Thoughts on going for 2 late in a game up 7?

[bksballer89]

Seems like Prisco and SVP thinks Denver should have went for 2 after their td. The more i think about it the more i agree with it. Go for 2 and make it. Game is over. You don't even give them a chance to tie it on 2 assuming they score a td. There's very little risk and a big reward in the end.

Thoughts ?

 

[NWPATSFAN]

I don't like it. Take your point, granted PATs are no longer gimme's but still a very high %. Then have faith your D will either stop them from scoring a TD or the opponents 2 point conversion.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I think the XP is fine. The mistake was prevent defense against a QB who is excellent when you give him a defined easy to read look. That's just dumb film prep and playing to lose.

 

[bksballer89]

I don't like it. Take your point, granted PATs are no longer gimme's but still a very high %. Then have faith your D will either stop them from scoring a TD or the opponents 2 point conversion.

I like the risk though. Not too big of a risk because you really can't lose if you miss it. Make it and you're up 9 and game is over

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I like the risk though. Not too big of a risk because you really can't lose if you miss it. Make it and you're up 9 and game is over

FWIW, KC scored a TD in Denver and went for two to try to win the game in 2014, but failed. I am 99% sure Kubes was aware that Reid was willing to do that given how both games the offense struggled. He was just playing it safe with the XP. That part makes

 

[NWPATSFAN]

I like the risk though. Not too big of a risk because you really can't lose if you miss it. Make it and you're up 9 and game is over

I guess it depends on how risky you are? Also the importance of the game. As we get later in the year and teams that are eliminated say what the heck. In you sceanrio assuming your team doesn't get it. They're up 7. Team on the verge of elimation scores a TD and says the heck with it and goes for two. Could be the difference in a home PO game.
FWIW for me regadless 90 + % of the time I'm taking the PAT

 

[RobToxin]

I like the risk-reward of going for 2 up 7.

You make it, it's a two score game.

You don't?

You are still up 7.

The difference between being up 7 and being up 8 is a two-point conversion.

The difference between being up 7 and up 9 is two possessions.

I'd side on the argument in that situation to go for 2.

 

[bksballer89]

I guess it depends on how risky you are? Also the importance of the game. As we get later in the year and teams that are eliminated say what the heck. In you sceanrio assuming your team doesn't get it. They're up 7. Team on the verge of elimation scores a TD and says the heck with it and goes for two. Could be the difference in a home PO game.
FWIW for me regadless 90 + % of the time I'm taking the PAT

The more i think about it, I would be very willing to do this if I'm a team like the Saints where you almost expects the team to go down field and score a td. But with a good defensive team like Denver, i understand why you would opt against it because of the confidence you have in your defense

 

[NWPATSFAN]

The more i think about it, I would be very willing to do this if I'm a team like the Saints where you almost expects the team to go down field and score a td. But with a good defensive team like Denver, i understand why you would opt against it because of the confidence you have in your defense

Lots of variables like that to consider. Take NE as an example. You feel pretty good NE could go back down and score again. However, their D is middle of the pack. Granted they somehow stop teams from scoring compared to the yards passing and receiving they give up. Witn a team like that I take the one and

 

[rmilia1]

Well mathematically it's a good idea. Of course the first time a guy goes for 2 and misses it only to see the other team go down the field and score to tie it you'd see hundreds of questions. If a coach were going to start doing that I think it'd have to be a guy with some serious equity.

 

[knowyourenemy]

I like the risk-reward of going for 2 up 7.

You make it, it's a two score game.

You don't?

You are still up 7.

The difference between being up 7 and being up 8 is a two-point conversion.

The difference between being up 7 and up 9 is two possessions.

I'd side on the argument in that situation to go for 2.

Agreed 100%.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Well mathematically it's a good idea. Of course the first time a guy goes for 2 and misses it only to see the other team go down the field and score to tie it you'd see hundreds of questions. If a coach were going to start doing that I think it'd have to be a guy with some serious equity.

If the other team scores and ties it -- there's no way of knowing that they wouldn't have converted a two-point attempt if down 8 instead of 7. I don't see that coach having to answer 100 questions. It's a good decision. Good decisions are easy to defend.

 

[flyerhawk]

Every situation needs to be evaluated on its own. But I generally agree with going for it.

50% chance of effectively ending the game compared to a 10% chance of missing the field goal.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

FWIW, KC scored a TD in Denver and went for two to try to win the game in 2014, but failed. I am 99% sure Kubes was aware that Reid was willing to do that given how both games the offense struggled. He was just playing it safe with the XP. That part makes

Nope, thinking of a different game maybe. Nevermind

 

[jarntt]

Seems like Prisco and SVP thinks Denver should have went for 2 after their td. The more i think about it the more i agree with it. Go for 2 and make it. Game is over. You don't even give them a chance to tie it on 2 assuming they score a td. There's very little risk and a big reward in the end.

Thoughts ?

No way. Someone did this two weeks ago also. get your TD and kick the XP and make them have to score and also get 2. Kind of makes them have to succeed twice. Worst case scenario you still have OT...so still 3 shots at winning. Not worth the risk IMO...