Kicking the PAT versus going for 2...

[oldrover]

Does it make sense to go for 2 every time, mathematically? This article laid out the math before the season started.

Kick the PAT or go for 2? Math favors the 2-point conversion

IMHO, unless you've somehow unlocked the Rubik's cube mystery to converting at 55-60%, you only go for the two-point conversion in the 4th quarter... and perhaps only in the waning minutes (basically following **** Vermeil's chart of yore).

Otherwise, you take the extra points.

Of course, I anticipate 100% agreement on this.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

I disagree that you should ever go for two. I also disagree that you should ever kick the extra point. You're entire argument us a straw man, and hominem, and a red herring. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of edelberries.

 

[Froob]

As for going for the win at the end of a game with an XP to tie and a 2 to win I think it depends. If you're a big underdog I think going for the win is a good decision, if not and you're the better team you should be confident you'll win in OT.

 

[oldrover]

I disagree that you should ever go for two. I also disagree that you should ever kick the extra point. You're entire argument us a straw man, and hominem, and a red herring. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of edelberries.

'Is there somebody else up there we can talk to?"

 

[Gwedd]

 

[Gwedd]

My own advise would be that, whenever you are leading by 3 scores (or more) during the 2nd half, you always go for 2pts. Plus, whenever you have a 4th & 2 or less, and you are past your own 40 yard line, then go for it, rather than punt.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I dislike the extended Extra Point kick.

IMHO it would have been better to simply move the Extra Point Attempt to the 1 yard line. This would increase the chances for a 2 point conversion and not change the kick percentage much.

I believe that would be more interesting for the Coaches and fans. At the same time it would serve to increase the value of a a TD over a pair of long FGs. The present longer kick, discounts the value of a TD and presents the problem of 2 long FGs negating a TD and a failed Extra Point Attempt.

 

[n6249c]

A lot depends on reliability of your kicking game. That, and game situation. Going for two to win instead of one to tie is likely to be a fool's choice IMO. If you fail you lose, that's too high a risk if you have a much better chance of kicking one than making two. I'm also considering that teams in such a situation are likely to be desperate, if they weren't theyd settle for tying with the expectation of winning in the rest of the game.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I dislike the extended Extra Point kick.

IMHO it would have been better to simply move the Extra Point Attempt to the 1 yard line. This would increase the chances for a 2 point conversion and not change the kick percentage much.

I believe that would be more interesting for the Coaches and fans. At the same time it would serve to increase the value of a a TD over a pair of long FGs. The present longer kick, discounts the value of a TD and presents the problem of 2 long FGs negating a TD and a failed Extra Point Attempt.

The problem with the 2-yard XP is that it is essentially a free point, with something like a 99%+ chance of converting, even by mediocre/bad kickers.

Now, there's at least some excitement in XPs.

 

[Fencer]

I suspect that in most cases where the decision matters, it will be the case either that:

• Both teams score the same number of TDs and also the same number of FGs.
• One team scores 1 more TD while the other scores 2 more FGs.

In the first scenario, you never want to go for 2 unless the other team has already scored all its TDs. Why? Because the information as to whether you succeeded or failed on your attempt is too valuable. To see that, let's pick the simple case in which each team scores 1 TD. If the first team goes for 2 and succeeds, then the other team has a good chance to tie. If the first team goes for 2 and fails, then the second team has a near-automatic win. Taken together, that's a bad return for the first team on going for 2.

In the second scenario, the team with the extra FGs might want to go for 2 on the last TD it does get. The other team surely would want to just go for 1.

 

[Ken Canin]

The article gives 9 points per 10 attempts in a PAT. Don't the Pats make more?

 

[1960Pats]

I dislike the extended Extra Point kick.

IMHO it would have been better to simply move the Extra Point Attempt to the 1 yard line. This would increase the chances for a 2 point conversion and not change the kick percentage much.

I believe that would be more interesting for the Coaches and fans. At the same time it would serve to increase the value of a a TD over a pair of long FGs. The present longer kick, discounts the value of a TD and presents the problem of 2 long FGs negating a TD and a failed Extra Point Attempt.

Basically, it makes the kicker more important. Who came up with that idea anyway?

It seems to me that I've seen more examples of teams that should have kicked the ball instead of gambling for the 2 point conversion. It's especially evident when teams try to make up for the first failure by going for 2 again and failing. The 2003 SB vs Carolina is a good example of that. The final game winning FG might have been more difficult if the Pats were losing instead of tied.

 

[SaCaCh]

They should have just kept the ball at the 2 and made the extra point a drop kick instead!

 

[scout]

I keep remembering the Buffalo game when the wind was blowing everything sideways. Thus, at what point does the elements play in the decision?