When Should You Go For Two?

[The Big Nebrowski]

 

 

Hey, when you're ready to develop and provide a counter argument, repleat with real world evidence, I'll certainly check it out.

 

Found some!

 

 

 

FiveThirtyEight did some in-depth analysis. NFL based so it might not translate to college 100% but pretty interesting.

 

 

 

Well, I was responding to the Lady.

 

But yeah, I know, all the techy puter nerds love their nerdy analytics spread sheets. But I already thoroughly debunked it. I have real world, boots on the ground evidence to support my position: namely, the way the game is actually currently played by actual NFL teams.

 

Provide me just one example of an NFL team that is making a preference of 2 pters over PATs and I happy to look into it. Take all the time you need...

[The Big Nebrowski]

Every time the opposing team's backfield lines up in the endzone or the quarterback drops back into the endzone, you go for two.

true dat

[Nebfanatic]

Just because teams aren't doing it doesn't mean that that is right! How many times does this need to be said throughout history damn. Just because "it's always been done this way" and "that's what everyone else does" does not mean it's the best way to do it. If we stuck with this line of thinking we would still be hunting for our food and cooking it over a fire in a cave. Goodness gracious of course NFL coaches aren't just going to start going for 2 every time all of the sudden, that would be too radical even if it did work, that doesn't mean it wouldn't work.

 

All good ideas were radical and unheard of at one time. It takes one brave soul to prove that "hey this might be a better way" before the floodgates open. People are afraid of change unless there is cold hard anecdotal evidence of that change being good. Even then it's hard.

 

The NFL collectively has converted 48% of its 2 point tries since 2001. You're telling me one of the better offenses in the league couldn't perform better than the league average if they were attempting to go for 2 every time? Because if they did even slightly better than the NFL average they would score just as many points as if they kicked PATs every time. Now if they did a little better than that they could really see some advantages over teams that just take the one.

 

I know you are an old timer and this is hard for you, but the game changes and you have to change with it.

[The Big Nebrowski]

Today's Super Duper Analytics Enhanced Bowl: 4th qtr, 0:01 left on the clock, Falcons just scored 6 to pull within 1 pt. What do you do? You go for 2, right? Why, cuz analytics sez so and analytics trump's millionaire coaches' brains. Oh f#*k, Valentine sacks Ryan, game over, thanks for playing, Brady wins record setting 5th Super Duper Bowl and entire Falcons organization is dissolved from the face of the earth the next day. Don't ya just love analytics!

 

Which reminds me, the last guy, of note, to go for 2 in that situation was one Tom Oz, back when there was no OT, and thank go no analytics, and a sure PAT would have tied it and secured his 1st Natty and euphoria across Husker Nation. God bless Oz's moxy, but in retrospect, the BR Nation and Corn History would have preferred another Natty in the record books.

[NUance]

For a long time now I've thought you could set up for a play, have the QB call for motion, and then decide whether to kick or run the play based on the QB's read. If the D didn't react to the motion correctly, and you ended up with a mismatch, he would run the play. Otherwise, the QB would take the delay penalty, and you'd just kick a 7 yard extra point. If I was coaching I'd seriously consider doing this every time. I mean, how often would you miss a 7 yard extra point? Even if you only ran the play (instead of taking a delay) 20% of the time, it seems like it'd be worth it.

[Nebfanatic]

Today's Super Duper Analytics Enhanced Bowl: 4th qtr, 0:01 left on the clock, Falcons just scored 6 to pull within 1 pt. What do you do? You go for 2, right? Why, cuz analytics sez so and analytics trump's millionaire coaches' brains. Oh f#*k, Valentine sacks Ryan, game over, thanks for playing, Brady wins record setting 5th Super Duper Bowl and entire Falcons organization is dissolved from the face of the earth the next day. Don't ya just love analytics!

 

Which reminds me, the last guy, of note, to go for 2 in that situation was one Tom Oz, back when there was no OT, and thank go no analytics, and a sure PAT would have tied it and secured his 1st Natty and euphoria across Husker Nation. God bless Oz's moxy, but in retrospect, the BR Nation and Corn History would have preferred another Natty in the record books.

clearly in that situation you go for 1. Guarantee analytics would tell you to take the 1 there.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Depends on the QB, if I was LSU and had the ability to line up a qb like Lowell Narcisse, I would take my chances going for 2.

[Nebfanatic]

For a long time now I've thought you could set up for a play, have the QB call for motion, and then decide whether to kick or run the play based on the QB's read. If the D didn't react to the motion correctly, and you ended up with a mismatch, he would run the play. Otherwise, the QB would take the delay penalty, and you'd just kick a 7 yard extra point. If I was coaching I'd seriously consider doing this every time. I mean, how often would you miss a 7 yard extra point? Even if you only ran the play (instead of taking a delay) 20% of the time, it seems like it'd be worth it.

wouldn't be quite the same in the NFL with the new rules, but great point here. That would be a fantastic strategy imo

[The Big Nebrowski]

For a long time now I've thought you could set up for a play, have the QB call for motion, and then decide whether to kick or run the play based on the QB's read. If the D didn't react to the motion correctly, and you ended up with a mismatch, he would run the play. Otherwise, the QB would take the delay penalty, and you'd just kick a 7 yard extra point. If I was coaching I'd seriously consider doing this every time. I mean, how often would you miss a 7 yard extra point? Even if you only ran the play (instead of taking a delay) 20% of the time, it seems like it'd be worth it.

Still much more risk running said play: snap goes over QB's head, QB fumbles snap, QB wiffs on the play, QB is stuffed, QB throws pick and they take it the other way for 2, etc., etc.

[84HuskerLaw]

I would think one needs to evaluate the situation of each case, each team, etc. I seem to recall reading a stat from some years back that suggested the success rate of going for 2 is about 40% or maybe a little less. That stat was basically, if I recall correctly, the raw numbers for all teams going for two over a longer period of time. Thus, this rate would be reflective of several factors that might influence the numbers substantially one way or the other.

 

Obviously, going for two is usually happening when the defense is somewhat or even well prepared or expecting it. There is typically a score circumstance which more or less dictates the team 'needs' the extra 'extra points' to try to catch up as time is waning in the game. If you find yourself down by 16 points, for example, it seems fairly obvious that two TDs with successful 2 pt plays will get you caught up the quickest and with the least number of possessions. The success rate, of going for two instead of kicking for one, is going to be also dependent on the opponent's defensive success at that point in the game.

 

The chances may be higher or lower than 'average' if, for example, the opponent's defense seems to be getting worn out and may not be playing as well. Or perhaps, injuries have forced a defense to substitute a player in that is not adept at certain plays, formations, coverages, etc. There may be myriad variables to consider is all I am suggesting. I would suggest going for two is not a risky as many commentators suggest - in some situations. There is the 'feel' factor as well and one needs to take into account your hunches and gut feelings on whether it may work. Also, do you have some sort of well prepared 'trick' play or other type scheme that gives a much higher than usual chance of success. Those sorts of gadget or gimmick plays don't work well when used too many times but can increase your odds greatly now and then. Every special teams coach and units should have several ready when situations warrant.

 

Going for two ought not be viewed as some kind of desperation or once-in-a-long-while type play. It would not be unwise, in my view, to go for two as often as once a game, just as Riley suggested to make the opponent have to spend some limited practice time preparing for something that may or may not ever hapen.

 

Going for two might be more successful than not IF you have either: a very dominant run blocking O line or an exceptionally accurate passing QB than can 'thread the needle' and or throw those fade routes at an 80% clip to a 6'5" WR who is almost impossible to defend consistantly.

 

Now, if you have a QB who is the holder or better yet a place kicker with an arm and some decent touch or runs a 4.5 - 40, then odds go up of making 2 point tries work. So, in the end, 'it all depends' and I don't think it can be summarily dismissed to say that going for two, on a frequent or regular or even all the time basis, is bad strategy.

 

Most offenses average more than 3 yards per play so the numbers would suggest that success rates might well be higher if they were attempted more often.

[The Big Nebrowski]

 

Today's Super Duper Analytics Enhanced Bowl: 4th qtr, 0:01 left on the clock, Falcons just scored 6 to pull within 1 pt. What do you do? You go for 2, right? Why, cuz analytics sez so and analytics trump's millionaire coaches' brains. Oh f#*k, Valentine sacks Ryan, game over, thanks for playing, Brady wins record setting 5th Super Duper Bowl and entire Falcons organization is dissolved from the face of the earth the next day. Don't ya just love analytics!

 

Which reminds me, the last guy, of note, to go for 2 in that situation was one Tom Oz, back when there was no OT, and thank go no analytics, and a sure PAT would have tied it and secured his 1st Natty and euphoria across Husker Nation. God bless Oz's moxy, but in retrospect, the BR Nation and Corn History would have preferred another Natty in the record books.

clearly in that situation you go for 1. Guarantee analytics would tell you to take the 1 there.

One doesn't need analytics to figure out the obvious. I bow to no computer, call me a Luddite, I guess.

[Landlord]

But I already thoroughly debunked it.

 

No you didn't.

 

 

 

 

I have real world, boots on the ground evidence to support my position: namely, the way the game is actually currently played by actual NFL teams.

 

You have evidence of preference and trend. Not of what is right.

[The Big Nebrowski]

 

 

But I already thoroughly debunked it.

No you didn't.

 

 

 

I have real world, boots on the ground evidence to support my position: namely, the way the game is actually currently played by actual NFL teams.

You have evidence of preference and trend. Not of what is right.

Yeah did, thoroughly ^. And to your last remark: huh? I have evidence, loads of it, of what actual NFL coaches and teams do in actual games in the actual real world in the actual present day NFL milieu. I don't know of any NFL teams that go for 2 other than when they actually, logically have to to win the game. They take the PAT as the status quo, default, highest % thing to do because that's the "right" thing to do.

 

The only team I know of that, as a policy, went for 2 all the time is the OR Ducks and that HC was sent packin', for, in part, going for 2 all the time and botching most of them and everybody and their dog could see it was complete lunacy.

 

There are ZERO NFL teams making 2 pters their default setting.

 

Anyway, not much more to add to this discussion. Hope y'all work it out.

[The Dude]

Starting to think teams don't go for 2 enough.

[C N Red]

Starting to think teams don't go for 2 enough.

Yep, agreed. Big Nebrowski has changed my opinion. No reason not to.