15 points behind, say 7 minutes to go, you score a TD. Do ya go for 2, NOW?

[Ring 6]

This scenario happens on occasion, and was confronted by John Harbaugh this weekend.

The "convensional wisdom" is to kick the extra point and "make it a one score game". Then you rely on your D, hope to get it back, hope to score again, and then go for two to tie.

So.... you delay the risky play.

Problem is, then you won't know if you are going to convert that risky play, perhaps, until such time as converting it has become your only hope. Isn't it better to know SOONER? If you make it, you're set. if you miss it, you instead play to get two posessions. It's a taller task, but you know it up front. That knowledge can affect your strategy. You use your TOs earlier, for example, needing two scores.

I intensely dislike Harbaugh, but I think that he made the right decision to go for the two pointer earlier rather than later. They missed on the 2-pointer, so he is of course second-guessed.

I guess the downside is "momentum" and a sense of doom if you don't make it. The opponent will also be more geared toward milking the clock. Oddly, though, that may be an advantage rather than a disadvantage for you, if you opponent is trending away from the play style that they used to get ahead in the first place.

For this question, assume that you kicker is a good one, the weather is fine, an XP is more or less like Larry Bird shooting a free throw, and you have all of your time outs.

I have always said go for 2, because now you have certainty of whether it’s really still a 1 score game or a 2 score game. (If you are going to succeed or fail it’s the same whether try the first time or second)
This happened recently in a game Aikman was doing. They went for 2 and he disagreed and it was the best argument I’ve heard for taking the 1. He said if you take the one it is a 1 score game and you put pressure on the opponent offense. If you go for 2 and miss the opponent offense has zero pressure.

 

[Joker]

take the kick...make it a one score game...

 

[patfanken]

I'm a big believer in going for 2, BUT not in this scenario and it's not eve close. As several people have already mentioned, if you go for 2 and fail you are now in a 2 score game. If you kick the point, you're in a ONE score game. You HAVE to give yourself the opportunity to play that last 7 minutes in a one score game

Why? Because if you kick the PAT and are in a one score game, you now put more pressure on the opposing offense to move the ball and take more chances. If they are in a 2 score game they can be more conservative and safe because now YOU have to score twice.

 

[Marko]

Go for two

You play to win the game, not for tv ratings.

There is no advantage to delaying going for 2.

I think the conventional wisdom is that the team will let down if you miss, knowing that now it is still a 2 score game, with a lot less time.

 

[Clonamery]

Assuming that XP kicks are more or less a guarantee and 2 point conversion is about 50-50.

An 8 point game isn't really a "1 possession game" whereas a 7 point game is.

Its like Schrodinger's cat. The game is simultaneously a 1 score and 2 score game as the true fate of the game being determined by a random event.

So its basically a Quantum 1 possession game. Smart play is to collapse the wave function and find out if the cat is dead or alive.

Ride the wave, find your inner dog and kick the xp.

 

[1960Pats]

How many timeouts do I have?

Is my D playing well or sucking wind?

How about my offense?

Is my kicker automatic?

I kick the XP. Keep it a 1 score game. Chasing points is bad for business.

You miss you now need 2 possessions.

I'm surprised at how many posters don't see it this way.

Going for two was the main reason that the Pats went for a win at the end in the 03 SB vs the Panthers instead of a tie. The Panthers went for two a couple of times and failed.

The other Harbawl two-point screwup was going for two at the end for the win vs the Squealers

 

[1960Pats]

And if you miss at the very end, you still needed two possessions, except now by the time you find that out you don't have any time left.

This came up at the end of the Atlanta SB. I was wondering why the Pats were rushing to score down 8 but then I realized that they wanted to leave more time just in case they failed to make the conversion.

However, I do remember being very worried that a team was going to go for two and a win against the Pats. It was an early season game vs KC at Gillette in 2002 and both teams were running through each other with ease. When KC pulled within a point with seconds left I was praying that they didn't go for the win. They didn't and the Pats went on to win 41-38 in OT.

 

[1960Pats]

What did they do in the Falcons game.

Do that.

The Pats were down 16, not 15, and were forced to go for two each time.

 

[PScottman]

The "convensional wisdom" is to kick the extra point and "make it a one score game". Then you rely on your D, hope to get it back, hope to score again, and then go for two to tie.

Every scenario is different and should be judged by the relevant recent data available.

How is Cousin Mo(mentum) - on your side completely or just turning?

Have you been able to recently impose your will in any facet of the game (ex. running the ball down their throat or passing easily?)? All facets of the game?

Is your special teams playing well?

How reliable has your kicker been?

What's the weather?

Has your defense figured out their offense and the odds of a "response" score lower?

It's all about the variables at the moment. Use that data and make a decision.

 

[Nehalem]

I think the conventional wisdom is that the team will let down if you miss, knowing that now it is still a 2 score game, with a lot less time.

But it doesn't matter.

If the team fails the 2pt and is let down and doesn't score the 2nd (and now 3rd needed) score they lose

If the team elects for the XP and then scores the 2nd TD and fails the 2 pt and times runs out they lose.

Zero impact on the actual result.

Given how obvious this is it honestly seems like the point is to boost TV ratings.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm surprised at how many posters don't see it this way.

Going for two was the main reason that the Pats went for a win at the end in the 03 SB vs the Panthers instead of a tie. The Panthers went for two a couple of times and failed.

The other Harbawl two-point screwup was going for two at the end for the win vs the Squealers

IDK either

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I have always said go for 2, because now you have certainty of whether it’s really still a 1 score game or a 2 score game. (If you are going to succeed or fail it’s the same whether try the first time or second)
This happened recently in a game Aikman was doing. They went for 2 and he disagreed and it was the best argument I’ve heard for taking the 1. He said if you take the one it is a 1 score game and you put pressure on the opponent offense. If you go for 2 and miss the opponent offense has zero pressure.

I understand the psychological argument, but even in that sense i feel like the psychological effect can be 50/50. Yes , in the case you miss the 2 pt, it can be bad for the team psyche. However at the same time, it creates an increased sense of urgency for your defense and a decreased sense of urgency for the other team. Naturally, a conservative offense is easier to stop a vast majority of the time. And of course it could work the other way where the increased pressure makes it harder for the other team.

I still say there is an uncertainty as to which way the psychological effect would tilt the rest of the game. Its certainly debateable which way it tilts and how much it favors that direction. But imo there is a degree of uncertainty, whereas from the physical aspect there is zero doubt that knowing how many scores you need is an advantage for you in gameplanning purposes.

 

[Ring 6]

I understand the psychological argument, but even in that sense i feel like the psychological effect can be 50/50. Yes , in the case you miss the 2 pt, it can be bad for the team psyche. However at the same time, it creates an increased sense of urgency for your defense and a decreased sense of urgency for the other team. Naturally, a conservative offense is easier to stop a vast majority of the time. And of course it could work the other way where the increased pressure makes it harder for the other team.
I still say there is an uncertainty as to which way the psychological effect would tilt the rest of the game. Its certainly debateable which way it tilts and how much it favors that direction. But imo there is a degree of uncertainty, whereas from the physical aspect there is zero doubt that knowing how many scores you need is an advantage for you in gameplanning purposes.

Yeah, I would still go for 2. Since you are trailing you need the certainty more than the opponent does. I don’t think teams get depressed and give up if they miss the 2, but in that scenario if you take the 1 you are losing any way because you aren’t getting the 2.
I was pointing out Aikmans take only because even though I disagree it’s the first reasonable argument I’ve heard for that approach.
Taking 1 only to find out you fail on the 2 if you score again is useless.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the conventional wisdom is that the team will let down if you miss, knowing that now it is still a 2 score game, with a lot less time.

If you team gives up you aren’t winning any way.

 

[Ring 6]

What Five Thirty Eight says:

View attachment 38782


What even a passing understanding of football SHOULD tell you:

You go for one, most of the time*, unless you are the significantly inferior team.







*Context matters, after all.

The chart you posted disagrees with your conclusion. Scoring to be down 9 says it is slightly better (3.3 to 2.9) to go for 2.