David Scott's Article, WOW do I ever disagree with him.

Fezzik · Sep 20, 2005

With all the doped out decisions out there, he picked Bobby Ross's "go for 2" decision (down 4) as an example of terrible coaching.

Sorry David, TERRIBLE EXAMPLE!

Bobby Ross's decision is actually 100% correct (though I doubt very much he understood why).

Teams that score late in the game and are down 8 or down 4 should actually go for 2. The reason you go for two down 4 is that you have no idea if an OT outcome will win the game for you. Get the two point conversion and you win with a fg. Miss it, and you adjust and just play for a TD.

For anyone who disagree with me, do a little mathematical exercise (it's easier to show why a team down 8 should go for two).

1. Assume they will get in the endzone later (otherwise it does not matter what you do)
2. Assume they make a two pointer 45% of the time.
3. Assume the 1 pointer is automatic (a bad assumption, but deal with it)
4. Assume they win the OT 50% of the time.

It's a no-brainer. You go for two.

For whatever reason, the public LOVES to bash any coach that goes for two, as if this is the worst decision ever made. However, the two point conversion option carries a lot of advantage for teams down by 10,9,8,5,4 and 2.

For example teams down 9 should go for two. The idiots on TV would clobber a coach who didn't kick screaming "they could have cut it to a 1 possession game". However, the trailing team HAS NO IDEA if 1 TD is going to get it done. Better to go for 2 earlier, and that way they know if they need to play for 1 score or 2. Yet, I'm sure the fairly brain dead media (who hate ANY two point conversion, fake, or innovative out of the box call) would BLAST a coach who did such a thing.

Leave Bobby Ross alone. Pick on Sherman (I punt the ball on 4th and 1 on the Eagles35 with 2:00 to go). MORON!!!!!!!!!

Arodd · Sep 20, 2005

Not disagreeing with you Fezzik, but a little mathematical exercise (actually a large one) will show you that it's a better idea to go for every single 4th and 3 and shorter rather than punting.
When the coaches were asked about their thoughts on this mathematical probablity, their answer?
"That's why those guys aren't coaching and we are."

Just thought it was interesting...

I think Bobby Ross will do good things at Army, by the way.

Dawoofdaddy · Sep 20, 2005

I see little or no gained advantage when a team trailing by 10, 9 or 4, goes for 2 after a TD? Especially in late in the game when down 10 or 4 and down 9 is more perplexing.

However, since most of us and announcers bash coaches that attempt 2 pt at "strange" times, I'll have to look a bit further into your math.

Question: what is the % of successful 2pt attempts in NFL when the game is not out of reach?

Dawoofdaddy · Sep 20, 2005

"Out of reach" either team is trailing 25 points or more midway in 4th quarter.

steeser · Sep 20, 2005

Fezzik said:
With all the doped out decisions out there, he picked Bobby Ross's "go for 2" decision (down 4) as an example of terrible coaching.

Sorry David, TERRIBLE EXAMPLE!

Bobby Ross's decision is actually 100% correct (though I doubt very much he understood why).

Teams that score late in the game and are down 8 or down 4 should actually go for 2. The reason you go for two down 4 is that you have no idea if an OT outcome will win the game for you. Get the two point conversion and you win with a fg. Miss it, and you adjust and just play for a TD.

For anyone who disagree with me, do a little mathematical exercise (it's easier to show why a team down 8 should go for two).

1. Assume they will get in the endzone later (otherwise it does not matter what you do)
2. Assume they make a two pointer 45% of the time.
3. Assume the 1 pointer is automatic (a bad assumption, but deal with it)
4. Assume they win the OT 50% of the time.

It's a no-brainer. You go for two.

For whatever reason, the public LOVES to bash any coach that goes for two, as if this is the worst decision ever made. However, the two point conversion option carries a lot of advantage for teams down by 10,9,8,5,4 and 2.

For example teams down 9 should go for two. The idiots on TV would clobber a coach who didn't kick screaming "they could have cut it to a 1 possession game". However, the trailing team HAS NO IDEA if 1 TD is going to get it done. Better to go for 2 earlier, and that way they know if they need to play for 1 score or 2. Yet, I'm sure the fairly brain dead media (who hate ANY two point conversion, fake, or innovative out of the box call) would BLAST a coach who did such a thing.

Leave Bobby Ross alone. Pick on Sherman (I punt the ball on 4th and 1 on the Eagles35 with 2:00 to go). MORON!!!!!!!!!

I don't have exact numbers in front of me, but I think your 45% assumption is too high.

Illini · Sep 20, 2005

Fezzik, I could not disagree more with you. And I think your 45% assumption is way too high. You are surely alone in your thinking on this point. However, I do think that most football coaches are brain dead when it comes to anything other than X's and O's. Take BC the other night. Idiot calls his timeouts on offense on the 1 yard line, when they still needed another possession. Just one example of thousands that I have seen over my lifetime.

winkyduck · Sep 20, 2005

100% AGREE on what he said about teams down 1 late LETTING the other team score a TD so they can get the ball back down no more than 8 - although i know one idiot here says the other coach will see what is going on and go for 2 to go up 9 - which is the dumbest thing i have EVER heard

offense controls the clock thuis the offense MUST get the ball back to have any chance of winning

i just can't believe coaches aren't smart enough to realize this when EVERYONE at the game or at home is SCREAMING to do the right thing

arniesarmy · Sep 20, 2005

anybody who goes for two before the fourth quarter is nuts. Just giving away points. Mike Martz is a prime example of this. Once you go for 2 and miss, you have to go for 2 the rest of the game. That is the pet peeve of mine.

Pet peeve No. 2--calling timeouts when the play clock is running down. Drives me nuts when a team I'm on calls a timeout in the first quarter on 3rd and 4. Why??? Eat the five-yard penalty. The timeout is much more valuable than a crummy five-yard penalty. If I was a head coach, I'd make it clear there will be no timeouts taken until there is less than five minutes left.

Illini · Sep 20, 2005

Fezzik said:
For example teams down 9 should go for two. The idiots on TV would clobber a coach who didn't kick screaming "they could have cut it to a 1 possession game". However, the trailing team HAS NO IDEA if 1 TD is going to get it done. Better to go for 2 earlier, and that way they know if they need to play for 1 score or 2.

I do agree with this 100%.

BAGIANT · Sep 20, 2005

I like Ross and I'm sure he did the right thing!

CharlieMaxwell · Sep 20, 2005

For anyone who would like to read David Scott's ENTIRE article, simply go to the NEW Rx home page at www.therx.com

Charlie :digit:

Illini · Sep 20, 2005

winkyduck said:
100% AGREE on what he said about teams down 1 late LETTING the other team score a TD so they can get the ball back down no more than 8 - although i know one idiot here says the other coach will see what is going on and go for 2 to go up 9 - which is the dumbest thing i have EVER heard

offense controls the clock thuis the offense MUST get the ball back to have any chance of winning

i just can't believe coaches aren't smart enough to realize this when EVERYONE at the game or at home is SCREAMING to do the right thing

I agree. There are certain times when I would not let them score, depending on the amount of time on the clock. But when you are in a desperate situation, I would rather let the other team score and have a chance to come back. I even think it could apply when the game is tied. If it's 31-31, and the other team has a first and goal, simply wanting to run out the clock and kick a game-winning field goal, why not let them score and give yourself a chance on offense, unless the other team's kicking game is suspect. However, on the flip side, I think a smart coach would tell his team to down it inside the one, and not take the score. But I guess we probably won't ever see two stategically smart coaches on the field at the same time. Probably won't ever see 1 for that matter.

phdinsports · Sep 20, 2005

Fezzik said:
and you adjust and just play for a TD.

Big assumption! make it seem that it's just a matter of play calling. Much harder to get a td late in a game than a field goal!!! Better being down three in field goal range, taking a couple of shots at the endzone!

redpimp · Sep 20, 2005

winkyduck said:
100% AGREE on what he said about teams down 1 late LETTING the other team score a TD so they can get the ball back down no more than 8 - although i know one idiot here says the other coach will see what is going on and go for 2 to go up 9 - which is the dumbest thing i have EVER heard

offense controls the clock thuis the offense MUST get the ball back to have any chance of winning

i just can't believe coaches aren't smart enough to realize this when EVERYONE at the game or at home is SCREAMING to do the right thing

:lolBIG:

I have never bitch slapped some one so bad that he has to hide his bullshit in another thread that has zero to do with the subject of the thread!!! Fezzik is talking about the strategy of attempting two point conversions in certain key situations during a football game...This moron is still ranting and raving about a stupid topic he started weeks ago and was exposed for the baffoon he was!!! This shit aint got a thing to do with your el dumbo supremo ideas about how teams should let every body score in the last seconds of a game!!!!

Hey you little weasel if you have a point to make be a man, grow some nuts and go post this shit in your own thread!!!

:lolBIG: :lolBIG:

Jeeezzzz!!!!!!

D2bets · Sep 20, 2005

Fezzik said:
With all the doped out decisions out there, he picked Bobby Ross's "go for 2" decision (down 4) as an example of terrible coaching.

Sorry David, TERRIBLE EXAMPLE!

Bobby Ross's decision is actually 100% correct (though I doubt very much he understood why).

Teams that score late in the game and are down 8 or down 4 should actually go for 2. The reason you go for two down 4 is that you have no idea if an OT outcome will win the game for you. Get the two point conversion and you win with a fg. Miss it, and you adjust and just play for a TD.

For anyone who disagree with me, do a little mathematical exercise (it's easier to show why a team down 8 should go for two).

1. Assume they will get in the endzone later (otherwise it does not matter what you do)
2. Assume they make a two pointer 45% of the time.
3. Assume the 1 pointer is automatic (a bad assumption, but deal with it)
4. Assume they win the OT 50% of the time.

It's a no-brainer. You go for two.

For whatever reason, the public LOVES to bash any coach that goes for two, as if this is the worst decision ever made. However, the two point conversion option carries a lot of advantage for teams down by 10,9,8,5,4 and 2.

For example teams down 9 should go for two. The idiots on TV would clobber a coach who didn't kick screaming "they could have cut it to a 1 possession game". However, the trailing team HAS NO IDEA if 1 TD is going to get it done. Better to go for 2 earlier, and that way they know if they need to play for 1 score or 2. Yet, I'm sure the fairly brain dead media (who hate ANY two point conversion, fake, or innovative out of the box call) would BLAST a coach who did such a thing.

Leave Bobby Ross alone. Pick on Sherman (I punt the ball on 4th and 1 on the Eagles35 with 2:00 to go). MORON!!!!!!!!!

You did the mathematical excercise on going for 2 when down 8, but could you maybe explain how going for 2 when down 4 late in the game makes sense. I don't get that one. At least with the 'down 8' scenario, even with a failed attempt you still have a shot at tying it with the next 2-point convo. It doesn't make the team need a greater score. But with the 4-point game, a failed attempt takes the FG out of play, which is HUGE very late in games, esp in the pro game where kickers are often pretty game, but it can be damn tough to get into the endzone against a prevent defense as the clock winds down when a team usually has no TO's. It makes a little more sense (but sill not enough sense in the college game where the kickers are generally weaker and, I think, teams convert the 2 pointer more often and when the clock stops on 1st downs so it's a little easier to come back. For an NFL game, going for 2 when down 4 late in the game...you're going to have to give me something more to convince me that is the correct decision. I don't see it.

redpimp · Sep 20, 2005

D2bets said:
You did the mathematical excercise on going for 2 when down 8, but could you maybe explain how going for 2 when down 4 late in the game makes sense. I don't get that one. At least with the 'down 8' scenario, even with a failed attempt you still have a shot at tying it with the next 2-point convo. It doesn't make the team need a greater score. But with the 4-point game, a failed attempt takes the FG out of play, which is HUGE very late in games, esp in the pro game where kickers are often pretty game, but it can be damn tough to get into the endzone against a prevent defense as the clock winds down when a team usually has no TO's. It makes a little more sense (but sill not enough sense in the college game where the kickers are generally weaker and, I think, teams convert the 2 pointer more often and when the clock stops on 1st downs so it's a little easier to come back. For an NFL game, going for 2 when down 4 late in the game...you're going to have to give me something more to convince me that is the correct decision. I don't see it.

I also wondered about the sense in going for 2 when down 4. If your calculations lead you to believe that upon missing the 2 point conversion, you would still have a chance to score a touch down to make up for the 4 points, well then a fair minded person would say that if you are that confident that you will score touch down then you might as well kick the extra point instead of wasting time on a 2 point attempt!!!

1. Assume they will get in the endzone later (otherwise it does not matter what you do)
2. Assume they make a two pointer 45% of the time.
3. Assume the 1 pointer is automatic (a bad assumption, but deal with it)
4. Assume they win the OT 50% of the time.

point 1 negates everything else thus rendering even the two point attempt useless!!!

Ps..In other scenarios it might be ok like if they are down 9 but i dont see how this applies when down four!

simpleton · Sep 20, 2005

Good Post, Fezzik. Here's an intangible in favor of your theory, which I agree with.

Teams should get the 2-pointer out of the way as soon as possible for another reason. When down 9 late in the game and going for 2, the defense is not going to be that pumped up to stop the offense for the extra two points, thinking the game is still well in hand with at worse a 7 point lead and the ball. Of course the defense will try, but compare them with the intensity level of a defense when a team is trying to tie the game with less than a minute to go and down by 2 points. At home, the defense would be extremly pumped, and the noise level would likely be deafening with a two point conversion deciding the game.

So, in summary, a lot easier to push across a two point conversion earlier in the game compared with the closing minutes or seconds.

D2bets · Sep 20, 2005

I agree with going for 2 when down 9 in the 4th quarter so that you know what you need to do. But I just don't see how the same logic applies to a 4 point game going for 2. A very different situation.

Illini · Sep 20, 2005

redpimp said:
:lolBIG:

I have never bitch slapped some one so bad that he has to hide his bullshit in another thread that has zero to do with the subject of the thread!!! Fezzik is talking about the strategy of attempting two point conversions in certain key situations during a football game...This moron is still ranting and raving about a stupid topic he started weeks ago and was exposed for the baffoon he was!!! This shit aint got a thing to do with your el dumbo supremo ideas about how teams should let every body score in the last seconds of a game!!!!

Hey you little weasel if you have a point to make be a man, grow some nuts and go post this shit in your own thread!!!

:lolBIG: :lolBIG:

Jeeezzzz!!!!!!

I will say this. I remember you saying you would go for two up by 7 to try and put the game out of reach. It's kind of like LaRussa batting the pitcher 8th a few years ago. You are either the smartest person in the world, or the dumbest. Cause you are the only one in the world that would do this.

redpimp · Sep 20, 2005

Illini said:
I will say this. I remember you saying you would go for two up by 7 to try and put the game out of reach. It's kind of like LaRussa batting the pitcher 8th a few years ago. You are either the smartest person in the world, or the dumbest. Cause you are the only one in the world that would do this.

Actually thats not all i said. I prefaced my argument with some very strong facts based on the game in question and made my argument. The execution of the two point conversion was just one of the many hypotheticals out of the arguments listed. Its only befitting that you may pick upon this singular issue while ignoring the rest of the facts and questions paused........Funny thing, this is the exact thing winkdyduck did!!!

I will post my argument about this game so every one can see for themselves how people like you and Winkyduck who when faced with questions that expose them, leap on to one small thing they are convinced will salvage some pride for them!!!

Lets review and figure out why your idea is way worse than what tressell did.
OSU managed to score a single touch down the entire game..They were in the Redzone numerous times but were always held to a field goal. Any fairly logical coach would figure that keeping this game withing a field goal would have been his best shot. This is not rocket science...

Secondly, OSU had been able to cause numerous turn overs through out the game, It would make way more sense to look for another turnover at this point in the game than putting faith in your qb to magically move the ball down field for a touch down then recover ensuing punt and kick a field goal in about a minute against a defense that held you to one single field goal all day long!!!!

Winkyduck, you are absolutely wrong on this, and if one examines the situation, Tressel did the smartest thing possible and managed to get the ball back with a plausible chance to win the game..
It would be infinitely simpler to move the ball 70 yds for a game winning field goal than the alternative, moving the ball for about 130 yards to score a touch down and a field goal!!!

Its a simple matter of understanding your team and calculating your odds...

Tressel did a good job!!!!

Just like winkyduck you chose to pretend like the overwhelming issue at hand was the execution of the two point conversion. And once he realized that i would not fall for those cheap tactics, he did like every wimp does, squirming around and posturing left and right, invoking other mathematical theories he was proven ultimately to know nothing about!!!!