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

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So are you also saying that teams down 9 are not more likely to win than teams down 8 as well?

Of course they're not. Being down by 8 is clearly preferable to being down by 9.ETA: Assuming they play with the correct strategy, of course. The fact that teams with 9-point deficits have fared better, historically, than teams with 8-point deficits, implies that teams with 8-point deficits are doing something wrong.

But if given the choice, I'll always take an 8-point deficit over a 9-point deficit. More generally, if given the choice, I'll always take an n-point deficit over an (n+1) point deficit.

 

[CalBear]

Hypothetical:You are down 23 at the start of the 4th quarter and score a TD on the first play. Do you not kick the PAT OR go for 2 because the chart shows that you are more likely to win a 17 pt game than a 15 or 16 pt game?

As Ignoracio points out, you're not more likely to win a 17 point game than a 15 or 16 point game, if you play the game the same way. The reason teams win 17 point games more often (I assert) is that they play like they'll need three possessions. Down 15 or 16, teams play like they only need two possessions, when they will need three most of the time.Down 23 and scoring at the beginning of the fourth, I go for two. I might need three possessions (three TDs and two 2-point conversions), and if I'm going to need four, I want to know that as soon as possible. If I make it, I'm down 15, and if I score again, I go for it again, for reasons stated ad nauseum in this thread.

 

[Snotbubbles]

If you're Washington, you go for 2 in every situation.

 

[CalBear]

I think another reason why "down by 8/11/15" teams lose more often is that coaches are not properly discounting the cost of OT. If you're down 9 in the fourth quarter, you are very unlikely to tie; you'll win or you'll lose. If you're down by 8, you can tie. A team down by 9 will aggressively try to score twice; a team down by 8 will often milk the clock and hope for OT. But you lose half the time in OT, so if your likelihood of scoring again is greater than 50%, playing for OT is a losing proposition.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Hypothetical:You are down 23 at the start of the 4th quarter and score a TD on the first play. Do you not kick the PAT OR go for 2 because the chart shows that you are more likely to win a 17 pt game than a 15 or 16 pt game?

As Ignoracio points out, you're not more likely to win a 17 point game than a 15 or 16 point game, if you play the game the same way. The reason teams win 17 point games more often (I assert) is that they play like they'll need three possessions. Down 15 or 16, teams play like they only need two possessions, when they will need three most of the time.Down 23 and scoring at the beginning of the fourth, I go for two. I might need three possessions (three TDs and two 2-point conversions), and if I'm going to need four, I want to know that as soon as possible. If I make it, I'm down 15, and if I score again, I go for it again, for reasons stated ad nauseum in this thread.

So really, the best play then is to kick the PAT since the expected value is greater than going for 2 but then coach as if you still need 2 possessions.

 

[sn0mm1s]

I think another reason why "down by 8/11/15" teams losing more often is that coaches are not properly discounting the cost of OT. If you're down 9 in the fourth quarter, you are very unlikely to tie; you'll win or you'll lose. If you're down by 8, you can tie. A team down by 9 will aggressively to score twice; a team down by 8 will often milk the clock and hope for OT. But you lose half the time in OT, so if your likelihood of scoring again is greater than 50%, playing for OT is a losing proposition.

I was originally going to mention this. PFR had an article addressing something like this a few years ago.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So really, the best play then is to kick the PAT since the expected value is greater than going for 2 but then coach as if you still need 2 possessions.

But you typically don't want to coach as if you still need two possessions if you only need one. Late in a game, when time becomes an increasingly important factor, the importance of the expected value of individual plays decreases (just like in humpback's poker analogy). If you're down by 4 points with two seconds left, at your opponent's 18 yard line, a field goal attempt probably has higher expected value than throwing into the endzone. That doesn't mean it's the right play. What we need to look at is some kind of utility function for our actions late in a game. A PAT might have higher EV than a 2-pt conversion, but when you need a 2-pt conversion that doesn't matter.

 

[TheChairman]

So really, the best play then is to kick the PAT since the expected value is greater than going for 2 but then coach as if you still need 2 possessions.

Not really. If you kick the PAT, and play like 2 possessions, you run the risk of tying the game quickly with a successful 2 point conversion if you score a TD. Now you're kicking off to the other team leaving them the time you had planned to use for that extra possession. Now they get a no risk chance to win the game with a FG.You can manage whatever possessions you get so much better if you go for 2 first.

 

[rick6668]

Hypothetical:You are down 23 at the start of the 4th quarter and score a TD on the first play. Do you not kick the PAT OR go for 2 because the chart shows that you are more likely to win a 17 pt game than a 15 or 16 pt game?

As Ignoracio points out, you're not more likely to win a 17 point game than a 15 or 16 point game, if you play the game the same way. The reason teams win 17 point games more often (I assert) is that they play like they'll need three possessions. Down 15 or 16, teams play like they only need two possessions, when they will need three most of the time.Down 23 and scoring at the beginning of the fourth, I go for two. I might need three possessions (three TDs and two 2-point conversions), and if I'm going to need four, I want to know that as soon as possible. If I make it, I'm down 15, and if I score again, I go for it again, for reasons stated ad nauseum in this thread.

So really, the best play then is to kick the PAT since the expected value is greater than going for 2 but then coach as if you still need 2 possessions.

Except that if you score the TD and 2pt and tie the game and have played it like you need 2 possessions, you have likely left plenty of time on the clock for the other team to drive for the winning points. Being up 8 leaves you in the position of not knowing whether to leave clock for yourself or not to leave it for your opponent.

 

[humpback]

In the NFL, the odds of converting a 2 pter, or a 4th and 1, or anything else can't be known in advance- you can only estimate them using implied odds. Even if you could accurately calculate them, there would be times where the "smarter" play would be to go against those odds- a 4th and 1 on your own 15 yard line with 30 seconds to go in the half is a much different situation than a 4th and 1 from your opponents 35 yard line with 30 seconds to go in the half. Your odds of converting it should be roughly the same, so the math will tell you to make the same decision, but the risk/reward is entirely different.

The math, if done properly, includes calculation of expected value, which includes the value of risk and reward. You're missing the concept by a long, long way if you don't understand that.In fact, the trivial math says you should always kick the PAT, because the expected value of a PAT in terms of points is always higher than the expected value of a 2-point conversion. The properly done math includes the calculation of how likely it is that the number of points you get will contribute to winning the game.

I absolutely understand that, but I'm pretty sure many (not you) don't. I also understand that the calculation of expected value is only an estimation and will vary depending on who is giving the estimate- it is IMPOSSIBLE to definitively calculate it in advance.Obviously the poker analogy isn't a perfect one- I only brought it up to show that even when you have precise odds available like you would with that hypothetical, the optimal decision may actually run counter to those odds depending on the circumstances. We don't even have those precise odds available in football- the odds of the next 2 pt. conversion being successful are not 42% just because that has been the previous success rate for all conversions. They are an unknowable estimate.In this hypothetical, we've been given very little information- 7 minutes to play, scored a TD to be down 9, choice to kick the xp or go for 2. IMO, anyone who selected or argues that there is only 1 right answer either way (100% go for it or kick) is ignoring a great deal of important information to consider.We've wasted far too much time here. The reason I began posting this 2nd time around was to refute posts such as #649, saying "it's been mathematically proven that it is correct to go for the 2 pt. conversion". Sorry, as IE would say, that's just plain wrong. There are plenty of valid arguments we can debate about which direction you think you should go, and we have sprinkled some in amongst the noise, but this can not be proven with math.

 

[sn0mm1s]

So really, the best play then is to kick the PAT since the expected value is greater than going for 2 but then coach as if you still need 2 possessions.

But you typically don't want to coach as if you still need two possessions if you only need one. Late in a game, when time becomes an increasingly important factor, the importance of the expected value of individual plays decreases (just like in humpback's poker analogy). If you're down by 4 points with two seconds left, at your opponent's 18 yard line, a field goal attempt probably has higher expected value than throwing into the endzone. That doesn't mean it's the right play. What we need to look at is some kind of utility function for our actions late in a game. A PAT might have higher EV than a 2-pt conversion, but when you need a 2-pt conversion that doesn't matter.

Sure, but as I mentioned previously in this thread the opposing team gains that same knowledge. If the opposing team is using the same playbook the knowledge gain is a wash.The trailing team only benefits more than the winning team if they are using different coaching strats. I wouldn't be surprised that many teams up 9 later in the game should go for it on 4th down much more often than they do due to the likelihood of running out the clock.

In today's NFL, I would kick the PAT and play as if I still need 2 possessions and not worry about leaving too much time on the clock. I would prefer my opponent to play as if I need 1 possession. I think that type of play gives me the greater chance of getting the ball back with more time on the clock and that my chance for a turnover is greater. I think it is much greater mistake to try to time your tie/go ahead score unless it is a field goal. If you need a TD late your primary goal is to score the TD not try to time the clock perfectly.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If the opposing team is using the same playbook the knowledge gain is a wash.

You and a few others have made this point before, but I think it's pretty evidently not true. I don't even think it's close. But that'll be one of the points we just agree to disagree on.

 

[sn0mm1s]

So really, the best play then is to kick the PAT since the expected value is greater than going for 2 but then coach as if you still need 2 possessions.

Not really. If you kick the PAT, and play like 2 possessions, you run the risk of tying the game quickly with a successful 2 point conversion if you score a TD. Now you're kicking off to the other team leaving them the time you had planned to use for that extra possession. Now they get a no risk chance to win the game with a FG.You can manage whatever possessions you get so much better if you go for 2 first.

You need 2 defensive stops if you are down 9 as well. The only way this scenario matters is if the coach is trying to get cute and time the scoring of his TD - which is a stupid way to play. You can do that with FGs but not TDs.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Sure, but as I mentioned previously in this thread the opposing team gains that same knowledge. If the opposing team is using the same playbook the knowledge gain is a wash.The trailing team only benefits more than the winning team if they are using different coaching strats. I wouldn't be surprised that many teams up 9 later in the game should go for it on 4th down much more often than they do due to the likelihood of running out the clock.

Doesn't the 66 times kicked the PAT, 0 times went for two suggest that this would be a given? That the team going for two is playing the game with a different strategy than just about any other team? Just like the desperate team down 9 throws out "the book" and happens to use better risk versus reward strategy than they otherwise would against a team playing by "the book". Though one of the areas a few NFL teams are slowly getting away from the book by being more aggressive with a lead late in the game than they were in the past. At least it seems that way (though to be honest it could just be because I have seen fewer games the last few years than in the past.)

 

[sn0mm1s]

Sure, but as I mentioned previously in this thread the opposing team gains that same knowledge. If the opposing team is using the same playbook the knowledge gain is a wash.The trailing team only benefits more than the winning team if they are using different coaching strats. I wouldn't be surprised that many teams up 9 later in the game should go for it on 4th down much more often than they do due to the likelihood of running out the clock.

Doesn't the 66 times kicked the PAT, 0 times went for two suggest that this would be a given? That the team going for two is playing the game with a different strategy than just about any other team? Just like the desperate team down 9 throws out "the book" and happens to use better risk versus reward strategy than they otherwise would against a team playing by "the book". Though one of the areas a few NFL teams are slowly getting away from the book by being more aggressive with a lead late in the game than they were in the past. At least it seems that way (though to be honest it could just be because I have seen fewer games the last few years than in the past.)

Not really, because you don't know how the teams called their plays.I would want to be down 8 so that my entire playbook is open (or at least appears to be open) and play as if I am down 2 possessions. I might risk a run depending on how well my team is moving the ball but I really want play action open more than anything else. What I am hoping is that my opponent plays as if I am down only 1 possession.

 

[cvnpoka]

take your little poker hypothetical to a reputable poker forum and see what the reaction is.

pokerlolomg

well i guess its a matter of semantics. obv a poker player should factor all of those things into their decision and when you say "so the odds can be clearly and precisely calculated" to me that means more than just simple pot odds.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Sure, but as I mentioned previously in this thread the opposing team gains that same knowledge. If the opposing team is using the same playbook the knowledge gain is a wash.The trailing team only benefits more than the winning team if they are using different coaching strats. I wouldn't be surprised that many teams up 9 later in the game should go for it on 4th down much more often than they do due to the likelihood of running out the clock.

Doesn't the 66 times kicked the PAT, 0 times went for two suggest that this would be a given? That the team going for two is playing the game with a different strategy than just about any other team? Just like the desperate team down 9 throws out "the book" and happens to use better risk versus reward strategy than they otherwise would against a team playing by "the book". Though one of the areas a few NFL teams are slowly getting away from the book by being more aggressive with a lead late in the game than they were in the past. At least it seems that way (though to be honest it could just be because I have seen fewer games the last few years than in the past.)

Not really, because you don't know how the teams called their plays.I would want to be down 8 so that my entire playbook is open (or at least appears to be open) and play as if I am down 2 possessions. I might risk a run depending on how well my team is moving the ball but I really want play action open more than anything else. What I am hoping is that my opponent plays as if I am down only 1 possession.

Your second paragraph contradicts your first. You are saying that you want to be in a "one possession game" so you can more or less count on the opposing defense respecting the chance that you might run, but you on the other hand want to play out the game with the same desperation as if you were down 9. That is more or less fine, but you still have the problem that the opposing team has the ball and will likely play a bit more aggressively in this "one possession game" to keep the ball then they would in a "two possession game" where nothing you can do the next time you have the ball gets you the lead or a tie.But if you are arguing that going against the grain and "the book" is how you would play it because it gives you the better chance to win then you are mostly in agreement with the go for two first crowd, except that you are trying to disguise your strategy. I would reject this as a viable game plan, but that is just opinion and not something that can really be measured.

 

[jackdubl]

Let's settle this once and for all. I, jackdubl, have been convinced by the "go for two first" crowd that they are correct. I, who advocated going for two late, am now of the opinion that going for two early is, in fact, the statistically correct move in the case where you will most likely have one more possession in the game. That's not to say it's always the correct move in the real world; coaches in the heat of battle should have a better feel for the intangibles in the game than we viewers, and so there may be reasons why you wouldn't follow the probabilities. But, all things being equal, going for two early would seem to provide some clear advantages.

So: go for two first +1, go for two second -1...go for two first wins.

/thread

 

[TheChairman]

Let's settle this once and for all. I, jackdubl, have been convinced by the "go for two first" crowd that they are correct. I, who advocated going for two late, am now of the opinion that going for two early is, in fact, the statistically correct move in the case where you will most likely have one more possession in the game. That's not to say it's always the correct move in the real world; coaches in the heat of battle should have a better feel for the intangibles in the game than we viewers, and so there may be reasons why you wouldn't follow the probabilities. But, all things being equal, going for two early would seem to provide some clear advantages.So: go for two first +1, go for two second -1...go for two first wins./thread

I don't believe you are sincere.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Let's settle this once and for all. I, jackdubl, have been convinced by the "go for two first" crowd that they are correct. I, who advocated going for two late, am now of the opinion that going for two early is, in fact, the statistically correct move in the case where you will most likely have one more possession in the game. That's not to say it's always the correct move in the real world; coaches in the heat of battle should have a better feel for the intangibles in the game than we viewers, and so there may be reasons why you wouldn't follow the probabilities. But, all things being equal, going for two early would seem to provide some clear advantages.So: go for two first +1, go for two second -1...go for two first wins./thread

Welcome to the light.

 

[jackdubl]

Let's settle this once and for all. I, jackdubl, have been convinced by the "go for two first" crowd that they are correct. I, who advocated going for two late, am now of the opinion that going for two early is, in fact, the statistically correct move in the case where you will most likely have one more possession in the game. That's not to say it's always the correct move in the real world; coaches in the heat of battle should have a better feel for the intangibles in the game than we viewers, and so there may be reasons why you wouldn't follow the probabilities. But, all things being equal, going for two early would seem to provide some clear advantages.So: go for two first +1, go for two second -1...go for two first wins./thread

I don't believe you are sincere.

This is not . I am sincere. Was convinced a couple days ago, really.

 

[Jersey35]

So really, the best play then is to kick the PAT since the expected value is greater than going for 2 but then coach as if you still need 2 possessions.

But you typically don't want to coach as if you still need two possessions if you only need one. Late in a game, when time becomes an increasingly important factor, the importance of the expected value of individual plays decreases (just like in humpback's poker analogy). If you're down by 4 points with two seconds left, at your opponent's 18 yard line, a field goal attempt probably has higher expected value than throwing into the endzone. That doesn't mean it's the right play. What we need to look at is some kind of utility function for our actions late in a game. A PAT might have higher EV than a 2-pt conversion, but when you need a 2-pt conversion that doesn't matter.

Sure, but as I mentioned previously in this thread the opposing team gains that same knowledge. If the opposing team is using the same playbook the knowledge gain is a wash.The trailing team only benefits more than the winning team if they are using different coaching strats. I wouldn't be surprised that many teams up 9 later in the game should go for it on 4th down much more often than they do due to the likelihood of running out the clock.

In today's NFL, I would kick the PAT and play as if I still need 2 possessions and not worry about leaving too much time on the clock. I would prefer my opponent to play as if I need 1 possession. I think that type of play gives me the greater chance of getting the ball back with more time on the clock and that my chance for a turnover is greater. I think it is much greater mistake to try to time your tie/go ahead score unless it is a field goal. If you need a TD late your primary goal is to score the TD not try to time the clock perfectly.

Would love to get some input on this concept over here.

 

[cvnpoka]

arky just went for 2 first late in the 3rd. albeit they need a fg as well, dont think it changes things.

so down by 18, arky scored a td and went for 2.

 

[oukurt]

I have changed my tune on this. Some good arguments made for going for 2 early instead of waiting to the very end.

 

[CalBear]

Bumping this due to this related thread. If the Saints had gone for two and made it against the Packers on Thursday, they could have kicked off and tried to stop the Pack instead of trying an onsides kick with about 2:20 remaining.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Bumping this due to this related thread. If the Saints had gone for two and made it against the Packers on Thursday, they could have kicked off and tried to stop the Pack instead of trying an onsides kick with about 2:20 remaining.

Weird, I was just thinking about this thread the other day. I didn't see the end of the game on Thursday, had no idea that this situation came up in the 4th quarter. Just looking at the box score, they absolutely should have gone for two after the Graham TD.

 

[CalBear]

Tampa Bay just got this wrong after scoring with 5:43 left against New Orleans. We'll see what happens.

 

[jon_mx]

If I am a coach, the earlier I know I need one more possession, the better.

 

[Fensalk]

If you've ever led a large team of people, you know the most important thing is morale.

As Ra's Al Ghul said in Batman Begins, "the will is everything". You're down by 15, score a TD, and are down by 9 with 2 minutes to go. Your top priority is to maximize the will of your team. The worst thing that can happen to the will of your team at that point is to go for 2 and miss, because then you need 2 possessions. Therefore, you MUST kick the extra point to be down by one possession. That preserves the will of your team to execute the plan, that preserves their FOCUS.

This goes beyond statistics. This is about people's mental makeup. Mathematically, it makes sense to go for 2. But when you factor in human emotions, you obviously don't go for two.

Humans aren't robots. They don't perform at the same level when they are down by two scores with 2 minutes to go compared to one score. That saps their will.

 

[CalBear]

If you've ever led a large team of people, you know the most important thing is morale. As Ra's Al Ghul said in Batman Begins, "the will is everything". You're down by 15, score a TD, and are down by 9 with 2 minutes to go. Your top priority is to maximize the will of your team. The worst thing that can happen to the will of your team at that point is to go for 2 and miss, because then you need 2 possessions. Therefore, you MUST kick the extra point to be down by one possession. That preserves the will of your team to execute the plan, that preserves their FOCUS.

You're assuming you're going to miss the 2-point conversion. If you are going to miss the 2-point conversion, you will almost certainly lose if you don't go for it after the first TD.

 

[jon_mx]

If you've ever led a large team of people, you know the most important thing is morale. As Ra's Al Ghul said in Batman Begins, "the will is everything". You're down by 15, score a TD, and are down by 9 with 2 minutes to go. Your top priority is to maximize the will of your team. The worst thing that can happen to the will of your team at that point is to go for 2 and miss, because then you need 2 possessions. Therefore, you MUST kick the extra point to be down by one possession. That preserves the will of your team to execute the plan, that preserves their FOCUS.

You're assuming you're going to miss the 2-point conversion. If you are going to miss the 2-point conversion, you will almost certainly lose if you don't go for it after the first TD.

2 minutes to go is a completely different situation. Absolutely go for the 1 that late in the game when you know you will only have one more possession.

 

[Fensalk]

If you've ever led a large team of people, you know the most important thing is morale. As Ra's Al Ghul said in Batman Begins, "the will is everything". You're down by 15, score a TD, and are down by 9 with 2 minutes to go. Your top priority is to maximize the will of your team. The worst thing that can happen to the will of your team at that point is to go for 2 and miss, because then you need 2 possessions. Therefore, you MUST kick the extra point to be down by one possession. That preserves the will of your team to execute the plan, that preserves their FOCUS.

You're assuming you're going to miss the 2-point conversion. If you are going to miss the 2-point conversion, you will almost certainly lose if you don't go for it after the first TD.

I'm not assuming I'm going to miss. I'm just avoiding the possibility of being down by 2 possessions.

 

[Fensalk]

I meant 7 minutes not 2.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you've ever led a large team of people, you know the most important thing is morale. As Ra's Al Ghul said in Batman Begins, "the will is everything". You're down by 15, score a TD, and are down by 9 with 2 minutes to go. Your top priority is to maximize the will of your team. The worst thing that can happen to the will of your team at that point is to go for 2 and miss, because then you need 2 possessions. Therefore, you MUST kick the extra point to be down by one possession. That preserves the will of your team to execute the plan, that preserves their FOCUS.

You're assuming you're going to miss the 2-point conversion. If you are going to miss the 2-point conversion, you will almost certainly lose if you don't go for it after the first TD.

I'm not assuming I'm going to miss. I'm just avoiding the possibility of being down by 2 possessions.

Going for two now and missing would be bad.Going for two later and missing would very, very bad."What if you miss?" is an argument that favors going for two now instead of later.

 

[firstseason1988]

If you've ever led a large team of people, you know the most important thing is morale. As Ra's Al Ghul said in Batman Begins, "the will is everything". You're down by 15, score a TD, and are down by 9 with 2 minutes to go. Your top priority is to maximize the will of your team. The worst thing that can happen to the will of your team at that point is to go for 2 and miss, because then you need 2 possessions. Therefore, you MUST kick the extra point to be down by one possession. That preserves the will of your team to execute the plan, that preserves their FOCUS.

You're assuming you're going to miss the 2-point conversion. If you are going to miss the 2-point conversion, you will almost certainly lose if you don't go for it after the first TD.

I'm not assuming I'm going to miss. I'm just avoiding the possibility of being down by 2 possessions.

Going for two now and missing would be bad.Going for two later and missing would very, very bad."What if you miss?" is an argument that favors going for two now instead of later.

It would be very, very, very bad to miss now. Very bad to miss later. You got it backwards.If I am playing Madden, I go for 2, if I am coaching in NFL I go for one. The robots don't feel anything in Madden. I don't think

 

[dparker713]

If you've ever led a large team of people, you know the most important thing is morale. As Ra's Al Ghul said in Batman Begins, "the will is everything". You're down by 15, score a TD, and are down by 9 with 2 minutes to go. Your top priority is to maximize the will of your team. The worst thing that can happen to the will of your team at that point is to go for 2 and miss, because then you need 2 possessions. Therefore, you MUST kick the extra point to be down by one possession. That preserves the will of your team to execute the plan, that preserves their FOCUS.

You're assuming you're going to miss the 2-point conversion. If you are going to miss the 2-point conversion, you will almost certainly lose if you don't go for it after the first TD.

I'm not assuming I'm going to miss. I'm just avoiding the possibility of being down by 2 possessions.

Going for two now and missing would be bad.Going for two later and missing would very, very bad."What if you miss?" is an argument that favors going for two now instead of later.

It would be very, very, very bad to miss now. Very bad to miss later. You got it backwards.If I am playing Madden, I go for 2, if I am coaching in NFL I go for one. The robots don't feel anything in Madden. I don't think

One option allows you to adjust your strategy, the other option means you lose.You gain the same advantage as a team in college OT getting the ball second.

 

[SacramentoBob]

You go for two.

 

[firstseason1988]

If you've ever led a large team of people, you know the most important thing is morale. As Ra's Al Ghul said in Batman Begins, "the will is everything". You're down by 15, score a TD, and are down by 9 with 2 minutes to go. Your top priority is to maximize the will of your team. The worst thing that can happen to the will of your team at that point is to go for 2 and miss, because then you need 2 possessions. Therefore, you MUST kick the extra point to be down by one possession. That preserves the will of your team to execute the plan, that preserves their FOCUS.

You're assuming you're going to miss the 2-point conversion. If you are going to miss the 2-point conversion, you will almost certainly lose if you don't go for it after the first TD.

I'm not assuming I'm going to miss. I'm just avoiding the possibility of being down by 2 possessions.

Going for two now and missing would be bad.Going for two later and missing would very, very bad."What if you miss?" is an argument that favors going for two now instead of later.

It would be very, very, very bad to miss now. Very bad to miss later. You got it backwards.If I am playing Madden, I go for 2, if I am coaching in NFL I go for one. The robots don't feel anything in Madden. I don't think

One option allows you to adjust your strategy, the other option means you lose.You gain the same advantage as a team in college OT getting the ball second.

Maybe YOU would. But I would plan for the contingency of not making 2 pt conversion the 2nd time. Not sure why you wouldn't score as soon as you can in case you do in fact need another possession. The momentum, climbing mountain or a molehill factor is real. Some get offended by this, but it would be interesting to know how much of the "go for 2 first" people have played at a high level of sporting competition.Now saying this. I might change my thinking if the score became 65-56 and had that decision, I might go for 2 there... maybe, it would depend on the situation... but mostly I go for 1 first, especially if it were 15-6.

 

[Fensalk]

If you've ever led a large team of people, you know the most important thing is morale. As Ra's Al Ghul said in Batman Begins, "the will is everything". You're down by 15, score a TD, and are down by 9 with 2 minutes to go. Your top priority is to maximize the will of your team. The worst thing that can happen to the will of your team at that point is to go for 2 and miss, because then you need 2 possessions. Therefore, you MUST kick the extra point to be down by one possession. That preserves the will of your team to execute the plan, that preserves their FOCUS.

You're assuming you're going to miss the 2-point conversion. If you are going to miss the 2-point conversion, you will almost certainly lose if you don't go for it after the first TD.

I'm not assuming I'm going to miss. I'm just avoiding the possibility of being down by 2 possessions.

Going for two now and missing would be bad.Going for two later and missing would very, very bad."What if you miss?" is an argument that favors going for two now instead of later.

My argument is going for two and missing after TD #1 would be the worst because you will annihilate team morale for the rest of the game. Avoiding that trumps concerns about going for two later and missing. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how to manage a large group of people.

 

[PainTrain]

Without a 2PAT+1PAT or a FG you will lose.

You need three scores to at least tie:

#1--you get a TD

#2--You get another TD

#3--You get a 2PAT&1PAT (tie) OR a FG (win, provided you make at least 1PAT)

So you go for 2PAT first:

BEST CASE (2PAT success): with 1 SCORE, a TD+1PAT ties; 2 SCORES win

WORST CASE (2PAT fail): with 2 SCORES, a TD & FG win

IF you go for 1PAT first:

BEST CASE (1PAT success): with 2 SCORES, TD+2PAT tie; or TD+FG win

WORST CASE (TD + 2PAT fail): additional scoring drive (FG) required

Best case scenarios gives a big advantage to 2PAT success, of course.

Worst case scenarios give an advantage to 2PAT fail first, because your subsequent drive has the flexibility of being a FG or TD drive. If you attempt 1PAT first, you must strike for the end zone (or your previous 2PAT opportunity was 100% wasted), and THEN you must regain possession and kick a FG.

So you compare the worst case scenario for going for 2PAT first, against the best case, going for 1PAT first, the difference is that having kicked your 1PAT already, you get one free to attempt at a 2PAT play after your second TD for a tying score before you kickoff.

Given those options, I give a BIG edge to going for two right away.

 

[hutchins929]

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.

Well, since "knowledge is power" and the majority disagree with your argument as to what should be the "obvious answer". We must all be morons!

 

[bonesman]

If your QB is Aaron Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning or one of these type of guys... and you just marched down the field and are totally in synch... I can see the argument of going for 2 now.

If you're Tampa Bay today and have been out of synch and a PI put you on the goalline and that's how you scored, I think you take the PAT and preserve morale.

 

[ThePittbully]

I think the morale dump if you don't get it is enough of a deterrent to wait on going for it

 

[CalBear]

I think the morale dump if you don't get it is enough of a deterrent to wait on going for it

What will the morale dump be if you score two TDs and then don't get it?

 

[Fensalk]

I think the morale dump if you don't get it is enough of a deterrent to wait on going for it

What will the morale dump be if you score two TDs and then don't get it?

Depends on how much time is left, if I have all my timeouts, if the 2 minute warning is still there, etc.

 

[snorlax]

I think the results of this poll might say more about the collective intelligence of the Shark Pool more than anything else. I wonder if people even read some of the arguments they're making.

 

[Jersey35]

I think the results of this poll might say more about the collective intelligence of the Shark Pool more than anything else. I wonder if people even read some of the arguments they're making.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

If you've ever led a large team of people, you know the most important thing is morale. As Ra's Al Ghul said in Batman Begins, "the will is everything". You're down by 15, score a TD, and are down by 9 with 2 minutes to go. Your top priority is to maximize the will of your team. The worst thing that can happen to the will of your team at that point is to go for 2 and miss, because then you need 2 possessions. Therefore, you MUST kick the extra point to be down by one possession. That preserves the will of your team to execute the plan, that preserves their FOCUS.

You're assuming you're going to miss the 2-point conversion. If you are going to miss the 2-point conversion, you will almost certainly lose if you don't go for it after the first TD.

I'm not assuming I'm going to miss. I'm just avoiding the possibility of being down by 2 possessions.

Going for two now and missing would be bad.Going for two later and missing would very, very bad."What if you miss?" is an argument that favors going for two now instead of later.

My argument is going for two and missing after TD #1 would be the worst because you will annihilate team morale for the rest of the game. Avoiding that trumps concerns about going for two later and missing. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how to manage a large group of people.

Do we get any moral boost by making the 2-pt conversion early compared to just kicking the extra point? After all, we are palpably close to winning down 7 than down 8 and we have crossed another hurdle. If so, since we need to have a lot of things go our way we cannot pass on a chance to get an extra morale boost. Or do you maintain that kicking the extra point gets the whole morale boost and there is no more to be had by making the 2-pt conversion? And if so, how do you know this? Why is it that 8 is the number and the number shall be 8 where morale boost reaches its maximum? I don't buy into this morale boost BS but if you believe it, it still argues for going for the 2-pt conversion early.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

Well, since "knowledge is power" and the majority disagree with your argument as to what should be the "obvious answer". We must all be morons!

Pretty much.

 

[AB in DC]

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.

Well, since "knowledge is power" and the majority disagree with your argument as to what should be the "obvious answer". We must all be morons!

If knowledge is power, then it helps the opposing team just as much as it helps your team.That's the fatal flaw in the "go for it first" argument. If you're going to adjust your strategy based on "knowledge", then so can the other team.