Trajan
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,297
- Reaction score
- 1,714
- I get it. You're taking a 50/50 gamble (if those are the odds) to try to force a situation where you know you will only need 1 drive.
- But if you miss, you then need a much, much less probable 2 drives.
- Say a PAT is 85% probable. Aren't you in better shape taking that better risk to only needing 1 drive before taking your 50/50 shot? If you miss the PAT, you're still in the same boat as missing on your 50/50 shot and needing 2 drives with the same amount of clock left. To me, it seems like a sounder bet to the path to 1 drive.
- So you're taking a 50/50 shot at needing only 1 drive and not needing to take a 50/50 shot later versus taking an 85% shot to needing 1 drive where you'll need a 50/50 shot at extending the game to OT where you basically get another 50/50-ish shot at winning the game or you just tie.
The only benefit I can see to going for 2 earlier is you have a chance to go for a second 2-pointer after the next TD to outright win the game vs. going to OT. So going for the first 2-point attempt is the more aggressive call and does give you better self-deterministic options at the end of the game (theoretically) where you'd have a win/lose or tie/OT option at the end of the game versus tie/OT or just lose. But it is also riskier going for the win because you'd need to execute 2 consecutive 50/50 two-pointer shots.
So I guess the bigger philosophical question is, is overtime such a yucky place that it's worth those upfront riskier tries of going for a win in regulation?
All good, but The one point you missed is failing to convert the 2nd two point conversion. If you kick first, but drive down and then miss the last 2 point conversion, you are back to square one, and will have to do the onside kick anyway. I would rather know and game plan early that an onside is needed and play accordingly.