Random coaching thought, going for two

[Sydla]

This is more a coaching decision making discussion to break up the Cowboys talk.

This past weekend, while watching the Minny-Eagles game, Doug Pederson went for two late in the game when his team was down 8. To set the stage........

Eagles were down 14 with 12 minutes to go. They scored a TD to make the score 20-12. Instead of kicking the XP to make it a 20-13 game and only down another TD, Pederson went for two to make it 20-14.

Even though he was successful, I thought, what an idiot. But thinking back, was it really that dumb? IF they fail to make the two point conversion, they are down 8, which is still a one score game. The NFL conversion rate on two points is roughly 50%, and I believe the Eagles percentage since Pederson took over is slightly higher.

So was he smart playing the averages there? Meaning that the odds state if he goes for two down 20-12 and fails, its likely he'll convert if they score again to make the score 20-18.

Or was it just dumb? I can't figure it out. I see the logic on both sides.

 

[erod]

This is more a coaching decision making discussion to break up the Cowboys talk.

This past weekend, while watching the Minny-Eagles game, Doug Pederson went for two late in the game when his team was down 8. To set the stage........

Eagles were down 14 with 12 minutes to go. They scored a TD to make the score 20-12. Instead of kicking the XP to make it a 20-13 game and only down another TD, Pederson went for two to make it 20-14.

Even though he was successful, I thought, what an idiot. But thinking back, was it really that dumb? IF they fail to make the two point conversion, they are down 8, which is still a one score game. The NFL conversion rate on two points is roughly 50%, and I believe the Eagles percentage since Pederson took over is slightly higher.

So was he smart playing the averages there? Meaning that the odds state if he goes for two down 20-12 and fails, its likely he'll convert if they score again to make the score 20-18.

Or was it just dumb? I can't figure it out. I see the logic on both sides.

What his kicker hurt?

 

[Sydla]

What his kicker hurt?

No.

I think he was simply playing the percentages. If he goes for two after the first TD and fails, he needs a two point conversion later to tie the score. The NFL average for converting two pointers is roughly 50%. So based on that, his logic is if he fails the first time, the odds state he'll convert the 2nd one and tie the game up anyway at 20. But if he converts the first one, now he's in a position to win the game outright if he can score another TD and make the score 20-21..............

 

[AsthmaField]

I can see it. I understand what he was trying to do. Still, it isn’t that big of a decision either way.

Pederson is quickly losing his coach-de-jour luster.

 

[Captain-Crash]

It was smart. Garrett would have punted the extra point in the opposite direction.

 

[Sydla]

I can see it. I understand what he was trying to do. Still, it isn’t that big of a decision either way.

Pederson is quickly losing his coach-de-jour luster.

I can see it too now. At first I thought he had lost his marbles. But thinking it through, it wasn't the most god awful decision I first thought it was.

 

[AsthmaField]

Yeah. He wanted the win and there would be less second guessing if he went for two there and then, on the next TD merely had to kick the extra point to break the tie.

 

[Kage]

It wasn't conventional or safe, but it actually might be the right option.

Assuming they convert it 50%+ of the time, they would convert 1 of 2 attempts. If they don't get the first attempt, they in theory would convert the second attempt to tie it.(Same as if they kicked two extra points) If they convert the first attempt, then an extra point would give them the lead.

 

[Future]

The math says go for it.

The math has been clear for so long, and been presented by so many writers, that this topic is essentially beating a dead horse. Late in games, it has always made sense for a team, after scoring a touchdown to cut a lead from 14 to 8 points, should go for two. The trailing team gets two bites at the apple: if it converts, a touchdown now wins the game. If the team fails, they get a second chance to erase that mistake. Only if the odds of missing *both* attempts were higher than the odds of making the first attempt would this strategy fail to make sense.

http://www.footballperspective.com/down-14-scoring-a-touchdown-and-then-going-for-2/

 

[dfense]

Remember the last time the Cowboys played the Steelers? Tomlin went for 2 every time they scored. They didn't convert a single one of them.

 

[erod]

No.

I think he was simply playing the percentages. If he goes for two after the first TD and fails, he needs a two point conversion later to tie the score. The NFL average for converting two pointers is roughly 50%. So based on that, his logic is if he fails the first time, the odds state he'll convert the 2nd one and tie the game up anyway at 20. But if he converts the first one, now he's in a position to win the game outright if he can score another TD and make the score 20-21..............

That just doesn't make sense.

What if Minnesota kicks a field goal? Now you're potentially two touchdowns away instead of a touchdown and a field goal.

You should never go for two until its mandatory or mathematically obvious.

Tomlin did this a couple of years ago. They started going for two all the time, and it bit him in the butt repeatedly. They stopped. (I think he was ordered to stop from above.)

 

[Sydla]

That just doesn't make sense.

What if Minnesota kicks a field goal? Now you're potentially two touchdowns away instead of a touchdown and a field goal.

You should never go for two until its mandatory or mathematically obvious.

Tomlin did this a couple of years ago. They started going for two all the time, and it bit him in the butt repeatedly. They stopped. (I think he was ordered to stop from above.)

If you go for two and fail and the score is 20-12, a FG by Minnesota doesn't really change the math. Because you are still down 11, which is a TD and a FG. Where are you getting down two TDs from?

 

[MCMetal69]

It was smart. Garrett would have punted the extra point in the opposite direction.

 

[erod]

If you go for two and fail and the score is 20-12, a FG by Minnesota doesn't really change the math. Because you are still down 11, which is a TD and a FG. Where are you getting down two TDs from?

You'd be down a touchdown, a field goal, and a MANDATORY two-point conversion. If you score a TD, then fail again on the two-pointer, now you're in a real bind, and you only have yourself to blame.

There's also the theory that two-point percentage goes DOWN the more you do it. Teams don't score touchdowns 50% of the time from the 2-yard line, so why would that percentage rise just because it's a conversion? Often, teams have an extra special play designed for one time that week. They don't have 4 of those plays reheared enough to do them.

Now, the exception these days is if you have a really shaky kicker. Moving the tries back 15 yards was a BRILLIANT idea. Those aren't gimmes anymore, and they can get into the heads of the kickers.