Scenario - 2 point conversion (1 Viewer)

[rick6668]

Here's the scenario:

Your team is up by 1 point 24-23, just over 2 minutes left in the game and the opposing team has all 3 timeouts.

You just scored a TD and are now up 30-23.

You can kick the extra point, go up 31-23 a total of 8 points.

You can go for 2 points, possibly go up 32-23 a total of 9 points.

Do you go for 2?

I've never seen a coach go for 2 in this instance.

If you go for 2 and make it, the game is essentially over (up by 9).

If you go for 2 and don't make it, you're still up by 7. If the other team does score a TD, they are almost sure to kick the XPT and tie the game.

If you kick the XPT and go up by 8, the other team will have to go for 2 if they do score a TD to tie.

Opinions?

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Answer is NO

Let the other coach try to get 2 for the tie.

If you miss the 2, then you are tied, guaranteed

with an opposing TD.

 

[DoubleG]

There are some variables you did not mention:

1) Are you at home on the road? (For some, this may make a difference)

2) What are the field conditions/type of teams involved (i.e. are we Indy playing in the snow or is the opposing team Indy playing in the snow?)

3) Is our team favored/better/more telanted or major underdogs? (i.e. if the game ends up tied do we have a decent chance of winning in OT?)

JFTR, I'd still likely vote no. Force the other team to score a TD + make a 2 pointer themselves, just to go to OT

 

[Godsbrother]

Answer is NOLet the other coach try to get 2 for the tie.If you miss the 2, then you are tied, guaranteedwith an opposing TD.

 

[Modog814]

I'd say in general No, you kick the Extra Point. But I wouldn't have a problem with a coach rolling the dice in a specific situation. Basically what he's saying it that I believe my offense has a better chance at scoring a 2 pt conversion than my defense does at stopping one. If your OLine is totally dominating the Dline, why not try to run it in.

It really depends on your player personel. If I have Baltimore/Chicago/Pittsburgh defense, I'd kick the PAT regardless of my offense.

If I had Indy/NE/Cincy's offense and Clevelands or Cincy's defense, I might just roll the dice.

I think it's a low risk (in that even if you miss the other team still has to go down the field and score, and then kick the extra point just to tie), high reward (end the game basically).

 

[Ghost Rider]

No. You force the other team to have to score a touchdown and to have to get the two-point conversion.

 

[QuizGuy66]

put all the pressure on your opponent. Kick the 1-point.

A better frame to your question would be if there was a penalty and now the ball has been respotted at the 1. THEN it might be more tempting to go for 2.

-QG

 

[Zoomanji]

I'd go for 2 but it would be a fake not an offensive play.

 

[Zow]

No. The odds of you kicking the EP is like 99.5 whereas you're only like a 40 percent chance of successfully getting the 2 pointer. So, if you went for two you'd have an outright shot of winning the game of 40 percent. If you took the almost automatic one and placed the 40 percent likelihood on your opponent, you have a 60 percent chance of winning the game outright. I'll take those odds any day of the week.

 

[trader jake]

I've also believed that teams should go for 2 in this scenario. Conventional wisdom suggests that I'm incorrect because I've never seen this done. Maybe some math geeks can run the numbers...

I also have no idea why teams punt inside the opponents 40 yard line. Unless your team is up by 3 late in the game (and can't afford poor field position due to a missed FG) or if the down and distance is 4th and 25+ yards to go. Let's net 17 yards instead of going for the 1st down, YEAH!

 

[trader jake]

No. The odds of you kicking the EP is like 99.5 whereas you're only like a 40 percent chance of successfully getting the 2 pointer. So, if you went for two you'd have an outright shot of winning the game of 40 percent. If you took the almost automatic one and placed the 40 percent likelihood on your opponent, you have a 60 percent chance of winning the game outright. I'll take those odds any day of the week.

There are some major flaws with your math assumptions here Zow. I understand what you are getting at but the math is much more favorable for the team that's ahead in either scenario.

 

[The Jerk]

I've also believed that teams should go for 2 in this scenario. Conventional wisdom suggests that I'm incorrect because I've never seen this done. Maybe some math geeks can run the numbers...I also have no idea why teams punt inside the opponents 40 yard line. Unless your team is up by 3 late in the game (and can't afford poor field position due to a missed FG) or if the down and distance is 4th and 25+ yards to go. Let's net 17 yards instead of going for the 1st down, YEAH!

I'm with you in your line of thinking on the punting. It's easier to punt than it is to explain why you went for it when the other team comes back and scores. Coaches can simply blame the punter or the coverage teams if the punt ends in a touchback. I'm sure many of them also believe in this strategy, but doing "what all the other coaches do" is a good way to avoid looking stupid in the media. I think the same logic (NOT going against the coaching grain) applies as to why people would not go for two points when up by 7, although I also think probability and statistics is more clearly in favor of a PAT.

 

[Vikes Fan]

No. You force the other team to have to score a touchdown and to have to get the two-point conversion.

Agreed

 

[TommyGilmore]

I vote No for one simple reason:

It's more deflating for the opposing team when they know they are down by 8 instead of 7.