Browns coach goes for 2 after 1st td in 1st qtr-now 0-3

U

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
They didnt get it, they were down 14-3, the old 11 point differential, went for 2 and as I said missed it so down 14-9.

KC scores to go up 21-9 for the bad 12 pt differential that takes 2 TDs or 3 scores to cover.

Browns score right before the half, go for 2 and miss it again, now down by 6 21-15. Stupid again.

Stupid is as stupid does. F Gump
 
TD KC 28-15, even if the browns score a td, kick the PAT and then kick 2 FGoals they are only tied.
 
They are now 0 for 3 on pt conversions and KC helped them out by missing a PAT. weird

34-21 chiefs, could be 34-24 by kicking PATs, weird chasing the points.
 
uihawk82 said:
They are now 0 for 3 on pt conversions and KC helped them out by missing a PAT. weird

34-21 chiefs, could be 34-24 by kicking PATs, weird chasing the points.
Click to expand...
Sounds more like throwing points than chasing points
 
Weird that if going for two were favorable odds that everybody isn’t doing it.
 
PCHawk said:
So weird trying to score points. I mean chasing points.
Click to expand...

You will never win this debate if you talk to 100 knowledgeable football coaches. Bruce Arians, OC former NFL head coach, was doing color analysis at the game and he said it was a bad decision that led to more bad decisions.
 
uihawk82 said:
You will never win this debate if you talk to 100 knowledgeable football coaches. Bruce Arians, OC former NFL head coach, was doing color analysis at the game and he said it was a bad decision that led to more bad decisions.
Click to expand...
100 knowledgeable fans should be enough. don't need to go to coaching ranks.
 
DDThompson said:
Weird that if going for two were favorable odds that everybody isn’t doing it.
Click to expand...

They aren't favorable odds. I think 47% is what it is. It's all the calculations around it that can make it favorable. Calculations that are finally coming into play over "conventional" decisions. It is starting to evolve that way. It just takes awhile.
 
PCHawk said:
They aren't favorable odds. I think 47% is what it is. It's all the calculations around it that can make it favorable. Calculations that are finally coming into play over "conventional" decisions. It is starting to evolve that way. It just takes awhile.
Click to expand...
99% success rate for 1 point

47% success rate (i don’t think it’s that high) for 2 pts.

The “new” calculations aren’t “new”. Even the new math can’t make 2 pt conversions => 1 pt conversions — don’t go for 2 until you have to. Otherwise, you’re throwing “sure” points away.
 
DDThompson said:
99% success rate for 1 point

47% success rate (i don’t think it’s that high) for 2 pts.

The “new” calculations aren’t “new”. Even the new math can’t make 2 pt conversions => 1 pt conversions — don’t go for 2 until you have to. Otherwise, you’re throwing “sure” points away.
Click to expand...

So...Kirk shouldn't have gone for it on 4th down yesterday. FG a MUCH higher percentage play.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
So...Kirk shouldn't have gone for it on 4th down yesterday. FG a MUCH higher percentage play.
Click to expand...

Dont equate scrimmage plays with special team short kicking plays. Totally different and if you dont make it on 4th and goal from the 2 or 3 you leave the opponent deep in their own territory, totally different things
 
uihawk82 said:
Dont equate scrimmage plays with special team short kicking plays. Totally different and if you dont make it on 4th and goal from the 2 or 3 you leave the opponent deep in their own territory, totally different things
Click to expand...

Alas, you realize, if we kick the FG instead, we never have a lead to even defend, right? Or if we had disdained the earlier FG? Yet, previous weeks saw you same folks bitching that we were going for it on 4th-and-short and not getting any points. Can't win with some people, that's for damn sure.
 
DDThompson said:
99% success rate for 1 point

47% success rate (i don’t think it’s that high) for 2 pts.

The “new” calculations aren’t “new”. Even the new math can’t make 2 pt conversions => 1 pt conversions — don’t go for 2 until you have to. Otherwise, you’re throwing “sure” points away.
Click to expand...

So you obviously think he should have went for the field goal instead of going for the td on 4th? He threw 3 "sure" points away there to go for 6. Btw that play was from the 4 yard line so it was even harder than a 2 pt conversion. If Kirk thought like you, we wouldn't have 1 more point after that drive. We would have 3 less.
 
uihawk82 said:
Dont equate scrimmage plays with special team short kicking plays. Totally different and if you dont make it on 4th and goal from the 2 or 3 you leave the opponent deep in their own territory, totally different things
Click to expand...


Correct!! Anyone who compares the 2 is ridiculous!!
 
PCHawk said:
So you obviously think he should have went for the field goal instead of going for the td on 4th? He threw 3 "sure" points away there to go for 6. Btw that play was from the 4 yard line so it was even harder than a 2 pt conversion. If Kirk thought like you, we wouldn't have 1 more point after that drive. We would have 3 less.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Are you being an obtuse ventriloquist intentionally?
 
PCHawk said:
What do you mean what am I talking about? In talking about how it was extremely beneficial for Kirk to "chase points" that drive.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

Do you not understand the difference between a PAT/conversion and a play from scrimmage?

Do you not understand the thread title?

Do you not understand the context when I said you always go for one point until you have to go for two?

Do you not understand the difference in choosing to go for 1 pt or 2 pts is different than deciding on 4th down to punt or kick a FG or go for the first down or go for the touchdown in goal-to-go?

What do you not understand about this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top