This 2 Point conversion thing could be big for the Eagles.

[deerpathdave]

- Extra points from the 15.
- 2 Point conversion from the 2
- Percentage of extra points should be about 95% (or .95 expected points on average )
- 2 point conversions ran about 48% last year (or .96 expected points on average)

Kelly is just the sort to really focus additional energy on short yardage, goal line scenarios. If he can get the success rate into the 60s or 70s, it will be a no brainer to go for it in most scenarios where 1 does not tie it or give you a 7 point lead, and force the opposing coaches to go for it, who may be less prepared for that scenario.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

imho this will cause no change whatsoever. Which is why it passed as it appeases those wanting the change and doesn't really do anything.

Like one coach said jokingly, why don't they just give 7pts for a TD (and get rid of the kicker).

IMHO, extra point should be kicked as a 40 yarder, with the option of a 2 pointer at 50 yards OR running from the 2.

Until the extra point is not automatic, coaches won't truly weigh other options. For all the 2 point conversions actually attempted, how many did so with a lead already???? Hmmmm.

 

[deerpathdave]

It will definitely impact games. On average, 4-5 games a week should have missed extra points. And what does a team do then? Try for two to make it up? It all depends on the score gap at that point. Lots more strategy going on, and many more opportunities to second guess coaches.

 

[deerpathdave]

Imagine if you will a goal line offense package that features Tim Tebow running the Read Option. The Eagles practice it all summer and get it to the point where they feel that at least against the weaker defenses, they can convert it 70% of the time.

Mathematically, at a 70% conversation rate, they should get two two point conversions in a row 49% of the time, 1/2 42%, and 0/2 9%. great strategy to employ, but only if you feel your goal line offense is that dominant.

They then go out there in those games and do not attempt a single extra point. They score two TDs early, lead 16-0 and then the opposing team figures they need to try for two just to keep up. Next thing you know, they are up 16-6, where if they had tried for 1, it would be 14-7. So converting a couple two points can easily turn into a full field goal advantage. Even if they only convert 1-2, they are probably looking at a 14-7 score in that scenario. Worst case, its 12-7, but that should really only happen 9% of the time.

Of course, they didn't need the rule change to employ that strategy, but strategically, when the EP is no longer a gimmee, but rather a 95% success rate, it can tip the scales to go that way.

In either case, you should be prepared to go for two at a much greater clip as there is going to be many more situations where you are down by 8. I would expect the number of attempted two pointers to be at least twice what it was in the past, and maybe 3-4 times as many.

One additional scenario that could come up, is the placekickers are going to spend a large amount of time practicing 32 yard field goals. Its all together possible that most of the kickers will still convert 99% of those at that distance. After all, practice makes perfect. Strangely, we may see that these same kickers may struggle a little with shorter field goals then. Can you imagine a kicker asking the coach to take a delay penalty from the 10 yard line, because the kicker is that much more comfortable from the 15 yard line?

 

[Deano]

It will definitely impact games. On average, 4-5 games a week should have missed extra points. And what does a team do then? Try for two to make it up? It all depends on the score gap at that point. Lots more strategy going on, and many more opportunities to second guess coaches.

Please share your math. Moving it back changed the success percentage from 99% to 90%.

If a team averages 2-3 XPs a game, that's 2-3 points. if that 9% comes into play one of them, that's one point maybe every 3-4 games. How many games are that close ? Few. This will be nothing.

Moving the XP attempt to the 1 would have potentially made a difference, if only for strategy in a close game.

 

[deerpathdave]

Please share your math. Moving it back changed the success percentage from 99% to 90%.

If a team averages 2-3 XPs a game, that's 2-3 points. if that 9% comes into play one of them, that's one point maybe every 3-4 games. How many games are that close ? Few. This will be nothing.

Moving the XP attempt to the 1 would have potentially made a difference, if only for strategy in a close game.

From 30-35 yards, NFL kickers have converted approximately 95% of their kicks.

If there are 5 TDs scored total in any one game, and 16 games a weekend, that is about 80 TDs a weekend. 5% of 80 is 4 or about one miss every 4 games. In those games, that will often leave a team 1 or 8 points short of their opponent, making it much more likely they will try for two on their next TD.

The NFL average is around 47-48% on two pointers, but you need to recognized that many of these were desperation attempts by teams in desperate situations with poor offenses. Several teams were perfect on 2 point attempts, and I can see a temptation from those teams to put the pressure on their opponents by going for two.

 

[deerpathdave]

If teams were to start routinely going for two and having success with it, it could dramatically change the game. Right now, the prevailing thought is to go for one, and a coach that doesn't would be generally criticized in the media and his job would be in jeopardy. But if a team or two were to start doing it and being successful with it 60+% of the time, it would create the opposite dynamic where the teams that did not would be criticized for NOT going for it. Eventually, it would become the norm and teams would only go for one late in the game when the numbers favor it (i.e. when it would put them up by 9.).

Execution is huge with this, and I think teams would end up spending an incredible amount of time on plays that can successfully get you two yards a high percentage of the time.

Chip Kelly is just the sort of guy to start that kind of trend.

 

[Deano]

I just hope we don't overthink it like Reid used to do. Hand it off to your best RB and run it behind your best lineman.

Teams that try to get fancy will (IMO) be less successful. To me, an example is Dallas who would try to loft it up for Dez in the end zone. Remember, turnovers can be returned now.

Question: on an XP attempt for two, a pass is intercepted and in trying to return the INT, the former defensive player is tackled in the end zone. The player didn't down the ball. Any points awarded?

 

[deerpathdave]

I just hope we don't overthink it like Reid used to do. Hand it off to your best RB and run it behind your best lineman.

Teams that try to get fancy will (IMO) be less successful. To me, an example is Dallas who would try to loft it up for Dez in the end zone. Remember, turnovers can be returned now.

Question: on an XP attempt for two, a pass is intercepted and in trying to return the INT, the former defensive player is tackled in the end zone. The player didn't down the ball. Any points awarded?

I think the answer to the question is no. It would be the same situation if it was intercepted and tackled in the end zone on a regular play. In normal play the ball would be put at the 20. In this case its just downed.

I think that all teams with good short yardage offenses (which is not all teams), should be able to convert 2 yards more than 50 percent of the time. Several teams had perfect records on two point conversions last year.

Here is a related article.

Goal-to-Go: Should NFL teams pass or run inside the 10-yard line? | The MMQB with Peter King

It seems the league average on goal to go from the 2 is about a 43% success rate. Which suggests on average, its a poor decision to go for 2, except that no team is average. There are probably half a dozen teams or so (and I would like to think the Eagles would be one of them) that can expect a much higher success rate against all but the very best of defenses.

The new rule though doesn't really change the base equation much. Now on a 1 point conversion, teams can expect .95 points, where before they expect 1. That .05 differential is not likely to change the base decision. For all but the best offenses, its probably still not going to be the default decision to go for 2, but more something that comes up when they are up by 1 or down by 8.