Down by 15 and score a TD, why do teams do this?

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I have probably seen this scenario 50 times in the NFL. A team is down 15 points, and for the sake of the argument, let's say the score is 30-15, and we're in the fourth quarter.

The team then scores a touchdown, making the score 30-21. Now, the coach has two decisions: kick and extra point or go for two.

I've never seen a coach decide to go for two in the second half (or when it appears that possessions are more limited.) Every time this has ever presented itself, I've seen the coach kick the extra point, with the conventional wisdom that if the two point conversion fails, the team may be demoralized knowing that it is a two possession game.

However, I believe that statistically, the better decision is to go for 2 immediately, the reason being that the unknown is now revealed (that the two point conversion is either a fail or success), and therefore the team can tailor its strategy sooner rather than later.

For example, let's say that there is 5:00 left in the game and the team decides to kick the extra point, making the score 30-22. They get the ball back and score with :20 remaining, but then they miss the two point conversion. Did the coach fail in believing that only one extra possession was needed to tie the game, rather than two? Had they originally missed the two point conversion with 5:00 remaining, making the score 30-21, wouldn't the team at least be able to better strategize, perhaps going with an onside kick attempt or a more aggressive defense?

This is actually similar (not the same thing, but loosely based) to a famous brain teaser called the Monty Hall problem, in which the answer appears to be "the odds are the same either way", when in fact having speculative information does increase the odds of success.

Monty Hall problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am curious to hear everyone's feedback on this. I was going to post it during the regular season but thought it was too irrelevant so could wait until we are twiddling our thumbs again.

 

[Sicilian]

I've actually felt this way for a while, but could never quite put the scenario into words that didn't sound like rambling. So kudos to you!

I think the key is how much time is left on the clock. If, like you said, there is 5 minutes or so, you're in that middle ground where I believe you go for 2 immediately. I agree, knowing how many more possessions you need is more valuable than the psychological edge of only being "one" score down. I think you have to coach your team to play hard to the end, regardless of score for this to work though. They have to still believe they can come back.

If there was less time (say, 2 minutes), you go for the one because there likely wouldn't be time for two more possessions either way, and you want that last bit of psychological help.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

Making the decision to go for 2 with 5 minutes to play could end the game at that point if it is unsuccessful. Human nature seems to be to put off the uncomfortable or tough decision. I think that many coaches do that, instead waiting to the last second to make the decision to go for 2.

We witnessed it this past Sunday, when the Pats missed the 2 point attempt and Brady's immediate response was to slump over, acquiescing to the inevitable.

 

[Sicilian]

Making the decision to go for 2 with 5 minutes to play could end the game at that point if it is unsuccessful. Human nature seems to be to put off the uncomfortable or tough decision. I think that many coaches do that, instead waiting to the last second to make the decision to go for 2.

We witnessed it this past Sunday, when the Pats missed the 2 point attempt and Brady's immediate response was to slump over, acquiescencing to the inevitable.

A bit different there because 1) they HAD to go for two in that situation, so I think it was seen as an uphill climb already and 2) there were only 3 minutes left in that situation. Barely time to get the ball back twice. With two more minutes though? I bet Brady doesn't feel as dejected (especially given the comebacks this year).

 

[everlong]

The theory is by going for one you keep it a one score game and an eight point lead thus keeping pressure on the other team. At nine points they can manage the game and clock differently should you miss the two point conversion. I've always looked at it the other way where I want to know for certain if I need one score or two so I can make the best informed decisions.

Thus I'd rather go for 2 and know I have a 7 or 9 point deficit vs having an 8 deficit and should I score I'm dependent on that 2 point conversion to tie and should I miss then I need another score.

 

[signbabybrady]

I know one simple to reason to put off going for two is that you dont know what other scoring may happen after your attempt.

Your example of being precisely down 15 might not fit but lets assume you are down by 11 and score and going for 2 now would mean a FG could tie. If you dont get the 2 you are now down 5 and a field goal from the other team would leave you attempting a 2nd 2 point conversion when had you kicked the extrapoint the first time you would not need the 2 pointer this time.

Down 11

you score and go for extra point now your down 4.

other team gets FG and your now down 7 instead of 8.

Actually I guess this fits down 15 too

Down 15

You score and go for two and fail down 9

other team gets a FG and now your down 12 instead of 11

now you would need 2 TDs instead of potentially needing a TD, 2 pointer, and FG.

Bottom line is even with minutes left in the game you gotta consider that the score can change and the percentage of getting the one point is 99.9 where as the 2 point is 50/50 (maybe just giving an arbitrary number).

 

[Sicilian]

I know one simple to reason to put off going for two is that you dont know what other scoring may happen after your attempt.

Your example of being precisely down 15 might not fit but lets assume you are down by 11 and score and going for 2 now would mean a FG could tie. If you dont get the 2 you are now down 5 and a field goal from the other team would leave you attempting a 2nd 2 point conversion when had you kicked the extrapoint the first time you would not need the 2 pointer this time.

Down 11

you score and go for extra point now your down 4.

other team gets FG and your now down 7 instead of 8.

Actually I guess this fits down 15 too

Down 15

You score and go for two and fail down 9

other team gets a FG and now your down 12 instead of 11

now you would need 2 TDs instead of potentially needing a TD, 2 pointer, and FG.

Bottom line is even with minutes left in the game you gotta consider that the score can change and the percentage of getting the one point is 99.9 where as the 2 point is 50/50 (maybe just giving an arbitrary number).

This is probably the best explanation I've heard against the OP's (and mine) theory. And I'm sure since just about every coach subscribes to this, it's probably the best way to go about it.

I still think the value of knowing "I need two more possessions" should be weighed heavier, considering it affects both offensive and defensive playcalls from there on out.