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

[Liquid Tension]

So most people recognize that it's a tremendous benefit to the trailing team to get that information. The only real debate has been whether the benefits they derive from that knowledge are greater than, lesser than, or equal to any kind of benefit that the team in the lead would derive from having that information. Personally, I see hardly any benefit the leading team gets, let alone one big enough to outweigh the benefit gained by the trailing team. Yes, they will probably change up their philosophy a bit if they're up by 9 rather than 7 or 8, but it's easily debatable whether that's even a good thing for them or not. And even if it is, I don't see how it's even close to being an advantage on the scale of the advantage gained by the trailing team by going for two early.

Sounds like you're coming around at least a little- it is subjective. If it's debatable whether it's even a good thing for the leading team, how is it not debatable for the trailing team as well? Sure, they'll be more aggressive, but that also increases their chances at making a mistake and shooting themselves in the foot, does it not?

Here's another possible factor- one benefit to the offense vs. defense earlier in games is the fact that the offense has knowledge of their playcalls and strategy that the defense doesn't have. As the game plays out, that information advantage diminishes in our scenario. By going for 2 early, the trailing team basically did that to themselves, since we're saying that the strategy doesn't really change if you're up 8 (with the kick) or up 7 (make 2 pt. conversion). Essentially, if you make it or make the extra pt., there will still be some information advantage, but if you miss it, you'll give that away.

For those arguing that the leading team isn't likely to change their strategy much, did you watch the game last night? NO up 3, a little more than 2:30 left in the game, 1st and goal from the 8. The obvious thing to do is run the ball 3 times, run down the clock some and force them to take the rest of their timeouts, and kick the chippy FG (if they don't run it in). Instead, they use that to their advantage and pass for the TD to go up by 2 scores.

First, based on the bold, he is not coming around, it is just that all (or most) of us on the kick 2 right away side have already factored in all the other equations and we are still sure going for 2 is the clear way to go. Second, as for NO, you try to put the game out of reach by scoring a TD...without turning the ball over.

 

[Eminence]

Score your 7.

Then score your 8.

Take the momentum into overtime.

 

[humpback]

You must be a politician...stop with the subterfuge and just use your own logic and just take a stab at what scenario would you rather be in?

Ooohh, good one. I was just telling you that maybe the reason no one has answered your question is because it doesn't matter.

Like I said, my preference would depend on the circumstances. If my offense has been playing well, I might prefer to be down 9 with 7 minutes. If they've struggled, I might prefer to be down 2 with 30 seconds. Obviously there are dozens of other scenarios which are all just as plausable, so it's another pointless hypothetical. If it makes you feel better, you can put me down for choice #1, and tell me how wrong I am.

How is it possible that it doesn't matter? It is the crux of the entire discussion...and I am not going to tell you anything, but if that is what you think it tells me all I need to know

How is it possible that it does matter? It's a completely hypothetical situation that you came up with, those aren't the only two possible outcomes.

 

[SSOG]

This may just be semantics- yes, you are more likely to score a TD down by 4 than you are when down by 3, but that's because you're going to try to score the TD much more often when down by 4, like you said. It doesn't mean it's easier to score the TD in that situation.Basically, if you're the HC and your team is down by 3, but you decide no matter what you're going for the TD and the win, I think your odds of getting it are about the same (if not better) than if you were trailing by 4.

I actually agree with this... but I've admitted that going for the TD gives you a lower shot at winning than kicking the FG. That was never the point. Having to go for the TD is an inferior position to be in... but it's a question of whether that is offset by how much superior your position is when a FG can win the game outright.In other words, it's a question of which is higher... (0.5 * FG + TD) or (2pc * (FG + TD) + (1-2pc) * TD4), where FG is your chances of a successful FG drive, TD is your chances of scoring a TD when treating the field as 3-down territory, 2pc is your chances of converting the 2 point conversion, and TD4 is your chances of scoring a TD when treating the field as 4-down territory. It's possible for those numbers to work out in favor of going for 2, even if the 2 point conversion has a lower than 50% chance of success. For instance, assume you have a 45% chance of converting, a 60% chance of successfully converting a field goal on your final drive, a 10% chance of successfully scoring a TD when treating the field as 3-down territory, and a 20% chance of successfully scoring a TD when treating the field as 4-down territory. Plugging in those variables, you've got a 40% chance of victory if you kick the PAT (assuming you recover the onside kick), and a 42.5% chance of victory if you attempt the 2pc (again, assuming you recover the onside kick)... despite the fact that the 2pc is only a 45% proposition.As I said, I don't think that one is clear-cut, since the optimal strategy depends wholly on the values of the 2pc, FG, TD, and TD4 variables (unlike in the situation in the OP, in which case the optimal strategy from a purely mathematical standpoint is independent on the values of the individual variables involved). With that said, I can definitely see some situations where going for 2 would be the right play in that scenario, even if you think you think the PAT offers a higher EV.

 

[SSOG]

So you're saying that "momentum" only exists in the 4th quarter? That's certainly the first time I've ever heard anyone make THAT particular argument.

Because that NOT what I said.

I said that clearly a team that had scored 14 straight points had momentum. You crossed out the word "clearly" and went on to imply that 14 straight points in the 3rd quarter don't qualify as "momentum", but 14 straight points in "crunch time" do.

 

[Liquid Tension]

For those arguing that the leading team isn't likely to change their strategy much, did you watch the game last night? NO up 3, a little more than 2:30 left in the game, 1st and goal from the 8. The obvious thing to do is run the ball 3 times, run down the clock some and force them to take the rest of their timeouts, and kick the chippy FG (if they don't run it in). Instead, they use that to their advantage and pass for the TD to go up by 2 scores.

I don't agree with your "obvious" assertion at all. Getting a FG has little value in that situation; you still lose if they get a TD. All you've done is kept them from being able to tie with their own FG. Cal had a similar situation this year against Arizona; fourth quarter, up by 3, fourth and one at the 6 yard line. Tedford decided to kick the FG, which I felt at the time was a clear mistake; and indeed we went on to lose by 1 when Arizona scored a TD. So I think in the NO situation above, getting the TD has a lot more value than running time and getting the FG.

Okay, I think there is a very big difference between a 3 pt. lead and a 6 pt. lead in this situation, not to mention the time/time out differences if you don't complete the pass(s). Pittsburgh thought it was the obvious strategy because they sold out to stop the run. I don't even know all of the details of the Cal/Arizona situation, but just from what you described, it seems very different.

Pitt did not sell out to stop the run as their safety was moving toward Moore at the snap...so you are not correct here. Polamalu wasn't playing the run at all

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

While it's true that a TD wins it outright whether you're down by 3 or by 4, the odds of you actually scoring a TD are significantly higher if you're down by 4.

I do't think that's the right way of looking at it. The probability of scoring a TD isn't significantly higher down by 4 than it is down by 3 - at best it's probably the same, and it might even be lower because of the way your opponent will play defense in those situations. Historically, teams down by 4 have probably scored far more TDs than teams down by 3 - because NFL coaches don't attempt winning TDs when they can kick a FG to tie. But if we're trying to figure out what gives us the best chance to win, we don't care what coaches have historically done, we only care about what we should do. So it's circular to point out the fact that coaches have more frequently gone for a TD down by 4 than by 3, and use that to support the idea that you're more likely to score a TD down by 4.

You *ARE* more likely to score a TD when down 4, though, simply because (like all coaches who have come before you), you're more likely to go for the TD.

But the point is that we're trying to figure out, mathematically, what gives us the best chance to win. If going for a TD gives me the best chance to win when I'm down by 3, then I'm not going to kick the FG just because that's what all coaches who came before me did. I'm not necessarily saying going for the TD is the right decision when down by 3 - that's part of what we'd be trying to determine here - but in the process of determining how likely we are to score a TD in that situation, we shouldn't be using the fact that coaches historically never attempt TDs in that situation. It's irrelevant. For example, if I'm facing 4th and 2 at my opponent's 20 yard line, the likelihood of me scoring a TD from that position, if I decide to go for it, doesn't change if I'm down by 3 instead of 4. The fact that most coaches wouldn't opt to try for a TD there doesn't matter - if I opt to go for the TD, my probability of scoring a TD is (essentially) the same whether I'm down 3 or 4. Whatever that probability is, that's the probability I want to use in my calculation.

 

[humpback]

So most people recognize that it's a tremendous benefit to the trailing team to get that information. The only real debate has been whether the benefits they derive from that knowledge are greater than, lesser than, or equal to any kind of benefit that the team in the lead would derive from having that information. Personally, I see hardly any benefit the leading team gets, let alone one big enough to outweigh the benefit gained by the trailing team. Yes, they will probably change up their philosophy a bit if they're up by 9 rather than 7 or 8, but it's easily debatable whether that's even a good thing for them or not. And even if it is, I don't see how it's even close to being an advantage on the scale of the advantage gained by the trailing team by going for two early.

Sounds like you're coming around at least a little- it is subjective. If it's debatable whether it's even a good thing for the leading team, how is it not debatable for the trailing team as well? Sure, they'll be more aggressive, but that also increases their chances at making a mistake and shooting themselves in the foot, does it not?

Here's another possible factor- one benefit to the offense vs. defense earlier in games is the fact that the offense has knowledge of their playcalls and strategy that the defense doesn't have. As the game plays out, that information advantage diminishes in our scenario. By going for 2 early, the trailing team basically did that to themselves, since we're saying that the strategy doesn't really change if you're up 8 (with the kick) or up 7 (make 2 pt. conversion). Essentially, if you make it or make the extra pt., there will still be some information advantage, but if you miss it, you'll give that away.

For those arguing that the leading team isn't likely to change their strategy much, did you watch the game last night? NO up 3, a little more than 2:30 left in the game, 1st and goal from the 8. The obvious thing to do is run the ball 3 times, run down the clock some and force them to take the rest of their timeouts, and kick the chippy FG (if they don't run it in). Instead, they use that to their advantage and pass for the TD to go up by 2 scores.

First, based on the bold, he is not coming around, it is just that all (or most) of us on the kick 2 right away side have already factored in all the other equations and we are still sure going for 2 is the clear way to go. Second, as for NO, you try to put the game out of reach by scoring a TD...without turning the ball over.

Do you like to argue about every little thing?I didn't copy his entire post, but even just using the bold, yes he is coming around IMO- he wrote "I don't see" this time, which is a lot different than what he was writing- I didn't mean he was changing his mind and would kick the xp now. The rest of his post was more "tolerant" as well. Just my opinion, not really important, but feel free to disagree.

So you have factored in ALL of the other equations huh? Can I see your work on that? Kind of funny seeing how you're repeatedly asking people to make a choice between 2 scenarios.

I'm sure you'd be saying the same thing about NO if it didn't work out for them.

 

[humpback]

Pitt did not sell out to stop the run as their safety was moving toward Moore at the snap...so you are not correct here. Polamalu wasn't playing the run at all

Watch the play again- Troy wasn't playing the run, but pretty much every one else bit on the play action. I'm sure you'll say you see the opposite though....http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-orleans-sain...re-8-yd-pass-TD

 

[humpback]

This may just be semantics- yes, you are more likely to score a TD down by 4 than you are when down by 3, but that's because you're going to try to score the TD much more often when down by 4, like you said. It doesn't mean it's easier to score the TD in that situation.Basically, if you're the HC and your team is down by 3, but you decide no matter what you're going for the TD and the win, I think your odds of getting it are about the same (if not better) than if you were trailing by 4.

I actually agree with this... but I've admitted that going for the TD gives you a lower shot at winning than kicking the FG. That was never the point. Having to go for the TD is an inferior position to be in... but it's a question of whether that is offset by how much superior your position is when a FG can win the game outright.In other words, it's a question of which is higher... (0.5 * FG + TD) or (2pc * (FG + TD) + (1-2pc) * TD4), where FG is your chances of a successful FG drive, TD is your chances of scoring a TD when treating the field as 3-down territory, 2pc is your chances of converting the 2 point conversion, and TD4 is your chances of scoring a TD when treating the field as 4-down territory. It's possible for those numbers to work out in favor of going for 2, even if the 2 point conversion has a lower than 50% chance of success. For instance, assume you have a 45% chance of converting, a 60% chance of successfully converting a field goal on your final drive, a 10% chance of successfully scoring a TD when treating the field as 3-down territory, and a 20% chance of successfully scoring a TD when treating the field as 4-down territory. Plugging in those variables, you've got a 40% chance of victory if you kick the PAT (assuming you recover the onside kick), and a 42.5% chance of victory if you attempt the 2pc (again, assuming you recover the onside kick)... despite the fact that the 2pc is only a 45% proposition.As I said, I don't think that one is clear-cut, since the optimal strategy depends wholly on the values of the 2pc, FG, TD, and TD4 variables (unlike in the situation in the OP, in which case the optimal strategy from a purely mathematical standpoint is independent on the values of the individual variables involved). With that said, I can definitely see some situations where going for 2 would be the right play in that scenario, even if you think you think the PAT offers a higher EV.

I haven't even given thought to that other scenario, I was just trying to explain what I assumed IE meant by his post- teams trailing by 4 will score the TD more frequently as you've said, but it isn't necessarily easier to do so.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

This may just be semantics- yes, you are more likely to score a TD down by 4 than you are when down by 3, but that's because you're going to try to score the TD much more often when down by 4, like you said. It doesn't mean it's easier to score the TD in that situation.Basically, if you're the HC and your team is down by 3, but you decide no matter what you're going for the TD and the win, I think your odds of getting it are about the same (if not better) than if you were trailing by 4.

I actually agree with this... but I've admitted that going for the TD gives you a lower shot at winning than kicking the FG. That was never the point. Having to go for the TD is an inferior position to be in... but it's a question of whether that is offset by how much superior your position is when a FG can win the game outright.In other words, it's a question of which is higher... (0.5 * FG + TD) or (2pc * (FG + TD) + (1-2pc) * TD4), where FG is your chances of a successful FG drive, TD is your chances of scoring a TD when treating the field as 3-down territory, 2pc is your chances of converting the 2 point conversion, and TD4 is your chances of scoring a TD when treating the field as 4-down territory. It's possible for those numbers to work out in favor of going for 2, even if the 2 point conversion has a lower than 50% chance of success. For instance, assume you have a 45% chance of converting, a 60% chance of successfully converting a field goal on your final drive, a 10% chance of successfully scoring a TD when treating the field as 3-down territory, and a 20% chance of successfully scoring a TD when treating the field as 4-down territory. Plugging in those variables, you've got a 40% chance of victory if you kick the PAT (assuming you recover the onside kick), and a 42.5% chance of victory if you attempt the 2pc (again, assuming you recover the onside kick)... despite the fact that the 2pc is only a 45% proposition.As I said, I don't think that one is clear-cut, since the optimal strategy depends wholly on the values of the 2pc, FG, TD, and TD4 variables (unlike in the situation in the OP, in which case the optimal strategy from a purely mathematical standpoint is independent on the values of the individual variables involved). With that said, I can definitely see some situations where going for 2 would be the right play in that scenario, even if you think you think the PAT offers a higher EV.

This is a nice job of putting numbers to the situation. The reason I say it is clear is because of the situations where having gone for the 2-pt conversion early make a huge difference in the trailer's decisions later on. Examples:The trailer reaches a situation where they have 4th and goal at the 7-yard line. If they are down by 3, they kick a FG and win 50% of the time. If they had gone for 2 at a 45% success rate, 45% of the time they can kick the FG and win. 55% of the time they have to go for the TD with, lets suppose, a 30% success rate. Then they win 55% x 30% which is 16.5%. Their winning is then a grand total of 61.5%. Another situation with a huge advantage to having gone for 2 is when the trailer gets the ball with 1st down at the opposing 20-yard line. If they are down by 2, they can run three safe plays, take the clock down to nothing and kick the high percentage FG to win. If they are down by 4, they still freely go all out for the TD. If they were down by 3, they would be caught in the middle. Gambling for the TD could cost a turnover or sack or penalty taking them out of FG range. Playing safe loses their chance at a TD. It is much more than just 4th down decisions.The 2.5% advantage your math showed with the estimates you made for the variables isn't nearly as sensative to those estimates as you might think.

 

[Liquid Tension]

While it's true that a TD wins it outright whether you're down by 3 or by 4, the odds of you actually scoring a TD are significantly higher if you're down by 4.

I do't think that's the right way of looking at it. The probability of scoring a TD isn't significantly higher down by 4 than it is down by 3 - at best it's probably the same, and it might even be lower because of the way your opponent will play defense in those situations. Historically, teams down by 4 have probably scored far more TDs than teams down by 3 - because NFL coaches don't attempt winning TDs when they can kick a FG to tie. But if we're trying to figure out what gives us the best chance to win, we don't care what coaches have historically done, we only care about what we should do. So it's circular to point out the fact that coaches have more frequently gone for a TD down by 4 than by 3, and use that to support the idea that you're more likely to score a TD down by 4.

You *ARE* more likely to score a TD when down 4, though, simply because (like all coaches who have come before you), you're more likely to go for the TD. When down 3, coaches are content to kick the 80% field goal that, if good, gives them a 50% chance to win. When down 4, coaches are more likely to go for the 20% 4th down conversion that, if good, will give them a 50% chance to score a TD which will give them a 100% chance to win. Obviously, using those (arbitrarily assigned) percentages shows that you're more likely to win by kicking a FG when down 3 (40% chance to win) than going for it on 4th down when down 4 (10% chance to win), but that's not the point- the odds of scoring the TD when down 4 don't have to be better than the odds of winning in overtime when down 3, they just have to be enough better that, when combined with your odds of winning outright with a FG if you convert the 2pc, the EV of going for 2 outweighs the EV of going for 1.Since 2002, teams that were down by 4 with 2 minutes remaining have scored 38 TDs compared to 25 TDs by teams that were down 3 with 2 minutes remaining, despite the fact that historically 3-point deficits have been 2.27 times more common than 4-point deficits (a figure partially influenced by the fact that overtime games have such a high probability of ending in a 3-point margin, but still, it's safe to say that there have been more teams down 3 late in the 4th than down 4 late in the 4th over the last decade). Beyond that, it makes intuitive sense that it's easier to score TDs when you treat the entire field like 4-down territory than when you don't. So I do think your odds of scoring a TD to win outright in regulation are higher when you're down 4 than they are when you're down 3. Also, to inject some completely anecdotal evidence, in the past I've always felt more comfortable when my team held a 3-point lead with the opponent driving than I have when my team held a 4-6 point lead with the opponent driving, simply because I knew that the opposing team was going to be playing for overtime so my team would have two chances to beat them (by stopping them in regulation or by winning in overtime) instead of just one (albeit noticeably better) chance of beating them. But again, that's strictly anecdotal based on my experience as a fan and I'm not holding it up as proof or anything.

I do think it's possible for the numbers to work out in favor of going for 2 when down 4 with 2 minutes remaining, although I don't think that one's anywhere near as clear-cut as the situation in the OP.

This may just be semantics- yes, you are more likely to score a TD down by 4 than you are when down by 3, but that's because you're going to try to score the TD much more often when down by 4, like you said. It doesn't mean it's easier to score the TD in that situation.Basically, if you're the HC and your team is down by 3, but you decide no matter what you're going for the TD and the win, I think your odds of getting it are about the same (if not better) than if you were trailing by 4.

The entire point is that if you are using all 4 downs because you must score a TD your chances of scoring a TD have increased because you have 33% more down to use. This is why teams down by 2 or 3 late in the game go down and get into FG range so easily compared to normal drives

 

[Liquid Tension]

So most people recognize that it's a tremendous benefit to the trailing team to get that information. The only real debate has been whether the benefits they derive from that knowledge are greater than, lesser than, or equal to any kind of benefit that the team in the lead would derive from having that information. Personally, I see hardly any benefit the leading team gets, let alone one big enough to outweigh the benefit gained by the trailing team. Yes, they will probably change up their philosophy a bit if they're up by 9 rather than 7 or 8, but it's easily debatable whether that's even a good thing for them or not. And even if it is, I don't see how it's even close to being an advantage on the scale of the advantage gained by the trailing team by going for two early.

Sounds like you're coming around at least a little- it is subjective. If it's debatable whether it's even a good thing for the leading team, how is it not debatable for the trailing team as well? Sure, they'll be more aggressive, but that also increases their chances at making a mistake and shooting themselves in the foot, does it not?

Here's another possible factor- one benefit to the offense vs. defense earlier in games is the fact that the offense has knowledge of their playcalls and strategy that the defense doesn't have. As the game plays out, that information advantage diminishes in our scenario. By going for 2 early, the trailing team basically did that to themselves, since we're saying that the strategy doesn't really change if you're up 8 (with the kick) or up 7 (make 2 pt. conversion). Essentially, if you make it or make the extra pt., there will still be some information advantage, but if you miss it, you'll give that away.

For those arguing that the leading team isn't likely to change their strategy much, did you watch the game last night? NO up 3, a little more than 2:30 left in the game, 1st and goal from the 8. The obvious thing to do is run the ball 3 times, run down the clock some and force them to take the rest of their timeouts, and kick the chippy FG (if they don't run it in). Instead, they use that to their advantage and pass for the TD to go up by 2 scores.

First, based on the bold, he is not coming around, it is just that all (or most) of us on the kick 2 right away side have already factored in all the other equations and we are still sure going for 2 is the clear way to go. Second, as for NO, you try to put the game out of reach by scoring a TD...without turning the ball over.

Do you like to argue about every little thing?I didn't copy his entire post, but even just using the bold, yes he is coming around IMO- he wrote "I don't see" this time, which is a lot different than what he was writing- I didn't mean he was changing his mind and would kick the xp now. The rest of his post was more "tolerant" as well. Just my opinion, not really important, but feel free to disagree.

So you have factored in ALL of the other equations huh? Can I see your work on that? Kind of funny seeing how you're repeatedly asking people to make a choice between 2 scenarios.

I'm sure you'd be saying the same thing about NO if it didn't work out for them.

I was one of the first people to chime in on this argument and you have some brass ones accusing me of arguing for what ever side I am on only and no matter what. I am one of the few on this board who searches for the truth and would gladly change my opinion if presented with good reasons...in fact I enjoy that...you on the other hand have stuck to your guns even saying that being down by 2 with 30 seconds left and having to kick off is preferable to being down by 9 with 7 minutes to go and about to kick off. That is simply crazy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Did anyone see all the 2-point tries in the Skins/Lions game?

Thought of this thread while watching it.

They went for the 2 point tries early and often, nearly all failed.

Starting at 11:15 in the 4th quarter there were FIVE (5) 2-point conversion attempts, FOUR (4) of which FAILED.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Pitt did not sell out to stop the run as their safety was moving toward Moore at the snap...so you are not correct here. Polamalu wasn't playing the run at all

Watch the play again- Troy wasn't playing the run, but pretty much every one else bit on the play action. I'm sure you'll say you see the opposite though....http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-orleans-sain...re-8-yd-pass-TD

You couldn't be more wrong... NO is in a power run formation with 6 lineman with a QB and 2 RB's in an I formation and only 2 receivers, yet NO had 5 guys on the line and 3 linebackers (this goes directly in matching personnel) with one and one coverage and one safety back, all 3 linebackers are still 4 yards off the line of scrimmage AFTER the ball is hiked...in fact the DE drops back in coverage as the ball is being handed off (or in this case faked) while the other linebackers start to move up for the playaction. They are definitely NOT selling out against the run as you incorrectly point out. In fact, they dropped a lineman to cover the FB which you would never do if you were selling out and they didn't even run blitz. On top of that they were so non committed to stopping the run that Polamalu was in coverage the entire time

 

[humpback]

I was one of the first people to chime in on this argument and you have some brass ones accusing me of arguing for what ever side I am on only and no matter what. I am one of the few on this board who searches for the truth and would gladly change my opinion if presented with good reasons...in fact I enjoy that...you on the other hand have stuck to your guns even saying that being down by 2 with 30 seconds left and having to kick off is preferable to being down by 9 with 7 minutes to go and about to kick off. That is simply crazy.

Anything else you'd like to vent about?

 

[humpback]

Pitt did not sell out to stop the run as their safety was moving toward Moore at the snap...so you are not correct here. Polamalu wasn't playing the run at all

Watch the play again- Troy wasn't playing the run, but pretty much every one else bit on the play action. I'm sure you'll say you see the opposite though....http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-orleans-sain...re-8-yd-pass-TD

You couldn't be more wrong... NO is in a power run formation with 6 lineman with a QB and 2 RB's in an I formation and only 2 receivers, yet NO had 5 guys on the line and 3 linebackers (this goes directly in matching personnel) with one and one coverage and one safety back, all 3 linebackers are still 4 yards off the line of scrimmage AFTER the ball is hiked...in fact the DE drops back in coverage as the ball is being handed off (or in this case faked) while the other linebackers start to move up for the playaction. They are definitely NOT selling out against the run as you incorrectly point out. In fact, they dropped a lineman to cover the FB which you would never do if you were selling out and they didn't even run blitz. On top of that they were so non committed to stopping the run that Polamalu was in coverage the entire time

As I said, you'll say the opposite. Shocker.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Of course the only real answer is it depends on the specific situation of that specific game.Few people seem willing to acknowledge that.

Yeah since in this hypothetical you are a typical NFL coach you always kick the extra point because you are completely taken by surprise by the possibility of going for two until almost the entire play clock has run out despite your QB holding up two fingers before the official raised his arms.

 

[Runningman]

Lots of things need to be considered but in nearly all cases you kick the one pointer and wait to go for two. With seven minutes left you are likely to get the ball back only once with enough time to make a drive that isn't under pressure of running out of time. Without using timeouts you can count on losing at least one and a half minutes of clock to the opposition. If they get a first down or two you are going to be forced to start using timeouts and be in the four minute range. I don;t think you have the time to go for two as you can count on getting the ball back only one time. Throw in a less than 50% success rate for the 2 pointer (in the NFL, don't know about college or high school) and you gotta give yourself the shoot at only needing one score on your last drive.

 

[Dr. Bronner]

Kick the XP, kick it deep, sack QB for a safety, take free kick, drive it down and score TD, fake XP and go for 2.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Lots of things need to be considered but in nearly all cases you kick the one pointer and wait to go for two. With seven minutes left you are likely to get the ball back only once with enough time to make a drive that isn't under pressure of running out of time. Without using timeouts you can count on losing at least one and a half minutes of clock to the opposition. If they get a first down or two you are going to be forced to start using timeouts and be in the four minute range. I don;t think you have the time to go for two as you can count on getting the ball back only one time. Throw in a less than 50% success rate for the 2 pointer (in the NFL, don't know about college or high school) and you gotta give yourself the shoot at only needing one score on your last drive.

Yes this is the "book". You consider a two point conversion at the seven minute mark bad because you don't have time to fail to convert a less that 50-50 opportunity, but good at the point of no time being left. All you are doing is avoiding making a hard decision and allowing the game to dictate what happens. You are making zero effort to give yourself a greater chance of winning at the risk of being second guessed. You are cowardly putting off the probability of bad stuff happening until it doesn't matter anymore. This is exactly the "coaches book", but it has nothing to do with playing the game to win. Thus the 1 for 64 success rate in the NFL. I'm guessing that more than one team down by at least 9 at the seven minute mark have won games over the same period of time.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Would you rather be down 8 or 9 with 7 minutes to go?

Why?

How is your team on converting 2-point tries, or 4th downs on the season? How about in this game?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Lots of things need to be considered but in nearly all cases you kick the one pointer and wait to go for two. With seven minutes left you are likely to get the ball back only once with enough time to make a drive that isn't under pressure of running out of time. Without using timeouts you can count on losing at least one and a half minutes of clock to the opposition. If they get a first down or two you are going to be forced to start using timeouts and be in the four minute range. I don;t think you have the time to go for two as you can count on getting the ball back only one time. Throw in a less than 50% success rate for the 2 pointer (in the NFL, don't know about college or high school) and you gotta give yourself the shoot at only needing one score on your last drive.

For snom1onmsn and hunchback and anyone else who thought the 2-pt crowd was being arrogant or not admitting subjectivity or whatever, this post is a perfect example of what people were doing last week. It's guilty of the same exact mistakes that most people were making earlier in the thread - a complete misvaluation of the risks. The poster manages to correctly point out that there is a less than 50% success rate on 2-pt conversions, but botches its application with comments like, "I don;t think you have the time to go for two as you can count on getting ball back only one time" and "you gotta give yourself the shoot at only needing one score on your last drive." That makes no sense. You can give yourself a shot at only needing one score on your last drive by attempting the 2-point conversion with 7 minutes left. If you make it - voila! - you only need one score on your last drive.Note, that's not to say that kicking the PAT is definitely wrong, just that this argument in favor of kicking the PAT is definitely wrong. That's an important difference. And that's not just an opinion, or up for debate - this argument is logically incorrect.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Would you rather be down 8 or 9 with 7 minutes to go?Why?

I'd rather be down by 8 than down by 9, for obvious reasons. Everyone would. If that was the question, there would be 100% agreement on this topic. But that's not the question.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Would you rather be down 8 or 9 with 7 minutes to go?Why? How is your team on converting 2-point tries, or 4th downs on the season? How about in this game?

if you were down two scores with 7 minutes left, would you rather play as if you only needed one score or play as if you needed two scores?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Apparently if you're Andy Reid and down by 15 with under seven minutes left in the 4th quarter, you just kick a FG.

 

[coolnerd]

Apparently if you're Andy Reid and down by 15 with under seven minutes left in the 4th quarter, you just kick a FG.

and I was on the phone with a friend who is not a FBG and has no idea this thread exists. He pretty much went into the that makes no sense because...blah..blah blah as though he had read this thread word for word.

 

[renesauz]

Apparently if you're Andy Reid and down by 15 with under seven minutes left in the 4th quarter, you just kick a FG.

Odds were better to get two more possessions than to make a TD from the 18. With a TD, he STILL would have had to convert a 2 pt conversion to tie.As it went, Philly scored a TD on their next possession, and attempted an on-sides kick with almost 2 minutes left...I'd say Reid made the right call, although no gimme.

 

[CalBear]

Apparently if you're Andy Reid and down by 15 with under seven minutes left in the 4th quarter, you just kick a FG.

That was on fourth and goal from the 19; I think the FG is the right call in that situation. I was thinking about this thread watching the game, wondering if it would come up.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.::

Since this post is not precisely the scenario being asked, lets add another loss to the by the book crowd with SD.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The Chargers failed this thread yesterday.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.::

Since this post is not precisely the scenario being asked, lets add another loss to the by the book crowd with SD.

Houston was more precise, add another loss to the by the book crowd.

 

[jackdubl]

Haven't we done this before?The obvious answer is that you go for two immediately. The obvious reason is that knowledge is power. Didn't you guys watch Schoolhouse Rock during Saturday morning cartoons?By the way, any coach or analyst who doesn't know this should be fired on the spot.

Knowledge works both ways, though. If the other team knows you need two scores instead of one...

 

[CalBear]

Since the 2pt conversion was introduced in 1994 there have been 64 instances where a team is down 15pts at the start of the 4th quarter. Out of those 64 instances only 1 trailing team won the game. They kicked first, converted 2pt second, and won in overtime.There isn't a single instance of a team going for 2 first when down by 15 at the start of the 4th quarter and scoring the first TD.::

Since this post is not precisely the scenario being asked, lets add another loss to the by the book crowd with SD.

Houston was more precise, add another loss to the by the book crowd.

Surely you can't say that Houston lost because they went by the book. It turned out that they made the late 2-point conversion, so they were successful in sending the game into OT, which is success in the scenario. They also didn't wind up at any decision points where the knowledge of the success or failure of the 2-point conversion would have mattered. So I think it's safe to say that the decision didn't matter last night.They were quite lucky to convert the 2-point conversion; Jones leaped up to grab a pass intended for Johnson; it probably wouldn't have gotten to Johnson if he hadn't.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...you need two scores instead of one...

You need two scores to win anyway. If you choose to be down 8 and are successful scoring 8 before time runs out you still need another score to win. Last night was a perfect example of when a team should have gone for two both times as Houston had all the momentum and was only stopping themselves in the fourth quarter.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Surely you can't say that Houston lost because they went by the book.

I think I just did.

It turned out that they made the late 2-point conversion, so they were successful in sending the game into OT, which is success in the scenario.

Instead of going for the knockout when they were in control they allowed the Ravens to stick in the game and allowed the fate of a coin flip and some extra rest do them in.

They also didn't wind up at any decision points where the knowledge of the success or failure of the 2-point conversion would have mattered. So I think it's safe to say that the decision didn't matter last night.

They were quite lucky to convert the 2-point conversion; Jones leaped up to grab a pass intended for Johnson; it probably wouldn't have gotten to Johnson if he hadn't.

So they were lucky to survive a bit longer from the initial bad decision. So if Jones doesn't save them, being down 2 with 40 second to go would have been a better situation than being down 9 with six minutes to go?

 

[CalBear]

They were quite lucky to convert the 2-point conversion; Jones leaped up to grab a pass intended for Johnson; it probably wouldn't have gotten to Johnson if he hadn't.

So they were lucky to survive a bit longer from the initial bad decision. So if Jones doesn't save them, being down 2 with 40 second to go would have been a better situation than being down 9 with six minutes to go?

I've argued extensively in this thread that you should go for 2 after the first TD.Going for 2 after both TDs is the right move if and only if you're more likely to make it both times than you are to fail both times. I don't think that's likely; certainly the successful 2-point conversion didn't look like a play that had a greater than 50% chance of success.

 

[jackdubl]

Here's why I say you go by the book in this instance:

If you make it with 7:00 to go, great. One score game.

If you miss it, bad. Two score game.

If you don't attempt it, one score game. You give the ball to the other team and expect to get one more possession. But now your defense and special teams have a chance to get you back into the game as well. A turnover, a big run back and you are right there. Not so if you would have missed the conversion. You are basically putting all of your stock into making that two point conversion and not allowing for any other positives to happen. I think coaches like to leave open the possibility that a big play on defense or special teams can put you over the top. People here seem to forget that there are two other facets of the team besides the offense.

 

[Rovers]

When you are behind, you extend the game. that means doing exactly what Houston did last night. If you miss the 2 pt conversion on the first TD, you are now locked into making it up with two scores and momentum swings away. Also, being at home, you don't attempt teh 2pt conversion twice. The odds are stacked heavilly against being success ful twice. You are at home, you play for the tie and try to win in OT. The Ravens defense was beyond tired, and only a horrible decision by Schaub made the difference.

 

[CalBear]

If you miss it, bad. Two score game.

If you don't attempt it, one score game. You give the ball to the other team and expect to get one more possession. But now your defense and special teams have a chance to get you back into the game as well. A turnover, a big run back and you are right there. Not so if you would have missed the conversion. You are basically putting all of your stock into making that two point conversion and not allowing for any other positives to happen.

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, you are putting all of your stock into making that two point conversion whether or not you try it first. Because if you kick the XP, it's not a one score game; it's a one score plus two point conversion game.

 

[jackdubl]

If you miss it, bad. Two score game.

If you don't attempt it, one score game. You give the ball to the other team and expect to get one more possession. But now your defense and special teams have a chance to get you back into the game as well. A turnover, a big run back and you are right there. Not so if you would have missed the conversion. You are basically putting all of your stock into making that two point conversion and not allowing for any other positives to happen.

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, you are putting all of your stock into making that two point conversion whether or not you try it first. Because if you kick the XP, it's not a one score game; it's a one score plus two point conversion game.

No, it's a one possession plus two point conversion with 7:00 minutes left. You guys act like there's no difference between a one possession game where you need a two point conversion and a two possession game. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. I'll say it again. If you miss the two point with 7:00 left, you now need TWO POSSESSIONS. Whatever your defense/special teams needs to do to get you back in the game, now they have to do it twice. Suppose you miss the two point and then get a turnover on defense. Doesn't help so much because you still need a whole other possession. But probably helps a great deal of your in a one possession ballgame.

 

[VaTerp]

If you miss it, bad. Two score game.

If you don't attempt it, one score game. You give the ball to the other team and expect to get one more possession. But now your defense and special teams have a chance to get you back into the game as well. A turnover, a big run back and you are right there. Not so if you would have missed the conversion. You are basically putting all of your stock into making that two point conversion and not allowing for any other positives to happen.

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, you are putting all of your stock into making that two point conversion whether or not you try it first. Because if you kick the XP, it's not a one score game; it's a one score plus two point conversion game.

But it's a one possession game. If you go for 2 the first time and fail, it's a 2 possession game. That's HUGE.I have not read through this whole thread but doubt there is any argument that changes my mind on this. You kick the extra point just about every single time in this situation.

 

[humpback]

Can we just let this thread die already? Especially if you're going to bump it with nonsense like trying to say the Texans lost last night because they went by the book.

 

[VaTerp]

Surely you can't say that Houston lost because they went by the book.

I think I just did.

It turned out that they made the late 2-point conversion, so they were successful in sending the game into OT, which is success in the scenario.

Instead of going for the knockout when they were in control they allowed the Ravens to stick in the game and allowed the fate of a coin flip and some extra rest do them in.

They also didn't wind up at any decision points where the knowledge of the success or failure of the 2-point conversion would have mattered. So I think it's safe to say that the decision didn't matter last night.

They were quite lucky to convert the 2-point conversion; Jones leaped up to grab a pass intended for Johnson; it probably wouldn't have gotten to Johnson if he hadn't.

So they were lucky to survive a bit longer from the initial bad decision. So if Jones doesn't save them, being down 2 with 40 second to go would have been a better situation than being down 9 with six minutes to go?

These arguments don't make sense. If Houston goes for 2 the first time and doesnt get it they have no shot at tieing the game and giving themselves a chance to win.They made the right decision and just didnt get it done in OT. But they had a chance and it was CLEARLY the right decision.

 

[cvnpoka]

I'll say it again. If you miss the two point with 7:00 left, you now need TWO POSSESSIONS

and what if you miss the 2 pt conversion with 15s left?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... If Houston goes for 2 the first time and doesnt get it they have no shot at tieing the game and giving themselves a chance to win.They made the right decision and just didnt get it done in OT. But they had a chance and it was CLEARLY the right decision.

Why was the first shot at two less likely than the one they made? Didn't they boast during the first half that Houston had been incredible all season long in third and short? The odds of converting were better than 50-50 before they had the fourth quarter momentum.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can we just let this thread die already? Especially if you're going to bump it with nonsense like trying to say the Texans lost last night because they went by the book.

Once those that don't go by the book are demonstratively worst off by their decision.By the book 1 for 66, other teams 0 for 0.

 

[humpback]

Can we just let this thread die already? Especially if you're going to bump it with nonsense like trying to say the Texans lost last night because they went by the book.

Once those that don't go by the book are demonstratively worst off by their decision.By the book 1 for 66, other teams 0 for 0.

Statistically, 1 for 66 > 0 for 0.Regardless, your assertion that the Texans lost because they went "by the book" is preposterous.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

If you miss it, bad. Two score game.

If you don't attempt it, one score game. You give the ball to the other team and expect to get one more possession. But now your defense and special teams have a chance to get you back into the game as well. A turnover, a big run back and you are right there. Not so if you would have missed the conversion. You are basically putting all of your stock into making that two point conversion and not allowing for any other positives to happen.

As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, you are putting all of your stock into making that two point conversion whether or not you try it first. Because if you kick the XP, it's not a one score game; it's a one score plus two point conversion game.

But it's a one possession game. If you go for 2 the first time and fail, it's a 2 possession game. That's HUGE.I have not read through this whole thread but doubt there is any argument that changes my mind on this. You kick the extra point just about every single time in this situation.

You should read the thread. It is mathematically proven that it is correct to go for the 2pt conversion to pull within 7. If only one coach in the whole NFL would learn a little math, they could have a big advantage over the rest of the league.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Statistically, 1 for 66 > 0 for 0.

and the decline of the Shark Pool continues.