Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

I'm really sick of announcers getting their panties in a bunch and crying that coaches are going for 2 "too early." They always claim this is a mistake because "you have to follow the chart."

I don't get this logic at all. It seems as though their entire theory revolves around procrastination, i.e. they're saying "Worry about that later." The problem is that if you blow the 2-point conversion later, it's too late to fix anything, but if you blow it early, you have the rest of the game to catch up.

Frankly, if I were running the risk of botching it early or later, I'd go for early because then I'd know exactly how many points I'd need to make up for during the remainder of the game, and I'd plan accordingly. Both Reid and Gibbs got raked over the coals for this yesterday, and while I dislike both of these obstinate assholes, I don't see any reason to disagree with their decision to go for two.

Am I missing something here, or is this just another case of a douchebag former offensive lineman talking out of his ass and not thinking?

Yeah, I'm with you. If you don't go for it, you're just going to be pressed and need it later anyway.

Objectively speaking, I disagreed with Gibbs going for it with the score 12-7, because an extra point still makes it a 2 field goal lead.

I had no problem whatsoever with Reid's attempt.

Sweet. KB agrees; therefore, the statistics and game logs must back me up.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Baldinger!

NTF

But for reals, I didn't look at any of that, but i just makes sense to me that if you need it early in the game, there's a good chance that you'll need it later.

I can see how going for it later would make it more pressing. At least you have more chances to score if you go early and miss.

It's the same logic that basketball coaches use when they sit their star player for a quarter because they have 2 or 3 fouls. Well, by sitting the guy you just GUARANTEED he won't be on the court, if you play him then at least you are taking a gamble and chances are he wouldn't foul out anyway. I saw the Cav's do that a few games back with LeBron, it seems stupid.

By not going for 2 your GUARANTEED yourself less than 2 points.

I'll say this, the chart is there for a reason.

It's not always right and I don't always agree with it, but going for 2 early and missing leaves you chasing points the rest of the game.

Basically, the chart is there because it has figured out most of the variables for you in advance and you don't have to wonder if you're making a wise choice.

When it's all said and done, the extra points are normally gimmes and the 2 point conversions are successful about 40% of the time, so the house has the advantage and 2 point conversions should only be used late in games when they can get you a tie.

Or stretch a lead from one score to two, when an extra point won't technically help you.

The chart is only there b/c everyone is working off the same one. If someone mixes it up, things would change.

I find it hard to believe that teams operating at a 43% clip wouldn't be able to get that up to 50% if they actually spent some more practice time on it.

I just think it's another example of things being done, b/c that's how they've been done. No thought is put into it.

There's no difference in what part of the game it is. You're chasing points if you go for the extra point, too. You only go for two points if it makes sense from a scoring standpoint, in that you'd still lose or trail by a FG, etc. If you need those points early, there's a good chance you'll need them later.

Chasing points is always dangerous, because you dig yourself a bigger and bigger hole.

By missing an extra point and going for a 2 point conversion, they ended up costing themselves 2 points instead of 1...compounded the issue.

But what you're saying has some truth to it. if a team just threw the chart out and did whatever they felt like doing, the other chart wouldn't be as useful. However, given the fact that no one has ever done that, the chart is a wise move.

How many NFL coaches DON'T play it safe in one way or another? Even coaches that are behind kick meaningless FGs so they can say they didn't get shut out, instead of going for it in those short situations.

There are very few good coaches in the NFL anyway, and the 2 point issues only compound it.

You're only continually chasing points if your defense keeps giving up points, or if you can't score. In either scenario, you need to get as many points as you can.

A long time ago, somebody decided it was dumb to run 500 times a game, and that the pass should be introduced. Or that it was dumb to punt on third down, and actually try and get a first down. I think this is one of those times where "that's the way it's always been dumb" is stupid.

sorry, meant "that's the way it's always been done"

You're only continually chasing points if your defense keeps giving up points, or if you can't score. In either scenario, you need to get as many points as you can.

Someone may try to change professional football for the heck of it and give your way a try, but the odds are in favor of the opponents when you go for two. Over time, you will score fewer points going to two.

Bird in the hand, two in the bush...this issue is as old as time and going for 2 for the hell of it is never the right call.

But the only defense of it is "the chart". Teams barely include this in their practice and game plans, and still successfully convert 43% of the time. That shows me this can be practiced and improved upon.

You can't apply the stats now to a situation where it's attempted more and say "They wouldn't do well". We're talking about the coaches using their head instead of a piece of an inflexible piece of paper.

We're talking about situations where getting a point doesn't help. I don't see how it makes sense to try and get those two points early, and not later. You need them in both situations.

I should also add that going to 2 points, failing, and losing by 1 point (or in overtime), is essentially a death sentence for a coach.

But the only defense of it is "the chart". Teams barely include this in their practice and game plans, and still successfully convert 43% of the time. That shows me this can be practiced and improved upon.

You can't apply the stats now to a situation where it's attempted more and say "They wouldn't do well". We're talking about the coaches using their head instead of a piece of an inflexible piece of paper.

We're talking about situations where getting a point doesn't help. I don't see how it makes sense to try and get those two points early, and not later. You need them in both situations.

First, the defenses practice 2 points the same amount of time as the offenses, so you can't assume the % would improve just because they would be practicing more.

Second, 2 point conversions are from the 2 yard line and you can bump receivers for 5 yards, so there is only a very small window of the endzone where receivers are allowed to run free without getting mugged and there are a lot of defenders in that area.

Third, I understand what you're trying to say with a point not helping, but that's where the chart really shines. It makes these decisions for you because it's all been worked out in advance. If 1 point absolutely won't help, it tells you to go for 2.

Beautiful, beautiful chart.

But not early in the game, that's the point of this. They usually won't early in the game.

I would like to see scoring chances overall from inside the 5 yard line. Not 2 point conversions, but scoring chances.

Then I demand you see them!

Seriously, I imagine they're pretty damn good, right? And defenses practice defending that all the time, yet, I bet the offense scores a hell of a lot more than not.

But not early in the game, that's the point of this. They usually won't early in the game.

But that's really the whole point. They spend hundreds of hours of research and pay experts to come up with stuff like "the chart" and the reason is, on average, based on mathematical certainties, those are the best plays for the head coach.

Anyone who wants to "go from their gut" can feel free to, but it's essentially the same as "going from your gut" at a blackjack table.

You may get lucky. You may win a hand. You may even win for a night, but if you play it by your gut you will lose more money over time than playing by the statistical averages.

It's not "from the gut". It's using the chart, that tells you when to go for 2. For some reason, early in the game, they go by their guy and decide to only use it when there's a certain amount of time left. That's what doesn't make sense.

Seriously, I imagine they're pretty damn good, right? And defenses practice defending that all the time, yet, I bet the offense scores a hell of a lot more than not.

What I'm guessing, and I cannot be 100% sure, is every team in the NFL has those stats and those stats continue to suggest going for two early is a bad idea.

These are billion dollar corporations with thousands of employees. They don't just have 2 hillbillies from Texas spitting on the carpet and demanding they "go from the chart because that's the way my daddy did it!".

If the numbers were in favor of the offense or any team in the NFL thought it would help them over time, you'd see teams doing it.

Well, I'm sure all the info says that throwing 70% of the time with a gimpy QB is a bad idea, but that doesn't stop a billion dollar franchise.

Seriously, whenever I hear the only excuse as "That's just the way they do it", it just sounds like someone is taking either the stubborn or safe way out.

You're completely guessing they've payed tons of researchers to do this. There's no info to go off of about how successful they'd be if they did do it early.

Your argument is just strange though. You said it's b/c of the chart, but they're going against the chart in many instances. That doesn't add up.

1  2 3