On the topic of going for 2

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

The Illinois game last weekend really drove home the weird conundrum that can happen regarding going for a 2pt conversion.

1. With 5:44 to go the gophers score a TD to go up 22 to 17 with the extra point(s) try pending.

2. They're up just 5, so you gotta go for 2 to extend the lead to 7. They do and it wasn't pretty and they failed.

3. Gophers stop Illinois and drive and get a FG with 1:52 going up 25 to 17 ... 8 point lead. Man that extra point seems like it would have been nice to have then to put the game all but out of reach.

Ultimately I do not disagree with the call. But I feel like this really demonstrates the whole risk of "just go for 2" or even just calls where you stare at the score too much and assume you never score again ... are really risky if you make that call too soon and reach for more points ... even with say 5:44 left to go.

We saw this sort of play out the opposite way with UCLA where late in the game we punted and you'd think maybe we should have gone for it on 4th down but nope we trusted our defense to get the stop and offense to score when they got the ball back.

Sometimes you see fans and even coaches doing math as early as the 3rd quarter and man ... that gets risky.

 

[matt]

The Illinois game last weekend really drove home the weird conundrum that can happen regarding going for a 2pt conversion.

1. With 5:44 to go the gophers score a TD to go up 22 to 17 with the extra point(s) try pending.

2. They're up just 5, so you gotta go for 2 to extend the lead to 7. They do and it wasn't pretty and they failed.

3. Gophers stop Illinois and drive and get a FG with 1:52 going up 25 to 17 ... 8 point lead. Man that extra point seems like it would have been nice to have then to put the game all but out of reach.

Ultimately I do not disagree with the call. But I feel like this really demonstrates the whole risk of "just go for 2" or even just calls where you stare at the score too much and assume you never score again ... are really risky if you make that call too soon and reach for more points ... even with say 5:44 left to go.

We saw this sort of play out the opposite way with UCLA where late in the game we punted and you'd think maybe we should have gone for it on 4th down but nope we trusted our defense to get the stop and offense to score when they got the ball back.

I think you always go for 2 in the 4th quarter and maybe the 3rd quarter too. There aren’t many possessions left in the game at that point.

 

[upnorthkid]

The Illinois game last weekend really drove home the weird conundrum that can happen regarding going for a 2pt conversion.

1. With 5:44 to go the gophers score a TD to go up 22 to 17 with the extra point(s) try pending.

2. They're up just 5, so you gotta go for 2 to extend the lead to 7. They do and it wasn't pretty and they failed.

3. Gophers stop Illinois and drive and get a FG with 1:52 going up 25 to 17 ... 8 point lead. Man that extra point seems like it would have been nice to have then to put the game all but out of reach.

Ultimately I do not disagree with the call. But I feel like this really demonstrates the whole risk of "just go for 2" or even just calls where you stare at the score too much and assume you never score again ... are really risky if you make that call too soon and reach for more points ... even with say 5:44 left to go.

We saw this sort of play out the opposite way with UCLA where late in the game we punted and you'd think maybe we should have gone for it on 4th down but nope we trusted our defense to get the stop and offense to score when they got the ball back.

With 5:44 I agree with the call. Wasn’t a high octane offensive game and you figured they won’t be kicking a FG at any point. If they give you the ball back, FG now makes it so there is no way you lose in regulation and TD still ices the game. You kick the PAT earlier and they drive the field to win the game and you feel pretty silly for not having tried to go for 2. Would envision the win probability at that point in the game would agree. Had it been in the 3rd or even early 4th, little more debatable

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I think you always go for 2 in the 4th quarter and maybe the 3rd quarter too. There aren’t many possessions left in the game at that point.

I feel like that just sorta assumes ... you don't have much faith in scoring more than once.

"Probably won't see another possession." or just "X possessions" But if you do you risk short changing yourself.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I think you always go for 2 in the 4th quarter and maybe the 3rd quarter too. There aren’t many possessions left in the game at that point.

Disagree on the 3rd quarter. If it's a low scoring game, the chances of converting it are probably lower than normal. And if it's high scoring, then there's too many scenarios left to be worth it.

I actually think coaches many times go for 2 too early. This wasn't one of those times but if this same situation was there was 13 minutes left instead of 5:44, I'd argue to kick the extra point as so much can happen in 13 minutes.

 

[Gopherchase]

When going for two I always think we should have four or five plays that we’ve ran 150 times since spring ball that maybe have a little bit of trickery in them where we’re pretty damn sure we’re going to convert. Two point play this week looked like a fire drill.

 

[DrJenniges86]

The Illinois game last weekend really drove home the weird conundrum that can happen regarding going for a 2pt conversion.

1. With 5:44 to go the gophers score a TD to go up 22 to 17 with the extra point(s) try pending.

2. They're up just 5, so you gotta go for 2 to extend the lead to 7. They do and it wasn't pretty and they failed.

3. Gophers stop Illinois and drive and get a FG with 1:52 going up 25 to 17 ... 8 point lead. Man that extra point seems like it would have been nice to have then to put the game all but out of reach.

Ultimately I do not disagree with the call. But I feel like this really demonstrates the whole risk of "just go for 2" or even just calls where you stare at the score too much and assume you never score again ... are really risky if you make that call too soon and reach for more points ... even with say 5:44 left to go.

We saw this sort of play out the opposite way with UCLA where late in the game we punted and you'd think maybe we should have gone for it on 4th down but nope we trusted our defense to get the stop and offense to score when they got the ball back.

Sometimes you see fans and even coaches doing math as early as the 3rd quarter and man ... that gets risky.

I don't disagree with the call either. I personally wouldn't have gone for 2 but understand the decision. I wouldn't go for 2 unless you absolutely have to.

 

[BroncoRedux]

As a true football fan, I say take the extra point unless of course the kick is missed and it's then why the hell didn't you go for two?

 

[USAF]

A TD puts you up 5 with less than 6 minutes left?
Go for 2. Every time.
It's a no-brainer.
No matter if you're up 5, 6, or 7, at that point your opponent is trying for a TD, not a FG, in ANY potential scoring opportunity. Being up 5 or 6 is virtually the same. Your opponent will be going for a TD and you likely lose if they make it. Being up 7 is a huge difference.

I don't know exactly at what point this situation kicks in, but more than halfway through the 4th quarter is well within that timeline.

There should be specifically designed 2 pt plays though.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Disagree on the 3rd quarter. If it's a low scoring game, the chances of converting it are probably lower than normal. And if it's high scoring, then there's too many scenarios left to be worth it.

I actually think coaches many times go for 2 too early. This wasn't one of those times but if this same situation was there was 13 minutes left instead of 5:44, I'd argue to kick the extra point as so much can happen in 13 minutes.

Agree there are games when coaches go for 2 way too early and it comes back to bite them. It happened this year in a different big ten game where someone (I think it was Rutgers maybe) was in a worse position because they went for 2 earlier in the game instead of just kicking the extra point.

In regards to our game though, trying for 2 in that situation was absolutely the right call. As it played out it would have been great to have been kicking the last field goal to push the lead to 9 but there is no way to know how things will play out after you score so trying to push the lead to 7 late makes complete sense. 7 point lead is way more valuable than 5 or 6 with how automatic extra points are for most teams.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Agree there are games when coaches go for 2 way too early and it comes back to bite them. It happened this year in a different big ten game where someone (I think it was Rutgers maybe) was in a worse position because they went for 2 earlier in the game instead of just kicking the extra point.

In regards to our game though, trying for 2 in that situation was absolutely the right call. As it played out it would have been great to have been kicking the last field goal to push the lead to 9 but there is no way to know how things will play out after you score so trying to push the lead to 7 late makes complete sense. 7 point lead is way more valuable than 5 or 6 with how automatic extra points are for most teams.

Yeah, it's playing the percentages. The chances the Gophers would be kicking another FG were pretty small at that point.

 

[matt]

I feel like that just sorta assumes ... you don't have much faith in scoring more than once.

"Probably won't see another possession." or just "X possessions" But if you do you risk short changing yourself.

This ESPN article and this 538 article analyze when to go for two. They both strongly say that you should go for two when you’re +5 in the second half. It is a little difficult to see the individual charts, but they both appear to indicate you should go for two when +5 in the first half as well.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

This ESPN article and this 538 article analyze when to go for two. They both strongly say that you should go for two when you’re +5 in the second half. It is a little difficult to see the individual charts, but they both appear to indicate you should go for two when +5 in the first half as well.

My only disagreement with these is how generalized they are.

I feel like if you had a similar article about when to run a QB sneak ... it doesn't account for say "Yo we know we suck at QB sneaks."

I bet similar numbers would have had us go for it on 4th down at UCLA, but we trusted our defense because presumably we knew our defense was good.

Granted, none of that means that article is wrong generally.

 

[Whytetale]

Why?... because you can't go for 3.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Why?... because you can't go for 3.

But has PJ TRIED a 3 point conversion? How will we ever know if we don't at least TRY!?!!?!?!

 

[Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0]

I would have preferred PJ go for two if it was 22-17 with like 13 seconds remaining against Bielema, because that's what the card said to do!

 

[Some guy]

The fact Illinois never scored again is why it was a good call.

If you thought there were going to be multiple scores left in the game that’s where variability tells you to take one point




I would’ve gone for it rather than kick the field goal though.
Getting 2 yards ends the game.
and the field goal added a two point conversion, not another possession.

 

[Governor Sibley]

Missing the two point conversion led to Bielema going for it on 4th. I'm too lazy to explain.

 

[Otis]

This is almost as dumb a question as the thread asking who would you rather have at starting QB!

5 or 6 gets you a loss easier than 7.

 

[USAF]

Missing the two point conversion led to Bielema going for it on 4th. I'm too lazy to explain.

Uh, wut??

 

[matt]

My only disagreement with these is how generalized they are.

I feel like if you had a similar article about when to run a QB sneak ... it doesn't account for say "Yo we know we suck at QB sneaks."

I bet similar numbers would have had us go for it on 4th down at UCLA, but we trusted our defense because presumably we knew our defense was good.

Granted, none of that means that article is wrong generally.

The data is (are?) pretty clear that you go for two in the situation. I don’t think our situation or the Gophers offense, defense, or special teams is unique enough to fall outside of the general “late in the 4th quarter” situation. If we were in that exact situation 100 times, going for two would result in more wins than kicking the extra point.

 

[RodentRampage]

If the Gophers had kicked the XP, hadn't gotten the FG and Illinois had scored a TD to get the win, people would be saying "Why didn't they go for 2?" The call make sense.

 

[highwayman]

NO ONE knew the last FG would happen. At that point in the game going for 2 was 100% the correct call. You would be hard pressed to find a football coach that wouldn't. It was even on Butthead's chart.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Uh, wut??

I'm assuming he's saying that because Beliema knew that if they don't convert and then hold MN to a FG, they can still at least tie it. If it's a 6 point game instead of 5, he may have punted instead because going for it and not converting likely ends the game (MN likely at least gets a FG and goes up 9).

 

[forever a gopher]

I'm assuming he's saying that because Beliema knew that if they don't convert and then hold MN to a FG, they can still at least tie it. If it's a 6 point game instead of 5, he may have punted instead because going for it and not converting likely ends the game (MN likely at least gets a FG and goes up 9).

This is what I was thinking during the game- that BB would have likely punted if they were down 6 instead of 5, as they essentially gifted the Gophers the ball already within FG range by not converting the 4th down play. Too risky and with Illinois having a good defense (also knowing PJ is likely going to play conservative if you kick it to him anyway), you play the percentages and punt. So a bit of a sneaky twist to the game within the game. That being said, you go for 2 in that situation every time.

edit: If only they didn't play their CB's back 15 yards and Safties back 20+ yards and play that ridiculous prevent/shell coverage, this wouldn't be a debate as Illinois would have had a much harder time getting so close to score the potentially game-tying TD.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Part of this is what makes football fun. Every strategy has risk and reward. I think going for two was a pretty obvious call given the score and game time, even though there were scenarios where we later wish we had had the one point if we miss it (though, has others have noted, us kicking the XP changes Illinois' strategy).

What always complicates things for me is how mind boggling conservative coaches call defense with a one score lead late. In my opinion, football coaches with a one score lead late almost universally over estimate how much the clock will protect them (especially in college, where first downs have the temporary clock stoppage so if you are giving free 10-12 yard completions, teams can drive the field in virtually no time). That kind of coaching is so bad I'd almost rather have a 3 point lead than a 4 or 5 point lead when the opponent is running a two minute drill. With the three point lead, they get focused on field goal range. When they know they need a TD, defenses give up too much for free and offenses get too good of looks at the end zone for way too cheap.

 

[GopherVotary]

It was the right call at the time. If there is more than 10 minutes left in the game, kick the one-pointer.

 

[TNGophfan]

I agree with what PJ did based on how much time was left. I also agree with other posters who dislike going for 2 early in games. If you don't get it, it seems you spend the whole game chasing that missed point.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Part of this is what makes football fun. Every strategy has risk and reward. I think going for two was a pretty obvious call given the score and game time, even though there were scenarios where we later wish we had had the one point if we miss it (though, has others have noted, us kicking the XP changes Illinois' strategy).

What always complicates things for me is how mind boggling conservative coaches call defense with a one score lead late. In my opinion, football coaches with a one score lead late almost universally over estimate how much the clock will protect them (especially in college, where first downs have the temporary clock stoppage so if you are giving free 10-12 yard completions, teams can drive the field in virtually no time). That kind of coaching is so bad I'd almost rather have a 3 point lead than a 4 or 5 point lead when the opponent is running a two minute drill. With the three point lead, they get focused on field goal range. When they know they need a TD, defenses give up too much for free and offenses get too good of looks at the end zone for way too cheap.

I get why fans hate it but when you have a lead that requires a team to score a TD playing off makes sense because the last thing you want to give up is a shot over the top. If the DBs press and miss you suddenly have a WR running free behind the defense.

Yes it gives up yards and allows the other team to move down the field some but as a defense at that point you are loking to condense the field and keep the other team from getting a big play. Gets nerve wracking for fans when the other team starts getting close to the EZ but from a defense standpoint it is way easier to defend a smaller portion of field.

 

[MNVCGUY]

I agree with what PJ did based on how much time was left. I also agree with other posters who dislike going for 2 early in games. If you don't get it, it seems you spend the whole game chasing that missed point.

Yep.....hate it when coaches chase points early with 2 point conversions. Even after an early missed XP I would still kick an extra point again after the next TD as opposed to chasing 2 in order to make up for the 1 you didn't get.

Wish I could remember the game this happened in this year but I think that is what the coach did, missed an XP so went for 2 in the first half and didn't get that then late in the game it came down to a situation where they would have been much better off if they had just kicked the extra point instead of chasing the 2 early in the game.