So WHY Did the Bears Not Go For 2?

BAGIANT · Sep 14, 2009

After the Bears scored the touchdown to make it 10-8 GB, WHY did the Bears not go for two points? Seems to me that they would want to go for the tie if they make the 2 point conversion. If they miss it, it's 10-8. But what's the difference whether it's 10-8 or 10-9? A FG puts them in the lead with either score.

I just can;t see why a coach wouldn't want them to try and tie the game. I don't want to hear the BS argument that it was only the first half. That's nonsense.

kidman232 · Sep 14, 2009

going off a scoring chart, dont give up 'free points" that early in the game, your still expecting alot more pts in the game

jimmythegreek · Sep 14, 2009

there is a ''primer'' of sorts on going for 2, and most teams seem to stick to it. it calls for going for the single point unless it is into the waning stages of the fourth q... also it calls for going for two to go up 6 instead of 5 as the packers did. i'm on the side of kicking also, you have to respect the single point, and if you are stopped going for two there is a momentum shift, even if only slightly so at that stage.

viking611 · Sep 14, 2009

never go for 2 that early in the game. take the point.

BAGIANT · Sep 14, 2009

I would think that if they went for two and made it, it would give a boost to the team moral. If they miss there's no difference between 8 and 9. Just can't understand it.

barman · Sep 14, 2009

I think teams should go for 2 more often, especially when they're shooting from within the red zone and can then have a premeditated response to an ensuing TD.

Touchdown....Offensive unit lingers to clap and high five....Kick unit heads towards goal line....Then just reverses back as offense sets up with no huddle and runs a preset play to get the needed 2.5 yds

I believe that the percentage success of most 2pt conversions is skewed down if the defending team is aware the 2pt play is coming and they have time to get their defenders set while the scoring team is huddling up prior to the 2pt try.

Thus, the "no-huddle" setup by the offense could put most teams in a position of scoring no less than 50% of the time, which is tantamount to always running the XP kick....But could often place stress on the opponent who must now respond to an eight point, or even 16 pt swing in the scoreboard.

PokerKingJim · Sep 14, 2009

Still too early. Say they go for 2 and don't get it, it's 10-8. GB scores a TD and now it's 17-8 and a 2 score game, whereas if it's 17-9 it's still a TD/2 pointer from tying. Just an example. That early in the game you have to take the sure 1 point instead of the 35% (or whatever it exactly is) chance of converting the 2.

barman · Sep 14, 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-po...tical_Application_of_the_Two_Point_Conversion

A key note in the above reference is that in most all cases, the 2point try is run against a "goal line" defensive set.

In my earlier post, I postulated that if a sufficently prepared offensive unit were to score a TD and then quickly set up with a predetermined play, they could often be up against the opponent's "kick defense" team, rather than the goal line defense.

One of these days, an NFL Team will read my RxForum posts and I will become famous

HAT · Sep 14, 2009

barman said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-po...tical_Application_of_the_Two_Point_Conversion

A key note in the above reference is that in most all cases, the 2point try is run against a "goal line" defensive set.

In my earlier post, I postulated that if a sufficently prepared offensive unit were to score a TD and then quickly set up with a predetermined play, they could often be up against the opponent's "kick defense" team, rather than the goal line defense.

One of these days, an NFL Team will read my RxForum posts and I will become famous

"Timeout, Defense...that is their 2nd charged timeout"

OnWisconsin · Sep 15, 2009

too early....plus there's the perception angle, you know, this is the nfl, not high school, or a couple of college games i watched last week where a team scores a td to make it 6-0 and then goes for two....

good call. at that point, the squares were still pounding the over on live betting....~~:<<

OnWisconsin · Sep 15, 2009

i'm actually more surprised that more people are questioning the pack's decision to go for two at the end. they were like "what's the difference"? at aleast when you're 6 up and the other team gets a td, you still have a prayer at the pat being blocked....plus my 2nd half under was killed on the td pass, so who gives a shit?

ds123 · Sep 15, 2009

barman said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-po...tical_Application_of_the_Two_Point_Conversion

A key note in the above reference is that in most all cases, the 2point try is run against a "goal line" defensive set.

In my earlier post, I postulated that if a sufficently prepared offensive unit were to score a TD and then quickly set up with a predetermined play, they could often be up against the opponent's "kick defense" team, rather than the goal line defense.

One of these days, an NFL Team will read my RxForum posts and I will become famous

The defense that just allowed the TD would still be on the field. You want the offense to quickly setup, but somehow the defense gets enough time to complete change personnel, all the while no one on the defensive team notices the offense isn't getting off the field?

barman · Sep 15, 2009

HAT said:
"Timeout, Defense...that is their 2nd charged timeout"

I didn't suggest there would be no counteraction. But if that were to occur, you've just made my case stronger for the offense to at least kayfabe and do a no-huddle move to go for two points. They get the opponent to burn a timeout. Then kick the one point, if prudent.

barman · Sep 15, 2009

ds123 said:
The defense that just allowed the TD would still be on the field. You want the offense to quickly setup, but somehow the defense gets enough time to complete change personnel, all the while no one on the defensive team notices the offense isn't getting off the field?

Nah...read my first post

It would need to be very premeditated and would likely only work well if the target play was within the red zone.

The plan - "If we score a TD in next few plays..."

Then the offense spends just a few extra seconds near goal line high fiving...maybe the kicker and holder run out.....Then the team quickly lines up as the kicker and holder run off.

Great spot for the defense to look befuddled and either get the easy two or get them to call a timeout.

And this isn't all speculative, mind you.

I tried it just last week with the eight year olds pee wee league team I help coach and it worked great!!

:drink:

ds123 · Sep 15, 2009

barman said:
Nah...read my first post

It would need to be very premeditated and would likely only work well if the target play was within the red zone.

The plan - "If we score a TD in next few plays..."

Then the offense spends just a few extra seconds near goal line high fiving...maybe the kicker and holder run out.....Then the team quickly lines up as the kicker and holder run off.

Great spot for the defense to look befuddled and either get the easy two or get them to call a timeout.

And this isn't all speculative, mind you.

I tried it just last week with the eight year olds pee wee league team I help coach and it worked great!!

:drink:

I think pros can learn a thing or 2 from college schemes. What did Boise St do when they were up 6-0 vs Oregon and went for 2 in the 1st quarter?

I think they spaced their entire line and WR's as far as possible from the center of the field and all that was there was just a center, RB, and QB in the middle. With the defense spread out they handed it off and he had to just beat 2 guys in open field for 2 yards. With so little traffic and bodies, you can probably just fall forward for the 2 yds if you're hit at the line of scrimmage.

OnWisconsin · Sep 15, 2009

problem is, you do it once, every game after that the other team prepares for it....better do it in a game you feel you might really need it....

i would like to see big underdogs in college utilize the onside kick to start the game though....

JPcards · Sep 15, 2009

BAGIANT said:
After the Bears scored the touchdown to make it 10-8 GB, WHY did the Bears not go for two points? Seems to me that they would want to go for the tie if they make the 2 point conversion. If they miss it, it's 10-8. But what's the difference whether it's 10-8 or 10-9? A FG puts them in the lead with either score.

I just can;t see why a coach wouldn't want them to try and tie the game. I don't want to hear the BS argument that it was only the first half. That's nonsense.

I think every coach in the NFL strictly adheres to the scenario card for 2-point conversions...it breaks down every score possible at every time in the game.

So WHY Did the Bears Not Go For 2?

Search

BAGIANT

New member

kidman232

Member

jimmythegreek

Member

viking611

www.youtubecom/hubbardsmusic

BAGIANT

New member

barman

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit

PokerKingJim

Respect My Steez

barman

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit

HAT

New member

OnWisconsin

Banned

OnWisconsin

Banned

ds123

New member

barman

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit

barman

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit

ds123

New member

OnWisconsin

Banned

JPcards

Banned

Forum statistics

Share this page