re: Do people REALLY not understand why you go for two after the first TD when down 15?

Here’s what it says...and it doesn’t help much

quote:

---

When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all).

---

2 point conversions have a higher point expectancy that extra points in the first place.

im not sure what that adds to this specific conversation, but it's something that's not brought up nearly enough.

quote:

---

Incorrect. Late in the game, you always try to keep it one possession. Not two. Then the opposing offense usually gets more aggressive and might attempt a pass (incomplete) which stops the clock. Up two possessions 99% of teams are running clock on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down.

---

So so so dumb.

I love how they’re throwing incomplete passes in these made up scenarios. What’s easier to stop - a team who is running it only or a team who might throw?

I'll argue for going for two on the 2nd touchdown.

Momentum:
- You score a TD, you don't go for two and risk killing the momentum you've just established. You kick the XP and cut it to one possession.

Mindset:
- Yes, if you fail on the two you know you need two more possessions. You also risk taking your players out of the game mentally. Being down by 8 with 3 minutes to go feels a lot different than being down 9 with 3 minutes to go. Plus, as mentioned, the play calling on the other side will change based on a an 8 or 9 point game.

(Assuming the trailing team has no TO's)
1:30 left, up by 8, 3rd and 5:
- The team that's up may not want to risk giving the ball back. They try a pass play to put it away. That gives you a chance at an interception or an incompletion. If either of those happen, you get the ball back with roughly 1:20.

1:30 left, up by 9, 3rd and 5:
- They aren't worried about giving you the ball back because they are up by two possessions, so they run it. Say they don't get it. They still punt, but now they are eating clock and you get it back with 40 seconds instead of 1:20 - and you are still down by two possessions.


And if you don't agree, well you and your data can kiss my fricking arse!

You can use that argument for both sides... Failing to stop a 2 point conversion can swing the momentum

quote:

---

Which is great for the team down 9. Would you prefer to stop a team that is almost guaranteed to be running the ball or stopping a team that may run or pass since they’re actually trying to get a 1st down?

---

umm... I'd rather not have to stop them two straight possessions and score two straight possessions with little time left, which may be impossible or close to it. Given the little time left, stopping them once and converting a 2 point conversion is much higher odds.

What is mind blowing for me is why Atlanta went for 2 while up 19 points already. 20 is still a 3 score game at least. Had they done the PAT instead it would have at least gone to OT

You said you'd rather not have to stop the team twice.. I'm saying you don't have to stop them twice as was evidenced sunday...

I don't think you play your two point strategy based on the potential for recovering an onside kick, especially under the new rules.

The odds of scoring on a 2 point conversion are the same for each touchdown. You play your two point strategy on the Risk/Reward. No excess risk if you go for two early as its just as likely you'd miss if you tried later. Reward is you have more time to adjust to what happens. Why would you not want as much time as possible to implement a new strategy. Never delay the variable in the equation.