2 pt Conversions

[SCHawkeye2]

It seems to me that Iowa is alarmingly inept when attempting 2 pt conversions.
Almost as if they have no prepared plays for this contingency, the effort comes off as ill conceived and poorly executed.
And more often than not, unsuccessful.
Might want to 'clean up a few things' there.

 

[dagdaj]

Well. I mean.
They're not exactly lethal when they're in the red zone. So, this makes sense.

 

[guffus]

It helps if your QB can throw a pass that's not 5 feet over the WR's head

 

[Grady]

It seems to me that Iowa is alarmingly inept when attempting 2 pt conversions.
Almost as if they have no prepared plays for this contingency, the effort comes off as ill conceived and poorly executed.
And more often than not, unsuccessful.
Might want to 'clean up a few things' there.

'Alarmingly inept' is an apt description. I was telling my Indiana friend who was at the game with me that I can't remember the last time Iowa successfully converted a 2-pt conversion. And then 0-2 again last night. It feels like a LONG time, and not because they haven't tried many!
This season's team should be especially well-equipped for 2-pt plays, with a strong running QB, strong running game, now two 6'5" WRs they can put in the game at the same time, plus an All-American scat-back. If you can't figure out 3-4 consistently successful 2-pt plays from that lineup, well....you're just not trying hard enough.

 

[haydensly]

We are not built to have a high success rate on two-point conversions. Which is why I asked before we ran the first one, why are we doing this? Once we missed it the first time and with the score what it was, you are almost forced to go for it the second time. It's easy to second guess and I hate that but I really thought we should have just been taking the points. Very un-Kirk like.

 

[Grady]

We are not built to have a high success rate on two-point conversions. Which is why I asked before we ran the first one, why are we doing this? Once we missed it the first time and with the score what it was, you are almost forced to go for it the second time. It's easy to second guess and I hate that but I really thought we should have just been taking the points. Very un-Kirk like.

Last night's first attempt did remind me a bit of last year's Iowa St. game, when Iowa scored a TD to go up 19-7 vs the Clones late in the 3rd quarter. I said out loud to my friend at the time "No need to do this" when Iowa uncharacteristically went for 2 and then failed. I understood the thinking, it was "We've contained ISU's offense so well that there's not time for them to get a TD, FG, FG -- but they may get a TD, TD -- therefore we better try to get to 21. Of course, they DID get a quick TD on a bomb, then a FG, then the winning walk-off FG, winning 20-19. Going for 2 pts -- again, unsuccessfully -- cost them that game outright.

 

[ICHawk24]

It is just dumb to have such a substandard offense and to go for 2 when it is anything other than absolutely necessary.

The first time, it was chasing points and absolutely dumb. It should have been a 3 point game at the end.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Last night's first attempt did remind me a bit of last year's Iowa St. game, when Iowa scored a TD to go up 19-7 vs the Clones late in the 3rd quarter. I said out loud to my friend at the time "No need to do this" when Iowa uncharacteristically went for 2 and then failed. I understood the thinking, it was "We've contained ISU's offense so well that there's not time for them to get a TD, FG, FG -- but they may get a TD, TD -- therefore we better try to get to 21. Of course, they DID get a quick TD on a bomb, then a FG, then the winning walk-off FG, winning 20-19. Going for 2 pts -- again, unsuccessfully -- cost them that game outright.

I totally get what you're saying. It could be flipped easy enough to say hey defense stop em once out of those 3 possessions and it cures all what ails you too. Or offense posses the ball a little longer. Get one more 1st down. Or god forbid score again yourself.

I'm just not a big proponent of boiling down an entire game to a decision to go for 2 earlier then necessary in a game. I'm a proponent of going for 2 when it's absolutely necessary. But chasing pts early usually sets you up to have to go for them again in the future (like we did against PSU) and the odds just aren't there to think we'd be successful at them.

On that last one they ran a long fade to the corner of the endzone to Gill. Like what on earth made them think that'd work? So I not only have an issue with the decision but the playcalling too. I'd have rather they ran it both times and live with those results. The odds just weren't in their favor at all to try what they did.

 

[SwirlinLingerie]

Iowa is so bad at 2 point conversions that they should never, ever try one unless it is very likely their last possession of the game and there is an obvious need for two points (i.e. to tie the game, go up by 3 instead of 2, etc.).

I think I read somewhere that Iowa has converted one two point play over the last decade. One. Pretty sure Dochterman had some analysis on this a couple years back, too.

 

[Fryowa]

My thoughts...

2 pt conversions are something you should put more emphasis on and you should pay a specialist NIL money for. No different than a kicker pr punter.

Those plays don't need to be complicated and should be jump balls in the endzone. You need a 6-6, 6-7 guy with size to run a route in the corner of the endzone and loft a softball up for him. There's no downside really...a pick isn't 2 points, but it's also not giving the defense the ball back and they can't score a TD off a pick.

I don't know if Garza can catch a football but he's huge enough to not get pushed around and it seems like a no-brainer to me. Let him draw a PI 5 times in a row until you're close enough for an easy tush push if defenses want to play that game.

Yes, I'm serious.