I just don't understand people using this point.
Yes, you are going to need a two point conversion at some point. BUT...if you go for two and miss, like Iowa did, with around a minute left, you now need to recover TWO onside kicks and get two scores to win. Means means, you lose.
If you kick the PAT and make it, there is still a minute left, and you only need to recover one onside kick, and you have a chance to win with around a minute left.
Yes, you would still need to score a TD and get a two point conversion, on top of the low percentage play of recovering an onside kick. BUT, you leave yourself those options...and while some will link to some math that says go for two then, etc...I don't care what math equation you show me on this, it does not account for the 'OH ####' factor that goes along with losing an onside kick, and then your opponent actually scoring another TD on you. Math don't suit up, math doesn't succumb to emotion, or bad split second decisions or creeping doubts.
You kick the PAT to keep all options on the table, with a minute left.
Iowa went for two and missed it, thus ending the game with a minute left.
Exactly. I get the arguement that it keeps the team motivated longer. But at that point, does it even matter? Once a 2 poont conversion is missed, the game is lost. I would rather know how fast I needed to score again. A 40 second drill is a little different than a 1 minute drill.Iowa had 2 options to tie the game with how much time was left.
TD + 2PT + TD + PAT
TD + PAT + TD + 2PT
It makes no difference which order you go in.
If you failed the 2PT down by 9, you lose.
If you fail the 2PT down by 2, you lose.
There are arguement to be made for kicking it, but Jon's arguement isn't one of them. It made no sense.It's actually kind of scary that the logic of taking the one extra point instead of going for two is missed on anybody.
Is there a "head scratcher" emoticon?
You say by missing the 2 point conversion they needed 2 more onside kicks. So say they kick it first, get one onside kick, score a touchdown, then miss that 2 point conversion. How do you propose they get the ball back without kicking that second onside kick? It doesn't matter if you go for 2 with the first td or the second. If you miss either one, you need to score again, which means you need a second onside kick.Like the guy you quoted said, waiting for the second helps with suspense. That's about it.
PC, we were in a hail-mary situaiton because of the time left in the game. we had to do 5 things. 1) Score a touchdown, 2) kick the extra point, 3) recover an onside kick, 4) score a second touchdown, 5) convert a 2-point conversion, all in about 70 seconds and in that order. If you flip #2 and #5 (which we did) and you don't convert (which we didn't) you literally cannot win if you consider how hard it is to #1 through #5 in 70 seconds. By flipping #2 & #5 and not converting, you add steps 6 and 7; recover a second onside kick and score. So, 2 touchdowns and another score in 70 seconds with recovering 2 onside kicks, to boot.
You lose. But...if you kick it first you have 70 seconds for an onside, TD, and 2 pt attempt. You go for two first and miss, you have essentially ended your chances because you now, in that same 70 seconds, need an onside, TD, XP, 2nd onside, and enough yards for game winning FG.So what happens when you missed the 2 point conversion after the second td?
Exactly. It's like everyone arguing how bad this decision was is assuming we would have converted the 2PT conversion later.So what happens when you missed the 2 point conversion after the second td?
You score the 1st TD, kick it, get the ball back, score a TD, and you have so much more momentum on that 2 pt. conversion. Was Kirk asked about the decision?
Football is a 60 minute game. Why not play for the full 60 vs sealing your fate at 59 minutes with a terrible decision with a minute to go.Ok let's try this again. If you score, go for 2 and don't get it, get the onside kick, score again, you lose by 2. If you score, kick the extra point, get the onside kick, score again, then miss the 2 point conversion, you lose by 2. It's the exact same thing except you know your fate one minute sooner so you still have a small chance to change it by going into true hail Mary mode.
Football is a 60 minute game. Why not play for the full 60 vs sealing your fate at 59 minutes with a terrible decision with a minute to go.
You lose. But...if you kick it first you have 70 seconds for an onside, TD, and 2 pt attempt. You go for two first and miss, you have essentially ended your chances because you now, in that same 70 seconds, need an onside, TD, XP, 2nd onside, and enough yards for game winning FG.
Arguments like this I can get on board with. Pretending we don't need to score 3 times if we miss the 2nd 2 point conversion is just not thinking things thru.Plus the defense is a little bit more worn down as others have said before.
But you still have a chance up until that last play. And who knows...maybe something in the last drive helps make a different play call on the 2nd 2 pt try. I won't argue that if you miss the 2 you lose because math...thats obvious. But your job as coach is to give your players a chance to win when the clock reads 0:00...that didnt happen today.If you miss the second one you have to onside kick and score again. How are people forgetting this part?
This reminds me of another way of thinking that drives me nuts. Punting down two scores with 5 minutes left. I see teams do it all the time just so they can delay that "all hope is lost" moment for as long as possible, instead of choosing the route that gives the team the best chance to win.
Thing is, if the Hawks just kick the point after, they recover the onside kick, score the touchdown, and then go for two, in theory, the defense is a bit more worn down with more momentum against them, while we have more momentum then the last touchdown.
Like I said though. In theory.