The two-point conversation scenario revisited

[meatface]

Teams are decidedly not bold with the two point conversion. It would be interesting to see a pro team try it almost every time just to screw with everybody

 

[ctpatsfan77]

In a sense, it hardly matters, since you're pretty much doomed, period.

Just to put this in perspective: since 2000, teams that are trailing by 15+ points at halftime are a collective 40–609 (.062). [It's not terribly surprising that the Patriots have the best record in such circumstances, and even then it's only 2–6.]

Things get much, much bleaker if teams are trailing by 15+ after three quarters; the entire success rate is 9–982 (.009).

That's not to say this ends the argument, it's just worth pointing out what history has to say.

 

[pheenix11]

It's a psychological issue. Thinking that you are trailing by one possession is a lot more hopeful than knowing you are trailing by two possessions. I would even venture to guess that the chances of converting are better after scoring a touchdown late in the game to pull within two points because then you have the momentum on your side.

At this level these players are all stud athletes, most of the results come down to mental toughness.

That's how you explain the Pats barely beating the Jets and blowing out the Broncos and Colts. It's all in the head.

 

[patchick]

Going for two early in a close game is sort of like doing on onside kick with 7 minutes left. It's bad strategy and it sends a message of desperation.

I see it exactly the reverse -- going for 2 it sends a message of aggression, that you're not scared to take a risk and are still planning to win this game. And that you know that what matters is the W or L, not the number of points you lose by.

(It's a sure bet that the coaches who feel safer "just taking the point" wouldn't dream of giving away 2 points late in the game with an intentional safety.)

 

[Sicilian]

I agree I would go for the two-point first, assuming it's into the fourth quarter. Knowing you need two scores allows you to play faster, take necessary chances, etc. Meanwhile, if you miss the two you need at the end of the game, you don't get a chance to adjust your strategy at all. Sure, you had "hope" for that last drive, but it was false hope, because it was never really a one possession game.

One caveat to this might be a team like the Pats or Eagles, whose default condition on offense is to play up tempo. For those teams, the difference between being down 1 score and down 2 scores is probably negligible. The only difference would be how likely their QB is to force a throw down field. And even for those teams it might change how aggressive the defense plays, knowing they need to make something happen.

 

[Ring 6]

Because your "one score/two score" descriptions are really just a semantic issue. Regardless of the order you need two TDs and a 2pt conversion. Looking a little deeper:

XP/2pt
1) Make the two pointer - Tie game
2) Miss the two pointer - You've likely orchestrated this to the point that there is little time on the clock to react. In this case, missing the 2pter means a loss.

2pt/XP
1) Make the two pointer - Tie game
2) Miss the two pointer - You now have the remainder of the game (in this case, nearly a full quarter) to react to your 9 point deficit.

In both cases if you make the 2 pointer you are tied. If you choose to delay the 2pter, it creates the false security of still being within one score, but a 2pt failure virtually guarantees a loss. Your odds of being able to miss the 2pter and still win are substantially higher if you do it first.

I suppose that a case could be made that there is an emotional advantage to waiting. Maybe you feel the team is more likely to score both TDs if they feel the game is close and they'll check out if they score a TD and still trail by two scores. But that is the only advantage to waiting.

The other consideration is if the other team scores again.

 

[1960Pats]

THE COLTS ABSOLUTELY MADE THE RIGHT & PROFESSIONAL DECISION. This is not even a question. The 2 should always be a LAST RESORT and always near the end of the game. Going for two early in a close game is sort of like doing on onside kick with 7 minutes left. It's bad strategy and it sends a message of desperation.

There are quite a few good examples of the bad strategy.

In the game against Buffalo this year the Pats got a TD early in the 3rd to make it 19-7. They lined up to go for two but kicked when a penalty moved them back. Because they took the 1 point instead and went to 20-7, a quarter later they were leading by two scores 23-14 after a FG-TD exchange. Had they missed the 2 pointer earlier they could have been tied with only an 8 point lead.

There was also the case of the Panthers in the SB of 2003. I think they did it twice, and instead of having the lead after their last TD they were only tied with the Pats. Just one of those extra points and a missed FG would have won the SB for them instead of sending it into OT.

 

[Patters]

At least in that case, I think think it was better to wait on the 2 point conversion for a few reasons:

- Either way the Pats would be prepared.
- The Colts couldn't run the ball and our secondary is strong, so 2 yards is no sure thing.
- If they went for 2 points and missed, then they'd lose some their momentum at a point in the game when that is critical.
- A 28-19 score is overcome with either TD + FG or 3 FGs, while a 28-20 score is overcome with a TD + 2 pt. conversion. Given the time constraints, it seems to me the 28-20 choice is the most realistic.
- If they are two scores behind, and we don't score more points, then the Pats have more strategic options on defense, such as a clock management type defense.
- Either way, I think their strategy is the same. Whether they're down by 7 or 8, their strategy is to tie the game quickly and have enough time to win.

 

[Oswlek]

At least in that case, I think think it was better to wait on the 2 point conversion for a few reasons:

- Either way the Pats would be prepared.
- The Colts couldn't run the ball and our secondary is strong, so 2 yards is no sure thing.
- If they went for 2 points and missed, then they'd lose some their momentum at a point in the game when that is critical.
- A 28-19 score is overcome with either TD + FG or 3 FGs, while a 28-20 score is overcome with a TD + 2 pt. conversion. Given the time constraints, it seems to me the 28-20 choice is the most realistic.
- If they are two scores behind, and we don't score more points, then the Pats have more strategic options on defense, such as a clock management type defense.
- Either way, I think their strategy is the same. Whether they're down by 7 or 8, their strategy is to tie the game quickly and have enough time to win.

The problem with several of these statements is that you are (unintentionally?) assuming a higher 2pt conversion rate the second time around. Take this one for instance:

- A 28-19 score is overcome with either TD + FG or 3 FGs, while a 28-20 score is overcome with a TD + 2 pt. conversion. Given the time constraints, it seems to me the 28-20 choice is the most realistic.

Why is a 28-20 deficit where you know you won't get the 2pter any more realistic than 28-19? In both cases, a second TD will leave you trailing by two points.

I'd contest a few of the other statements thusly:

The Colts couldn't run the ball and our secondary is strong, so 2 yards is no sure thing.

And it wouldn't be the second time around, either.

If they went for 2 points and missed, then they'd lose some their momentum at a point in the game when that is critical.

I can see slight validity to this claim. Maybe the team will be so deflated by still being two scores behind even after a TD that their performance worsens from what you would expect it to be. That's a very difficult proposition to support, however, and just imagine how inflated they'll be by making it!

If they are two scores behind, and we don't score more points, then the Pats have more strategic options on defense, such as a clock management type defense.

True, but the improvement to offensive strategy improves 10-fold with the advance knowledge of whether the 2pter is successful.

Kicking the XP first delays the moment of certainty, but attempting the 2pter first actually increases your odds of winning.

There was also the case of the Panthers in the SB of 2003. I think they did it twice, and instead of having the lead after their last TD they were only tied with the Pats. Just one of those extra points and a missed FG would have won the SB for them instead of sending it into OT.

True, but that scenario isn't remotely similar to what Indy faced this past week. I'm not suggesting you should always go for 2, just that when down 15 late in the game - a situation where you know for a fact you will need a 2pt conversion at some point if you are going to win - you are better off knowing as soon as possible whether that attempt is successful.