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

[Jeff Pasquino]

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.

Exactly.A game changes on both sides of the ball late in a contest when it is a 1-score game vs. a 2-score game.When a good coach has a 2-score lead, he will run a 4-minute offense, try and move the sticks and just keep that clock running. Even if they have to punt, the other team still has to get some points to even hope to make it a contest.Another differentiator is the game changes for the TRAILING team. Being down 1-score vs. 2-scores changes their offense. From game tempo to play calling, a game changes if you have to get two possessions. Trailing by more than 8 causes a team to run their 2-minute offense, going no huddle often and practically abandoning the run. Despite what many think, it is not just the Kansas Citys and New York Jets that want to run the ball as part of their base offense - all teams run it. Look at how many TDs are scored by Indy and NE on the ground despite Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Taking out all of the run plays changes an offense, and it also gives a defense an advantage as they can go "nickel" or "dime" and have their front four just pass rush every snap. The game is completely different in a 2-score margin contest.Kick the extra point and not only reduce the game to a 1-score margin, but also keep both teams more honest on offense and defense. That's the "hidden" advantage of kicking the extra point.

 

[Warehouse Nasty]

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.

Are you presuming that the failure rate drops when you have to go for 2 later in the game? Because if you aren't, I don't see how this makes sense.In fact, the only objective reason for waiting to go for 2 would be if it could be proven that your conversion chances are higher by going for 2 later in the game. Otherwise the reasoning is based on subjective speculation of the emotional state of the teams involved.

 

[Insein]

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.

What logic is there? Im talking about your chances for success. Are your chances for success higher or lower if you need to get the ball back a second time to stay alive in the game? If you eliminate the chance to stay within 1 score right away, you significantly decrease your chance of staying alive in the game. No one is assuming you will make or miss the 2 pt conv. You need to score 15 points in 7 minutes to stay alive. IF you can do that in 2 possessions instead of 3, isn't that the better choice? Going for 2 at the end of the game is an all or nothing game but you simplified things from 15 in 7mins down to 2pts in 1 play. If you have to add a 3rd possession to that scenario then you are drastically decreasing your chances of survival. So the scenario that pushes the 3rd possession away the longest is kicking the PAT. What part of that don't you get? 2 possessions is less than 3 possessions to stay alive.

 

[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.

Are you presuming that the failure rate drops when you have to go for 2 later in the game? Because if you aren't, I don't see how this makes sense.In fact, the only objective reason for waiting to go for 2 would be if it could be proven that your conversion chances are higher by going for 2 later in the game. Otherwise the reasoning is based on subjective speculation of the emotional state of the teams involved.

The point is 58% of the time you are trailing by two scores, not one - a much more disadvantageous game situation.Cutting the game to a one possession contest has non-math related benefits (see game situation post above).

 

[TWP]

i agree with the guy who said fake the PAT. I think the non-math differences are too unknown and probably cancel each other out with pros and cons for both actions. The real best move is to take the highest percentage chance to score 2: either now or later. I think the fake PAT has a nice element of surprise and will really give your team momentum if it works. If it doesnt work, you have a two score game, but at least you can play out the last 7 minutes knowing you need two scores.

 

[SSOG]

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.

My null hypothesis is that "momentum" has a trivial impact on games at a professional level. I invite anyone to provide enough data to reject my null hypothesis.

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.

That website didn't have it at a 50/50 proposition. The chart you linked to said that you should go for it if your chance of success was 38-40% or greater. Since league-wide conversion rates are greater than 38%, the chart you linked to said definitively that you should go for the 2pc after scoring a TD to cut the lead to 9 points (XP/2pc pending) with 7 minutes remaining.The biggest problem that I have with your chart is that it's based on the odds of converting a 2pc, meaning it cautions below-average offenses against going for it... despite the fact that the data is based on a league-average offense's chances of posting another score after the conversion in question. In other words, I think the chart should read "go for it in all situations" instead of "go for it if you have a greater than 38% chance of converting" simply due to a flaw in the methodology behind the chart in the first place.

 

[Fensalk]

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.

Where is it said that the second TD is going to occur at the 1 minute mark? I thought all we're given is that with 7 minutes to go I just scored a TD to cut the lead to 9.

 

[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.

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".

Incorrect. If you are going for the tie late in the game, do you want to give your opponent MORE time after you score, or less? By not going for the conversion early, you've put yourself in a position where you actually WANT the drive that you are making for the intended tie to be the last drive in regulation. The problem is that in playing toward that outcome, you've essentially eliminated the opportunity for that possible third possession.If the chances of scoring a 2pt conversion are 45%, then, once you score that 2nd TD, your chances of losing are approximately 65%. By going for the conversion earlier, your chance of missing the 2pt remains 65%, but you still have time to overcome the miss - improving your odds - even if only slightly.

 

[CalBear]

Here's exactly why going for two first is correct. In this poll, virtually everyone agrees that in the scenario given (2:30 left, one timeout left, fourth and 1 at the 25 yard line), if you're down by 7 you should go for it. Virtually everyone agrees that if you're down by 8 you should go for it. And there is strong consensus (though not quite as strong) to kick the FG if down by 9.

In this thread's scenario, you could have put yourself in the position of being either down 7 or down 9 by going for 2. Either case would make your decision at the 25-yard-line easy. If you kicked the PAT, you're probably stuck going for it on fourth and one down by 8--which will turn out to be a disastrous decision if you miss the 2-point conversion. You need that information as early as you can get it.

 

[Choke]

My null hypothesis is that "momentum" has a trivial impact on games at a professional level. I invite anyone to provide enough data to reject my null hypothesis.

Data for momentum? trivial?

 

[dwarfboy]

If you are down by 8 you can WIN the game with three field goals.

If you miss the early 2 pt attempt you can only tie with 3 field goals.

You can also WIN with a TD, missed 2pt attempt and a field goal.

Down by 9 you would need a TD and field goal, and a made PAT to win.

Also if your opponent scores a field goal you could still tie with a TD, 2pt conversion and a field goal.

An opponents FG up by 9 makes it 12 now requiring 2 TDs to win.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

What logic is there? Im talking about your chances for success. Are your chances for success higher or lower if you need to get the ball back a second time to stay alive in the game? If you eliminate the chance to stay within 1 score right away, you significantly decrease your chance of staying alive in the game. No one is assuming you will make or miss the 2 pt conv. You need to score 15 points in 7 minutes to stay alive. IF you can do that in 2 possessions instead of 3, isn't that the better choice? Going for 2 at the end of the game is an all or nothing game but you simplified things from 15 in 7mins down to 2pts in 1 play. If you have to add a 3rd possession to that scenario then you are drastically decreasing your chances of survival. So the scenario that pushes the 3rd possession away the longest is kicking the PAT. What part of that don't you get? 2 possessions is less than 3 possessions to stay alive.

I'd like to assume you're fishing at this point, but if not, this is a terrible post. As I said, there are arguments that can be made in favor of kicking the PAT first, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If you are down by 8 you can WIN the game with three field goals.If you miss the early 2 pt attempt you can only tie with 3 field goals.You can also WIN with a TD, missed 2pt attempt and a field goal. Down by 9 you would need a TD and field goal, and a made PAT to win.Also if your opponent scores a field goal you could still tie with a TD, 2pt conversion and a field goal.An opponents FG up by 9 makes it 12 now requiring 2 TDs to win.

First of all, if you're kicking off with under seven minutes to go, down by 8, you're not going to be winning the game with three field goals. But otherwise this is more of the same loss-averse nonsense ("It's better to be down by 8 than by 9!!!") Well, that's pretty obvious. The problem is that you're not properly weighting the positive outcomes against the negative outcomes. In fact, you didn't even mention the positive outcomes associated with going for 2 early, nor did you mention the negative outcomes associated with waiting to go for 2 until later. If given a choice between being down by 9 with seven minutes left, and being down by 8 with seven minutes left, then of course everyone would choose being down by 8. But that's not the choice presented by this question, no matter how badly the "kick the PAT" crowd wants to frame it that way.

 

[Insein]

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.

What logic is there? Im talking about your chances for success. Are your chances for success higher or lower if you need to get the ball back a second time to stay alive in the game? If you eliminate the chance to stay within 1 score right away, you significantly decrease your chance of staying alive in the game. No one is assuming you will make or miss the 2 pt conv. You need to score 15 points in 7 minutes to stay alive. IF you can do that in 2 possessions instead of 3, isn't that the better choice? Going for 2 at the end of the game is an all or nothing game but you simplified things from 15 in 7mins down to 2pts in 1 play. If you have to add a 3rd possession to that scenario then you are drastically decreasing your chances of survival. So the scenario that pushes the 3rd possession away the longest is kicking the PAT. What part of that don't you get? 2 possessions is less than 3 possessions to stay alive.

I'd like to assume you're fishing at this point, but if not, this is a terrible post. As I said, there are arguments that can be made in favor of kicking the PAT first, but this isn't one of them.

Translation: "I don't like your answer so you're wrong." Got it.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

What logic is there? Im talking about your chances for success. Are your chances for success higher or lower if you need to get the ball back a second time to stay alive in the game? If you eliminate the chance to stay within 1 score right away, you significantly decrease your chance of staying alive in the game. No one is assuming you will make or miss the 2 pt conv. You need to score 15 points in 7 minutes to stay alive. IF you can do that in 2 possessions instead of 3, isn't that the better choice? Going for 2 at the end of the game is an all or nothing game but you simplified things from 15 in 7mins down to 2pts in 1 play. If you have to add a 3rd possession to that scenario then you are drastically decreasing your chances of survival. So the scenario that pushes the 3rd possession away the longest is kicking the PAT. What part of that don't you get? 2 possessions is less than 3 possessions to stay alive.

I'd like to assume you're fishing at this point, but if not, this is a terrible post. As I said, there are arguments that can be made in favor of kicking the PAT first, but this isn't one of them.

Translation: "I don't like your answer so you're wrong." Got it.

Your answer isn't wrong because I don't like it. I don't like it, because it's wrong.If you miss the 2 point conversion at any point, you need three possessions to win. If you make the 2 point conversion at any point, you only need two possessions to win. Proposing that going for 2 early increases your chances of needing a third possession is completely asinine. (ETA: Which is why I assume you're fishing.)

 

[KentGraham10]

Well when I play Madden my whole strategy revolves around getting points when they are in front of you. Call it conservative, but if you are at the point with seven minutes to go to practically guarantee a 1 score game, I would go with that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

Exactly.A game changes on both sides of the ball late in a contest when it is a 1-score game vs. a 2-score game.

When a good coach has a 2-score lead, he will run a 4-minute offense, try and move the sticks and just keep that clock running. Even if they have to punt, the other team still has to get some points to even hope to make it a contest.

Another differentiator is the game changes for the TRAILING team. Being down 1-score vs. 2-scores changes their offense. From game tempo to play calling, a game changes if you have to get two possessions. Trailing by more than 8 causes a team to run their 2-minute offense, going no huddle often and practically abandoning the run. Despite what many think, it is not just the Kansas Citys and New York Jets that want to run the ball as part of their base offense - all teams run it. Look at how many TDs are scored by Indy and NE on the ground despite Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Taking out all of the run plays changes an offense, and it also gives a defense an advantage as they can go "nickel" or "dime" and have their front four just pass rush every snap. The game is completely different in a 2-score margin contest.

Kick the extra point and not only reduce the game to a 1-score margin, but also keep both teams more honest on offense and defense. That's the "hidden" advantage of kicking the extra point.

A really good coach realizes that an 8 point advantage is not a one score margin, but in fact is at least a one-score margin with a 50/50 chance of being a two score margin, and adjusts a game plan accordingly. But considering how many people here continue to incorrectly call an 8 point game a "one score game" and leave the analysis at that, that's probably too much to ask from NFL coaches.Also, renesauz is arguing the exact opposite thing from you I believe- he's saying if you go for two and miss, at least you get the advantage of a predictable offense after your failed attempt from which to get your three-and-out and get the ball back. That's not necessarily the case if you kick the extra point and are down 8- you'd have to guard against passes and runs, since the opposing coach might (wrongly) view the game as a "one score" game.

 

[firstseason1988]

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.

Exactly.A game changes on both sides of the ball late in a contest when it is a 1-score game vs. a 2-score game.

When a good coach has a 2-score lead, he will run a 4-minute offense, try and move the sticks and just keep that clock running. Even if they have to punt, the other team still has to get some points to even hope to make it a contest.

Another differentiator is the game changes for the TRAILING team. Being down 1-score vs. 2-scores changes their offense. From game tempo to play calling, a game changes if you have to get two possessions. Trailing by more than 8 causes a team to run their 2-minute offense, going no huddle often and practically abandoning the run. Despite what many think, it is not just the Kansas Citys and New York Jets that want to run the ball as part of their base offense - all teams run it. Look at how many TDs are scored by Indy and NE on the ground despite Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Taking out all of the run plays changes an offense, and it also gives a defense an advantage as they can go "nickel" or "dime" and have their front four just pass rush every snap. The game is completely different in a 2-score margin contest.

Kick the extra point and not only reduce the game to a 1-score margin, but also keep both teams more honest on offense and defense. That's the "hidden" advantage of kicking the extra point.

A really good coach realizes that an 8 point advantage is not a one score margin, but in fact is at least a one-score margin with a 50/50 chance of being a two score margin, and adjusts a game plan accordingly. But considering how many people here continue to incorrectly call an 8 point game a "one score game" and leave the analysis at that, that's probably too much to ask from NFL coaches.Also, renesauz is arguing the exact opposite thing from you I believe- he's saying if you go for two and miss, at least you get the advantage of a predictable offense after your failed attempt from which to get your three-and-out and get the ball back. That's not necessarily the case if you kick the extra point and are down 8- you'd have to guard against passes and runs, since the opposing coach might (wrongly) view the game as a "one score" game.

One possession is what people mean by one score I would assume.

 

[firstseason1988]

Well when I play Madden my whole strategy revolves around getting points when they are in front of you. Call it conservative, but if you are at the point with seven minutes to go to practically guarantee a 1 score game, I would go with that.

On page 3 I stated:In Madden I go for 2 points, no doubt.In NFL, I would kick XP, no doubt.Apples and Oranges.

 

[humpback]

Incorrect. If you are going for the tie late in the game, do you want to give your opponent MORE time after you score, or less? By not going for the conversion early, you've put yourself in a position where you actually WANT the drive that you are making for the intended tie to be the last drive in regulation. The problem is that in playing toward that outcome, you've essentially eliminated the opportunity for that possible third possession.If the chances of scoring a 2pt conversion are 45%, then, once you score that 2nd TD, your chances of losing are approximately 65%. By going for the conversion earlier, your chance of missing the 2pt remains 65%, but you still have time to overcome the miss - improving your odds - even if only slightly.

Say's who? It all depends on the situation- if you get the ball back with 5 minutes left, do you really think the smart thing to do is milk the clock? Your primary concern is scoring a TD- you automatically lose if you can't do that (for all intents and purposes). Smart clock management would dictate that you give yourselves as many opportunities to score that TD as possible, not milk it down so you guarantee yourself only 1 chance. I know you'd still have to stop the other team again, but that is moot if you can't score a TD.Obviously if you're down to a minute or 2 left in the game, it's entirely different, but this is one of many assumptions people are making that you just can't. With 7 minutes left, you should play the game as if you're going to need 2 more possessions either way- plan on missing the 2 pt. conversion, whether it's early or late. The conversion rate is less than 50%, so chances are, you're going to miss. Milking the clock is poor clock management based on the odds- you're limiting your chances at scoring the TD that you need. Of course, if your last drive takes you from 5 minutes down to 1 before you get inside the red zone, then you adjust, but I don't think you should plan on milking the clock if you get the ball back with 5 or so minutes left. Your strategy should depend on the circumstances.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

Exactly.A game changes on both sides of the ball late in a contest when it is a 1-score game vs. a 2-score game.

When a good coach has a 2-score lead, he will run a 4-minute offense, try and move the sticks and just keep that clock running. Even if they have to punt, the other team still has to get some points to even hope to make it a contest.

Another differentiator is the game changes for the TRAILING team. Being down 1-score vs. 2-scores changes their offense. From game tempo to play calling, a game changes if you have to get two possessions. Trailing by more than 8 causes a team to run their 2-minute offense, going no huddle often and practically abandoning the run. Despite what many think, it is not just the Kansas Citys and New York Jets that want to run the ball as part of their base offense - all teams run it. Look at how many TDs are scored by Indy and NE on the ground despite Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Taking out all of the run plays changes an offense, and it also gives a defense an advantage as they can go "nickel" or "dime" and have their front four just pass rush every snap. The game is completely different in a 2-score margin contest.

Kick the extra point and not only reduce the game to a 1-score margin, but also keep both teams more honest on offense and defense. That's the "hidden" advantage of kicking the extra point.

A really good coach realizes that an 8 point advantage is not a one score margin, but in fact is at least a one-score margin with a 50/50 chance of being a two score margin, and adjusts a game plan accordingly. But considering how many people here continue to incorrectly call an 8 point game a "one score game" and leave the analysis at that, that's probably too much to ask from NFL coaches.Also, renesauz is arguing the exact opposite thing from you I believe- he's saying if you go for two and miss, at least you get the advantage of a predictable offense after your failed attempt from which to get your three-and-out and get the ball back. That's not necessarily the case if you kick the extra point and are down 8- you'd have to guard against passes and runs, since the opposing coach might (wrongly) view the game as a "one score" game.

One possession is what people mean by one score I would assume.

Both are wrong.There's a 45% chance it's a one-possession game or a one-score game. Literally the only relevant question is WHEN you want to find out whether it's a one-score (or one-possession) game or a two score (or two-possession) game.

There are certainly arguments on both sides- I personally think the strategic advantage of finding out early helps the trailing team far, far, far more than the leading team, but I recognize that some people think that an NFL team down 9 points with seven minutes left gets depressed and sad and can't win any more, and I'm willing to concede that there may be a difference of views there.

But saying that you want to "extend the game" or "make it a one score game" and leaving the analysis at that makes no sense. It's not a reason. Things should be explained in terms of how they help you win the game. "Extending the game" or making it a 45% chance of being a one-score game might help you in that respect, but you need to explain how. Those things are means to an end, not ends by themselves.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

A really good coach realizes that an 8 point advantage is not a one score margin, but in fact is at least a one-score margin with a 50/50 chance of being a two score margin, and adjusts a game plan accordingly. But considering how many people here continue to incorrectly call an 8 point game a "one score game" and leave the analysis at that, that's probably too much to ask from NFL coaches.

Also, renesauz is arguing the exact opposite thing from you I believe- he's saying if you go for two and miss, at least you get the advantage of a predictable offense after your failed attempt from which to get your three-and-out and get the ball back. That's not necessarily the case if you kick the extra point and are down 8- you'd have to guard against passes and runs, since the opposing coach might (wrongly) view the game as a "one score" game.

LOL. You whine yesterday about someone else being condescending towards you and then you fire this mess off.Look slightly outside of the box and stop getting hung up on the "one score" phrase. Kicking the PAT first makes it an eight point game and makes it a "one possession" game. So technically you still have to score twice (touchdown and two point conversion) but you only need one possession to tie the game and prevent yourself from losing. That means you only have to stop them one time instead of two times to have a chance. If you go for two and fail, then you are going to have to score twice and get two defensive stops in seven minutes, or score twice, get one defensive stop, and recover an onsides kick.

Are you Carl Torbush or John Bunting?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Kicking the PAT first makes it an eight point game and makes it a "one possession" game. So technically you still have to score twice (touchdown and two point conversion) but you only need one possession to tie the game and prevent yourself from losing. That means you only have to stop them one time instead of two times to have a chance. If you go for two and fail, then you are going to have to score twice and get two defensive stops in seven minutes, or score twice, get one defensive stop, and recover an onsides kick.

It's funny/sad that so many people keep making the same mistake.

 

[TobiasFunke]

A really good coach realizes that an 8 point advantage is not a one score margin, but in fact is at least a one-score margin with a 50/50 chance of being a two score margin, and adjusts a game plan accordingly. But considering how many people here continue to incorrectly call an 8 point game a "one score game" and leave the analysis at that, that's probably too much to ask from NFL coaches.

Also, renesauz is arguing the exact opposite thing from you I believe- he's saying if you go for two and miss, at least you get the advantage of a predictable offense after your failed attempt from which to get your three-and-out and get the ball back. That's not necessarily the case if you kick the extra point and are down 8- you'd have to guard against passes and runs, since the opposing coach might (wrongly) view the game as a "one score" game.

LOL. You whine yesterday about someone else being condescending towards you and then you fire this mess off.Look slightly outside of the box and stop getting hung up on the "one score" phrase. Kicking the PAT first makes it an eight point game and makes it a "one possession" game. So technically you still have to score twice (touchdown and two point conversion) but you only need one possession to tie the game and prevent yourself from losing. That means you only have to stop them one time instead of two times to have a chance. If you go for two and fail, then you are going to have to score twice and get two defensive stops in seven minutes, or score twice, get one defensive stop, and recover an onsides kick.

Are you Carl Torbush or John Bunting?

There's nothing condescending in my post- my reference to coaches making the same mistake as people in this thread was referencing a previous point I made about coaches being slaves to conventional wisdom. I wrote out a long post trying to explain this stuff to you again, but I'm realizing maybe it's not worth it because you just can't grasp it. Just so you know, I'm not "hung up" on anything. I'm pretty sure I'm seeing this thing from all the angles, and frankly your inability to do so is making you look a little bit silly here. At least some of the people who are arguing for the PAT on the first posssession understand the basic question and are making arguments about psychological and play-calling factors outweighing the strategic advantage of gaining knowledge earlier. That's a valid argument, although wrong IMO.

But you don't even seem to get that far. Instead you actually think that your second paragraph above was logical, even though you completely ignore the possibility that you'll convert your two point try on your first possession, but yet you assume you'll convert it on your second possession.

And I wish Carl Torbush and John Bunting were smart enough to understand stuff like this. Maybe then their records would look more like those of Dean Smith and Roy Williams, and less like the entire post- WWII existence of Georgia Tech's basketball and football programs.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

A really good coach realizes that an 8 point advantage is not a one score margin, but in fact is at least a one-score margin with a 50/50 chance of being a two score margin, and adjusts a game plan accordingly. But considering how many people here continue to incorrectly call an 8 point game a "one score game" and leave the analysis at that, that's probably too much to ask from NFL coaches.

Also, renesauz is arguing the exact opposite thing from you I believe- he's saying if you go for two and miss, at least you get the advantage of a predictable offense after your failed attempt from which to get your three-and-out and get the ball back. That's not necessarily the case if you kick the extra point and are down 8- you'd have to guard against passes and runs, since the opposing coach might (wrongly) view the game as a "one score" game.

LOL. You whine yesterday about someone else being condescending towards you and then you fire this mess off.Look slightly outside of the box and stop getting hung up on the "one score" phrase. Kicking the PAT first makes it an eight point game and makes it a "one possession" game. So technically you still have to score twice (touchdown and two point conversion) but you only need one possession to tie the game and prevent yourself from losing. That means you only have to stop them one time instead of two times to have a chance. If you go for two and fail, then you are going to have to score twice and get two defensive stops in seven minutes, or score twice, get one defensive stop, and recover an onsides kick.

Are you Carl Torbush or John Bunting?

There's nothing condescending in my post- my reference to coaches making the same mistake as people in this thread was referencing a previous point I made about coaches being slaves to conventional wisdom. I wrote out a long post trying to explain this stuff to you again, but I'm realizing maybe it's not worth it because you just can't grasp it. Just so you know, I'm not "hung up" on anything. I'm pretty sure I'm seeing this thing from all the angles, and frankly your inability to do so is making you look a little bit silly here. At least some of the people who are arguing for the PAT on the first posssession understand the basic question and are making arguments about psychological and play-calling factors outweighing the strategic advantage of gaining knowledge earlier. That's a valid argument, although wrong IMO.

But you don't even seem to get that far. Instead you actually think that your second paragraph above was logical, even though you completely ignore the possibility that you'll convert your two point try on your first possession, but yet you assume you'll convert it on your second possession.

And I wish Carl Torbush and John Bunting were smart enough to understand stuff like this. Maybe then their records would look more like those of Dean Smith and Roy Williams, and less like the entire post- WWII existence of Georgia Tech's basketball and football programs.

You are condescending. Just like your constant patting yourself on the back about how you grasp everything and those that disagree with you don't. I understand the play calling and psychology and all that crap. I didn't realize I needed to repeat it to you AGAIN as you feel you keep needing to do yourself. The results of the poll in this thread suggest your opinion is more incorrect than mine.What does basketball have to do with this? Throw your basketball titles into the mix. You're a whopping ONE ahead of Georgia Tech in those two sports combined. Congrats?

 

[TobiasFunke]

A really good coach realizes that an 8 point advantage is not a one score margin, but in fact is at least a one-score margin with a 50/50 chance of being a two score margin, and adjusts a game plan accordingly. But considering how many people here continue to incorrectly call an 8 point game a "one score game" and leave the analysis at that, that's probably too much to ask from NFL coaches.

Also, renesauz is arguing the exact opposite thing from you I believe- he's saying if you go for two and miss, at least you get the advantage of a predictable offense after your failed attempt from which to get your three-and-out and get the ball back. That's not necessarily the case if you kick the extra point and are down 8- you'd have to guard against passes and runs, since the opposing coach might (wrongly) view the game as a "one score" game.

LOL. You whine yesterday about someone else being condescending towards you and then you fire this mess off.Look slightly outside of the box and stop getting hung up on the "one score" phrase. Kicking the PAT first makes it an eight point game and makes it a "one possession" game. So technically you still have to score twice (touchdown and two point conversion) but you only need one possession to tie the game and prevent yourself from losing. That means you only have to stop them one time instead of two times to have a chance. If you go for two and fail, then you are going to have to score twice and get two defensive stops in seven minutes, or score twice, get one defensive stop, and recover an onsides kick.

Are you Carl Torbush or John Bunting?

There's nothing condescending in my post- my reference to coaches making the same mistake as people in this thread was referencing a previous point I made about coaches being slaves to conventional wisdom. I wrote out a long post trying to explain this stuff to you again, but I'm realizing maybe it's not worth it because you just can't grasp it. Just so you know, I'm not "hung up" on anything. I'm pretty sure I'm seeing this thing from all the angles, and frankly your inability to do so is making you look a little bit silly here. At least some of the people who are arguing for the PAT on the first posssession understand the basic question and are making arguments about psychological and play-calling factors outweighing the strategic advantage of gaining knowledge earlier. That's a valid argument, although wrong IMO.

But you don't even seem to get that far. Instead you actually think that your second paragraph above was logical, even though you completely ignore the possibility that you'll convert your two point try on your first possession, but yet you assume you'll convert it on your second possession.

And I wish Carl Torbush and John Bunting were smart enough to understand stuff like this. Maybe then their records would look more like those of Dean Smith and Roy Williams, and less like the entire post- WWII existence of Georgia Tech's basketball and football programs.

You are condescending. Just like your constant patting yourself on the back about how you grasp everything and those that disagree with you don't. I understand the play calling and psychology and all that crap. I didn't realize I needed to repeat it to you AGAIN as you feel you keep needing to do yourself. The results of the poll in this thread suggest your opinion is more incorrect than mine.What does basketball have to do with this? Throw your basketball titles into the mix. You're a whopping ONE ahead of Georgia Tech in those two sports combined. Congrats?

Look, I just think you're not getting it. And you clearly think I'm not getting it. I'm 100% sure I'm right. You're 100% sure you're right. I'm not sure how that makes me condescending, or at least how that makes me any more condescending than you.And basketball has about as much to do with it as Carl Torbush and John Bunting do. You're the one who introduced irrelevant subject matter to the discussion in an attempt to needle another poster about his favorite teams, not me.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The results of the poll in this thread suggest your opinion is more incorrect than mine.

There are two aspects to this question. There is a subjective element that people can and will disagree about (e.g. how each scenario affects player morale, etc.) - there are perfectly valid arguments against going for two that approach the question from this subjective angle.There is also an objective element that cannot be disagreed with (e.g. how many possessions are required following each scenario). You and many others are getting this objective part wrong. That's not an opinion, and it's not something that will be decided by public polls. It's a question with a right answer, and you're getting it wrong. If 80% of the public voted and said that 2 + 2 = 7, that wouldn't make it right. It would just mean that 80% of the public weren't coming up with the right answer.

It is incorrect to say that being down by 8 is a one possession game. It is potentially a one possession game; there is a greater than 50% chance that it is actually a two possession game. When you decide to ignore that, you come up with the wrong answers to the objective part of the question, and you make incorrect arguments. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

 

[rick6668]

A really good coach realizes that an 8 point advantage is not a one score margin, but in fact is at least a one-score margin with a 50/50 chance of being a two score margin, and adjusts a game plan accordingly. But considering how many people here continue to incorrectly call an 8 point game a "one score game" and leave the analysis at that, that's probably too much to ask from NFL coaches.

Also, renesauz is arguing the exact opposite thing from you I believe- he's saying if you go for two and miss, at least you get the advantage of a predictable offense after your failed attempt from which to get your three-and-out and get the ball back. That's not necessarily the case if you kick the extra point and are down 8- you'd have to guard against passes and runs, since the opposing coach might (wrongly) view the game as a "one score" game.

LOL. You whine yesterday about someone else being condescending towards you and then you fire this mess off.Look slightly outside of the box and stop getting hung up on the "one score" phrase. Kicking the PAT first makes it an eight point game and makes it a "one possession" game. So technically you still have to score twice (touchdown and two point conversion) but you only need one possession to tie the game and prevent yourself from losing. That means you only have to stop them one time instead of two times to have a chance. Are you Carl Torbush or John Bunting?

You don't have enough information yet to know its a "one possession" game. It all depends on if you make the 2 pt conv. You don't know if you have to stop them 2 times until after you have tried the 2 pt conv.Do you think you have a greater chance of making the 2 points later in the game then earlier?

If you go for two and fail, then you are going to have to score twice and get two defensive stops in seven minutes, or score twice, get one defensive stop, and recover an onsides kick.

This logic applies to the 2 point conversion whether you go for it early or late. You are applying it to the first scenario and not the second.

 

[rick6668]

The results of the poll in this thread suggest your opinion is more incorrect than mine.

There are two aspects to this question. There is a subjective element that people can and will disagree about (e.g. how each scenario affects player morale, etc.) - there are perfectly valid arguments against going for two that approach the question from this subjective angle.There is also an objective element that cannot be disagreed with (e.g. how many possessions are required following each scenario). You and many others are getting this objective part wrong. That's not an opinion, and it's not something that will be decided by public polls. It's a question with a right answer, and you're getting it wrong. If 80% of the public voted and said that 2 + 2 = 7, that wouldn't make it right. It would just mean that 80% of the public weren't coming up with the right answer.

It is incorrect to say that being down by 8 is a one possession game. It is potentially a one possession game; there is a greater than 50% chance that it is actually a two possession game. When you decide to ignore that, you come up with the wrong answers to the objective part of the question, and you make incorrect arguments. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

 

[Sam Quentin]

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.

if you go for one there's still a 58% chance that it's a two score game

 

[sn0mm1s]

The results of the poll in this thread suggest your opinion is more incorrect than mine.

There are two aspects to this question. There is a subjective element that people can and will disagree about (e.g. how each scenario affects player morale, etc.) - there are perfectly valid arguments against going for two that approach the question from this subjective angle.There is also an objective element that cannot be disagreed with (e.g. how many possessions are required following each scenario). You and many others are getting this objective part wrong. That's not an opinion, and it's not something that will be decided by public polls. It's a question with a right answer, and you're getting it wrong. If 80% of the public voted and said that 2 + 2 = 7, that wouldn't make it right. It would just mean that 80% of the public weren't coming up with the right answer.

It is incorrect to say that being down by 8 is a one possession game. It is potentially a one possession game; there is a greater than 50% chance that it is actually a two possession game. When you decide to ignore that, you come up with the wrong answers to the objective part of the question, and you make incorrect arguments. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Again, you ignore the winning team's playcalling. It has absolutely nothing to do with morale or momentum. The winning team gains more of an advantage when it knows that it is definitely a two possession game than possibly a two possession game. The winning team has to play like it is a one possession game up by 8 - whether or not it actually is going to be a one possession game. This benefits the losing team much more. They can play like it is a one possession game or a two possession game.Suppose the winning team got the ball at the 7 minute mark and ran the ball and 1st and 2nd down for 5 total yards - what is their 3rd down play call if they are up by 8 vs. up by 9. I can almost promise you that up by 9 they run the ball but being up by 8 they know that the game *might* be a one possession game so they pass the ball. This is one of the losing team's "chances" - a free time stoppage.

 

[Matt Waldman]

The only way I go for two in this situation is if I have a huge mismatch with a great receiver or tight end one-on-one with a DB I know is hurting or has been replaced with a guy fresh off the bench. I might line up to see if I can get that mismatch and if I don't call a time out and bring the FG unit on.

You have to go for two at some point.The mismatch situation will not change when you're down by 2 with 10 seconds left and you MUST convert the two-pointer

Ummm, re-read what you quoted from me and I think you'll see that in fact the mismatch situation could change. The DB that was replaced due to injury might be back on the field. Another player might have gotten hurt. The defensive coordinator could have had a brain fart and decided to take a strategy that had an easy answer for the offense. I'd prefer to get the easy 7 first, but if my opponent gives me the opportunity to make an easy two, I'd at least be open to seeing if it comes available.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Suppose the winning team got the ball at the 7 minute mark and ran the ball and 1st and 2nd down for 5 yards - what is their 3rd down play call if they are up by 8 vs. up by 9. I can almost promise you that up by 9 they run the ball but being up by 8 they know that the game *might* be a one possession game so they pass the ball. This is one of the losing team's "chances" - a free time stoppage.

If I'm losing and my opponent is facing 3rd and 5, I'd much rather have them run than pass. Even the worst teams in the league average more than 5 yards per pass attempt. Few, if any, average more than 5 yards per rush attempt. So you've inadvertently made the case for going for two early.Someone earlier explained in much more detail why this is a benefit to the trailing team, but in a nutshell if the defense knows you need two scores, they're much more likely to play uberconservative and give the ball back to you. The information revealed by going for two early is an enormous net positive for the trailing team. If there's a valid argument against that, no one's made it yet.

 

[Sam Quentin]

For the recoid, I agree that TF truly grasps this from all angles

 

[sn0mm1s]

Suppose the winning team got the ball at the 7 minute mark and ran the ball and 1st and 2nd down for 5 yards - what is their 3rd down play call if they are up by 8 vs. up by 9. I can almost promise you that up by 9 they run the ball but being up by 8 they know that the game *might* be a one possession game so they pass the ball. This is one of the losing team's "chances" - a free time stoppage.

If I'm losing and my opponent is facing 3rd and 5, I'd much rather have them run than pass. Even the worst teams in the league average more than 5 yards per pass attempt. Few, if any, average more than 5 yards per rush attempt. So you've inadvertently made the case for going for two early.Someone earlier explained in much more detail why this is a benefit to the trailing team, but in a nutshell if the defense knows you need two scores, they're much more likely to play uberconservative and give the ball back to you. The information revealed by going for two early is an enormous net positive for the trailing team. If there's a valid argument against that, no one's made it yet.

Down by two possessions, 5:40 left in the game, winning team has the ball 3rd and 5, you would rather they bleed the clock down to ~5 minutes than attempt to pass?

 

[humpback]

Suppose the winning team got the ball at the 7 minute mark and ran the ball and 1st and 2nd down for 5 yards - what is their 3rd down play call if they are up by 8 vs. up by 9. I can almost promise you that up by 9 they run the ball but being up by 8 they know that the game *might* be a one possession game so they pass the ball. This is one of the losing team's "chances" - a free time stoppage.

If I'm losing and my opponent is facing 3rd and 5, I'd much rather have them run than pass. Even the worst teams in the league average more than 5 yards per pass attempt. Few, if any, average more than 5 yards per rush attempt. So you've inadvertently made the case for going for two early.Someone earlier explained in much more detail why this is a benefit to the trailing team, but in a nutshell if the defense knows you need two scores, they're much more likely to play uberconservative and give the ball back to you. The information revealed by going for two early is an enormous net positive for the trailing team. If there's a valid argument against that, no one's made it yet.

This is where the "math" guys err- this isn't just an "average" play call, this is a play call under these UNIQUE circumstances which have never previously occurred, nor will they ever occur again. You can run all the numbers you want, but there's no way you can say difinitively that the "correct" call on 3rd and 5 in THIS situation is to pass. Impossible.Again, this is all subjective- opinion. Just about every play in the NFL has an impact on the rest of the game- there is no way no know in advance the outcome of most play calls. You haven't made any conclusive arguments why the information gained is an enormous net positive for the trailing team either. Both teams will have access to the same exact information. How is that information more valuable to one side over the other?

 

[fantasyplayer]

As many in the "go for 2 now" crowd have pointed out, the probability of converting the 2 point conversion is the same regardless of when you go for it. However, the probability of scoring the 2nd TD in the first place decreases considerably when you're down 9 vs. being down 8 based on both teams' strategies, morale, etc.. While it's impossible to quantify that phenomenon, those that support waiting for the 2 point attempt think that negative outcome outweighs the "knowledge gain" which has been referenced repeatedly.

The point is, because you can't quantify what's gained or lost from morale, team strategy or knowing you're down 3 scores earlier rather than later; there is no right or wrong answer to this question. This is a problem that can't be solved exclusively with math.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Suppose the winning team got the ball at the 7 minute mark and ran the ball and 1st and 2nd down for 5 yards - what is their 3rd down play call if they are up by 8 vs. up by 9. I can almost promise you that up by 9 they run the ball but being up by 8 they know that the game *might* be a one possession game so they pass the ball. This is one of the losing team's "chances" - a free time stoppage.

If I'm losing and my opponent is facing 3rd and 5, I'd much rather have them run than pass. Even the worst teams in the league average more than 5 yards per pass attempt. Few, if any, average more than 5 yards per rush attempt. So you've inadvertently made the case for going for two early.Someone earlier explained in much more detail why this is a benefit to the trailing team, but in a nutshell if the defense knows you need two scores, they're much more likely to play uberconservative and give the ball back to you. The information revealed by going for two early is an enormous net positive for the trailing team. If there's a valid argument against that, no one's made it yet.

Down by two possessions, 5:40 left in the game, winning team has the ball 3rd and 5, you would rather they bleed the clock down to ~5 minutes than attempt to pass?

Of course. The chances of picking up 5 yards on a passing play are greater than picking up 5 yards on a running play. I'd rather have the ball back with 5 minutes left than not have the ball back with 5 minutes left. Just like the 7 vs 8 vs 9 thing, you're leaving out all the possible outcomes. Sure, I'd rather have 5:40 on the clock than 5:00 on the clock, just like I'd rather be down by 8 rather than down by 9. But that's not the question.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Suppose the winning team got the ball at the 7 minute mark and ran the ball and 1st and 2nd down for 5 yards - what is their 3rd down play call if they are up by 8 vs. up by 9. I can almost promise you that up by 9 they run the ball but being up by 8 they know that the game *might* be a one possession game so they pass the ball. This is one of the losing team's "chances" - a free time stoppage.

If I'm losing and my opponent is facing 3rd and 5, I'd much rather have them run than pass. Even the worst teams in the league average more than 5 yards per pass attempt. Few, if any, average more than 5 yards per rush attempt. So you've inadvertently made the case for going for two early.Someone earlier explained in much more detail why this is a benefit to the trailing team, but in a nutshell if the defense knows you need two scores, they're much more likely to play uberconservative and give the ball back to you. The information revealed by going for two early is an enormous net positive for the trailing team. If there's a valid argument against that, no one's made it yet.

Down by two possessions, 5:40 left in the game, winning team has the ball 3rd and 5, you would rather they bleed the clock down to ~5 minutes than attempt to pass?

Down two possessions, 5:40 left in the game, winning team has the ball 3rd and 5, you would rather they run a play that on average gains less than five yards than run a play that on average gains over 5 yards?Link

Your post only includes part of the analysis. If the pass results in a first down, I suspect you wouldn't much care that would have stopped the clock if by chance it had fallen incomplete.

 

[CalBear]

Look slightly outside of the box and stop getting hung up on the "one score" phrase. Kicking the PAT first makes it an eight point game and makes it a "one possession" game.

No, it doesn't. Making the 2-point conversion makes it a one-possession game. Failing the 2-point conversion makes it a 2-possession game. This is true whether you go for the 2-point conversion early or late. The difference is, if you go for it early, you know whether it's a one-possession or 2-possession game.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

It is incorrect to say that being down by 8 is a one possession game. It is potentially a one possession game; there is a greater than 50% chance that it is actually a two possession game. When you decide to ignore that, you come up with the wrong answers to the objective part of the question, and you make incorrect arguments. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

So, is a 3 point deficit a 1 possession game? What if you miss the FG?

 

[The Iguana]

You know.... I've thought about this probably far more than I should have considering the only time I'll ever be in this position is a madden game which isn't very applicable.

The more I think about this, particularly from a variety of angles, the more I think a lot of this really depends on a lot of factors that can't be considered in a vacuum. What kind of offense/defense does my team have... what kind of offense/defense does the other team have, etc. I can think of a lot of scenarios where I actaully would go for 2 in this situation but I can also think of a lot of them where going for 2 would be the wrong way to go IMO.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It is incorrect to say that being down by 8 is a one possession game. It is potentially a one possession game; there is a greater than 50% chance that it is actually a two possession game. When you decide to ignore that, you come up with the wrong answers to the objective part of the question, and you make incorrect arguments. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

So, is a 3 point deficit a 1 possession game? What if you miss the FG?

Might be. If you had the opportunity to find out ahead of time if you'd make the FG or not using some magical time machine, would you want to know so you could adjust your strategy accordingly, or would you hide the info so the coach of the team in the lead wouldn't know?Also, no offense, but why should we trust your judgment? You married Cher.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

This is where the "math" guys err- this isn't just an "average" play call, this is a play call under these UNIQUE circumstances which have never previously occurred, nor will they ever occur again. You can run all the numbers you want, but there's no way you can say difinitively that the "correct" call on 3rd and 5 in THIS situation is to pass. Impossible.

Sure, they might throw an incomplete pass. Or, they might run for a 70 yard TD. Or the center might snap the ball over the QB's head and out of the back of the endzone for a safety. There are an infinite number of things that could happen on this one particular play, which I agree has never happened before and will never happen again exactly as it will in this particular moment. The same could be said for every play in every game, ever. And on average, passing plays are better at picking up more than 5 yards than rushing plays. If my opponent needs 5 yards, I'd strongly prefer that he try to gain those 5 yards by rushing. It doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to stop him if he does. I'm just more comfortable with my chances.

Again, this is all subjective- opinion. Just about every play in the NFL has an impact on the rest of the game- there is no way no know in advance the outcome of most play calls. You haven't made any conclusive arguments why the information gained is an enormous net positive for the trailing team either. Both teams will have access to the same exact information. How is that information more valuable to one side over the other?

The fact that the information is more useful to the trailing team is almost indisputable. I'm honestly surprised that anyone has even tried to attack that part of the problem. The trailing team gets so much more benefit by knowing than the winning team. The team in the lead has one primary goal - hang on to the lead and run out the clock. Whether up by one or two, that goal doesn't change. How they attempt to achieve that goal might change a bit, but as has been pointed out, I think even that change inadvertently benefits the trailing team. Just like playing prevent defense protects against a quick-strike score but sacrifices boatloads of yards in the process. A team up by two scores, if anything, will play more conservatively - they need to just take time off the clock - while a team up by what is potentially just one score still has the primary objective of taking time off the clock but will also try a little more aggressively to put additional points on the board. But I agree that this bit is somewhat subjective, and some might disagree. That's fine, it's a perfectly valid disagreement. The point is that their goal is essentially the same either way. Whether up by one score or two, they're just trying to take as much time off the clock as possible.Meanwhile, the offense has two competing goals. If they need two scores, they want to get the first one as quickly as possible. On the other hand, if they just need one score then obviously they still want to score, but in the process they ideally want to take as much time as possible and leave little or no time left for the opponent to kick a game-winning FG. Unfortunately for the trailing team, they have no idea whether or not they need one score or two if they kick the PAT first. So that information is a zillion times more useful to them than it is to the team in the lead.

 

[JKL]

From reading the comments on morale and the ever-present but never proved momentum, people must think football players are the most mentally weak individuals around. My experience is the opposite. While talking heads pontificate about how things are hopeless, players play and continue to work hard.

If my team gives up when down 9 with 7 minutes to go, whether we just missed a two point conversion, or just punted, or just got intercepted down near the red zone, I've got much larger problems. As a coach, if I'm worth my salt, I've covered these scenarios ahead of time and we are prepared as a team. They know I'm going for it at midfield to win a game with 2 minutes left on 4th and 1, or that I'm going for two in this scenario, or that I'm going to do a surprise onside kick to start the second half.

I also pulled the two point conversions from the last three years. If we take out the handful of "two point conversions" that were botched snaps where no kick occurred and the holder tried to throw a pass or run it in, the conversion rate was 48%. It was slightly over 50% for attempts before the 7 minute mark, slightly under 48% for later, but certainly not significant in any meaningful sense to suggest that the rates are affected by when it occurs.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Suppose the winning team got the ball at the 7 minute mark and ran the ball and 1st and 2nd down for 5 yards - what is their 3rd down play call if they are up by 8 vs. up by 9. I can almost promise you that up by 9 they run the ball but being up by 8 they know that the game *might* be a one possession game so they pass the ball. This is one of the losing team's "chances" - a free time stoppage.

If I'm losing and my opponent is facing 3rd and 5, I'd much rather have them run than pass. Even the worst teams in the league average more than 5 yards per pass attempt. Few, if any, average more than 5 yards per rush attempt. So you've inadvertently made the case for going for two early.Someone earlier explained in much more detail why this is a benefit to the trailing team, but in a nutshell if the defense knows you need two scores, they're much more likely to play uberconservative and give the ball back to you. The information revealed by going for two early is an enormous net positive for the trailing team. If there's a valid argument against that, no one's made it yet.

Down by two possessions, 5:40 left in the game, winning team has the ball 3rd and 5, you would rather they bleed the clock down to ~5 minutes than attempt to pass?

Down two possessions, 5:40 left in the game, winning team has the ball 3rd and 5, you would rather they run a play that on average gains less than five yards than run a play that on average gains over 5 yards?Link

Your post only includes part of the analysis. If the pass results in a first down, I suspect you wouldn't much care that would have stopped the clock if by chance it had fallen incomplete.

LOL, what? You are down 2 possessions. You need luck on your side to win - this is why you went for 2 early right so you know you need your lucky plays and adjust accordingly? You need to get your "chance" to get back into the game. Do you want your opponent to take a high variance play that can stop the clock or result in a turnover (a pick or sack fumble) - which you need. Or do you want the to take the lower variance play that rarely results in a turnover, guarantees 40 seconds off the clock, and can still convert the first down?If you assume every play is "average" you might as well not even play if you are the losing team because the averages say you are going to lose.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It is incorrect to say that being down by 8 is a one possession game. It is potentially a one possession game; there is a greater than 50% chance that it is actually a two possession game. When you decide to ignore that, you come up with the wrong answers to the objective part of the question, and you make incorrect arguments. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

So, is a 3 point deficit a 1 possession game? What if you miss the FG?

What if you don't score the second TD? Well then you need another possession. That's true whether you went for 2 first, or were waiting to go for 2 later. It has no bearing on the question.ETA: The point is, the PAT-first crowd are referring to an 8-point deficit as a one possession game, which is an incorrect way to assess it. It's a one-possession game 40-45% of the time, and it's a two-possession game 55-60% of the time. When you ignore that, you come up with screwy arguments like "missing the two point conversion early makes it a three possession game, kicking the PAT doesn't."

 

[TobiasFunke]

Suppose the winning team got the ball at the 7 minute mark and ran the ball and 1st and 2nd down for 5 yards - what is their 3rd down play call if they are up by 8 vs. up by 9. I can almost promise you that up by 9 they run the ball but being up by 8 they know that the game *might* be a one possession game so they pass the ball. This is one of the losing team's "chances" - a free time stoppage.

If I'm losing and my opponent is facing 3rd and 5, I'd much rather have them run than pass. Even the worst teams in the league average more than 5 yards per pass attempt. Few, if any, average more than 5 yards per rush attempt. So you've inadvertently made the case for going for two early.Someone earlier explained in much more detail why this is a benefit to the trailing team, but in a nutshell if the defense knows you need two scores, they're much more likely to play uberconservative and give the ball back to you. The information revealed by going for two early is an enormous net positive for the trailing team. If there's a valid argument against that, no one's made it yet.

Down by two possessions, 5:40 left in the game, winning team has the ball 3rd and 5, you would rather they bleed the clock down to ~5 minutes than attempt to pass?

Down two possessions, 5:40 left in the game, winning team has the ball 3rd and 5, you would rather they run a play that on average gains less than five yards than run a play that on average gains over 5 yards?Link

Your post only includes part of the analysis. If the pass results in a first down, I suspect you wouldn't much care that would have stopped the clock if by chance it had fallen incomplete.

LOL, what? You are down 2 possessions. You need luck on your side to win - this is why you went for 2 early right so you know you need your lucky plays and adjust accordingly? You need to get your "chance" to get back into the game. Do you want your opponent to take a high variance play that can stop the clock or result in a turnover (a pick or sack fumble) - which you need. Or do you want the to take the lower variance play that rarely results in a turnover, guarantees 40 seconds off the clock, and can still convert the first down?If you assume every play is "average" you might as well not even play if you are the losing team because the averages say you are going to lose.

I don't assume every play is average. It's your hypo, not mine. You call it "high variance" but you only consider one side of that variance. It's true that a pass play is more likely to result in a turnover or zero yard gain than a run play, and it's also true that it's more likely to result in a clock stoppage. But it's also true that it's more likely to result in a conversion on 3rd and 5. If you want to walk through the hypo, consider both sides of the equation. If you only consider the outcomes that favor your argument- as you have done here- you can make any argument the correct one.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Really, if someone came in here and said, "You definitely go for two first, because then you're only down by 7 instead of 8," they'd be quickly dismissed. That argument is ridiculous. Obviously being down by 7 is better than being down by 8, but that's not the question. It completely ignores the very real possibility that you don't make the conversion and end up down by 9.

The PAT-first guys are doing the same thing, but in reverse, and they don't seem to realize it. They're severely discounting or completely ignoring the outcomes where (a) you convert and end up down by 7, and (b) you kick the PAT first but then fail the conversion on the second TD. When you leave those out, of course kicking the PAT first makes more sense. It would be a no-brainer if you could remove those from the equation (just like it would be a no-brainer to run the ball on 3rd and 5 if you completely discount the probability of passing for 5+ yards). This whole thread exemplifies how people routinely screw up risk assessments - they just don't know how to properly weight all the outcomes.

Does that mean the question in the OP can be reduced entirely to a math problem? Of course not. There are lots of additional factors that a head coach may take into consideration, and a lot of great subjective debate about how those factors should affect the decision. But when the arguments being made don't properly acknowledge all the different outcomes available, they're pointless and wrong.

 

[humpback]

This is where the "math" guys err- this isn't just an "average" play call, this is a play call under these UNIQUE circumstances which have never previously occurred, nor will they ever occur again. You can run all the numbers you want, but there's no way you can say difinitively that the "correct" call on 3rd and 5 in THIS situation is to pass. Impossible.

Sure, they might throw an incomplete pass. Or, they might run for a 70 yard TD. Or the center might snap the ball over the QB's head and out of the back of the endzone for a safety. There are an infinite number of things that could happen on this one particular play, which I agree has never happened before and will never happen again exactly as it will in this particular moment. The same could be said for every play in every game, ever. And on average, passing plays are better at picking up more than 5 yards than rushing plays. If my opponent needs 5 yards, I'd strongly prefer that he try to gain those 5 yards by rushing. It doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to stop him if he does. I'm just more comfortable with my chances.

Again, this is all subjective- opinion. Just about every play in the NFL has an impact on the rest of the game- there is no way no know in advance the outcome of most play calls. You haven't made any conclusive arguments why the information gained is an enormous net positive for the trailing team either. Both teams will have access to the same exact information. How is that information more valuable to one side over the other?

The fact that the information is more useful to the trailing team is almost indisputable. I'm honestly surprised that anyone has even tried to attack that part of the problem. The trailing team gets so much more benefit by knowing than the winning team. The team in the lead has one primary goal - hang on to the lead and run out the clock. Whether up by one or two, that goal doesn't change. How they attempt to achieve that goal might change a bit, but as has been pointed out, I think even that change inadvertently benefits the trailing team. Just like playing prevent defense protects against a quick-strike score but sacrifices boatloads of yards in the process. A team up by two scores, if anything, will play more conservatively - they need to just take time off the clock - while a team up by what is potentially just one score still has the primary objective of taking time off the clock but will also try a little more aggressively to put additional points on the board. But I agree that this bit is somewhat subjective, and some might disagree. That's fine, it's a perfectly valid disagreement. The point is that their goal is essentially the same either way. Whether up by one score or two, they're just trying to take as much time off the clock as possible.Meanwhile, the offense has two competing goals. If they need two scores, they want to get the first one as quickly as possible. On the other hand, if they just need one score then obviously they still want to score, but in the process they ideally want to take as much time as possible and leave little or no time left for the opponent to kick a game-winning FG. Unfortunately for the trailing team, they have no idea whether or not they need one score or two if they kick the PAT first. So that information is a zillion times more useful to them than it is to the team in the lead.

Here we go again- because it's not your opinion, it's "almost indisputable"? Both teams have 1 primary goal- to win the game. How you acheive that goal will greatly depend on all of the various circumstances. You don't know that the opposing team wouldn't change anything, you can't. Trying to pass off your opinion as fact is just plain incorrect.