Football strategy question: When to go for 2 when trailing by 15?

[Sean Miller Fan]

Last night, ND was down 15 and scored a TD with about 9 minutes left to cut it to 9. Instead of trying for 2 to cut it to 7, they kicked the extra point to go down 8. They scored again with 7 seconds to go ti cut lead to 2 but missed the 2 pointer.

I would always go for 2 as soon as possible in these cases like when ND cut the lead to 9 with 9 minutes. If you make it, great, but if you miss it, you know you need 2 more scores so yoi can alter your game strategy and playcalling to account for that.

It does seem like most coaches follow the stategy used by Kelly and wait as long as possible to go for 2 but I never understood that.

 

[ratking17]

I disagree. Go for 2 at the end. Subconsciously you know early on that you still need 2 scores and the odds are against you. Conversely you get it to 8, it is only one score and you still are in the game

 

[Atlanta Panther]

I disagree as well...nine minutes is too much time left. I think your strategy is correct when there is only, say 2 minutes left, but, with nine left...too much time. A lot can happen. For example, you get a quick turnover and score with 5 or 6 left. You can go for 2 then knowing that if you miss you still have probably at least one more possession to kick a field goal.

 

[KTP]

Coaching 101 never do anything to cost your team a game. Putting them in a situation where they need two scores by going for it early is putting your team in a position to loss.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Notre Dame screwed up the two pointers long before that. They were down 21-3 when they scored right at the beginning of the 4th quarter and then they went for two. That decision (get ready for it nc) is always wrong. ALWAYS. For exactly the reason you saw last night. They missed the two pointer, which meant they were down by 12 instead of 11. So after the Clemson field goal they were down 15 instead of 14. If they had just kicked the point in the first place they would have had no decision at all to make, unless the coach wanted to play for the win at the end of regulation rather than just to go to overtime. You'd think a guy with the kind of experience that Kelly has would understand these kinds of things. I mean imagine that, a guy who's been on the sidelines as long as he has making an obviously wrong decision like that. Who woulda thunk it?

In general, you should wait to go for two for as long as possible. For exactly the reason that happened last night. You just cannot assume that the other team isn't going to score anymore when there is still a lot of time left in the game. Last night's game was kind of reminiscent of the Pitt - Hoopie game in 1989 when Pitt was down by 22 and managed to score three touchdowns and kick a field goal in the forth quarter, which should have been enough to win the game for Pitt and yet only managed to get Pitt a tie because Mike Gottfried also didn't understand when to go for two and when not to. He followed the SMF plan and went for two after the first TD. And didn't make it. So instead of being down 15 Pitt was down 16. So when they scored again they had to go for two that time. And didn't make it again. So instead of being down 8 they were down 10. So the next TD and the field goal on the last play of the game didn't win the game for Pitt, they only tied it. Dumb. And all because an experienced coach who had been doing that for a long time had no idea what the correct game strategy was. Imagine that.

 

[Pittx9]

Some coaches down 15, will score their first TD and go for 2 then. The book says kick it and go for 2 the next time. I'd have to agree with the book, if you go for 2 the first time and don't convert, you basically have already lost the game depending on how much time is left. The only time this gets tricky is in the NFL with the new extra point.

 

[topdecktiger]

Last night, ND was down 15 and scored a TD with about 9 minutes left to cut it to 9. Instead of trying for 2 to cut it to 7, they kicked the extra point to go down 8. They scored again with 7 seconds to go ti cut lead to 2 but missed the 2 pointer.

I would always go for 2 as soon as possible in these cases like when ND cut the lead to 9 with 9 minutes. If you make it, great, but if you miss it, you know you need 2 more scores so yoi can alter your game strategy and playcalling to account for that.

It does seem like most coaches follow the stategy used by Kelly and wait as long as possible to go for 2 but I never understood that.

Because it's a horrible strategy. If you kick the extra point, it's only a 1 possession game. If you go for 2 and miss, then it's a 2 possession game. By going for 2 and missing, you force yourself into needing an extra possession to win/tie. It's a whole lot easier to score once than twice.

 

[pittman71]

coaches go for two when down 12 to get the differential to 10 points, where a field goal and a touchdown ties the game. That is why Kelly went for two down by 12, the Steelers did the same thing in New England in Week 1 and converted. They were down 21-11 instead of 21-10

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Math is hard for some, it seems

 

[topdecktiger]

coaches go for two when down 12 to get the differential to 10 points, where a field goal and a touchdown ties the game. That is why Kelly went for two down by 12, the Steelers did the same thing in New England in Week 1 and converted. They were down 21-11 instead of 21-10

Everybody understands that. The point is, the benefits of being down 10 vs. 11 points are not as great as the disadvantage of being down 12 points. The issue is that the field goal is out of play if you are down 12 points. That's significant, because you vastly decrease your margin for error. All you have to do is get to the 30 yard line to have a decent chance at a field goal, whereas down by 12 points, now you have to score touchdowns both times. Much harder to do.

 

[pittman71]

Everybody understands that. The point is, the benefits of being down 10 vs. 11 points are not as great as the disadvantage of being down 12 points. The issue is that the field goal is out of play if you are down 12 points. That's significant, because you vastly decrease your margin for error. All you have to do is get to the 30 yard line to have a decent chance at a field goal, whereas down by 12 points, now you have to score touchdowns both times. Much harder to do.

What does the "book" say when a team scores and is down 12? Go for two or one? NVM found it

http://theredzone.org/Features/TwoPointConversionChart.aspx

 

[OriginalEther]

Never go for two unless you absolutely have to.

On a related note, I'm surprised no one has brought up this conversation, but the new nfl rule sucks. A game should not be decided by an PAT.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Because it's a horrible strategy. If you kick the extra point, it's only a 1 possession game. If you go for 2 and miss, then it's a 2 possession game. By going for 2 and missing, you force yourself into needing an extra possession to win/tie. It's a whole lot easier to score once than twice.

Yes, but my point is that if you miss the 2 with 9 min left, you can curtail your game plan knowing you need to get a stop, score, get another stop, and another score. It woukd be very difficult but there's a better chance of that than winning a game after you miss the 2 on the last play of the game.

 

[OriginalEther]

Yes, but my point is that if you miss the 2 with 9 min left, you can curtail your game plan knowing you need to get a stop, score, get another stop, and another score. It woukd be very difficult but there's a better chance of that than winning a game after you miss the 2 on the last play of the game.

Yeah, that's the issue.
Lot easier for the defense to defend when they know you have to score twice in a short span like than. Also more psychologically stressful to entire trailing team.

 

[topdecktiger]

Yes, but my point is that if you miss the 2 with 9 min left, you can curtail your game plan knowing you need to get a stop, score, get another stop, and another score. It woukd be very difficult but there's a better chance of that than winning a game after you miss the 2 on the last play of the game.

What does curtailing your game plan matter? It's easier to score 1 touchdown and 1 field goal that it is to score 2 touchdowns. You still need 2 scores and 2 stops either way. The difference is, it's easier if you can kick a field goal on one score. You are limiting your options when you go for 2 early like that. Now you HAVE to score 2 touchdowns if you don't make it. Waiting until the end to go for 2 gives you more options, and keeps your team in the game longer.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

What does curtailing your game plan matter? It's easier to score 1 touchdown and 1 field goal that it is to score 2 touchdowns. You still need 2 scores and 2 stops either way. The difference is, it's easier if you can kick a field goal on one score. You are limiting your options when you go for 2 early like that. Now you HAVE to score 2 touchdowns if you don't make it. Waiting until the end to go for 2 gives you more options, and keeps your team in the game longer.

It should be a simple concept. You've got it right.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Yes, but my point is that if you miss the 2 with 9 min left, you can curtail your game plan knowing you need to get a stop, score, get another stop, and another score. It woukd be very difficult but there's a better chance of that than winning a game after you miss the 2 on the last play of the game.

Right, but the problem there is that the other team then also knows that you need two touchdowns to beat them, which influences their offensive and defensive strategies as well.

Honestly, yours is just not the smartest approach. It would not be one I would recommend.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You are limiting your options when you go for 2 early like that. Now you HAVE to score 2 touchdowns if you don't make it. Waiting until the end to go for 2 gives you more options, and keeps your team in the game longer.

Limited options???? How many options did ND have with 7 seconds left, kicking off trailing by 2. Pretty sure they would have rather trailed by 9 with 9 min left knowing they needed a stop, TD, stop, FG.

Your last sentence says it all. Most teams do it to "stay in the game longer." Football coaches are just so conservative, they dont like to make big moves. Same with going for 2 and the win at the end of the game. Why go to OT in hopes you can win an inning when you stand just 3 yards from victory?

Coaches dont like to be 2nd guessed so they coach conservatively. Freakonomics did a study on this with going for it on 4th and short. Statistics overwhelming show you should go for it on 4th and short but most coaches dont.

 

[OriginalEther]

That you are the only person here advocating this strategy should tell you something.
You're forgetting that NotreDame still had to score.

I'll paint the picture out for you

In the actual game:
ND scores with 9 minutes left. They kick the PAT to go down 8.
That means, assuming Clemson doesn't score again, ND has 9 minutes to get a touchdown. A 2 point conversion is needed, but again, you got to score that touchdown first.
Both squads know this.

Your scenarios:
1. ND scores with 9 minutes left. If they get the 2-point conversion to go down seven points, great. Pretty the same scenario as above, other than only the standard PAT is needed to tie.

2. ND scores with 9 minutes left. They go for 2 and fail. They are down 9 points.
Now Notre Dame needs 2 scores - TD and FG - in 9 minutes. That's a whole lot tougher, and both Notre Dame and Clemson know it.
Clemson can do a whole lot more on D in that scenario. Notre Dame may not even get that first score thanks to those increased options, let alone a 2nd score.

 

[topdecktiger]

Limited options???? How many options did ND have with 7 seconds left, kicking off trailing by 2. Pretty sure they would have rather trailed by 9 with 9 min left knowing they needed a stop, TD, stop, FG.

Your last sentence says it all. Most teams do it to "stay in the game longer." Football coaches are just so conservative, they dont like to make big moves. Same with going for 2 and the win at the end of the game. Why go to OT in hopes you can win an inning when you stand just 3 yards from victory?

Coaches dont like to be 2nd guessed so they coach conservatively. Freakonomics did a study on this with going for it on 4th and short. Statistics overwhelming show you should go for it on 4th and short but most coaches dont.

Yes, limited options. Kicking the extra point did not cause Notre Dame to lose the game. (I'll get to that later.) I went back and reread your original comment, and your logic is even worse than I thought.

So here's the scenario. Notre Dame was down 15 points (24-9) when they scored a touchdown. They kicked an extra point, and were down 8 (24-16). Had they gone for 2 and missed, they would have been down 9 points (24-15). Well, it's ridiculous to go for 2 in that situation. Down 8 points, you only need 1 possession to tie the game. Down 9, you need 2 possessions to win it. Well, anybody can see it's better to need only 1 possession than 2. Hell, you don't know if you will even get a second possession!

In fact, that's EXACTLY how it worked out. Notre Dame scored its final touchdown with 7 SECONDS remaining. Had Notre Dame been down 9, then they still would have been in the EXACT same situation. They would still need another possession with only 7 seconds left.

This makes me question whether you watched the whole game. Notre Dame scored a touchdown before the one at 9 minutes. They scored a touchdown at 14 minutes, and decided to go for 2 there, which they also missed. If they had just kicked all three extra points, they would have been tied.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Yes, limited options. Kicking the extra point did not cause Notre Dame to lose the game. (I'll get to that later.) I went back and reread your original comment, and your logic is even worse than I thought.

So here's the scenario. Notre Dame was down 15 points (24-9) when they scored a touchdown. They kicked an extra point, and were down 8 (24-16). Had they gone for 2 and missed, they would have been down 9 points (24-15). Well, it's ridiculous to go for 2 in that situation. Down 8 points, you only need 1 possession to tie the game. Down 9, you need 2 possessions to win it. Well, anybody can see it's better to need only 1 possession than 2. Hell, you don't know if you will even get a second possession!

In fact, that's EXACTLY how it worked out. Notre Dame scored its final touchdown with 7 SECONDS remaining. Had Notre Dame been down 9, then they still would have been in the EXACT same situation. They would still need another possession with only 7 seconds left.

This makes me question whether you watched the whole game. Notre Dame scored a touchdown before the one at 9 minutes. They scored a touchdown at 14 minutes, and decided to go for 2 there, which they also missed. If they had just kicked all three extra points, they would have been tied.

It's simple

 

[ncyajleel]

Sorry. Staying out of this one!

 

[dooz3]

Sm fraud clearly demonstrates that besides hating all things Pitt he is also ignorant of all things sports Go hide in your stupid cave.

 

[DruidTM]

Sometimes Kelly has gone for two at odd times that left me wondering why?

For example the opening drive & score against Virginia....and it didn't work....I thought...now why was that called for? They won anyway but it could have been a fail.