That seems to be never considered, it’s always we will get 22-0 in the 4th quarter, never what if they score 3.
Well, losing is losing, but there are human beings playing the game. And there is a psychological element to the game as well as the nuts and bolts, win or lose element.
I look at it this way… And it’s important for me to look at it with these parameters… Because time left in the game makes a huge difference in what decision I’m going to make. But if there were say 7 minutes to go in the 4th, and I’m down 18, i kick the point. That gives me hopefully two more possessions before the end of the game (barring turnovers and two 3 and outs by the defense), and in those two possessions I need to score a TD or FG in any order. If i score the TD and go for 2 and miss, I have cursed my team to having to score 2 TD’s to win, instead of a TD (and 2 pt) and FG to tie.
None of these scenarios are good, and I think the odds of a team down 18 with 7 to play coming back to win or tie are long, but at least I give my team a chance to tie as the clock winds down. If you go for the 2 after the first TD and fail, the momentum is gone and the team deflates. They know that the game is basically over, because scoring 2 TD’s is harder than a TD and a FG.
Yes, i agree to some extent the kicking of the PAT is delaying the inevitable loss, but that’s not because I kicked the PAT. It’s because making up that kind of a deficit is difficult to impossible. In both scenarios, you have to score 3 times against an opponent. If they have an 18 pt. Lead, they gave obviously been dominating the game for 53 minutes… Odds are, you won’t score 3 straight times. But if you DO have a chance to score 3 times, wouldn’t you rather have to score a FG and not a TD in the closing moments of a game? Because that’s what this boils down to. (i say that because in attempting and failing to convert the first 2 pt conversion, you MUST score TD’s.). So, if you have the capability to score a TD on your next to last possession, let’s say both the good PAT and the bad 2 pt conversion score a TD next time they have the ball. At the end of the game, I get to try a FG to tie, and that means I have to get to the 35 yard line or so for a legit shot. But if you have to score a TD, that 35 yards is a lot to cover in the same amt. of time it takes to kick a FG.
(Unless you are the Patriots playing the Steelers, of course.)
I wasn’t talking about the players. I was talking about the the coach avoiding criticism by playing it safe: if you kick the PAT, your team is still a real longshot to win. If you go for two and succeed, you have really improved your odds. If you fail, it looks like the team’s odds have gotten much worse when they really haven’t (because you were going to have to go for two later anyway and there was no guarantee of success). But I will say that this stuff about the players being demoralized really doesn’t matter either. What matters is the team’s chances of winning.
Well, you hit the nail on the head with your second sentence. A coach is never going to do something that, if he fails, will make his owner think he’s not a good coach or an idiot. So if he goes for two and fails, game is over. If he goes for one and makes it, that keeps the team alive to play longer in the game.
The stuff about demoralizing players might not matter to you, and it might not matter to statistics, but it does matter to the players on the field. When you think you can’t win, you can’t help but ease up on the gas. Players are human. Why bust your ass and risk injury when it’s over? When you still think you have a chance, you will keep playing hard until that chance is extinguished. Have you ever played a sport? if you did, you could think back to a case when your team was beaten, and remember how little effort you wanted to put into the last few plays.
And help me out here. Even if you go for two and make it, how does that improve your chances of winning? You still have to score another TD, kick the PAT and a field goal. You have not given yourself any advantage, but if you miss, you clearly have given yourself a disadvantage.
I am just not seeing the value in going for 2 after the first score.
That’s not actually true, though. That’s sort of how it looks, but in an ideal world coaches should do the things that are going to help them win, not the things that will help them avoid being second-guessed. I’m saying that kicking the PAT helps them avoid criticism because it might make the game look more competitive for longer, but it doesn’t improve the team’s chances of winning and probably makes it a little harder for them to win. And it’s not true that a coach will never go for two in this kind of situation. The Colts just did this exact thing against the Texans. The conversion failed but they won the game.
Why does that matter to me as coach? What matters is getting the best chance to win. The players will be happy if we’re winning and sad if they’re losing.
I can make better informed decisions about my playcalling because I know whether I need a TD and FG or two TDs.
. Coaches, in my opinion, especially in the NFL, ofteN make decisions on how not to get fired. That’s why so many coaches go into the “prevent” defense at the end of the game. Instead of letting the defense play the way they have been playing and dominating for the whole game, the defense is forced to give up yards (and points) for time. How many times have you seen that prevent strategy cost a team the game? Or cost the team some points right before halftime?
And you haven’t shown me how it makes the team more likely to win the game. You haven’t show that at all. At best, you are going to tie the game, unless you plan on going for 2 points after the second touchdown you score. And you won’t, because missing the second after making the first will cause you to lose by a point.
Because you, as a coach cannot win the game. That’s up to the players. That’s 11 guys who may look at that 12 point lead as insurmountable no matter what your “coach brain” tells you.
Well, we are just going to have to disagree on this. I don’t see how knowing you need two TD’s is better than knowing you need 1 TD and 1 FG. So you know. So what? How does that help you? At the end of a game, would you rather need 2 TD’s or 1 TD or 1 FG? I don’t think there is much argument in this point, and I think the answer is obvious. But you see it differently. That’s fine. It just makes no logical sense (To me). And if we were both NFL coaches, i would want you to go for 2 against my team. If. I stop you, the game is over. If I don’t stop you, you still need 10 points to tie, so I still fee pretty good with my chances.
This is the overriding factor. They can score a field goal in between your three drives and make it a 21-point hole. Then you need all the extra points but no conversions at all. So you kick the point and wait to try the conversion on the second TD, if you ever get that far.
And I agree. But it’s stupid and often hurts the teams chances of winning, so that’s not what I’m doing in this scenario.
Come on. If my team is down when regulation is over, we lose. If we’re tied, we have a chance to win in overtime. In the meantime I have a better idea of what kind of yardage and time I can use because I know what kind of scores I need.
Players - like coaches, discussed in the example above - often believe things that are stupid. Like “at some point in the game it magically becomes acceptable to go for 2.” So I don’t care if the players are demoralized when they’re down 11 or 12. The problem is not that they are feeling sad, it’s that the team is probably going to lose.
The game’s not over, though. I need two TDs instead of a TD and a field goal. If we’re saying I don’t have time for a couple of quick drives, then the discussion is irrelevant because my team is screwed anyway. I’m not sure what else I can say about this other than what Barnwell says in the Grantland piece.
This is flawed logic because whether or not you score the 2-point conversion now does not determine what you need later.
The assumption that you can go ahead and get two more touchdowns while holding the other team to 0 points is unreliable at best, foolhardy at worst. The logic of going for 2 now rests solely on that dubious assumption.
It’s always best to leave yourself behind by the fewest scoring drives, and needing a FG is always better than needing a TD regardless if the FG makes you need a 2-pt.
Down by 18, score a touchdown, always go for 1 to make it a 2-score game with one of those scores being a FG.
The other reason not to go for the 2-pt now is because needing two more touchdowns can in and of itself kill your chances. It’s much harder and takes much longer to get two touchdowns than to get a touchdown and a field goal. Deliberately hamstringing yourself like that is counter-productive.
From another viewpoint, I always think back to Wellington Mara’s sole criterion for a successful season: If the last game you play is a meaningful game. All playoff games are meaningful, of course, but if you failed to make the playoffs but could have if you won your last game, that is also a successful season because every game “counted.” I very much buy into this philosophy.
I similarly buy into it in terms of drives. If you lost the game but your last drive was meaningful, that’s better than if you still needed another score.
Consider if you go for 2, miss it, are now down by 12, and then fail to convert on 4th and long in the red zone. Your defense holds the other team, you drive down for a touchdown with like a minute left, fail to get the onside kick, lose by 5. Your last drive wasn’t meaningful; it had no way to change a loss to a win. (Down by 12 to down by 5 or 4, no difference.)
Same situation but you took the gimme 1, are now down by 11, then on 4th and long in the red zone kick a field goal to get within 8. Defense holds, you drive down for a touchdown with like a minute left. You’re now down by 2 and try for the 2-point to tie it up but fail, just like the previous example. Fail to get the onside kick so game ends, lose by 2.
In the second scenario your last drive was meaningful; if you scored the 2-pt you could have forced overtime. Having your last drive be meaningful is objectively better than it not being meaningful. And when you’re down by 18, kicking the extra point increases the odds that your last drive will be meaningful. Which also increases the odds of winning the game.
You don’t appear to have factored how much time is left on the clock in these two situations. In the first situation, down 12, if you fail to make the 2 point conversion on the first TD, you know to use strategic timeouts on your opponents possession(s) and to run a hurry-up offense on your remaining possession(s). By doing so, you may be able to save yourself an extra minute or two of game time, enough to go for a win on your final possession! Even if your opponents manage to score a field goal, you still have the opportunity to take it to overtime with two TD’s and a 2 point conversion. This is exactly what the Colts did on Sunday night.
In the second situation, down 8, the final drive would start with less time on the clock. In addition, most coaches would milk the clock on the final drive once they were closer to avoid a potential game-winning field goal coming back the other way; therefore, if you failed to make the 2 point conversion on the second TD, you only have the onside kick option (which you would have had with the previous situation anyway).
I would as well.
If you make it, 7 + 3 ties the game, so a field goal is now an option.
If you miss, you can always go for 2 next time, which is what you would be forced to do anyway if you only went for 1 this time.
This makes no sense to me. How does one scenario save time? Whatever way you slice this, you have to have three successful scoring drives, correct? So, the only difference is if you kick the PAT or go for two after the first score.
So look at it like this. We need three scores, and we score a touchdown.
18-6 = 12 for both scenarios, correct?
Now four things can happen…
Go for the PAT and make it, 18 - 7 = 11
Go for the PAT and miss 18-6 = 12
go for 2 pts and make it 18 - 8 = 10
Go for 2 pts and miss 18 - 6 = 12
everyone agree so far?
Ok… So i vote for kick the PAT, since this has an almost perfect return. And for my example, I assume the kick is made, because if it isn’t we have the same scenario as going for 2 and missing, which we will also cover.
So i kick the PAT, and i’m down by 11. I need two more scores, one TD (with 2) and 1 FG.
You go for 2 and make it. You are down by 10. Guess what? You still need two scores to tie, a TD (PAT) and FG.
You go for 2 and miss. You are down by 12. Now what happens? You still need two scores, but now you need TWO TD’S, Much harder to get than 1 Td and 1 FG.
I simply don’t get this idea of clock management being better, etc… We are all dealing with the same amount of time left on the clock no matter what choice is made after the first TD, And we both need two more scores. The only difference is, if you miss that first 2, you HAVE to score 2 TD’s. You have no choice. You’ve reduced your options and are basically forced to go for any 4th down, regardless of where you are on the field, or likelihood you will make it.
If you miss it, sure you can go for two next time. Go ahead. Guess what? I’ll even let you make it. 6 + 8 = 14, plus a FG = 17, you lose by a point. You miss that first 2 pt conversion you HAVE to go for. TD on both of your last 2 possessions.
I don’t care if coaches have or haven’t gone for this in real life. I don’t see any upside, but a lot of downside.
YMMV, MHO, Uncle, i quit!
By doing so you’ve made the rest of the game more difficult for yourself. You now have to use more strategic timeouts and run more of a hurry-up the rest of the way.
Basically, what you’re doing by going for 2 is committing to needing touchdowns and taking field goals off the table. Touchdowns are harder to get than field goals, reducing your chances of winning.
Wait, the whole point of the situation is that you have to go for two either after the first or second TD, don’t you? (otherwise even two TDs+1point PATs + a field goal leaves you down one). So you’re not deciding whether to go for two, just when.
[Re attempting the two pointer on the first TD]
Let’s put it this way: If you kick for one the first time, waste time, then miss the two-pointer on the second, you’re really going to wish you had run hurry up earlier, right?
Of course, that’s still a less full-of-regret place than if you kicked the first PAT, settled for a FG on the second drive, then missed the final two-pointer.
Wouldn’t you rather know exactly what you need as soon as possible?
No. Not any more than you’ll regret having gone down by 18 in the first place. Quite a bit less, actually.
No, because in this instance you had a real, legitimate chance of sending the game to overtime. That’s a better performance than if you missed the first 2-point and then because a FG doesn’t help you end up never getting within a touchdown.
Again, this “knowing what you need” concept involves an assumption that isn’t justified. Your 2-point attempt will not determine what you need later.