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

[CalBear]

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.

It's a two-possession game if you miss the two-point conversion, whether you miss it after the first TD or the second TD. In every case where you miss the two-point conversion, you need two more possessions to tie/win. Delaying the knowledge of whether you make the two-point conversion or not can only harm you.I'm reiterating points made earlier in this thread just because the bump has brought some of the concepts already discussed back. For further discussion, see the earlier posts.

 

[jackdubl]

So everyone that says go for the two point conversion on the first score, here's what you are saying: with 7:00 minutes left in the game, you would rather have a 40% chance of being down by 7 and a 60% chance to be down by 9, than a 99.9% chance of being down by 8. You guys will be putting yourself in a two possession game the majority of the time. That sounds like bad coaching.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I see there's a new batch of PAT-first folks in here, and - surprise! - they're making the same horribly flawed arguments as before.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Statistically, 1 for 66 > 0 for 0.

and the decline of the Shark Pool continues.

 

[humpback]

Statistically, 1 for 66 > 0 for 0.

and the decline of the Shark Pool continues.

It's not?Apparently it went over your head, but I was simply trying to make an equally preposterous statement as Bottomfeeder, which isn't easy to do.

 

[CalBear]

So everyone that says go for the two point conversion on the first score, here's what you are saying: with 7:00 minutes left in the game, you would rather have a 40% chance of being down by 7 and a 60% chance to be down by 9, than a 99.9% chance of being down by 8.

And you're saying you'd rather be down by 2, kicking off with 15 seconds left, than down by 9, kicking off with 7:00 left. That is bad coaching.

 

[Ping Pong]

So everyone that says go for the two point conversion on the first score, here's what you are saying: with 7:00 minutes left in the game, you would rather have a 40% chance of being down by 7 and a 60% chance to be down by 9, than a 99.9% chance of being down by 8. You guys will be putting yourself in a two possession game the majority of the time. That sounds like bad coaching.

Ok lets play through the whole scenario here, not just stopping after the first TD. We'll use your numbers (i don't know the real numbers but these are fine). When you go for 2, there's a 40% chance of being down 7, 60% chance of being down 9. In order for all of this to play out, we're going to assume that your defense gets a stop and you get the ball back and score a second TD. If that doesn't happen, you lose anyway, regardless of if you kicked or went for 2. Scenario A (go for 2)Go for 2 and get it (40%) + score second TD, kick PAT (100%) = tied. Go for 2 and fail (60%) + score second TD, kick PAT (100%) = lose game*Scenario B (PAT)Kick PAT (100%) + score second TD, go for 2, succeed (40%) = tiedKick PAT (100%) + score second TD, go for 2, fail (60%) = lose gameThese two situations have identical outcomes when you start throwing percentages around. However, I put an asterisk next to the lose game outcome in scenario A because if you know that you've failed, you now have 7 minutes to score twice. This means you know that maybe you have to onside kick, or maybe your scoring drive has to be very quick. However, in scenario B, you don't know that you need a second score until after your second TD, which could be at the end of the game. Look at the Houston game last night. If Houston hadn't made their 2 pt conversion, they would have only had all of 20 seconds or so to make a last ditch attempt at a score.

 

[jackdubl]

So everyone that says go for the two point conversion on the first score, here's what you are saying: with 7:00 minutes left in the game, you would rather have a 40% chance of being down by 7 and a 60% chance to be down by 9, than a 99.9% chance of being down by 8.

And you're saying you'd rather be down by 2, kicking off with 15 seconds left, than down by 9, kicking off with 7:00 left. That is bad coaching.

I don't see how you all of a sudden fast forward to me having 15 seconds left. A lot can happen in seven minutes, but you want to presuppose the ending. At the 7:00 mark, you have no idea how the end of the game will look. You have to look at your decision at the 7:00 mark. Quit fast forwarding like you can tell the future.

Ok lets play through the whole scenario here, not just stopping after the first TD. We'll use your numbers (i don't know the real numbers but these are fine). When you go for 2, there's a 40% chance of being down 7, 60% chance of being down 9. In order for all of this to play out, we're going to assume that your defense gets a stop and you get the ball back and score a second TD. If that doesn't happen, you lose anyway, regardless of if you kicked or went for 2. Scenario A (go for 2)Go for 2 and get it (40%) + score second TD, kick PAT (100%) = tied. Go for 2 and fail (60%) + score second TD, kick PAT (100%) = lose game*Scenario B (PAT)Kick PAT (100%) + score second TD, go for 2, succeed (40%) = tiedKick PAT (100%) + score second TD, go for 2, fail (60%) = lose gameThese two situations have identical outcomes when you start throwing percentages around. However, I put an asterisk next to the lose game outcome in scenario A because if you know that you've failed, you now have 7 minutes to score twice. This means you know that maybe you have to onside kick, or maybe your scoring drive has to be very quick. However, in scenario B, you don't know that you need a second score until after your second TD, which could be at the end of the game. Look at the Houston game last night. If Houston hadn't made their 2 pt conversion, they would have only had all of 20 seconds or so to make a last ditch attempt at a score.

The problem here is that you have left off many other scenarios. There's scenarios where you actually get two possessions in the last seven minutes, there's scenarios where you score with more time on the clock, there's scenarios where you get a turnover. By going for two early, you may cut off some of those other scenarios right there at the 7:00 mark, because you now need an extra possession. Is that worth the mere knowledge that you need two possessions? Not to me. Not to coaches. The thing is, there are more ways to win an 8 point game than a 9 point game in seven minutes, but going for two early makes it more likely that you will be playing a 9 point game with seven minutes.

 

[CalBear]

So everyone that says go for the two point conversion on the first score, here's what you are saying: with 7:00 minutes left in the game, you would rather have a 40% chance of being down by 7 and a 60% chance to be down by 9, than a 99.9% chance of being down by 8.

And you're saying you'd rather be down by 2, kicking off with 15 seconds left, than down by 9, kicking off with 7:00 left. That is bad coaching.

I don't see how you all of a sudden fast forward to me having 15 seconds left. A lot can happen in seven minutes, but you want to presuppose the ending. At the 7:00 mark, you have no idea how the end of the game will look. You have to look at your decision at the 7:00 mark. Quit fast forwarding like you can tell the future.

I am assuming that you manage to score two TDs (a necessary requirement for winning). You're kicking off with 7:00 left, whether you go for one or two. In the vast majority of the scenarios where you score two TDs, you have very little time and few timeouts left. If you want to generalize the scenario:Would you rather be down by 9, kicking off with 7:00 left, or down by 2, kicking off with insufficient time+timeouts to be able to play normal defense? [Thereby necessitating an onsides kick].This will be the last time I reiterate what I've already said multiple times in this thread which you haven't read: there is nothing to be gained by failing the two-point attempt on the second TD instead of the first. If you fail the two-point attempt on the first TD, you have time to do something about it; if you fail on the second TD you're probably hosed.

 

[AB in DC]

Why does everyone seem to assume that the odds of a successful conversion are the same for the first TD as for the second TD?

Just look at last night -- Baltimore had just given up two 90-yard drives. Their defense was winded. So their odds of stopping a a conversion is much lower than it would have been earlier in a game.

That's why you kick the XP first and go for two when you have a better odds of converting.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Why does everyone seem to assume that the odds of a successful conversion are the same for the first TD as for the second TD?

Just look at last night -- Baltimore had just given up two 90-yard drives. Their defense was winded. So their odds of stopping a a conversion is much lower than it would have been earlier in a game.

That's why you kick the XP first and go for two when you have a better odds of converting.

Was thinking about this myself. I totally buy into the argument that shows that going for 2 on the first score is sounder in terms of statistical probability. But does that probability take into account the fact that the team who goes for 2 on the first score and fails, has also just exposed one play out of their conversion playbook?

Sure, that team could potentially use the same formation/play on the second attempt, but having had a previous play out of that formation fail, would coaches have the balls to run it again?

Statistical advantage is convincing, but may not take into account all of the situational intangibles -- a winded D, momentum, personnel and playcalling, etc. that can often affect a play or be the deciding factors .

 

[CalBear]

But does that probability take into account the fact that the team who goes for 2 on the first score and fails, has also just exposed one play out of their conversion playbook?

Only to the same extent that the team who goes for 2 on the second score does.

 

[jackdubl]

CalBear, your scenario sounds like it would be the greatest coaching meltdown of all time. At 7:00 left, down by 15, you score and go for two. You don't make it. But now, armed with the knowledge that you need two scores instead of one, you go for an onside kick with 7:00 on the clock. You don't recover. You are able to stop the other team, but now, with 3:00 left, you are down by 11. The game is over. Everyone says you are the biggest fool for not just kicking the extra point and then playing defense on a long field, instead of taking one gamble that led to another gamble, when you didn't have to take a gamble at all yet.

If you wait to go for two, you are saying that we can tie the game if we stop them. Plain and simple. We'll need a bunch of stuff to go our way.

If you go for two now and make it, you are saying we can tie the game if we stop them. We need a bunch of stuff to go our way, exactly one less thing than if we waited.

If you go for two now and miss, you are saying now we have to stop them, score, and stop them again, and score. Very unlikely that we can win. It would seem that the first choice is the safest.

 

[CalBear]

CalBear, your scenario sounds like it would be the greatest coaching meltdown of all time. At 7:00 left, down by 15, you score and go for two. You don't make it. But now, armed with the knowledge that you need two scores instead of one, you go for an onside kick with 7:00 on the clock. You don't recover. You are able to stop the other team, but now, with 3:00 left, you are down by 11. The game is over. Everyone says you are the biggest fool for not just kicking the extra point and then playing defense on a long field, instead of taking one gamble that led to another gamble, when you didn't have to take a gamble at all yet.

If you wait to go for two, you are saying that we can tie the game if we stop them. Plain and simple. We'll need a bunch of stuff to go our way.

If you go for two now and make it, you are saying we can tie the game if we stop them. We need a bunch of stuff to go our way, exactly one less thing than if we waited.

If you go for two now and miss, you are saying now we have to stop them, score, and stop them again, and score. Very unlikely that we can win. It would seem that the first choice is the safest.

Sigh...why do I allow myself to be drawn back into this?If you wait to go for two, you are saying that we can tie the game if we stop them and make a two-point conversion. The amount of stuff you need to go your way is exactly the same. Except if you go for it with 7:00 left, you know how much stuff you need to go your way.

See this thread for an example of why that's important.

The fallacy you are falling into is assuming that you'll miss the 2-point conversion if you go for it after the first TD, and assuming you'll make it if you go for it after the second TD. Only if you make those assumptions does it makes sense to go for it after the second TD.

 

[VaTerp]

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.

It's a two-possession game if you miss the two-point conversion, whether you miss it after the first TD or the second TD. In every case where you miss the two-point conversion, you need two more possessions to tie/win. Delaying the knowledge of whether you make the two-point conversion or not can only harm you.I'm reiterating points made earlier in this thread just because the bump has brought some of the concepts already discussed back. For further discussion, see the earlier posts.

This is where I disagree. I don't buy into the "delaying" the knowledge argument because there are so many variables that can happen between the 7:00 mark and the end of the game. As a former basketball and football coach, when you are behind you always play to minimize the number of possessions needed to tie or win the game. Obviously, you want to score as quickly and as often as possible and get stops as quickly as possible when playing from behind in the 2nd half of a game. And you also minimize the number of possessions you will need because again, you don't know what's going to happen. The reason you don't go for 2 in this situation is the same reason you don't start jacking up 3s when you are down in the 4th quarter or latter part of the 2nd half of a basketball game.

People can disagree and call it flawed logic all they want but IMO the argument on the other side is extremely flawed. Hey, maybe you guys can become coaches, show your wisdom, and change the way games are coached. But as of right now, making a 2 possession game out of a 1 possession game sounds like a much better way to get fired than it is to win ballgames and which is why you don't see coaches doing it.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

But does that probability take into account the fact that the team who goes for 2 on the first score and fails, has also just exposed one play out of their conversion playbook?

Only to the same extent that the team who goes for 2 on the second score does.

Is the probability of successfully converting for 2 against a defense that has seen you try one before a just a few minutes ago -- and stopped you -- the exact same as it is against a defense that hasn't?Aren't there are more influencing variables at play here, unlike multiple coin flips or throws of a dice?

 

[Jersey35]

Ugh.I fall back to my original position:

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, things that seemed obvious to the adult, but that the child was simply not yet capable of grasping.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Is the probability of successfully converting for 2 against a defense that has seen you try one before a just a few minutes ago -- and stopped you -- the exact same as it is against a defense that hasn't?

I don't understand the question. In what scenario are we going for two twice?(In any case, if you really want to go for two twice, you have to go for two the first time; there's no choice; so the discussion is moot.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you go for two after the first TD and make it, you're a whole lot better off than if you go for one the first time and then possibly miss the two-point conversion the second time.

The above reasoning is flawed. If you can spot the flaw, you should also be able to spot the flaw in: "If you go for two the first time and miss it, you're a whole lot worse off than if you go for one the first time and then have a chance to make a two-point conversion the second time." Yet that seems to be what most of the "go for one first" reasoning boils down to.

 

[Jersey35]

If you go for two after the first TD and make it, you're a whole lot better off than if you go for one the first time and then possibly miss the two-point conversion the second time.

The above reasoning is flawed. If you can spot the flaw, you should also be able to spot the flaw in: "If you go for two the first time and miss it, you're a whole lot worse off than if you go for one the first time and then have a chance to make a two-point conversion the second time." Yet that seems to be what most of the "go for one first" reasoning boils down to.

... but they won't get it...

 

[CalBear]

But does that probability take into account the fact that the team who goes for 2 on the first score and fails, has also just exposed one play out of their conversion playbook?

Only to the same extent that the team who goes for 2 on the second score does.

Is the probability of successfully converting for 2 against a defense that has seen you try one before a just a few minutes ago -- and stopped you -- the exact same as it is against a defense that hasn't?Aren't there are more influencing variables at play here, unlike multiple coin flips or throws of a dice?

The probability of successfully converting your first attempt at a 2-point conversion is the same whether you try it after the first TD or the second TD.

 

[Jersey35]

But does that probability take into account the fact that the team who goes for 2 on the first score and fails, has also just exposed one play out of their conversion playbook?

Only to the same extent that the team who goes for 2 on the second score does.

Is the probability of successfully converting for 2 against a defense that has seen you try one before a just a few minutes ago -- and stopped you -- the exact same as it is against a defense that hasn't?Aren't there are more influencing variables at play here, unlike multiple coin flips or throws of a dice?

The probability of successfully converting your first attempt at a 2-point conversion is the same whether you try it after the first TD or the second TD.

Not if your players are too emotionally distressed about being down 2 possessions!

 

[Ariakis]

You HAVE to go for one to make it an 8 point game. The other team's game plan when up by 2 scores doesn't work in your favor. I can't see an argument otherwise. Its too early to do an onsides kick as you'd be down 8 by failing and even holding to a FG after missing the onsides puts you back down by 2 TD's.

 

[Eminence]

I'd like to see some statistics on which is more successful because in my opinion:

Going for TWO on the second touchdown is much more logical from a momentum sense. It means you:

1.) Scored a Touchdown.

2.) Got a defensive stop.

3.) Scored another Touchdown.

Which is a huge confidence/momentum boost for your team; the defense would in my opinion be demoralized a bit. Also I feel if my team KNEW they were playing for a TIE; they'd hustle more. Allowing for an easier conversion.

If you go for two right way; you're playing for a POSSIBILITY of a tie.

If you go for it the second time; you're playing for the tie.

I believe my players would play at a higher level on the latter.

-

Go for the extra point. Rally momentum; go for two later.

 

[Jersey35]

I'd like to see some statistics on which is more successful because in my opinion:

Going for TWO on the second touchdown is much more logical from a momentum sense. It means you:

1.) Scored a Touchdown.

2.) Got a defensive stop.

3.) Scored another Touchdown.

Which is a huge confidence/momentum boost for your team; the defense would in my opinion be demoralized a bit. Also I feel if my team KNEW they were playing for a TIE; they'd hustle more. Allowing for an easier conversion.



If you go for two right way; you're playing for a POSSIBILITY of a tie.

If you go for it the second time; you're playing for the tie.

I believe my players would play at a higher level on the latter.

-

Go for the extra point. Rally momentum; go for two later.

I'm pretty sure you're playing for the POSSIBILITY of a tie in both cases. I mean, the 2pt conversion isn't suddenly guaranteed if you only go for it after the 2nd touchdown, is it?

 

[firstseason1988]

In Madden, I go for 2, especially since it is the 3rd quarter still and I dominate Madden so I am not sure the scenario could exist anyway.

In the NFL, I go for 1, because it is the wholly right play for the reasons discussed here.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But does that probability take into account the fact that the team who goes for 2 on the first score and fails, has also just exposed one play out of their conversion playbook? Sure, that team could potentially use the same formation/play on the second attempt,

What second attempt?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

LOL at the all the condescending tools in this thread that are convinced they are 100% correct but no one that has ever been paid to make these decisions agrees with them.

 

[jackdubl]

CalBear, your scenario sounds like it would be the greatest coaching meltdown of all time. At 7:00 left, down by 15, you score and go for two. You don't make it. But now, armed with the knowledge that you need two scores instead of one, you go for an onside kick with 7:00 on the clock. You don't recover. You are able to stop the other team, but now, with 3:00 left, you are down by 11. The game is over. Everyone says you are the biggest fool for not just kicking the extra point and then playing defense on a long field, instead of taking one gamble that led to another gamble, when you didn't have to take a gamble at all yet.

If you wait to go for two, you are saying that we can tie the game if we stop them. Plain and simple. We'll need a bunch of stuff to go our way.

If you go for two now and make it, you are saying we can tie the game if we stop them. We need a bunch of stuff to go our way, exactly one less thing than if we waited.

If you go for two now and miss, you are saying now we have to stop them, score, and stop them again, and score. Very unlikely that we can win. It would seem that the first choice is the safest.

Sigh...why do I allow myself to be drawn back into this?

If you wait to go for two, you are saying that we can tie the game if we stop them and make a two-point conversion. The amount of stuff you need to go your way is exactly the same. Except if you go for it with 7:00 left, you know how much stuff you need to go your way.

Except you already knew how many things you needed to go your way, so you didn't really gain anything there, did you?

The fallacy you are falling into is assuming that you'll miss the 2-point conversion if you go for it after the first TD, and assuming you'll make it if you go for it after the second TD. Only if you make those assumptions does it makes sense to go for it after the second TD.

That's where you're wrong. I'm not assuming anything on the second TD. I'm not looking at the second TD, we haven't scored a second TD. I'm looking at the game right now, at 7:00 left in the game, and saying do I want to go for a play that most likely decides the game with 7:00 left or do I want to wait.You seem to be the one assuming a great many things. You assume that if you make the conversion now, you would have made it at the end of the game. You assume that if you miss it now, you would have missed it at the end of the game. You assume you will score your second TD with only 15 seconds left. You don't consider any other scenarios. I don't make any assumptions. I am just saying that there isn't much to be gained by going for the conversion early(just your knowledge that the game is most likely over), and why give yourself the possibility of being out of the game at the 7:00 mark when you don't have to. Play your seven minutes out.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

LOL at the all the condescending tools in this thread that are convinced they are 100% correct but no one that has ever been paid to make these decisions agrees with them.

After reading The Hidden Game of Football in the mid '80s I became convinced that going for fourth and short was always the best option. Saw the fake punt on the 10 or so in a playoff game and was raked over the coals defending the play even though it failed. At that time no NFL coach went for fourth and short except on a few places on the field and game situations. Then at the beginning of the '90's Bill Parcell started following the strategy of almost always going for it as did one of his students. Most of the rest of the NFL stuck by the book. Which group has been more successful?

 

[Sam Quentin]

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Basically, there are a couple scenarios that can play out. One gives you an extra chance that the other does not.

If you kick the XP after the first TD, the following scenarios are left:

- Score one more TD, make the 2-pointer, tie game

- Score one more TD, miss the 2-pointer, you lose

If you go for two after the first TD

- Make the 2, score one more TD, tie game

- Miss the 2, score twice more, win the game

- Miss the 2, score only one TD, you lose

The bolded scenario is the only one that's different. The others are just the same thing, but in a different order. So going for 2 first allots you one more opportunity to win that kicking the XP does not. It is likely a low percentage shot, but isn't 5% better than 0%?

Mathematically (all emotion/momentum taken out) there is no argument to kick the XP first. Clearly, math favors going for two first. So, the question becomes whether you think the probability that you're more likely to convert the 2-pointer after the second TD than after the first TD due to a little bit more momentum is greater than the chance that you score twice more after the first TD.

Personally, I don't see how that somewhat meager change in momentum is going to have a huge affect on whether or not you convert the 2 pointer.

 

[Warsteinner]

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.

 

[TheChairman]

If you kick the XP after the first TD, the following scenarios are left:- Score one more TD, make the 2-pointer, tie game- Score one more TD, miss the 2-pointer, you lose

You forgot:- Score twice more, win the gameThere is no reason to assume you will only score a touchdown with 10 seconds left if you kick the XP first.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

No it isn't. If you read through the entire thread, you'll see that there are subjective reasons why some could argue in favor of kicking the PAT first. I still think they're wrong, but those are more subtle and debatable points.

But the post VaTerp made is objectively, demonstratively incorrect. It's exactly the kind of logic failure that has been exposed countless times already, yet new people keep showing up and making this same flawed argument.

 

[VaTerp]

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.

No it isn't. If you read through the entire thread, you'll see that there are subjective reasons why some could argue in favor of kicking the PAT first. I still think they're wrong, but those are more subtle and debatable points.

But the post VaTerp made is objectively, demonstratively incorrect. It's exactly the kind of logic failure that has been exposed countless times already, yet new people keep showing up and making this same flawed argument.

How is it not a one possession game? How is it objectively and demonstrativelty incorrect? If you go for 2 and miss it the first time, you are down 9. You MUST have two possessions to have a chance to extend the game with offensive scores. If you are down 8, you only need 1 possession to have a chance to extend the game with an offensive score. This is correct, objectively and demonstratively.

If you go for 2 down 15 and don't get it then you have put yourself in a situation where you MUST (w/ the exception of a defensive score) have 2 offensive possesions to extend the game. So if you only get 1 more offensive possession the rest of the game you are giving your team no chance to win.

You can disagree all you want and talk about a false concept of delayed knowledge but as a coach I will always minimize the number of possessions needed to extend a game AT THAT POINT in the game.

 

[Sam Quentin]

down 9 with 7 minutes left and the XP attempt pending, there is 60% chance it will be a two possesion game regardless of when you attempt the two.

Personally, I'd rather know now so I can fix it in the 60% scenario and I have the option of going for the win in the 40% scenario

 

[CalBear]

I am just saying that there isn't much to be gained by going for the conversion early(just your knowledge that the game is most likely over), and why give yourself the possibility of being out of the game at the 7:00 mark when you don't have to. Play your seven minutes out.

Your boss has two envelopes, Envelope A and Envelope B. Envelope A has a $1,000 Christmas bonus. Envelope B has either a $10,000 Christmas bonus, or a pink slip. You must open one of the envelopes today, and one on Christmas Eve. Which envelope do you open first?

 

[Jersey35]

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.

No it isn't. If you read through the entire thread, you'll see that there are subjective reasons why some could argue in favor of kicking the PAT first. I still think they're wrong, but those are more subtle and debatable points.

But the post VaTerp made is objectively, demonstratively incorrect. It's exactly the kind of logic failure that has been exposed countless times already, yet new people keep showing up and making this same flawed argument.

How is it not a one possession game? How is it objectively and demonstrativelty incorrect? If you go for 2 and miss it the first time, you are down 9. You MUST have two possessions to have a chance to extend the game with offensive scores. If you are down 8, you only need 1 possession to have a chance to extend the game with an offensive score. This is correct, objectively and demonstratively.

If you go for 2 down 15 and don't get it then you have put yourself in a situation where you MUST (w/ the exception of a defensive score) have 2 offensive possesions to extend the game. So if you only get 1 more offensive possession the rest of the game you are giving your team no chance to win.

You can disagree all you want and talk about a false concept of delayed knowledge but as a coach I will always minimize the number of possessions needed to extend a game AT THAT POINT in the game.

Whenever you miss the conversion you've added one more score. It doesn't matter if you miss it at the 7 minute mark or at the 2 minute mark.Wouldn't you rather know you need that additional score earlier to more effectively manage the time you have remaining? If you are driving for the potential tie anytime near the end of the game, any coach worth their salt will be trying to tie it with as little time remaining as possible - to prevent the other team from having the opportunity to drive for the win before overtime.

In doing so, however, they are operating counter to the strategy they need to use if they miss the conversion - which would be to conserve time.

You see, the strategy for the trailing team is the EXACT OPPOSITE if they miss the conversion or make the conversion. In going for it early, they avoid the catastrophic possibility of actually working against themselves for up to the seven minutes remaining in the game.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

How is it not a one possession game? How is it objectively and demonstrativelty incorrect? If you go for 2 and miss it the first time, you are down 9. You MUST have two possessions to have a chance to extend the game with offensive scores. If you are down 8, you only need 1 possession to have a chance to extend the game with an offensive score. This is correct, objectively and demonstratively.If you go for 2 down 15 and don't get it then you have put yourself in a situation where you MUST (w/ the exception of a defensive score) have 2 offensive possesions to extend the game. So if you only get 1 more offensive possession the rest of the game you are giving your team no chance to win.You can disagree all you want and talk about a false concept of delayed knowledge but as a coach I will always minimize the number of possessions needed to extend a game AT THAT POINT in the game.

There are literally dozens of posts in this thread that explain in great detail what's wrong with this post. It might benefit you to read through them all. In short, the number of possessions needed is the same whether you go for 2 on the first TD or on the second TD. The only real question is when you'd rather find out what that number is - with 7:00 left, or at some point later in the game.

 

[Sam Quentin]

c'mon IE, everybody know that if you go for two then you automatically are going to miss and make it a two possession game, whereas, if you kick, you can take the two point converison as granted and deem it a one possession game. 1<2. QED.

 

[jackdubl]

I am just saying that there isn't much to be gained by going for the conversion early(just your knowledge that the game is most likely over), and why give yourself the possibility of being out of the game at the 7:00 mark when you don't have to. Play your seven minutes out.

Your boss has two envelopes, Envelope A and Envelope B. Envelope A has a $1,000 Christmas bonus. Envelope B has either a $10,000 Christmas bonus, or a pink slip. You must open one of the envelopes today, and one on Christmas Eve. Which envelope do you open first?

Uh, which do you open if Envelope A has a $9,000 bonus?

 

[Warsteinner]

How is it not a one possession game? How is it objectively and demonstrativelty incorrect?

If you go for 2 and miss it the first time, you are down 9. You MUST have two possessions to have a chance to extend the game with offensive scores. If you are down 8, you only need 1 possession to have a chance to extend the game with an offensive score. This is correct, objectively and demonstratively.

If you go for 2 down 15 and don't get it then you have put yourself in a situation where you MUST (w/ the exception of a defensive score) have 2 offensive possesions to extend the game. So if you only get 1 more offensive possession the rest of the game you are giving your team no chance to win.

You can disagree all you want and talk about a false concept of delayed knowledge but as a coach I will always minimize the number of possessions needed to extend a game AT THAT POINT in the game.

There are literally dozens of posts in this thread that explain in great detail what's wrong with this post. It might benefit you to read through them all. In short, the number of possessions needed is the same whether you go for 2 on the first TD or on the second TD. The only real question is when you'd rather find out what that number is - with 7:00 left, or at some point later in the game.

No.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

How is it not a one possession game? How is it objectively and demonstrativelty incorrect?

If you go for 2 and miss it the first time, you are down 9. You MUST have two possessions to have a chance to extend the game with offensive scores. If you are down 8, you only need 1 possession to have a chance to extend the game with an offensive score. This is correct, objectively and demonstratively.

If you go for 2 down 15 and don't get it then you have put yourself in a situation where you MUST (w/ the exception of a defensive score) have 2 offensive possesions to extend the game. So if you only get 1 more offensive possession the rest of the game you are giving your team no chance to win.

You can disagree all you want and talk about a false concept of delayed knowledge but as a coach I will always minimize the number of possessions needed to extend a game AT THAT POINT in the game.

There are literally dozens of posts in this thread that explain in great detail what's wrong with this post. It might benefit you to read through them all. In short, the number of possessions needed is the same whether you go for 2 on the first TD or on the second TD. The only real question is when you'd rather find out what that number is - with 7:00 left, or at some point later in the game.

No.

If you believe I'm wrong, feel free to go ahead and explain why.

 

[CalBear]

I am just saying that there isn't much to be gained by going for the conversion early(just your knowledge that the game is most likely over), and why give yourself the possibility of being out of the game at the 7:00 mark when you don't have to. Play your seven minutes out.

Your boss has two envelopes, Envelope A and Envelope B. Envelope A has a $1,000 Christmas bonus. Envelope B has either a $10,000 Christmas bonus, or a pink slip. You must open one of the envelopes today, and one on Christmas Eve. Which envelope do you open first?

Uh, which do you open if Envelope A has a $9,000 bonus?

I open Envelope B no matter how big the Envelope A bonus is. I'd rather know as early as I can whether I'm getting a big bonus or a pink slip. The earlier I get the bad news, the more time I have to do something about it. And if it turns out to be good news, that's great.

 

[VaTerp]

How is it not a one possession game? How is it objectively and demonstrativelty incorrect?

If you go for 2 and miss it the first time, you are down 9. You MUST have two possessions to have a chance to extend the game with offensive scores. If you are down 8, you only need 1 possession to have a chance to extend the game with an offensive score. This is correct, objectively and demonstratively.

If you go for 2 down 15 and don't get it then you have put yourself in a situation where you MUST (w/ the exception of a defensive score) have 2 offensive possesions to extend the game. So if you only get 1 more offensive possession the rest of the game you are giving your team no chance to win.

You can disagree all you want and talk about a false concept of delayed knowledge but as a coach I will always minimize the number of possessions needed to extend a game AT THAT POINT in the game.

There are literally dozens of posts in this thread that explain in great detail what's wrong with this post. It might benefit you to read through them all. In short, the number of possessions needed is the same whether you go for 2 on the first TD or on the second TD. The only real question is when you'd rather find out what that number is - with 7:00 left, or at some point later in the game.

No, it really wouldn't benefit me and I'm not going to go back through 14 pages of this thread. And if you don't care to explain in further detail again that's fine by me. I think I get the crux of the argument and completely disagree. There is nothing in my post that is incorrect or a "logical failure."The number of possessions is not the same if you are down 8 or 9. Down 8 you have a CHANCE to tie with one possession. Down 9 you have NO CHANCE to tie with one possession. PERIOD. That's really all I consider as a coach because I may only get 1 more offensive possession and I am going to take my chances on going for 2 then in case I do in fact, only get 1 more offensive possession.

So despite this logically flawed concept of "delayed knowledge" I am going to, to the greatest extent possible, minizmize the number of possessions needed to extend the game AT THAT POINT in the game.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I am just saying that there isn't much to be gained by going for the conversion early(just your knowledge that the game is most likely over), and why give yourself the possibility of being out of the game at the 7:00 mark when you don't have to. Play your seven minutes out.

Your boss has two envelopes, Envelope A and Envelope B. Envelope A has a $1,000 Christmas bonus. Envelope B has either a $10,000 Christmas bonus, or a pink slip. You must open one of the envelopes today, and one on Christmas Eve. Which envelope do you open first?

I didn't think the thread could get any worse until this post.

 

[Jersey35]

How is it not a one possession game? How is it objectively and demonstrativelty incorrect?

If you go for 2 and miss it the first time, you are down 9. You MUST have two possessions to have a chance to extend the game with offensive scores. If you are down 8, you only need 1 possession to have a chance to extend the game with an offensive score. This is correct, objectively and demonstratively.

If you go for 2 down 15 and don't get it then you have put yourself in a situation where you MUST (w/ the exception of a defensive score) have 2 offensive possesions to extend the game. So if you only get 1 more offensive possession the rest of the game you are giving your team no chance to win.

You can disagree all you want and talk about a false concept of delayed knowledge but as a coach I will always minimize the number of possessions needed to extend a game AT THAT POINT in the game.

There are literally dozens of posts in this thread that explain in great detail what's wrong with this post. It might benefit you to read through them all. In short, the number of possessions needed is the same whether you go for 2 on the first TD or on the second TD. The only real question is when you'd rather find out what that number is - with 7:00 left, or at some point later in the game.

No, it really wouldn't benefit me and I'm not going to go back through 14 pages of this thread. And if you don't care to explain in further detail again that's fine by me. I think I get the crux of the argument and completely disagree. There is nothing in my post that is incorrect or a "logical failure."The number of possessions is not the same if you are down 8 or 9. Down 8 you have a CHANCE to tie with one possession. Down 9 you have NO CHANCE to tie with one possession. PERIOD. That's really all I consider as a coach because I may only get 1 more offensive possession and I am going to take my chances on going for 2 then in case I do in fact, only get 1 more offensive possession.

So despite this logically flawed concept of "delayed knowledge" I am going to, to the greatest extent possible, minizmize the number of possessions needed to extend the game AT THAT POINT in the game.

So... just to make sure we're on the same page:You're saying if one goes for the conversion early, they're automatically down 9. Whereas, if they go for the conversion after the 2nd TD, they'll make it.

Riiiight...

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There is nothing in my post that is incorrect or a "logical failure."

Obviously you don't think so - otherwise you never would have made the post in the first place. But you're wrong. You are making the same exact logical errors that a lot of posters made earlier in the thread (it's also been pointed out numerous times that this error is a well-documented part of human nature, so you shouldn't feel bad about it). But it's been explained many times already, which is why it might benefit you to read through the all the other times it was brought up earlier in the thread.

 

[Sam Quentin]

How is it not a one possession game? How is it objectively and demonstrativelty incorrect?

If you go for 2 and miss it the first time, you are down 9. You MUST have two possessions to have a chance to extend the game with offensive scores. If you are down 8, you only need 1 possession to have a chance to extend the game with an offensive score. This is correct, objectively and demonstratively.

If you go for 2 down 15 and don't get it then you have put yourself in a situation where you MUST (w/ the exception of a defensive score) have 2 offensive possesions to extend the game. So if you only get 1 more offensive possession the rest of the game you are giving your team no chance to win.

You can disagree all you want and talk about a false concept of delayed knowledge but as a coach I will always minimize the number of possessions needed to extend a game AT THAT POINT in the game.

There are literally dozens of posts in this thread that explain in great detail what's wrong with this post. It might benefit you to read through them all. In short, the number of possessions needed is the same whether you go for 2 on the first TD or on the second TD. The only real question is when you'd rather find out what that number is - with 7:00 left, or at some point later in the game.

No, it really wouldn't benefit me and I'm not going to go back through 14 pages of this thread. And if you don't care to explain in further detail again that's fine by me. I think I get the crux of the argument and completely disagree. There is nothing in my post that is incorrect or a "logical failure."The number of possessions is not the same if you are down 8 or 9. Down 8 you have a CHANCE to tie with one possession. Down 9 you have NO CHANCE to tie with one possession. PERIOD. That's really all I consider as a coach because I may only get 1 more offensive possession and I am going to take my chances on going for 2 then in case I do in fact, only get 1 more offensive possession.

So despite this logically flawed concept of "delayed knowledge" I am going to, to the greatest extent possible, minizmize the number of possessions needed to extend the game AT THAT POINT in the game.

But if I'm down 7, and get a TD, I have like A 98% chance of tying the game which is better than your 40% CHANCE.