When to go for the 2-point conversion

[SU94]

You've got to kick the extra point and make it a one possession game at 22-14.

If you go for 2 and score (22-15) you have a better chance of winning than you do at 22-14 but it isn't worth the risk of failing - fail and it's 22-13 and you have to score twice (with one being a touchdown) to win.

Wow, that was almost exactly the scenario I spelled out. Just +6 points for both teams.
I think Sean Payton is a heck of a coach, but just because he did it, does not mean that it is the right tact.
That is why I posed the scenario in the beginning, because I think conventional thought is misguided.
And no one's made me really rethink my position.

 

[dollarbill44]

If you look at all of the replies in this thread (and I appreciate anyone who took the time!), no one has offered anything concrete. All the answers contain intangibles like "confidence," let the other coach "play conservative," "momentum," "pressure," and "extend the game."

There is no concrete proof to support either stance. The correct choice is whatever ultimately gets the highest score at the end of the game. If you would go for 2 in this scenario, why wouldn't you go for 2 after every TD in a game? The Steelers go for 2 quite frequently, regardless of the score or point in time and they are very successful-about 75%, I think. What makes Tomlin decide when to choose 1 or 2? I doubt it's anything concrete.
I am of the opinion that you go for 1 until you have to.
A good example of this is the Rams v Titans super bowl( I think this the one), where the Rams were up 16 at the half. The Titans got a TD fairly early, went for 2 and didn't get it. The scoring for both teams was such that they needed a TD at the end rather than just a FG because they were down 4. They got stopped inside the 1 yard line.

When you're down 2 possessions, your goal should be to get it to a one possession game. The most sure fire way to that is kick.

 

[upperdeck]

everyone says go for it on 4th down now. the try for 2 is a short play on a small field.. why dont teams work on more plays and go for it every time.. if you can go from 50/50 to 60/40 its worth it.

 

[Finwad32]

At one point this past season, we were down all 3 of our PK's. An extremely rare scenario. Due to this, we did nothing but attempt 2 pt. conversions for 2 games. We had over 12 - 2 pt. plays that we developed over the course of those 2 weeks, depending on the opponent, that we dedicated a substantial amount of time to. We could of ran any play in our playbook, but, these 12 were dedicated solely to 2 pt. conversions (would've used in short RZ if necessary most likely as well).

We were 50%.

Obviously you think you can do better. And I'd be interested to see data on what the percentages are for teams that do attempt a very high number of 2 pt. conversions.

IMO it's the hardest part of the field to score from with 1 opportunity.

 

[Alsacs]

At one point this past season, we were down all 3 of our PK's. An extremely rare scenario. Due to this, we did nothing but attempt 2 pt. conversions for 2 games. We had over 12 - 2 pt. plays that we developed over the course of those 2 weeks, depending on the opponent, that we dedicated a substantial amount of time to. We could of ran any play in our playbook, but, these 12 were dedicated solely to 2 pt. conversions (would've used in short RZ if necessary most likely as well).

We were 50%.

Obviously you think you can do better. And I'd be interested to see data on what the percentages are for teams that do attempt a very high number of 2 pt. conversions.

IMO it's the hardest part of the field to score from with 1 opportunity.

Your a HC so let me ask you this. I am good friends with a HS coach here in NC. He follows the book for 1/2 only goes for 2 when up/down 1/5/12 but he also always goes for 2 when up 7 which is not in the book. His logic is that by going up from 7 to 9 it makes the game a 2 score game and risk is worth that.

By going up 29-20 over 28-20 he is giving his team a bigger cushion even going up 8 means he can only at worse get tied. What do you think of that philosophy assuming you had a healthy team and say just an average kicker.

 

[Finwad32]

Your a HC so let me ask you this. I am good friends with a HS coach here in NC. He follows the book for 1/2 only goes for 2 when up/down 1/5/12 but he also always goes for 2 when up 7 which is not in the book. His logic is that by going up from 7 to 9 it makes the game a 2 score game and risk is worth that.

By going up 29-20 over 28-20 he is giving his team a bigger cushion even going up 8 means he can only at worse get tied. What do you think of that philosophy assuming you had a healthy team and say just an average kicker.

Absolutely, it's a no risk scenario. Worst case, you're still up a TD & XP. This gets filed to me a little bit as a game time decision. Depending on confidence level. Because if you're really good at XP's, you're forcing them to go for 2. If your XP %'s are below average and you're nervous about the other team's offense, go for 2.

IMO, there's no concrete decision, there are multiple variables that have to be accounted for. Many of which are split second type decisions.

But, I would not be opposed to stretching it to 9.

* Just for reference, not a HC. I have been before, but, not currently.

 

[RandygoCuse]

But why? Gimme a good reason. Honestly, I am asking for someone to reply with a smart answer, deeper that "get it to a one-possession game."

The odds of converting the 2-pointer are essentially equal no matter if I go for it on the first or subsequent touchdown.
(In fact, I might be able to argue that I have a slight going for it the first time because, from the view point of the the opposing defense, the game in not yet on the line. But this is NOT my main argument)

So, why not go for 2 after the first time (when down 22-13)? Then if I do not convert, I have "ample" time to adjust my game plan the last ~10 minutes of the game. I need (at least) two scores, how am I going to accomplish this? Well, I can use the onside kick, the hurry-up offense, pass almost every down, use timeouts efficiently, lots of blitzes, inform my linebackers to go for strips, etc.).

But, if I go with convention ("extend the game" or "make it a one-score game") --- get the game to 22-14, then score late, in this instance get within 22-20 with 10 seconds left --- and I go for 2 and and fail to convert ... the game is over. No time for adjustments. Game's over.

Convention is wrong.

I love unconventional thinking - you won't find anyone who loves going for it on 4th more than I do. But I think the data says you go for 1. You're correct in that you shouldn't just do it to "extend the game" or because that's what's always been done. But I do believe in playing the percentages and that supports the PAT. Now, if you were to show me that mathematically teams would be better off going for 2 in this situation, I would be the first to eat a big slice of Christmas (OK, Chanukah) humble pie.

 

[SU94]

I love unconventional thinking - you won't find anyone who loves going for it on 4th more than I do. But I think the data says you go for 1. You're correct in that you shouldn't just do it to "extend the game" or because that's what's always been done. But I do believe in playing the percentages and that supports the PAT. Now, if you were to show me that mathematically teams would be better off going for 2 in this situation, I would be the first to eat a big slice of Christmas (OK, Chanukah) humble pie.

I am afraid i am not a great communicator. This is as simple as I can break it down. All things being equal, if a team is down 15, they'll have to score 2 TDs in the last 10 minutes to tie or win the game. Assuming the two-pointer is going to fail, you want to fail with more time on the clock than with less because it allows your team additional opportunities to potentially overcome the failed conversion.

Any HC really on top of the situation should attempt to convert the 2 point conversion, but at the same time account for the repercussions of a failed conversion.

Going for two after the first TD accomplishes this (when the score is 22-13). To to wait until your final TD, which comes very likely with less than two minutes left is to leave no wiggle room in the instance of a failed 2-point try.

So, to sum it up...if you are going to fail on a needed 2-poiny try, do you want wiggle room or not?

 

[dollarbill44]

I am afraid i am not a great communicator. This is as simple as I can break it down. All things being equal, if a team is down 15, they'll have to score 2 TDs in the last 10 minutes to tie or win the game. Assuming the two-pointer is going to fail, you want to fail with more time on the clock than with less because it allows your team additional opportunities to potentially overcome the failed conversion. Any HC really on top of the situation should attempt to convert the 2 point conversion, but at the same time account for the repercussions of a failed conversion. Going for two after the first TD accomplishes this (when the score is 22-13). To to wait until your final TD, which comes very likely with less than two minutes left is to leave no wiggle room in the instance of a failed 2-point try. So, to sum it up...if you are going to fail on a needed 2-poiny try, do you want wiggle room or not?

I think you were pretty clear the first time. It is a well-thought out, logical stance, but so is the contra argument. It is possible that intelligent, logical people can reach different conclusions. It doesn't mean we can't comprehend or that we are dense.

 

[skurey]

Where is the well thought out logical argument against it?

 

[dollarbill44]

Where is the well thought out logical argument against it?

It's been presented. You obviously didn't read the whole thread or you're too stubborn to see the posts.
I've seen the posts arguing for going for two. There are merits to that stance. I've posted why I would kick the PAT. Others have too.
Too many people on here just think if someone doesn't agree that they're stupid and incapable of higher thought. Everything is either black or white-there is no gray to many.

 

[SU94]

Fascinating article breakdown on last night's Bills-Bucs game, which was mismanaged bv McDermott (really solid coach, who gets scared of his shadow a bit too often). If you enjoy the modern math of football, this is an excellent read.

And the scenarios/scores in play for Josh Allen and the Bills were not identical, but reminiscent, of what I posted when this thread began in 2015.

The Bills should have gone for 2 twice Sunday: How it cost them and why it matters so much

Buffalo twice erred in passing up opportunities to go for two in the fourth quarter on Sunday, according to ESPN's win probability model.

www.espn.com

 

[NineOneSeven]

Was hoping I had an epic old post in this thread but alas…

 

[All4SU]

Obviously a lot depends on various factors:
A) does your team have a good OL compared with your opponent’s DL
B) how is your red zone offense
C) weather conditions

The patriots went for 2 on their opening drive against the Bills last week, I suspect for a couple of reasons:
A) the weather sucked and the windy conditions made kicking an adventure, and
B) I think they wanted to send a message to the Bills “We’re going to run the ball to today and you can’t stop us.” It was demoralizing to the Bills to go down 8 after the opening drive.

There are all kinds of reasons to go for 2.

 

[upperdeck]

I dont have an issue with down 11 going for 2 and most would. I think its crazy down 4 late in that game that they would go for 2.

And where do they come up with the idea that a team like Buffalo with no running game against that D would have a high success rate? The reason that are 7-6 is because they have issues in the red zone..

and the model casually throws out that in OT buffalo got the ball..

If you told the model that by kicking the XP and the FG you would be in OT with the ball to win the odds of winning are better than 50/50..

 

[All4SU]

As to the OP, I think you go for 2 in that situation. You should be playing to win. Getting within 8 means needing a 2 later to tie. Getting a 2 now means being able to potentially win.

If you’ve had to come from behind like that in the game, why would you want to play for OT?

 

[DMDMD]

Fascinating article breakdown on last night's Bills-Bucs game, which was mismanaged bv McDermott (really solid coach, who gets scared of his shadow a bit too often). If you enjoy the modern math of football, this is an excellent read.

And the scenarios/scores in play for Josh Allen and the Bills were not identical, but reminiscent, of what I posted when this thread began in 2015.

The Bills should have gone for 2 twice Sunday: How it cost them and why it matters so much

Buffalo twice erred in passing up opportunities to go for two in the fourth quarter on Sunday, according to ESPN's win probability model.

www.espn.com

I like this stuff a lot, but I can't get too upset when we are talking about "swings" in win probability of under 2%. Wish they would show some confidence intervals on their math, my guess is there is a great deal of false precision here.

 

[Pyle]

Fascinating article breakdown on last night's Bills-Bucs game, which was mismanaged bv McDermott (really solid coach, who gets scared of his shadow a bit too often). If you enjoy the modern math of football, this is an excellent read.

And the scenarios/scores in play for Josh Allen and the Bills were not identical, but reminiscent, of what I posted when this thread began in 2015.

The Bills should have gone for 2 twice Sunday: How it cost them and why it matters so much

Buffalo twice erred in passing up opportunities to go for two in the fourth quarter on Sunday, according to ESPN's win probability model.

www.espn.com

Two demerits for bumping a 6 year old thread and making me read most of the 1st page before realizing posts were from 2015.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Haven't read all the previous replies. IMO you should almost always go for 2 or almost never go for 2.

I hate seeing teams go for 2 on their 1st TD. If you are going that route then do it all game. Isn't the point in that situation to score as many points as possible?

The flow of the game matters but in general IMO a team should only go for 2 under 10 mins left in the game. There is too much that can happen the rest of the way to go for it before then. There are exceptions. For instance being down 24, I would go for 2. Being down 2 points in a very low scoring game the 1st five mins of the 4th Q, I would go fo 2.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Like most things if you make it and win the game - people will be for it and you'll be praised. If you miss and lose the game by a point or 2 - you will be crucified.

and that is what it really comes down to, along with 4th down calls

 

[storange]

I think it’s best to go for a 2 point conversion after you scored a touchdown .

 

[721Comstock]

I think it’s best to go for a 2 point conversion after you scored a touchdown .

That does seem like the most opportune time.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Curious to hear everyone's assessment of this football scoring hypothetical ...

So a team is down 22-7 and scores 5 minutes into the 4th quarter.
To be more specific. they score a TD, so the score is now 22-13.
Accepted protocol is that they kick the P.A.T. to get within a single score (down 8).
Right?

Well I offer this…

Why not go for 2 and attempt to get within 7 points. If you convert, … great!

If you don’t convert, at least you have 10 minutes knowing that you need (at least) two scores to win/tie.

Under this model, at least you can adjust your play calling accordingly (use of timeouts, no-huddle, more risk/reward on defense, onside kick, etc.).

Let’s put it this way, …

• Is it better to miss the 2-point conversion EARLY and have 10 minutes to react accordingly or
• Is it better to miss the 2-point conversion LATE and have (I am admittedly making this up) 90 seconds to react accordingly?

To me, this is a no-brainer and I think the accepted answer is nonsensical.

The problem is the other team. If you are down 9 they are more likely to kill clock vs being up only 8. Also do you trust your D? If they get a FG you are down 12 vs 11. That is a big difference.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

But why? Gimme a good reason. Honestly, I am asking for someone to reply with a smart answer, deeper that "get it to a one-possession game."

The odds of converting the 2-pointer are essentially equal no matter if I go for it on the first or subsequent touchdown.
(In fact, I might be able to argue that I have a slight going for it the first time because, from the view point of the the opposing defense, the game in not yet on the line. But this is NOT my main argument)

So, why not go for 2 after the first time (when down 22-13)? Then if I do not convert, I have "ample" time to adjust my game plan the last ~10 minutes of the game. I need (at least) two scores, how am I going to accomplish this? Well, I can use the onside kick, the hurry-up offense, pass almost every down, use timeouts efficiently, lots of blitzes, inform my linebackers to go for strips, etc.).

But, if I go with convention ("extend the game" or "make it a one-score game") --- get the game to 22-14, then score late, in this instance get within 22-20 with 10 seconds left --- and I go for 2 and and fail to convert ... the game is over. No time for adjustments. Game's over.

Convention is wrong.

With limited time left in the game it is better to be down 1 score vs 2 scores. 7 vs 8 is still one score. 7 vs 9 is a big difference. Why risk it for no reward?

Edit

The point is you have a 45% either way of converting 2. Whether you go for 2 now or go for 2 later. You don't have time to really get 2 scores should you fail to convert. So would you rather lose with 10 mins left or with 10 seconds left? In reality it doesn't really matter. A loss is a loss. But in perception it is better to lose at the end.

Edit II
With 22 points in the 1st 50 mins the chances are they will score at least 3 more points in the last 10 mins. Realistically are you going to shut them out the rest of the way? That depends on your D and their O. If you have a good D or they typically have a bad O, that changes things. But if your D is mediocre or their O is good, you aren't shutting them out. So if you are thinking you need 25 points to tie and you have 13, isn't it better to be down 11 vs 12?

 

[kirbivore]

In Sunday's Baltimore/Cleveland game John Harbaugh got the TD to close it 9 with about 10:00 left and went for the 2.