Iowa's 2-pt conversion woes.

G

Grady

Well-Known Member
I'm sure y'all are tired of me bitching about Iowa handling 2-pt conversions like nuclear waste, so I will share the following info and then never speak of them again. Chad L. posted an article today about the issue, with some facts. Over the last 9 seasons, Iowa is 4 for 21 in 2-pt conversions, for 19%. (The national average during the 2024 season was 48%.) Since Lester took the offensive reins, the Hawks are 0-6. The kicker? Gronowski said this week that Iowa "doesn't really practice 2-pt conversions." They simply use other typical Red Zone short yardage plays -- as if 3rd and 4 on the 15 yd line is the same as a 2-pt conversion from the 3.

For a team that consistently is in close games where every 2-pt conversion potentially makes a difference between winning and losing -- I don't even know how to respond to that info.
 


The last successful 2-pt. conversion was 2020. If you are going to nitpick Lester, it would be for the following 2 things: scripted plays at the beginning of game and play calling on 2 pt. conversions.
 


Grady said:
I'm sure y'all are tired of me bitching about Iowa handling 2-pt conversions like nuclear waste, so I will share the following info and then never speak of them again...
Click to expand...
Message boards thrive on nuclear waste shit posts...have to feed the trolls and give people something to complain about.

Allowed...
 


Would practicing specific 2 point conversion plays make a difference? Not being dumb, but as someone who didn't play football I'd assume a team would spend a ton of time working on redzone and goal line/short yardage plays. What would be the difference/benefit of focusing specifically on 2 point conversions if your essentially working on the same plays in your redzone or goal line offense?
 


kicker22 said:
Would practicing specific 2 point conversion plays make a difference? Not being dumb, but as someone who didn't play football I'd assume a team would spend a ton of time working on redzone and goal line/short yardage plays. What would be the difference/benefit of focusing specifically on 2 point conversions if your essentially working on the same plays in your redzone or goal line offense?
Click to expand...
The article he refers to talks a little bit about that. The difference between regular red zone plays and 2 point conversion plays is you have very little space behind the defense. There isn't a lot of room to work with as a receiver. Also, just another difference is that in the NFL the 2 point conversion comes from the 2 yard line, in college it is placed on the 3 yard line.
 


haydensly said:
The article he refers to talks a little bit about that. The difference between regular red zone plays and 2 point conversion plays is you have very little space behind the defense. There isn't a lot of room to work with as a receiver. Also, just another difference is that in the NFL the 2 point conversion comes from the 2 yard line, in college it is placed on the 3 yard line.
Click to expand...
I get the difference between a regular redzone play and a conversion but when working on your goal line or those redzone plays where you're specifically around the goal line I don't think there'd be much difference. I'd think a coach would intentionally run plays that they'd use for a 2 pt. conversion in those same situations without really emphasizing it a a two point conversion specific play. Similar to field goals being kicked from around the same distance as an extra point. I don't think you'd specifically tailor it toward one specific scenario and then turn around a focus on the other scenario. If that makes sense?
 


kicker22 said:
Would practicing specific 2 point conversion plays make a difference? Not being dumb, but as someone who didn't play football I'd assume a team would spend a ton of time working on redzone and goal line/short yardage plays. What would be the difference/benefit of focusing specifically on 2 point conversions if your essentially working on the same plays in your redzone or goal line offense?
Click to expand...
haydensly said:
The article he refers to talks a little bit about that. The difference between regular red zone plays and 2 point conversion plays is you have very little space behind the defense. There isn't a lot of room to work with as a receiver. Also, just another difference is that in the NFL the 2 point conversion comes from the 2 yard line, in college it is placed on the 3 yard line.
Click to expand...
This is where I think it's worth NIL money and a roster spot to have a specialist for that like a Luka Garza size guy to get a jump ball to.

22 personnel from the shotgun with both backs being large-bodies or even backup o-linemen. If they bring the house its a quick jump ball in the corner, 10 feet in the air with enough blocking for the 3 seconds you need to get rid of the ball. Gonna draw a TON of PI doing that too.

If they don't bring the house you pick a predetermined side and plow a hole. Defense has a 50/50 to which side you're going.

Even if you get the success rate to 55% it's worth the money.
 


Grady said:
I'm sure y'all are tired of me bitching about Iowa handling 2-pt conversions like nuclear waste, so I will share the following info and then never speak of them again. Chad L. posted an article today about the issue, with some facts. Over the last 9 seasons, Iowa is 4 for 21 in 2-pt conversions, for 19%. (The national average during the 2024 season was 48%.) Since Lester took the offensive reins, the Hawks are 0-6. The kicker? Gronowski said this week that Iowa "doesn't really practice 2-pt conversions." They simply use other typical Red Zone short yardage plays -- as if 3rd and 4 on the 15 yd line is the same as a 2-pt conversion from the 3.

For a team that consistently is in close games where every 2-pt conversion potentially makes a difference between winning and losing -- I don't even know how to respond to that info.
Click to expand...

Did he mention distribution of type of plays called across this 4/21 stretch? How many runs vs. passes? Passes in the pocket vs. outside?
 


CP87 said:
Did he mention distribution of type of plays called across this 4/21 stretch? How many runs vs. passes? Passes in the pocket vs. outside?
Click to expand...
No...altho I think he mentioned all of Lester's attempts have been passes.
I can't imagine a roster better suited for 2-pt conversions than Iowa's current offensive team: an outstanding OLine, a power running QB, two 6'5" WRs they can put on the field at the same time, a couple strong RBs, and a quick slot back in Wetjen. I mean, if you can't be successful with that group, that's a coaching problem.
 


In my opinion, for a program that lives in the margins and tries to squeeze every possible advantage from special teams, hidden yardage, etc., it's hard to believe they don't specifically practice two point conversions. It's a very real scenario they face several times a season, usually with the outcome of the game on the line.

And Iowa actually seems fairly well equipped it for this season. I don't understand why every two point attempt wouldn't be some type of option/bootleg with Gronowski, where he was a threat to run the ball. Having a powerful, nimble, fast runner at QB is about the hardest thing to defend on 2 point conversions.
 


@99topdawg is a football coach, dial us up your honest to god best 3 yard play with 13 yards to work with, with Iowa's current roster.

It doesn't matter if you're a defense guy...game is on the line and you teleported to the Iowa press box with your mortgage, bank account, and IPERS account on the line.
 


Iowa has the functional equivalent of two very good two point plays with its two touchdowns (short pass in the flat to the TE and Gron running it in). Both were snapped from the 2. It doesn't matter what you call it in practice. Every team practices their offense at the goal line. So, that is a uninteresting point to suggest otherwise.

I was very disappointed in the play call for the 2 pointer there. To drop a QB back who is not an accurate passer or great reader of the field, and ask him to pick out a target in a very truncated area of the field and deliver a ball on time and in place was a really low percentage call.

I would have preferred a jump ball to Van Der Zee, or dial back up that jump pass play that was executed poorly earlier in the game, or just call a power running play to the outside for Gron. Anything but what was called. And yes, I was screaming that at the TV before the ball was snapped. "Don't call a drop back or roll out!!!"
 


kicker22 said:
I get the difference between a regular redzone play and a conversion but when working on your goal line or those redzone plays where you're specifically around the goal line I don't think there'd be much difference. I'd think a coach would intentionally run plays that they'd use for a 2 pt. conversion in those same situations without really emphasizing it a a two point conversion specific play. Similar to field goals being kicked from around the same distance as an extra point. I don't think you'd specifically tailor it toward one specific scenario and then turn around a focus on the other scenario. If that makes sense?
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying but I still disagree. That's because we are a pretty high functioning team in the red zone. We aren't close to that on 2 point conversions. I just think we need a better approach, i.e. specific plays that we work on.

Kirk did say in his presser this week that the best 2 point play they had was the one that Gronowski ran in for the TD. So they are at least giving it some thought. How about 1 or 2 more?
 


haydensly said:
I get what you're saying but I still disagree. That's because we are a pretty high functioning team in the red zone. We aren't close to that on 2 point conversions. I just think we need a better approach, i.e. specific plays that we work on.

Kirk did say in his presser this week that the best 2 point play they had was the one that Gronowski ran in for the TD. So they are at least giving it some thought. How about 1 or 2 more?
Click to expand...
I hear you, but that's the confusing part to me. How do we function well offensively when the field shrinks in the redzone specifically around the goal line but struggle so much on conversions. Surely we'd know what our best plays were from the three yard line. I get there's extra pressure involved as it's a single play, but it's mind blowing.
 


A two-point try is essentially a 4th and goal play from the 3 yard line. There's nothing magical about it that requires special practice. That said, Lester has tried to get cute too many times with his play-calling on the conversion attempts.
 


hawkdrummer1 said:
A two-point try is essentially a 4th and goal play from the 3 yard line. There's nothing magical about it that requires special practice. That said, Lester has tried to get cute too many times with his play-calling on the conversion attempts.
Click to expand...
It's a little bit different because it's 100% do or die. When you're 4th and goal from the 3, you can get 2 yds and if you don't get it you now have the other team pinned 99 yds deep. It's not the end of the world and you call plays with that in mind.

With a 2 pt try it has to be a rock solid, locked up 3 yds or you're toast.
 


Fryowa said:
It's a little bit different because it's 100% do or die. When you're 4th and goal from the 3, you can get 2 yds and if you don't get it you now have the other team pinned 99 yds deep. It's not the end of the world and you call plays with that in mind.

With a 2 pt try it has to be a rock solid, locked up 3 yds or you're toast.
Click to expand...
You're not "toast". You just don't get the 2 points. Just like you're not getting 6 or a sure 3 on a 4th and goal fail. (a bigger loss of potential points). It's more psychological than anything. The playcalling shouldn't be that different.

Consider how going for it on 4th down instead of punting used to be such a big deal. Now teams do it much more often. Coaches finally realized that in many situations the risk/reward profile is more favorable than a risk-averse mentality would perceive it to be.
 


hawkdrummer1 said:
You're not "toast". You just don't get the 2 points. Just like you're not getting 6 or a sure 3 on a 4th and goal fail. (a bigger loss of potential points). It's more psychological than anything. The playcalling shouldn't be that different.
Consider how going for it on 4th down instead of punting used to be such a big deal. Now teams do it quite often
Click to expand...
Way more often than not, when you go for 2 you're going for 2 because if you don't, you're toast.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top