Going for 2 down by 9

there is supposed to be a chart that says when you go for 2 and when you don't. I guarantee you that chart says something like "down 15 points, don't go for 2. Kick the PAT". Of course, paper and printer ink are all new-fangled technology so kirk don't believe in 'em. But honestly it sums up the game in a microcosm, going for 2 down 9 points is just dumb coaching like this entire game was.
 
Last edited:
So to all you "drag the game out as long as possible" people, I have a scenario and want to know what you think.

Say you are down 3 with one second left and the ball is inches outside the goal line. Do you go for it or play for overtime? I assume your entire thought process on it would be to "give your team a chance" so you would kick the field goal. My thoughts would be do I have a better chance of getting 2 inches now, or do I have a better chance of making a high pressure chip shot, then winning in overtime. I would go for it despite the fact that it's not the best way to drag the game out as long as possible.
 
Hawkize31 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It does make a difference because after the first TD you dont have to go for two, you have a choice. The old coaching adage as was mentioned before is dont go for 2 until you really need to. So you kick the PAT to get withing 8 points.

So since you have a choice of kicking the PAT which is very highly going to be good it gets you within a TD and 2pt conversion to tie. And I hope no one ever says KF was going for 2 TDS and 2 2point conversions cuz that just aint him.
 
PCHawk said:
What does giving yourself a chance to recover an onside kick, score a second touchdown and go for 2 do if you don't make that 2? The answer is nothing. Other people are making good arguments like momentum and wearing down the defense. Then there are people who are just saying they wanted the inevitable delayed as long as possible.
Click to expand...
It isn't delaying the inevitable; it is giving yourself a chance. You need 7 then 8 or 8 and then 7. The only difference is your chances of getting the first score in each of those scenarios...getting 7 is about 95% likely if not higher (PAT conversion). I don't know what 2 point conversion rated are but they don't come close to kicking PAT. No need to make the odds longer than they already are by trying your luck on a 2 point conversion before you need to. Never chase points, I think they say...
 
I just read a cool article about how you should go for 2 if you're down 14 in the 4th quarter. It pretty much says if you don't get the first one, you can still get the second one to go to overtime. If you do get the first one, you can kick the PAT on the second one and win in regulation. It changes the chances of winning when you get 2 touchdowns from 50% to 60%. That's a huge difference but no one does it because of the ridiculously old out dated philosophy of "don't chase points".
 
hawkfan2679 said:
It isn't delaying the inevitable; it is giving yourself a chance. You need 7 then 8 or 8 and then 7. The only difference is your chances of getting the first score in each of those scenarios...getting 7 is about 95% likely if not higher (PAT conversion). I don't know what 2 point conversion rated are but they don't come close to kicking PAT. No need to make the odds longer than they already are by trying your luck on a 2 point conversion before you need to. Never chase points, I think they say...
Click to expand...
You say it's giving yourself a chance, but they did give themselves a chance. They simply failed on that chance because they were HUGE UNDERDOGS.
 
What this comes down to is weighing the benefit of knowing you need 2 more scores so planning for it with playcalling (a very slight advantage) vs keeping momentum and possibly having a slightly better chance at converting a 2 pt conversion because of a more tired defense (a very slight advantage).

The only thing that is for sure is when both scenarios give you a less than 1% chance to win, neither can be considered stupid.
 
PCHawk said:
So to all you "drag the game out as long as possible" people, I have a scenario and want to know what you think.

Say you are down 3 with one second left and the ball is inches outside the goal line. Do you go for it or play for overtime? I assume your entire thought process on it would be to "give your team a chance" so you would kick the field goal. My thoughts would be do I have a better chance of getting 2 inches now, or do I have a better chance of making a high pressure chip shot, then winning in overtime. I would go for it despite the fact that it's not the best way to drag the game out as long as possible.
Click to expand...
Not a good analogy IMO. Your scenario presents a one play game ending scenario...we still had time left. Better scenario might be down 10 with 1 minute to go and ball on 3. There you weigh chances of getting TD vs that of making FG.

Here's way I see it...
Chance of onside recovery and subsequent TD - 10%
Successful 2 pt conversion - 50%
Successful PAT - 95%

Going for 7 first - .95 x .10 = 9.5% chance to tie after first score followed by onside recovery/TD
Going for 8 first - .50 x .10 = 5% chance to tie after first score followed by onside recovery/TD

We still have to get the 2 pt to tie (which balances out the odds because both scenarios require 15 points) but I will go with the route that gives me twice the chance to tie. The chances of not even having the chance to tie after the first score is only 5% vs 50% by trying for 2.
 
hawkfan2679 said:
Not a good analogy IMO. Your scenario presents a one play game ending scenario...we still had time left. Better scenario might be down 10 with 1 minute to go and ball on 3. There you weigh chances of getting TD vs that of making FG.

Here's way I see it...
Chance of onside recovery and subsequent TD - 10%
Successful 2 pt conversion - 50%
Successful PAT - 95%

Going for 7 first - .95 x .10 = 9.5% chance to tie after first score followed by onside recovery/TD
Going for 8 first - .50 x .10 = 5% chance to tie after first score followed by onside recovery/TD

We still have to get the 2 pt to tie (which balances out the odds because both scenarios require 15 points) but I will go with the route that gives me twice the chance to tie. The chances of not even having the chance to tie after the first score is only 5% vs 50% by trying for 2.
Click to expand...

But the chance is only double up until the point where you go for 2 at the end. As soon as you go for 2, the chance drops to the exact same percentage wise. And my scenario wasn't meant to be an analogy. It's simply a scenario where lots of times people are more concerned with doing what prolongs the game rather than doing what gives the team the best chance.

One thing I know is the scenario you laid out makes the percentages the exact same after the 2 point attempt (which is all that matters). My original arguement is the way Kirk did it gives a very slight mathematical edge because of playcalling you would do on the ensuing drive to try to get the second td quicker (because the luxury of knowing you need one more score). Other people have made good arguments about human emotion and things like that that help balance out that slight edge. Those are good points.
 
PCHawk said:
What does giving yourself a chance to recover an onside kick, score a second touchdown and go for 2 do if you don't make that 2? The answer is nothing. Other people are making good arguments like momentum and wearing down the defense. Then there are people who are just saying they wanted the inevitable delayed as long as possible.
Click to expand...

You are talking about the future while we are talking about the conversion during the present after the first TD was scored.
 
uihawk82 said:
You are talking about the future while we are talking about the conversion during the present after the first TD was scored.
Click to expand...

You are talking about simply delaying the future and confusing that with giving you a better chance to win.
 
PCHawk said:
But the chance is only double up until the point where you go for 2 at the end. As soon as you go for 2, the chance drops to the exact same percentage wise. And my scenario wasn't meant to be an analogy. It's simply a scenario where lots of times people are more concerned with doing what prolongs the game rather than doing what gives the team the best chance.

One thing I know is the scenario you laid out makes the percentages the exact same after the 2 point attempt (which is all that matters). My original arguement is the way Kirk did it gives a very slight mathematical edge because of playcalling you would do on the ensuing drive to try to get the second td quicker (because the luxury of knowing you need one more score). Other people have made good arguments about human emotion and things like that that help balance out that slight edge. Those are good points.
Click to expand...
Exactly...either way you need 15 points. However, one way gives you 2x the chance of odds of success after your first TD. I am not trying to change your mind; I am just trying to apply probabilities to the decision.
 
A good coach has to think about the future. He knows that if he makes the 2 point conversion, it doesn't matter at all whether he does it first or second. So he has to decide what gives him the best chance to win if he misses the 2 pt conversion. Well if he misses the 2 pt conversion on the second td, it will more than likely come with no time at all on the clock. If he misses on the first attempt, he can adjust his timeline and run an offense that is designed to leave some time on the clock. Of course all of this only matters if you actually have an offense to run.
 
hawkfan2679 said:
Exactly...either way you need 15 points. However, one way gives you 2x the chance of odds of success after your first TD. I am not trying to change your mind; I am just trying to apply probabilities to the decision.
Click to expand...

It gives you 2 times the odds after your first td. But after the 2nd td....
 
PCHawk said:
You are talking about simply delaying the future and confusing that with giving you a better chance to win.
Click to expand...

Ok PCHawk, Gary Dolphin calling the game said "the hawks are lining up for a 2 pt conversion" and Eddie Podolak jumps in very decisively and says "No you have to go for 1 pt". Case closed as Eddie knows a million times more about football than you will ever know.
 
I think I am going to hate myself for getting more involved in this ridiculous thread...

It basically comes down to "one step at a time" scoring in the order of the highest probability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top