When Should You Go For Two?

[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.

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.

Snap goes over holder's head, holder fumbles the snap, holder leaves laces pointing towards kicker, kicker mishits(whiffs) ball, kick is blocked and returned for two, etc, etc
Just playing devil's advocate but if you are looking at everything that can go wrong no offense would throw a pass either.

Uhm, they pass all the time for 2, often that dadgum fade thing in the corner, a play that I generally can't stand.
With the new rule, PAT's in the NFL are @ ~96%, down from ~99%. You take the point, you keep your job, everybody's happy.

and 2 point conversions this year were at 55% so if you stretch that over 100 extra point tries you get 110 points going for 2 every time and 96 going for 1. That's 2 extra touchdowns and PATs

First of all, OR went for 4 agin us and got 1--that's 25% and they basically habded us the W.
Second, I don't think you can extrapolate as such because their data is based on a small sample size where teams are going for 2 only sparingly, in the correct situations. If teams start doing it all the time instead of the PAT, in all likelihood, that % goes down significantly to ~30% or so.

Hey, if some O guy can figure out an unstoppable play(s) for 2, by all means, do it.

But Oregon wasn't doing what I suggested above. They made the decision to go for two before leaving the bench. I'm talking about having the QB audible into motion, and look for a favorable match-up. If no match-up, he'd just take the delay penalty and kick a slightly longer PAT. It might only gain you two points a small percentage of the time, but that could be worth a point or so per game.

 

[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.

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.

Snap goes over holder's head, holder fumbles the snap, holder leaves laces pointing towards kicker, kicker mishits(whiffs) ball, kick is blocked and returned for two, etc, etc
Just playing devil's advocate but if you are looking at everything that can go wrong no offense would throw a pass either.

Uhm, they pass all the time for 2, often that dadgum fade thing in the corner, a play that I generally can't stand.
With the new rule, PAT's in the NFL are @ ~96%, down from ~99%. You take the point, you keep your job, everybody's happy.

and 2 point conversions this year were at 55% so if you stretch that over 100 extra point tries you get 110 points going for 2 every time and 96 going for 1. That's 2 extra touchdowns and PATs

First of all, OR went for 4 agin us and got 1--that's 25% and they basically habded us the W.
Second, I don't think you can extrapolate as such because their data is based on a small sample size where teams are going for 2 only sparingly, in the correct situations. If teams start doing it all the time instead of the PAT, in all likelihood, that % goes down significantly to ~30% or so.

Hey, if some O guy can figure out an unstoppable play(s) for 2, by all means, do it.

Well that was one game (small sample size as you call it) and actually that 55% number was on 105 attempts by 29 of the 32 NFL teams. So by league average over 100 attempts it's more fruitful to go for 2 plain and simple.
And what makes you think going for 2 more would be less successful? If anything it would be more successful with a good offense because it's a bigger part of your gameplan.

If this season isn't a big enough sample size for you, since 2001 the NFL has gone 48% on over 1000 2 point attempts yielding a .96 point per try rate, the exact same as kicking an extra point since the rule chamge

 

[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.

Snap goes over holder's head, holder fumbles the snap, holder leaves laces pointing towards kicker, kicker mishits(whiffs) ball, kick is blocked and returned for two, etc, etc
Just playing devil's advocate but if you are looking at everything that can go wrong no offense would throw a pass either.

Uhm, they pass all the time for 2, often that dadgum fade thing in the corner, a play that I generally can't stand.
With the new rule, PAT's in the NFL are @ ~96%, down from ~99%. You take the point, you keep your job, everybody's happy.

and 2 point conversions this year were at 55% so if you stretch that over 100 extra point tries you get 110 points going for 2 every time and 96 going for 1. That's 2 extra touchdowns and PATs

First of all, OR went for 4 agin us and got 1--that's 25% and they basically habded us the W.
Second, I don't think you can extrapolate as such because their data is based on a small sample size where teams are going for 2 only sparingly, in the correct situations. If teams start doing it all the time instead of the PAT, in all likelihood, that % goes down significantly to ~30% or so.

Hey, if some O guy can figure out an unstoppable play(s) for 2, by all means, do it.

But Oregon wasn't doing what I suggested above. They made the decision to go for two before leaving the bench. I'm talking about having the QB audible into motion, and look for a favorable match-up. If no match-up, he'd just take the delay penalty and kick a slightly longer PAT. It might only gain you two points a small percentage of the time, but that could be worth a point or so per game.

I understand what you are saying but the chances of consistent success are not high enough, and the whole damn thing is pretty complicated, have a pckge of plays, and then ya gotta spend all kinds of time in practice workin' on the sh#t. I just don't see it happening, especially in the NFL where, I repeat, it is literally a game of inches and every single point is precious in mostly 1-3 pt margin victories, and when you are playing the good defenses your 2 pt gimmick b.s. just don't fly, you have to take the sure points when you can.

 

[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.

Snap goes over holder's head, holder fumbles the snap, holder leaves laces pointing towards kicker, kicker mishits(whiffs) ball, kick is blocked and returned for two, etc, etc
Just playing devil's advocate but if you are looking at everything that can go wrong no offense would throw a pass either.

Uhm, they pass all the time for 2, often that dadgum fade thing in the corner, a play that I generally can't stand.
With the new rule, PAT's in the NFL are @ ~96%, down from ~99%. You take the point, you keep your job, everybody's happy.

and 2 point conversions this year were at 55% so if you stretch that over 100 extra point tries you get 110 points going for 2 every time and 96 going for 1. That's 2 extra touchdowns and PATs

First of all, OR went for 4 agin us and got 1--that's 25% and they basically habded us the W.
Second, I don't think you can extrapolate as such because their data is based on a small sample size where teams are going for 2 only sparingly, in the correct situations. If teams start doing it all the time instead of the PAT, in all likelihood, that % goes down significantly to ~30% or so.

Hey, if some O guy can figure out an unstoppable play(s) for 2, by all means, do it.

Well that was one game (small sample size as you call it) and actually that 55% number was on 105 attempts by 29 of the 32 NFL teams. So by league average over 100 attempts it's more fruitful to go for 2 plain and simple.
And what makes you think going for 2 more would be less successful? If anything it would be more successful with a good offense because it's a bigger part of your gameplan.

If this season isn't a big enough sample size for you, since 2001 the NFL has gone 48% on over 1000 2 point attempts yielding a .96 point per try rate, the exact same as kicking an extra point since the rule chamge

again, your numbers only measure sporadic attempts over a long period of time. If they try to do it all the time, maybe they get the 48% some games and the other 52% you miss will drive you crazy, but remember, defense wins championships, just ask the Broncos, and defenses will figure out how to shut the stuff down such that your're only hittin @ 25% or so. That's the way I think it would go. It'd be more trouble than it's worth, practicing all that stuff for diminishing returns.

 

[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.

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.

Snap goes over holder's head, holder fumbles the snap, holder leaves laces pointing towards kicker, kicker mishits(whiffs) ball, kick is blocked and returned for two, etc, etc
Just playing devil's advocate but if you are looking at everything that can go wrong no offense would throw a pass either.

Uhm, they pass all the time for 2, often that dadgum fade thing in the corner, a play that I generally can't stand.
With the new rule, PAT's in the NFL are @ ~96%, down from ~99%. You take the point, you keep your job, everybody's happy.

and 2 point conversions this year were at 55% so if you stretch that over 100 extra point tries you get 110 points going for 2 every time and 96 going for 1. That's 2 extra touchdowns and PATs

First of all, OR went for 4 agin us and got 1--that's 25% and they basically habded us the W.
Second, I don't think you can extrapolate as such because their data is based on a small sample size where teams are going for 2 only sparingly, in the correct situations. If teams start doing it all the time instead of the PAT, in all likelihood, that % goes down significantly to ~30% or so.

Hey, if some O guy can figure out an unstoppable play(s) for 2, by all means, do it.

Well that was one game (small sample size as you call it) and actually that 55% number was on 105 attempts by 29 of the 32 NFL teams. So by league average over 100 attempts it's more fruitful to go for 2 plain and simple.
And what makes you think going for 2 more would be less successful? If anything it would be more successful with a good offense because it's a bigger part of your gameplan.

If this season isn't a big enough sample size for you, since 2001 the NFL has gone 48% on over 1000 2 point attempts yielding a .96 point per try rate, the exact same as kicking an extra point since the rule chamge

again, your numbers only measure sporadic attempts over a long period of time. If they try to do it all the time, maybe they get the 48% some games and the 52% will drive you crazy, but remember, defense wins championships, just ask the Broncos, and defenses will figure out how to shut the stuff down such that your're only hittin @ 25% or so. That's the way I think it would go. It'd be more trouble than it's worth, practicing all that stuff for diminishing returns.

What you think would happen is wrong though, teams attempted 2 pointers more this season than in the past and converted them at a higher rate than the 10 year average. Explain that
Your basing your opinion on old addages and anecdotal evidence and while that isn't always bad, in this case it doesn't really tell you anything.

 

[Mavric]

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.

Snap goes over holder's head, holder fumbles the snap, holder leaves laces pointing towards kicker, kicker mishits(whiffs) ball, kick is blocked and returned for two, etc, etc
Just playing devil's advocate but if you are looking at everything that can go wrong no offense would throw a pass either.

Uhm, they pass all the time for 2, often that dadgum fade thing in the corner, a play that I generally can't stand.With the new rule, PAT's in the NFL are @ ~96%, down from ~99%. You take the point, you keep your job, everybody's happy.

and 2 point conversions this year were at 55% so if you stretch that over 100 extra point tries you get 110 points going for 2 every time and 96 going for 1. That's 2 extra touchdowns and PATs

First of all, OR went for 4 agin us and got 1--that's 25% and they basically handed us the W.Second, I don't think you can extrapolate as such because their data is based on a small sample size where teams are going for 2 only sparingly, in the correct situations. If teams start doing it all the time instead of the PAT, in all likelihood, that % goes down significantly to ~30% or so.

Also, in the real world, scoring opportunities don't happen in a consistent flow like appear on hypothetically data sheets. One game you might go 2/4, next game, 1/3, next 2/6, next game 2/5, etc. Whereas, with PATs, your're getting all or nearly all the the PATs every game. Some of those pro kickers bat @ 100%/year.

Hey, if some O guy can figure out an unstoppable play(s) for 2, by all means, do it.

Complains about small sample size.
Uses extremely small sample size to prove his point.

Seems legit.

 

[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.

Snap goes over holder's head, holder fumbles the snap, holder leaves laces pointing towards kicker, kicker mishits(whiffs) ball, kick is blocked and returned for two, etc, etc
Just playing devil's advocate but if you are looking at everything that can go wrong no offense would throw a pass either.

Uhm, they pass all the time for 2, often that dadgum fade thing in the corner, a play that I generally can't stand.
With the new rule, PAT's in the NFL are @ ~96%, down from ~99%. You take the point, you keep your job, everybody's happy.

and 2 point conversions this year were at 55% so if you stretch that over 100 extra point tries you get 110 points going for 2 every time and 96 going for 1. That's 2 extra touchdowns and PATs

First of all, OR went for 4 agin us and got 1--that's 25% and they basically habded us the W.
Second, I don't think you can extrapolate as such because their data is based on a small sample size where teams are going for 2 only sparingly, in the correct situations. If teams start doing it all the time instead of the PAT, in all likelihood, that % goes down significantly to ~30% or so.

Hey, if some O guy can figure out an unstoppable play(s) for 2, by all means, do it.

Well that was one game (small sample size as you call it) and actually that 55% number was on 105 attempts by 29 of the 32 NFL teams. So by league average over 100 attempts it's more fruitful to go for 2 plain and simple.
And what makes you think going for 2 more would be less successful? If anything it would be more successful with a good offense because it's a bigger part of your gameplan.

If this season isn't a big enough sample size for you, since 2001 the NFL has gone 48% on over 1000 2 point attempts yielding a .96 point per try rate, the exact same as kicking an extra point since the rule chamge

again, your numbers only measure sporadic attempts over a long period of time. If they try to do it all the time, maybe they get the 48% some games and the 52% will drive you crazy, but remember, defense wins championships, just ask the Broncos, and defenses will figure out how to shut the stuff down such that your're only hittin @ 25% or so. That's the way I think it would go. It'd be more trouble than it's worth, practicing all that stuff for diminishing returns.

What you think would happen is wrong though, teams attempted 2 pointers more this season than in the past and converted them at a higher rate than the 10 year average. Explain that
Your basing your opinion on old addages and anecdotal evidence and while that isn't always bad, in this case it doesn't really tell you anything.

Mercury in retrograde?
Well, what I suppose has happened is this year there were more games that had more situations that dictated the logical use of the 2 pt conversion attempt and the offenses were a bit ahead of the curve as defenses don't spend much time preparing for that stuff since the attempts are so relatively rare. That's different than if both offenses and defenses are systematically preparing for the systematic use of the 2 pt attempt which has still not happened in the NFL for reasons already explained ad nauseum.

 

[PaulCrewe]

So all the time defenses have practiced goal line and short yardage scenarios was a waste????

Also scouting opponents sets and personnel in these situations has put them behind the eight ball????

Hmm.....

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

This thread is becoming comical just so everyone knows

 

[Making Chimichangas]

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

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

Actually, there are 4 reasons not to: Nebraska 35 Oregon 34.

Oregon, last year in Lincoln, went for 2 after all 5 of their TDs and they only made 1. That's a 20% success rate. The success rate on PATs is like 99%. Take the one, unless it is late in the game and you need a 2 point conversion to tie for overtime or win. Because otherwise, once you miss 1 two point conversion, you're "chasing" those missed points the rest of the game--just like Oregon.

If they would have kicked extra points on their remaining TDs, they would have won the game 36-35 with the way it played out.

 

[Nebfanatic]

Bump

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

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.

No penalty needed, have the qb drop kick it in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3EaLfpZjaw

 

[Nebfanatic]

We had a missed field goal in 5 attempts that's only 80% in the super bowl the field goal pat is unreliable

 

[JJ Husker]

Somebody forgot to tell the Patriots what a low percentage play the 2 point conversion is.

 

[commando]

Somebody forgot to tell the Patriots what a low percentage play the 2 point conversion is.

and that NFL kickers are automatic up to 60 yards out