When Should You Go For Two?

[Hunter94]

you go for two when it is late in the game and you need 2 scores to win.

[Nebfanatic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the pros especially, since the games are usually close, I think the deal is that you almost always take the points you can get, like the PAT or FG, don't go for 2 or go for it on 4th down: take the PAT or FG. The only time to go for 2 is late in a game when you basically have to. Almost nvr go for 2 when you are ahead.

 

Don't be a "hero", take the high % pts.

 

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time.

Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL.

you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.

Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too.

 

Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, you take the point.

that's funny because kickers are missing an all time high number and percentage of extra points. I'm not saying go for 2 every time and I definitely never said anything about onside kicks but there are alot of scenarios where going for 2 going to be more advantageous than trying for 1

as yet, I haven't seen any pro coaches going in that direction. If the kicker misses too many in a season, he gets fired and they bring in the next guy, which is still the better option that going for 2 when you don't have to.

 

After a long successful scoring drive for 6, if you miss the 2, well, it's a downer psychologically, where getting the easy 1 feels better, you don't get the downer.

 

Same thing w driving the field to FG range. If you go for it on 4th and don't get it, its a big downer, bad momentum shift. You take the 3, even if you are 3 TDs down and plenty of time in the game.

 

Bielema was singing the praises of analytics after he won a game this year. Next week he gets his butt kicked by Aub and no word about analytics. Analytics aren't everything.

just because coaches aren't doing it yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No one sailed very far out back in the 1400s because they were sure the earth was flat, didn't make them right.

PATs aren't gimmies and I would say there is probably at least one time in every game a team would be better off going for 2

[chainsaw]

50 yard FG are normal- now 60 is long!

[The Big Nebrowski]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the pros especially, since the games are usually close, I think the deal is that you almost always take the points you can get, like the PAT or FG, don't go for 2 or go for it on 4th down: take the PAT or FG. The only time to go for 2 is late in a game when you basically have to. Almost nvr go for 2 when you are ahead.

 

Don't be a "hero", take the high % pts.

 

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time.

Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL.

you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.

Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too.

 

Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, you take the point.

that's funny because kickers are missing an all time high number and percentage of extra points. I'm not saying go for 2 every time and I definitely never said anything about onside kicks but there are alot of scenarios where going for 2 going to be more advantageous than trying for 1

as yet, I haven't seen any pro coaches going in that direction. If the kicker misses too many in a season, he gets fired and they bring in the next guy, which is still the better option that going for 2 when you don't have to.

 

After a long successful scoring drive for 6, if you miss the 2, well, it's a downer psychologically, where getting the easy 1 feels better, you don't get the downer.

 

Same thing w driving the field to FG range. If you go for it on 4th and don't get it, its a big downer, bad momentum shift. You take the 3, even if you are 3 TDs down and plenty of time in the game.

 

Bielema was singing the praises of analytics after he won a game this year. Next week he gets his butt kicked by Aub and no word about analytics. Analytics aren't everything.

just because coaches aren't doing it yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No one sailed very far out back in the 1400s because they were sure the earth was flat, didn't make them right.

PATs aren't gimmies and I would say there is probably at least one time in every game a team would be better off going for 2

A PAT is a higher % play than a 2 pt try, EVERY time. It's like a layup vs a 3 pt try.

 

Coaches aren't going to mess around w unnecessary 2 pters because they want to keep their jobs. In the NFL, games are usually decided by 1-3 pts, so you take the PAT and FG at every chance because if you don't get those points, you prlly lose the game, and everybody's making their living off of it, and you get more $ if you win. Fans hate losing too, especially when bad choices are made by coaches.

 

If they want to make the game more exciting for the fans, then just do away w the PAT altogether.

 

And, I'm sure everybody's seen those games where they botch a 4th down try instead of taking a FG and end up losing the game by 2. That's the type of stuff that gets coaches fired.

[ColoradoHusk]

The best coaches are different and will take chances to get more points. This includes going for 2 or turning down FG's and going for the 1st down in order to get a TD.

 

The reason most coaches are conservative is because they are afraid of getting fired. They are afraid of the negative consequences.

 

Coaches like Bill Bilicheck and Mike Tomlin have job security, so they are more aggressive decision makers. As a Cowboys fan, I hated Jason Garrettt early in his tenure in Dallas, because he was so conservative. He has grown to be more aggressive recently and the Cowboys have done better in 2 of the past 3 years.

[Nebfanatic]

Ok it is a higher percentage play but if 1 point puts you up by 2 points and 2 puts you up by 3 you go for 2 EVERY TIME. There are some situations where the 1 point is either useless or considerably less valuable than 2. I'm not arguing it's easier to make the 1 than the 2 but the 1 isn't a gimme either and is sometimes worth basically nothing.

[The Big Nebrowski]

Ok it is a higher percentage play but if 1 point puts you up by 2 points and 2 puts you up by 3 you go for 2 EVERY TIME. There are some situations where the 1 point is either useless or considerably less valuable than 2. I'm not arguing it's easier to make the 1 than the 2 but the 1 isn't a gimme either and is sometimes worth basically nothing.

1 pt is always worth 1 pt and 0 pts is always worth no points. The likelihood of you getting the no points on a failed 2 pointer is far greater than missing a PAT. You take the point.

 

But if you're the coach, do whatever you want, see how it works out.

[Nebfanatic]

 

Ok it is a higher percentage play but if 1 point puts you up by 2 points and 2 puts you up by 3 you go for 2 EVERY TIME. There are some situations where the 1 point is either useless or considerably less valuable than 2. I'm not arguing it's easier to make the 1 than the 2 but the 1 isn't a gimme either and is sometimes worth basically nothing.

1 pt is always worth 1 pt and 0 pts is always worth no points. The likelihood of you getting the no points on a failed 2 pointer is far greater than missing a PAT. You take the point.

 

But if you're the coach, do whatever you want, see how it works out.

So if you are up by 1 point in a game you are going to kick the PAT to go up by 2 rather than trying to go up by 3? Can I ask you why?

[The Big Nebrowski]

The best coaches are different and will take chances to get more points. This includes going for 2 or turning down FG's and going for the 1st down in order to get a TD.

 

The reason most coaches are conservative is because they are afraid of getting fired. They are afraid of the negative consequences.

 

Coaches like Bill Bilicheck and Mike Tomlin have job security, so they are more aggressive decision makers. As a Cowboys fan, I hated Jason Garrettt early in his tenure in Dallas, because he was so conservative. He has grown to be more aggressive recently and the Cowboys have done better in 2 of the past 3 years.

I'm a Pats fan and I have NEVER seen Belichik NOT take the PAT and he almost always goes for the FG if within range. He only goes for 2 late in games when he logically has to. He may be a bit more inclined to go for a 4th and short in the middle of the field because they are the Pats and "cuz Brady", but he isn't stupid about it.

[The Big Nebrowski]

 

 

Ok it is a higher percentage play but if 1 point puts you up by 2 points and 2 puts you up by 3 you go for 2 EVERY TIME. There are some situations where the 1 point is either useless or considerably less valuable than 2. I'm not arguing it's easier to make the 1 than the 2 but the 1 isn't a gimme either and is sometimes worth basically nothing.

1 pt is always worth 1 pt and 0 pts is always worth no points. The likelihood of you getting the no points on a failed 2 pointer is far greater than missing a PAT. You take the point.

 

But if you're the coach, do whatever you want, see how it works out.

So if you are up by 1 point in a game you are going to kick the PAT to go up by 2 rather than trying to go up by 3? Can I ask you why?

In this case, the only time you'd go for the 2 is if its late and you wanna go up by 3 because you don't think you will get another possession and the other team has time to possibly get FG. So, you try to at least ensure the worst case scenario is sending it into OT. Of course, if they drive the field and get the 6 w time running out, well, you've lost.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the pros especially, since the games are usually close, I think the deal is that you almost always take the points you can get, like the PAT or FG, don't go for 2 or go for it on 4th down: take the PAT or FG. The only time to go for 2 is late in a game when you basically have to. Almost nvr go for 2 when you are ahead.

Don't be a "hero", take the high % pts.

 

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time.

Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL.

you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.

Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too.

Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, you take the point.

that's funny because kickers are missing an all time high number and percentage of extra points. I'm not saying go for 2 every time and I definitely never said anything about onside kicks but there are alot of scenarios where going for 2 going to be more advantageous than trying for 1

as yet, I haven't seen any pro coaches going in that direction. If the kicker misses too many in a season, he gets fired and they bring in the next guy, which is still the better option that going for 2 when you don't have to.

After a long successful scoring drive for 6, if you miss the 2, well, it's a downer psychologically, where getting the easy 1 feels better, you don't get the downer.

Same thing w driving the field to FG range. If you go for it on 4th and don't get it, its a big downer, bad momentum shift. You take the 3, even if you are 3 TDs down and plenty of time in the game.

Bielema was singing the praises of analytics after he won a game this year. Next week he gets his butt kicked by Aub and no word about analytics. Analytics aren't everything.

just because coaches aren't doing it yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No one sailed very far out back in the 1400s because they were sure the earth was flat, didn't make them right.

PATs aren't gimmies and I would say there is probably at least one time in every game a team would be better off going for 2

A PAT is a higher % play than a 2 pt try, EVERY time. It's like a layup vs a 3 pt try.

Coaches aren't going to mess around w unnecessary 2 pters because they want to keep their jobs. In the NFL, games are usually decided by 1-3 pts, so you take the PAT and FG at every chance because if you don't get those points, you prlly lose the game, and everybody's making their living off of it, and you get more $ if you win. Fans hate losing too, especially when bad choices are made by coaches.

If they want to make the game more exciting for the fans, then just do away w the PAT altogether.

And, I'm sure everybody's seen those games where they botch a 4th down try instead of taking a FG and end up losing the game by 2. That's the type of stuff that gets coaches fired.

I'D go for 2 every time in the NFL and I'd never get fired. I'm thinking it's the higher percentage way to go.

[Nebfanatic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the pros especially, since the games are usually close, I think the deal is that you almost always take the points you can get, like the PAT or FG, don't go for 2 or go for it on 4th down: take the PAT or FG. The only time to go for 2 is late in a game when you basically have to. Almost nvr go for 2 when you are ahead.

Don't be a "hero", take the high % pts.

 

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time.

Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL.

you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.

Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too.

Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, you take the point.

that's funny because kickers are missing an all time high number and percentage of extra points. I'm not saying go for 2 every time and I definitely never said anything about onside kicks but there are alot of scenarios where going for 2 going to be more advantageous than trying for 1

as yet, I haven't seen any pro coaches going in that direction. If the kicker misses too many in a season, he gets fired and they bring in the next guy, which is still the better option that going for 2 when you don't have to.

After a long successful scoring drive for 6, if you miss the 2, well, it's a downer psychologically, where getting the easy 1 feels better, you don't get the downer.

Same thing w driving the field to FG range. If you go for it on 4th and don't get it, its a big downer, bad momentum shift. You take the 3, even if you are 3 TDs down and plenty of time in the game.

Bielema was singing the praises of analytics after he won a game this year. Next week he gets his butt kicked by Aub and no word about analytics. Analytics aren't everything.

just because coaches aren't doing it yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No one sailed very far out back in the 1400s because they were sure the earth was flat, didn't make them right.

PATs aren't gimmies and I would say there is probably at least one time in every game a team would be better off going for 2

A PAT is a higher % play than a 2 pt try, EVERY time. It's like a layup vs a 3 pt try.

Coaches aren't going to mess around w unnecessary 2 pters because they want to keep their jobs. In the NFL, games are usually decided by 1-3 pts, so you take the PAT and FG at every chance because if you don't get those points, you prlly lose the game, and everybody's making their living off of it, and you get more $ if you win. Fans hate losing too, especially when bad choices are made by coaches.

If they want to make the game more exciting for the fans, then just do away w the PAT altogether.

And, I'm sure everybody's seen those games where they botch a 4th down try instead of taking a FG and end up losing the game by 2. That's the type of stuff that gets coaches fired.

I'D go for 2 every time in the NFL and I'd never get fired. I'm thinking it's the higher percentage way to go.

think "NBA 3 point revolution" the extra point is so valuable it's worth a lower percentage. If you go for 2 every time and make it 60% of the time you are scoring more than if you kick the PAT every time and hit every single one

[ColoradoHusk]

 

The best coaches are different and will take chances to get more points. This includes going for 2 or turning down FG's and going for the 1st down in order to get a TD.

 

The reason most coaches are conservative is because they are afraid of getting fired. They are afraid of the negative consequences.

 

Coaches like Bill Bilicheck and Mike Tomlin have job security, so they are more aggressive decision makers. As a Cowboys fan, I hated Jason Garrettt early in his tenure in Dallas, because he was so conservative. He has grown to be more aggressive recently and the Cowboys have done better in 2 of the past 3 years.

I'm a Pats fan and I have NEVER seen Belichik NOT take the PAT and he almost always goes for the FG if within range. He only goes for 2 late in games when he logically has to. He may be a bit more inclined to go for a 4th and short in the middle of the field because they are the Pats and "cuz Brady", but he isn't stupid about it.

I'm not necessarily talking about going for 2 for Bilicheck. I am thinking of him going for it on 4th down more often than other coaches. He knows the value of getting a TD vs. a FG. He is just more aggressive than other coaches in the NFL. It helps that he has the most job security in all of football, but he is also a smart guy who understands the math behind a lot of the choices he makes.

 

For example, years ago he went for it on 4th down from his own 30 against Indy and Peyton Manning. His reasoning was to keep the ball, because Manning was going to lead the Colts to a TD no matter where he took over the possession. I like that in a coach.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the pros especially, since the games are usually close, I think the deal is that you almost always take the points you can get, like the PAT or FG, don't go for 2 or go for it on 4th down: take the PAT or FG. The only time to go for 2 is late in a game when you basically have to. Almost nvr go for 2 when you are ahead.

Don't be a "hero", take the high % pts.

 

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time.

Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL.

you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.

Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too.

Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, you take the point.

that's funny because kickers are missing an all time high number and percentage of extra points. I'm not saying go for 2 every time and I definitely never said anything about onside kicks but there are alot of scenarios where going for 2 going to be more advantageous than trying for 1

as yet, I haven't seen any pro coaches going in that direction. If the kicker misses too many in a season, he gets fired and they bring in the next guy, which is still the better option that going for 2 when you don't have to.

After a long successful scoring drive for 6, if you miss the 2, well, it's a downer psychologically, where getting the easy 1 feels better, you don't get the downer.

Same thing w driving the field to FG range. If you go for it on 4th and don't get it, its a big downer, bad momentum shift. You take the 3, even if you are 3 TDs down and plenty of time in the game.

Bielema was singing the praises of analytics after he won a game this year. Next week he gets his butt kicked by Aub and no word about analytics. Analytics aren't everything.

just because coaches aren't doing it yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No one sailed very far out back in the 1400s because they were sure the earth was flat, didn't make them right.

PATs aren't gimmies and I would say there is probably at least one time in every game a team would be better off going for 2

A PAT is a higher % play than a 2 pt try, EVERY time. It's like a layup vs a 3 pt try.

Coaches aren't going to mess around w unnecessary 2 pters because they want to keep their jobs. In the NFL, games are usually decided by 1-3 pts, so you take the PAT and FG at every chance because if you don't get those points, you prlly lose the game, and everybody's making their living off of it, and you get more $ if you win. Fans hate losing too, especially when bad choices are made by coaches.

If they want to make the game more exciting for the fans, then just do away w the PAT altogether.

And, I'm sure everybody's seen those games where they botch a 4th down try instead of taking a FG and end up losing the game by 2. That's the type of stuff that gets coaches fired.

I'D go for 2 every time in the NFL and I'd never get fired. I'm thinking it's the higher percentage way to go.

think "NBA 3 point revolution" the extra point is so valuable it's worth a lower percentage. If you go for 2 every time and make it 60% of the time you are scoring more than if you kick the PAT every time and hit every single one

Delete

[The Big Nebrowski]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the pros especially, since the games are usually close, I think the deal is that you almost always take the points you can get, like the PAT or FG, don't go for 2 or go for it on 4th down: take the PAT or FG. The only time to go for 2 is late in a game when you basically have to. Almost nvr go for 2 when you are ahead.

Don't be a "hero", take the high % pts.

 

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time.

Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL.

you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.

Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too.

Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, you take the point.

that's funny because kickers are missing an all time high number and percentage of extra points. I'm not saying go for 2 every time and I definitely never said anything about onside kicks but there are alot of scenarios where going for 2 going to be more advantageous than trying for 1

as yet, I haven't seen any pro coaches going in that direction. If the kicker misses too many in a season, he gets fired and they bring in the next guy, which is still the better option that going for 2 when you don't have to.

After a long successful scoring drive for 6, if you miss the 2, well, it's a downer psychologically, where getting the easy 1 feels better, you don't get the downer.

Same thing w driving the field to FG range. If you go for it on 4th and don't get it, its a big downer, bad momentum shift. You take the 3, even if you are 3 TDs down and plenty of time in the game.

Bielema was singing the praises of analytics after he won a game this year. Next week he gets his butt kicked by Aub and no word about analytics. Analytics aren't everything.

just because coaches aren't doing it yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No one sailed very far out back in the 1400s because they were sure the earth was flat, didn't make them right.

PATs aren't gimmies and I would say there is probably at least one time in every game a team would be better off going for 2

A PAT is a higher % play than a 2 pt try, EVERY time. It's like a layup vs a 3 pt try.

Coaches aren't going to mess around w unnecessary 2 pters because they want to keep their jobs. In the NFL, games are usually decided by 1-3 pts, so you take the PAT and FG at every chance because if you don't get those points, you prlly lose the game, and everybody's making their living off of it, and you get more $ if you win. Fans hate losing too, especially when bad choices are made by coaches.

If they want to make the game more exciting for the fans, then just do away w the PAT altogether.

And, I'm sure everybody's seen those games where they botch a 4th down try instead of taking a FG and end up losing the game by 2. That's the type of stuff that gets coaches fired.

I'D go for 2 every time in the NFL and I'd never get fired. I'm thinking it's the higher percentage way to go.

think "NBA 3 point revolution" the extra point is so valuable it's worth a lower percentage. If you go for 2 every time and make it 60% of the time you are scoring more than if you kick the PAT every time and hit every single one

How many NBA players shoot 60% from the arc over the course of a season? I'm thinkin' NONE, but maybe Curry has done it, I don't follow the game that much anymore.

A layup, on the other hand, is prlly more in the 90% thing, but who wants to take the time and effort to get a dumb ol' boring layup anymore when you can just run down the floor and jack up 3s all game? There's debate on whether or not the "3 rev" has improved the game. The old timers say "no" of course.

 

I don't think you can convert 2 pointers @ 60% in FB, maybe more like 30% at best, but that would go down the more teams try it and are therefore better defended against it.