Stupid to go for two (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

Another factor is that if the conversion failed, there would probably have been just enough time left in the game (24 seconds) for the Broncos to try an onside kick attempt and a couple of passes to move the 20 or so yards necessary get into field goal range to try again to win it if they recovered. But if the conversion succeeded, there wouldn't be enough time for the Chargers to field a deeper kick, and then move the 30-40 yards they needed for the winning field goal.

Add that together with the fact that the usual 2-point conversion has, by all accounts, a 40-50% success rate in normal circumstances, and then add on the "stun" factor discussed above, the concern for a Hochuli "make up" in overtime, etc., and the call almost looks like an easy one to me.

 

[Tau837]

I say it's stupid to go for two in that situation. Sure, it's gutsy, but it's also stupid. Kick the extra point, go into overtime. What say you?

Why do you say it's stupid?J

Mathematically it is a big risk given that, on average, teams only convert like around 40 percent of the time. I remember reading some article/report on this awhile back. However, given the way Denver was playing, you have to figure their chance was more around 45 percent or so. This makes the play risky, but probably not "stupid."

how do you come up w/ 45%? Assume all it takes for 2 yards is a single completion. Cutler was 36/50 for the game, or 72%. So, if that trend is to continue, odds of converting are more like 72%.

Sure, but how many of his attempts were from just a couple yards out, with the entire defense bunched up as they are on a 2 point conversion? I don't think just citing his completion percentage is correct here.

of course not, but one has to take into consideration a red-hot QB who has been very accurate all day, capable receivers, and an opposing D that has been marched up and down the field and is disgruntled because of a blown call a few plays earlier. There were a lot of factors at play here - moreso than simply looking at historical averages and trends - and most of the factors were clearly in the Broncos direction.

I don't disagree with any of that or with his decision to go for it. I simply pointed out that your statement referencing his 72% completion percentage was probably overestimating the chance the play would be successful.

But you are ok with someone coming up with 45% out of thin air?

I didn't say that. But I think 45% is a lot closer to being correct than 72%.I just scanned through the play by play. At the San Diego 10 yard line and closer, Cutler was 3 for 7 prior to the 2 point conversion play, counting the controversial play as a fumble, not an incompletion (since it was reversed). The 3 completions were all TDs, but he also had the fumble and an interception. At the San Diego 5 yard line and closer, he was 2 for 5, with 2 TDs, the fumble, and an interception.Again, I'm not arguing the decision to go for it. But it's not like Cutler was dominating in the goal line area.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

I say it's stupid to go for two in that situation. Sure, it's gutsy, but it's also stupid. Kick the extra point, go into overtime. What say you?

Odds at successfully converting 2 pts are over 50% (I believe its closer to 60% actually). Odds at kicking 1 pt, taking the game to OT, calling the coin flip, and scoring before your opponent are far less than that.I'd say it's stupid to NOT go for 2 pts. The only reason you don't do it is if you're ignorant of the true odds, or you're afraid to make the RIGHT call and deal with the fallout if you don't get the pts.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I'm really on the fence here

In normal situations the conversion rate is probably a bit leass than 50 %., menaing that on the surface, it looks like he reduced his chances of winning from something slightly above 50% to something lower than 50%. But, given this situation where the SD Def was probably very tired, frustrated and a bit demoralized, I guess Shanny saw an opportunity to land the knockout blow.

 

[JayMan]

On average, you have more or less a 50% chance of converting;
Your defense was scored on 7 of the opponent 9 possessions (all starting on their side of the field) - meaning that if you lose the coin toss - you are nearly toasted;
Conversely - your offense had scored 6 of your 10 possessions;
More important - the Chargers D was not able to cover a short pass all game long (20 passing FD);
Even more important - you just ran a similar play, exposing your opponent D flaws and know that, being stunned that you go for 2, wouldn't have time to make adjustments - you call the same play.

 

[aburt19]

The way that the Denver defense was playing, kicking the extra point and going to overtime was at best a 50-50 shot. If San Diego won the toss, he

figured that Denver would lost the game.

Most coaches wouldn't have done it. I probably wouldn't have done it if I was the coach. But I can understand the reasons that he did it. He may have been

real confident in the one particular play that he thought would get the 2 pts.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I say it's stupid to go for two in that situation. Sure, it's gutsy, but it's also stupid. Kick the extra point, go into overtime. What say you?

Odds at successfully converting 2 pts are over 50% (I believe its closer to 60% actually). Odds at kicking 1 pt, taking the game to OT, calling the coin flip, and scoring before your opponent are far less than that.I'd say it's stupid to NOT go for 2 pts. The only reason you don't do it is if you're ignorant of the true odds, or you're afraid to make the RIGHT call and deal with the fallout if you don't get the pts.

I think the number for 2 pt conversion success are closer to 44%http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/09/vi...nt-attempt.html

 

[parasaurolophus]

no mention yet of the fact that the broncos kicker is 4-7 lifetime in field goals. Thats not a ton of experience. I dont think it is a huge factor(as he is perfect this year), but it is at least worth mentioning.

The fact too that there was no way San Diego would be expecting the two point conversion has to be weighed as well. I remember thinking is Shanny just goofing off here? Can he really be going for two? I have to imagine some of the defenders were the same way.

I think it was enough of a toss up statiistically to go with your gut. If your gut says "I have a play that will work" then you have to go for it.

 

[H.K.]

Tried to find success rates on two point conversions, but couldn't find anything through 2007, so here is the most recent stuff:

The first estimate puts the rate at “below 45 percent . . . since 1994,” but provides no hard numbers. The second estimate puts the two point conversion success rate at 50.9% for teams in 2005, but is potentially faulty due to small sample size.

link

Since the 2-point conversion rule was instituted, the NFL success rate is nearly 48 percent.

2006 article

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365

Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)

Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)

link to 2004 articleTherefore based on historical data, a team has about a 50% chance of getting a 2 point conversion, or about 50% winning/losing on the coin flip in OT. That being said, it is hard to find fault with Shanahan's decision regardless of outcome.

From a tangible standpoint, his decision worked and his team won.

From an intangible standpoint, Shanahan showed confidence in his offense and their ability to execute with the game on the line...and the Broncos were rewarded for it.

Not sure how anyone can justify saying it was a bad decision based on percentages or the outcome.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

That was probably a +EV move based on the way San Diego had (not) been playing defense. Best part was the TD and 2pt play was basically the same.

 

[Manster]

going into OT withe Sproles and the SD kick return kinda scary too. that little dude is a beast!

 

[Cixelsyd]

Hindsight is 20/20... I'm sure it will be 1/2 for 1/2 against because it worked... if it didn't it would be about 80% against, 20% for at best...

But that is why we are coaching fantasy teams and he is coaching the real thing... Obviously he saw something. They wanted to exploit it while they had a chance. With all the attention on Marshall, Royal ran close to the same play on the TD and extra point.

Was it stupid, no, was it risky, yes... but I think his team loves him for these kind of calls. And that was much better then Cleveland running on 1st down and 2nd down on that last series after Anderson had been 5/5 on the drive. So I'll take a risk taking coach over cruise control anyday.

 

[Keepers]

If the game was a defensive struggle, it would be wrong to assume that you will score on a 2 pts convert, but in a 38-37 game, both teams are scoring almost at will, Shanahan had to be feeling good about his chances.

But in the end a call is only stupid if you are wrong. Would be interesting if they got in the same situation later in the year and Shanahan went for the tie and then lost in overtime, if we would be having the same discussion that it was a stupid call not to go for the 2 pt convert.

 

[Tau837]

Tried to find success rates on two point conversions, but couldn't find anything through 2007, so here is the most recent stuff:

The first estimate puts the rate at “below 45 percent . . . since 1994,” but provides no hard numbers. The second estimate puts the two point conversion success rate at 50.9% for teams in 2005, but is potentially faulty due to small sample size.

link

Since the 2-point conversion rule was instituted, the NFL success rate is nearly 48 percent.

2006 article

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365

Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)

Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)

link to 2004 articleTherefore based on historical data, a team has about a 50% chance of getting a 2 point conversion, or about 50% winning/losing on the coin flip in OT. That being said, it is hard to find fault with Shanahan's decision regardless of outcome.

From a tangible standpoint, his decision worked and his team won.

From an intangible standpoint, Shanahan showed confidence in his offense and their ability to execute with the game on the line...and the Broncos were rewarded for it.

Not sure how anyone can justify saying it was a bad decision based on percentages or the outcome.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but I think the most relevant fact about overtime would be the percentage of teams that won the toss and scored on their first possession, not just won the toss and won the game. IMO the issue that really bears on Shanny's decision is the chance his team would not get a chance in OT. Yes, it's a 50% chance that SD wins the toss. But SD scored on 7 of 9 possessions, that does not equate to a 50% chance that SD would score on its first possession... the likelihood of that would be somewhat reduced.All that said, I still think he made a gutsy call and can't fault the decision, even if it had failed. I agree with some here that teams, especially the strongest offensive teams, should consider doing this more often. In retrospect, I'm somewhat surprised Belicheck didn't do this last year when he was hell bent on running up the score as often as possible... Welker and Moss are two really good weapons to use for two point conversions.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I say it's stupid to go for two in that situation. Sure, it's gutsy, but it's also stupid. Kick the extra point, go into overtime. What say you?

Why do you say it's stupid?J

Mathematically it is a big risk given that, on average, teams only convert like around 40 percent of the time. I remember reading some article/report on this awhile back. ...

The only risk involved is the back lash if it doesn't work, a couple of Superbowl wins and more than a decade record of success mitigates this concern. NFL Head Coaches do not maximize their opportunities to win, they minimize the opportunities to be second guessed. Going for this is almost always the correct call, but most head coaches aren't secure enough to go for it.

Agree on the second guessing thing.But why do you say going for it is almost always the correct call?

J

Because I don't believe that the success rate of going for two consistently would be only 50-50. It is close enough to 50-50 when desperate teams, generally running a disorganized, frazzled play attempt it today. It is absurd to me to believe that teams that consistently went for it would be just average. But even at 50-50 you are better off over the course of a season than kicking the extra point. That the "almost always".For yesterday-

1) I believe that the Denver Broncos' offense over the past twenty years or so would have a better than league average success rate at gaining two yards when they needed.

2) I believe that yesterday's Broncos' offense was better than the average Broncos' offense of these past twenty years.

3) I believe that the circumstances at the end of the game made the odds of success for the Broncos' offense better than it was most of the day.

-) So even if we are conservative about all of these numbers I don't see how the Broncos' were anything but better than 50-50 at that point in the game.

I can go on and on I simply I don't see a single reason for not going for two other than fear of what other people might think if I failed. Things were going for me at that moment, but there was no reason to believe that momentum and karma wasn't going to shift the other way any second. I would try to steal the win while I had fate on my side rather than wait for things to settle down and risk the tides going the other way.

 

[Obie Wan]

Another statistic that would be interesting to know is how many coaches ever go for two in this situation. I'm betting it's extremely low, and that should tell you something about the wisdom of the decision.

no - It tells you NFL coaches by nature play much too conservative most of the time. Your offense is pumped.They took the ball don the field.They scored They are pumped up.The defense is not - especially after the bad call.Show some confidence

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm with ya Tim. I think it's a closer call than you make it out, but really simple math gets us there if we make a few estimations.

You see here is what needs to be thought of. First, the odds tell us that going for 2 is not a good play on average as you will score less total points going for 2. However, that is over a long stretch of time and for this game, all that matters is the one play. That being said, here are some of the factors that are important to me.* It is a very high scoring game so I think it is safe to say that the odds of getting 2 were higher than normal; this leads to totally understanding the logic* However, there is one HUGE negative in going for it and that is the game was not over. This is not looked at nearly enough. There were still 24 seconds left in the game. With no time left, sure you could go for it, but with time on the clock your odds of winning drop. Now 24 seconds with no timeouts is not that much time, but there is a chance. If there were 40 seconds it is a BAD decision in my view. You also need to remember that Sproles has been returning kicks well so if he can get it out to the 35-40 SD would be in decent shape.As it turned out they made the 2 point conversion (great throw), stopped Sproles inside the 20 and then after a completion out of bounds got a break that Rivers throw was a little too far to the outside and Chambers could not keep his feet in. Even after this, they still had to get through a hail mary in the end zone to win.Summary:I am fine going for 2 with no time on the clock. With 24 seconds left it is probably not a good idea, but not horrible, just not a good idea. With more time on the clock it is most certainly not a good idea because in a tie game the offensive team can't throw high risk passes trying to break a tie, but they surely will if they are behind.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I already know the voting is going to be lopsided here, because it worked. But if it had failed, a lot of you guys would be all over Shanahan here. Remember, we're not discussing either the execution of the play nor it's result, only the decision itself.

And the decision was the correct one. Neither defense could get a stop. I'd rather have my offense out there to get 2 yards rather than hoping for a coin flip.Once again you are completely wrong tim.

Yeah, but you are forgetting that Denver's D DID have to still stop SD's offense and if they didn't they would have lost, not had a chance in OT.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

:* However, there is one HUGE negative in going for it and that is the game was not over. This is not looked at nearly enough. There were still 24 seconds left in the game. With no time left, sure you could go for it, but with time on the clock your odds of winning drop. Now 24 seconds with no timeouts is not that much time, but there is a chance. If there were 40 seconds it is a BAD decision in my view. You also need to remember that Sproles has been returning kicks well so if he can get it out to the 35-40 SD would be in decent shape.:

Do you think that a San Diego team in a tie game is more or less likely to score next than a San Diego team down by one with 20 seconds left in the game?

 

[Liquid Tension]

DEN was 2-3 yards away from the win, SD defense hadnt been stopping DEN, defense wasnt apparently stopping SD--why leave the fate of the game to a coin toss???

I have said my thoughts enough, but my last comment is that they were not 2-3 yards away from a win; they were 2-3 yards away form a great chance to win and if they don't make it they lose. Also, no matter how good the offenses are, saying OT is just a coin flip has been proven wrong over the years. As absolutely crazy the scoring was in the game, Denver was stopped all 4 of their last possessions (the last possession was a fumble).

 

[TommyGilmore]

I say it's stupid to go for two in that situation. Sure, it's gutsy, but it's also stupid. Kick the extra point, go into overtime. What say you?

Odds at successfully converting 2 pts are over 50% (I believe its closer to 60% actually).

No. As pointed out in the thread, the historic rate is about 44-48%, with a some years creeping over 50% (but no years coming close to 60%).

Odds at kicking 1 pt, taking the game to OT, calling the coin flip, and scoring before your opponent are far less than that.

The only reason you don't do it is if you're ignorant of the true odds

Indeed.

 

[Football Jones]

I say it's stupid to go for two in that situation. Sure, it's gutsy, but it's also stupid. Kick the extra point, go into overtime. What say you?

Odds at successfully converting 2 pts are over 50% (I believe its closer to 60% actually). Odds at kicking 1 pt, taking the game to OT, calling the coin flip, and scoring before your opponent are far less than that.I'd say it's stupid to NOT go for 2 pts. The only reason you don't do it is if you're ignorant of the true odds, or you're afraid to make the RIGHT call and deal with the fallout if you don't get the pts.

= right answer

 

[shredhead]

I'm with ya Tim. I think it's a closer call than you make it out, but really simple math gets us there if we make a few estimations.

You see here is what needs to be thought of. First, the odds tell us that going for 2 is not a good play on average as you will score less total points going for 2. However, that is over a long stretch of time and for this game, all that matters is the one play. That being said, here are some of the factors that are important to me.* It is a very high scoring game so I think it is safe to say that the odds of getting 2 were higher than normal; this leads to totally understanding the logic* However, there is one HUGE negative in going for it and that is the game was not over. This is not looked at nearly enough. There were still 24 seconds left in the game. With no time left, sure you could go for it, but with time on the clock your odds of winning drop. Now 24 seconds with no timeouts is not that much time, but there is a chance. If there were 40 seconds it is a BAD decision in my view. You also need to remember that Sproles has been returning kicks well so if he can get it out to the 35-40 SD would be in decent shape.As it turned out they made the 2 point conversion (great throw), stopped Sproles inside the 20 and then after a completion out of bounds got a break that Rivers throw was a little too far to the outside and Chambers could not keep his feet in. Even after this, they still had to get through a hail mary in the end zone to win.Summary:I am fine going for 2 with no time on the clock. With 24 seconds left it is probably not a good idea, but not horrible, just not a good idea. With more time on the clock it is most certainly not a good idea because in a tie game the offensive team can't throw high risk passes trying to break a tie, but they surely will if they are behind.

I don't understand your argument about the 24 seconds left. FG's are worth 3 points, so it doesn't matter if the game is tied or denver up by 1, a FG wins it for SD.

 

[Liquid Tension]

There seems to be some disagreement here about what the percentages are for making a 2 point conversion: some say it's over 50%, some say under. The point is, if you fail, you almost certainly lose the game. Even a 45% chance to lose in one play is too much of a risk. I know people will argue that he's playing to win and I'm playing not to lose, but my position is more complex than that. Let's say you kick the extra point. Then you go to OT where you get a 50% chance at the coin flip. Even if you lose the coin flip, the Chargers still have to drive the ball down the field. Even if they do drive the ball down the field, they still have to punch it in or kick a FG to win. So many things can go wrong for the Chargers and right for the Broncos, that I believe it makes much more sense to play it safe.

I can easily just reverse that logic and use it against playing it safe, though. I mean, if the Broncos punch in the 2pc, they win the game. If they go to overtime, then they have to win the coin flip, and even if they do win the coin flip, they still have to march down the field, and even then, they have to make the FG or punch it in for the score. So many things could go wrong for the Broncos and right for the Chargers that I believe it makes much more sense to play aggressive.A big point that hasn't been mentioned yet... sudden death overtime is a game of kickers. The reason why the coin flip is so important is because 30 yards gets you in position for a high-percentage walk-off score. If Shanahan still had Elam around, I think he'd be far more likely to head to overtime in this situation, but he's got a raw, untested, slightly scattershot kicker with no real game experience in even mundane situations, let alone kicking gamewinners against divisional foes. Even if SD and Denver were perfectly evenly matched (something that could be debated one way or the other all day long), SD's big advantage at the kicker position (especially in terms of experience) would DRAMATICALLY tip the scales in their favor in overtime, such that I think any 50/50 estimate of either team's chances of winning in overtime is just plain inaccurate.

It is a good point about the kicking game and that should go into the decision. However, with 24 seconds left they still could have lost. Also, people say that it was an easy play they had called, but it took a perfect pass to complete it. Further, the stats I had seen are that the chances of making 2 points over a 5 year period were less than 44%, however I had seen that recently the numbers were higher. if the numbers were at 50% more teams would go for 2 all the time. Finally, the stats used to show that the team winning the toss only had a TINY advantage of winning the game (at the time it was something like 48-47 with 5% ties over a long period of time), but recently I think the odds of winning the game from the toss got up to 53%?Either way, it was not a stupid call, but because of the 24 seconds left I think it was questionable; last play of the game then it is fine

 

[TobiasFunke]

Two more factors: (1) Extra points are not automatic- you still have to snap the ball, hold it, and boot it through the uprights. It seems like most teams miss one or more every year. That changes the math a little bit as well. Not much, but it might be enough to make a 45-50% success rate on extra points positive EV. (2) The Chargers have one of the best kickers in the league, the Broncos have a rookie who was in his second game who's never attempted a high-pressure 4th Quarter or OT field goal in the NFL. Again, this changes the math a little bit (and could even change the math of the expected extra point success).

Add all of this together (this stuff, the timing allowing for the onside attempt of the Broncos failed on the conversion, the "stun" factor, the teams' relative failures on defense) and it seems like a no-brainer. Well, I won't say that, since I didn't think of it until Shanahan did, but once I saw him raising two fingers and thought about it for a second, it seemed like the smart move.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

FYI-

In the article is a listing of the seven times this has been tried. Three teams have made it, four haven't. However, the first two tries failed, so three of the last five tries have worked .

 

[Liquid Tension]

The silent majority speaks! Despite the preponderance of posts here which favor going for two, the actual vote is 126-123 against. As JetsWillWin pointed out, imagine what the result of this poll would be had the Broncos failed.

I would hope that people would vote the same way regardless of the outcome. As an armchair QB I make my opinions known before the play and do not switch them after the fact. I also want to point at that under the gun of time pressure you need to make that decision and after the fact there are some components that might come into the equation that you might not have thought of...pro or con

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The silent majority speaks! Despite the preponderance of posts here which favor going for two, the actual vote is 126-123 against. As JetsWillWin pointed out, imagine what the result of this poll would be had the Broncos failed.

I would hope that people would vote the same way regardless of the outcome. As an armchair QB I make my opinions known before the play and do not switch them after the fact. I also want to point at that under the gun of time pressure you need to make that decision and after the fact there are some components that might come into the equation that you might not have thought of...pro or con

It's true though. If they had failed, the votes would be about 80-20 against.

 

[Liquid Tension]

:* However, there is one HUGE negative in going for it and that is the game was not over. This is not looked at nearly enough. There were still 24 seconds left in the game. With no time left, sure you could go for it, but with time on the clock your odds of winning drop. Now 24 seconds with no timeouts is not that much time, but there is a chance. If there were 40 seconds it is a BAD decision in my view. You also need to remember that Sproles has been returning kicks well so if he can get it out to the 35-40 SD would be in decent shape.:

Do you think that a San Diego team in a tie game is more or less likely to score next than a San Diego team down by one with 20 seconds left in the game?

Far less because a team that is tied will not force things because a turnover would lose the game. When you are down you need to take chances which you will not take if the game is tied

 

[Charlie Harper]

I say it's stupid to go for two in that situation. Sure, it's gutsy, but it's also stupid. Kick the extra point, go into overtime. What say you?

Odds at successfully converting 2 pts are over 50% (I believe its closer to 60% actually). Odds at kicking 1 pt, taking the game to OT, calling the coin flip, and scoring before your opponent are far less than that.I'd say it's stupid to NOT go for 2 pts. The only reason you don't do it is if you're ignorant of the true odds, or you're afraid to make the RIGHT call and deal with the fallout if you don't get the pts.

= right answer

With his made up stats it may be the right answer.

 

[Charlie Harper]

I already know the voting is going to be lopsided here, because it worked. But if it had failed, a lot of you guys would be all over Shanahan here. Remember, we're not discussing either the execution of the play nor it's result, only the decision itself.

And the decision was the correct one. Neither defense could get a stop. I'd rather have my offense out there to get 2 yards rather than hoping for a coin flip.Once again you are completely wrong tim.

Yeah, but you are forgetting that Denver's D DID have to still stop SD's offense and if they didn't they would have lost, not had a chance in OT.

They didn't have to "stop" SD. They needed to hold them for 2 or 3 plays. Big difference.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm with ya Tim. I think it's a closer call than you make it out, but really simple math gets us there if we make a few estimations.

You see here is what needs to be thought of. First, the odds tell us that going for 2 is not a good play on average as you will score less total points going for 2. However, that is over a long stretch of time and for this game, all that matters is the one play. That being said, here are some of the factors that are important to me.* It is a very high scoring game so I think it is safe to say that the odds of getting 2 were higher than normal; this leads to totally understanding the logic* However, there is one HUGE negative in going for it and that is the game was not over. This is not looked at nearly enough. There were still 24 seconds left in the game. With no time left, sure you could go for it, but with time on the clock your odds of winning drop. Now 24 seconds with no timeouts is not that much time, but there is a chance. If there were 40 seconds it is a BAD decision in my view. You also need to remember that Sproles has been returning kicks well so if he can get it out to the 35-40 SD would be in decent shape.As it turned out they made the 2 point conversion (great throw), stopped Sproles inside the 20 and then after a completion out of bounds got a break that Rivers throw was a little too far to the outside and Chambers could not keep his feet in. Even after this, they still had to get through a hail mary in the end zone to win.Summary:I am fine going for 2 with no time on the clock. With 24 seconds left it is probably not a good idea, but not horrible, just not a good idea. With more time on the clock it is most certainly not a good idea because in a tie game the offensive team can't throw high risk passes trying to break a tie, but they surely will if they are behind.

I don't understand your argument about the 24 seconds left. FG's are worth 3 points, so it doesn't matter if the game is tied or denver up by 1, a FG wins it for SD.

Huge difference as stated in my prior post. if the score is tied, SD might even take a knee or more likely would dumped the pass off and hope the guy makes a reasonable enough gain to try another pass. If SD would have had the same kick return as they actually did, they would have taken a knee. SD actually had a decent chance to score and nobody is talking about that. Chambers foot landed 3 inches onto the line or SD would have been trying to a game winning FG and they still had a hail Mary that landed perfectly in the middle of the end zone.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

:* However, there is one HUGE negative in going for it and that is the game was not over. This is not looked at nearly enough. There were still 24 seconds left in the game. With no time left, sure you could go for it, but with time on the clock your odds of winning drop. Now 24 seconds with no timeouts is not that much time, but there is a chance. If there were 40 seconds it is a BAD decision in my view. You also need to remember that Sproles has been returning kicks well so if he can get it out to the 35-40 SD would be in decent shape.:

Do you think that a San Diego team in a tie game is more or less likely to score next than a San Diego team down by one with 20 seconds left in the game?

Far less because a team that is tied will not force things because a turnover would lose the game. When you are down you need to take chances which you will not take if the game is tied

So you think the odds of scoring next go up when you take more chances? Play with more reckless abandon?

 

[shredhead]

It's true though. If they had failed, the votes would be about 80-20 against.

I would have been in the 20%

 

[Liquid Tension]

Two more factors: (1) Extra points are not automatic- you still have to snap the ball, hold it, and boot it through the uprights. It seems like most teams miss one or more every year. That changes the math a little bit as well. Not much, but it might be enough to make a 45-50% success rate on extra points positive EV. (2) The Chargers have one of the best kickers in the league, the Broncos have a rookie who was in his second game who's never attempted a high-pressure 4th Quarter or OT field goal in the NFL. Again, this changes the math a little bit (and could even change the math of the expected extra point success).Add all of this together (this stuff, the timing allowing for the onside attempt of the Broncos failed on the conversion, the "stun" factor, the teams' relative failures on defense) and it seems like a no-brainer. Well, I won't say that, since I didn't think of it until Shanahan did, but once I saw him raising two fingers and thought about it for a second, it seemed like the smart move.

It is a % or 2. I think your point about teh onside kick chance of recovering is a valid one as well.As I said, it is not a bad move, it is close decision either way. In the heat of the moment, I was on the phone with a friend and I said, "with 24 seconds left this is a tough call as you could still lose, but I can understand Shanny's thinking here."

 

[Liquid Tension]

:* However, there is one HUGE negative in going for it and that is the game was not over. This is not looked at nearly enough. There were still 24 seconds left in the game. With no time left, sure you could go for it, but with time on the clock your odds of winning drop. Now 24 seconds with no timeouts is not that much time, but there is a chance. If there were 40 seconds it is a BAD decision in my view. You also need to remember that Sproles has been returning kicks well so if he can get it out to the 35-40 SD would be in decent shape.:

Do you think that a San Diego team in a tie game is more or less likely to score next than a San Diego team down by one with 20 seconds left in the game?

Far less because a team that is tied will not force things because a turnover would lose the game. When you are down you need to take chances which you will not take if the game is tied

So you think the odds of scoring next go up when you take more chances? Play with more reckless abandon?

Your odds of scoring go way up, but your odds of turning the ball over also go way up.

 

[J R]

I see a lot of different numbers in this thread. PFP 2007 has an article on 2-point conversions. One of the first things they did was throw out messed up XP snaps that then get recorded as 2 point conversions. Here's what they came up with:

1998 98 attempts, 41%

1999 77 attempts, 39%

2000 78 attempts, 45%

2001 84 attempts, 48%

2002 93 attempts, 51%

2003 62 attempts, 47%

2004 77 attempts, 50%

2005 50 attempts, 54%

2006 35 attempts, 60%

When I look at those stats and consider the context of the game (lots of good points in this thread, like inability of SD to stop those kinds of passing plays, the inability of denver's defense to stop SD, the inexperience of their kicker, etc.), I think it seems pretty clearly the right call.

 

[tribecalledjeff]

This may have been mentioned, but look at it from the other side. If you were a SD fan, would you have wanted Denver to go for 2? I sure as hell wouldn't have. To me, that answers the question.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I see a lot of different numbers in this thread. PFP 2007 has an article on 2-point conversions. One of the first things they did was throw out messed up XP snaps that then get recorded as 2 point conversions. Here's what they came up with:1998 98 attempts, 41%1999 77 attempts, 39%2000 78 attempts, 45%2001 84 attempts, 48%2002 93 attempts, 51%2003 62 attempts, 47%2004 77 attempts, 50%2005 50 attempts, 54%2006 35 attempts, 60%When I look at those stats and consider the context of the game (lots of good points in this thread, like inability of SD to stop those kinds of passing plays, the inability of denver's defense to stop SD, the inexperience of their kicker, etc.), I think it seems pretty clearly the right call.

So about 47% over those attempts

 

[massraider]

This may have been mentioned, but look at it from the other side. If you were a SD fan, would you have wanted Denver to go for 2? I sure as hell wouldn't have. To me, that answers the question.

A pretty good point.You know what answers the question for me?The "stupid call" crowd? Shoving stats, percentages, and math formulas at everyone.The "right call" crowd? Discussing football.

 

[J R]

I see a lot of different numbers in this thread. PFP 2007 has an article on 2-point conversions. One of the first things they did was throw out messed up XP snaps that then get recorded as 2 point conversions. Here's what they came up with:1998 98 attempts, 41%1999 77 attempts, 39%2000 78 attempts, 45%2001 84 attempts, 48%2002 93 attempts, 51%2003 62 attempts, 47%2004 77 attempts, 50%2005 50 attempts, 54%2006 35 attempts, 60%When I look at those stats and consider the context of the game (lots of good points in this thread, like inability of SD to stop those kinds of passing plays, the inability of denver's defense to stop SD, the inexperience of their kicker, etc.), I think it seems pretty clearly the right call.

So about 47% over those attempts

well, i would want to weight those numbers. it seems important to me that the success rate has been trending up (50%+ in 4 of the last 5 years). but i'm not really a math guy, so i could be convinced otherwise.

 

[GoldenBear]

John Clayton chimes in on this over at espn.com, and I believe most here will agree he's no dunce:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/notebook?page=lastcall08/week2

The article basically talks about how conservative playcalling has become since coaches started relying heavily on very accurate field goal kickers. Clayton also mentions 2 games this weekend (The Bears/Panthers game and the Colts/Vikings game) where teams lost because of overly conservative playcalling. I know that these games are not analagous to the Broncos/Chargers game, but the heart of the matter - that conservative playcalling can be a coaching liability - is the same.

And my two cents - It's nice to see a coach willing to go for the home run instead of covering his own ### by playing super conservative.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I already know the voting is going to be lopsided here, because it worked. But if it had failed, a lot of you guys would be all over Shanahan here. Remember, we're not discussing either the execution of the play nor it's result, only the decision itself.

And the decision was the correct one. Neither defense could get a stop. I'd rather have my offense out there to get 2 yards rather than hoping for a coin flip.Once again you are completely wrong tim.

Yeah, but you are forgetting that Denver's D DID have to still stop SD's offense and if they didn't they would have lost, not had a chance in OT.

They didn't have to "stop" SD. They needed to hold them for 2 or 3 plays. Big difference.

Semantics...they still needed to stop them from scoring with time greatly on their side. As it was, was their any Denver fan who didn't tighten their sphincter after gates caught the ball at the 44 yard line? It was more than just a blind shot in a million as we have seen time and time again in the NFL when all you need is a FG.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I liked the call, and not just because it worked. I would rather give my offense the chance to win the game from the 2 yard line than to chance all of the other things that can go wrong, not to mention the coin toss. I also like it because Cutler is the QB, and he's got the best rating from outside the pocket, plus he's mobile enough to score on a bootleg.

I wish more coaches would have the guts to play to win.

That's faulty logic. Why?It's near impossible to tie in an NFL game. Kicking the XP isn't playing for a tie. It's tieing the score - something very different than playing for a tie. The anticipation is that you can still win the game in a subsequent posession. Any decision other than downing the ball IS playing for the win in that situation. Kicking the XP in that situation is no different than it would be in that situation if it were the first quarter. By your logic, the only time you should ever punt, kick an XP or FG is if you have the lead.

It's true that SD and Den both seemed to have trouble stopping the opposing O. But how were they doing on stopping the opposing O after a kickoff with the opposing O having to sustain a drive of 50+ yards?

I'd love to see what either Denver's or the league's scoring percentage is on all down and goal from the 3(?), but especially on 3rd and 4th downs, not just for 2 point conversions. I think that would give you a better idea of the odds for punching it in from that far out in one play. Saying your team had been moving the ball isn't near as convincing in an all-or-nothing single play. If moving the ball down the field guaranteed TD's, we wouldn't need field goal kickers, would we?

 

[Liquid Tension]

I see a lot of different numbers in this thread. PFP 2007 has an article on 2-point conversions. One of the first things they did was throw out messed up XP snaps that then get recorded as 2 point conversions. Here's what they came up with:1998 98 attempts, 41%1999 77 attempts, 39%2000 78 attempts, 45%2001 84 attempts, 48%2002 93 attempts, 51%2003 62 attempts, 47%2004 77 attempts, 50%2005 50 attempts, 54%2006 35 attempts, 60%When I look at those stats and consider the context of the game (lots of good points in this thread, like inability of SD to stop those kinds of passing plays, the inability of denver's defense to stop SD, the inexperience of their kicker, etc.), I think it seems pretty clearly the right call.

Assuming those stats are correct, then the NFL needs to push the 2 point conversion line back. What is even more odd is that so many people say how can you question coaches who know way more than "me" about the game...well if you look at how poor they manage the clock (this is without debate) and you look at these stats, how in the world would attempts continue to go down when the stats tell you you should always go for 2? Are the coaches stupid?(rhetorical question)...The success rate should be around 40% for the 2 point line to make sense IMO.

 

[Liquid Tension]

John Clayton chimes in on this over at espn.com, and I believe most here will agree he's no dunce:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/notebook?page=lastcall08/week2

The article basically talks about how conservative playcalling has become since coaches started relying heavily on very accurate field goal kickers. Clayton also mentions 2 games this weekend (The Bears/Panthers game and the Colts/Vikings game) where teams lost because of overly conservative playcalling. I know that these games are not analagous to the Broncos/Chargers game, but the heart of the matter - that conservative playcalling can be a coaching liability - is the same.

And my two cents - It's nice to see a coach willing to go for the home run instead of covering his own ### by playing super conservative.

Just a point here. The conservative play calling was with Kyle Orton and Tarvaris Jackson as your QB's to go along with top notch defenses.

 

[Charlie Harper]

I liked the call, and not just because it worked. I would rather give my offense the chance to win the game from the 2 yard line than to chance all of the other things that can go wrong, not to mention the coin toss. I also like it because Cutler is the QB, and he's got the best rating from outside the pocket, plus he's mobile enough to score on a bootleg.

I wish more coaches would have the guts to play to win.

That's faulty logic. Why?It's near impossible to tie in an NFL game. Kicking the XP isn't playing for a tie. It's tieing the score - something very different than playing for a tie. The anticipation is that you can still win the game in a subsequent posession. Any decision other than downing the ball IS playing for the win in that situation. Kicking the XP in that situation is no different than it would be in that situation if it were the first quarter. By your logic, the only time you should ever punt, kick an XP or FG is if you have the lead.

It's true that SD and Den both seemed to have trouble stopping the opposing O. But how were they doing on stopping the opposing O after a kickoff with the opposing O having to sustain a drive of 50+ yards?

I'd love to see what either Denver's or the league's scoring percentage is on all down and goal from the 3(?), but especially on 3rd and 4th downs, not just for 2 point conversions. I think that would give you a better idea of the odds for punching it in from that far out in one play. Saying your team had been moving the ball isn't near as convincing in an all-or-nothing single play. If moving the ball down the field guaranteed TD's, we wouldn't need field goal kickers, would we?

So much of this is completely wrong. The leagues scoring % is irrelevant. Better offenses (Den, Ind, NE) will convert far more often than poor offenses (Bears, KC, MIA). Teams with weak defense will allow more conversations.

Punching it in on 3rd and 4th down <> a 2 pt conversion.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I see a lot of different numbers in this thread. PFP 2007 has an article on 2-point conversions. One of the first things they did was throw out messed up XP snaps that then get recorded as 2 point conversions. Here's what they came up with:1998 98 attempts, 41%1999 77 attempts, 39%2000 78 attempts, 45%2001 84 attempts, 48%2002 93 attempts, 51%2003 62 attempts, 47%2004 77 attempts, 50%2005 50 attempts, 54%2006 35 attempts, 60%When I look at those stats and consider the context of the game (lots of good points in this thread, like inability of SD to stop those kinds of passing plays, the inability of denver's defense to stop SD, the inexperience of their kicker, etc.), I think it seems pretty clearly the right call.

Thanks JR. J

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

This may have been mentioned, but look at it from the other side. If you were a SD fan, would you have wanted Denver to go for 2? I sure as hell wouldn't have. To me, that answers the question.

A pretty good point.You know what answers the question for me?The "stupid call" crowd? Shoving stats, percentages, and math formulas at everyone.The "right call" crowd? Discussing football.

Weird.I said it was the right call and went with stats and percentages and used that as a baseline to reflect on the game that was being played at that time.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to add, part of my vote was how much I hate the current NFL overtime system. I loved seeing the Broncos proactively play for the win there. Even if they'd failed to get in.

J