You're down by 15 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (1 Viewer)

[Insein]

If you try for 2 and don't get it, you need two scores. That lets the other team play the clock much differently than if you take 1 and can tie it up in one possession. You need to take 1 now and worry about getting the 2 the next time.

This.Plus if you go for two and miss, the players are gonna be deflated because it seems impossible. But if they play defense like a turnover/punt is going to give them a chance to tie and the offense feels the urgency, then I would think you have a better chance of winning.

On the other hand, if you go for two and make, the players are gonna be super inflated because it seems possible.

Its too high risk, little reward. You kick the PAT which is a much more high percentage play, you are only down one score. You go for 2, a much lower percentage play, and make it then you have only gained the ability to not go for 2 next time. Either way (1 pt or 2pts) you still have to score a TD. If you miss the 2pt conversion, your down 9 and need to score twice. Any coach that doesn't go for one is an idiot. Don't chase points you'll need later. You take the almost sure thing while you can and worry about getting the 2 later.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I am extremely surprised at how many people would kick the point...As I said in the 2nd response on the thread, wouldn't you want to know that you didn't make the two point conversion much earlier so that you have more time to adjust?

Adjust to what? The fact that you scored a TD, and are still down two scores? You scored the TD, got within a score. Keep it within a score, a lot can happen. Maybe the other team's punter lets it go over his head thru the endzone, and you won't need a two point conversion. And maybe the other team was punting because they had to take more chances because they knew you were within a score.

This argument about momentum and a let down and all that is so minor. If the team was so let down that you were down by 15 with 7 minutes to go how did they muster up the energy to get into the end zone to begin with?

Obviously this part is just opinion, but I think you are dramatically underestimating momentum and emotion.

Time to adjust so that you know you have to go for 4th down every time and you can't waste a 2nd. You keep saying you are keeping it within a score, but that is assuming you will make it...As I just said, If you make it then based on how important your momentum is then you actually made it even easier to come back. But what if you don't make it? I don't see how you can make an argument for it being better to know you missed it later than earlier; so when you take the two scenarios they both are better to know. if you know you will make it then momentum is so strong it gives you a better chance to get the 2nd TD and if you know you will miss it, you can adjust your play calling and aggressiveness to the max knowing that you will need a TD and a FG in 7 minutes.

 

[Liquid Tension]

If you try for 2 and don't get it, you need two scores. That lets the other team play the clock much differently than if you take 1 and can tie it up in one possession. You need to take 1 now and worry about getting the 2 the next time.

This.Plus if you go for two and miss, the players are gonna be deflated because it seems impossible. But if they play defense like a turnover/punt is going to give them a chance to tie and the offense feels the urgency, then I would think you have a better chance of winning.

On the other hand, if you go for two and make, the players are gonna be super inflated because it seems possible.

Its too high risk, little reward. You kick the PAT which is a much more high percentage play, you are only down one score. You go for 2, a much lower percentage play, and make it then you have only gained the ability to not go for 2 next time. Either way (1 pt or 2pts) you still have to score a TD. If you miss the 2pt conversion, your down 9 and need to score twice. Any coach that doesn't go for one is an idiot. Don't chase points you'll need later. You take the almost sure thing while you can and worry about getting the 2 later.

This logic is off base. If you miss the 2 pointer at the end of the game the game is almost definitively over; at least if you miss it earlier you have a better chance.

 

[Liquid Tension]

If you try for 2 and don't get it, you need two scores. That lets the other team play the clock much differently than if you take 1 and can tie it up in one possession. You need to take 1 now and worry about getting the 2 the next time.

This.Plus if you go for two and miss, the players are gonna be deflated because it seems impossible. But if they play defense like a turnover/punt is going to give them a chance to tie and the offense feels the urgency, then I would think you have a better chance of winning.

Exactly. I'm normally all about statistical decision-making, but I think you need to factor in momentum here. Keeping it a one-score game keeps the players' spirits up and the game feels well within reach. We score again and the momentum is totally in our favor and the defense is deflated - increasing our chances of getting the 2 pts

yet getting the 2 pointer first would be an enormous momentum boost based on your logic making it even more likely you get the 2nd TD before the other team scores which is even a lower % than making a 2 point conversion...

 

[bigmarc27]

If you try for 2 and don't get it, you need two scores. That lets the other team play the clock much differently than if you take 1 and can tie it up in one possession. You need to take 1 now and worry about getting the 2 the next time.

This.Plus if you go for two and miss, the players are gonna be deflated because it seems impossible. But if they play defense like a turnover/punt is going to give them a chance to tie and the offense feels the urgency, then I would think you have a better chance of winning.

On the other hand, if you go for two and make, the players are gonna be super inflated because it seems possible.

Its too high risk, little reward. You kick the PAT which is a much more high percentage play, you are only down one score. You go for 2, a much lower percentage play, and make it then you have only gained the ability to not go for 2 next time. Either way (1 pt or 2pts) you still have to score a TD. If you miss the 2pt conversion, your down 9 and need to score twice. Any coach that doesn't go for one is an idiot. Don't chase points you'll need later. You take the almost sure thing while you can and worry about getting the 2 later.

This logic is off base. If you miss the 2 pointer at the end of the game the game is almost definitively over; at least if you miss it earlier you have a better chance.

In that example you're assuming the 2nd TD is scored at the end of the game. Assuming that you're down 9, "the game is almost definitively over."

 

[Jayrod]

Let's say you're up by 15 with 7:00 left in the game. Your opponent scores a touchdown to cut the lead to 9. They then line up for the 2-point conversion. Are you happy that they're going for 2 or do you wish they had kicked the XP?

Again it depends. Good defense? I'm pumped that 1 stop can force a 2 score game which will likely not happen. If my defense sucks? I wouldn't care, because he'll likely get it either way and I'm going to have to score again to finish them off anyway.If my defense is average? Well, then I wouldn't mind him going for it, because then I know how hard I need to push for a score to keep it a 2 score game and if they miss it, great.

 

[Liquid Tension]

If you try for 2 and don't get it, you need two scores. That lets the other team play the clock much differently than if you take 1 and can tie it up in one possession. You need to take 1 now and worry about getting the 2 the next time.

This.Plus if you go for two and miss, the players are gonna be deflated because it seems impossible. But if they play defense like a turnover/punt is going to give them a chance to tie and the offense feels the urgency, then I would think you have a better chance of winning.

Exactly. I'm normally all about statistical decision-making, but I think you need to factor in momentum here. Keeping it a one-score game keeps the players' spirits up and the game feels well within reach. We score again and the momentum is totally in our favor and the defense is deflated - increasing our chances of getting the 2 pts

What are your odds of converting the 2-point attempt when down by 9 (following touchdown #1)? What are your odds of converting when down by 2 (following touchdown #1/XP and then touchdown #2)? Exactly what sort of increase in probability are we talking about here?

Factor what are the odds you get the 2nd TD while stuffing the other team after making the "momentum boosting" first 2 point conversion.Bottom line is the thinking going on with most of the voters is based on making the 2 point conversion, yet their logic is based on momentum lost if you miss the 2 point conversion the 1st time They are not even thinking abouty the almost certain loss if they miss teh 2 point conversion the 2nd time.As I said before, if you know that IF you score you are guaranteed to miss the 2 point conversion, when would you rather know you will miss it? Clear answer is 1st. If you know you that IF you score you are guaranteed to make the 2 point conversion when would you take it? Based on your momentum boost the clear answer is 1st so that you have a better chance of scoring that elusive 2nd TD.

 

[Insein]

If you try for 2 and don't get it, you need two scores. That lets the other team play the clock much differently than if you take 1 and can tie it up in one possession. You need to take 1 now and worry about getting the 2 the next time.

This.Plus if you go for two and miss, the players are gonna be deflated because it seems impossible. But if they play defense like a turnover/punt is going to give them a chance to tie and the offense feels the urgency, then I would think you have a better chance of winning.

On the other hand, if you go for two and make, the players are gonna be super inflated because it seems possible.

Its too high risk, little reward. You kick the PAT which is a much more high percentage play, you are only down one score. You go for 2, a much lower percentage play, and make it then you have only gained the ability to not go for 2 next time. Either way (1 pt or 2pts) you still have to score a TD. If you miss the 2pt conversion, your down 9 and need to score twice. Any coach that doesn't go for one is an idiot. Don't chase points you'll need later. You take the almost sure thing while you can and worry about getting the 2 later.

This logic is off base. If you miss the 2 pointer at the end of the game the game is almost definitively over; at least if you miss it earlier you have a better chance.

What?! What logic is that? You miss the 2pt conversion now and you are almost certainly over. Your down 2 scores with less than 7 minutes to go. If you kick the extra point your within 1 score with less than 7 minutes to go. Your logic is completely flawed. What you have to look at is the risk vs reward. 1pt - Risk is minimal to miss. Reward is that you're within 1 score still.2pt - Risk is high that you'll miss and be down 2 scores. Reward is that you'll be within one score and not have to go for 2 later. Where does your logic say going for it early is better than at the end?

 

[footballnerd]

okay after thinking this through again, I have this question:

If you're down by 8 at the end of the game, do you use as much clock as possible in hopes that you score, convert the 2pt and leave no time for your opponent, then go into OT.......or do you try to leave time in case the 2pt fails?

 

[Liquid Tension]

Let's say you're up by 15 with 7:00 left in the game. Your opponent scores a touchdown to cut the lead to 9. They then line up for the 2-point conversion. Are you happy that they're going for 2 or do you wish they had kicked the XP?

I would want them to kick the extra point

 

[Insein]

Let's say you're up by 15 with 7:00 left in the game. Your opponent scores a touchdown to cut the lead to 9. They then line up for the 2-point conversion. Are you happy that they're going for 2 or do you wish they had kicked the XP?

I would want them to kick the extra point

Then you have no faith in your defense.

 

[massraider]

I am extremely surprised at how many people would kick the point...As I said in the 2nd response on the thread, wouldn't you want to know that you didn't make the two point conversion much earlier so that you have more time to adjust?

Adjust to what? The fact that you scored a TD, and are still down two scores? You scored the TD, got within a score. Keep it within a score, a lot can happen. Maybe the other team's punter lets it go over his head thru the endzone, and you won't need a two point conversion. And maybe the other team was punting because they had to take more chances because they knew you were within a score.

This argument about momentum and a let down and all that is so minor. If the team was so let down that you were down by 15 with 7 minutes to go how did they muster up the energy to get into the end zone to begin with?

Obviously this part is just opinion, but I think you are dramatically underestimating momentum and emotion.

Time to adjust so that you know you have to go for 4th down every time and you can't waste a 2nd. You keep saying you are keeping it within a score, but that is assuming you will make it...As I just said, If you make it then based on how important your momentum is then you actually made it even easier to come back. But what if you don't make it?



I don't see how you can make an argument for it being better to know you missed it later than earlier; so when you take the two scenarios they both are better to know. if you know you will make it then momentum is so strong it gives you a better chance to get the 2nd TD and if you know you will miss it, you can adjust your play calling and aggressiveness to the max knowing that you will need a TD and a FG in 7 minutes.

I am not really making that argument. I guess I would say that going for it after the first TD doesn't tell you if you would have made it after the second TD. It's not like there's only one scenario for 2-pt conversions, and whatever you do after the first one is exactly what would happen after the second TD. Going for it after the first TD doesn't give you a crystal ball and tell you if you would have made it after the 2nd TD (if you got one). It just doesn't work like that. It is two different scenarios. One is with 7 minutes left, and if you miss, you almost made the TD you just scored irrelevant. The other is at the end of the game, to send it to overtime. Why give the other team the chance to have a two score lead when you can cut it to one?I think momentum and emotion are much bigger than you give credit for, and as a head coach, I want to kick the extra point, tell my defense we are within a score, and go get that ball back for the offense! What I don't want to do is tell them, "We chooched that two yard play, and now we kinda need the ball back in a hurry...."

I think the 'adjustments' you speak of, if you think about it, are the same down by one or two scores. You are still not going to punt, you are still going for a TD. Missing a two-pointer, you just put your offense in an impossible situation.

7 minutes left, you can only count on getting the ball one more time. And you need a TD when you get the ball. Difference is, down by one score, your defense and offense both believe it is actually possible to tie the game.

By getting within one score, then going to a much lower percentage play, and potentially falling within two scores, all you are doing is giving the defense a free shot at ending the game with 7 minutes left, removing all pressure from them, and returning it all to your team.

 

[Insein]

okay after thinking this through again, I have this question: If you're down by 8 at the end of the game, do you use as much clock as possible in hopes that you score, convert the 2pt and leave no time for your opponent, then go into OT.......or do you try to leave time in case the 2pt fails?

Run it down and go for 2pt. You got yourself to this point, no turning back now.

 

[humpback]

There is a lot more to consider than just the point differential and the time left, that's the point. This isn't a "one size fits all" situation either way IMO.

You keep only looking at it from your side- "This logic is off base. If you miss the 2 pointer at the end of the game the game is almost definitively over; at least if you miss it earlier you have a better chance." This doesn't make any sense.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

People in general are notoriously bad at accurately assessing and valuing risk. Down 15 points with seven minutes left in the game, you go for two as soon as you score a TD. Anyone saying you kick the extra point is just badly miscalculating the risks and rewards involved with each scenario.

The real question is when it's a better idea (if ever) to kick the extra point. At what point in the game does going for two become the right decision? What if you're down 15 with 7:00 left in the third quarter? Or in the first quarter? Etc.

 

[Rovers]

7 minutes is a lot of time, especially if you have all 3 TO's remaining. Some teams can put up 10 points easilly with that much time.

There are too many variables to say it one approach is better than another. Has you defense been on the field all day? Are they tired? How likely is it they can force a 3 and out? If you think you can get two more possessions, at least if you are faced with a fourth and long within FG range, that's where you can take the 3 and play for another possession.

If you don't have a good defense, and think you have no chance at two more possessions, you can go ahead and go for two, but if you don't convert, game over.

Just like when a defender gets an INT and fails to go down with a lead... like the fumble Roddy White caused against SF, the defense should never extend the game. If an offense is behind, ALWAYS extend the game. Miss the 2 pt conversion, and the game is over. Take the PAT and the game is extended.

Let's say the team that is down takes the PAT and then scores again. Are the odds better for the 2 pt conversion now? Is the defense on it's heels and more tired?

In general, I say take the PAT and go for two on the next score. Momentum has swung big time, and the defense has to be more tired. I think the odds of success are greater after the second TD score to convert a 2 pt play.

 

[Insein]

People in general are notoriously bad at accurately assessing and valuing risk. Down 15 points with seven minutes left in the game, you go for two as soon as you score a TD. Anyone saying you kick the extra point is just badly miscalculating the risks and rewards involved with each scenario.The real question is when it's a better idea (if ever) to kick the extra point. At what point in the game does going for two become the right decision? What if you're down 15 with 7:00 left in the third quarter? Or in the first quarter? Etc.

How is that inaccurately assessing risk/reward? The higher risk is to go for 2 earlier than later. Missing now exponentially increases the percentages of losing because you're down 2 scores with less time. Making it now only marginally increases your chances of winning because all you've done is eliminate the 2 pt conversion later. You still have to score the TD which is the hard part. If you have to score a TD and a FG obviously that has a lower percentage chance for a win than scoring a td and a 2pt conversion. People are completely overthinking this. You take the sure thing. Worry about the rest later.

 

[tud_duke]

The problem with going for it early and missing it involves more than is being discussed so far. At 7 minutes remaining the leading team won't start going ultra conservative just yet. If you are facing an offense that can move the ball between the 20's I think you need to kick the extra point. If you go for it and miss all the other team has to do is kick a field goal to make you have to get two more touchdowns.

If you are playing the Patriots would you rather be down by 9 or 8 with 7 minutes remaining? If they can get a field goal on you scoring 2 touchdowns is a lot harder than a field goal and touchdown with 2 point conversion. And you get to choose if you want to do the field goal or try for the touchdown first. The advantage gained by being down 7 instead of 8 is just not worth it at this point in the ball game.

I just think 7 minutes of football is way too much time to believe the opposing team won't be scoring again.

 

[humpback]

People in general are notoriously bad at accurately assessing and valuing risk. Down 15 points with seven minutes left in the game, you go for two as soon as you score a TD. Anyone saying you kick the extra point is just badly miscalculating the risks and rewards involved with each scenario.The real question is when it's a better idea (if ever) to kick the extra point. At what point in the game does going for two become the right decision? What if you're down 15 with 7:00 left in the third quarter? Or in the first quarter? Etc.

What is the magical calculation that makes this a fact?

 

[SSOG]

The obvious answer is that there is no "correct" answer. If there was, we wouldn't be having the discussion- teams would all do the same thing everytime they get in a similar situation.

Just because teams don't do the same thing every time doesn't mean there's not a correct answer. For instance, if you're facing 4th and inches from your opponent's 40, the correct answer is almost always "go for it". A 57 yard field goal is a coinflip, and if you miss it, you give the ball back to the other team at midfield- not a very good risk/reward equation. A punt might gain 20-30 yards of field position. Those possible incremental gains are not worth the loss of giving up on a possession after you're already in an opponent's territory. And the "smarter" or "better" coaches do routinely go for it in that situation (biggest example: Belichick). It's the correct answer... even if guys like Chan Gailey and John Fox still think it's smart to punt there.

If you go for 2 and don't make it, it crushes any sense of momentum your team have. You should never do that.

I think momentum is radically overrated. It seems like ex post facto reasoning to me. If a team scores a bunch of points in a row, they did it because they had momentum. We know they had momentum because they must have, because they scored a bunch of points in a row. If they didn't score a bunch of points in a row, then it would be because they didn't have momentum. Going back to last week's Buffalo/Baltimore game... Buffalo got out to big lead early, so clearly they had momentum. Then Baltimore roared past them and staked a huge lead, so clearly they had momentum. Then Buffalo came back to tie it, so clearly they had momentum. Then Baltimore won in overtime. What did momentum mean in that game. What impact did momentum have on the game? If Buffalo had won in overtime, everyone would be saying it was because they had "momentum"... but they didn't, so where was their vaunted momentum then?It seems to me that momentum is purely something used to describe scoring runs after the fact, and that it carries little-to-no power to predict the order of future scores.

who's the defense?

7 mins is a lot of time, especially with the no huddle. I voted to kick the extra point. After that you execute the game as if you need two scores, tough d to get a 3 and out, score, go for 2pt, if you miss, onside, go for fg.

Just cause you're down only 8 doesn't mean you procrastinate like you only need one score.

When an opposing team has a lead, they'll frequently leave the shallow stuff over the middle open and dare you to throw it, figuring the time given up is more valuable than the yards they concede. A team that was down by 7 or 8 points would be perfectly content to exploit that to move down the field. A team that was down by 9 points would not.

In that example you're assuming the 2nd TD is scored at the end of the game. Assuming that you're down 9, "the game is almost definitively over."

You seem awfully quick to shovel dirt on a team that's down 9 with 7 minutes to go. Come on, you really think that's game over? You've never seen a team overcome a 9 point deficit with 7 minutes to play? That's not even that noteworthy of a comeback, to be honest. Just last week, the Bills came back from down 10 with 7 minutes to go. The Buffalo Bills!Does anyone disagree that if you miss the 2pc, it's better to miss it early? If you miss it early, you still have time to regroup, whereas if you miss it late you don't have any time to regroup. Can we all accept that one? If so, then it seems like the sticking point centers around when you make it- if you make your 2pc, is it better to make it early or late? Ironically enough, the "momentum is everything" crowd is arguing that it's better to make it late. Wouldn't making it early be more beneficial than making it late if momentum is a real phenomenon, because it gives you an extra 7 minutes worth of "higher momentum"?

 

[Fensalk]

Let's say you're up by 15 with 7:00 left in the game. Your opponent scores a touchdown to cut the lead to 9. They then line up for the 2-point conversion. Are you happy that they're going for 2 or do you wish they had kicked the XP?

I would be very happy they are going for 2 because they are rolling the dice with their team morale. If they fail to convert, then its a 2 score game still and the odds just greatly jumped that their team is going to roll over and quit, even though their coach is still trying to win.

 

[SSOG]

People in general are notoriously bad at accurately assessing and valuing risk. Down 15 points with seven minutes left in the game, you go for two as soon as you score a TD. Anyone saying you kick the extra point is just badly miscalculating the risks and rewards involved with each scenario.

The real question is when it's a better idea (if ever) to kick the extra point. At what point in the game does going for two become the right decision? What if you're down 15 with 7:00 left in the third quarter? Or in the first quarter? Etc.

Going for 2 only becomes the right choice when you are close enough to the end that you can pretty accurately predict the number of drives remaining. In short, it makes sense to go for 2 if you:[*]are down X scores

[*]predict that each team has X or fewer drives remaining

[*]need to score a 2pc at some point

 

[Jayrod]

People in general are notoriously bad at accurately assessing and valuing risk. Down 15 points with seven minutes left in the game, you go for two as soon as you score a TD. Anyone saying you kick the extra point is just badly miscalculating the risks and rewards involved with each scenario.

The real question is when it's a better idea (if ever) to kick the extra point. At what point in the game does going for two become the right decision? What if you're down 15 with 7:00 left in the third quarter? Or in the first quarter? Etc.

Including yourself.Failing on the 2-pt that early has a lot of risk involved where you, your players AND YOUR OPPONENT know you have to score on two seperate possesions. Psychology and game planning becomes much harder for you and your players and easier for them.

A PAT is, for all intensive porpoises, a free point. Take it now, because there is a lot of uncertainty in the next 7 minutes. Especially if the opposing team gets tight still being up potentially one score.

The psychology of pressure on the other team is being discounted too much in a lot of the "go for 2" proponents. Keeping it a one score game helps you and hurts them. Take the guarantee and..who knows, maybe you get the ball back fast and score fast enough to leave time for a 3rd posession to win it in regulation. I think if you go for 2 and fail, it is highly unlikely you get a 3rd posession without an onside kick.

 

[massraider]

Ironically enough, the "momentum is everything" crowd is arguing that it's better to make it late. Wouldn't making it early be more beneficial than making it late if momentum is a real phenomenon, because it gives you an extra 7 minutes worth of "higher momentum"?

I would say that your team already has the momentum of just scoring a TD, to bring it within one score. The added momentum of scoring a two-point conversion isn't worth the risk of deflating your team by falling behind by two scores again.Not to mention that by keeping it within one score, you force the other team to try and move the ball, rather than just running it up the gut three straight plays, eating time or timeouts, and punting the ball. You keep it within one score, you increase the chances that the other team has to run a low percentage play, that may result in a turnover.

 

[ArlingtonTerp]

How is that inaccurately assessing risk/reward? The higher risk is to go for 2 earlier than later. Missing now exponentially increases the percentages of losing because you're down 2 scores with less time. Making it now only marginally increases your chances of winning because all you've done is eliminate the 2 pt conversion later. You still have to score the TD which is the hard part. If you have to score a TD and a FG obviously that has a lower percentage chance for a win than scoring a td and a 2pt conversion. People are completely overthinking this. You take the sure thing. Worry about the rest later.

Its almost like you think it is easier to get a conversion at the end then it is earlier, which obviously isn't the case. If the goal is staying in the game as long as possible, then you would kick the extra point. And indeed too many make this the de facto goal, when instead the goal should directly be winning the game. You should take action that gives the highest probability to win, not what gives you the best chance to stay "in" the game the longest; they are not the same. Is it better to be down by 9 with the other team with the ball with 7 minutes left, or is better to be down by one without time to get the ball back?People, even NFL coaches, also don't go for it on fourth down often enough due to the same muddled thinking. Although,part of the problem with coaches is that they get more criticism for aggressive actions than defensive ones, even if it is better for their chances of winning overall.

 

[tud_duke]

SSOG

What about the opposing offense scoring a fg? If you miss your 2pt and they put up 3, you now need two tds as opposed to fg and 1td with 2pt. If you are eliminating the possibility of the other team ever scoring then why wouldn't you always go for two? Is 7 mins left in the 4th with full tos really close enough to the end for you?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

How is that inaccurately assessing risk/reward? The higher risk is to go for 2 earlier than later. Missing now exponentially increases the percentages of losing because you're down 2 scores with less time.

Missing the 2-pt conversion at any point in the final seven minutes greatly increases the risk of losing the game. If you're going to miss the conversion, it is far better to do so with seven minutes left than it is to do so with thirty seconds left. You're completely discounting that side of the equation.

 

[The Iguana]

I saw an interesting write up on this awhile back. It pretty much convinced me that the best move is to go for 1 now and the 2 later. The crux of the argument is that if you go for 2 now and miss then the hill just doubled in size - i.e. instead of being down 1 score (8), you are now down 2 scores (9) and the odds of getting 9 are so much worse that it's hard to get that first stop and score to even have a shot. On the other hand, if you kick the 1 and are down only 8, it's not that difficult a situation to be in - 1 stop and you can tie. Making the 2 and being down 7 gives you very little psychological advantage and only a minimal physical one.

Basically the reward for making 2 is far less than the risk of missing it.

 

[Jayrod]

How is that inaccurately assessing risk/reward? The higher risk is to go for 2 earlier than later. Missing now exponentially increases the percentages of losing because you're down 2 scores with less time. Making it now only marginally increases your chances of winning because all you've done is eliminate the 2 pt conversion later. You still have to score the TD which is the hard part. If you have to score a TD and a FG obviously that has a lower percentage chance for a win than scoring a td and a 2pt conversion. People are completely overthinking this. You take the sure thing. Worry about the rest later.

Its almost like you think it is easier to get a conversion at the end then it is earlier, which obviously isn't the case. If the goal is staying in the game as long as possible, then you would kick the extra point. And indeed too many make this the de facto goal, when instead the goal should directly be winning the game. You should take action that gives the highest probability to win, not what gives you the best chance to stay "in" the game the longest; they are not the same. Is it better to be down by 9 with the other team with the ball with 7 minutes left, or is better to be down by one without time to get the ball back?People, even NFL coaches, also don't go for it on fourth down often enough due to the same muddled thinking. Although,part of the problem with coaches is that they get more criticism for aggressive actions than defensive ones, even if it is better for their chances of winning overall.

Staying in the game is directly correlated to the potential to win the game. HTH

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

People in general are notoriously bad at accurately assessing and valuing risk. Down 15 points with seven minutes left in the game, you go for two as soon as you score a TD. Anyone saying you kick the extra point is just badly miscalculating the risks and rewards involved with each scenario.

The real question is when it's a better idea (if ever) to kick the extra point. At what point in the game does going for two become the right decision? What if you're down 15 with 7:00 left in the third quarter? Or in the first quarter? Etc.

Including yourself.

Failing on the 2-pt that early has a lot of risk involved where you, your players AND YOUR OPPONENT know you have to score on two seperate possesions. Psychology and game planning becomes much harder for you and your players and easier for them.

A PAT is, for all intensive porpoises, a free point. Take it now, because there is a lot of uncertainty in the next 7 minutes. Especially if the opposing team gets tight still being up potentially one score.

The psychology of pressure on the other team is being discounted too much in a lot of the "go for 2" proponents. Keeping it a one score game helps you and hurts them. Take the guarantee and..who knows, maybe you get the ball back fast and score fast enough to leave time for a 3rd posession to win it in regulation. I think if you go for 2 and fail, it is highly unlikely you get a 3rd posession without an onside kick.

See the bolded. You're doing it without even realizing it. You're too focused on what can go wrong by going for 2, and what can go right by kicking the PAT. If you did an accurate assessment of all possible outcomes, instead of just the ones that support your preconceived notion, you'd see that going for 2 immediately is the right choice.

 

[The Iguana]

If you try for 2 and don't get it, you need two scores. That lets the other team play the clock much differently than if you take 1 and can tie it up in one possession. You need to take 1 now and worry about getting the 2 the next time.

this is another good point to the argument. If you miss early, it gives the other team more options in how they play the game. Take the one and there is more pressure on them to move the ball and create opportunities for mistake and/or stopping the clock.

 

[Insein]

How is that inaccurately assessing risk/reward? The higher risk is to go for 2 earlier than later. Missing now exponentially increases the percentages of losing because you're down 2 scores with less time. Making it now only marginally increases your chances of winning because all you've done is eliminate the 2 pt conversion later. You still have to score the TD which is the hard part. If you have to score a TD and a FG obviously that has a lower percentage chance for a win than scoring a td and a 2pt conversion. People are completely overthinking this. You take the sure thing. Worry about the rest later.

Its almost like you think it is easier to get a conversion at the end then it is earlier, which obviously isn't the case. If the goal is staying in the game as long as possible, then you would kick the extra point. And indeed too many make this the de facto goal, when instead the goal should directly be winning the game. You should take action that gives the highest probability to win, not what gives you the best chance to stay "in" the game the longest; they are not the same. Is it better to be down by 9 with the other team with the ball with 7 minutes left, or is better to be down by one without time to get the ball back?People, even NFL coaches, also don't go for it on fourth down often enough due to the same muddled thinking. Although,part of the problem with coaches is that they get more criticism for aggressive actions than defensive ones, even if it is better for their chances of winning overall.

I think we're on the same page but you said it in a confusing way. Staying in the game does give you the best chance of winning. Getting a 2pt conversion has about the same chance of success no matter when you do it. If you miss the 2pt conversion earlier, you just lowered your chance of winning because you're down 9. Kicking the PAT increases your chance of winning because you're down 8. Going for 2 and making it doesn't increase your chance of winning that much more than going for 1.

 

[Insein]

See the bolded. You're doing it without even realizing it. You're too focused on what can go wrong by going for 2, and what can go right by kicking the PAT. If you did an accurate assessment of all possible outcomes, instead of just the ones that support your preconceived notion, you'd see that going for 2 immediately is the right choice.

How?

 

[The Iguana]

Iggy - what do you gain by going for 2 and getting it? You still need the ball and a TD. The other team knows that and you know that. You both know that same thing if you go for 1 and get that. It's still a one possession game.

Now, what do you lose by going for 2 and failing? You've now given your opponent the mental edge that they can just run clock and end the game. A couple of first downs and the game is practically over.

In the little I've read, you seem to be making the right argument but for the wrong "team".

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I think we're on the same page but you said it in a confusing way. Staying in the game does give you the best chance of winning. Getting a 2pt conversion has about the same chance of success no matter when you do it. If you miss the 2pt conversion earlier, you just lowered your chance of winning because you're down 9. Kicking the PAT increases your chance of winning because you're down 8. Going for 2 and making it doesn't increase your chance of winning that much more than going for 1.

Again, missing the 2pt conversion always lowers your chances of winning. There's not something unique to missing it earlier rather than later. Similarly, making the PAT always increases your chances of winning. There's not something unique to making it earlier rather than later.If you're going to miss the 2-pt conversion either way, it's much better to do so earlier in the game. If you're going to make it either way, it doesn't matter when you make it.

 

[ArlingtonTerp]

I saw an interesting write up on this awhile back. It pretty much convinced me that the best move is to go for 1 now and the 2 later. The crux of the argument is that if you go for 2 now and miss then the hill just doubled in size - i.e. instead of being down 1 score (8), you are now down 2 scores (9) and the odds of getting 9 are so much worse that it's hard to get that first stop and score to even have a shot. On the other hand, if you kick the 1 and are down only 8, it's not that difficult a situation to be in - 1 stop and you can tie. Making the 2 and being down 7 gives you very little psychological advantage and only a minimal physical one. Basically the reward for making 2 is far less than the risk of missing it.

Being down by 8 later in the game is really bad later in the game if you miss the two point conversion, which is what must be compared to the missing of the two pointer up front, since the odds are the sameThat's the problem with the thinking above and repeated over and over. It's a logic that registers the problem with missing the two pointer initially, that it leads to a harder time for the team then if they made an extra point, but then sees the chance to make it later as somehow mitigating the problem of the possible miss of conversion. But missing the two pointer at the end leads to just as (and in fact slightly more) dire situation. It is not easier/harder to make it later. Those are the same odds.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Iggy - what do you gain by going for 2 and getting it? You still need the ball and a TD. The other team knows that and you know that. You both know that same thing if you go for 1 and get that. It's still a one possession game.

Yep. Assuming you're going to make the 2-pt conversion anyway, making it earlier rather than later isn't that big of a deal.

Now, what do you lose by going for 2 and failing? You've now given your opponent the mental edge that they can just run clock and end the game. A couple of first downs and the game is practically over.

You don't lose anything you wouldn't also lose by failing the conversion later in the game. The defense is going to try to run the clock and end the game whether they're up by one score or two. But what you gain by missing the 2-pt conversion is an invaluable piece of information that you can't get otherwise.

 

[The Iguana]

Let's start this over... easy for me as I just got here and have read only a few of these so far...

I concede the fact that it doesn't matter if you miss early or late, either way, you are in a heap of trouble and need a 3rd score. So, it doesn't matter if you miss the 2 early or late, you are up a creek.

So, that being said, I think it's pretty obvious to have your team think that victory is possible as long as you can. Once you lose hope, then you lose productivity. With 7 minutes left and needing just one score, the team knows that victory is still very possible. Doesn't matter if that 1 score is 7 points or 8. It's 1 possession. Going for 2 early gives you virtually no advantage if you make it but gives your opponent a massive advantage if you miss.

 

[The Iguana]

Iggy - what do you gain by going for 2 and getting it? You still need the ball and a TD. The other team knows that and you know that. You both know that same thing if you go for 1 and get that. It's still a one possession game.

Yep. Assuming you're going to make the 2-pt conversion anyway, making it earlier rather than later isn't that big of a deal.

Now, what do you lose by going for 2 and failing? You've now given your opponent the mental edge that they can just run clock and end the game. A couple of first downs and the game is practically over.

You don't lose anything you wouldn't also lose by failing the conversion later in the game. The defense is going to try to run the clock and end the game whether they're up by one score or two. But what you gain by missing the 2-pt conversion is an invaluable piece of information that you can't get otherwise.

You can say that with a "straight face"? You don't lose anything by missing the 2pt conversion and giving the opponent a 2 score lead? Really?

 

[bigmarc27]

People in general are notoriously bad at accurately assessing and valuing risk. Down 15 points with seven minutes left in the game, you go for two as soon as you score a TD. Anyone saying you kick the extra point is just badly miscalculating the risks and rewards involved with each scenario.

The real question is when it's a better idea (if ever) to kick the extra point. At what point in the game does going for two become the right decision? What if you're down 15 with 7:00 left in the third quarter? Or in the first quarter? Etc.

Including yourself.

Failing on the 2-pt that early has a lot of risk involved where you, your players AND YOUR OPPONENT know you have to score on two seperate possesions. Psychology and game planning becomes much harder for you and your players and easier for them.

A PAT is, for all intensive porpoises, a free point. Take it now, because there is a lot of uncertainty in the next 7 minutes. Especially if the opposing team gets tight still being up potentially one score.

The psychology of pressure on the other team is being discounted too much in a lot of the "go for 2" proponents. Keeping it a one score game helps you and hurts them. Take the guarantee and..who knows, maybe you get the ball back fast and score fast enough to leave time for a 3rd posession to win it in regulation. I think if you go for 2 and fail, it is highly unlikely you get a 3rd posession without an onside kick.

See the bolded. You're doing it without even realizing it. You're too focused on what can go wrong by going for 2, and what can go right by kicking the PAT. If you did an accurate assessment of all possible outcomes, instead of just the ones that support your preconceived notion, you'd see that going for 2 immediately is the right choice.

Then why wouldn't you just go for 2 every time you score? If teams aren't focused on the negative aspects of their decisions, then they make stupid errors in judgement.

 

[The Iguana]

You don't lose anything you wouldn't also lose by failing the conversion later in the game. The defense is going to try to run the clock and end the game whether they're up by one score or two. But what you gain by missing the 2-pt conversion is an invaluable piece of information that you can't get otherwise.

Please read your posting again and tell me that makes sense. The only thing you gain by going for 2 and missing is a desparate situation. Yes, you are in that desparate spot if you miss later but why do that to yourself with 7 minutes to go?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Let's start this over... easy for me as I just got here and have read only a few of these so far...

I concede the fact that it doesn't matter if you miss early or late, either way, you are in a heap of trouble and need a 3rd score. So, it doesn't matter if you miss the 2 early or late, you are up a creek.

You're looking at this wrong. It doesn't matter if you make it early or late. You're still tacking on the necessary two points to tie the game.It does matter if you miss it early or late - if you miss it early, you gain the knowledge that you still need two scores with 7 minutes left. If you sacrifice that information by kicking a PAT and then end up missing the conversion later, you've screwed yourself.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Iggy - what do you gain by going for 2 and getting it? You still need the ball and a TD. The other team knows that and you know that. You both know that same thing if you go for 1 and get that. It's still a one possession game.

Yep. Assuming you're going to make the 2-pt conversion anyway, making it earlier rather than later isn't that big of a deal.

Now, what do you lose by going for 2 and failing? You've now given your opponent the mental edge that they can just run clock and end the game. A couple of first downs and the game is practically over.

You don't lose anything you wouldn't also lose by failing the conversion later in the game. The defense is going to try to run the clock and end the game whether they're up by one score or two. But what you gain by missing the 2-pt conversion is an invaluable piece of information that you can't get otherwise.

You can say that with a "straight face"? You don't lose anything by missing the 2pt conversion and giving the opponent a 2 score lead? Really?

Read the whole sentence. You don't lose anything you wouldn't also lose by failing the conversion later in the game.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You don't lose anything you wouldn't also lose by failing the conversion later in the game. The defense is going to try to run the clock and end the game whether they're up by one score or two. But what you gain by missing the 2-pt conversion is an invaluable piece of information that you can't get otherwise.

Please read your posting again and tell me that makes sense. The only thing you gain by going for 2 and missing is a desparate situation. Yes, you are in that desparate spot if you miss later but why do that to yourself with 7 minutes to go?

It's much better to know you need two scores with 7 minutes left than with 30 seconds left, no?

 

[bigmarc27]

Let's start this over... easy for me as I just got here and have read only a few of these so far...

I concede the fact that it doesn't matter if you miss early or late, either way, you are in a heap of trouble and need a 3rd score. So, it doesn't matter if you miss the 2 early or late, you are up a creek.

You're looking at this wrong. It doesn't matter if you make it early or late. You're still tacking on the necessary two points to tie the game.It does matter if you miss it early or late - if you miss it early, you gain the knowledge that you still need two scores with 7 minutes left. If you sacrifice that information by kicking a PAT and then end up missing the conversion later, you've screwed yourself.

You're looking at it wrong.If you miss it early, the other team gains the knowledge that you still need two scores with 7 minutes left. The other team is already in the power position and you just made them exponentially tougher to beat.

 

[bigmarc27]

You don't lose anything you wouldn't also lose by failing the conversion later in the game. The defense is going to try to run the clock and end the game whether they're up by one score or two. But what you gain by missing the 2-pt conversion is an invaluable piece of information that you can't get otherwise.

Please read your posting again and tell me that makes sense. The only thing you gain by going for 2 and missing is a desparate situation. Yes, you are in that desparate spot if you miss later but why do that to yourself with 7 minutes to go?

It's much better to know you need two scores with 7 minutes left than with 30 seconds left, no?

Your fallacy is having the team scoring again with only 30 seconds left. Why does that keep being brought up? We don't know if/when the team scores again, so how can you factor that into this scenario.

 

[The Iguana]

Please rank the following scenarios in order of most prefered to least prefered:

get the ball with <7 minutes left down 9

get the ball with <7 minutes left down 8

get the ball with <7 minutes left down 7

If you are being honest, the scenarios are ranked something like:

get the ball with <7 minutes left down 7

get the ball with <7 minutes left down 8

get the ball with <7 minutes left down 9

Makes it obvious to me.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Then why wouldn't you just go for 2 every time you score?

I already posed that question earlier in the thread. I think SSOG already provided the answer.

If teams aren't focused on the negative aspects of their decisions, then they make stupid errors in judgement.

Of course. You have to accurately assess both the positive and negative effects of each possible outcome.

 

[Insein]

I think we're on the same page but you said it in a confusing way. Staying in the game does give you the best chance of winning. Getting a 2pt conversion has about the same chance of success no matter when you do it. If you miss the 2pt conversion earlier, you just lowered your chance of winning because you're down 9. Kicking the PAT increases your chance of winning because you're down 8. Going for 2 and making it doesn't increase your chance of winning that much more than going for 1.

Again, missing the 2pt conversion always lowers your chances of winning. There's not something unique to missing it earlier rather than later. Similarly, making the PAT always increases your chances of winning. There's not something unique to making it earlier rather than later.If you're going to miss the 2-pt conversion either way, it's much better to do so earlier in the game. If you're going to make it either way, it doesn't matter when you make it.

Why so you can hit the showers earlier knowing you just decreased your chances of winning? "Ok guys we got that blown chance out of the way. Lets get ready for the post game interview now."

 

[The Iguana]

You don't lose anything you wouldn't also lose by failing the conversion later in the game. The defense is going to try to run the clock and end the game whether they're up by one score or two. But what you gain by missing the 2-pt conversion is an invaluable piece of information that you can't get otherwise.

Please read your posting again and tell me that makes sense. The only thing you gain by going for 2 and missing is a desparate situation. Yes, you are in that desparate spot if you miss later but why do that to yourself with 7 minutes to go?

It's much better to know you need two scores with 7 minutes left than with 30 seconds left, no?

It's better to have your defense on the field knowing that 1 stop gives you a chance than being in desparation mode, no?