Going for 2
- Thread starter Husker66
- Start date
Apparently I'm not finding those stats on there. Perhaps you could point me to the right spot.
Either way, they're under 50% the last several years which means they aren't good at math.
BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA
All-American
Cool. Thanks. I was looking for them on the team rankings page.
Your're right. But, like I said, that's still 9 for 23 since 2013 coming into the game Saturday. Which means they would have been ahead to kick instead of go for two.
Count 'Bility
Banned
Helfrich said they kept doing it cuz they liked the looks they were getting but werent executing. Now. I get the first one when you get it. This is what Oregon does. They a throw a wrench into the game with unconventional things. The flare. The unis. The tempo. The nutso 2 pt conv plays. But usually when they get that first one and get to 8, theyve already thrown the game into a spin, and would proceed to kick. 14 goes to 15. 17 goes to 18. 24 goes to 25 etc. It's a mind trick. Makes opposing coaches think about the game.
84HuskerLaw
All-Conference
It can be good strategy albeit unorthodox. I tend to think that coaches of the top teams should be making a deliberate attempt to avoid the overtime situations with lesser teams. That is because the longer two 'unequal' teams play, the more likely the better team is to have the advantage and to ultimately win. Just common sense to me. Getting the score out of the ordinary by using extraordinary scoring methods, etc is just one way to try to put the lesser opponent in a more difficult situation.
Now, again, if after a large number of attempts, (say 100 or something) over a period of time, it becomes apparent that the 2 point conversion success rate is significantly below 50%, then it certainly becomes unwise to use it on a regular, near constant basis. However, it does make sense to go for 2 if on your first attempt you identify defensive weaknesses or other indications are that your chances of success are increased. Also, like with almost everything else in football strategy, the more you practice things, the better you should become. Also, the fact that you go for two quite often forces your future opponents to spend valuable and limited practice time working on ways to defend it. This is another advantage.
I think football could have a few new wrinkles added to make the game more interesting, especially if they continue to try to reduce the risk of injury in the game which necessarily reduces the exciting of big plays ,etc. For example, perhaps adding a third option for the extra point try by giving a team the option to back up to the 25 to spot the ball and giving the kicker the chance to kick for a 3 point 'extra' point try.
Now, again, if after a large number of attempts, (say 100 or something) over a period of time, it becomes apparent that the 2 point conversion success rate is significantly below 50%, then it certainly becomes unwise to use it on a regular, near constant basis. However, it does make sense to go for 2 if on your first attempt you identify defensive weaknesses or other indications are that your chances of success are increased. Also, like with almost everything else in football strategy, the more you practice things, the better you should become. Also, the fact that you go for two quite often forces your future opponents to spend valuable and limited practice time working on ways to defend it. This is another advantage.
I think football could have a few new wrinkles added to make the game more interesting, especially if they continue to try to reduce the risk of injury in the game which necessarily reduces the exciting of big plays ,etc. For example, perhaps adding a third option for the extra point try by giving a team the option to back up to the 25 to spot the ball and giving the kicker the chance to kick for a 3 point 'extra' point try.
RedDenver
Heisman Trophy Winner
After watching Helfrich's comments to the press on Sunday, he's taking the blame for the 2-pt plays, but reading between the lines makes me think that his players missed keys that would have led them to kick instead of going for 2. I'm speculating here, but sounds like they were trying to coach up the guys on the sideline and it wasn't translating onto the field.
Kind of depends on the situation. I would guess that the vast majority of attempts are with a team's regular offense when they are "supposed to" or "have to" go for two late in the game. Oregon's last two attempts fall into that category.
I'd be curious what the numbers are for the "other" attempts. Basically anything in the first three quarters. I would think you'd have a better chance to get it with your normal offense than with gimmicks like Oregon uses early. But almost no one does it - or at least far less frequently than Oregon.
Joe_5700
Starter
This is great logic if you know what the outcome of the game is going to be. The only reason people are second guessing Oregon's going for 2 throughout the game was Nebraska's ability to stop those conversions. Oregon is notorious for often going for 2 point conversions.Husker66 said:
Eh, not really. They actually don't go for it as much as I thought they did. They had gone for two 23 times in three years plus two games before Saturday. That's barely more than once every other game. So five times in one game is a drastic increase even by their standards.
And if they would have learned anything from their own history, they would know that they are successful well less than 50% of the time. Thus, they are better off to kick it.
They would have been better off to kick it all five times. They would definitely have been better off to kick it the last four. It would even have made a lot of sense to kick the last three - they weren't "chasing" any points and had already been stopped once.
We definitely know after the fact that they should have been kicking it. But it's not like it was some crazy ending score like 25-23 where a bunch of odd things added up to needing a couple extra points. They could simply have done the things that were more likely to score points. But they didn't.
Yeah, there is almost no one in the coaching profession that would agree with you.
You go for two to get ahead by six so the other team has to score a TD and also make their own extra point to beat you. The difference between a four and a five point lead at that point really doesn't mean much. The other team has to score a TD (a FG doesn't do them any good) and that would be enough to get ahead either way.
You give yourself two outs - either stop them to win or stop the PAT to tie. You don't assume you'll still have time to score again yourself.
Last edited by a moderator:
shyndy
All-Conference
how much time was left at that point? It's two FG also