Hawks 4th down conversion rate vs 2 pt conversion rate. Strange

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
The hawks were 14-20 for 70% going on 4th down this year and the last few years have been very successful going on 4th down. You all know we are 0-fer for the last 10 or 12 or something like that on 2 pt conversion. What is the deal here? Is it a psychological mindset thing? I know a good portion of the 4th down plays only have to get one yard but there have been plenty that needed to get 2 or more much like a 2 pt conversion. I know the 4th down play last year against Nebby was for 5 or more yards.

Do the hawks just need to pretend it is 4th down?
 

CP87

Well-Known Member
The hawks were 14-20 for 70% going on 4th down this year and the last few years have been very successful going on 4th down. You all know we are 0-fer for the last 10 or 12 or something like that on 2 pt conversion. What is the deal here? Is it a psychological mindset thing? I know a good portion of the 4th down plays only have to get one yard but there have been plenty that needed to get 2 or more much like a 2 pt conversion. I know the 4th down play last year against Nebby was for 5 or more yards.

Do the hawks just need to pretend it is 4th down?

I think this relates to some of the data Dochternman has posted on 3rd and short success rate (Hawks are worst in the conference by a mile when it comes to success on 3 and 3 or less). He asked BF about it in a press conference, and BF countered that they considered their success rate on 3rd and 1 to be very good (I think it was about 70%). But he didn't mention that they were absolutely terrible on 3rd and 2 or 3 yards, which is the distance needed to gain for a 2pt conversion.
 

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
I think this relates to some of the data Dochternman has posted on 3rd and short success rate (Hawks are worst in the conference by a mile when it comes to success on 3 and 3 or less). He asked BF about it in a press conference, and BF countered that they considered their success rate on 3rd and 1 to be very good (I think it was about 70%). But he didn't mention that they were absolutely terrible on 3rd and 2 or 3 yards, which is the distance needed to gain for a 2pt conversion.

Yes, great catch. I think KF's teams are many times so predictable on 3rd and short running the ball that they get easily stopped as the defense flows to the first motion. At the same time the waggle naked boot pass play is successful a lot of the time but so many times their regular pass routes are agonizing short of the sticks on even 3rd and 2 or 3 which is terrible coaching and player follow through.
 

Xerxes

Well-Known Member
Usually on 4th down plays, Iowa runs its most consistently good running play, the Stanley sneak.

They've never tried that play on a 2 point conversion.
 

koralakers

Well-Known Member
I think this relates to some of the data Dochternman has posted on 3rd and short success rate (Hawks are worst in the conference by a mile when it comes to success on 3 and 3 or less). He asked BF about it in a press conference, and BF countered that they considered their success rate on 3rd and 1 to be very good (I think it was about 70%). But he didn't mention that they were absolutely terrible on 3rd and 2 or 3 yards, which is the distance needed to gain for a 2pt conversion.
It seems to be ‘scheme’ to me. On third down and short we put in extra lineman, 2 tights, plus fullback. Seems all 22 players are occupying the same 10’x10’ area. No space. Need to spread ball to run these days. Most teams do so. We don’t. That’s why our ypa has been so low for years now
 

Latest posts

Top