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

[Insein]

Then why not just always go for 2? That way if you miss it, you have most of the game to make it up.

Because if we ignore time constraints, the expected value of a 2-point play with a 40% success rate is lower than the expected value of a 1-point play with a 96% success rate. But because the clock limits the potential number of possessions remaining, the value of the 2-point conversion increases as the game goes on. In the extreme case, say there's 1 second left and you are down by 2 - a PAT in that situation has no value whatsoever. The amount of time remaining and the score differential affects how you value going for 1 vs. going for 2.

Exactly. So how is it more valuable to go for 2 first when the probability of success is approx 45%? Failure equals less time needing 2 possessions. Success means the same as making a PAT. For the 2nd score, people are over analyzing the PAT vs 2 pt success rate. The TD is the hard part. So needing a TD and a FG is a lot harder than needing a TD and a 2 pt conversion.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I really think most of the people voting kick are assuming the you miss the two-point conversion at 7 minutes and probably make it at 1 minute, and 1+2 > 0 + 1.

 

[Insein]

Ok I see what you're saying there, but taking in the whole situation of being down by 9 at the time; Going for 2 vs going for 1, which one gives you the higher probability of staying alive at that point in time?

Going for 2 will always reduce your probability of "staying alive". That's true whether you do it early or do it late. If you miss the 2pc early, you're screwed. If you miss it late, you're EVEN MORE SCREWED. If you miss it early, at least you have time to do something about it. If you miss it late, you don't have any time to do anything about it.Are you familiar with the game Yahtzee? In that game, it is to your benefit to play for a Yahtzee (or any other difficult category, such as your large straight) early in the match, because it gives you more opportunities to land one. If you've filled in every other category and you're on your last roll, and all you have left to go for is "Yahtzee", then you're in a difficult position. Sure, you might have "stayed alive" by filling in solid scores in the other categories, but the simple fact is that the only thing keeping you alive is a very low-percentage play. You might technically be alive, but you're you life support. Similarly, if you kick the XP, you might technically still be alive, but your odds of winning are on life support because you still need to convert that 2pc (a sub 50% proposition).There is no value in "staying alive". There is value in "winning". You don't get partial wins based on how long you were "in it". It doesn't matter whether you stayed alive for 53 minutes or for 59 minutes, if you don't win then you don't win. Period. If you make the 2pc, it doesn't matter when you made it... but if you miss the 2pc, it's better to miss it early so you can adjust your strategy accordingly.

I look at it this way though. Staying alive opens up for the chances of something happening in your favor. If your down by 9 and the other team is running out the clock, but by some fluke they fumble, you scoop it and score. Now your still down 2 if you kick the PAT. So depending on the time left, you still need to get the ball back and try again. If your down 8, you have the option of tieing it right there. If you miss, you're no worse off than the down 9 scenario but if you make it, you can't lose from them running the clock out.

If you're arguing that 1 >0 then it is true that 1 >0It seems you're assumimg that you will miss the two point conversion in the first scenario and make it in the second.if a fluke fumble happens, and in either scenario you miss or have missed the conversion, you are still down two either way."staying alive" in this scenario is meaningless

I'm not assuming success either way. I'm merely saying that the probability for success on a 2pt conversion is 45% and 96% for a PAT. Why would you risk needing more possessions then and there instead of staying alive for the chance to tie later? If you make it, you can try to tie. If you miss you can't. If you kick the PAT, you can try to tie.

 

[Jayrod]

After reading a lot of the arguments, I think the real question is that if you miss your 2pt conversion, which scenario gets you the highest probability of a quality third possession for a FG? The probablity is slightly in favor of you failing the 2pt conversion, so...for this exercise...I think you have to assume it is missed.....either now or after your 2nd TD. If you make it, it doesn't matter really whether you get it on the first or second TD....you still have to stop the opponent, get the 2nd TD and you're tied either way.

The only difference is the third possession and the opportunity to make up for the failed conversion. Which scenario gives you that chance? You and your opponent knowing you need to score twice, or not knowing yet? I think this is entirely dependent upon the teams and coaches involved and thus is beyond a mathematical decision. There is no right answer unless all of the factors of coaching and players and conditions and conditioning and playcalling, etc. are considered.

Like I posted earlier, one website had it as a 50/50 proposition. Sounds about right to me.

 

[footballnerd]

Thanks Mike.

Come on guys, a 2pc is a desperation move. 7 mins is a lot of time in football. Look at it this way, if the Raiders can put up 21pts vs Den in 6 mins, other teams can put up 8pts in 7mins.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Then why not just always go for 2? That way if you miss it, you have most of the game to make it up.

Because if we ignore time constraints, the expected value of a 2-point play with a 40% success rate is lower than the expected value of a 1-point play with a 96% success rate. But because the clock limits the potential number of possessions remaining, the value of the 2-point conversion increases as the game goes on. In the extreme case, say there's 1 second left and you are down by 2 - a PAT in that situation has no value whatsoever. The amount of time remaining and the score differential affects how you value going for 1 vs. going for 2.

Exactly. So how is it more valuable to go for 2 first when the probability of success is approx 45%? Failure equals less time needing 2 possessions. Success means the same as making a PAT.

It's more valuable for the reasons that have been explained dozens of times in this thread already. I don't know what "failure equals less time needing 2 possessions" means, but a successful 2-point conversion is not at all the same as making a PAT.

For the 2nd score, people are over analyzing the PAT vs 2 pt success rate. The TD is the hard part. So needing a TD and a FG is a lot harder than needing a TD and a 2 pt conversion.

On the contrary, your side is overanalyzing the PAT vs 2 pt success rate. Whatever that differential is, it will be essentially the same with 7 minutes left as it is with 1 minute left (if anything, as others have pointed out, it would tip in favor of the 2 pt success rate earlier in the game). It doesn't matter whether it's 40% vs 96% or whatever - the fact is that you need to make both of them in some order. If you make them both, it doesn't matter what order you make them in. But if you're going to miss the 2-pt conversion, it's much much better to miss it earlier than it is later. Therefore, you try the 2 point conversion first.No offense man, but your post is exactly the kind of bad logic I was talking about. If you want to say that momentum and other psychological factors play some enormous role that dwarfs these other considerations, that's an argument you can make. But you're completely misvaluing the risks and rewards associated with kicking the PAT and going for two.

 

[Jersey35]

I apologize if this point has been brought up already, but I didn't make it through the entire thread before feeling the need to post.

Take a step back just before you score this hypothetical TD. You're down 15. That means you're down two, maybe three scores. To tie you must score two touchdowns, an extra point and two-point converstion OR you must score two touchdowns, and extra point, a missed two-point conversion, and a field goal.

These are the facts.

Now, the maybe three component is what many of you are overlooking. You don't know if you need two scores or three scores until you attempt the conversion. Once you score, with 7 minutes remaining in the game, would you agree that your approach to offense (and kicking strategy and timeouts) might be slightly different knowing you needed two scores to win as opposed to one?

Since you know you MUST take the risk of a two-point conversion at some point, your chances of winning are far higher should you fail if you fail with 7 minutes remaining than should you fail with significantly less time remaining than that. If the miss comes at the end of the game, you have no chance. If the miss comes with 7 minutes remaining you can adjust and still try to win.

Look at it this way: assume you score the conversion no matter what. It doesn't matter when you attempt it, right? The other side of the coin is to assume you fail it no matter what. If you fail with 7 minutes, you still have a chance to plan for and try to get those two scores. If you fail with time running out, you have no chance for that third score except via an onside kick and a hail mary.

 

[Liquid Tension]

you make it a one score game and kick the extra point.....I have seen this scenerio play out......1. you go for two and miss, you are down 9......2. the other team gets a FG putting them back up by 12.....3. had you kicked the extra point, you would only be down 11 (TD and FG), but now you need two TD's again...why would you ever put yourself in a position with 7:00 minutes left to HAVE to get the ball back twice, when you may only need it once.........a ton can happen in 7 minutes......fumbles etc.....you could end up costing yourself a potential victory by getting greedy early....you don't want to HAVE to get the ball back twice and HAVe to make them both TD's.......

yeah, and the same team who misses the 2 pointer late in the game loses without any chance of coming back. I have seen teams do what you say and miss the 2 point conversion at the end and game over. I have also seen teams try the 2 pointer and miss early on and then come back knowing they had to be desperate and not only didn't they tie...they won in regulation.I am shocked that the Shark Pool can't see this.If you will be forced to go for 2 you must go early if you want to give your team the best chance of winning...not once has anyone from the wait side said anything that changes this...the only thing they keep saying is that it is a one score game if you kick the extra point...that is NOT correct, it is one TD AND a 2 point conversion. Does anyone from the wait side think if you were going to fail on the 2 pt you would rather do it very late in the game rather than earlier? Anyone? Of course not and thus the answer is you try earlier just in case you don't make it you have a better shot to win.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The only difference is the third possession and the opportunity to make up for the failed conversion. Which scenario gives you that chance? You and your opponent knowing you need to score twice, or not knowing yet? I think this is entirely dependent upon the teams and coaches involved and thus is beyond a mathematical decision. There is no right answer unless all of the factors of coaching and players and conditions and conditioning and playcalling, etc. are considered.

I really don't think this question is that hard to answer. Knowing you need two possessions clearly gives you a better chance at getting two possessions than not knowing. If you know you need two, all of your coaching and playcalling, etc., is geared towards that aim. If you don't know, then it isn't all geared towards that aim. A team down by 8 points might take their time on their way down the field towards the "tying" score (in fact, they do all the time, for fear of leaving too much time left for their opponents), only to miss the 2-point conversion and be left with no chance to win. Your opponent's defense doesn't gain nearly as much by knowing whether you need one possession or two. Their goal is essentially the same either way. The net effect of knowing you need to score twice is a huge positive for the offense.

 

[Jayrod]

The only difference is the third possession and the opportunity to make up for the failed conversion. Which scenario gives you that chance? You and your opponent knowing you need to score twice, or not knowing yet? I think this is entirely dependent upon the teams and coaches involved and thus is beyond a mathematical decision. There is no right answer unless all of the factors of coaching and players and conditions and conditioning and playcalling, etc. are considered.

I really don't think this question is that hard to answer. Knowing you need two possessions clearly gives you a better chance at getting two possessions than not knowing. If you know you need two, all of your coaching and playcalling, etc., is geared towards that aim. If you don't know, then it isn't all geared towards that aim. A team down by 8 points might take their time on their way down the field towards the "tying" score (in fact, they do all the time, for fear of leaving too much time left for their opponents), only to miss the 2-point conversion and be left with no chance to win. Your opponent's defense doesn't gain nearly as much by knowing whether you need one possession or two. Their goal is essentially the same either way. The net effect of knowing you need to score twice is a huge positive for the offense.

But as a coach, you can control the bolded.And how do you figure the other team doesn't gain as much? They now know that killing time is more important than trying to score. I think it can greatly effect how much possession time you get...but again that depends on all of the factors we can't quantify in this analysis.

 

[CalBear]

It is absolutely true that if you miss the 2-point conversion, you're in a worse position than if you don't miss it. What you're not getting is that you're in that position whether you miss it early or late. If you miss it late, you don't know you're in that position, and can't adjust your tactics accordingly.

Whats there to adjust. You just lost your best chance to stay alive by missing that 2 pt conv. Whether its the last second or with 7 mins to go is semantics. The percentages show that the game is more than likely over. So why take that chance away from yourself? When you're down 15, you're trying to tie or go ahead in as few possessions as possible. Thats 2 TDs, 1 PAT and 1 2pt. So by going for the 2 first, you increase the percentage that you will need another possession rather than staying alive with the high percentage 1 pt.

You're not increasing the chance of needing another possession at all. If you miss the 2-point conversion, you need another possession, whether you miss it with 7:00 or 0:07 left on the clock. If you miss it with 7:00 on the clock, you know you need another possession, and can adjust accordingly. If you miss it with 0:07, your only hope for another possession is to recover an onside kick.The chance of winning the game, down 9 after scoring with 7:00 left, is relatively low, whether you go for two or kick a PAT.

 

[sn0mm1s]

yeah, and the same team who misses the 2 pointer late in the game loses without any chance of coming back. I have seen teams do what you say and miss the 2 point conversion at the end and game over. I have also seen teams try the 2 pointer and miss early on and then come back knowing they had to be desperate and not only didn't they tie...they won in regulation.I am shocked that the Shark Pool can't see this.If you will be forced to go for 2 you must go early if you want to give your team the best chance of winning...not once has anyone from the wait side said anything that changes this...the only thing they keep saying is that it is a one score game if you kick the extra point...that is NOT correct, it is one TD AND a 2 point conversion. Does anyone from the wait side think if you were going to fail on the 2 pt you would rather do it very late in the game rather than earlier? Anyone? Of course not and thus the answer is you try earlier just in case you don't make it you have a better shot to win.

The people supporting the go for 2 early assume that the opposing D and O will play exactly the same whether the score difference is 7,8, or 9 - which I can assure you is not the case. I can also assure you that the trailing team's O and D will not play the same either. My stance revolves around scoring the 2nd TD. Are you more likely to score that 2nd TD if the trailing team can run a balanced offense and the defense has the luxury of giving up 1 first down or if you can't give up a first down and must essentially pass every play?The go for 2 crowd keep saying if you miss early you have a chance to make it up... define what this "chance" is. What changes in the offense/defense that will make it more successful?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's say you go for the one-pointer first and make it. When you get the ball back, down eight, let's say an infallible genie appears and grants you the option of knowing ahead of time whether you'll make your next try if you score again. The caveat is that if you elect to hear the answer ahead of time, your opponent will hear it as well. With that constraint, would you choose to hear the answer ahead of time?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The only difference is the third possession and the opportunity to make up for the failed conversion. Which scenario gives you that chance? You and your opponent knowing you need to score twice, or not knowing yet? I think this is entirely dependent upon the teams and coaches involved and thus is beyond a mathematical decision. There is no right answer unless all of the factors of coaching and players and conditions and conditioning and playcalling, etc. are considered.

I really don't think this question is that hard to answer. Knowing you need two possessions clearly gives you a better chance at getting two possessions than not knowing. If you know you need two, all of your coaching and playcalling, etc., is geared towards that aim. If you don't know, then it isn't all geared towards that aim. A team down by 8 points might take their time on their way down the field towards the "tying" score (in fact, they do all the time, for fear of leaving too much time left for their opponents), only to miss the 2-point conversion and be left with no chance to win. Your opponent's defense doesn't gain nearly as much by knowing whether you need one possession or two. Their goal is essentially the same either way. The net effect of knowing you need to score twice is a huge positive for the offense.

But as a coach, you can control the bolded.

Uh huh. And they can control it when they need two scores two. If you know you need two scores, there's no chance you're going to be playing for just one. If you don't know, there's some chance that you're playing the wrong way. If it turns out that you're going to need two scores, you want to get that first one as quickly as possible. If, on the other hand, it turns out that you only need one score, you want to do exactly the opposite. Even the best coach might be calling the wrong plays if they don't know what their objective is.

And how do you figure the other team doesn't gain as much? They now know that killing time is more important than trying to score. I think it can greatly effect how much possession time you get...but again that depends on all of the factors we can't quantify in this analysis.

Holding a lead with under 7 minutes to go in the 4th quarter, killing time is always more important than trying to score. Whether you need one score or two, the primary objective of your opponent is to take as much time off the clock as possible. If they can tack on another score in the process, that's a bonus, and if you happen to hold them to a 4th and 9 at your 37 yard line, then sure, this may effect their decision to kick a FG or punt, but there is absolutely no question whatsoever that knowing whether or not you need two scores is a huge net advantage for the team that's trailing.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

My stance revolves around scoring the 2nd TD. Are you more likely to score that 2nd TD if the trailing team can run a balanced offense and the defense has the luxury of giving up 1 first down or if you can't give up a first down and must essentially pass every play?

Down by nine, the trailing team can run a balanced offense. It can take time off the clock, march down the field with a mix of runs and passes, score a TD with just seconds left, and kick a one-point conversion, thus losing by two. The only reason it wouldn't do that is because it would be moronic. It would be stupid to play like you need just one score when you actually need two.But that's exactly what the "go for one" crowd is espousing the 55% of the time or so that it will miss the two-point conversion at the end. It is espousing playing like you just need one score when — given that you're going to miss the two-pointer (which is the only situation that matters) — you actually need two.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The go for 2 crowd keep saying if you miss early you have a chance to make it up... define what this "chance" is.

Time.

 

[sn0mm1s]

It is absolutely true that if you miss the 2-point conversion, you're in a worse position than if you don't miss it. What you're not getting is that you're in that position whether you miss it early or late. If you miss it late, you don't know you're in that position, and can't adjust your tactics accordingly.

Whats there to adjust. You just lost your best chance to stay alive by missing that 2 pt conv. Whether its the last second or with 7 mins to go is semantics. The percentages show that the game is more than likely over. So why take that chance away from yourself? When you're down 15, you're trying to tie or go ahead in as few possessions as possible. Thats 2 TDs, 1 PAT and 1 2pt. So by going for the 2 first, you increase the percentage that you will need another possession rather than staying alive with the high percentage 1 pt.

You're not increasing the chance of needing another possession at all. If you miss the 2-point conversion, you need another possession, whether you miss it with 7:00 or 0:07 left on the clock. If you miss it with 7:00 on the clock, you know you need another possession, and can adjust accordingly. If you miss it with 0:07, your only hope for another possession is to recover an onside kick.The chance of winning the game, down 9 after scoring with 7:00 left, is relatively low, whether you go for two or kick a PAT.

What are these adjustments other than becoming much more predictable as an offense and having to play nearly perfect defense while at the same time allowing the opposing offense to just run the ball up the middle and opposing defense to take away the sidelines?

 

[CalBear]

The people supporting the go for 2 early assume that the opposing D and O will play exactly the same whether the score difference is 7,8, or 9 - which I can assure you is not the case.

Actually, I'm assuming the exact opposite; I am assuming that you'll make different choices down by 9 than down by 7, which is why you need to know whether you made the 2-point conversion as early as possible.

I can also assure you that the trailing team's O and D will not play the same either. My stance revolves around scoring the 2nd TD. Are you more likely to score that 2nd TD if the trailing team can run a balanced offense and the defense has the luxury of giving up 1 first down or if you can't give up a first down and must essentially pass every play?The go for 2 crowd keep saying if you miss early you have a chance to make it up... define what this "chance" is. What changes in the offense/defense that will make it more successful?

Once again, you are falling into the trap of counting the second TD as 8 points. The second TD is six points. You still need the 2-point conversion, which you can still miss. So, which scenario do you think is more likely:A) Scoring a TD and a FG when kicking off, down by 9 with 7:00 to go, orB) Scoring a TD and a FG when kicking off, down by 8 with 7:00 to goThe answer is A), because of the scenario I've already posted: fourth and 1 on the 25 yard line, 2:30 remaining with 1 timeout left. Down by 9 the right move is obvious; down by 8 you have no way of knowing what the right move is.

 

[sn0mm1s]

My stance revolves around scoring the 2nd TD. Are you more likely to score that 2nd TD if the trailing team can run a balanced offense and the defense has the luxury of giving up 1 first down or if you can't give up a first down and must essentially pass every play?

Down by nine, the trailing team can run a balanced offense. It can take time off the clock, march down the field with a mix of runs and passes, score a TD with just seconds left, and kick a one-point conversion, thus losing by two. The only reason it wouldn't do that is because it would be moronic. It would be stupid to play like you just need one score when you actually need two.But that's exactly what the "go for one" crowd is espousing the 55% of the time or so that it will miss the two-point conversion at the end. It is espousing playing like you just need one score when — given that you're going to miss the two-pointer (which is the only situation that matters) — you actually need two.

How can they run a balanced offense? Let's assume you are down by 9 and kickoff the ball with 7 minutes left. The other team converts 1 first down and you are done. Let's say you get the ball back after the opposing team ran 2 minutes off the clock. You are really trying to tell me that you can run a balanced offense with 5 minutes on the clock down needing 2 possessions starting around your own 40? Unless you can guarantee an onside kick recovery that isn't the case at all.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

My stance revolves around scoring the 2nd TD. Are you more likely to score that 2nd TD if the trailing team can run a balanced offense and the defense has the luxury of giving up 1 first down or if you can't give up a first down and must essentially pass every play?

Down by nine, the trailing team can run a balanced offense. It can take time off the clock, march down the field with a mix of runs and passes, score a TD with just seconds left, and kick a one-point conversion, thus losing by two. The only reason it wouldn't do that is because it would be moronic. It would be stupid to play like you just need one score when you actually need two.But that's exactly what the "go for one" crowd is espousing the 55% of the time or so that it will miss the two-point conversion at the end. It is espousing playing like you just need one score when — given that you're going to miss the two-pointer (which is the only situation that matters) — you actually need two.

How can they run a balanced offense? Let's assume you are down by 9 and kickoff the ball with 7 minutes left. The other team converts 1 first down and you are done. Let's say you get the ball back after the opposing team ran 2 minutes off the clock. You are really trying to tell me that you can run a balanced offense with 5 minutes on the clock down needing 2 possessions starting around your own 40? Unless you can guarantee an onside kick recovery that isn't the case at all.

You should probably read more than the first sentence of a post before replying.

 

[Choke]

7 minutes.

Gonna be a 8 point game?

I'll take the 1 every single time.

Though 7 minutes is getting close to the breakpoint.

But I refuse to let momentum slip and too many things can happen in 7-8 minutes.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

My stance revolves around scoring the 2nd TD. Are you more likely to score that 2nd TD if the trailing team can run a balanced offense and the defense has the luxury of giving up 1 first down or if you can't give up a first down and must essentially pass every play?

Down by nine, the trailing team can run a balanced offense. It can take time off the clock, march down the field with a mix of runs and passes, score a TD with just seconds left, and kick a one-point conversion, thus losing by two. The only reason it wouldn't do that is because it would be moronic. It would be stupid to play like you need just one score when you actually need two.But that's exactly what the "go for one" crowd is espousing the 55% of the time or so that it will miss the two-point conversion at the end. It is espousing playing like you just need one score when — given that you're going to miss the two-pointer (which is the only situation that matters) — you actually need two.

Hot damn

 

[Jayrod]

For those of you acting like knowing what you need is an advantage, what would you rather have happen as the opposing coach? Wouldn't you rather know what you had to defend? How is knowing an advantage for one team and not the other? Now I'd agree that knowing what you need is an advantage for the offense (like in college where you always want to go 2nd), but you aren't on all-time offense in this scenario, the other team is certainly going to have the ball and thus have some control of the clock. He knows what you know and can work it to his advantage just like you did.

I still see no advantage in knowing the score vs. having to wait.

This is literally a situational decision based on factors specific to each game and cannot be assumed to be right by either side in all circumstances. Saying this decision is easy and that there is only one right answer is incorrect.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

For those of you acting like knowing what you need is an advantage, what would you rather have happen as the opposing coach? Wouldn't you rather know what you had to defend? How is knowing an advantage for one team and not the other?

Of course. The team with the lead would also rather know than not know. But the small advantage they gain by knowing is dwarfed by the advantage gained by the trailing team. It's a huge net advantage for the team that's trailing.

I still see no advantage in knowing the score vs. having to wait.

That's just crazy. I'm sorry, but it is. Of all the arguments that can be made against going for the 2-pt conversion first, this is definitely one of the worst.

 

[thatguy]

This is something that I think coaches get wrong more often than not. I think you go for 2 right away. If you don't get it, then you know you have to score twice more and can adjust your strategy accordingly.

Agree completely.

 

[Jersey35]

For those of you acting like knowing what you need is an advantage, what would you rather have happen as the opposing coach? Wouldn't you rather know what you had to defend? How is knowing an advantage for one team and not the other? Now I'd agree that knowing what you need is an advantage for the offense (like in college where you always want to go 2nd), but you aren't on all-time offense in this scenario, the other team is certainly going to have the ball and thus have some control of the clock. He knows what you know and can work it to his advantage just like you did.

I still see no advantage in knowing the score vs. having to wait.

This is literally a situational decision based on factors specific to each game and cannot be assumed to be right by either side in all circumstances. Saying this decision is easy and that there is only one right answer is incorrect.

The advantage is that in the event you miss the conversion (which we all agree may occur at some point), missing that conversion with 7 minutes remaining allows you to adjust your game plan to go for two scores rather than just the one. Missing that conversion with little or no time left does not allow you to adjust your game plan to try to conserve time - it's an onside kick attempt and a hail mary or bust.

 

[sn0mm1s]

The people supporting the go for 2 early assume that the opposing D and O will play exactly the same whether the score difference is 7,8, or 9 - which I can assure you is not the case.

Actually, I'm assuming the exact opposite; I am assuming that you'll make different choices down by 9 than down by 7, which is why you need to know whether you made the 2-point conversion as early as possible.

I can also assure you that the trailing team's O and D will not play the same either. My stance revolves around scoring the 2nd TD. Are you more likely to score that 2nd TD if the trailing team can run a balanced offense and the defense has the luxury of giving up 1 first down or if you can't give up a first down and must essentially pass every play?The go for 2 crowd keep saying if you miss early you have a chance to make it up... define what this "chance" is. What changes in the offense/defense that will make it more successful?

Once again, you are falling into the trap of counting the second TD as 8 points. The second TD is six points. You still need the 2-point conversion, which you can still miss. So, which scenario do you think is more likely:A) Scoring a TD and a FG when kicking off, down by 9 with 7:00 to go, orB) Scoring a TD and a FG when kicking off, down by 8 with 7:00 to goThe answer is A), because of the scenario I've already posted: fourth and 1 on the 25 yard line, 2:30 remaining with 1 timeout left. Down by 9 the right move is obvious; down by 8 you have no way of knowing what the right move is.

I don't care about the 2nd conversion. I am not counting the 2nd conversion as *anything*. I am talking about the likelihood of scoring the 2nd TD based on the time remaining and the score. You need the TD *first* before you can worry about the conversion.Also, your example is contrived, you are trying to make the clock to be not nearly as much of a factor. Remove the timeout and the scenario changes. You go for the 1st down if you are down 8 with 2:30.Try viewing this as yardage instead. If you are down by 7 or 8 the yardage needed to tie is the same from wherever you get the ball. If you are down by 9 you need much more, probably 50-60% more. By kicking the PAT you almost never give yourself that yardage handicap. If you go for 2, over 50% of the time the opposing D and O can play you knowing that you have to make up the 50-60% handicap which makes you very predictable - and I would guess much less likely to score that 2nd TD.Also, when only a single score (whether or not the conversion required is a 2pt or 1pt conversion) is separating two teams the winning offense will most likely run on 1st and 2nd down and pass on 3rd if it is a long yardage situation - effectively giving the D a timeout if the pass in unsuccessful. If a team is up by 9, it will most like run on 3rd down and bleed off more of the clock no matter what the DnD is.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

So why in the world would you not want to know whether you need 2 possessions or 1 possessions with 7 minutes left, rather than with 10 seconds left?

Would you rather need one possession to tie or two? I don't think any coach in their right mind would say "put me in the position where I NEED two possessions at the end of the game".

You're not getting it. It's not a matter of intentionally putting themselves in a position where they're down two scores. It's a matter of you're going to be down 2 scores either way, so you're better off knowing that ahead of time. If we're talking about a scenario where the two pointer fails, then the team down 8 isn't down 1 score, they're down 2 scores when they THINK they're down 1 score, which is a gigantic disadvantage.The bottom line is that there are two scenarios.1) The two point conversion is successful. In this case neither case is really better than the other.2) The two point conversion is unsuccessful. In this case the first case (where you went for the two early on and now KNOW it's a two score game) is much better.The fact that there are so many people that fail to grasp such a simple concept (that you have to assume the same result of the two point play either way) is, quite frankly, shaking my confidence in this forum.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

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.

Not to mention what it does to each team's morale if you fail and both sides realize they now need two scores.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Try viewing this as yardage instead. If you are down by 7 or 8 the yardage needed to tie is the same from wherever you get the ball. If you are down by 9 you need much more, probably 50-60% more. By kicking the PAT you almost never give yourself that yardage handicap. If you go for 2, over 50% of the time the opposing D and O can play you knowing that you have to make up the 50-60% handicap which makes you very predictable - and I would guess much less likely to score that 2nd TD.

I disagree. If a team is up by two scores late then it is much easier to score against them than it is to score against a team that thinks it's only up by one score. They are much more likely to play a soft zone and just let you march right down the field. We see it all the time.

 

[Jersey35]

So why in the world would you not want to know whether you need 2 possessions or 1 possessions with 7 minutes left, rather than with 10 seconds left?

Would you rather need one possession to tie or two? I don't think any coach in their right mind would say "put me in the position where I NEED two possessions at the end of the game".

You're not getting it. It's not a matter of intentionally putting themselves in a position where they're down two scores. It's a matter of you're going to be down 2 scores either way, so you're better off knowing that ahead of time. If we're talking about a scenario where the two pointer fails, then the team down 8 isn't down 1 score, they're down 2 scores when they THINK they're down 1 score, which is a gigantic disadvantage.The bottom line is that there are two scenarios.1) The two point conversion is successful. In this case neither case is really better than the other.2) The two point conversion is unsuccessful. In this case the first case (where you went for the two early on and now KNOW it's a two score game) is much better.The fact that there are so many people that fail to grasp such a simple concept (that you have to assume the same result of the two point play either way) is, quite frankly, shaking my confidence in this forum.

Exactly.

 

[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.

I can't believe some of the posts...or the % of the vote.

if one can't even understand how much worse it is to be down by 1 with 1 second left (or 20 seconds left in the game) where you are about to kick off than down by 9 with 7 minutes left then there is zero hope for any of us who are actually searching for the truth and not trying to defend some position. I made all my posts earlier and won't reissue them, but the ONLY argument for not going for 2 first is the one where someone may just feel strongly that 7 minutes is too much time, but if it were 5 they would go for 2 1st and that I could understand at least the thought process, but if you will have to go for 2, without question, it is ALWAYS better to do it first so that you have a chance to overcome the possible miss.

Why is it that if you go for 2 late and miss that you have 20 seconds left in the game but if you go for 2 early and miss you have plenty of time to come back and win? If you go for 2 late and miss, you have just as good a chance to be kicking off with X amount of time on the clock and down 2. If you are down by 9 and kicking off with 7 minutes to go, then YOU ARE HOPING THAT YOU GET TO kick off down 2 with X amount of time on the clock. There's nothing that says X will be bigger by going for it early than if you wait to go for 2 late.

 

[The Iguana]

There's some great discussion in this thread, but there's also some pretty awful logic. You can make an argument that the psychological value of "momentum" gained by kicking a PAT outweighs the tangible value of the information gained by going for two, or something along those lines - I disagree, but that's largely unquantifiable and subjective. But a lot of these arguments in favor of kicking the PAT are just plain wrong. They're just illogical and demonstrably wrong, and it's probably because of our natural aversion to loss. A lot of people on the "kick the PAT" side are undervaluing or completely ignoring the benefits of going for two. Countless posts say things along the lines of "If you go for two first and miss, then..." and "If you kick the PAT first, then..." And that's what people do - they overestimate the possible negative consequences of a risky proposition, and they underestimate the possible gains. The goal is to win the game, not maintain some vague notion of "staying alive" the longest. It makes no sense to say that going for two early is a bad idea because you might miss, and then in the same breath say you should kick the PAT because then you only need one score.

I agree that there is a lot of flawed logic being argued for why to kick. I think kicking is the right play here but I don't agree with all the reasons that are being tossed out for why that is.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

This is something that I think coaches get wrong more often than not. I think you go for 2 right away. If you don't get it, then you know you have to score twice more and can adjust your strategy accordingly.

Agree completely.

You're kind of looking at it wrong, though. You are taking the scientific approach. I'm a mathematician, so I understand your point. I also know that going for a 1st down on 4th down is mathematically the right decision around 80% of the time, if I remember correctly. The problem with these approaches is that football isn't played by machines. It's played by people. People have emotions, and those emotions can be greatly affected. If a bunch of guys fight and scrap to score a TD they will be much more motivated to fight and scrap to score another if they know that it could tie the game, as opposed to knowing they still need a touchdown AND a FG.

 

[Jersey35]

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.

I can't believe some of the posts...or the % of the vote.

if one can't even understand how much worse it is to be down by 1 with 1 second left (or 20 seconds left in the game) where you are about to kick off than down by 9 with 7 minutes left then there is zero hope for any of us who are actually searching for the truth and not trying to defend some position. I made all my posts earlier and won't reissue them, but the ONLY argument for not going for 2 first is the one where someone may just feel strongly that 7 minutes is too much time, but if it were 5 they would go for 2 1st and that I could understand at least the thought process, but if you will have to go for 2, without question, it is ALWAYS better to do it first so that you have a chance to overcome the possible miss.

Why is it that if you go for 2 late and miss that you have 20 seconds left in the game but if you go for 2 early and miss you have plenty of time to come back and win? If you go for 2 late and miss, you have just as good a chance to be kicking off with X amount of time on the clock and down 2. If you are down by 9 and kicking off with 7 minutes to go, then YOU ARE HOPING THAT YOU GET TO kick off down 2 with X amount of time on the clock. There's nothing that says X will be bigger by going for it early than if you wait to go for 2 late.

How many games do you see where a team, down 8, is driving? Milks as much time as possible off the clock, scores the TD, then misses the 2. THIS is why the time is expected to be low in the conversion late theory. The problem is that you MIGHT still need another score after you get that TD. You just don't know it until you try the conversion.Better off to know you need that extra possession earlier so that you can gameplan as best you can to attempt to obtain it.

 

[CalBear]

I don't care about the 2nd conversion. I am not counting the 2nd conversion as *anything*. I am talking about the likelihood of scoring the 2nd TD based on the time remaining and the score. You need the TD *first* before you can worry about the conversion.

The second TD is only more difficult in your scenario because you missed the 2-point conversion. I don't necessarily agree with your premise, but I'll let you have it for the sake of argument; the point is that if you're going to assume that the 2-point conversion is missed, you have to assume that it's missed in both scenarios, and therefore by methodically going down the field and taking your time after kicking a PAT, you are guaranteed to lose because you no longer have time to get the FG you'll need after you miss the 2-point conversion.

Also, your example is contrived, you are trying to make the clock to be not nearly as much of a factor. Remove the timeout and the scenario changes. You go for the 1st down if you are down 8 with 2:30.

There are a ton of scenarios where the knowledge of needing two drives vs. one will change your decision. If you don't have the knowledge, you can't make the right decision.

Try viewing this as yardage instead. If you are down by 7 or 8 the yardage needed to tie is the same from wherever you get the ball. If you are down by 9 you need much more, probably 50-60% more. By kicking the PAT you almost never give yourself that yardage handicap. If you go for 2, over 50% of the time the opposing D and O can play you knowing that you have to make up the 50-60% handicap which makes you very predictable - and I would guess much less likely to score that 2nd TD.

The yardage required in the two scenarios is the same, because you're assuming the 2-point conversion is missed. After you miss the 2-point conversion, you have to have two drives, one for a FG and one for a TD. That's the same yardage whether you miss it early or late.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This is something that I think coaches get wrong more often than not. I think you go for 2 right away. If you don't get it, then you know you have to score twice more and can adjust your strategy accordingly.

Agree completely.

You're kind of looking at it wrong, though. You are taking the scientific approach. I'm a mathematician, so I understand your point. I also know that going for a 1st down on 4th down is mathematically the right decision around 80% of the time, if I remember correctly. The problem with these approaches is that football isn't played by machines. It's played by people. People have emotions, and those emotions can be greatly affected. If a bunch of guys fight and scrap to score a TD they will be much more motivated to fight and scrap to score another if they know that it could tie the game, as opposed to knowing they still need a touchdown AND a FG.

Their emotions aren't broken when they're attempting the two point conversion either way, and that's all that matters here. Since we're assuming a two-point failure here (their chances of getting it with 7 seconds left are the same as they are with 7 minutes left) since that's the only scenario that matters, then what good does it do to have a pumped up football team that is down by 2 with 2 seconds left and is kicking off to the other team?The only way that your "emotion" theory makes any sense is if you're saying that you think they'll be more likely to make the two point conversion with 7 seconds left than they will be with 7 minutes left, which I totally don't agree with.

 

[thatguy]

This is something that I think coaches get wrong more often than not. I think you go for 2 right away. If you don't get it, then you know you have to score twice more and can adjust your strategy accordingly.

Agree completely.

You're kind of looking at it wrong, though. You are taking the scientific approach. I'm a mathematician, so I understand your point. I also know that going for a 1st down on 4th down is mathematically the right decision around 80% of the time, if I remember correctly. The problem with these approaches is that football isn't played by machines. It's played by people. People have emotions, and those emotions can be greatly affected. If a bunch of guys fight and scrap to score a TD they will be much more motivated to fight and scrap to score another if they know that it could tie the game, as opposed to knowing they still need a touchdown AND a FG.

That is a very fair point. And you are right, all the odds in the world can't account for how people will respond emotionally in certain circumstances, and how those emotions will affect the outcome. I think the problem here is that we're all assuming that the two point conversion is missed. Now, it's not quite 50/50, but close enough, that it could just as easily be made. And I think the effect of success can be equally powerful. So, we have to look at both scenarios, and from there, determine the best decision. I think all things considered, emotions included, you still go for 2.

 

[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.

I can't believe some of the posts...or the % of the vote.

if one can't even understand how much worse it is to be down by 1 with 1 second left (or 20 seconds left in the game) where you are about to kick off than down by 9 with 7 minutes left then there is zero hope for any of us who are actually searching for the truth and not trying to defend some position. I made all my posts earlier and won't reissue them, but the ONLY argument for not going for 2 first is the one where someone may just feel strongly that 7 minutes is too much time, but if it were 5 they would go for 2 1st and that I could understand at least the thought process, but if you will have to go for 2, without question, it is ALWAYS better to do it first so that you have a chance to overcome the possible miss.

Why is it that if you go for 2 late and miss that you have 20 seconds left in the game but if you go for 2 early and miss you have plenty of time to come back and win? If you go for 2 late and miss, you have just as good a chance to be kicking off with X amount of time on the clock and down 2. If you are down by 9 and kicking off with 7 minutes to go, then YOU ARE HOPING THAT YOU GET TO kick off down 2 with X amount of time on the clock. There's nothing that says X will be bigger by going for it early than if you wait to go for 2 late.

How many games do you see where a team, down 8, is driving? Milks as much time as possible off the clock, scores the TD, then misses the 2. THIS is why the time is expected to be low in the conversion late theory. The problem is that you MIGHT still need another score after you get that TD. You just don't know it until you try the conversion.Better off to know you need that extra possession earlier so that you can gameplan as best you can to attempt to obtain it.

Then the problem is in clock management, not in skipping the 2 pt conversion early. Also, this will greatly vary depending on the confidence you have in your defense, your offense and the opponents ability. If you are playing the Colts then going for 2 early probably is warrented for a variety of reasons. Here, I'll amend my choice from "definitely kick it" to "usually kick it but it could depend on a few factors".

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

How many games do you see where a team, down 8, is driving? Milks as much time as possible off the clock, scores the TD, then misses the 2. THIS is why the time is expected to be low in the conversion late theory. The problem is that you MIGHT still need another score after you get that TD. You just don't know it until you try the conversion.

Better off to know you need that extra possession earlier so that you can gameplan as best you can to attempt to obtain it.

Then the problem is in clock management, not in skipping the 2 pt conversion early.

That's not a clock management problem at all. If you end up making the conversion, then milking the clock is exactly what you should have done. The problem is that because you don't know whether or not you need two scores, you don't know whether the correct time management strategy is to milk the clock or score as quickly as possible. That's a huge problem for an offense, but it's not a time management problem, it's an information problem - a problem that is easily solved by going for two on the first TD.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Try viewing this as yardage instead. If you are down by 7 or 8 the yardage needed to tie is the same from wherever you get the ball. If you are down by 9 you need much more, probably 50-60% more. By kicking the PAT you almost never give yourself that yardage handicap.

You honestly don't see what is wrong with this?ETA: Really this post is illustrative of the mistakes most of the "kick the PAT" supporters are making. You have made a huge error in valuing the risks involved here.

 

[sn0mm1s]

I don't care about the 2nd conversion. I am not counting the 2nd conversion as *anything*. I am talking about the likelihood of scoring the 2nd TD based on the time remaining and the score. You need the TD *first* before you can worry about the conversion.

The second TD is only more difficult in your scenario because you missed the 2-point conversion. I don't necessarily agree with your premise, but I'll let you have it for the sake of argument; the point is that if you're going to assume that the 2-point conversion is missed, you have to assume that it's missed in both scenarios, and therefore by methodically going down the field and taking your time after kicking a PAT, you are guaranteed to lose because you no longer have time to get the FG you'll need after you miss the 2-point conversion.

Try viewing this as yardage instead. If you are down by 7 or 8 the yardage needed to tie is the same from wherever you get the ball. If you are down by 9 you need much more, probably 50-60% more. By kicking the PAT you almost never give yourself that yardage handicap. If you go for 2, over 50% of the time the opposing D and O can play you knowing that you have to make up the 50-60% handicap which makes you very predictable - and I would guess much less likely to score that 2nd TD.

The yardage required in the two scenarios is the same, because you're assuming the 2-point conversion is missed. After you miss the 2-point conversion, you have to have two drives, one for a FG and one for a TD. That's the same yardage whether you miss it early or late.

I am not assuming the 2pt conversion is missed if anything all the "go for 2" crowd assume the 2nd TD is a given.The amount of yardage needed to tie the game is exactly the same if the first conversion is made (1 or 2 pts). A TD is still needed. The winning offense *has* to worry about converting 1st downs if only up by one score (whether that be 7 or 8 pts). Which means their likelihood of passing the ball increases and every incomplete pass is effectively a time out for the team that is behind. Also, the winning defense can't just play the clock either. They can't allow a touchdown and they can't just play the pass.

If the first 2pt conversion *is* missed. The winning offense can run the ball on every play.

The winning team gets a much bigger advantage knowing that they will get a chance of possession of the ball at least twice and any turnover, score, or 1st down conversion wins them the game.

Of course, I just did a search of games on PFR from 1994-present for teams up by exactly 15 pts at the beginning of the 4th quarter. Out of 64 games only 1 team came back to win. So the real answer to the question is make sure you aren't down by 15 pts at the start of the 4th quarter.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I am not assuming the 2pt conversion is missed if anything all the "go for 2" crowd assume the 2nd TD is a given.

The whole discussion is moot if you don't score the 2nd TD.

The amount of yardage needed to tie the game is exactly the same if the first conversion is made (1 or 2 pts).

No it isn't.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Thoughts?

Didn't I write this up last year?math says go for 2.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Actually what I wrote up was down 14 and going for 2:

Hot Reads - 2008 - Week 3

In this instance where you're down 15 and you just scored a TD, no - you make it a one-possession game. Going for 2 has about a 58% chance of failure, making it a 2-score game. Go for one in this instance to cut it to 8.

 

[humpback]

How many games do you see where a team, down 8, is driving? Milks as much time as possible off the clock, scores the TD, then misses the 2. THIS is why the time is expected to be low in the conversion late theory. The problem is that you MIGHT still need another score after you get that TD. You just don't know it until you try the conversion.

Better off to know you need that extra possession earlier so that you can gameplan as best you can to attempt to obtain it.

Then the problem is in clock management, not in skipping the 2 pt conversion early.

That's not a clock management problem at all. If you end up making the conversion, then milking the clock is exactly what you should have done. The problem is that because you don't know whether or not you need two scores, you don't know whether the correct time management strategy is to milk the clock or score as quickly as possible. That's a huge problem for an offense, but it's not a time management problem, it's an information problem - a problem that is easily solved by going for two on the first TD.

Say's who?

 

[sn0mm1s]

Try viewing this as yardage instead. If you are down by 7 or 8 the yardage needed to tie is the same from wherever you get the ball. If you are down by 9 you need much more, probably 50-60% more. By kicking the PAT you almost never give yourself that yardage handicap.

You honestly don't see what is wrong with this?ETA: Really this post is illustrative of the mistakes most of the "kick the PAT" supporters are making. You have made a huge error in valuing the risks involved here.

I think the "go for 2" crowd has poor clock management skills and lack of comprehension of the value of field position. You think that the opposing team will play the same no matter what the outcome of the first conversion - that is false.In general, the offense has the advantage over the defense because the defense doesn't know what is coming. The defense is reactionary. By going down 9 the offense is an open book. Their ST plays are open books. The last 7 minutes of the game the winning team's D and ST knows exactly what opponent needs to do. By going for 2 early and missing, the trailing team's offense loses its advantage. By kicking the PAT or making a 2pt conversion they still retain that advantage and they are much more likely to retain that advantage kicking the XP.As long as there is enough time for an onside kick, short drive, and FG attempt (probably about 1 minute needed) going for two late is better because in that prior 6 minutes the winning D was still reacting to the offense.

 

[sn0mm1s]

I am not assuming the 2pt conversion is missed if anything all the "go for 2" crowd assume the 2nd TD is a given.

The whole discussion is moot if you don't score the 2nd TD.

The amount of yardage needed to tie the game is exactly the same if the first conversion is made (1 or 2 pts).

No it isn't.

Exactly my point. You just assume the 2nd TD - no need for evaluation of clock management or field position. You assume scoring the 2nd TD is a given and just as likely no matter what decision is made on the first conversion.The yardage is the same prior to the conversion result - and the winning D has to play like that is the case - the offense doesn't necessarily have to do this but they have the option to. The winning D can't play like they are up by 9 - they have to play like they are up by 7.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The yardage is the same prior to the conversion result

Well that's a lot different than what you said. And that difference, which you've ignored, is crucial to the assessment.

 

[renesauz]

The biggest logic flaw I continue to see is the assumption that your opponent plays essentially the same up 7 or up 9 with 7 minutes to play.

He does not.

I have brought it up several times in this thread already, so let me ask it this way:

You're on offense late in the game (6-7 min). Do you play the same up 7 or8 as up nine? Or do you go much more conservative (IE: run it up the gut with a sure handed RB) up 9?

You could argue that question either way...but the OVERWHELMING majority of coaches go ultra conservative up two scores. For the defense, that results in a comparatively easy 3 and out.

A missed conversion necessitates a third possession....period. But it's an easier 3 and out to get that third possession down 9 then it is down 7 or 8.

I have yet to see this argument addressed, let alone refuted, yet I think it's a key point too easily overlooked.