Not Going for Two point Conversion

[Halfmooncuse]

Don't see much about this decision. SU up by five after the TD making the score SU 15 and Pitt 10 in mid third period. So instead of going for 2 and getting a seven point lead they kick a Point after getting a six point lead. Well that protects against two scoring drives by Pitt that result in two FGs but does not protect against one scoring TD drive and a point after. The way SU scores I thought they would go for 2. They did not and Pitt has one scoring drive that gives them the game winning lead. In hindsight a bad decision but many of whom I was sitting with including me were perplexed then and not Monday morning criticizing now.

 

[TexanMark]

I agree...I would've rolled the dice there thinking a miss on the 2 pt try and 3 later in the game could still win.

I'm not going to beat Shafer up on it though...

 

[NineOneSeven]

Way too much time left to go for two

 

[orange79]

Way too much time left to go for two

I agree. The bad part about missing the point so early is that you spend the rest of the game chasing that point. And this time, it came back to bite us.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

Way too much time left to go for two

Given that SU doesn't score (two scores in first half and none after that third score) that insurance was needed then. Why buy medical insurance when you are young and healthy? I agree but when your family has a history of getting sick early in life...well better play it safe cause there's no Obamacare in this game.

 

[OttoMets]

Pasqualoni wouldn't have lost in regulation yesterday.

Gotta go for two, no matter how early.

 

[Chris02M]

you don't go for 2 in the 3rd quarter period

 

[All4SU]

you don't go for 2 in the 3rd quarter period

Why can't we go for 2 all game long?

 

[FAL]

Why can't we go for 2 all game long?

Only if we are playing against Geno Smith and company in the Pinstripe Bowl.

 

[All4SU]

I'll bet we could make a 2pt conversion 50 percent of the time. Which would be equivalent to converting every extra point. And of course we don't make EVERY extra point so we would be ahead on average.

 

[BuffOrange]

The fact that you don't hear anything about it means coaches will continue to abide by nonsensical arbitrary "OMG 3rd Qtr!" rules that announcers have beaten into everyone's heads.
Doug Marrone went for 2 in the 3rd Qtr of a low scoring game vs Carolina which ultimately was the difference in the game but he gets zero props for it. Imagine the uproar if they didn't get it though?
There isn't much upside for coaches getting the math right.

 

[JoeSU]

I don't like chasing points that early in a game. Usually there are way too many hypothetical scoring scenarios that could still play out.

 

[Chris02M]

and if you miss one early in the game now your chasing 2 points then 3 and so on

 

[Crusty]

Two point conversion chart first developed by Dick Vermeil in the early 1970s and still used by most today.

 

[TexanMark]

I don't like chasing points that early in a game. Usually there are way too many hypothetical scoring scenarios that could still play out.

But Joe the only hypothetical I saw was points were at a premium in the game...the game was 2/3rds over and points for both teams were hard to come by. I'm not going to beat up Shaf on it...but I would've "rolled the bones" in the 3rd.

 

[Scooch]

I'll bet we could make a 2pt conversion 50 percent of the time. Which would be equivalent to converting every extra point. And of course we don't make EVERY extra point so we would be ahead on average.

If coaches understood math they'd go for 2 all the time.

They don't and they don't.

 

[Moontan]

What we've learned so far:

1. never punt
(unless it's 4th and forever,
or possibly if you're inside your own 25)
2. always go for an onside kick
3. always go for 2

 

[SmilinBob]

I don't know but to tell you the truth, it seemed like the thing to do right then to me. Not a big fan of the Vermeil chart...well not just going by it and never veering. This is coming from a guy that hates it when teams go for two using that chart.

 

[Crusty]

I don't know but to tell you the truth, it seemed like the thing to do right then to me. Not a big fan of the Vermeil chart...well not just going by it and never veering. This is coming from a guy that hates it when teams go for two using that chart.

Why? The chart keeps it objective and removes the emotion of the moment. Coaches can always alter based on a variety of factors but it beats an impulse decision.

 

[SmilinBob]

Why? The chart keeps it objective and removes the emotion of the moment. Coaches can always alter based on a variety of factors but it beats an impulse decision.

Emotion no...recognizing you have somebody where you want them and time to take advantage, yes. Too many coaches use that chart and never veer was my point and to me ,who's to say it's perfect? It's solid yes but not perfect by any means. I get the emotion thing but you also have to recognize a flow to the game as well and pick your spots.

 

[All4SU]

Why? The chart keeps it objective and removes the emotion of the moment. Coaches can always alter based on a variety of factors but it beats an impulse decision.

The chart makes no mention of what period of the game you are in, or how good the opposing team's goal line defense may be, or whether you have The Fridge in the backfield, or weather conditions, or if your kicker is struggling, or if you OLine is busted up...

 

[cuseincincy]

I thought about it at the time but was fine with kicking it. Pitt wasn't exactly moving the ball much and at that point them gettign 3 FG's seemed more likely than a TD. My real problem with the game is how do you only score 16 points period? Way too many screens and passes into the flat. The dropped TD's obviously hurt but is it too much to ask to complete a pass over the middle?

 

[All4SU]

I was extremely encouraged when SU ran that quick hitter for Wales over the middle early in the game. I know he caught three...which is about three more than he's had all season. But it seemed to be there. Surprised we couldn't take advantage more.

 

[Crusty]

The chart makes no mention of what period of the game you are in, or how good the opposing team's goal line defense may be, or whether you have The Fridge in the backfield, or weather conditions, or if your kicker is struggling, or if you OLine is busted up...

Agreed, the chart is not religion just a guideline. I do think it says we should have gone for two. Our kicker struggles, we have a good line and Rome and Hunt have a nose for the end zone this year. Granted Hickey had gone down but I think that was all the more reason to go for the 2.

 

[Crusty]

Emotion no...recognizing you have somebody where you want them and time to take advantage, yes. Too many coaches use that chart and never veer was my point and to me ,who's to say it's perfect? It's solid yes but not perfect by any means. I get the emotion thing but you also have to recognize a flow to the game as well and pick your spots.

Agreed