- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NFL Teams Refusing to go for 2
Posted on 10/10/13 at 12:43 pm to meaux tigers
Posted on 10/10/13 at 12:43 pm to meaux tigers
quote:
Others have said this, but they are exactly right. Teams rep a handful 2 point plays until they get them down and coaches feel comfortable that they will succeed. They even have a spot on their call sheet for 2 point plays. That's how specialized of a play it is. The conversion rate would almost certainly go down if everyone went for 2 all the time. As specialized and practiced as 2 point conversions are now, and the fact that they still only convert 48% of the time shows that.
Right. Two point conversations right now are extremely situational. When you either NEED to have it or done when you are confident you can get it. I feel like there is a decent chance the % of success of 2 pt conversions decreases when it is no longer a NEED or a potential favorable result.
quote:
No its not.
They pulled data from 10 seasons, thats a lot of data points.I'd be willing to bet that if you had to do 2 point conversions for a season, you would get roughly the same number.
The situations in which those conversions occurred are extremely skewed to specific situations. Hence why the results are misleading. You are comparing apples and oranges when you take the data over that ten year period and try to present it as a population of data where two point conversions occurred situationally the same as PATs.
0
Posted on 10/10/13 at 12:43 pm to Master of Sinanju
quote:
A decade later, Marty Mornhinweg is still ridiculed for thinking outside the box.
He took the box, set in on fire then put in a rash compactor
Posted on 10/10/13 at 12:45 pm to dnm3305
quote:
If you score 3 td's in one game and go for 2 every time, you have a pretty high probability of scoring 4 total extra points.
You know this isn't fact just because you say this.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 12:47 pm to TigerintheNO
No. Cause john carney
misses pats
misses pats
Posted on 10/10/13 at 12:48 pm to lsu31always
quote:
No. Cause john carney
misses pats
Posted on 10/10/13 at 12:50 pm to dnm3305
Again, if you did it all the time, I'd bet you are looking at more like 40/60 chance at best for each play. Even at 50/50 I don't call that a "high probability."
Posted on 10/10/13 at 1:09 pm to dnm3305
quote:
If you score 3 td's in one game and go for 2 every time, you have a pretty high probability of scoring 4 total extra points.
The problem with this analysis is that you don't know after you score the first TD, whether you will score another one or two TDs. That's why they take the sure points.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 1:16 pm to TheSexecutioner
More games would be lost by missing 2 point conversions than would be won.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 1:37 pm to TheSexecutioner
The math says to go for it every time if you are successful > 50% of the time, as you pointed out. But you won't know that you're going to be that successful unless you go for it.
Yes, you can spend valuable practice time devising 2pt plays, but to what end? Will that get you over 50% without hurting your chances to score TDs to put you in that position?
I think that teams should do it more, particularly in certain situations after scoring first, but I don't see the utility in doing it significantly more frequently than now. Plus football coaches are notoriously risk averse.
Yes, you can spend valuable practice time devising 2pt plays, but to what end? Will that get you over 50% without hurting your chances to score TDs to put you in that position?
I think that teams should do it more, particularly in certain situations after scoring first, but I don't see the utility in doing it significantly more frequently than now. Plus football coaches are notoriously risk averse.
This post was edited on 10/10/13 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 10/10/13 at 1:43 pm to Sophandros
I believe teams should go for 2 more often, but that doesn't mean they should go for it all the time.
For instance, if the Broncos are playing the Saints, one would assume it would be a high scoring affair. The law of averages would help in that situation and I would be an advocate for a team going for 2.
I also think it is wise to go for 2 if the opponent has made a field goal in the game. Going for 2 can erase those 3 points with relative ease in the NFL.
I agree with the sentiment of most in this thread though. The numbers for some teams likely say to go for 2 all the time, but everyone will forget all your wins the first time you lose a game with that strategy. The numbers would have to be really, really favorable for a coach to go that route since they would have to overcome the 49% AND the scrutiny and job security that is on the line.
For instance, if the Broncos are playing the Saints, one would assume it would be a high scoring affair. The law of averages would help in that situation and I would be an advocate for a team going for 2.
I also think it is wise to go for 2 if the opponent has made a field goal in the game. Going for 2 can erase those 3 points with relative ease in the NFL.
I agree with the sentiment of most in this thread though. The numbers for some teams likely say to go for 2 all the time, but everyone will forget all your wins the first time you lose a game with that strategy. The numbers would have to be really, really favorable for a coach to go that route since they would have to overcome the 49% AND the scrutiny and job security that is on the line.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 2:03 pm to slackster
Dan Mullens luvs this thread
Posted on 10/10/13 at 2:06 pm to LeonPhelps
quote:
If the success rate is under 50%, then you score more points over time by just going for the extra point.
But the sample size is obviously small and it's always in high pressure situations
If your philosophy is to go for 2 every time, it would force you to work a lot more on your goal line offense so you might get a couple of touch downs where you would normally get field goals to offset any points lost where you made less than 50% of the attempts.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 2:09 pm to Powerman
quote:
If your philosophy is to go for 2 every time, it would force you to work a lot more on your goal line offense so you might get a couple of touch downs where you would normally get field goals to offset any points lost where you made less than 50% of the attempts.
You believe that?
Posted on 10/10/13 at 2:12 pm to TheSexecutioner
Coaches like job security. I would like to see good red zone offenses go for it a lot.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 2:12 pm to Powerman
I think it is ridiculous to ever go for 2 before the 4th quarter.
Many more times than not, teams that go for 2 and fail in the 3rd quarter end up wishing they had kicked the PAT.
Example:
With 5 minutes to go in the game, a team who is down 11 scores a TD. It is a no-brainer to go for 2 to cut the deficit to 3 because there is very little time left.
With 5 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter, it would be foolish to go for 2 in the same situation. There are still a wide variety of things that could happen.
Many more times than not, teams that go for 2 and fail in the 3rd quarter end up wishing they had kicked the PAT.
Example:
With 5 minutes to go in the game, a team who is down 11 scores a TD. It is a no-brainer to go for 2 to cut the deficit to 3 because there is very little time left.
With 5 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter, it would be foolish to go for 2 in the same situation. There are still a wide variety of things that could happen.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 2:16 pm to LSUGrad9295
quote:
I think it is ridiculous to ever go for 2 before the 4th quarter.
That is the common belief, and it is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is this belief that cause coaches to be scrutinized when they buck the norm, and that scrutiny causes coaches to stay in line with the conventional thinking.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 2:20 pm to castorinho
quote:This is an undersung factor in all this.
And yeah most coaches go with traditional way of doing things because of job security
If you lose 42-41 and your team scored five touchdowns that day, hindsight can tell you that it is somewhat likely that had you gone for 2 each of those five times, you would have come out on top. But if you go for two each time, and even if you make most of them, and you lose by one or two, you'll be hanged.
I will say, however, if you're one of the top offenses in the NFL, and you're playing against one of the bottom defenses in the NFL, and you get through with that first drive and think "we've got their number," go for it.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 2:23 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:Great point. Theoretically, any of the top ten offenses in the league matched up vs the bottom ten defenses would all likely average better than 50%.
would the good offenses be held under 50% though?
Posted on 10/10/13 at 2:25 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Theoretically, any of the top ten offenses in the league matched up vs the bottom ten defenses would all likely average better than 50%.
What? I dont think there is any theory to support this.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 2:29 pm to LSUGrad9295
quote:I don't know if this applies, but when LSU played Ole Miss in 2010, the two teams combined for six straight two-point conversion attempts (only the final one was successful), which has got to be some kind of modern college record or something.
Many more times than not, teams that go for 2 and fail in the 3rd quarter end up wishing they had kicked the PAT.
quote:LINK
4th 14:22 LS Jo. Jefferson 3 yd run (T. Toliver rush failed)
8 plays, 80 yards, TOP 3:28 24 - 29
08:49 UM Jeremiah Masoli 22 yd run (Jeremiah Masoli pass failed)
10 plays, 59 yards, TOP 5:24 30 - 29
07:30 LS Michael Ford 27 yd pass from Jo. Jefferson (Jo. Jefferson pass failed)
4 plays, 60 yards, TOP 1:19 30 - 35
04:57 UM M. Summers 65 yd pass from Jeremiah Masoli (Jeremiah Masoli rush failed)
5 plays, 80 yards, TOP 2:33 36 - 35
00:44 LS Stevan Ridley 7 yd run (Jo. Jefferson rush)
8 plays, 51 yards, TOP 4:08 36 - 43
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News