Why Not Two Point Conversions?

maust · Sep 22, 2019

MainePatsFan26 said:
You stated the reason we shouldn't go for two is that "...it is a fool's errand inviting additional attrition...". By that logic, if we score quicker on offense our star players risk less injury because they are on the field less. In turn, your approach to two point conversions does intimate that time of possession and inflicting attrition on the defense is less important than preserving our guys in the grand scheme of things.

The difference being discussed is between running my starters out there for a 2 point conversion vs running my kicking team out there for a PAT. It has nothing to do with TOP as they are both untimed. You keep making nonsensical assumptions and reading between single spaced lines.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

maust1013 said:
Your math, which was fuzzy at best was represented by "Let's say our current offense earns four touchdowns a game. Were we to make 55% of two point conversions -- a high success rate but likely achievable with our offense -- we'd earn an average of 0.6 additional points per game."
My point is quite simple, why would I want to incur 6% more risk to my hardest to replace players for an increase of .6 points per game?

My "football" logic is that we can wear down the defense more, thus making scoring easier in the final drives of the game (like the Atlanta Super Bowl). A worn down defense also poses less of a physical threat to the quarterback in obvious passing situations.

With teams like the Jets who we easily beat, you're right that going for two is adding unnecessary risk. Against top teams, however, are you saying it isn't worth the potential for an additional point (.6 rounded up)?

And what of the playoffs and Super Bowl when you're risking everything to win? Are you saying that teams still should be conservative with the two point conversion even when everything is on the line?

There doesn't need to be "one way" of doing this. But as kickers increasingly struggle, I'm not sure the "old way" is always the "right way."

slam · Sep 22, 2019

Every two point play is something that has to be designed, installed, and practiced. Once a play is run, it goes into upcoming opponent's tape and you lose the element of surprise on that play. If you have a play that works in that winner take all situation, would you really want to use it for just one additional point and not for a critical 3rd or 4th down? Extra points, presumably, requires no additional practice time beyond the usual field goal practice. Using plays for relatively low stakes early two point plays is a misuse of your staff's time unless the reward is significant. It is not. Save your good conversion plays for when you most need it.

My favorite example of this biting a team in the butt is when Kansas City in the last Alex Smith year played a meaningless 17th week game and unveiled the trick play in which Dontari Poe took the goal line snap, rumbled to the line and then floated a push pass to a tight end. Fun play, everyone loved the highlight. One week later, they were eliminated from the playoffs because they weren't able to execute a 2 point conversion to tie the game at the end.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

maust1013 said:
The difference being discussed is between running my starters out there for a 2 point conversion vs running my kicking team out there for a PAT. It has nothing to do with TOP as they are both untimed. You keep making nonsensical assumptions and reading between single spaced lines.

It absolutely has to do with the concept of time of possession. Does it count towards the time of possession stat? No. But the time of possession stat is utilized to determine how much a team wears down the opposition. Being on the field more with the two point conversion does wear the opposing team down even if it doesn't show up in the time of possession stat.

If you disagree with that, I'm gathering you would suggest that the literal extra point play where exertion occurred never happened simply because the stat didn't accrue in the overall 60 minute tally. That's pretty nonsensical and based on quibbling rather than reality -- the very thing you keep accusing me of.

Ochmed Jones · Sep 22, 2019

Baltimore just lost a game today, in part, because they could not make a 2 point conversion. 0 for 3 on the day.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

slam said:
Every two point play is something that has to be designed, installed, and practiced. Once a play is run, it goes into upcoming opponent's tape and you lose the element of surprise on that play. If you have a play that works in that winner take all situation, would you really want to use it for just one additional point and not for a critical 3rd or 4th down? Extra points, presumably, requires no additional practice time beyond the usual field goal practice. Using plays for relatively low stakes early two point plays is a misuse of your staff's time unless the reward is significant. It is not. Save your good conversion plays for when you most need it.

My favorite example of this biting a team in the butt is when Kansas City in the last Alex Smith year played a meaningless 17th week game and unveiled the trick play in which Dontari Poe took the goal line snap, rumbled to the line and then floated a push pass to a tight end. Fun play, everyone loved the highlight. One week later, they were eliminated from the playoffs because they weren't able to execute a 2 point conversion to tie the game at the end.

Now that is a compelling argument. We would lose our best plays (unless we never used them and thus failed more two point attempts).

I'd still like to see a team with a good offense (like Kansas City) try this approach so we can gather more evidence pro or con.

But for the Patriots, it sounds like saving the best plays and utilizing staff resources are good reasons to keep things the way they are.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 22, 2019

Ochmed Jones said:
Baltimore just lost a game today, in part, because they could not make a 2 point conversion. 0 for 3 on the day.

While that is only one game, it does demonstrate the problem. However, Baltimore's ineffectiveness is far lower than what we've seen on average. On the Ravens reddit, many fans accuse Harbaugh of getting too cute on those plays but still defend going for two.

It comes down to how often you believe a team, from the two yard line, can convert in one play. If that is 47% when running the basic offense (and not using your best plays), then you've already broken even.

rads2005 · Sep 23, 2019

Two point conversion plays seem to be “special” plays teams practice and save up. In that scenario, the current two point conversion rate is artificially high. It may be difficult to come up with and practice winning 2 point plays on a weekly basis. That also takes away from time spent on other areas of game prep.

I’m guessing teams evaluating this are saying their conversion rates over the course of a season will be lower than 48%, while also affecting game prep time.

Deus Irae · Sep 23, 2019

rads2005 said:
Two point conversion plays seem to be “special” plays teams practice and save up. In that scenario, the current two point conversion rate is artificially high. It may be difficult to come up with and practice winning 2 point plays on a weekly basis. That also takes away from time spent on other areas of game prep.

I’m guessing teams evaluating this are saying their conversion rates over the course of a season will be lower than 48%, while also affecting game prep time.

It's really as simple as this:

I can lose out on 1 point 5%-10% of the time, or I can lose out on a point 53%-55% of the time. The smart play is to take the point, when it's in the normal flow of the game. Late in a game, when that second point is the difference between a 6 or 7 point lead, or trailing by 3 instead of 4, you start looking to gamble on the conversion. But we've already seen Jacksonville lose a game by choosing to go for 2 rather than taking the tie. And, today we saw the Ravens lose, in large part, because of failed 4th downs and 2 points conversions.

Of course, the percentages will vary depending upon the quality of the offenses and defenses, which could alter the thinking a bit, but you're not going to get up to 95% on the 2 point conversion, no matter what the game matchup is.

We seem to have this discussion every year nowadays, and someone blindly buys into statistics, ignoring context, every time.

TB12GoPats · Sep 23, 2019

From a pure statistical point of view (disregarding a very good point of the designing of such plays and showing your hand perhaps unnecessarily), one should consider how going for 2 after all touchdowns changes the probability of victory, while also examining the change in variance. It seems to me that the variance of score is significantly higher for the 2pt conversion as opposed to the PAT, while the expected score is about the same,which should correlate well with winning probabilities, if one disregards the current score. But in certain situations, for example when down by 2, with less than a minute to go, the win probability raises enough so that the risk of going for 2 is justified. The same cannot be said, at least superficially thinking, for a situation when up 6 in the first quarter (I might be wrong here), or when just tying the game with 0:00 on the clock (obvious exaggeration).

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 23, 2019

rads2005 said:
Two point conversion plays seem to be “special” plays teams practice and save up. In that scenario, the current two point conversion rate is artificially high. It may be difficult to come up with and practice winning 2 point plays on a weekly basis. That also takes away from time spent on other areas of game prep.

I’m guessing teams evaluating this are saying their conversion rates over the course of a season will be lower than 48%, while also affecting game prep time.

The stat being artificially high is a really solid point.

I wonder if the fact many two point conversions happen in the second half also means the data is inflated.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 23, 2019

Deus Irae said:
It's really as simple as this:

I can lose out on 1 point 5%-10% of the time, or I can lose out on a point 53%-55% of the time. The smart play is to take the point, when it's in the normal flow of the game. Late in a game, when that second point is the difference between a 6 or 7 point lead, or trailing by 3 instead of 4, you start looking to gamble on the conversion. But we've already seen Jacksonville lose a game by choosing to go for 2 rather than taking the tie. And, today we saw the Ravens lose, in large part, because of failed 4th downs and 2 points conversions.

Of course, the percentages will vary depending upon the quality of the offenses and defenses, which could alter the thinking a bit, but you're not going to get up to 95% on the 2 point conversion, no matter what the game matchup is.

We seem to have this discussion every year nowadays, and someone blindly buys into statistics, ignoring context, every time.

I agree completely with your explanation with game flow. An all-time dominant offense could take advantage, but for mostly everyone else the flow of close games does seem to indicate (like you said) that it is smartest to go for one early and save any two point tries for later.

MainePatsFan26 · Sep 23, 2019

TB12GoPats said:
From a pure statistical point of view (disregarding a very good point of the designing of such plays and showing your hand perhaps unnecessarily), one should consider how going for 2 after all touchdowns changes the probability of victory, while also examining the change in variance. It seems to me that the variance of score is significantly higher for the 2pt conversion as opposed to the PAT, while the expected score is about the same,which should correlate well with winning probabilities, if one disregards the current score. But in certain situations, for example when down by 2, with less than a minute to go, the win probability raises enough so that the risk of going for 2 is justified. The same cannot be said, at least superficially thinking, for a situation when up 6 in the first quarter (I might be wrong here), or when just tying the game with 0:00 on the clock (obvious exaggeration).

Approaching the question from a variance of score perspective is intriguing.

If anything, I wish a team with a solid offense but poor defense/special teams would use the preseason or a "lost" season (like when a team has a 3-9 record) to test just going for two points. It'd be great as a coach/fan to just have the data over a period of time so this argument would have more grounding than the rather shaky 48% on two point conversions that gets tossed around.

luuked · Sep 23, 2019

MainePatsFan26 said:
If anything, I wish a team with a solid offense but poor defense/special teams would use the preseason or a "lost" season (like when a team has a 3-9 record) to test just going for two points.

You keep saying that but the reality is that even a full year sample is pretty meaningless relatively speaking. There are so many random variables in a 2pt play vs. a XP that you will never be able to say something statistically substantial about it. Except for a percentage in the end that will only apply for that specific team, with those playcalls and that personnel.

Pragmatically the best argument in this thread is the additional time burden it would take to practice additional 2 pt plays (when practice time is already a premium) especially because a) there is not necessarily an infinite pool to draw from (unless you count the bells and whistles of how you make it look like initially) and b) you draw from the same pool of plays you can use in the redzone on regular plays.

Meanwhile an XP is an XP. It can be practiced by specialsts at any point on the side with minimal disruption to the nominal practice schedule.

QuantumMechanic · Sep 23, 2019

MainePatsFan26 said:
Approaching the question from a variance of score perspective is intriguing.

Variance is a key point in this and in gameplay in general.

To first order the superior team should play a low-variance game so their superiority can grind the other team down, while an inferior team should use higher-variance strategies because that gives them a greater chance to win (though also a greater chance to get crushed).

However, NFL coaches are notorious for coaching not to lose or not to look bad while losing rather than coaching to win. You see it in not being aggressive enough when they need to be and you also see it in coaching to delay the moment of certain loss as long as possible which is not the same as coaching to maximize chance of winning.

As to the specific numbers re: 2pt conversions, I both think at the moment coaches don’t do it enough but also think if they did it more the success rate would start dropping.

PP2 · Sep 23, 2019

maust1013 said:
A team's hardest to replace big money offensive players aren't at risk on a PAT.

That's ironically how we lost Gronk, one year (thus was born the famous robo-arm).

mitsudriver · Sep 23, 2019

This conversation reminds me a lot about blackjack. I spent a lot of time learning different strategies and counts and put it into action and made quite a bit of money over the long run. The LONG RUN. If I was to go to a casino only 16 times a year (16 NFL games) there’s a good chance that I end the year down because I wasn’t able to play enough hands.

Working with percentages requires massive amounts of trials to REALLY make sense. If 2 point conversions are successful 50% of the time are you ok with losing a game by 3 because you experienced 3 fails in a row? 50% does mean 1 out of 2 but it also means 100 out of 200.

Doctor DDS · Sep 23, 2019

I'd be fine if the Pats were selectively more aggressive with it. I think there are times in a game where the offense seems to have a real advantage and going for it during those moments makes some sense.

luuked · Sep 23, 2019

mitsudriver said:
This conversation reminds me a lot about blackjack. I spent a lot of time learning different strategies and counts and put it into action and made quite a bit of money over the long run. The LONG RUN. If I was to go to a casino only 16 times a year (16 NFL games) there’s a good chance that I end the year down because I wasn’t able to play enough hands.

Working with percentages requires massive amounts of trials to REALLY make sense. If 2 point conversions are successful 50% of the time are you ok with losing a game by 3 because you experienced 3 fails in a row? 50% does mean 1 out of 2 but it also means 100 out of 200.

All of this goes into my pet peeve when people call out McDaniels or BB for play calls or decisions just based on their outcome and don't keep in mind that just because something didn't work it doesn't mean it was a bad play.

Even something with a 90% success rate will fail now and then. Sometimes even 2-3 times in a row. But you keep doing that because you will gain more long term from it than lose.

And of course there are those plays that miraculously work and are being praised as great calls even though their likelihood of success is below 20%.

TinhWoodhead · Sep 23, 2019

Just move the ball 5yds closer.

Why Not Two Point Conversions?

Would you agree with the Patriots making two point conversions the default choice after touchdowns?

Yes

No

Why aren't you posting about Antonio Brown?

Just Another Guy

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

In the Starting Line-Up

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pro Bowl Player

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Practice Squad Player

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Rookie

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Hall of Fame Poster

Burn it all down!

Hall of Fame Poster

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Hall of Fame Poster

In the Starting Line-Up

Similar threads