Going for 2 up 12-7

[chawx]

I have been completely wrong AND known for crazy logic before, but personally, I thought it was the wrong call at the time due to the circumstances of the scenario: Game clock at 10 minutes, the 35-40% probability of success on two-point conversions, the relatively low value of possible gain(a 14-7 simplified score), and the fact we were on the road.

IMO If we had gone for 2 and made it, they would not only tied on the ensuing drive, but would have likely gone for 2 to win late at home 15-14 in ultra-dramatic ESPN highlight reel fashion. And we would all be crying the blues like last year in MIA, DET, STL, ARI.

As it was, the extra point kept us rolling with momentum (they were in shock after Kearse's high point TDcatch) and was an easy 13 for us. After that their psychology would have been easy to predict (and defend!!!) "score a TD to tie and kick an extra point to win 14-13". But there were lots of variables... for example:

If(A) if they were stopped on the first drive, an additional Seahawks field goal would then give us the 9point advantage (16-7) and would have salted the game away. =WIN.

If(B) they were stopped within field goal range, they might well have played it for the 2 field goals theory; 13-10--->13-13 tie on next drive and tried to go to overtime at home. So they would likely kickoff deep vs. onside attempt that would put us right back in field goal range and negate their gain. We would have attempted to run out the clock (as we did)... But any score by us between their drives =WIN.

If(C) they had scored a TD to either take the lead in any scenario 12-13, 12-14, or 12-15: OR 13-13, 13-14, or 13-15: an additional Seahawks 3 in the waning seconds =WIN 16-14, or =WIN 16-15... anyways that was what was running through my 'Beautiful Mind' at the time. :lol:

If y'a'll are just totally lost just read this last part...
an extra point and an additional 3 gives us 16 and they would be effectively checkmated, given the 10 minute timeclock... :th2thumbs:


PS Have you noticed, I hate that stupid chart that supposedly sez 'no matter what the circumstances' do this...?

PPSS I thought the 12-7 crazy numbers actually worked for us cuz they couldn't just "settle" for the 2 field goals scenario (and the easy win), but instead tried to pound it in vs. the Legion of Boom who layed down the lumber and the law.=WIN.

No points for you. :mrgreen:

Exactly

This was my point in my post above. By not getting the 6-point lead (13-7), Pete basically handed the Panthers the chance to get a 3-point lead on a TD and 2-point conversion of their own (12-7 could have turned into 15-12).

The reason this is bad is obvious. Had we gotten the ball back with a 3-point deficit chances are we play conservative enough to try and kick the game-tying FG and go into OT. In OT anything could happen.

Pete needed to go for 1 after the Wilson to Kearse TD to make it 13-7, effectively ending any chance of the game going into OT where Carolina could sneak out with an "undeserved" victory.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

I came back to people thinking Im angry? Sorry, I should have added a emoticon I guess.

I am making fun of the phrase "no-brainer" that everyone keeps saying. As if not needing your brain leads you to the right decision. The phrase is hilarious. Especially, since our conversation has clearly stated that it needed to be thought out.

Haha I pictured you pounding on your keyboard extra mad.

 

[HawkWow]

It was the right call in that situation, for sure. That late in the game, a 5 or 6 point lead meant the same thing (chance of losing if the panthers respond with a 7 point drive). Getting the 2 would have been some great insurance.

Great points. In the first qtr, you're kicking the extra point (more times than not). In the 4th, you go for 2.

 

[kigenzun]

Exactly

This was my point in my post above. By not getting the 6-point lead (13-7), Pete basically handed the Panthers the chance to get a 3-point lead on a TD and 2-point conversion of their own (12-7 could have turned into 15-12).

The reason this is bad is obvious. Had we gotten the ball back with a 3-point deficit chances are we play conservative enough to try and kick the game-tying FG and go into OT. In OT anything could happen.

Pete needed to go for 1 after the Wilson to Kearse TD to make it 13-7, effectively ending any chance of the game going into OT where Carolina could sneak out with an "undeserved" victory.

Exactly! Thanks chawx

 

[sutz]

One additional thought, since it was alluded to above.

Why in the hell didn't they call a timeout before the 2 pt attempt? I wasn't watching, heard it on the radio, but something like a 2 pt conversion attempt would seem to take some organization and what not. It sounded like there was some confusion and they barely got the play off or something.

Perhaps someone could address that aspect of it for me.

 

[kigenzun]

One additional thought, since it was alluded to above.

Why in the hell didn't they call a timeout before the 2 pt attempt? I wasn't watching, heard it on the radio, but something like a 2 pt conversion attempt would seem to take some organization and what not. It sounded like there was some confusion and they barely got the play off or something.

Perhaps someone could address that aspect of it for me.

This is an excellent excellent point, so I'll address it quicklike this morning, even tho the thread appears to be dead; and in retrospect its all moot 'cuz we won!

However, to me, it seemed like Pete was in one of those situations where he sometimes appears to get overwhelmed trying to do 3 things at once (Adult ADHD?) i.e. wanting to be having your cake, eating it too, AND saving it for later.

The scenario: We broke through! After an entire game of struggles and obstacles and all kinds of snafu, we got the touchdown from long distance... YAY! ...but the chart says (which is why I understand they have the chart, so you can make a quick call while under pressure) we go for two 'cuz now we're up five and... the playclock is running and...

If you were forced to choose between only two of these three things, which ones would you want? Thus Pete's dilemma.

(A) The touchdown?

(B) The extra point + the extra timeout late on the game on the road?

(C) The successful 2point conversion attempt... but with the loss of the late game timeout to get it organized right?

Obviously, we all want the touchdown. That's six points and puts us in the lead. But saving or using the timeout, IS the implied underlying issue here, because you can say they botched the attempt by not having the time to get it organized well enough to succeed.

Yes, the chart is a no-brainer, which is why I hate it, and appreciate cartire's thoughts at this being an absolutely critical time to being a "YES-brainer" for sure. In my mind, I want the touchdown, the extra point, and the timeout. Pete went for the touchdown, the 2, and the timeout...and we all saw how that worked out. There simply wasn't enough playclock time to choose, "Wow! I know this is an easy one... But, I would like to have all 3 things please!"

Thus my analogy, having your cake, eating it too, AND saving it for later.

By no means am I second guessing or criticizing Pete or his use of the chart. That's what coaches do in the heat of the moment. The reason why I added my thoughts to this thread is that this is an interesting opportunity to show where that chart simply doesn't consider 'the whole game' situation, and sometimes as a head coach, you simply have to choose between 3 good things.

 

[kearly]

From 2000-2009, the success rate was 47.9% (source: Advanced NFL Stats). Higher than I thought.

 

[NinerLifer]

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.

Ya, not sure what the big deal is here. Pretty standard across the league in that situation.

 

[DYLcurry59]

I've always hated the argument that the clock dictates that you go for two. It should be the current score. Because you don't know what is going to happen the rest of the game.

Today, late in the 3rd quarter, the Bills were down 14-6 and scored a TD to make it 14-12. The Bills went for two, made it, and tied the game. According to most NFL "experts", coaches, and fans it was way too early. Even the announcers were questioning the decision. So at the end of the game, after 3 Carolina FGs and 1 Buffalo FG, the Bills are down 6 instead of 7 and score a TD with 6 seconds left. So all they had to do was kick an extra point to win the game instead of tying it with an extra point and possibly losing in OT.