2 Point Try

[Boycie]

I liked this play call. Worst case scenario was NE comes downfield and ties it up, and we go to OT. Best case scenario is a 2 possession game with not a lot of time left.

I think if you asked all of us before the game started that if we had the chance to have this game go to OT then we all would have jumped all over that. At least I would have because I thought that this game wasn't going to be one we could win because of the short week, and travel.

 

[Hawknballs]

I liked it.

There was an article I read not long ago that talked about this exact thing - about how many coaches make so many decisions trying to not lose the game rather than trying to actively win it.

I'm not a fan of going for 2 every time like the steelers, but you're on the road and have the top team in the league on the ropes and a chance to put them away. One play to essentially end the game.

Loved it times 1000.

Worse case scenario you give up a TD to NE to tie it and go to overtime, where your chances are what compared to that 2 point play?

It was not the best play call. But I liked the decision to go for 2.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

When you have an opportunity to put your opponent away.....you take it.

That's what great teams do. I liked the call to go for it....I didn't like the play called.

It was good playcall, Russell missed it.

Hell of a lot better than another stupid fade.

 

[nash72]

There's a lot of homerism going on here. It was a bad call. Yes, it was dumb. I like Pete but he has a history of doing dumb things and that was one of them. Got lucky they didnt tie it up. Extra points have a way higher percentage than 2 point plays.

 

[Hawknballs]

semi related interesting article on the subject from a few weeks back

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... -was-right

I still like the decision to actively win the game. Especially in a day and age where everything favors offense, including penalties.

 

[Mindsink]

Mathematically, it's about the same probability either way.

Here's the explanation:

Given #1: Patriots score on subsequent drive.
Given #2: Seahawks going up by 9 effectively puts the game out of reach.
Given #3: Going for 2 is a 50/50 try.

After the Seahawks' TD, going for two = 50% of winning, 50% of tie (and send to OT).

Kicking the PAT = 50% chance of tie (Pats make 2-pt attempt and send to OT), and 50% of win (Pats fail 2-pt attempt).

If the game goes to OT, then 50% chance of winning, 50% chance of losing.

Therefore in both scenarios, you have a 50% chance of winning, and a 50% chance of having another 50% of winning (in OT). The only difference is where that initial 50/50 chance of win is determined -- in the hands of your offense, or in the hands of your defense (if the Pats score a TD).

* If given #1 = false, then this debate is moot. Obviously, in the real world, it wouldn't be a given (and it wasn't).

* Given #2 is assumed because the odds of winning in that situation is about the same as the odds of making a PAT.

* Obviously, those odds I listed are not exact, but good enough for the purposes of this explanation.

 

[Boycie]

There's a lot of homerism going on here. It was a bad call. Yes, it was dumb. I like Pete but he has a history of doing dumb things and that was one of them. Got lucky they didnt tie it up. Extra points have a way higher percentage than 2 point plays.

no risk it, no biscuit ukeface: :stirthepot: :sarcasm_on:

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Call was risky, but I understand it and it complete hindsight I actually loved it.

1. Obvious reason being you score those 2 points, game is pretty much over. If anything you also give your offense the opportunity to take a kill shot in a big moment. An experience and mentality that has been lacking this year. If you make it thats a big rallying effort in terms of confidence and morale. If you miss it, no big deal, imo.. the team is still up a TD.

2. Hindsight being what it is, I wonder if the Pats being down 8 points compared to 7, if wouldn't have changed the process a little bit in their final sequence. Pata made some big plays to get into scoring position on that final drive. But they also made some questionable decisions and allowed the clock to run a bit at times.

Point one, spot on. Game's over if you make it; you're up by a touchdown if you miss.

Point two, moot. The Pats would have been playing for a touchdown no matter what; wouldn't have changed the process in which they tried to accomplish this. The only difference is that they would have known in the back of their minds that they were playing not only for a touchdown, but a two-point conversion as well. That's a big psychological thing for sure. But it's not as big as being down two scores, and very little different than knowing you have to get a touchdown to begin with anyway.

The Pats were focused on getting a touchdown before anything else. You focus on what you have to accomplish first; you can't allow yourself to dwell on the fact you'll have to kick an extra point to tie it or convert a two-point conversion to tie it. The touchdown is paramount. All the rest is afterthought.

And that's why, psychologically, it's great to have gone for two there, make it or not.

Well, obviously scoring a TD regardless is a priority.

But it's possible to say that...

#1 Pats were playing to tie not to win.

#2 Despite big plays, they did not want to give the ball back to Seattle with time.

Those two factors imo led to them being cute and weird calling plays on that Goal-Line stand.

All im pointing out is that had the Pats been down 8 or 9, they would have been much more aggressive with clock-management and perhaps more desperate in their play calling. They would have wanted to score quick and play for the onside kick if they were down 9 and had they missed the 2 pt conversion down 8.

I don't know how that game ends especially if the ball bounces the Pats way.

I do think down 7, they were playing for OT, and they did not seem as desperate as they could have been both in play-calling (despite some big plays) and clock management not wanting to give the Seahawks a chance at the end.

Again, I know how the game ended with the Pats down 7 but i could see how thing could have been different had the Pats been down 8 or 9. I don't know that outcome.

I know this outcome, and I'll take it ...failed 2pt conversion or not. Bad decision or not.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

There's a lot of homerism going on here. It was a bad call. Yes, it was dumb. I like Pete but he has a history of doing dumb things and that was one of them. Got lucky they didnt tie it up. Extra points have a way higher percentage than 2 point plays.

True, but even extra points this year are not a given anymore, as we found out earlier in the game.

I was fine with the call. On the road, 7 pt lead against the Pats? It's a gamble, and I won't defend it as the absolute RIGHT call. But I'm cool with Pete having the balls to go for it in that situation.

Didn't make it, but it sends a message to his players............and that message is "I trust you guys to deliver, we're not going to ever play scared."

 

[NJlargent]

It was a terrible call. If NE ties the game at the end and we lose in overtime, this thread would be a different tune and everyone would have hated the call. Thankfully we got lucky.

I did predict a NE blowout so my judgment is suspect however.

 

[CamanoIslandJQ]

I'm thinking the long snapper is more of a concern than the kicker or holder. The whole kicking game needs fixing IMO.

 

[potatohead]

There's a lot of homerism going on here. It was a bad call. Yes, it was dumb. I like Pete but he has a history of doing dumb things and that was one of them. Got lucky they didnt tie it up. Extra points have a way higher percentage than 2 point plays.

You don't say.

Extra points are about 95%, two-point conversions are about 48%. In essence, it's a wash.

 

[mikeak]

There's a lot of homerism going on here. It was a bad call. Yes, it was dumb. I like Pete but he has a history of doing dumb things and that was one of them. Got lucky they didnt tie it up. Extra points have a way higher percentage than 2 point plays.

You don't say.

Extra points are about 95%, two-point conversions are about 48%. In essence, it's a wash.

Correct over time if you play like Pittsburgh and go for two most of the time.

When you don't and you do one single play then you have a 48% chance of getting two points and 95% chance of getting one.

When you need one to force your opponent to first drive down the field and score then line up AGAIN and run another play from the 2 to tie / lose then you go with the 95% play over 48% to win outright

If you don't think you can stop then and go for two then you are saying that if they score their 7 then you will let a coin flip decide the game. You know that if they win the coin flip you already stated that you can't stop them......

 

[Hawknballs]

I still appreciate playing to win when you have the opportunity. Instead of playing not to lose.

 

[potatohead]

There's a lot of homerism going on here. It was a bad call. Yes, it was dumb. I like Pete but he has a history of doing dumb things and that was one of them. Got lucky they didnt tie it up. Extra points have a way higher percentage than 2 point plays.

You don't say.

Extra points are about 95%, two-point conversions are about 48%. In essence, it's a wash.

Correct over time if you play like Pittsburgh and go for two most of the time.

When you don't and you do one single play then you have a 48% chance of getting two points and 95% chance of getting one.

When you need one to force your opponent to first drive down the field and score then line up AGAIN and run another play from the 2 to tie / lose then you go with the 95% play over 48% to win outright

If you don't think you can stop then and go for two then you are saying that if they score their 7 then you will let a coin flip decide the game. You know that if they win the coin flip you already stated that you can't stop them......

I think every single post in this thread needs to start with "in my opinion" because people are stating their opinions as fact.

When you take into context the fact they were playing NE, in NE, against Brady who would be getting the ball back with about 4 minutes left, and the fact NE has already scored three TD's making another one not exactly impossible, and the fact they now have four downs to work with instead of three, I think (again, opinion) it was not a bad call to make.

Also if you are so confident in the defense then a coin flip should not concern you in the least.

 

[Zorn76]

It was a dumb call, lol.
It just was.
To be able to kick a PAT and give your self an 8 pt lead is a no-brainer everytime, Especially given the way our defense was playing overall. They showed up, as usual. Give them a chance to defend a td and 2ptr always.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Playing to win on the road.
Not NEARLY as dumb as the play calling by Bill at the end of the game. Blount has 3 TD's, and you give it to him ONCE. Hilarious