Going for 2
- Thread starter Husker66
- Start date
NebraskaShellback
Starter
Game OVER! Good luck with the Hoke D Ducks.
ColoNoCoHusker
Special Teams Player
^ QFT. Somewhere around switching from beer to bourbon, I commented to my wife "It's like the 2016 Huskers are playing 2015 Huskers and the Ducks are us last year"...
At the half, Helfrich said he did the first one because "some guy" wasn't paying attention. Almost condescending IMO. Glad it bit him in the a$$.
huskerdude171
Five-Star Recruit
Kinda looked like the last 2 point conversion try was good for Oregon, the QB raced to the pylon and ended up hitting it, I guess they said he was already down, if he had just reached the ball out they would have had it, not like they would have won anyway, since it would've brought them to 34 points instead of 32.
I still think he got jipped a bit but I'll take it
I still think he got jipped a bit but I'll take it
Landlord
Banned
Condescending or just...true? It worked for them.
I don't see this as arrogance or bravado or flash or anything. Oregon has always done this - they're a high risk high reward team that has built an incredible program off of stuff like this. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Kernal
Starter
If he kicks them all they get a tie. Or, like the announcers, are we only going to criticize the plays that didn't work, and not the same ones that did?
Touchdown Tommie
All-Conference
I took it as one of their guys was not paying attention and that is why they did not convert. It was where the guy rolled out and did a jump pass type play to the WR not paying attention. Maybe I misunderstood his explanation
84HuskerLaw
All-Conference
I think that statistically speaking, the odds of making the kick for one point are about 95% or more versus the chances of making the two point conversion of something around 35%. Just based on the 'odds', it makes sense to kick because over time you will score more points. However, if your are one the nation's best offenses, as Oregon has been in recent years, then your odds of successfully getting in the end zone from 2 yards or so are much better than 'average'.
Based on that, I would say, it seems very logical that Oregon SHOULD go for two on all extra points versus 'below average' opponents as their odds probably increase from 35% to 75%. I would say that Oregon probably averaged nearly 5 yards per carry just running the ball against us. And average per play much above 2 so logic indicates they should be successful, over a large number of tries, to convert more than half and therefore score more this way.
I also believe that Oregon's coaches most likely were very concerned that they would NOT score at will against our defense and therefore it seemed wise to attempt to score as many points as possible once in the red zone.
Based on that, I would say, it seems very logical that Oregon SHOULD go for two on all extra points versus 'below average' opponents as their odds probably increase from 35% to 75%. I would say that Oregon probably averaged nearly 5 yards per carry just running the ball against us. And average per play much above 2 so logic indicates they should be successful, over a large number of tries, to convert more than half and therefore score more this way.
I also believe that Oregon's coaches most likely were very concerned that they would NOT score at will against our defense and therefore it seemed wise to attempt to score as many points as possible once in the red zone.