As much as some people want to make football a game of "mechanics," that simply isn't reality... it is a game of emotion, and to suggest you can throw out these "intangibles" is to suggest you have never played a down of football in your life!
If there had been 10 minutes remaining, perhaps the suggestion is valid... but with 5 minutes to go, against a team that is running for 10 yards per play, the one thing you have in your advantage is (a) putting some pressure on them, and (b) forcing them to throw the football...
In this game, they should have kept the pressure on, and given themselves the only chance in hell they ever had, and that was to score a TD and make a 2-pt conversion to send it into OT... THAT is what they should have done! It is not debatable!
Probably would be a good idea to actually watch the game before saying someone is "100% correct!"
0
As much as some people want to make football a game of "mechanics," that simply isn't reality... it is a game of emotion, and to suggest you can throw out these "intangibles" is to suggest you have never played a down of football in your life!
If there had been 10 minutes remaining, perhaps the suggestion is valid... but with 5 minutes to go, against a team that is running for 10 yards per play, the one thing you have in your advantage is (a) putting some pressure on them, and (b) forcing them to throw the football...
In this game, they should have kept the pressure on, and given themselves the only chance in hell they ever had, and that was to score a TD and make a 2-pt conversion to send it into OT... THAT is what they should have done! It is not debatable!
Probably would be a good idea to actually watch the game before saying someone is "100% correct!"
Van/Tep/Shark thanks for the contributions. Waffle fries or steak fries. Mercedes or BMW. 2 pt conversion on 1st attempt or 2nd. Life's great debates
Yeah - but I really don't think this is much of a debate.
It is simple. When you have an obstacle to overcome in anything, the earlier you know exactly what you are facing the better off you are.
I really don't understand the downside argument of going for two there. Everyone thinks they understand momentum and can judge a whole bunch of factors (most of which lay in the future) - but only tangible decision making element is that the advantage of knowing now rather than when it is too late always going to be in your favor.
I think this is one of those things that has always been done one way, and when presented the alternative the immediate reaction is to think there is no way that this could be possible. I have seen this evolve with all kinds of strategies in football (let them score etc) over the past 20 years to where now the announcers actually have discussions over whether it is better to let the other team score - when 10 years ago it was never even thought of.
This is something that doesn't come up all that often, but the more it does - the more understanding there will be around it.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JLourenco:
Van/Tep/Shark thanks for the contributions. Waffle fries or steak fries. Mercedes or BMW. 2 pt conversion on 1st attempt or 2nd. Life's great debates
Yeah - but I really don't think this is much of a debate.
It is simple. When you have an obstacle to overcome in anything, the earlier you know exactly what you are facing the better off you are.
I really don't understand the downside argument of going for two there. Everyone thinks they understand momentum and can judge a whole bunch of factors (most of which lay in the future) - but only tangible decision making element is that the advantage of knowing now rather than when it is too late always going to be in your favor.
I think this is one of those things that has always been done one way, and when presented the alternative the immediate reaction is to think there is no way that this could be possible. I have seen this evolve with all kinds of strategies in football (let them score etc) over the past 20 years to where now the announcers actually have discussions over whether it is better to let the other team score - when 10 years ago it was never even thought of.
This is something that doesn't come up all that often, but the more it does - the more understanding there will be around it.
Jlourenco you are a crackhead if u get steak fries is my first point...waffle for life...and i agree with your point 100% and VANs points also...I'd say tho that it shouldn't be the choice every time in every situation...that's for the coach to feel out...and last night we weren't dealing with the best situation...excellent point tho! GL this weekend!
0
Jlourenco you are a crackhead if u get steak fries is my first point...waffle for life...and i agree with your point 100% and VANs points also...I'd say tho that it shouldn't be the choice every time in every situation...that's for the coach to feel out...and last night we weren't dealing with the best situation...excellent point tho! GL this weekend!
The let the other team score is a great example. Coaches would rather lose by 1 then give themselves an opportunity to win, by conceding a TD and possibly losing by 8. A loss of 2 pts should be the same as a 9 pt loss but that just isn't reality with a lot of coaches. forward thinking is rare in sports. In 15 yrs when all teams run no huddle, everyone will wonder why any team ever huddled. Same concept.
0
The let the other team score is a great example. Coaches would rather lose by 1 then give themselves an opportunity to win, by conceding a TD and possibly losing by 8. A loss of 2 pts should be the same as a 9 pt loss but that just isn't reality with a lot of coaches. forward thinking is rare in sports. In 15 yrs when all teams run no huddle, everyone will wonder why any team ever huddled. Same concept.
Jlourenco you are a crackhead if u get steak fries is my first point...waffle for life...and i agree with your point 100% and VANs points also...I'd say tho that it shouldn't be the choice every time in every situation...that's for the coach to feel out...and last night we weren't dealing with the best situation...excellent point tho! GL this weekend!
I actually sit on the waffle 4 life board so we are brothers. But to each his own. Another good one: kit kats or twix? This debate could start wars
0
Quote Originally Posted by jmak21:
Jlourenco you are a crackhead if u get steak fries is my first point...waffle for life...and i agree with your point 100% and VANs points also...I'd say tho that it shouldn't be the choice every time in every situation...that's for the coach to feel out...and last night we weren't dealing with the best situation...excellent point tho! GL this weekend!
I actually sit on the waffle 4 life board so we are brothers. But to each his own. Another good one: kit kats or twix? This debate could start wars
The let the other team score is a great example. Coaches would rather lose by 1 then give themselves an opportunity to win, by conceding a TD and possibly losing by 8. A loss of 2 pts should be the same as a 9 pt loss but that just isn't reality with a lot of coaches. forward thinking is rare in sports. In 15 yrs when all teams run no huddle, everyone will wonder why any team ever huddled. Same concept.
Fumbles and interceptions happen.
All teams running no huddle is almost like saying taking timeouts on offense is unnecessary.
I don't see a big deal going for 2.
Now how about those Ducks usually going for 2.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JLourenco:
The let the other team score is a great example. Coaches would rather lose by 1 then give themselves an opportunity to win, by conceding a TD and possibly losing by 8. A loss of 2 pts should be the same as a 9 pt loss but that just isn't reality with a lot of coaches. forward thinking is rare in sports. In 15 yrs when all teams run no huddle, everyone will wonder why any team ever huddled. Same concept.
Fumbles and interceptions happen.
All teams running no huddle is almost like saying taking timeouts on offense is unnecessary.
I am only going to post once - I don't want to enter this debate because it looks heated and I don't have the energy. So here goes.
The original poster is 100% correct. I did not see the game last night in question - and I do not know the specifics of that particular game - but in general if you are down by 15 with enough time to react (enough time to have 2 more possessions) you should always go for 2 after the first TD.
You can talk about momentum all you want - but the plain and simple truth is that at the time you make or don't make the conversion - you know exactly what you need the rest of the game and proactively adjust your gameplan to give you a chance to win. If you wait until the second TD, you cannot do anything if you miss the 2 point conversion.
All of the intangibles like pressure and momentum are not measurable. The only thing that is tangible is the fact that as a decision maker you always want to know what the obstacles are to success as early as possible.
This has been discussed here before. It is a tough and counter-intuitive concept but it is grounded in logic.
I usually agree with you Van, your knowledge of the gambling business and style of betting is up there with anyone. We have had discussions in the past and have shared the same opinions many times especially when dopes talk about hedging parlays and buying points or betting parlays in general. I must however totally disagree with you here, I highlighted your statement and I agree to an extent but in a totally different way. You kick the extra point there and you already know your obstacle, you are down 1 possession with 2 timeouts and 5+ minutes to go. You kick off, can possibly even give up 2 first downs and still get the ball back depending on when they got the first downs. Ask any coach in America if they would rather be down 8 or 9 points with 5 minutes left and you will get the same answer every time. The risk to reward in going for 2 there is terrible. We could debate this forever but IMO there really isn't a debate, you always kick the extra point before going for 2 when you are down 9. It honestly isn't even debatable.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
I am only going to post once - I don't want to enter this debate because it looks heated and I don't have the energy. So here goes.
The original poster is 100% correct. I did not see the game last night in question - and I do not know the specifics of that particular game - but in general if you are down by 15 with enough time to react (enough time to have 2 more possessions) you should always go for 2 after the first TD.
You can talk about momentum all you want - but the plain and simple truth is that at the time you make or don't make the conversion - you know exactly what you need the rest of the game and proactively adjust your gameplan to give you a chance to win. If you wait until the second TD, you cannot do anything if you miss the 2 point conversion.
All of the intangibles like pressure and momentum are not measurable. The only thing that is tangible is the fact that as a decision maker you always want to know what the obstacles are to success as early as possible.
This has been discussed here before. It is a tough and counter-intuitive concept but it is grounded in logic.
I usually agree with you Van, your knowledge of the gambling business and style of betting is up there with anyone. We have had discussions in the past and have shared the same opinions many times especially when dopes talk about hedging parlays and buying points or betting parlays in general. I must however totally disagree with you here, I highlighted your statement and I agree to an extent but in a totally different way. You kick the extra point there and you already know your obstacle, you are down 1 possession with 2 timeouts and 5+ minutes to go. You kick off, can possibly even give up 2 first downs and still get the ball back depending on when they got the first downs. Ask any coach in America if they would rather be down 8 or 9 points with 5 minutes left and you will get the same answer every time. The risk to reward in going for 2 there is terrible. We could debate this forever but IMO there really isn't a debate, you always kick the extra point before going for 2 when you are down 9. It honestly isn't even debatable.
I usually agree with you Van, your knowledge of the gambling business and style of betting is up there with anyone. We have had discussions in the past and have shared the same opinions many times especially when dopes talk about hedging parlays and buying points or betting parlays in general. I must however totally disagree with you here, I highlighted your statement and I agree to an extent but in a totally different way. You kick the extra point there and you already know your obstacle, you are down 1 possession with 2 timeouts and 5+ minutes to go. You kick off, can possibly even give up 2 first downs and still get the ball back depending on when they got the first downs. Ask any coach in America if they would rather be down 8 or 9 points with 5 minutes left and you will get the same answer every time. The risk to reward in going for 2 there is terrible. We could debate this forever but IMO there really isn't a debate, you always kick the extra point before going for 2 when you are down 9. It honestly isn't even debatable.
No problem....
Let me ask it a different way....
Would you agree or disagree that the two point conversion has an equal chance of being made after the first TD or the second TD? In other words - does the 2 point conversion have a better chance of being made either after the first TD or the second TD - or are they an equal chance?
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by chaloots:
I usually agree with you Van, your knowledge of the gambling business and style of betting is up there with anyone. We have had discussions in the past and have shared the same opinions many times especially when dopes talk about hedging parlays and buying points or betting parlays in general. I must however totally disagree with you here, I highlighted your statement and I agree to an extent but in a totally different way. You kick the extra point there and you already know your obstacle, you are down 1 possession with 2 timeouts and 5+ minutes to go. You kick off, can possibly even give up 2 first downs and still get the ball back depending on when they got the first downs. Ask any coach in America if they would rather be down 8 or 9 points with 5 minutes left and you will get the same answer every time. The risk to reward in going for 2 there is terrible. We could debate this forever but IMO there really isn't a debate, you always kick the extra point before going for 2 when you are down 9. It honestly isn't even debatable.
No problem....
Let me ask it a different way....
Would you agree or disagree that the two point conversion has an equal chance of being made after the first TD or the second TD? In other words - does the 2 point conversion have a better chance of being made either after the first TD or the second TD - or are they an equal chance?
Would you agree or disagree that the two point conversion has an equal chance of being made after the first TD or the second TD? In other words - does the 2 point conversion have a better chance of being made either after the first TD or the second TD - or are they an equal chance?
I know where you are going and the answer is equal, so I know what you are saying that you would rather know how to play the last 5 minutes depending on how much many scores you are down. The answer of equal could help make both of our arguments. My argument isn't about the probability of making the 2 point conversion, it is about playing the game with only needing 1 possession to possibly tie it. If you kick the extra point you can kick deep and play defense and possibly get good field position with a chance to tie. Same is true if you make the 2 point conversion but if you miss the 2 point conversion you must onside kick and score twice in the last 5 minutes. Kinda like the "extend the game" theory at the end of basketball games. IMO the risk of going for 2 anytime when an extra point keeps it a 1 possession game isn't worth it unless it is late and puts the number on 3.
So the answer to your question is yes but to me the risk isn't worth it because if you miss you most likely won't ever get the chance to tie the game, if you kick the extra point you can play the last 5 minutes as normal and most likely get the ball back with a chance to tie. To me it all comes down to playing the last 5 minutes with the best chance to tie. Down 8 with 5 minutes has a much higher probability of tying the game than being down 9.
0
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
No problem....
Let me ask it a different way....
Would you agree or disagree that the two point conversion has an equal chance of being made after the first TD or the second TD? In other words - does the 2 point conversion have a better chance of being made either after the first TD or the second TD - or are they an equal chance?
I know where you are going and the answer is equal, so I know what you are saying that you would rather know how to play the last 5 minutes depending on how much many scores you are down. The answer of equal could help make both of our arguments. My argument isn't about the probability of making the 2 point conversion, it is about playing the game with only needing 1 possession to possibly tie it. If you kick the extra point you can kick deep and play defense and possibly get good field position with a chance to tie. Same is true if you make the 2 point conversion but if you miss the 2 point conversion you must onside kick and score twice in the last 5 minutes. Kinda like the "extend the game" theory at the end of basketball games. IMO the risk of going for 2 anytime when an extra point keeps it a 1 possession game isn't worth it unless it is late and puts the number on 3.
So the answer to your question is yes but to me the risk isn't worth it because if you miss you most likely won't ever get the chance to tie the game, if you kick the extra point you can play the last 5 minutes as normal and most likely get the ball back with a chance to tie. To me it all comes down to playing the last 5 minutes with the best chance to tie. Down 8 with 5 minutes has a much higher probability of tying the game than being down 9.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
