The other thing about going for the PAT with a minute plus left and not the 2 pt conversion is that you can start thinking about the future 2 pt conversion and find your best play. I know the hawks didnt have very many best plays today. You get some time to plan if you recover the onside kick
Going for 2 down by 9
- Thread starter SayHawkKid
- Start date
Actually, older people have a very dated way of thinking on these things. It used to be all traditional decisions like "don't chase points" and my favorite "take the points". Newer coaches think more mathmatically.
GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
I hope Jon addresses this in his next podcast.
He needs to admit he was wrong and bring us all together.
He needs to admit he was wrong and bring us all together.
Last edited:
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
I gave you both in this thread. I believe I dropped the exact "don't chase points" phrase earlier and I also provided mathematical reasoning for why the smart decision is to kick the PAT. You are down 9 with a minute left...one option leaves you a 50% chance of the ensuing onside being meaningless because you still need 2 scores while the alternative provides for a 95% opportunity for relevance on the ensuing onside. If you miss whatever you choose after TD #1 the ensuing onside is meaningless. That's why you take the points.
Do you get extra credit points for still being in it with an onside kick coming? You may still be in it, but you still have to make that 2 pt conversion.
I just read an article that could have been written by me explaining why you go for it first. It said exactly what I've been saying in this thread. Admittedly, the logic works better with a little more time on the clock, but it still applies.
One thing it said is an 8 point game isn't a one possession game. It's a 1.5 possession game because half of the time you get the 2 pt conversion and make it in one possession and half of the time you don't get it and make it a two possession game. That means it's a 1.5 possession game. You're better off knowing early if you need one or two possessions. 2 onside kicks, a touchdown, and a field goal with 1 minute left is almost impossible. But failing at a 2 pt attempt with no time left IS impossible. Like the article said. Knowledge is power.
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
You don't have time for 2 possessions after the first TD. What good is knowing if you need 1 or 2 possessions if you don't have time for 2 possessions? You have 1 possession after the first TD. If you are down 8 you can tie. If you are down 9 you are done.
So if you thought there was time for 2 possessions, would you agree with me? Because I think there was time for 2 possessions so maybe that's the only place we differ. I think it's possible to go 50 yards in 40 seconds (with 2 timeouts I think). Then go 20 yards in 20 seconds for a field goal attempt. If you wait until the end to go for 2, you don't even try to score in 40 seconds. You use the whole clock because you are under the false assumption that it's a one possession game. When in reality, it's a 1.5 possession game. (I like that)
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
When you suggest 2 possessions left now you have to bring into effect a 2nd successful onside kick recovery and have to assume that by an act of God the offense (the Iowa offense mind you) went 55ish yards and left enough time for said 2nd onside attempt. I think your odds have surpassed long at that point...now it gets back to the best chance to win. Try for 2 first knowing you will need 2 more drives to win if you fail, or kick the PAT and know that you will need 1 drive plus a 2 point conversion to tie.
Last edited:
You need to rewrite the end of your post. It needs to say "try for 2 first knowing you will need 2 more drives to win if you fail, or kick a PAT and know that you will need 1 more drive plus a 2 point conversion to tie, OR 2 more drives if you fail on the 2 point conversion to win. But we don't know which one that will be yet".
Seriously tho, if you fail on the 2 point conversion at either point, you need two onside kicks to win. So either way, the odds are long. The only difference is you would be a tiny bit more likely to still have time left if you tried it after the first td. And like I said earlier, if you make the attempt, it doesn't matter one bit when you tried it. But if you are going to miss it, you are better off missing it earlier so at least you know what mountain you have to climb
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
Fixed...mind works faster than fingers when on my phone.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
Very well stated.....you add more variables when going for 2 first.....as funny as it can seem as both outcomes lead to a loss if you don't get the 2 point conversion to go your way. But, going for 2 first and failing puts you in a much worse situation because of the small amount of time you have left to accomplish all of those things. Still quite hard kicking the extra point, but not as nearly impossible as failing on a 2 point conversion first.
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
All I am saying is that the best mathematical chance to win with the situation as it was is to kick the point and take your chances with an onside, hopefully a TD drive, and then a 50/50 shot at a 2 point conversion. The sense of urgency your article mentions is already there because of the lack of time remaining so missing the first doesnt make you play with more urgency, it (as the article states) "kills your hopes."
The point of my post was more about the other part I added. Them not knowing their fate earlier (which was missing the 2 point conversion) doesn't mathematically help them win, which is what you are arguing for. I won't argue with the people who are saying not knowing your fate would help them emotionally because that is possible. But the mathematical edge goes to knowing early.
You are brain farting one important part. You are factoring what the odds are after the missed attempt against what the odds are before an attempt after a second touchdown. You can't do that. You can't say they had a zero percent chance to make it after the first one and a 50/50 chance to make it after the second one. That's how you're calculating it.
Tell me which parts you don't agree with.
1. Mathematically the odds of making a 2 pt conversion are the exact same whether you attempt it first or second.
2. Mathematically the odds of recovering an onside kick are the same whether you try the 2 pt conversion first or second.
3. Mathematically the odds of scoring a second touchdown are the same whether you attempt the 2 pt conversion first or second.
4. If you know after the first td that you need 2 more possessions to win, you will call different plays to try to score faster than you would if you didn't know.
5. Calling different plays and trying to score faster gives you a tiny bit better of a chance to score with enough time left to try another onside kick.
1. Mathematically the odds of making a 2 pt conversion are the exact same whether you attempt it first or second.
2. Mathematically the odds of recovering an onside kick are the same whether you try the 2 pt conversion first or second.
3. Mathematically the odds of scoring a second touchdown are the same whether you attempt the 2 pt conversion first or second.
4. If you know after the first td that you need 2 more possessions to win, you will call different plays to try to score faster than you would if you didn't know.
5. Calling different plays and trying to score faster gives you a tiny bit better of a chance to score with enough time left to try another onside kick.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
If they kick the extra point and make it, they're down by 8. you still have a meaningful chance to recover an onside kick, score a touchdown and convert an 2 point conversion to tie. So, kicking the extra point first guarantees you at least a second meaningful chance to score a touchdown and 2 pnt conversion to tie. going for two points on the first touchdown and failing guarantees you a meaningless chance for a second touchdown and convert a 2 point conversion to tie. you'd still be down by 1 point. The idea is that kicking an extra point is far easier and has a much higher probability for success than a 2pnt conversion.
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
Not really. What i am suggesting is that, based on yesterdays situation, you are taking an unnecessary risk by going for it by 2 with a minute left. You are arguing that knowing earlier how many points you need it will change the way you play on subsequent drives. But by missing on that try the odds you force yourself to overcome become even greater because of the time remaining. You said yourself that the onside recovery, TD, 2nd onside recovery, GW FG is an almost impossible scenario. So do you take your chances with nearly impossible or do you kick it first and let the 2 point decide the game? You might still win the game but in yesterdays situation, math determines kicking it first.
