Challenging Conventional Football Wisdom

[CaliforniaChief]

I'm dying for football to start. But while I wait, I was thinking about a situation I saw in a game recently and have seen more than once.

Team A leads Team B 21-20 late in the fourth. They score a touchdown to go ahead 27-20. Conventional wisdom is that Team A goes for the extra point and takes an 8 point lead.

The thinking is obvious. You take the sure point and force the other team into a situation where they can only tie the game and send it into overtime.

I think they should go for 2. If they get it, they take a 2 possession lead. (29-20) If they don't get it, they're still up by 7 and if the other team scores a TD they would likely take the 1 point and go for the tie anyways.

It just seems to me that the right play is to try and put the game away...and if you fail, you're basically in the same spot you would be if you went for 1 in that the other team would be trying to tie it up.

Again, I apologize for the mundane thread but I've seen this situation many times and wonder if any of you think the same way.

What do you think about this? What are other pieces of conventional football wisdom you would challenge?

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

I've always thought that all the division games should be played the second half of the season after teams have had their injuries and have become who they really are. This would let the teams continue to experiment a little more the first half and then the second half of the season would be more exciting. what ya think about that ?

[CaliforniaChief]

I think they're trying to move towards that, aren't they?

[Shogun]

Personally I agree with you

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

I think they're trying to move towards that, aren't they?

Yeah , I guess so. That's why we're playing the Chargers in the opener.:rolleyes:

[CaliforniaChief]

Yeah , I guess so. That's why we're playing the Chargers in the opener.:rolleyes:

They probably didn't think we were much of a factor when making that choice. Plus, us being on MNF was a favor to the Hunt Family. I didn't really check but heard they were trying to (or maybe just thinking of) doing it.

[keg in kc]

Prevent defense.

[Ebolapox]

tactically, I agree.

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

They probably didn't think we were much of a factor when making that choice. Plus, us being on MNF was a favor to the Hunt Family. I didn't really check but heard they were trying to (or maybe just thinking of) doing it.

It's obvious Goodell reads CP as I've brought this up several times.

[-King-]

There are a lot of failed 2 point conversions so I think coaches take the chance of having the other team try for the 2 pt conversion.

[CaliforniaChief]

Prevent defense.

Absolutely agree with you. Unless you're up by 3 possessions with less than 2 minutes left. Even the preseason game against Philly. We sacked their QB and were in his face all night long. We drop into a prevent zone late and they march right down the field.

It's obvious Goodell reads CP as I've brought this up several times.

He evidently got Haley's memo too. I agree with you, bro.

[Amnorix]

Really it comes down to two things:

1. Can the coach take the heat for the absolute BEATING he will get if the 2 point conversion fails, and the other team ties it up? You may laugh, but it's no joke. Belichick went for the 4th down conversion instead of punting to Indy last year, and I was 100% on board with him, and he's a 3 time SB winning coach, and yet he got murdered for what I thought was obviously the correct call. Our defense wasnt' going to stop the Colts. They had like 3 minutes and 2 timeouts or something, and our defense had basically already proven they couldn't stop him. The odds of the Pats converting the 1st down were MUCH higher than the odds of the Pats stopping the Colts offense. And yet the mediots ripped BB apart. Not many coaches can take that kind of heat and not care.

2. How does the HC feel about your odds of converting the 2 point conversion versus how does the HC feel about the other teams odds of converting THEIR 2 point conversion? A team with a great defense probably kicks teh PAT regardless. A team with a great offense may well go for 2 and try to make it a 2 score game.

[-King-]

Only time prevent defense works is under 30 seconds with the defense having 80+ yards to go.

[Rausch]

I'm dying for football to start. But while I wait, I was thinking about a situation I saw in a game recently and have seen more than once.

Team A leads Team B 21-20 late in the fourth. They score a touchdown to go ahead 27-20. Conventional wisdom is that Team A goes for the extra point and takes an 8 point lead.

The thinking is obvious. You take the sure point and force the other team into a situation where they can only tie the game and send it into overtime.

I think they should go for 2. If they get it, they take a 2 possession lead. (29-20) If they don't get it, they're still up by 7 and if the other team scores a TD they would likely take the 1 point and go for the tie anyways.

It just seems to me that the right play is to try and put the game away...and if you fail, you're basically in the same spot you would be if you went for 1 in that the other team would be trying to tie it up.

Again, I apologize for the mundane thread but I've seen this situation many times and wonder if any of you think the same way.

What do you think about this? What are other pieces of conventional football wisdom you would challenge?

Completely agree.

Nothing to lose in my book...

[CaliforniaChief]

Really it comes down to two things:

1. Can the coach take the heat for the absolute BEATING he will get if the 2 point conversion fails, and the other team ties it up? You may laugh, but it's no joke. Belichick went for the 4th down conversion instead of punting to Indy last year, and I was 100% on board with him, and he's a 3 time SB winning coach, and yet he got murdered for what I thought was obviously the correct call. Our defense wasnt' going to stop the Colts. They had like 3 minutes and 2 timeouts or something, and our defense had basically already proven they couldn't stop him. The odds of the Pats converting the 1st down were MUCH higher than the odds of the Pats stopping the Colts offense. And yet the mediots ripped BB apart. Not many coaches can take that kind of heat and not care.

2. How does the HC feel about your odds of converting the 2 point conversion versus how does the HC feel about the other teams odds of converting THEIR 2 point conversion? A team with a great defense probably kicks teh PAT regardless. A team with a great offense may well go for 2 and try to make it a 2 score game.

Some great points. There are certainly variables that complicate the situation and ultimate decision. The '10 Chiefs might do better to put it in the hands of their defense on a 2 point play, whereas the '03 Chiefs would have been better to trust the offense.

I initially thought Belichick was an idiot for doing what he did in that game (probably because of what the media did with it), but it did make a lot of sense considering the inevitability of a Colts score.

[Stinger]

I also think it also depends on weather you are at home or away. Home crowd helps the Defense so at home more of the advantage to play safe (conventional wisdom).

[CaliforniaChief]

I also think it also depends on weather you are at home or away. Home crowd helps the Defense so at home more of the advantage to play safe (conventional wisdom).

Also a great point. I can see the other side of it.

I do still think there's a lot to the idea of going for the jugular with the limited risk of just going to OT. But those are great points. Thanks!

[keg in kc]

I'd say it's the opposite. Play aggressive at home to get the crowd whipped into a frenzy. Nothing shuts them up like dropping back and letting a team slice you up with intermediate routes. Nail the QB, get the crowd roaring, or listen to the hush fall as they realize the defense is about to give up the losing score.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Play..............wait for it.......................


TO WIN TEH GAME!

[Stinger]

I'd say it's the opposite. Play aggressive at home to get the crowd whipped into a frenzy. Nothing shuts them up like dropping back and letting a team slice you up with intermediate routes. <strike> Nail the QB, get the crowd roaring </strike>, or listen to the hush fall as they realize the defense is about to give up the losing score.

Yeah but you are skewed you're a Chiefs fan .......... :D

[CaliforniaChief]

Play..............wait for it.......................


TO WIN TEH GAME!

LMAO

[CaliforniaChief]

Another thing that I don't like is when you're ahead late and the other team is burning time outs...instead of just giving it back to them by running 3 times, why not do a play action bootleg or something that gets the QB out into space where he can either hit a receiver for an easy first down or just run/take a knee?

There are many ways to conserve time on offense.

I think there's a theme in my thinking. I hate conservative playcalling/tactics at the end of a game.

[cdcox]

The average success rate of a two point conversion in the NFL is something around 44%.

So we can analyze this mathematically. Let's assume that which ever team attempts a 2 point conversion has a 44% chance of making it. Let's also assume that the chance of making the extra point is 100%, for simplicity. We'll also assume that the chance of winning a game that goes to overtime is 50% for either team. Also that there is time for only one last drive in regulation. Finally, lets assume that the chances of scoring a TD on the last drive are x.

If team A goes for 2 they can win by 1) making the conversion or 2) by keeping the other team from scoring (I'll assume a TD+the extra point to tie the game) or 3) by winning in overtime. So if team A goes for it their chances of winning are:

=0.44+(1-0.44)*(1-x)+(1-0.44)*x*0.5 = 1-0.28x

If Team A kicks the extra point the only way they can lose is if the other team scores a TD plus the 2 point conversion plus wins in overtime. The odds of team A winning in this case are:

=1-x*0.44*0.5 = 1-0.22x

Therefore, regardless of what the probability of the other team scoring a final TD is, you are better off kicking the conversion.

It can easily be shown using a similar analysis that if team A believed their chances of making the 2 point conversion exceeded 50%, then they would be better off going for 2. But I would want some data to back that decision.

[Rain Man]

The average success rate of a two point conversion in the NFL is something around 44%.

So we can analyze this mathematically. Let's assume that which ever team attempts a 2 point conversion has a 44% chance of making it. Let's also assume that the chance of making the extra point is 100%, for simplicity. We'll also assume that the chance of winning a game that goes to overtime is 50% for either team. Also that there is time for only one last drive in regulation. Finally, lets assume that the chances of scoring a TD on the last drive are x.

If team A goes for 2 they can win by 1) making the conversion or 2) by keeping the other team from scoring (I'll assume a TD+the extra point to tie the game) or 3) by winning in overtime. So if team A goes for it their chances of winning are:

=0.44+(1-0.44)*(1-x)+(1-0.44)*x*0.5 = 1-0.28x

If Team A kicks the extra point the only way they can lose is if the other team scores a TD plus the 2 point conversion plus wins in overtime. The odds of team A winning in this case are:

=1-x*0.44*0.5 = 1-0.22x

Therefore, regardless of what the probability of the other team scoring a final TD is, you are better off kicking the conversion.

It can easily be shown using a similar analysis that if team A believed their chances of making the 2 point conversion exceeded 50%, then they would be better off going for 2. But I would want some data to back that decision.

I bet Herm Edwards analyzed it exactly like this.

[keg in kc]

Another thing that I don't like is when you're ahead late and the other team is burning time outs...instead of just giving it back to them by running 3 times, why not do a play action bootleg or something that gets the QB out into space where he can either hit a receiver for an easy first down or just run/take a knee? I think the mentality there is that more bad things can happen on a pass play than on a running play. Not that I necessarily disagree with you.

I also like play action on 3rd and 4th and short plays, or calls that involve some kind of misdirection (we ran a nice one with McCluster against Green Bay (I think)). Get the defense thinking you're doing one thing, and do something else. Which should be the objective all the time, in my mind. That was really the thing I loved about Saunders' offenses.

[Rain Man]

In late-game situations, I always wonder if coaches are "playing the odds" by looking at statistics, but not realizing that the statistics are worthless if the other team knows what you're doing. For example, do defensive coordinators look at average-gain stats when they go into a prevent defense, but they don't take into account the fact that an offense is going to adjust to a prevent defense and gain yardage in bigger chunks as a result? No offense intended, but a lot of football coaches strike me as the type who would look at the "book" and not understand the statistical basis for developing the "book".

It would explain why prevent defenses never seem to work.

[L.A. Chieffan]

Kick it.

[CaliforniaChief]

The average success rate of a two point conversion in the NFL is something around 44%.

So we can analyze this mathematically. Let's assume that which ever team attempts a 2 point conversion has a 44% chance of making it. Let's also assume that the chance of making the extra point is 100%, for simplicity. We'll also assume that the chance of winning a game that goes to overtime is 50% for either team. Also that there is time for only one last drive in regulation. Finally, lets assume that the chances of scoring a TD on the last drive are x.

If team A goes for 2 they can win by 1) making the conversion or 2) by keeping the other team from scoring (I'll assume a TD+the extra point to tie the game) or 3) by winning in overtime. So if team A goes for it their chances of winning are:

=0.44+(1-0.44)*(1-x)+(1-0.44)*x*0.5 = 1-0.28x

If Team A kicks the extra point the only way they can lose is if the other team scores a TD plus the 2 point conversion plus wins in overtime. The odds of team A winning in this case are:

=1-x*0.44*0.5 = 1-0.22x

Therefore, regardless of what the probability of the other team scoring a final TD is, you are better off kicking the conversion.

It can easily be shown using a similar analysis that if team A believed their chances of making the 2 point conversion exceeded 50%, then they would be better off going for 2. But I would want some data to back that decision.

You lost me at x. That was quite possibly the most intelligent thing I've ever tried to grasp on the interwebs. I see what you're saying though...I think.
Thanks for the work! I suppose a particular team's 2 point conversion rate could exceed the NFL average...along the lines of what another poster pointed out that talks to the strengths of each team.

I think the mentality there is that more bad things can happen on a pass play than on a running play. Not that I necessarily disagree with you.

I also like play action on 3rd and 4th and short plays, or calls that involve some kind of misdirection (we ran a nice one with McCluster against Green Bay (I think)). Get the defense thinking you're doing one thing, and do something else. Which should be the objective all the time, in my mind. That was really the thing I loved about Saunders' offenses.

I loved the misdirection play to McCluster. That was a great call for sure. My thought is that if the other team is thinking run, they're going to sell out between the tackles...leaving the bootlegs unprotected or covered by 1 player. Slip a TE back there and the guy has to make a choice. If it's not a sure-fire completion, the QB just eats it and forces the defense to burn the timeout. No difference from just slamming it between the tackles 3 times. Obviously the risk goes up, but it seems like tolerable risk.

[CaliforniaChief]

In late-game situations, I always wonder if coaches are "playing the odds" by looking at statistics, but not realizing that the statistics are worthless if the other team knows what you're doing. For example, do defensive coordinators look at average-gain stats when they go into a prevent defense, but they don't take into account the fact that an offense is going to adjust to a prevent defense and gain yardage in bigger chunks as a result? No offense intended, but a lot of football coaches strike me as the type who would look at the "book" and not understand the statistical basis for developing the "book".

It would explain why prevent defenses never seem to work.

That makes sense. They probably figure that people a lot brighter than them did the leg work on those equations. And then the variables come in...variables discussed already in this thread:

1. Our strength is offense/defense.
2. Our 2 point conversion rate is higher than the league average/our defense is good at stopping them.
3. We have a play or two that we are highly confident will work on a 2 point conversion attempt.
4. We're at home/away
5. My body is surging with testosterone...screw the numbers let's do it!

[Psyko Tek]

I'm dying for football to start. But while I wait, I was thinking about a situation I saw in a game recently and have seen more than once.

Team A leads Team B 21-20 late in the fourth. They score a touchdown to go ahead 27-20. Conventional wisdom is that Team A goes for the extra point and takes an 8 point lead.

The thinking is obvious. You take the sure point and force the other team into a situation where they can only tie the game and send it into overtime.

I think they should go for 2. If they get it, they take a 2 possession lead. (29-20) If they don't get it, they're still up by 7 and if the other team scores a TD they would likely take the 1 point and go for the tie anyways.

It just seems to me that the right play is to try and put the game away...and if you fail, you're basically in the same spot you would be if you went for 1 in that the other team would be trying to tie it up.

Again, I apologize for the mundane thread but I've seen this situation many times and wonder if any of you think the same way.

What do you think about this? What are other pieces of conventional football wisdom you would challenge?


if you have no faith in your D
go for 2

if you belive heavily in your offense go for 2

if you have a D ust kick it and say your turn bitches

[rambleonthruthefog]

unless the oposing team has been passing on you all game with ease you kick it. its a no brainer. kick it and put the pressure on the opposing team, not your defense. hellooooooo..........you play to win the game.