost your team the game by getting an extra possesion.

With that being said, if I was down by 16 with 7 minutes to go, I would go for the 2-pointer. In this scenario you know that you need two 8 point scores to tie the game. My argument from above can be used against me in this scenario, but I think the advantages are worth it in this scenario.

 

[pizzatyme]

I like the call he made!

 

[redman]

If you're down by 15 with over 7 minutes to go you kick the PAT. You do not know how many more times you will get the ball. The other team could fumble the ensuing kick-off.Scenario:If you went for two and missed, you are now down by 9 points. A field goal and TD will now only tie the game (giving you a 50/50 chance) instead of winning it. I understand that you would want to know if you are going to only need 1 more score, but the advantage of going for 2 on the first TD as opposed to the last TD does not outweigh the fact that you could cost your team the game by getting an extra possesion.With that being said, if I was down by 16 with 7 minutes to go, I would go for the 2-pointer. In this scenario you know that you need two 8 point scores to tie the game. My argument from above can be used against me in this scenario, but I think the advantages are worth it in this scenario.

Your assumption seems to be that you have a better chance of making the 2-pointer later rather than earlier. Why?

 

[lord_helmet]

Anyone who thinks the game was lost on the 2 point conversion..simply does not undersand Football.

There are so many games going down to the wire, you need to take all the points you can get early and see where you are at later in the game. Looking back it was obviously a bad call, heck even the Danish announcer from the channel I watch called it right away as a horrible decision. Looking at how it ended he was right, and that guy is usually pretty clueless

 

[redman]

Anyone who thinks the game was lost on the 2 point conversion..simply does not undersand Football.

There are so many games going down to the wire, you need to take all the points you can get early and see where you are at later in the game. Looking back it was obviously a bad call, heck even the Danish announcer from the channel I watch called it right away as a horrible decision. Looking at how it ended he was right, and that guy is usually pretty clueless

I'm with Bankerguy on this one (and I'm a 'Skins fan BTW). That result had very little to do with that decision, and everything to do with a multitude of Cowboys errors throughout the game, especially dropped passes and dumb penalties. Hell, the Cowboys nearly set a record for penalty yards in a game - they had over 150! They did everything they could to encourage a struggling Washington team keep battling until it finally came down to a blocked FG and a long FG for the Redskins in the final seconds. That's the difference.

 

[Despyzer]

Anyone who thinks the game was lost on the 2 point conversion..simply does not undersand Football.

There are so many games going down to the wire, you need to take all the points you can get early and see where you are at later in the game. Looking back it was obviously a bad call, heck even the Danish announcer from the channel I watch called it right away as a horrible decision. Looking at how it ended he was right, and that guy is usually pretty clueless

So a guy who is normally clueless said it so it must be true? Please explain.If you need to get as many points as you can get early, wouldn't it make more sense to go for two every chance you get?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

We'll speak slowly for your benefit, not mine:Using my hypothetical of trailing by 15 and scoring a TD, by going for two you now know whether you simply need a TD and a PAT to tie (if you convert the 2-pointer), or whether you need a TD and PAT, and another score of some kind in order catch up or take the lead. Pretty useful info to have, no?

wow.ok. you are down 15. you score a TD so you are now down 9. --if you kick the PAT you are down 8 - 1 score.--if you go for 2 and make it you are down 7 - 1 score.So there is no advantage in going for 2.--if you go for 2 and miss you are down 9 - 2 scores.Now please explain to the audience how it is "useful info" to be down 2 scores and "know it" rather than be down 1 score (and still "know it")?????Also nobody is saying that attempts are more likely to be successful late in the game - you seem to keep reading that into people's arguments. We're saying that you never go for 2 unless you have to, and you only have to when it is late in the game.

 

[rhawkins68]

I have to say I was less than a little impressed with Parcell's response to questions regarding this decision at his post-game presser."Our chart said we go for two in that situation. I was just following the chart."Huh? "The chart" is coaching the team now?

All coaches have the chart and know about the chart. The funny thing about coaches are that they are wrong regardless of what they do to non-coaches.

 

[rhawkins68]

Anyone who thinks the game was lost on the 2 point conversion..simply does not undersand Football.

There are so many games going down to the wire, you need to take all the points you can get early and see where you are at later in the game. Looking back it was obviously a bad call, heck even the Danish announcer from the channel I watch called it right away as a horrible decision. Looking at how it ended he was right, and that guy is usually pretty clueless

I'm with Bankerguy on this one (and I'm a 'Skins fan BTW). That result had very little to do with that decision, and everything to do with a multitude of Cowboys errors throughout the game, especially dropped passes and dumb penalties. Hell, the Cowboys nearly set a record for penalty yards in a game - they had over 150! They did everything they could to encourage a struggling Washington team keep battling until it finally came down to a blocked FG and a long FG for the Redskins in the final seconds. That's the difference.

You should get with the program. We don't look at the whole game when jumping on the "the coach is stupid or wrong" band wagon. That would make the thread really short.

Yes everything in the game effected the outcome.

To think going for two cost them the game. Especially after watching a blocked field goal attempt returned and a 15 yard face mask thrown in is just silly.

Not to mention the dropped balls and all the other mistakes which makes the argument even more absurd.

 

[Da Guru]

The many things that happen during the course of a football game is why you put the point on the board early when you get the chance.

Was that the only reason they lost? No, but it contributed to the loss. They still would have been able to overcome the other mistakes had they kicked the PAT early.

 

[Despyzer]

ok. you are down 15. you score a TD so you are now down 9.

--if you kick the PAT you are down 8 - 1 score.

--if you go for 2 and make it you are down 7 - 1 score.

So there is no advantage in going for 2.

--if you go for 2 and miss you are down 9 - 2 scores.

Now please explain to the audience how it is "useful info" to be down 2 scores and "know it" rather than be down 1 score (and still "know it")?????

Also nobody is saying that attempts are more likely to be successful late in the game - you seem to keep reading that into people's arguments. We're saying that you never go for 2 unless you have to, and you only have to when it is late in the game.

You imply that it is more likely to convert late in the game when you say that losing by 8 means you are only down by one score. You are clearly indicating that the conversion is a "gimme" late in the game, yet the conversion early in the game is a risk that will probably put you behind by two scores.

 

[redman]

ok. you are down 15. you score a TD so you are now down 9.

--if you kick the PAT you are down 8 - 1 score.

--if you go for 2 and make it you are down 7 - 1 score.

So there is no advantage in going for 2.

--if you go for 2 and miss you are down 9 - 2 scores.

Now please explain to the audience how it is "useful info" to be down 2 scores and "know it" rather than be down 1 score (and still "know it")?????

Also nobody is saying that attempts are more likely to be successful late in the game - you seem to keep reading that into people's arguments. We're saying that you never go for 2 unless you have to, and you only have to when it is late in the game.

You imply that it is more likely to convert late in the game when you say that losing by 8 means you are only down by one score. You are clearly indicating that the conversion is a "gimme" late in the game, yet the conversion early in the game is a risk that will probably put you behind by two scores.

Exactly. And I've asked him already in this thread to explain that assumption and he still fails to do it.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

ok. you are down 15. you score a TD so you are now down 9.

--if you kick the PAT you are down 8 - 1 score.

--if you go for 2 and make it you are down 7 - 1 score.

So there is no advantage in going for 2.

--if you go for 2 and miss you are down 9 - 2 scores.

Now please explain to the audience how it is "useful info" to be down 2 scores and "know it" rather than be down 1 score (and still "know it")?????

Also nobody is saying that attempts are more likely to be successful late in the game - you seem to keep reading that into people's arguments. We're saying that you never go for 2 unless you have to, and you only have to when it is late in the game.

You imply that it is more likely to convert late in the game when you say that losing by 8 means you are only down by one score. You are clearly indicating that the conversion is a "gimme" late in the game, yet the conversion early in the game is a risk that will probably put you behind by two scores.

That is the wrongest thing I've ever read.If you are down 8 you are down 1 score. That doesn't mean it's a gimme, that means you could tie the score with one possession. Doesn't mean you will - just means you could. I'm not assuming the conversion any more than i'm assuming the touchdown itself. Why would I take a chance on needing 2 possessions to tie or win when I can stay within one?

 

[Pip's Invitation]

ok. you are down 15. you score a TD so you are now down 9.

--if you kick the PAT you are down 8 - 1 score.

--if you go for 2 and make it you are down 7 - 1 score.

So there is no advantage in going for 2.

--if you go for 2 and miss you are down 9 - 2 scores.

Now please explain to the audience how it is "useful info" to be down 2 scores and "know it" rather than be down 1 score (and still "know it")?????

Also nobody is saying that attempts are more likely to be successful late in the game - you seem to keep reading that into people's arguments. We're saying that you never go for 2 unless you have to, and you only have to when it is late in the game.

You imply that it is more likely to convert late in the game when you say that losing by 8 means you are only down by one score. You are clearly indicating that the conversion is a "gimme" late in the game, yet the conversion early in the game is a risk that will probably put you behind by two scores.

That's not what he's saying at all. The issue is not the points but the OPPORTUNITY TO SCORE MORE POINTS before the game ends.

If you have less than half of the fourth quarter to go, you are looking to keep the margin to as few scores as possible. If you can cut the margin to one possession (8 points or less), you do it, because you have no way of knowing if you're going to get the ball back twice. Hence, if you're down 16, it pays to go for 2, because you will be down one possession if you make it, but down 2 if you miss OR if you kick the PAT. There's a clear benefit the 2-pointer has over the PAT in that case. If you're down 15, you kick the PAT, because you're down one possession if you make a 2-point conversion OR if you kick the PAT, but you're down two possessions if you miss the 2-point coversion. There is no clear benefit the 2-pointer has over the PAT in that case, thus you kick the PAT because it's much more of a sure thing.

 

[redman]

ok. you are down 15. you score a TD so you are now down 9.

--if you kick the PAT you are down 8 - 1 score.

--if you go for 2 and make it you are down 7 - 1 score.

So there is no advantage in going for 2.

--if you go for 2 and miss you are down 9 - 2 scores.

Now please explain to the audience how it is "useful info" to be down 2 scores and "know it" rather than be down 1 score (and still "know it")?????

Also nobody is saying that attempts are more likely to be successful late in the game - you seem to keep reading that into people's arguments. We're saying that you never go for 2 unless you have to, and you only have to when it is late in the game.

You imply that it is more likely to convert late in the game when you say that losing by 8 means you are only down by one score. You are clearly indicating that the conversion is a "gimme" late in the game, yet the conversion early in the game is a risk that will probably put you behind by two scores.

That is the wrongest thing I've ever read.If you are down 8 you are down 1 score. That doesn't mean it's a gimme, that means you could tie the score with one possession. Doesn't mean you will - just means you could. I'm not assuming the conversion any more than i'm assuming the touchdown itself. Why would I take a chance on needing 2 possessions to tie or win when I can stay within one?

Why would you take a chance on postponing the attempt for two points and risking not having enough time for that extra score you need if you fail on the 2-pointer when you can figure all of that out earlier? The point is that you will have to take the chance at some point or another in all liklihood, so you may as well do it sooner and know going forward how it turned out for the purposes of game/clock management and strategic decision-making.

Edit to add: here's where that knowlege makes a difference. Let's assume that you've closed the deficit to 8 points (you opted for the PAT rather than the 2-pointer earlier), and now you've got the ball with 6 minutes left in the fourth quarter but your drive has stalled at the opponent's 42-yard line. It's 4th and 1. If you're down by two scores you likely go for the first down there; if you're down by one score you likely punt. The problem with an 8 point deficit is that you don't really know whether you're down by two scores or one score because you don't know what will happen with the 2-point conversion attempt. How can you possibly manage the game there?

 

[Pip's Invitation]

ok. you are down 15. you score a TD so you are now down 9.

--if you kick the PAT you are down 8 - 1 score.

--if you go for 2 and make it you are down 7 - 1 score.

So there is no advantage in going for 2.

--if you go for 2 and miss you are down 9 - 2 scores.

Now please explain to the audience how it is "useful info" to be down 2 scores and "know it" rather than be down 1 score (and still "know it")?????

Also nobody is saying that attempts are more likely to be successful late in the game - you seem to keep reading that into people's arguments. We're saying that you never go for 2 unless you have to, and you only have to when it is late in the game.

You imply that it is more likely to convert late in the game when you say that losing by 8 means you are only down by one score. You are clearly indicating that the conversion is a "gimme" late in the game, yet the conversion early in the game is a risk that will probably put you behind by two scores.

That is the wrongest thing I've ever read.If you are down 8 you are down 1 score. That doesn't mean it's a gimme, that means you could tie the score with one possession. Doesn't mean you will - just means you could. I'm not assuming the conversion any more than i'm assuming the touchdown itself. Why would I take a chance on needing 2 possessions to tie or win when I can stay within one?

Why would you take a chance on postponing the attempt for two points and risking not having enough time for that extra score you need if you fail on the 2-pointer when you can figure all of that out earlier? The point is that you will have to take the chance at some point or another in all liklihood, so you may as well do it sooner and know going forward how it turned out for the purposes of game/clock management and strategic decision-making.

So you think it's better to need two possessions to score instead of one as long as you know you need two possessions? That's insane.

 

[redman]

ok. you are down 15. you score a TD so you are now down 9.

--if you kick the PAT you are down 8 - 1 score.

--if you go for 2 and make it you are down 7 - 1 score.

So there is no advantage in going for 2.

--if you go for 2 and miss you are down 9 - 2 scores.

Now please explain to the audience how it is "useful info" to be down 2 scores and "know it" rather than be down 1 score (and still "know it")?????

Also nobody is saying that attempts are more likely to be successful late in the game - you seem to keep reading that into people's arguments. We're saying that you never go for 2 unless you have to, and you only have to when it is late in the game.

You imply that it is more likely to convert late in the game when you say that losing by 8 means you are only down by one score. You are clearly indicating that the conversion is a "gimme" late in the game, yet the conversion early in the game is a risk that will probably put you behind by two scores.

That is the wrongest thing I've ever read.If you are down 8 you are down 1 score. That doesn't mean it's a gimme, that means you could tie the score with one possession. Doesn't mean you will - just means you could. I'm not assuming the conversion any more than i'm assuming the touchdown itself. Why would I take a chance on needing 2 possessions to tie or win when I can stay within one?

Why would you take a chance on postponing the attempt for two points and risking not having enough time for that extra score you need if you fail on the 2-pointer when you can figure all of that out earlier? The point is that you will have to take the chance at some point or another in all liklihood, so you may as well do it sooner and know going forward how it turned out for the purposes of game/clock management and strategic decision-making.

So you think it's better to need two possessions to score instead of one as long as you know you need two possessions? That's insane.

Why are you assuming failure early in the game on the 2-pointer and success late in the game? For the umpteenth time in this thread, please, please explain that to me.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

It's pretty simple.

If you are down 15, you are going to have to go for 2 at some point. Either now or later.

If you do it now and fail, you know that you have to keep up a faster tempo because you must score twice more.

If you do it later and fail, you may not have enough time to score again.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Slight tangent, but this reminds me of one of the stupidest coaching decisions in all of history.

2004 AFC Championship game.

Pittsburgh is down 14 points, 13 and change left to go in the 4th. 4th down on the Pats 2 yard line.

Bill Cowher elects to kick a FG instead of going for the TD, putting them down 11 points (2 scores assuming a converted 2 pt attempt later on).

He basically said he would not try to get 2 yards when it was worth 6 points, but WOULD try to get 2 yards later in the game when it was only worth 2 points.

Mind boggling.

 

[quiksilver]

In this case, what Parcells did hurt. If he kicks the XP, the team is winning 20-19 late, and has more options. If they made the 2 point try, it would be 21-19, and they would have the same options as 20-19. The issue is that he went from a 100% chance of winning late to a 50% chance of winning late.

So assume the Cowboys do kick the XP. So that means they enter the 4th quarter holding a 20-12 lead. Washington scores with two minutes left to make the score 20-18. Do you really think the Redskins would kick the XP and hope to get the ball back so they could kick the FG to win? No, they would've gone for two.Couldn't the score at that point just have easily been 20-20 as 19-19? Just because the Cowboys passed up on the XP doesn't mean that had they kicked it they would have been leading 20-19 with two minutes left and could have just run out the clock.

 

[redman]

In this case, what Parcells did hurt. If he kicks the XP, the team is winning 20-19 late, and has more options. If they made the 2 point try, it would be 21-19, and they would have the same options as 20-19. The issue is that he went from a 100% chance of winning late to a 50% chance of winning late.

So assume the Cowboys do kick the XP. So that means they enter the 4th quarter holding a 20-12 lead. Washington scores with two minutes left to make the score 20-18. Do you really think the Redskins would kick the XP and hope to get the ball back so they could kick the FG to win? No, they would've gone for two.Couldn't the score at that point just have easily been 20-20 as 19-19? Just because the Cowboys passed up on the XP doesn't mean that had they kicked it they would have been leading 20-19 with two minutes left and could have just run out the clock.

Correct. And if Parcells' attempt for 2 is successful, then the score is 21-18 pending the Redskins' PAT (assuming the Redskins didn't try for two when they took the lead 12-9 with Portis' TD in the second quarter). As I said above, I'm much less in favor of going for 2 points early in a game when you're the team with the lead. We all acknowledge that the risk of the two-pointer failing is far greater than that of a PAT, which means that as the team with the lead you avoid risk and take the points putting the onus on the trailing team to take risks. That was Parcells' sin there. I disagree with his decision, however I don't believe that that decision "decided the game". I'd look to 150+ yards in penalties and some terrible dropped passes - including one for a sure TD that would have put them up by two TD's - for the loss.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

In this case, what Parcells did hurt. If he kicks the XP, the team is winning 20-19 late, and has more options. If they made the 2 point try, it would be 21-19, and they would have the same options as 20-19. The issue is that he went from a 100% chance of winning late to a 50% chance of winning late.

So assume the Cowboys do kick the XP. So that means they enter the 4th quarter holding a 20-12 lead. Washington scores with two minutes left to make the score 20-18. Do you really think the Redskins would kick the XP and hope to get the ball back so they could kick the FG to win? No, they would've gone for two.Couldn't the score at that point just have easily been 20-20 as 19-19? Just because the Cowboys passed up on the XP doesn't mean that had they kicked it they would have been leading 20-19 with two minutes left and could have just run out the clock.

Great analysis here. If you change a single event earlier in the game, you can't just assume everything else will have happened the way it did. I think that's what people seem to be missing.