Is it crazy or genius to go for two with a late seven-point lead?

Donate To GopherHole
A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Would Oregon St. go for 2?

I doubt it.

I liked Claeys call. It's game one OOC game. Give the offense a chance (or force) them to end the game on their terms.
Click to expand...

A 2-10 team last year playing on the road against a power 5 team scores a last second TD and then can either kick for OT or go for two to win? I would think the majority of coaches would go for the win. I'm not saying it was a bad call to try to put the game away, but I believe OSU would have gone for 2 if they had scored a TD.
 

I think we need to look to Brett Bielema's "card" for the correct answer.

The "card" is always the way to go, and it's calculated determination never needs to be deferred from.
 

mkAz said:
Claeys made a great point on this topic, he said even if they fail on the 2 point conversion and have a 7 point lead, if the other team scores they are more than likely go for the one point conversion and take it to OT as opposed to going for two and the win. I think he's correct on that point. I personally give Claeys credit for his aggressive approach.
Click to expand...

Or they just kick the extra point and force Oregon State to convert a lower percentage 2pt conversion just to tie. Using the NCAA averages it does not make sense, and it lowers the Gophers odds of winning slightly.

The article makes an interesting point stating the Gophers have been converting 2pt conversions at an abnormally high rate since 2008 - 65%. Using that percentage it does make sense. However, the Gophers are unlikely to convert at that rate forever and should regress to the mean at some point. When that happens is anyone's guess, but so far this year they are 0-1.
 

2727Gopher said:
A 2-10 team last year playing on the road against a power 5 team scores a last second TD and then can either kick for OT or go for two to win? I would think the majority of coaches would go for the win. I'm not saying it was a bad call to try to put the game away, but I believe OSU would have gone for 2 if they had scored a TD.
Click to expand...

I think that is also the reason you put your team on the line and give them a shot to end it, you're playing OOC and 2-10 team.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Or they just kick the extra point and force Oregon State to convert a lower percentage 2pt conversion just to tie. Using the NCAA averages it does not make sense, and it lowers the Gophers odds of winning slightly.

The article makes an interesting point stating the Gophers have been converting 2pt conversions at an abnormally high rate since 2008 - 65%. Using that percentage it does make sense. However, the Gophers are unlikely to convert at that rate forever and should regress to the mean at some point. When that happens is anyone's guess, but so far this year they are 0-1.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I'd like to see the stats with quicker more mobile "dual threat" QBs vs traditional drop back teams. Having a QB that can occupy a defensive player and run/ bull his way in probably ups the odds by some small percent. I don't know, just spitballing. Cue catcalls about Mitch's passing offsetting.

I
 


You know what. I like Claeys being more aggressive. Will it come back to bite us sometimes? Sure, but sometimes we'll applaud it. Here's the thing. If we had converted, a lot of us would be praising his choice to take hold and end the game on our terms, but we didn't this time. No matter what he does, he'll be applauded if it works, and criticized if it doesn't. I'm sure my mind might be changed if it causes a loss, but until it's statistically significant I say go for it.
 

Going for two is smart on three levels. One, put in on the offense to see if they can execute if they do they experience putting a team away. Two, with about a minute to go you are sending a message to your defense that you confident in them and their ability to stop OSU. Three, it sends the message to every team we play we will try something, sometime, to beat you. That is a Jerry Kill SOP.

The greatest 2 was attempted was by Nebraska in 1984, trailing by one 31-30. A extra point ties the game. Two wins it. They failed trying to win the game.
 

husker70 said:
Going for two is smart on three levels. One, put in on the offense to see if they can execute if they do they experience putting a team away. Two, with about a minute to go you are sending a message to your defense that you confident in them and their ability to stop OSU. Three, it sends the message to every team we play we will try something, sometime, to beat you. That is a Jerry Kill SOP.

The greatest 2 was attempted was by Nebraska in 1984, trailing by one 31-30. A extra point ties the game. Two wins it. They failed trying to win the game.
Click to expand...

The tie would have given Neb. the National Championship most likely also. Miami might not have been as dominate in the 80's and 90's if the outcome was different.
 

husker70 said:
Going for two is smart on three levels. One, put in on the offense to see if they can execute if they do they experience putting a team away. Two, with about a minute to go you are sending a message to your defense that you confident in them and their ability to stop OSU. Three, it sends the message to every team we play we will try something, sometime, to beat you. That is a Jerry Kill SOP.

The greatest 2 was attempted was by Nebraska in 1984, trailing by one 31-30. A extra point ties the game. Two wins it. They failed trying to win the game.
Click to expand...

That one was a heartbreaker. Osborne made the admirable call.... Jeff Smith came in and did a great job after Mike Rozier was injured... came up just short.
 



I was wondering what they were going to do when it happened. I personally didn't care either way, but there was definitely an increased risk of loss by doing it. Years past you could have counted on the defense folding in that situation. This time they did not. Hopefully that becomes more of the rule and the discussion is moot because we trust the defense to never give up the tying score anyway.
 

husker70 said:
Going for two is smart on three levels. One, put in on the offense to see if they can execute if they do they experience putting a team away. Two, with about a minute to go you are sending a message to your defense that you confident in them and their ability to stop OSU. Three, it sends the message to every team we play we will try something, sometime, to beat you. That is a Jerry Kill SOP.

The greatest 2 was attempted was by Nebraska in 1984, trailing by one 31-30. A extra point ties the game. Two wins it. They failed trying to win the game.
Click to expand...

Husker: I usually like your comments but I don't know about these. Your points are all valid, but I think that going for two increased our odds of losing the game. If we lose the game that outweighs the benefits of putting a team away, or any type of messages that are sent, be they to his own team or future opponents. It would have been, "Oh crap, we just blew another one," and the team's confidence goes down the drain. I think that kicking the extra point would have been playing to win. But that's just one person's opinion. Go Gophers!
 

The math is one aspect but more importantly, your team has to be prepared and ready. The offence on the field should know going for 2 is an option, what the 2 point call will be and then line up and get it done. Minnesota going for 2 had the element of surprise. Well, it did until the Gophers lined up and then called timeout. After the timeout, they should have kicked it.

It was poor execution on Minnesota's part and that should have cued Claeys to call it off.
 

Vandy said:
That one was a heartbreaker. Osborne made the admirable call.... Jeff Smith came in and did a great job after Mike Rozier was injured... came up just short.
Click to expand...

Osborne went on to say that going for two was one of the two most difficult decisions he ever made in his life. The other one being the time he had to decide if he should let Lawrence Phillips play after beating a woman half to death.
 



1 or 2

I don't think the call was crazy, but I would have opted to kick. Had no problem with it last year vs the Illini, but at that point in the season I felt they had nothing to lose.
 

Claeys has been ripped to shreds for not being an engaging personality that can ignite a fanbase. He's too plain, too ordinary, too boring. His coaching decisions don't exactly reflect that. He's aggressive and I like that. Maybe it's not the "smart" play and maybe he doesn't always do things the way I would, but I'm never going to fault a guy for sticking to his guns and trying to win his way. I'd expect a guy who has a tenuous hold on his job to play everything close to the vest. Claeys isn't afraid to go for it, and I respect the hell out of him for that.
 

Maybe Claeys bet the over. ;)

As it was playing out and I was watching in the stands, I was fine with the call.
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
Osborne went on to say that going for two was one of the two most difficult decisions he ever made in his life. The other one being the time he had to decide if he should let Lawrence Phillips play after beating a woman half to death.
Click to expand...

I guess proving that you can't make the admirable or correct call every time!
 

Vandy said:
I guess proving that you can't make the admirable or correct call every time!
Click to expand...

But according to Nebraska fans it's ok to play him because Lawrence Phillips had a really rough childhood or something....
 

I called it several minutes before it happened, reminded my buddies about the same scenario last season (Illinois?) and said I was hoping he would do it Thursday night if given the chance. And I hope Claeys does it next time as well.

2 ends the game. Period. To me, the difference between being up 8 and being up 7 was inconsequential; the difference between 8 and 9 is monumental.

However, I will concede with Winnipeg that the lack of coordination at the time of execution did NOT help the situation. Not sure I would have called it off because of it, but it didn't help.

As far as the play; I wasn't crazy about it but it wasn't terrible. The DB made a decent play, not deflecting the ball but distracting Johnson enough to prevent him from making the catch. Definitely could have been a better play call though.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
I called it several minutes before it happened, reminded my buddies about the same scenario last season (Illinois?) and said I was hoping he would do it Thursday night if given the chance. And I hope Claeys does it next time as well.

2 ends the game. Period. To me, the difference between being up 8 and being up 7 was inconsequential; the difference between 8 and 9 is monumental.

However, I will concede with Winnipeg that the lack of coordination at the time of execution did NOT help the situation. Not sure I would have called it off because of it, but it didn't help.

As far as the play; I wasn't crazy about it but it wasn't terrible. The DB made a decent play, not deflecting the ball but distracting Johnson enough to prevent him from making the catch. Definitely could have been a better play call though.
Click to expand...

Agree with everything here. It would seem they should have had that play (with an audible) ready as part of the game plan. Get the TD hand the ball to the ref and immediately line up for 2...
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
I called it several minutes before it happened, reminded my buddies about the same scenario last season (Illinois?) and said I was hoping he would do it Thursday night if given the chance. And I hope Claeys does it next time as well.

2 ends the game. Period. To me, the difference between being up 8 and being up 7 was inconsequential; the difference between 8 and 9 is monumental.

However, I will concede with Winnipeg that the lack of coordination at the time of execution did NOT help the situation. Not sure I would have called it off because of it, but it didn't help.

As far as the play; I wasn't crazy about it but it wasn't terrible. The DB made a decent play, not deflecting the ball but distracting Johnson enough to prevent him from making the catch. Definitely could have been a better play call though.
Click to expand...

You've got me thinking. So the difference of being up by 9 or 7 is also monumental - which I agree with. I still think that making the opponent go for 2 just to tie gives you another chance to win in regulation. Anyway, its a tough call.
 

I love the title of the thread. Sounds like a Buzzfeed article.

"Find out which B1G coach always goes for two. Opposing head coaches hate him."
 


I think it's neither. It's a reasonable risk, but not clearly the right or wrong decision.

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk
 

Going for 2 was absolutely the right decision.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe said:
I called it several minutes before it happened, reminded my buddies about the same scenario last season (Illinois?) and said I was hoping he would do it Thursday night if given the chance. And I hope Claeys does it next time as well.

2 ends the game. Period. To me, the difference between being up 8 and being up 7 was inconsequential; the difference between 8 and 9 is monumental.

However, I will concede with Winnipeg that the lack of coordination at the time of execution did NOT help the situation. Not sure I would have called it off because of it, but it didn't help.

As far as the play; I wasn't crazy about it but it wasn't terrible. The DB made a decent play, not deflecting the ball but distracting Johnson enough to prevent him from making the catch. Definitely could have been a better play call though.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider the difference between having a chance to lose and being unable to lose in regulation inconsequential.
 


We had the experience when it mattered. We failed. Coaching time is was short. Play selection maybe a little scetchy. A little more practice, better execution, more confidence. To me, rolling Leidner to the right and crossing NATE WOZNIAK across the back on the end zone and throwing it high enough only he could catch it ala Dwight Clark is the natural call.
 

I was pretty upset with the call when it happened. 5-days and 58 posts later I no longer care one way or the other. I'd rather discuss recruiting rankings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom