Going for 2 up 12-7

[Hawknballs]

carolina had scored one time all game.

The chances of carolina scoring a TD on a drive or flukey play was much higher than the likelyhood that they would score two field goals. The least likely scenario is that they score two times.

 

[thebanjodude]

I think it was the right call. If it would have worked and Carolina wouldn't have fumbled away that touchdown at the end, we woulda been thanking our lucky stars.

 

[Tical21]

I hated that call. You do not go for two in that situation with ten minutes left, you just do not. You do that if there is only enough time left on the clock for one more scoring drive. It isn't nearly as difficult as Carolina made it look to get a few field goals. Wayyy too much time. I'm not going to say he dodged a bullet there, but that easily could have been an unnecessary disaster.

 

[Tical21]

I hated that call. You do not go for two in that situation with ten minutes left, you just do not. You do that if there is only enough time left on the clock for one more scoring drive. It isn't nearly as difficult as Carolina made it look to get a few field goals. Wayyy too much time. I'm not going to say he dodged a bullet there, but that easily could have been a disaster.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

It isn't nearly as difficult as Carolina made it look to get a few field goals.

Does that only work one way? If it's so easy for them to kick 2 FG's to go ahead then certainly it'd be easy for us to go get just 1 to take the lead back, no?

 

[pehawk]

It isn't nearly as difficult as Carolina made it look to get a few field goals.

Does that only work one way? If it's so easy for them to kick 2 FG's to go ahead then certainly it'd be easy for us to go get just 1 to take the lead back, no?

Yup, great thought.

In Seattle, we're accustomed to coaches taking the point, all day, everyday. I think Pete's decision here is worthy of discussion, or at least emphasis. It's a no-brainer in theory, but in reality, its a tad more complicated.

Oh, and.....fart.

 

[Tical21]

It isn't nearly as difficult as Carolina made it look to get a few field goals.

Does that only work one way? If it's so easy for them to kick 2 FG's to go ahead then certainly it'd be easy for us to go get just 1 to take the lead back, no?

Sure, but I don't think that changes anything. If you're up 6 and it takes Carolina 2 FG's to tie, you would have to think you would be able to come up with a field goal yourself. Again, if there are 5 minutes left, it is a no-brainer that you go for two. But there is just so much that can happen in ten minutes in the NFL, I don't know that you want to go around taking unnecessary risks.

I'm the first to admit that I'm almost always conservative in these kinds of things. I ALWAYS punt on 4th and inches from my own side of the 50. I take the sure 3 instead of gambling for 7. I always plan for the worst case, rather than letting my head focus on the best-case. But, in this situation, I just thought there were far more bad things that could happen than good things.

 

[kearly]

I disagreed with it at the time. Carolina was a much bigger threat to kick a pair of FGs with 10 minutes remaining than they were of scoring a TD.

Even if the odds were the same in regards to Carolina's scoring probability, you'd still kick the PAT. A PAT is a 99% make rate. Most years, a 2-point conversion has around a 40% success rate. So when you go for two, you are the gambler and the defense is the house. Basically, if it's debatable which one is better, take the extra point.

One other factor, if you kick the extra point and then later add a FG, it becomes a 2 score game. If you miss the 2 pt. conversion and add a FG, Carolina could have still tied with an 8 pt. TD.

It didn't hurt us, but I'm guessing if you weigh all the probabilities together, the 2 point attempt wasn't worth the downside.

 

[Hawksfan78]

I liked the call, hated the play...

 

[kearly]

carolina had scored one time all game.

The chances of carolina scoring a TD on a drive or flukey play was much higher than the likelyhood that they would score two field goals. The least likely scenario is that they score two times.

It's way easier to kick 2 FGs than score 1 TD if you are struggling on offense.

I think part of Pete's calculation was that he trusted his offense to shorten the game. And in a shorter game it is harder to get 2 FGs than 1 TD. In that respect, Pete turned out to be correct, though with 10 minutes to go in the game, it didn't appear likely that our offense would burn the final 5:30 of game clock the way things had been going.

 

[sutz]

I was iffy about that one. I thought the sure 1 was a better bet than the less probable 2, and I pretty much agree with Kearly's logic. Thankfully, it ended up not really mattering.

 

[HawkFan72]

The call was a no brainer. Not gutsy at all.

Being up 6 gets you nothing but being up 7 does. I don't see where Pete was unique in making this call. It's one the 100 percent of the coaches would have made.

There was enough time (10 minutes) left for Carolina to get 2 FGs. Then being up by 5 makes you lose, where being up by 6 keeps it a tie.

That is the reason I have seen the decision to go for 2 criticized.

With the way Carolina was moving the ball at times, it wasn't unthinkable that they could have gotten into field goal range twice with 10 minutes left.

Personally, I liked going for 2, but I can see why some people didn't like it.

 

[sutz]

I don't buy the "Carolina could score 2 FGs" line at all. After all, the Hawks would have had a possession between those attempts-almost guaranteed-considering a likely onsides attempt, which would have made that possession a likely scoring one.

 

[AbsolutNET]

It's a 50/50 call, imo. Good arguments for and against both sides. I was more worried about Carolina getting two FG's given the way the game had gone, but they did damn near put it in the end zone before we got the fumble. I don't think there's a "wrong" decision in this case, just different opinions.

 

[pehawk]

It's a 50/50 call, imo. Good arguments for and against both sides. I was more worried about Carolina getting two FG's given the way the game had gone, but they did damn near put it in the end zone before we got the fumble. I don't think there's a "wrong" decision in this case, just different opinions.

Yeah, that's where I'm at on it.

Its not the gimme some seem to think.

 

[Cartire]

It's a 50/50 call, imo. Good arguments for and against both sides. I was more worried about Carolina getting two FG's given the way the game had gone, but they did damn near put it in the end zone before we got the fumble. I don't think there's a "wrong" decision in this case, just different opinions.

Yeah, that's where I'm at on it.

Its not the gimme some seem to think.

Yea, but lets think about his too.

We didnt make the 2-pt conversion. So we effectively gave them the TD option, regardless. And, we gave them the 2 FG option.

If we kicked the EP, we instead gave them only the TD option for the lead. And we took away the 2 FG option (for the lead).

The argument that we would get the ball back and could score a fg to spread the lead further is moot. We had played over 3 gtrs of football and scored only 6 pts up until that TD. We cant assume anything.

Given that EPs are far more assured then 2 pts, we should have taken the safer route and limited

 

[blkhwk]

1st half, take the point

4th quarter go for two. The way the game was going, the chance of one Carolina big play was greater than two FG's.

I would guess every coach, college or pro given the same circumstances, goes for two.

Kick the PAT, then get one big play against you and you are now down 14-13, miss the 2 pointer, now down 14-12 FG still wins it for you. Definitely the right call and yes.... A no brainer!

 

[Cartire]

1st half, take the point

4th quarter go for two. The way the game was going, the chance of one Carolina big play was greater than two FG's.

I would guess every coach, college or pro given the same circumstances, goes for two.

Kick the PAT, then get one big play against you and you are now down 14-13, miss the 2 pointer, now down 14-12 FG still wins it for you. Definitely the right call and yes.... A no brainer!

I would like to see the data that supports your 1 big TD play vs 2 FG's in a 10 minute period. You cant just say the chance was greater, cause it wasnt greater. The chances of CAR getting into FG range and stuffed was far better then them getting into the endzone.

I dont understand why everyone doesnt want to use their brain. You keep saying no-brainer. Thats why you keep coming to these illogical conclusions, your not using your brain. I say it was a yes-brainer.

 

[Perfundle]

Yea, but lets think about his too.

We didnt make the 2-pt conversion. So we effectively gave them the TD option, regardless. And, we gave them the 2 FG option.

If we kicked the EP, we instead gave them only the TD option for the lead. And we took away the 2 FG option (for the lead).

Why are you only considering missing the conversion and not making it? Of course missing the conversion is worse than kicking the extra point, but there's around a 50% chance of making the conversion too.

I would like to see the data that supports your 1 big TD play vs 2 FG's in a 10 minute period. You cant just say the chance was greater, cause it wasnt greater. The chances of CAR getting into FG range and stuffed was far better then them getting into the endzone.

I would like to see your data that it wasn't greater, because that's only your opinion. Using your words, Carolina had played over 3 quarters of football and had gotten into FG on only one drive, and somehow you think it's more likely for them to do it twice more?

 

[Anonymous]

At the time the decision was made, my football scoring mind agreed with it. I knew why he was doing it, and I thought the ballsiness of the call sent a message from Pete to whomever was listening in the right way.

The standard, cookie-cutter Seahawks of the past would have kicked the point and went on. That is the way it's been. It is a point that is a gimme and you take the low-hanging fruit when you can. It makes sense from a statistical point of view given all of the immediate situational aspects.

However, by Pete taking the 2-point attempt, it does a few things; it makes our guys feel like they are being trusted, it lets the opponent know we are willing to take at least some gambles, and it means we are being creative (to a degree) which adjusts thought in opposing coaches minds. We can argue whether it was done for any ulterior motives brewing in Pete's mind, or we can just keep it simple and say it was to protect against two field goals. I'd like to think the former, and am going to say that by making that call at the moment, Pete had a whole bunch of things running through his mind, and wanted to make a statement on a number of levels.

Personally, I like thoughtful football.