PAT strategy

[endersdragon]

Just wondering, does anyone else think that with this new PAT range, and our offensive line and Dez, we probably could score a few more points each game by just going for 2 everytime. It's not that I don't trust Bailey, but I think we could get at least 2 yards by either running it with this line, or just throwing a back-shoulder fade to Dez, way over half the time... though then again I have thought this for years and nothing :-/ Meh.

 

[Hoofbite]

Just wondering, does anyone else think that with this new PAT range, and our offensive line and Dez, we probably could score a few more points each game by just going for 2 everytime. It's not that I don't trust Bailey, but I think we could get at least 2 yards by either running it with this line, or just throwing a back-shoulder fade to Dez, way over half the time... though then again I have thought this for years and nothing :-/ Meh.

If Dallas could score more now, they could have scored more last year and yet they chose the kick.

One problem I see is that a team could convert enough to be mathematically advantageous over the kick, but also cost themselves a win, or wins, in the process.

If we say they need to convert 50% of the time and the team does, that still doesn't say anything about when those conversions occur. Some games you'll convert more than 50% and some games you'll convert more.

You could go 0-3 in a game and turn a would be 1-point victory into a 2-point loss, and go 3-3 the following week and stretch a 7-point victory into a 10-point victory. Still at 50%, but you've sacrificed a victory along the way.

The same holds true for turning a loss into a win but, IMO, if Dallas is ever in a position where they need those extra couple points then their offense (assuming the defense isn't worse) is likely struggling in the first place, which is a conflicted position to be in. In order to swing a game in this direction you'd need better than expected 2-PT succes in a game where your offense is performing less than expected to begin with.

 

[wick]

The strategy is simple math. Tactical situations will mandate the use of one over the other based on game situation. But the expected points for each is easy to calculate.

Example 1: Two-point conversion success rate of 47 percent and 33-yard kick success rate of 95 percent

• 2 * .47 = 0.94 point
• 1 * .95 = 0.95 point
• Strategy is to kick the 33-yard try

Example 2: Two-point conversion success rate of 48 percent and 33-yard kick success rate of 93 percent

• 2 * .48 = 0.96 point
• 1 * .93 = 0.93 point
• Strategy is to go for two

Example 3: Two-point conversion success rate of 50 percent

• 2 * .50 = 1.00 point
• Strategy is to go for two (because you'll never do better kicking)

 

[Parcells4Life]

This is much ado about nothing. Kickers will make 95%+ and teams aren't going to be any more inclined to go for it than before. The EAGLES didn't attempt a single 2-point conversion last year I heard on the radio and we all remember how Chip always went for 2 in the 1st half at Oregon. Points are at too much of a premium in the NFL. I would think 40 yards is about the yardage you would need to make it interesting or moving the 2-point try to the 1. Then you would just see teams perfect the QB sneak.

All this has done is make getting a penalty on these plays a big no-no.

 

[jazzcat22]

The strategy is simple math. Tactical situations will mandate the use of one over the other based on game situation. But the expected points for each is easy to calculate.

Example 1: Two-point conversion success rate of 47 percent and 33-yard kick success rate of 95 percent

• 2 * .47 = 0.94 point
• 1 * .95 = 0.95 point
• Strategy is to kick the 33-yard try

Example 2: Two-point conversion success rate of 48 percent and 33-yard kick success rate of 93 percent

• 2 * .48 = 0.96 point
• 1 * .93 = 0.93 point
• Strategy is to go for two

Example 3: Two-point conversion success rate of 50 percent

• 2 * .50 = 1.00 point
• Strategy is to go for two (because you'll never do better kicking)

That does not compute........guess you could just be joking though....

Where does a 48% chance gets you better odds than a 93% chance of scoring.
You do not get a double advantage on a % just because it's 2 points vs. 1 point.

It's the risk vs. reward issue. Give me the more assured 1 point every time. Until you need the 2 points.

Getting 2 yards in goal line situation is very hard, even with our OL. Teams practice this situation all the time. Even bad teams can stop this, probably 50% of the time.

 

[erod]

The proper strategy now could be the exact reverse from before.

Always go for two in the first three quarters, then in the fourth quarter, kick as is strategically logical.

If you score three TDs early and beat the odds by converting all three 2-point conversions, then you've effectively kicked a field goal, too.

This change could change football strategy entirely.

 

[xwalker]

Just wondering, does anyone else think that with this new PAT range, and our offensive line and Dez, we probably could score a few more points each game by just going for 2 everytime. It's not that I don't trust Bailey, but I think we could get at least 2 yards by either running it with this line, or just throwing a back-shoulder fade to Dez, way over half the time... though then again I have thought this for years and nothing :-/ Meh.

They didn't move the spot for the 2 point play did they?

If Bailey is basically automatic from the new distance, then why would it change anything.

If they go for 2 more often, I think it would be because they think they are better at short yardage than they have been in the past, not because of the location of the extra point kick.

 

[aikemirv]

I despise the new rule.

While some kickers will miss during the game, the time when this will be crucial is at the end of the game. I understand that 1 point is 1 point but that 1 point is going to be much harder to come by with 30 seconds to go than it was on that 1st quarter TD.

Kickers determine the outcomes of games by FG's, and IMO, that should be it!

This does not make the game more interesting, it makes it more stressful for those diehard fans. I like the fact that if we are down 6 or 7 with 30 seconds to go and score a TD, we are guaranteed to go to OT or win the game. A 33 yard FG to confirm either makes me angry.

 

[LandryFan]

The strategy is simple math. Tactical situations will mandate the use of one over the other based on game situation. But the expected points for each is easy to calculate.

Example 1: Two-point conversion success rate of 47 percent and 33-yard kick success rate of 95 percent

• 2 * .47 = 0.94 point
• 1 * .95 = 0.95 point
• Strategy is to kick the 33-yard try

Example 2: Two-point conversion success rate of 48 percent and 33-yard kick success rate of 93 percent

• 2 * .48 = 0.96 point
• 1 * .93 = 0.93 point
• Strategy is to go for two

Example 3: Two-point conversion success rate of 50 percent

• 2 * .50 = 1.00 point
• Strategy is to go for two (because you'll never do better kicking)

I heard this being discussed on SIRIUS NFL radio and they said that 94% of all 33 yd kicks were converted last year (league-wide). That correlates exactly (points-wise) to the 47% success rate last year for 2 point conversions (expected average points for each is .94). Most coaches (Garrett, in particular) are risk-averse, but, statistically speaking, each has the same expected point value, so there is no risk in choosing one option over the other. Red (and most other coaches) will still choose the one point unless the game situation mandates otherwise. At least we're in a good position for both...great FG kicker and great OL.

 

[erod]

I despise the new rule.

While some kickers will miss during the game, the time when this will be crucial is at the end of the game. I understand that 1 point is 1 point but that 1 point is going to be much harder to come by with 30 seconds to go than it was on that 1st quarter TD.

Kickers determine the outcomes of games by FG's, and IMO, that should be it!

This does not make the game more interesting, it makes it more stressful for those diehard fans. I like the fact that if we are down 6 or 7 with 30 seconds to go and score a TD, we are guaranteed to go to OT or win the game. A 33 yard FG to confirm either makes me angry.

It does make the game more about 150-pound kickers and less about real football players for sure.

 

[aikemirv]

It does make the game more about 150-pound kickers and less about real football players for sure.

I just don't understand what the rules committee is smoking here. I mean, I understand that it is meaningless and automatic, but the remedy for that is to eliminate it, not make a team score a TD and make a FG to tie the game or win it!

 

[erod]

I just don't understand what the rules committee is smoking here. I mean, I understand that it is meaningless and automatic, but the remedy for that is to eliminate it, not make a team score a TD and make a FG to tie the game or win it!

Or just narrow the field goal posts.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

This is much ado about nothing. Kickers will make 95%+ and teams aren't going to be any more inclined to go for it than before. The EAGLES didn't attempt a single 2-point conversion last year I heard on the radio and we all remember how Chip always went for 2 in the 1st half at Oregon. Points are at too much of a premium in the NFL. I would think 40 yards is about the yardage you would need to make it interesting or moving the 2-point try to the 1. Then you would just see teams perfect the QB sneak.

All this has done is make getting a penalty on these plays a big no-no.

And in poor weather?

 

[percyhoward]

Coughlin was right, that they should have just moved the LOS for conversions to the 1-yard line.

 

[AbeBeta]

Just wondering, does anyone else think that with this new PAT range, and our offensive line and Dez, we probably could score a few more points each game by just going for 2 everytime. It's not that I don't trust Bailey, but I think we could get at least 2 yards by either running it with this line, or just throwing a back-shoulder fade to Dez, way over half the time... though then again I have thought this for years and nothing :-/ Meh.

Not going to happen. Coaches hate taking risks.

 

[Chuck 54]

Just wait until a great, tightly fought game sees an offense drive against all odds to tie a game in the fourth quarter, only to see it end with a whimper on a missed PAT. Let's see how fans and the league like this idea then. The PAT is meant to be uneventful until someone goes for 2. To have offenses and defenses fight like hell all game and then see the outcome determined, not by a FG attempt, last second drive, Hail Mary, or big defensive stand, but by a missed PAT after the big drive? That's not more excitement, it's stupid.

I see a team overcoming a big deficit, scoring with seconds left to force overtime, but all the air in the balloon is let out when a friggen' kicker misses the PAT....again, I don't call that more excitement.

 

[Nightman]

I just don't understand what the rules committee is smoking here. I mean, I understand that it is meaningless and automatic, but the remedy for that is to eliminate it, not make a team score a TD and make a FG to tie the game or win it!

Exactly a 33 yd FG is worth 3 pts. Now it has to made after a TD for 1 pt.

Games in bad weather will be decided by this and fans will be furious. Wait til someone gets a holding penalty.

I would rather have TDs worth 7 pts unless they go for 2.

 

[Doomsday101]

Just wondering, does anyone else think that with this new PAT range, and our offensive line and Dez, we probably could score a few more points each game by just going for 2 everytime. It's not that I don't trust Bailey, but I think we could get at least 2 yards by either running it with this line, or just throwing a back-shoulder fade to Dez, way over half the time... though then again I have thought this for years and nothing :-/ Meh.

and lose a game by 1 or 2 points because instead of taking the 95% success rate with the xpt. No thanks.

 

[wick]

I heard this being discussed on SIRIUS NFL radio and they said that 94% of all 33 yd kicks were converted last year (league-wide). That correlates exactly (points-wise) to the 47% success rate last year for 2 point conversions (expected average points for each is .94). Most coaches (Garrett, in particular) are risk-averse, but, statistically speaking, each has the same expected point value, so there is no risk in choosing one option over the other. Red (and most other coaches) will still choose the one point unless the game situation mandates otherwise. At least we're in a good position for both...great FG kicker and great OL.

I'd argue that if the expected points are exactly the same, it's better strategy to go for two because additional game reps should in theory improve your success rate.

 

[wick]

Exactly a 33 yd FG is worth 3 pts. Now it has to made after a TD for 1 pt.

Games in bad weather will be decided by this and fans will be furious. Wait til someone gets a holding penalty.

I would rather have TDs worth 7 pts unless they go for 2.

Me, too. You get six points for the touchdown. If you don't choose to go for two, you get an additional point for seven total points. If you choose to go for two, you either get two or zero additional points, depending on success or failure.