Down 9 and going for 2

PCHawk isn't trolling.

The only arguments that will not get shot down are ones rooted in intangibles.

Jon and Deace went with the "build momentum" argument, so Purdue puckers with the weight of a potential overtime on their shoulders.

So I at least give credit to those two in knowing where to hide.
 
ssckelley said:
But if you don't get the 2 point conversion the game is over no matter what if you wait. By going for 2 when it's a 9 point game then you know up front. The odds of conversion are not better if you wait, just the end result.

But seriously, I'm done with this.
Click to expand...

I guess I haven't been involved as long on this deal. I am just saying why do you try to pull the game to within 1 score when you need a FG and TD, but if you are deciding between an XP and 2 pt play you then don't care about getting it to one possession?
 
GoHawks12345 said:
PCHawk isn't trolling.

The only arguments that will not get shot down are ones rooted in intangibles.

Jon and Deace went with the "build momentum" argument, so Purdue puckers with the weight of a potential overtime on their shoulders.

So I at least give credit to those two in knowing where to hide.
Click to expand...

They make a great point actually. It isn't about the D "puckering". Now the defense can choose to bring pressure if they want, knowing 1 big play can't beat them. They could also choose to sit back deep and keep everything in front of them if the opponent was out of TO. The defense has lots more options protecting a 2 score lead than they do if protecting a 1 score lead.
 
deanvogs said:
They make a great point actually. It isn't about the D "puckering". Now the defense can choose to bring pressure if they want, knowing 1 big play can't beat them. They could also choose to sit back deep and keep everything in front of them if the opponent was out of TO. The defense has lots more options protecting a 2 score lead than they do if protecting a 1 score lead.
Click to expand...

I really disagree with this. Sitting back and letting you get 10-15 a pop is very common for a defense up 2 scores late. I doubt they send blitzes in that situation.
 
GoHawks12345 said:
If there was something I could say that PCHawk hasnt already explained, with a patience I do not possess, I would.
Click to expand...

I keep tricking myself into thinking my next post is going to be the one. There is no way anyone is even contemplating what I say is there?
 
PCHawk said:
You guys realize they actually attempted a 2 point conversion right? You act like he gave us no chance. He gave us a chance but the chance failed. Remember how Sanley sailed the ball out of bounds?
Click to expand...
Stanley (and team) may have tried harder if it were more obvious we absolutely needed that two points (which we absolutely did). That may be the only reason to go for the extra point first, if it actually changes the odds. Just to make sure it's perfectly clear to everyone.
 
I don’t get how anyone can say you don’t extend the game as much as you can. Chuck long agrees. So does Super Bowl winning coach, Sean Payton with a much better offense.
 
deanvogs said:
It is funny that the 3-5 posters on an island by themselves think EVERYONE else just doesn't get it.
Click to expand...

But some people do get it already. Coaches like Chip Kelly factor in probabilities. But statistics and probabilities are fairly new in football. Coaches are starting to educate themselves on them and implement them in game plans. Like I said earlier. In 10 years or so, it will be common knowledge to go for 2 first in that situation.

Sometimes you have two options. Extend the game, or give yourself the best chance to win the game. Right now, more people are concerned with extending the game, even when it's at the cost of actually winning the game. That's changing. But it won't overnight.
 
PCHawk said:
But some people do get it already. Coaches like Chip Kelly factor in probabilities. But statistics and probabilities are fairly new in football. Coaches are starting to educate themselves on them and implement them in game plans. Like I said earlier. In 10 years or so, it will be common knowledge to go for 2 first in that situation.

Sometimes you have two options. Extend the game, or give yourself the best chance to win the game. Right now, more people are concerned with extending the game, even when it's at the cost of actually winning the game. That's changing. But it won't overnight.
Click to expand...
Chip Kelly routinely went for 2 early in games. Can you find one example of doing so in a situation like this?
 
83Hawk said:
See...you are "moving the goalposts" so to speak. Now you are throwing out "with 5 minutes left", or "with 4 minutes left". The strategy with 5 or even 4 minutes left is MUCH different than with only 1 minute left.
Click to expand...

That post wasn't to move the goalposts. It was to show him how it's beneficial with more time. Once that's understood, it's easier to decide which you would rather do. Give yourself a better chance for a miracle, or stay in the game longer for better team moral.
 
theboat said:
Chip Kelly routinely went for 2 early in games. Can you find one example of doing so in a situation like this?
Click to expand...

Lets see what coaches do. Saints are down 15 to the Redskins and score with 2:53 remianing in the game. According to some, the play is to go for 2 here. For some reason Sean Payton acts like a complete and total idiot and kicks the extra point! I mean how could he do this? He now has no idea if the Saints need to score once or twice more. What an idiot.
 
theboat said:
Chip Kelly routinely went for 2 early in games. Can you find one example of doing so in a situation like this?
Click to expand...

I have no idea how to look. I'm assuming a guy who realizes his offense is so good that he has a better than 50/50 chance to get a 2 point conversion, so he has the balls to go against traditional wisdom and do it, also understands the percentages like this one. I've never seen him do it because I rarely watch his games. But I bet he would.
 
PCHawk said:
That post wasn't to move the goalposts. It was to show him how it's beneficial with more time. Once that's understood, it's easier to decide which you would rather do. Give yourself a better chance for a miracle, or stay in the game longer for better team moral.
Click to expand...

PCHawk said:
I have no idea how to look. I'm assuming a guy who realizes his offense is so good that he has a better than 50/50 chance to get a 2 point conversion, so he has the balls to go against traditional wisdom and do it, also understands the percentages like this one. I've never seen him do it because I rarely watch his games. But I bet he would.
Click to expand...

You are all over the place here. Like I said, it is 3-5 poster on an island all alone saying EVERYONE else just doesn't get it.
 
deanvogs said:
Lets see what coaches do. Saints are down 15 to the Redskins and score with 2:53 remianing in the game. According to some, the play is to go for 2 here. For some reason Sean Payton acts like a complete and total idiot and kicks the extra point! I mean how could he do this? He now has not idea if the Saints need to score once or twice more. What an idiot.
Click to expand...

You don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying it's a reall y close call so neither side is completely stupid. Although with 2:53 left, it's actually pretty bad. Just a guess but I would say he cut a few percent off his chances to win.
 
PCHawk said:
You don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying it's a reall y close call so neither side is completely stupid. Although with 2:53 left, it's actually pretty bad. Just a guess but I would say he cut a few percent off his chances to win.
Click to expand...

It is like trying to explain to you that 2+2=4, but you keep insisting 2+2=5, but you betcha Sean Payton got lucky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top