83Hawk
Banned
So, you and Kirk are right, and 99% of coaches are wrong. Unbelievable.
Ever consider Kirk made the wrong decision? Of course you didn’t. It was a bad decision by Kirk. It just was.
Going for 2 down by 9
- Thread starter SayHawkKid
- Start date
Ever consider Kirk made the wrong decision? Of course you didn’t. It was a bad decision by Kirk. It just was.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Everyone knows there are exceptions to every rule. You know as well as I do that 99.9% of the time you take the 3, and then kick the onsides. What is a fact though is when you are down 9 after scoring a TD you kick the extra point to make it a one score game
GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
PCHawk
PCHawk, you have about a million times more patience then I do. The amount of time you've spent walking through this...
In the end, all these people will still just not get it.
PCHawk, you have about a million times more patience then I do. The amount of time you've spent walking through this...
In the end, all these people will still just not get it.
It's bugging me for some reason because it's so easy in my mind.
Oh yea. I've put a ton of thought into this. Obviously by the amount of posts I've made. I'm arguing that math says it's the right decision. Which is fact. What I've learned in this thread is that other things factor into it too which makes the decision less obvious than I originally thought. Did you learn anything?
83Hawk
Banned
You obviously did not learn anything if you think going for 2 was the right decision. And “math” does NOT say it was the right decision. If you go by math alone, math would dictate it makes no difference either way, so you saying math says it is the right decision makes you wrong right there.
But....there is more to it than “math”. That is what 99% of coaches and experts understand, but you fail to grasp,
Math says it's a slight advantage to go for it first because you can go to a faster hurry up on the next possession if you know you didn't get it. Human emotion says it's a slight advantage the other way. When both ways are a less than 1% chance, do you really think one way is way better and the other way is stupid?
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
The point is you want to bring the game to within 1 possession in this case. That is just common sense/football sense. If you can take basically a sure thing to do so, why would you do anything else? An extra point is what a 95% certainty, and going for 2 I'd bet is an under 50% probability. Both pull you within 1 score of the opponent, why would you do anything other than take the easiest path to a 1 possession game?
In the end it matters little actually, I'll give you that, as the chance of getting the 2 pt conversion (either time), and also getting the onsides, and scoring again in under a minute is nearly 0%. It is really more about the principal of it and that the coaches and you don't understand.
Last edited:
83Hawk
Banned
No, math does not say it is even a slightly better chance. That is flat out wrong, thus destroying your argument.
The problem is, an 8 point game isn't necessarily a 1 possession game. There's a 53% chance you are in a 2 possession game and just don't know it yet. How is it an advantage to play the end of a game thinking it's a 1 possession game, only to find out at the end you actually needed 2 possessions?
This applies more when there is a little more time left. But with 1 minute left, I would still want to know if I needed 25 yard passes instead of 10 yard passes rather than wait for the end for no reason more than than to hold out hope for a little longer.
So with 1 minute left and lining up for an onside kick. Say you get it. You don't think you have a better chance to score twice if you know you need to score twice, rather than scoring twice when you think you only have to score once, but are wrong? Both chances are almost impossible, but one is slightly more likely.
Waiting until the end to go for 2 is like thinking you have 2 minutes to score and finding out 1 minute later that you actually only had 1 minute. But now the game is over before you have a chance. All because you didn't know the situation.
83Hawk
Banned
No.
First off, if (and I am just using these numbers as an example), if the odds of making an xp is 95%, and making a 2 point conversion is 60%, those numbers would be the same no matter which one you do first. So your argument that it is more advantageous to go for 2 first is not mathematically valid.
As for your contention that you have a better chance if you know you have to score twice....you are not factoring the extremely low odds of recovering 2 onside kicks and scoring twice in 1 minute.
Let’s say the odds of making the xp is 95%, a 2 point conversion is 60%, and recovering an onside kick is 10%. Under your scenario, the chance of tying the game is (assuming success in each situation) is: .6 x .1 x .95. By kicking, it is .95 x .1 x .6. Mathematically, even. HOWEVER.....by going for 2 first, there is a 40% chance the game is over right then and there, because the chances of recovering 2 onside kicks and scoring both times in the final minute is extremely small. But by kicking first, there is only a 5% chance you are put into the position of needing to recover 2 onside kicks and score in less than a minute.
I contend.....and the vast majority of coaches and experts agree....it is better to have the statistically higher chance of only needing to score twice in the final minute, than a higher probability of needing 3 scores.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
PC, 7 + 8 = 15. 6 + 8 = 14. Agreed?
You say by kicking first, there is only a 5% chance of needing 2 onside kicks. That's wrong because if you miss the 2 pt conversion later, you have to kick again anyway. If you miss the 2 point conversion, you have to score 3 total times no matter when you miss it. Your last paragraph pretty much says you think getting the 2 point conversion is automatic if you wait.
Correct. So I guess if you wait, you are guaranteed 8 huh? I was thinking it was possible to not convert the 2 point conversion after the second td for some reason.
That's because those odds of that are the same whether you wait for the conversion or not. There is no need to factor in odds that are the same. The only odds that change are the odds of scoring twice if you know in advance you need to score twice, vs the odds of scoring twice if you don't know in advance you have to score twice.
Two reasons your odds are better if you know. One is you throw longer throws to try to score faster. The other is the defense plays softer because they are up 2 scores. If you are up 8, the defense plays harder and you play slower. Once you miss that 2 point conversion after the second td, odds are a lot more likely there is no time left.
The Big LeHAWKski
Well-Known Member
Matt Millen said the exact same thing - case closed.
83Hawk
Banned
Wrong. You are over thinking this, and throwing out a lot of assumptions (throwing longer passes, defense playing harder/softer, playing slower. You really think, with under a minute to play, a team is going to play “slower” if down by one score instead of two????
Would you agree it is easier to score 2 times than 3? Or 1 time instead of 2? Of course. But you keep harping on missing the 2 point conversion if a second score is made. Irrelevant! If you go for 2 after the first td and fail, you have to score 2 more times in the final minute. After recovering 2 onside kicks. The odds of that happening are minuscule. If you kick the xp, you only have to score once (and make the 2 point conversion). Still long odds, but much, much less than needing 2 scores.
The odds of making the kick are much higher than getting the 2, thus making it much more likely you will only need 1 more score instead of 2. That is why you take the (more or less) “sure thing”. There is only a minute left, remember. Your scenario may be plausible if there were a couple of minutes left, or if you had timeouts. With less than a minute left and no timeouts, you are going to try to score as fast as possible whether you are down 1 score or 2.
No, the correct decision is to kick. And the vast majority of coaches and experts agree.
First of all we had 2 timeouts. Not a huge deal tho. Second of all, you I'm not over thinking it. You are under thinking it. Google it and read some stuff on it and try really hard to make sense of it. Once it clicks it will make perfect sense. You still may not agree with the decision. But you will at least understand why it wasn't a bad one. It's really not hard, and from your post earlier you seem like a smart enough guy. I would be surprised if you read up on it and still came back saying it was dumb.
The main thing is you have to assume you will either make the 2 pt conversion regardless of when you try it, or miss the 2 pt conversion reguardless of when you try it. You cant say if you miss it the first time, you shouldn't have tried it because you could have made it the second time. That's because the odds of making it are the same regardless of when you attempt it. The only thing it changes is when you know you need another possession. We learned we needed another possession with 1 minute left instead of learning we needed another possession with seconds left.
