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

[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?

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."

I'm just trying to understand your definition.So, by your definition...

3 point deficit: A one-possession game 80-85% of the time, and a two-possession game 15-20% of the time.

But, wait... What if you miss the second FG? Hmm... Ok, here's the definition:

3 point deficit: A one possession game 80-85% of the time, a two-possession game 12-17% of the time, and a three-possession game ~3% of the time.

But wait...

 

[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."

I'm just trying to understand your definition.So, by your definition...

3 point deficit: A one-possession game 80-85% of the time, and a two-possession game 15-20% of the time.

But, wait... What if you miss the second FG? Hmm... Ok, here's the definition:

3 point deficit: A one possession game 80-85% of the time, a two-possession game 12-17% of the time, and a three-possession game ~3% of the time.

But wait...

You should google my username.

 

[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?

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."

I'm just trying to understand your definition.So, by your definition...

3 point deficit: A one-possession game 80-85% of the time, and a two-possession game 15-20% of the time.

But, wait... What if you miss the second FG? Hmm... Ok, here's the definition:

3 point deficit: A one possession game 80-85% of the time, a two-possession game 12-17% of the time, and a three-possession game ~3% of the time.

But wait...

The problem is that nothing should be defined as a "one possession game" for purposes of a conversation about the best strategy to produce a victory. It's a phrase used by sportscasters to maintain viewer interest, not a phrase that has any inherent meaning in discussing the best course of action.

 

[Doug Drinen]

A couple of observations/questions. Apologies if these exact things have been brought up; I haven't fully read the thread.

There has been a lot of talk about the leading team benefiting from the extra knowledge too. But given the overly conservative nature of NFL coaches, I think the knowledge actually might hurt the team with the lead.

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, an 8-point lead is not a one-possession game. It's a 1.55 possession game. But everyone (including the coach with the lead) seems to treat it like a one-possession game. I.e. both teams would play 7 and 8 essentially the same way, and 9 very differently, even though there is a 55% chance that the 8 is really a 9 and not a 7. That works to the advantage (I think) of the trailing team.

I think --- just based on intuition, no data, could be wrong --- that it's easier to stop the other team when down 9 than when down 8 (conservative clock-kill offense), and easier to score the TD when down 9 than when down 8 (soft prevent-like defense). So in both cases, the knowledge helps the trailing team and hurts the leading team.

This, of course, ignores the momentum issue. So here is my question for the momentum people: what if it's the Super Bowl? Maybe not in a regular game, but surely everyone can be expected to give their all on every snap during the Super Bowl, right? Players wouldn't give up with 7 minutes left in the biggest game of their lives, right?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm just trying to understand your definition.

So, by your definition...

3 point deficit: A one-possession game 80-85% of the time, and a two-possession game 15-20% of the time.

But, wait... What if you miss the second FG? Hmm... Ok, here's the definition:

3 point deficit: A one possession game 80-85% of the time, a two-possession game 12-17% of the time, and a three-possession game ~3% of the time.

But wait...

And here's the less snarky answer: If you're down by three, you might need only one possession to tie the game. Or you might need two. Or you might need five. Or the clock might run out before you ever tie the game. Similar logic applies when you're down by 7, 8, 9, or any other amount of points.You're right, you might get the ball back and not score a TD. It might take several possessions to tie the game, if at all. That has no bearing on the question, though. The flawed argument that people have made is that going for two early requires one more possession than going for two later, which is incorrect.

 

[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?

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."

I'm just trying to understand your definition.So, by your definition...

3 point deficit: A one-possession game 80-85% of the time, and a two-possession game 15-20% of the time.

But, wait... What if you miss the second FG? Hmm... Ok, here's the definition:

3 point deficit: A one possession game 80-85% of the time, a two-possession game 12-17% of the time, and a three-possession game ~3% of the time.

But wait...

The problem is that nothing should be defined as a "one possession game" for purposes of a conversation about the best strategy to produce a victory. It's a phrase used by sportscasters to maintain viewer interest, not a phrase that has any inherent meaning in discussing the best course of action.

That's a very valid point. And, if by "best strategy", you mean "most statistically probable way" then I agree 100%. The "best strategy" cannot be proven, due to the human element.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

The flawed argument that people have made is that going for two early requires one more possession than going for two later, which is incorrect.

Agreed.My point is just that most people imply a "best-case" mentality to the "1 possession" type terms and phrases and don't take it literally.

 

[Liquid Tension]

For an example in a similar situation, see Belichick's "controversial" 4th down gamble vs. the Colts last year. Obviously the right call as far as giving the team the best chance to win, but because it was risky and unconventional, he got crap about it for weeks from the media and probably some fans. He could do it because of who he is, but a less secure or well-regarded coach could never get away with it, even though it's the best thing for the team.

He did the exact same thing against the Chargers last week. He got stuffed on that fourth down attempt, also, but since the Patriots won I don't think many are talking about it.

As one of teh 1st to chime in and because we know the obvious answer and I am tired of reading all the people who simply can't or refuse to comprehend, can you let me know what BB did in the game. he went 4 4th down form mid field with how much time left and what was the score and TO's?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

For an example in a similar situation, see Belichick's "controversial" 4th down gamble vs. the Colts last year. Obviously the right call as far as giving the team the best chance to win, but because it was risky and unconventional, he got crap about it for weeks from the media and probably some fans. He could do it because of who he is, but a less secure or well-regarded coach could never get away with it, even though it's the best thing for the team.

He did the exact same thing against the Chargers last week. He got stuffed on that fourth down attempt, also, but since the Patriots won I don't think many are talking about it.

As one of teh 1st to chime in and because we know the obvious answer and I am tired of reading all the people who simply can't or refuse to comprehend, can you let me know what BB did in the game. he went 4 4th down form mid field with how much time left and what was the score and TO's?

I didn't see the game, but according to the play-by-play, the Pats had 4th and 1 at their own 49, immediately following the 2-minute warning. SD had all three timeouts remaining. NE was up by 3.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

For an example in a similar situation, see Belichick's "controversial" 4th down gamble vs. the Colts last year. Obviously the right call as far as giving the team the best chance to win, but because it was risky and unconventional, he got crap about it for weeks from the media and probably some fans. He could do it because of who he is, but a less secure or well-regarded coach could never get away with it, even though it's the best thing for the team.

He did the exact same thing against the Chargers last week. He got stuffed on that fourth down attempt, also, but since the Patriots won I don't think many are talking about it.

As one of teh 1st to chime in and because we know the obvious answer and I am tired of reading all the people who simply can't or refuse to comprehend, can you let me know what BB did in the game. he went 4 4th down form mid field with how much time left and what was the score and TO's?

If the link works, here is the play.The Patriots were up three at the two-minute warning, and had fourth and one at their own 49 yard line. They ran the ball and got stuffed, giving the Chargers a short field and a chance to win or tie. The Chargers had all their timeouts remaining; the Patriots had none. (The Chargers decided not to go for it on fourth and two from the 27, and missed a field goal.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Whether going for two early or late, if the team makes the two-point conversion, the order didn't matter, right? So we're only discussing those cases where the team misses its two-point conversion.

In those cases, being down 8 makes it a two-possession game, not a one-possession game. (It's just that the coaches will incorrectly think it's a one-possession game. Having the coaches be wrong about that doesn't benefit the trailing team, so far as I can tell.)

 

[humpback]

Whether going for two early or late, if the team makes the two-point conversion, the order didn't matter, right? So we're only discussing those cases where the team misses its two-point conversion.In those cases, being down 8 makes it a two-possession game, not a one-possession game. (It's just that the coaches will incorrectly think it's a one-possession game. Having the coaches be wrong about that doesn't benefit the trailing team, so far as I can tell.)

No, the order matters either way- you gain more information by going for it early, regardless of the outcome. Many in the go for 2 crowd are arguing that the information is so much more valuable for the trailing team, which I disagree with. I think it is equally valuable for both teams and provides no obvious advantage to either side.What if the leading team had a great HC, and the trailing team had a terrible HC- wouldn't the great HC theoretically make much better decisions with that added information than the bad HC?

 

[bagger]

No need to go for two yet, since you have to score twice. Get a stop, get the ball back, score, then go for two. If you don't get it, you can still try and onside kick.

This is the right answer.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Many in the go for 2 crowd are arguing that the information is so much more valuable for the trailing team, which I disagree with. I think it is equally valuable for both teams and provides no obvious advantage to either side.

Why?

What if the leading team had a great HC, and the trailing team had a terrible HC- wouldn't the great HC theoretically make much better decisions with that added information than the bad HC?

If you gave a Wall Street executive an account with $100 in it and gave me an account with $10,000 in it, he'd probably make better decisions with his money than I would with mine. I'd still rather have the $10,000, and at the end of year I'd still probably have more money in my account than he did in his. The value of the information is totally lopsided in favor of the trailing team - I don't think you've explained why you disagree.

 

[humpback]

Many in the go for 2 crowd are arguing that the information is so much more valuable for the trailing team, which I disagree with. I think it is equally valuable for both teams and provides no obvious advantage to either side.

Why?

What if the leading team had a great HC, and the trailing team had a terrible HC- wouldn't the great HC theoretically make much better decisions with that added information than the bad HC?

If you gave a Wall Street executive an account with $100 in it and gave me an account with $10,000 in it, he'd probably make better decisions with his money than I would with mine. I'd still rather have the $10,000, and at the end of year I'd still probably have more money in my account than he did in his. The value of the information is totally lopsided in favor of the trailing team - I don't think you've explained why you disagree.

Terrible analogy- the information gained by going for two is equal for both teams. Both teams know exactly what the situation is after the 2 pt. attempt, it's not like the trailing team now has more information than the leading team does. You can argue that the trailing team benefits more from that information, but they do not have more of it, like in your example.

 

[Jersey35]

I know if I was a head coach, I'd go for it early. That way if we miss the conversion, I'll have time to bring in a psychiatrist to help my players get over their grief at the thought of needing another possession.

of course, if I just put it off until the end, they can just go home and be with their momma's if we miss. Hmmm, Maybe that IS better.

 

[Sam Quentin]

craziest debate sinceThis debate in the FFA. Eventually reason won out for thise that stuck with it...

 

[Sam Quentin]

for those that argue that your offense is more predictable down 9 vs down 8...

why not just run your conventional offense down 9 then?

what...you say that's crazy to run your conventional offense down two scores with so little time left?

Under the "miss the 2 pt conversion" scenario down 8, that's exactly what you are doing.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Many in the go for 2 crowd are arguing that the information is so much more valuable for the trailing team, which I disagree with. I think it is equally valuable for both teams and provides no obvious advantage to either side.

Why?

What if the leading team had a great HC, and the trailing team had a terrible HC- wouldn't the great HC theoretically make much better decisions with that added information than the bad HC?

If you gave a Wall Street executive an account with $100 in it and gave me an account with $10,000 in it, he'd probably make better decisions with his money than I would with mine. I'd still rather have the $10,000, and at the end of year I'd still probably have more money in my account than he did in his. The value of the information is totally lopsided in favor of the trailing team - I don't think you've explained why you disagree.

Terrible analogy- the information gained by going for two is equal for both teams. Both teams know exactly what the situation is after the 2 pt. attempt, it's not like the trailing team now has more information than the leading team does. You can argue that the trailing team benefits more from that information, but they do not have more of it, like in your example.

Both coaches are getting information, just like I and the Wall Street exec are both getting money. But the value of the money I'm getting is greater than the value of the money the Wall Street exec is getting. So the fact that he's better with money than I am doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the eventual outcome. Similarly, even if the leading coach is better than the trailing coach, he's still not getting nearly as much value out of the information as the trailing coach is. But instead of nitpicking the analogy, why don't you just answer the questions instead? Why do you believe the value of the information is the same for both coaches? I think that's plainly an unreasonable position to take, and while you keep asserting it you haven't really explained it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

craziest debate sinceThis debate in the FFA. Eventually reason won out for thise that stuck with it...

I thought this was going to link to the Larryboy's Dragons thread.

 

[humpback]

Both coaches are getting information, just like I and the Wall Street exec are both getting money. But the value of the money I'm getting is greater than the value of the money the Wall Street exec is getting. So the fact that he's better with money than I am doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the eventual outcome. Similarly, even if the leading coach is better than the trailing coach, he's still not getting nearly as much value out of the information as the trailing coach is.

But instead of nitpicking the analogy, why don't you just answer the questions instead? Why do you believe the value of the information is the same for both coaches? I think that's plainly an unreasonable position to take, and while you keep asserting it you haven't really explained it.

The amount of money is different, so for it to be a good analogy, the amount of information gained would have to be different. It's not. Thanks for making my point though- if you give the same amount of money to both, the Wall St. exec will probably make better decisions and end up ahead, just like if you give the same amount of information to two head coaches, the better one will probably make better decisions and end up ahead.I can play the same game- you haven't really explained why the value is so much greater for the trailing team, you just keep saying it. I'm saying I don't see an advantage to either side, you're the one arguing that it's as plain as day, so it's on you to explain why.

How do I explain why I don't see an obvious advantage? I guess because for every reason why the information might be advantageous for the trailing team, it can be equally advantageous to the leading team. The trailing team now knows what they need to do and can adjust their offense, defense, and special teams because of that, but so does the leading team and they can do the same exact thing. Does the offense have the advantage on 3rd and 12 because they know their best chance to get a 1st down is to throw the ball? Well, the defense knows that as well, so they're going adjust their strategy accordingly.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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 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 miss.

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

Maybe I am giving you guys too much credit? The scenario in question is one where you MUST go for 2 at some point to have a chance at winning the game? Obviously, if there is a 40% chance of making a 2 point coversion and a 95% chance of making an extra point, it is better to take the extra point in the long run (in 100 tries the Extra point garners you 95 points and the 2 point would get you 80 points)...or maybe you didn't really have a point and were just being a

 

[TWP]

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.

Being willing to blow a TO for this chance is undoubtedly the most ridiculous thing of the many ridiculous things posted in this thread. Sorry, cause I really like your stuff!

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I can play the same game- you haven't really explained why the value is so much greater for the trailing team, you just keep saying it. I'm saying I don't see an advantage to either side, you're the one arguing that it's as plain as day, so it's on you to explain why.

I've already explained it. The leading team's objective doesn't change much when the information is revealed. They need to run time off the clock. That is the goal of any team with a lead in the 4th quarter. They may slightly alter their approach to that objective depending on whether they're up by one score or two, but as I and others have pointed out, the likely change that they would implement would just inadvertently provide an additional benefit to the trailing team. The leading team can't put the information to great use; if anything, having it revealed hurts them.On the other hand, the trailing team's objective is very different if they are down by 7 or down by 9. They get tremendous value out of knowing whether they need two scores or one, because those goals necessitate very different approaches.

How do I explain why I don't see an obvious advantage? I guess because for every reason why the information might be advantageous for the trailing team, it can be equally advantageous to the leading team. The trailing team now knows what they need to do and can adjust their offense, defense, and special teams because of that, but so does the leading team and they can do the same exact thing. Does the offense have the advantage on 3rd and 12 because they know their best chance to get a 1st down is to throw the ball? Well, the defense knows that as well, so they're going adjust their strategy accordingly.

But you're still just saying vague things like "it can be equally advantageous to the leading team" and "they can adjust their offense, defense, and special teams" without actually exploring how the leading team would use the information to adjust their playcalling, and why that would be advantageous for them.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Just checking in to see the votes.more or less....86 for 2pc268 for kickThis poll might be over.

Yep, and it proves more than ever that ignorance is in the masses...Sadly I would expect a lot more from what should now be called the guppy pool. Not one person has disputed that being down by 9 with 7 minutes to go is better than being down by 2 with "1 minute" to go and you are about to kick off! Not one person. Yet people still can't connect the lines and come up with all these reasons that really are irrelevant to the discussion. if you are going to miss the 2 pointer the above proves you would rather miss it earlier. if you are a believer in momentum converting the 2 earlier is probably better too because now your team is pumped up even more (I don't buy it on either side though because if your team was so "unmotivated" how did you muster up the energy to score a TD when you were down by 15?)

 

[stbugs]

I can't read this whole discussion, but I would kick the XP. As the trailing team, I would want the team ahead to always think we are 1 score behind and take more chances. For instance, maybe with 2 minutes left, they will try a pass on 3rd down and not kill the clock. If the team ahead knows we need to score twice, they run it on 3rd and long to make us burn another timeout, which may in the end not allow us to score twice. Someone mentioned it above that the opposing team will consider 8 and 7 points the same because all we need to do is score a TD to have a chance at tieing it. If we miss the 2 pt conversion then the opposing team knows we need two scores and can play differently to their advantage.

The other thing is that I think psychologically the team catching up with 2 TDs will have a momentum advantage, which may give them a better chance to get the 2 pt conversion at the end. I would be interested to see if anyone could look that up to see if a team down by 8 or 15 that ties it at the end of the game actually does convert at a higher % than the overall 2 pt conversion %. If they do, then I would say that would end this thread right there.

 

[stbugs]

I can play the same game- you haven't really explained why the value is so much greater for the trailing team, you just keep saying it. I'm saying I don't see an advantage to either side, you're the one arguing that it's as plain as day, so it's on you to explain why.

I've already explained it. The leading team's objective doesn't change much when the information is revealed. They need to run time off the clock. That is the goal of any team with a lead in the 4th quarter. They may slightly alter their approach to that objective depending on whether they're up by one score or two, but as I and others have pointed out, the likely change that they would implement would just inadvertently provide an additional benefit to the trailing team. The leading team can't put the information to great use; if anything, having it revealed hurts them.On the other hand, the trailing team's objective is very different if they are down by 7 or down by 9. They get tremendous value out of knowing whether they need two scores or one, because those goals necessitate very different approaches.

How do I explain why I don't see an obvious advantage? I guess because for every reason why the information might be advantageous for the trailing team, it can be equally advantageous to the leading team. The trailing team now knows what they need to do and can adjust their offense, defense, and special teams because of that, but so does the leading team and they can do the same exact thing. Does the offense have the advantage on 3rd and 12 because they know their best chance to get a 1st down is to throw the ball? Well, the defense knows that as well, so they're going adjust their strategy accordingly.

But you're still just saying vague things like "it can be equally advantageous to the leading team" and "they can adjust their offense, defense, and special teams" without actually exploring how the leading team would use the information to adjust their playcalling, and why that would be advantageous for them.

The one thing I really disagree with is that the leading team can't put the information to great use. If they try to run out the clock and have a 3rd and long they can put that information to great use and make it detrimental to the opposing team. If you make the 2pt conversion you are down by 7 and if you kick the FG, you are down by 8. In calling that 3rd down play, the other team would be far more pressed to pass if you are down by 7 or 8 than down by 9. If you are down by 9, the other team could call a running play and either burn a lot more time or make you use a timeout. If you are down by 1 score, you may force them to pass.I think you are forgetting that being down by 7 or 8 could provide you with an advantage that could allow you to even get the second TD. All the discussion so far is assuming you get the 2nd TD and either don't have to go for 2 or have to go for 2. I haven't seen people talk about how being down by 7 or 8 would allow you to force the other team's hand in some situations getting you a better chance (like an incomplete pass on 3rd down) to get the second TD to even have a chance to tie.

 

[Choke]

Just checking in to see the votes.more or less....86 for 2pc268 for kickThis poll might be over.

Yep, and it proves more than ever that ignorance is in the masses...Sadly I would expect a lot more from what should now be called the guppy pool. Not one person has disputed that being down by 9 with 7 minutes to go is better than being down by 2 with "1 minute" to go and you are about to kick off! Not one person. Yet people still can't connect the lines and come up with all these reasons that really are irrelevant to the discussion. if you are going to miss the 2 pointer the above proves you would rather miss it earlier. if you are a believer in momentum converting the 2 earlier is probably better too because now your team is pumped up even more (I don't buy it on either side though because if your team was so "unmotivated" how did you muster up the energy to score a TD when you were down by 15?)

Stop with the name calling. You sound like a baby.

 

[renesauz]

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.

I have argued that the probability of a second TD INCREASES if you miss the two on the first TD. WHy? Because the other team is worried about clock...not you scoring. ON offense..they run three times up the gut...an easy stop for your defense. After they punt, they play soft, letting you pick them apart underneath with ease. It is MUCH MUCH easier to score a TD when down 9 or more late then when down 7 or 8. I am in no way saying your better off down 9. What I'm saying is that being down 9 with 7 minutes is not a disaster. Coming up short on the conversion with less then a minute left would be. I realize you might score more quickly then that...but what if you don't?

My argument is based off the assumption that you'll MISS the 2 point attempt. If you're going to miss, it's better to miss early. Missing early gives you a (albeit slightly) better chance at a third possession then missing late would.

It also opens up the FG possibilities on the second possession rather then the third. Down 8...you have to go for it on 4th and 5 from the opponents 20 and 3 minutes on the clock. Down 9...you kick the FG. WHY? Because the team down 8 still hopes to tie in one possession. The team down 9 knows they can't.

Stop assuming you're going to make a play that is made less then 50% of the time. Assume you'll miss it.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The one thing I really disagree with is that the leading team can't put the information to great use. If they try to run out the clock and have a 3rd and long they can put that information to great use and make it detrimental to the opposing team. If you make the 2pt conversion you are down by 7 and if you kick the FG, you are down by 8. In calling that 3rd down play, the other team would be far more pressed to pass if you are down by 7 or 8 than down by 9. If you are down by 9, the other team could call a running play and either burn a lot more time or make you use a timeout. If you are down by 1 score, you may force them to pass.I think you are forgetting that being down by 7 or 8 could provide you with an advantage that could allow you to even get the second TD. All the discussion so far is assuming you get the 2nd TD and either don't have to go for 2 or have to go for 2. I haven't seen people talk about how being down by 7 or 8 would allow you to force the other team's hand in some situations getting you a better chance (like an incomplete pass on 3rd down) to get the second TD to even have a chance to tie.

This hasn't been forgotten, it was discussed earlier today. If my opponent is facing a third and long, I want them to run the ball. Like everything else that's been discussed in this thread, you need to weigh all the outcomes, not just the ones that support your argument. Sure, they could throw an incomplete pass, and yes, I'd prefer that to stopping them on a running play. But passing also gives them a much better chance of converting the first down, which would be a huge loss for me. I need the ball back - all things considered, I definitely want my opponent running the ball on third down, which as you correctly pointed out, they are probably more likely to do that up by two scores than up by one. A team with a two score lead will play more conservatively than a team with a (perceived) one score lead. And if I'm the team that's down by two scores, that's exactly how I want it.

 

[stbugs]

The one thing I really disagree with is that the leading team can't put the information to great use. If they try to run out the clock and have a 3rd and long they can put that information to great use and make it detrimental to the opposing team. If you make the 2pt conversion you are down by 7 and if you kick the FG, you are down by 8. In calling that 3rd down play, the other team would be far more pressed to pass if you are down by 7 or 8 than down by 9. If you are down by 9, the other team could call a running play and either burn a lot more time or make you use a timeout. If you are down by 1 score, you may force them to pass.I think you are forgetting that being down by 7 or 8 could provide you with an advantage that could allow you to even get the second TD. All the discussion so far is assuming you get the 2nd TD and either don't have to go for 2 or have to go for 2. I haven't seen people talk about how being down by 7 or 8 would allow you to force the other team's hand in some situations getting you a better chance (like an incomplete pass on 3rd down) to get the second TD to even have a chance to tie.

This hasn't been forgotten, it was discussed earlier today. If my opponent is facing a third and long, I want them to run the ball. Like everything else that's been discussed in this thread, you need to weigh all the outcomes, not just the ones that support your argument. Sure, they could throw an incomplete pass, and yes, I'd prefer that to stopping them on a running play. But passing also gives them a much better chance of converting the first down, which would be a huge loss for me. I need the ball back - all things considered, I definitely want my opponent running the ball on third down, which as you correctly pointed out, they are probably more likely to do that up by two scores than up by one. A team with a two score lead will play more conservatively than a team with a (perceived) one score lead. And if I'm the team that's down by two scores, that's exactly how I want it.

Hmmm, I think I still disagree although if you have the actual %s, I would believe you. Even if they complete the pass, it might not be a first down, so it would be the same as a run. I think the chance that they get an incomplete and stop the clock could be huge. That said, the situation I am talking about is when you are still down by 1TD or more with little time on the clock where 30 seconds or one timeout could be the difference in your ability to get the last TD you need.I think your last statement is exactly what I believe and what I want to see. I want to see the other team taking risks that they shouldn't so that I can get back in the game. What if they get the 1st on a 3rd and long run, not only did it kill the clock, it crippled my chance to tie. The other note that you didn't mention is that if they do go for the pass, I have a chance at a turnover. 3rd and long when a RB is just running out the clock is not a good chance at a fumble. I don't know if I have ever seen a fumble on a run out the clock run (where the RB holds the ball in both arms), but any time they are going for a pass on 3rd and long is a chance for an INT. Maybe not a great one, but if you get it, you have a far greater chance to tie the game.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

So explain how these unmotivated guys who were down by 15 somehow were able to muster up the energy and drive down and score a TD? And if you are so sure they will make the 2 point conversion at the end (otherwise you lose), then making it first will give the team another adrenaline boost and they will probably have so much momentum they can go for 2 the 2nd time and win instead of just tie Assume you will make it or assume you will miss it, it is still better to know

 

[Jersey35]

I once watched a 40 year-old teacher argue a higher level logic problem with a young student. It was humorous, but almost sad watching the teacher get frustrated trying to convey the basic assumptions and principles that were required to obtain the right answer, that seemed obvious to the adult, but that the child was simply not yet capable of grasping.

 

[Liquid Tension]

For an example in a similar situation, see Belichick's "controversial" 4th down gamble vs. the Colts last year. Obviously the right call as far as giving the team the best chance to win, but because it was risky and unconventional, he got crap about it for weeks from the media and probably some fans. He could do it because of who he is, but a less secure or well-regarded coach could never get away with it, even though it's the best thing for the team.

He did the exact same thing against the Chargers last week. He got stuffed on that fourth down attempt, also, but since the Patriots won I don't think many are talking about it.

As one of teh 1st to chime in and because we know the obvious answer and I am tired of reading all the people who simply can't or refuse to comprehend, can you let me know what BB did in the game. he went 4 4th down form mid field with how much time left and what was the score and TO's?

If the link works, here is the play.The Patriots were up three at the two-minute warning, and had fourth and one at their own 49 yard line. They ran the ball and got stuffed, giving the Chargers a short field and a chance to win or tie. The Chargers had all their timeouts remaining; the Patriots had none. (The Chargers decided not to go for it on fourth and two from the 27, and missed a field goal.)

Thanks... That is an interesting call. It is true that with 4 downs to get into FG range it is not that hard so I can understand the idea. the Chargers having 3 TO's would mean they would still get the ball back, however, with the long field and no TO's, the extra down is less important so going for it has a large advantage. It is probably the correct call, not because they won, but because the easiest yards to gain would have been the ones until about the NE 40 because the 4th down does not come into play. It is a close one though, obviously if you have been getting stuffed running all day, that would way into my decision as much as how my defense against the pass was playing.

 

[sn0mm1s]

A team with a two score lead will play more conservatively than a team with a (perceived) one score lead. And if I'm the team that's down by two scores, that's exactly how I want it.

Why would you want this? You need to get lucky to win if you are down 2 scores. Which means you would prefer a team to attempt plays with higher variance results both in field position and clock management. You don't want "average" results offensively or defensively because average results guarantee a loss.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I know if I was a head coach, I'd go for it early. That way if we miss the conversion, I'll have time to bring in a psychiatrist to help my players get over their grief at the thought of needing another possession.

of course, if I just put it off until the end, they can just go home and be with their momma's if we miss. Hmmm, Maybe that IS better.

LOL

 

[rick6668]

A team with a two score lead will play more conservatively than a team with a (perceived) one score lead. And if I'm the team that's down by two scores, that's exactly how I want it.

Why would you want this? You need to get lucky to win if you are down 2 scores. Which means you would prefer a team to attempt plays with higher variance results both in field position and clock management. You don't want "average" results offensively or defensively because average results guarantee a loss.

You're down 2 scores in both scenarios. You just don't know it yet and think you can tie.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The one thing I really disagree with is that the leading team can't put the information to great use. If they try to run out the clock and have a 3rd and long they can put that information to great use and make it detrimental to the opposing team. If you make the 2pt conversion you are down by 7 and if you kick the FG, you are down by 8. In calling that 3rd down play, the other team would be far more pressed to pass if you are down by 7 or 8 than down by 9. If you are down by 9, the other team could call a running play and either burn a lot more time or make you use a timeout. If you are down by 1 score, you may force them to pass.I think you are forgetting that being down by 7 or 8 could provide you with an advantage that could allow you to even get the second TD. All the discussion so far is assuming you get the 2nd TD and either don't have to go for 2 or have to go for 2. I haven't seen people talk about how being down by 7 or 8 would allow you to force the other team's hand in some situations getting you a better chance (like an incomplete pass on 3rd down) to get the second TD to even have a chance to tie.

This hasn't been forgotten, it was discussed earlier today. If my opponent is facing a third and long, I want them to run the ball. Like everything else that's been discussed in this thread, you need to weigh all the outcomes, not just the ones that support your argument. Sure, they could throw an incomplete pass, and yes, I'd prefer that to stopping them on a running play. But passing also gives them a much better chance of converting the first down, which would be a huge loss for me. I need the ball back - all things considered, I definitely want my opponent running the ball on third down, which as you correctly pointed out, they are probably more likely to do that up by two scores than up by one. A team with a two score lead will play more conservatively than a team with a (perceived) one score lead. And if I'm the team that's down by two scores, that's exactly how I want it.

Hmmm, I think I still disagree although if you have the actual %s, I would believe you. Even if they complete the pass, it might not be a first down, so it would be the same as a run. I think the chance that they get an incomplete and stop the clock could be huge. That said, the situation I am talking about is when you are still down by 1TD or more with little time on the clock where 30 seconds or one timeout could be the difference in your ability to get the last TD you need.I think your last statement is exactly what I believe and what I want to see. I want to see the other team taking risks that they shouldn't so that I can get back in the game. What if they get the 1st on a 3rd and long run, not only did it kill the clock, it crippled my chance to tie. The other note that you didn't mention is that if they do go for the pass, I have a chance at a turnover. 3rd and long when a RB is just running out the clock is not a good chance at a fumble. I don't know if I have ever seen a fumble on a run out the clock run (where the RB holds the ball in both arms), but any time they are going for a pass on 3rd and long is a chance for an INT. Maybe not a great one, but if you get it, you have a far greater chance to tie the game.

That's definitely a debatable point. On average, pass attempts pick up more yards than rush attempts. On the other hand, I believe they also result in more turnovers, and presumably take less time off the clock. A lot of it is highly dependent on the situation. Ultimately I need to get the ball back; it is my belief that my overall chances of doing so are better if my opponent plays more conservatively, but that's one of the more subjective parts of the debate.Now, it's still not clear that any such strategic adjustments make up the difference for the information advantage gained by the trailing team. It's really really really good for the trailing team to know whether they're down by 7 or 9, as opposed to being down by 8; for that advantage to even out, as some apparently think it does, it would have to be really really really good for the team with the lead to be able to adjust their playing style based on whether they're up by 7 or 8 or 9. I just don't see it. I don't think they change much, and I think what they do change isn't even necessarily in their best interests. Having the information revealed by going for 2 on the first TD is still a huge net positive for the trailing team, imo. I'm still honestly surprised anyone challenged that.

 

[Jayrod]

Anyone who claims there is a no-brainer choice in either direction is a fool.

To ignore all of the other potential factors in a game is ridiculous. This isn't a math equation, its a football game.

Some teams in some games could have a 20% 2-pt conversion rate vs that opponent. Some teams could have an 80% rate. Some teams might only have a 25% chance of stopping the other team from running for a 1st down in 3 plays. Some teams might have an 80% chance of stopping the other team from running for a 1st in 3 plays.

The only difference between going for 2 now vs. later is knowledge. How the two team's coach and players use that knowledge is the PRIMARY determiner of whether or not it is a good idea. Not league averages, not gut feelings, not imagined scenarios, only how the knowledge can predictibly be used.

I've argued for the "kick it" crowd mostly because of the arrogance from the "go for 2" crowd. In reality both situations could be right, but it COMPLETELY DEPENDS ON THE TEAMS INVOLVED. To ignore that makes it just a game of numbers....but as they say, that's why they play the games. If you can't get that and think your answer is right no matter what, than I'm pretty sure you are a fool....and there's just no arguing with a fool.

 

[humpback]

I can play the same game- you haven't really explained why the value is so much greater for the trailing team, you just keep saying it. I'm saying I don't see an advantage to either side, you're the one arguing that it's as plain as day, so it's on you to explain why.

I've already explained it. The leading team's objective doesn't change much when the information is revealed. They need to run time off the clock. That is the goal of any team with a lead in the 4th quarter. They may slightly alter their approach to that objective depending on whether they're up by one score or two, but as I and others have pointed out, the likely change that they would implement would just inadvertently provide an additional benefit to the trailing team. The leading team can't put the information to great use; if anything, having it revealed hurts them.On the other hand, the trailing team's objective is very different if they are down by 7 or down by 9. They get tremendous value out of knowing whether they need two scores or one, because those goals necessitate very different approaches.

How do I explain why I don't see an obvious advantage? I guess because for every reason why the information might be advantageous for the trailing team, it can be equally advantageous to the leading team. The trailing team now knows what they need to do and can adjust their offense, defense, and special teams because of that, but so does the leading team and they can do the same exact thing. Does the offense have the advantage on 3rd and 12 because they know their best chance to get a 1st down is to throw the ball? Well, the defense knows that as well, so they're going adjust their strategy accordingly.

But you're still just saying vague things like "it can be equally advantageous to the leading team" and "they can adjust their offense, defense, and special teams" without actually exploring how the leading team would use the information to adjust their playcalling, and why that would be advantageous for them.

Again, you're speaking as if your opinions are facts. The goal of any team is to win the game, correct? How you go about acheiving that goal will vary greatly depending on the circumstances that are constantly evolving throughout the course of a game. If you think anything else you're just fooling yourself. Also, just because a trailing team's objective (in your opinion) might be very different if they are down 7 or 9, that doesn't necessarily give them and advantage.I can't possibly give you the counter-strategy for the nearly infinite possible sets of circumstances from that point on. If you give me a specific scenario where the trailing team has an advantage in your opinion, I can give you an advantage for the leading team in that same exact scenario. Netting who has the bigger advantage is entirely subjective, but I think it's pretty much equal.

 

[sn0mm1s]

A team with a two score lead will play more conservatively than a team with a (perceived) one score lead. And if I'm the team that's down by two scores, that's exactly how I want it.

Why would you want this? You need to get lucky to win if you are down 2 scores. Which means you would prefer a team to attempt plays with higher variance results both in field position and clock management. You don't want "average" results offensively or defensively because average results guarantee a loss.

You're down 2 scores in both scenarios. You just don't know it yet and think you can tie.

Sure, I don't disagree. If you are down 8 but guaranteed to miss the 2pt conversion - you want the opposing offense to attempt high variance plays which the likely will because they don't know you are guaranteed to miss the 2pt conversion. If you are down 9 you want the opposing offense to attempt high variance plays - which they won't be as likely to do because they already know you have missed the 2pt conversion.

 

[kentric]

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.

True fact...but the conclusion's wrong. If you have a one score (7 or 8 points) lead with 7 minutes left, your offense plays...close to normal. While you're not firing off 30 yards downfield, you still HAVE TO CONVERT FIRST DOWNS. If you're up 2 scores with seven minutes, you have to play it different on offense. Conservative. Run it up the gut three times and protect the ball. Kill some time and punt it.

Which team is more likely to kill 4-5 minutes of clock time? The team playing "normal", or the team playing conservative? Meanwhile, the one score game has a lot more pressure...more chances for a mistake.

I don't see a real downside to going for 2 at the 7 minute mark. The argument to go for 1 makes a lot more sense with a shorter clock where the conversion will have little or no impact on what the opposing team will do.

This one. Even if you don't make the 2 pt conversion, the other team will likely play it very conservatively and give you the opportunity to get the ball back quickly. If you're behind by 8 points, you'll likely take more time to go for the tie and won't leave yourself enough time to score twice. I don't like the odds of going for two at the end of the game.

 

[Northbound Train]

Those that voted "obviously go for 2" really have no clue....end of story!!!!

 

[Jayrod]

The one thing I really disagree with is that the leading team can't put the information to great use. If they try to run out the clock and have a 3rd and long they can put that information to great use and make it detrimental to the opposing team. If you make the 2pt conversion you are down by 7 and if you kick the FG, you are down by 8. In calling that 3rd down play, the other team would be far more pressed to pass if you are down by 7 or 8 than down by 9. If you are down by 9, the other team could call a running play and either burn a lot more time or make you use a timeout. If you are down by 1 score, you may force them to pass.

I think you are forgetting that being down by 7 or 8 could provide you with an advantage that could allow you to even get the second TD. All the discussion so far is assuming you get the 2nd TD and either don't have to go for 2 or have to go for 2. I haven't seen people talk about how being down by 7 or 8 would allow you to force the other team's hand in some situations getting you a better chance (like an incomplete pass on 3rd down) to get the second TD to even have a chance to tie.

This hasn't been forgotten, it was discussed earlier today. If my opponent is facing a third and long, I want them to run the ball. Like everything else that's been discussed in this thread, you need to weigh all the outcomes, not just the ones that support your argument. Sure, they could throw an incomplete pass, and yes, I'd prefer that to stopping them on a running play. But passing also gives them a much better chance of converting the first down, which would be a huge loss for me. I need the ball back - all things considered, I definitely want my opponent running the ball on third down, which as you correctly pointed out, they are probably more likely to do that up by two scores than up by one. A team with a two score lead will play more conservatively than a team with a (perceived) one score lead. And if I'm the team that's down by two scores, that's exactly how I want it.

Hmmm, I think I still disagree although if you have the actual %s, I would believe you. Even if they complete the pass, it might not be a first down, so it would be the same as a run. I think the chance that they get an incomplete and stop the clock could be huge. That said, the situation I am talking about is when you are still down by 1TD or more with little time on the clock where 30 seconds or one timeout could be the difference in your ability to get the last TD you need.I think your last statement is exactly what I believe and what I want to see. I want to see the other team taking risks that they shouldn't so that I can get back in the game. What if they get the 1st on a 3rd and long run, not only did it kill the clock, it crippled my chance to tie. The other note that you didn't mention is that if they do go for the pass, I have a chance at a turnover. 3rd and long when a RB is just running out the clock is not a good chance at a fumble. I don't know if I have ever seen a fumble on a run out the clock run (where the RB holds the ball in both arms), but any time they are going for a pass on 3rd and long is a chance for an INT. Maybe not a great one, but if you get it, you have a far greater chance to tie the game.

That's definitely a debatable point. On average, pass attempts pick up more yards than rush attempts. On the other hand, I believe they also result in more turnovers, and presumably take less time off the clock. A lot of it is highly dependent on the situation. Ultimately I need to get the ball back; it is my belief that my overall chances of doing so are better if my opponent plays more conservatively, but that's one of the more subjective parts of the debate.Now, it's still not clear that any such strategic adjustments make up the difference for the information advantage gained by the trailing team. It's really really really good for the trailing team to know whether they're down by 7 or 9, as opposed to being down by 8; for that advantage to even out, as some apparently think it does, it would have to be really really really good for the team with the lead to be able to adjust their playing style based on whether they're up by 7 or 8 or 9. I just don't see it. I don't think they change much, and I think what they do change isn't even necessarily in their best interests. Having the information revealed by going for 2 on the first TD is still a huge net positive for the trailing team, imo. I'm still honestly surprised anyone challenged that.

All of the bolded phrases show just how subjective this is.

 

[Jayrod]

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.

True fact...but the conclusion's wrong. If you have a one score (7 or 8 points) lead with 7 minutes left, your offense plays...close to normal. While you're not firing off 30 yards downfield, you still HAVE TO CONVERT FIRST DOWNS. If you're up 2 scores with seven minutes, you have to play it different on offense. Conservative. Run it up the gut three times and protect the ball. Kill some time and punt it.

Which team is more likely to kill 4-5 minutes of clock time? The team playing "normal", or the team playing conservative? Meanwhile, the one score game has a lot more pressure...more chances for a mistake.

I don't see a real downside to going for 2 at the 7 minute mark. The argument to go for 1 makes a lot more sense with a shorter clock where the conversion will have little or no impact on what the opposing team will do.

This one. Even if you don't make the 2 pt conversion, the other team will likely play it very conservatively and give you the opportunity to get the ball back quickly. If you're behind by 8 points, you'll likely take more time to go for the tie and won't leave yourself enough time to score twice. I don't like the odds of going for two at the end of the game.

How is this some irrefutable fact that applies to all games?Can there not be a game where this is entirely false?

 

[TheChairman]

Knowing nothing of how the team is doing offensively and defensively, I would choose to kick the extra point. Going for 2 is an absolute last resort for me.

Too much junk can happen when you leave a point off the board.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

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.

Oddly enough, I read from another mathematician that the opposite is true. Teams play better after a failed 4th down conversion/2pt conversion.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Simple question for the people who say kick first.

Do you think your chance of converting is the same or different when going for two late?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

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.

Thank you.Every time someone says an 8 point deficit is "only a one score game" I want to roll my eyes. It's only a one score game if you made the conversion. It has the possibility of being a one score game. But people act like you are going to miss if you try early and make it if you try late.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Again, you're speaking as if your opinions are facts. The goal of any team is to win the game, correct? How you go about acheiving that goal will vary greatly depending on the circumstances that are constantly evolving throughout the course of a game. If you think anything else you're just fooling yourself. Also, just because a trailing team's objective (in your opinion) might be very different if they are down 7 or 9, that doesn't necessarily give them and advantage.

I can't possibly give you the counter-strategy for the nearly infinite possible sets of circumstances from that point on. If you give me a specific scenario where the trailing team has an advantage in your opinion, I can give you an advantage for the leading team in that same exact scenario. Netting who has the bigger advantage is entirely subjective, but I think it's pretty much equal.

Lay out the big advantages for the team in the lead. You keep saying they exist but still haven't done it.