On the topic of going for 2

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

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.

Every once in a while you get a game where a team does that and they seem compelled to roll the dice again if the miss it… now you’re either even or down further.

Early gambles just don’t make sense.

 

[Taji34]

I think you make that call every time, and here is why:

The TD put us up 5 points before an extra point or 2 point conversion. Due to this, Illinois has to drive down the field and get a TD no matter what, so we know that's what they are going to do.

If we go for the extra point and get it, that puts us up 6 points. Meaning if Illinois does successfully drive down the field and score a TD, no matter what they do (XP or 2pt conversion) we can kick a FG to go ahead and potentially end the game.

If we go for the 2 pt conversion and fail, and then Illinois drives down the field and scores a TD, we STILL only have to kick a field goal to prevent a loss. The only difference is that if they successfully get a 2 pt conversion they are up by 3 and a FG only sends it into overtime.

If we go for the 2pt conversion and succeed, then we are STILL in the position where a FG prevents a loss.

In every scenario, Illinois HAS to score a TD to prevent losing AND we are still in the position to just kick a FG to end the game.

 

[Tech Machine]

I agree with going for 2, however the exact scenario that played out did cross my mind. When you have followed Mn football for close to 60 years, all those disaster scenarios run through your head.

 

[Word]

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.

Yeah I don't like those averages because not every team is the same (your offense or their defense). It's like in baseball if the situation calls for a bunt but your batter sucks at bunting. Still bunt?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The average 2 point conversion success rate is rumored to be about 40% and that seems about right. Maybe comparable to a 50 yard FG attempt. Like Word said what are the real odds with the players you have. Seth Green isn’t coming off the sideline. MN currently has one of the least productive running attacks in the Big Ten, and a not very mobile, kinetic energy challenged QB. Even then, probably worth a try but the called pass play was DOA.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The average 2 point conversion success rate is rumored to be about 40% and that seems about right. Comparable to a 50 yard FG attempt. Like Word said, what are the real odds with the players you have. Seth Green isn’t coming off the sideline. MN currently has one of the least productive running attacks in the Big Ten this year, and a not very mobile, kinetic energy challenged QB. Even then, probably worth a try but whatever they were looking for wasn’t available.

 

[Clairemont Gopher]

I am thinking about the Chiefs-Bucs game on Monday night when Tampa elected to kick the PAT and go to overtime. It seems to me that when you are facing a better team, especially on the road, you go for 2 in that situation. That way you only have to be better than they are once. If you go to overtime, their superiority will assert itself over multiple plays.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I am thinking about the Chiefs-Bucs game on Monday night when Tampa elected to kick the PAT and go to overtime. It seems to me that when you are facing a better team, especially on the road, you go for 2 in that situation. That way you only have to be better than they are once. If you go to overtime, their superiority will assert itself over multiple plays.

I wonder if the fact that "stats say you should go for it" really means "in the long run this will work out".

Problem for Head Coach is .... how often are they going to see this happen, what is the long run?

100 games?

So maybe you see this situation once, twice in a HC coaching stint. So if say you miss it twice (very real possibility) ... folks will hate you forever and maybe you get fired.

Being right statistically over a number of games when your real life number of iterations is so low, might change how you call things sometimes.

 

[upnorthkid]

I am thinking about the Chiefs-Bucs game on Monday night when Tampa elected to kick the PAT and go to overtime. It seems to me that when you are facing a better team, especially on the road, you go for 2 in that situation. That way you only have to be better than they are once. If you go to overtime, their superiority will assert itself over multiple plays.

personally i thought they mismanaged the clock to the extreme at the end. should've run it down to at least 20 before taking the TO or just gotten on the ball to save it. Instead they take a TO and they leave 27 seconds. Would envision that was some of the calculus as with a 2, you "incentivize" the chiefs to try get when they have all their TOs. I also would've gone for it but it's tough with the new rules at end of game knowing most teams only need 30 yards now to get a shot at the end zone and when a team has all their TOs, it's not too hard to give up 3 10 yard passes when a team is going to get 6 plays at least. instead indy went pretty conservative overall with their play selection. i would've envisioned the Bucs were going for it on every 4th down if they got the ball (as should any team in OT now with the current rules unless it's 4th and egregious). Was an interesting one live but agree they should've gone for it regardless of if at home or road. Their offense is better than their defense though they are more limited in the RZ without Evans and Godwin.

100% agree with the Bengals going for it last night as well.