This honestly makes me question Hue's judgement. Idiotic move at an inopportune time. Made no sense at the time nor in hindsight.
Dumb.
Glad we lost. Still hoping for 0-16, #1 pick. No sense in winning meaningless games.
Still dumb if you're trying to win games.
why play at all if you're not playing to win?
I'd much rather we tank than win two meaningless games and get the 5th overall pick.
AKA the PAST 15 SEASONS.
I think it a error, but am not going to get all bent out of shape over it.
what's the difference if they go for two first or second? they needed a fg and they needed a 2 pt conversion.
what's the difference if they go for two first or second? they needed a fg and they needed a 2 pt conversion.
yeah this.
I was very surprised we went for 2. The general thought is to prolong any hope as long as possible ... the chances of getting two onside kicks is very low.
Get 1 point, make it an 8 point game, and we just need 1 onside
what's the difference if they go for two first or second? they needed a fg and they needed a 2 pt conversion.
yeah this.
doesn't matter...kick a PAT and miss the 2 pt con...an still lose by one instead of two...I would have kicked it, but I see why he did it. Hue is playing to win not go to OT.
This honestly makes me question Hue's judgement. Idiotic move at an inopportune time. Made no sense at the time nor in hindsight.
Dumb.
Glad we lost. Still hoping for 0-16, #1 pick. No sense in winning meaningless games.
Still dumb if you're trying to win games.
I would have gone for 2 on that drive also. You need 15 pts and you either get 2 tds and an extra pt or you get 2 tds and a field goal.
Feels like you guys are arguing about whether you should take your right shoe off first or left shoe off when getting undressed. Doesnt matter both shoes gotta come off lol.
I AGREE WITH HUE AND WOULD HAVE TRIED FOR 2. Again it just doesnt matter.
You kill all momentum by whiffing on two. Period.
It is beyond stupid to go down two scores when you can be within one before you need to.
Making excuses for it is just stupid.
yep they certainly were deflated when they drove down and scored the touchdown.
yep they certainly were deflated when they drove down and scored the touchdown.
and had zero chance to win when they could have went for two and tied it up.......such a good decision.
u srs bro?
You kill all momentum by whiffing on two. Period.
It is beyond stupid to go down two scores when you can be within one before you need to.
Making excuses for it is just stupid.
Killed momentum?
We scored another TD after that. Either way we needed two point conversion. Cody, if you watch the two point attempt, had an open WR but was off, like he was at different points of the game.
There's no telling if he would've converted the two pointer at the end of the game, as Cody, as good of a game he played, was off target on quite a few throws.
Not a fan of the decision .. Would rather he didn't but I understand the logic behind it ... At least I understand this move .. To me .. This one isn't TOP 5 in his STUPIDEST DECISIONS SO FAR THIS YEAR ...
1. Kneeling with a time out left .. O need to run it down .. We all know what happend ..
2. Running the QB option with Josh with a shoulder injury that has sidelined him now for 4 weeks .. BEYOND MORONIC ... Running a PURE OLD FASHIONED QB option with Josh is DUMB AS HELL ... Doing it with him hurt takes it well beyond STUPID!!!
3. The fake punt against Phili ...
There's more .. I need some help remembering them .. *L* ..
Overall I'm neutral on him .. He's dome some good things and some bad ... Lets hope it's fun watching this play out ..
Scoring a TD when you need two scores to win = the same as scoring a TD when you need one to tie....
You people have clearly never played football.
Absolutely ridiculous.
If we made the 2 everyone would be saying what a great decision it was. Damned if you do or don't.
If we made the 2 everyone would be saying what a great decision it was. Damned if you do or don't.
Not me ... I still would think it was a bad move ... But that's just PERSONAL PREFERENCE ..
This one I'm about 60/40 it's a bad move .. But I can clearly understand it ...
I don't think it's stupid at all .. I just don't agree with it ..
The other 3 and at least 2 or 3 others ... Those were STUPID ...
You kill all momentum by whiffing on two. Period.
We lost so much momentum that we then recovered the onside kick and then scored another TD.
If we made the 2 everyone would be saying what a great decision it was. Damned if you do or don't.
It would have been a good decision because we would have been tied and going into OT.
As it was, they knew we needed two scores.
You kill all momentum by whiffing on two. Period.
We lost so much momentum that we then recovered the onside kick and then scored another TD.
you mean the TD that meant nothing? That one? Got it.
Let’s start with the obvious: your odds of winning when trailing by 15 in the 4th quarter are really, really low. From 1994, the first season the two-point attempt was introduced to the NFL, to 2011, 68 teams have entered the 4th quarter trailing by exactly 15 points. Only one of those teams won.
Over that same period, there have been 81 times when a team scored a 4th-quarter touchdown when trailing by 15 points, cutting the lead to 9 (pending the extra point or two-point conversion). Only 5 of those teams went on to win the game, with the most recent occurrence happening last year when the Dolphins were Tebowed.
So when trailing by 15 in the 4th quarter, even after scoring a touchdown, your odds of winning aren’t very good. But of those 81 teams that scored a fourth-quarter touchdown to cut the lead to 9, only nine of them went for two after the touchdown. While the time remaining could play a part in the decision, the fact is most of the other 72 teams made a strategic error in kicking the extra point when trailing by 9 points.
The last1 coach to recognize that going for two is the correct call? College football’s renegade, Steve Spurrier. In college football, the two-point conversion has been around since 1958, and in general, college football coaches are much more comfortable ‘going for 2’ than their NFL counterparts.2
The Ol' Ball Coach momentary forgets to go for two.
Against the 49ers on Sunday, with 6 minutes left in the final frame, Aaron Rodgers connected with James Jones to cut the lead to 30-21. At that point, attempting a two-point conversion is the obviously correct call, in an attempt to cut the lead to 7. I was disappointed but not surprised that Mike McCarthy decided to go for 1. But what did surprise me was seeing a number of smart people on twitter disagree with me that going for 2 is the right call. So I figured I’d devote a post to explaining why in this situation, it’s a no-brainer to go for two.
The counterargument goes something along the lines of “just take the points, that way it is a one-score game.” Essentially, people are afraid of missing the two-point attempt and trailing by 9 points. But it’s not a one-score game. Trailing by 8 isn’t a one-score game if you are going to fail on your two-point try. And there’s no reason to think your odds of converting a 2-point attempt are higher when trailing by 2 than by 9. Trailing by 8 is a 1.5-possiession game; half the time it is a 1-possession game, and half the time it is a 2-possesion game. To simply put your head in the sand and say “I don’t wanna know!!” may keep hope alive longer but it lowers your odds of winning.
There are many hypothetical scenarios where it would really matter to know whether you are going to be successful on your two-point conversion. Say you’re down 15 with 7 minutes to go and score a touchdown. You stop the other team, get the ball back, and drive to their 25. You’re out of timeouts and there are 3 minutes to go. It’s 4th and 10. At that point, wouldn’t your decision to go for it change if you were down by 9 instead of 8? Down 8, teams go for it because they consider it a one-score game. But if you’re going to miss the 2-point conversion, now you’d want to kick the field goal.
Knowledge is power. You need to get a two-point conversion at some point, and knowing whether you’re going to convert is important information. There is no reasonable reason not to go for 2 after your first touchdown. Yes, missing out on the two-point conversion earlier could be demoralizing. But what would you call missing out on a two-point conversion with 5 seconds left when trailing by 2?
There is a reason why coaches fail to go for 2 in this situation, and why smart fans also think it’s correct to take the safe points. It’s because they’re focused on keeping their hope alive as long as possible. As my friend Brian Burke once wrote, “coaches do not coach to maximize their team’s chances of winning. My theory is coaches are delaying elimination until the latest point in the game—that is, trying to “stay in the game” for as long as possible.”
By kicking the extra point, you (falsely) believe you’re staying in the game for longer. A missed two point conversion attempt with 8 seconds left means you had hope for 59 minutes and 52 seconds. Missing the two-point conversion earlier kills your hope, knowing that it’s now a two-score game. But the goal of a coach should be to maximize his team’s odds of winning, not to make his team’s players and fans feel warm and fuzzy. Missing the 2-point attempt at any point is going to drastically lower your team’s odds of winning. It’s true that if you score a touchdown to cut the lead to 9, and then miss the 2-point attempt, your odds of winning have decreased significantly. But it’s not the going for 2 early and failing that lowers your odds of winning, it’s simply missing the 2 point conversion that lowers your odds.
If you are going to convert the 2-point attempt, it doesn’t matter all that much whether you go for it early or late. If you’re going to miss it, going for it earlier significantly improves your odds of pulling off a miraculous comeback, precisely because you’re got almost no chance if you miss it late. If you are going to miss your two-point attempt, you’re in much worse shape finding that out with 1 minute left than with 7 minutes left. Knowledge is power, and coaches that pull a McCarthy are playing with a weaker hand. To state that you don’t want to go for 2 down by 9 because if you miss it is no longer a two-score game makes no sense, because if you are going to miss the 2-point conversion an 8-point lead is already a two-score game.
Note that how the Packers game unfolded presents a good example of why you want to go for two early. Green Bay kicked off to San Francisco, and eventually stopped the 49ers with just under 4 minutes to go. At that point, the Packers took their time driving down the field, reaching only the 49ers’ 45-yard line with 45 seconds to go. From there, Green Bay’s 4th down play was unsuccessful, but had the drive resulted in a score, there would have likely been only a few seconds remaining in the game. At that point, a missed two point conversion ends the game. Had the Packers gone for two and missed earlier, they would have played with more urgency on their final drive, and at least would have a chance for an onside kick and time to drive into field goal range for the win.
In college football, in overtime, each team gets one possession at the opponent’s 25-yard line. It is obvious that playing defense first is advantageous, and every college team elects to play defense first if they win the overtime coin toss. Knowing whether you need 3 or 7 points to win (or tie) is valuable information. We have exactly the same situation going on here, but the desire to keep hope alive prevents coaches from acting rationally.
I think on reflection as we recovered the onside it is easy to question the decision at the time rather than just go for 1. But, we could have kicked the PAT and still not recovered the onside and it still would have been over. It's a gamble either way. It didn't work. That isn't why we lost.
The penalties and the 3rd qtr was atrocious and TN had a long drive that ate up a lot of clock in the 4th. That is where the game was really lost.
It was a good decision. It didn't work out. It happens.
You can break it down in a variety of ways but the most intuitive way to explain it is that you have to get the two point conversion at least once. It's better to know if you 'get it' ahead of time so you can plan your strategy accordingly.
The biggest counterpoint isn't about "keeping the game alive as long as possible" (that's a consideration for the networks, not so much for game theory/probability to win), it's that the defense is likely to be more fatigued after the second touchdown thereby increasing the chances of a successful conversion. I don't think that's enough to offset the advantage of having the extra information.
I think on reflection as we recovered the onside it is easy to question the decision at the time rather than just go for 1. But, we could have kicked the PAT and still not recovered the onside and it still would have been over. It's a gamble either way. It didn't work. That isn't why we lost.
The penalties and the 3rd qtr was atrocious and TN had a long drive that ate up a lot of clock in the 4th. That is where the game was really lost.
I don't want us to win ANY games. The decision to go for it makes no sense. My point is the defense changes when they know you need two scores so our TD was MEANINGLESS.
Overall I'm neutral on him .. He's dome some good things and some bad ... Lets hope it's fun watching this play out ..
I really like Hue and it is obvious that the players do too. Early days, I know but, I also think he is the best coach we have hired since our return. I really feel for him watching today's post-game presser.
But, I do think he sometimes tries to be too clever and out thinks himself. I think they are part of the growing pains with this "reboot" and the battered, injured and inexperienced youthful 53 man roster he now has to work with as well as being relatively inexperienced as a HC himself. Perhaps next year he allows Pep to call the plays?
It matters that you convert the 2pt when you attempt it down by 15, not when you attempt it. I don't get the 2nd guessing here. Heck, someone suggested he should be fired over this. So dumb.
I think on reflection as we recovered the onside it is easy to question the decision at the time rather than just go for 1. But, we could have kicked the PAT and still not recovered the onside and it still would have been over. It's a gamble either way. It didn't work. That isn't why we lost.
The penalties and the 3rd qtr was atrocious and TN had a long drive that ate up a lot of clock in the 4th. That is where the game was really lost.
I don't want us to win ANY games. The decision to go for it makes no sense. My point is the defense changes when they know you need two scores so our TD was MEANINGLESS.
I'm making an assumption that we're trying to win these games. In that case (down 15 late in the game), it's a little better to attempt the two point conversion after the first of two potential touchdowns.
Whether or not to tank or whatever is another topic.
It matters that you convert the 2pt when you attempt it down by 15, not when you attempt it. I don't get the 2nd guessing here. Heck, someone suggested he should be fired over this. So dumb.
We lost and the coaching decision is an easy target. It was the right move for a variety of reasons. The article I posted above explains it pretty clearly.
It matters that you convert the 2pt when you attempt it down by 15, not when you attempt it. I don't get the 2nd guessing here. Heck, someone suggested he should be fired over this. So dumb.
This.
It matters that you convert the 2pt when you attempt it down by 15, not when you attempt it. I don't get the 2nd guessing here. Heck, someone suggested he should be fired over this. So dumb.
We lost and the coaching decision is an easy target. It was the right move for a variety of reasons. The article I posted above explains it pretty clearly.
Actually, your post makes better sense than my quick statement. Going for two earlier is more advantageous. Ultimately, it still comes down to converting it whenever you do it.
1) Going for 2 there was a fine decision. You need the points, you get the points where you can. That decision was not why we lost.
2) Talk of losing all the games just for a draft pick is ridiculous. You don't teach young players how to win by always losing. This team will need a win, or two, to be ready to compete next season.
1) Going for 2 there was a fine decision. You need the points, you get the points where you can. That decision was not why we lost.
2) Talk of losing all the games just for a draft pick is ridiculous. You don't teach young players how to win by always losing. This team will need a win, or two, to be ready to compete next season.
i still dont think well win many next year
It matters that you convert the 2pt when you attempt it down by 15, not when you attempt it. I don't get the 2nd guessing here. Heck, someone suggested he should be fired over this. So dumb.
We lost and the coaching decision is an easy target. It was the right move for a variety of reasons. The article I posted above explains it pretty clearly.
You believe way too much of what you read (and cite).
i still dont think well win many next year
A good draft and some shrewd FA pickups and they might show a good step forward. But I still don't think you teach winning by losing, especially tanking.
It matters that you convert the 2pt when you attempt it down by 15, not when you attempt it. I don't get the 2nd guessing here. Heck, someone suggested he should be fired over this. So dumb.
We lost and the coaching decision is an easy target. It was the right move for a variety of reasons. The article I posted above explains it pretty clearly.
You believe way too much of what you read (and cite).
This is not true.
I post what I believe. I read a lot more.
2) Talk of losing all the games just for a draft pick is ridiculous. You don't teach young players how to win by always losing. This team will need a win, or two, to be ready to compete next season.
Agreed 100%.
Everything we have seen so far from Hue and Terrelle will be a waste. You can see it in Hue's post game presser....he is exausted and wants desperately to get that win to show the young players it is worth all the hard work. Terrelle is working his tail off and totally invested. To tank now would be the worst possible thing and disrespect those who are doing everything they can to develop this young team.
But, given the amount of money they are all paid...it would also be incredibly unprofessional and, imo, totally unfair to the fans who pay hard earned money to watch them. I would much rather watch them compete, scrap and play hard and still lose than tank for a potential #1 draft pick that we all know could end up proving to be a franchise player or a bust.
2) Talk of losing all the games just for a draft pick is ridiculous. You don't teach young players how to win by always losing. This team will need a win, or two, to be ready to compete next season.
Agreed 100%.
Everything we have seen so far from Hue and Terrelle will be a waste. You can see it in Hue's post game presser....he is exausted and wants desperately to get that win to show the young players it is worth all the hard work. Terrelle is working his tail off and totally invested. To tank now would be the worst possible thing and disrespect those who are doing everything they can to develop this young team.
But, given the amount of money they are all paid...it would also be incredibly unprofessional and, imo, totally unfair to the fans who pay hard earned money to watch them. I would much rather watch them compete, scrap and play hard and still lose than tank for a potential #1 draft pick that we all know could end up proving to be a franchise player or a bust.
We're having a suck for Luck (Indy) type of season with no Luck in the draft. I don't blame Hue and company for the mess they inherited, the rookie mistakes we are making, or lack of wins when I see how hard they are after it. I'd rather watch them lose like this than like they don't care and have quit on the coach.
1) Going for 2 there was a fine decision. You need the points, you get the points where you can. That decision was not why we lost.
2) Talk of losing all the games just for a draft pick is ridiculous. You don't teach young players how to win by always losing. This team will need a win, or two, to be ready to compete next season.
Homers gonna homer.
The FO has been in on the tank since day one. We are the 76ers of the NFL.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
1) Going for 2 there was a fine decision. You need the points, you get the points where you can. That decision was not why we lost.
2) Talk of losing all the games just for a draft pick is ridiculous. You don't teach young players how to win by always losing. This team will need a win, or two, to be ready to compete next season.
Homers gonna homer.
The FO has been in on the tank since day one. We are the 76ers of the NFL.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
haters gonna hate...how is the FO been in the tank since day one?
1) Going for 2 there was a fine decision. You need the points, you get the points where you can. That decision was not why we lost.
2) Talk of losing all the games just for a draft pick is ridiculous. You don't teach young players how to win by always losing. This team will need a win, or two, to be ready to compete next season.
Homers gonna homer.
The FO has been in on the tank since day one. We are the 76ers of the NFL.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
The front office gutted the team. One of the reasons they did that is because one of the easiest ways to build a team is to have the best draft picks.
The players are not in on losing.
1) Going for 2 there was a fine decision. You need the points, you get the points where you can. That decision was not why we lost.
2) Talk of losing all the games just for a draft pick is ridiculous. You don't teach young players how to win by always losing. This team will need a win, or two, to be ready to compete next season.
Homers gonna homer.
The FO has been in on the tank since day one. We are the 76ers of the NFL.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
The front office gutted the team. One of the reasons they did that is because one of the easiest ways to build a team is to have the best draft picks.
The players are not in on losing.
Reading comprehension. FO.
1) Going for 2 there was a fine decision. You need the points, you get the points where you can. That decision was not why we lost.
2) Talk of losing all the games just for a draft pick is ridiculous. You don't teach young players how to win by always losing. This team will need a win, or two, to be ready to compete next season.
Homers gonna homer.
The FO has been in on the tank since day one. We are the 76ers of the NFL.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
The front office gutted the team. One of the reasons they did that is because one of the easiest ways to build a team is to have the best draft picks.
The players are not in on losing.
Reading comprehension. FO.
I understood. Others might not. Thanks for the insult though!
what's the difference if they go for two first or second? they needed a fg and they needed a 2 pt conversion.
Agreed. Nothing else to say, really.
If you kick the XP the first time, your entire mindset after that is different.
You don't have to rush as much, knowing you need ANOTHER SCORE.
what's the difference if they go for two first or second? they needed a fg and they needed a 2 pt conversion.
There really isn't. Kicking 1 would have given us hope a little longer.
Apparently, Hue has as much faith in our defense as I do. He was going to go for 2 twice and not risk overtime.
I dunno, it kind of fits his MO. He's aggressive. There is good and bad in it. I like the overall attitude it instills. It definitely beats playing passive all the time. I'd have liked it better if it had worked, but the team is basically duck taped together. There was no guarantee they would have made it into the end zone again, might as well get some 2-Pt conversion practice in.
I think Louis should have sat down in the hole in the zone instead of running into triple coverage. I didn't really notice it live, but that's the way it looked on the postgame shows. Pryor and Louis both ended up in the same spot on the scramble drill.
Louis needs to keep getting better. Hopefully Coleman will be back soon.
j/c:
I don't see what the big deal is. He needed to convert a 2 pt. conversion w/either the first or second score. Prolonging the wait of the eventual 2 pt. attempt would not change anything.
We still would have lost does not matter
Good article. Find out what is needed to keep playing vs. going for the win. Not good choices left when down to this point in a game. I am okay with an aggressive decision.
We did waste more time than I wanted to. We are not good enough for playing for it in the 4th quarter very often. Their intensity should have been there more in the first half.
Defense painted us into a corner. Wish I could make sense of some of this offensive play calling. Run disappears, force it to Pryor when doubled or tripled, just not smart ball IMO. Now if some of our receivers caught more balls, we might be doing better. But we still have to hand the game to this D.
????? It's how it's done. Go for the most points available. Their pros this is how it's done during a comeback. Take the most points available now. No big deal.
_________________________________
10-6
Assuming the odds of making the 2pc are the same whether you try it first or second then it really doesn't matter too much when you try it. Those saying that you should kick it first to keep it a one possession (8 point game) are forgetting the fact that 8 points is not a one possession game IF you miss the 2pc on the second try either.
You can't compare the odds of winning AFTER missing the 2pc on the first TD (which obviously go way down) to trying the 2pc later, as those are apple to oranges.
You have to compare the odds of both of these choices success BEFORE you know the outcome of the first TPC. As the odds of conversion of the 2pc are the same whether you try it earlier than later then it doesn't hurt you to try it earlier. 8 +7 is the same as 7 + 8. (so is 6 + 7 +3 and 7 + 6 +3)
Possible outcomes assuming onside kick recovery and 2pc at 45%
XP + 2pc fail = 55%
XP + 2pc = 45%
2pc + XP = 45%
2pc fail + xp =55%
The odds are the same either way.
You actually may be able to increase your odds of coming back from a missed 2pc by trying it early.
2pc fail + xp =55% (couple minutes or more left)
XP + 2pc fail = 55% (no time lest)
I would prefer the first choice here. As being down 9 with a few minutes is better than being down 2 with no time left. At least you have the info of already knowing you are going to miss the extra point and can plan your offense accordingly. That could show itself in the speed in which you play or also in your decision making (ex kicking the FG first on 4th down since you already know you need both)
Final reason to to try the 2pc first
Lastly I would argue that since you have to have a 2pc with one of the touchdowns, your odds of converting the 2pc in its entirety go up if you try it first. The reason being if you try it first and false start, hold, pass interference, etc you can now kick the xp first and go for the 2pc second. Where if you try the 2pc last and you get a penalty you now have to try a very long 2pc which would drastically lower your odds.
jc
Everybody assumes that the Browns only needed to convert a single two point conversion, but who is to say that if the Browns converted the first two point conversion, they wouldn't have gone for two on the second try as well? (Hue probably wouldn't have, but depending on the time remaining, I don't see why not.)
Let's throw a hypothetical out there that the Browns converted the initial two point conversion, got the ball back, and scored another touchdown with no time remaining. So down 1, pending a PAT or 2 pt try.
If you say that our kicker has a 95% chance to make the extra point and a winless team on the road might be 40% to win in overtime against an average team, that gives you a 38% chance to win. Two point conversions are successful more often than that. Why not go for it?
Time remaining obviously changes things as you have to account for the possibility of the other team scoring again.
Plus, if you miss the first 2ptr, you know you still need two scores. It affects the way you manage the clock on the next drive if you recover. If you take the 1 the first drive, you don't know how urgently you need to move the ball up the field, because you don't know if you need one (if the 2ptr is successful) or two (if it's not) drives. Do you need to hurry that second drive up or can you use all the time on that drive? If you get down there and score with 6 seconds left then fail the 2ptr how is that better than what happened in the game? I'd argue that's worse.
Going for two in that situation was absolutely the right thing to do from a strategic standpoint.
The third quarter ineptness lost this game.....period!
Going for two at that time really did not effect the outcome.
what's the difference if they go for two first or second? they needed a fg and they needed a 2 pt conversion.
The difference is, and this is why I would have gone for it.. you are down 15, you need 2 TDs, and 1 2-point conversion.. if you go for it on the first one and miss, with 2:00+ left, you still have time to play for the last FG possession... If you wait until after the second TD, odds are you have no time left.
Either way it's a long shot but at least if you know early, you can try to plan for it.
CFR - Your article can say whatever it wants ..
And let me clarify .. I would go for the 1 in that situation but i get going for two .. its a personal preference .. like i said earlier .. 60/40 ... and in no way, shape or form do I think HUE made some egregious error ...
But don't act like going for 1 is stupid ... this has VERY VALID ARGUMENTS for both sides ... HUE HAS MADE PLENTY OF MISTAKES and 4 or 5 MAJOR ONES .. this isn't one of them ..
Matter of fact .. I just watched the game and what bothered me ALOT MORE was the fact when we got to the 20 yard line with right around a minute left we didn't KICK THE FIELD GOAL .. the clock stopped cause or receiver got out of bounds .... KICK THE FG THEN .. u lose no time running them out there then ...
That bothered me WAY MORE than going for 2 ..
Bottom line on going for two ... if u go for 1 or 2 and make it ... its either 7 or 8 down witch makes it a ONE score game ... if u go for 2 and miss its a TWO score game ..
Thats HUGE as to how the D is going to play U .. HUGE ... so once u make that decision .. U can't compare what happend IF we would have made the other decision ..
Someone made the statement it didn't hurt them mentally cause they went right down and scored a TD ... MAYBE that was because the Titans could have CARED LESS if we scored as long as IT TOOK TIL THERE WAS WHAT ... 20 seconds left?? .. when did we score the last meaningless td ... now IF we made the two pointer there DEFENSE PLAYS ENTIELY DIFFERENT on that next series ...
Did u notice the HUGE CUSHIONS on that last drive .. I KNOW I DID .... bet they wouldn't have been there if it was a ONE SCORE GAME ...
SO DON'T ACT LIKE THIS IS A CLEAR CUT EASY DECISION .. thats crap ..
And onc e again .. i had NO PROBLEM with the decision .. just not my personal preference ..
Bottom line on going for two ... if u go for 1 or 2 and make it ... its either 7 or 8 down witch makes it a ONE score game ... if u go for 2 and miss its a TWO score game ..
Thats HUGE as to how the D is going to play U .. HUGE ... so once u make that decision .. U can't compare what happend IF we would have made the other decision ..
Someone made the statement it didn't hurt them mentally cause they went right down and scored a TD ... MAYBE that was because the Titans could have CARED LESS if we scored as long as IT TOOK TIL THERE WAS WHAT ... 20 seconds left?? .. when did we score the last meaningless td ... now IF we made the two pointer there DEFENSE PLAYS ENTIELY DIFFERENT on that next series ...
Did u notice the HUGE CUSHIONS on that last drive .. I KNOW I DID .... bet they wouldn't have been there if it was a ONE SCORE GAME ...
Amazing how it's this difficult for some to comprehend what you're saying.
When you're down two scores, I don't care if you score as long as you chew the clock. Calling a defense down 1 score is completely different then calling a defense down two scores.
Getting an onside kick has a 20% success rate. Recovering a second onside and then scoring 3 with no time left has to be a statistical impossibility. That first onside would have given us the chance to win (by evening score) where we had to get TWO onsides to even have a slight chance at winning the game.
Probability is essentially non existent.
You seem to be having a comprehension problem the other way ....
When your down 15 you either need to make a 2 pointer after ONE of your touchdowns to make it a two score game instead of a 3 score game ..
So if u go for 1 after the first TD to make it an 8 point game (one score) ... u still need the 2 pointer after the 2nd TD ....
Now if u miss that one ... guess what .. U NEED ANOTHER SCORE ...
So your end of game IMPOSSIBILITY is right there also ...
Key is .. WHENEVER u go for 2 u need to make it or your in DEEP POOP ...
Like i said .. i can see it either way ... my personal preference is to take the XP after the first one and then go for two after the 2nd one ... i'm 60/40 ...
My biggest problem with this one is NOT KICKING THE 37 yard FG (he went out of bounds at the 20) ... with the clock stopped anyhow ...
Now that was STUPID
Not really. If you're in the red zone, you try to get the quick TD and make it a two-point deficit, which means if you get the 2nd onside kick, you only need to get into field goal range instead of trying to drive for the TD.
I see that scenario both ways, I admit, but I'd still do what Hue did.
i think it was smart to go for the 2pts at first because most teams wouldn't expect it. It probably gave us a slight edge mentally.
. .... and in no way, shape or form do I think HUE made some egregious error ...
Just to be clear, you can spell egregious correctly (I admit I had to look it up cuz I wasn't sure lol), but you can't spell 'worst'??
. .... and in no way, shape or form do I think HUE made some egregious error ...
Just to be clear, you can spell egregious correctly (I admit I had to look it up cuz I wasn't sure lol), but you can't spell 'worst'??
Spell check baby .. *L* ...
Getting an onside kick has a 20% success rate. Recovering a second onside and then scoring 3 with no time left has to be a statistical impossibility. That first onside would have given us the chance to win (by evening score) where we had to get TWO onsides to even have a slight chance at winning the game.
Probability is essentially non existent.
All this talk about two onside kicks is meaningless. If you miss the 2PC on the 1st TD or the 2nd then you will need two onside kicks.
Once you miss the two point conversion your screwed either way. Whether you miss the two point conversion the first TD or the 2nd doesn't change your odds of winning. If you miss it the 2nd TD you really won't have much time to try to come back.
The point here is to win you need to CONVERT one of the 2PC. It doesn't matter if it is the 1st or 2nd as long as you convert one of them. Once you miss the 2PC no matter when you try it you are [censored].
You keep talking about kicking then getting to one score (8 points), but 8 points is only one score if you make the 2PC. If you make the 2PC on the first TD or the second TD you are giving yourself a shot.
If you miss the 2PC on the first or second TD you are in need for a second onside kick and in trouble.It isn't that the 2PC was attempted on the first TD that hurt them, it is that they MISSED the 2PC. If you miss the 2PC on the 1st TD or the 2nd TD then you will need two onside kicks.
Lastly I would suggest that going for the 2PC the first TD is better, as if you get a holding call, false start, hands to the face, etc penalty that moves you back you could now kick the extra point and save the 2PC attempt for the 2nd try. Where if you get a penalty on the 2nd TD you are facing a very long 2PC.
You seem to be having a comprehension problem the other way ....
When your down 15 you either need to make a 2 pointer after ONE of your touchdowns to make it a two score game instead of a 3 score game ..
So if u go for 1 after the first TD to make it an 8 point game (one score) ... u still need the 2 pointer after the 2nd TD ....
Now if u miss that one ... guess what .. U NEED ANOTHER SCORE ...
So your end of game IMPOSSIBILITY is right there also ...
Key is .. WHENEVER u go for 2 u need to make it or your in DEEP POOP ...
Like i said .. i can see it either way ... my personal preference is to take the XP after the first one and then go for two after the 2nd one ... i'm 60/40 ...
My biggest problem with this one is NOT KICKING THE 37 yard FG (he went out of bounds at the 20) ... with the clock stopped anyhow ...
Now that was STUPID
jmho
Maybe Hue was planning on going for two twice to win the game and wasn't playing for overtime.....
Maybe Hue was planning on going for two twice to win the game and wasn't playing for overtime.....
That's what I would have done. Why leave it up to a coin flip?
How many teams in that situation would have gone for two? Not too damn many. We always seem to be the ones going against the grain, trying to outsmart the other guy, not doing what teams would normally do in a given situation. Let's establish ourselves as a professional football team before getting cute.
Let's establish ourselves as a professional football team before getting cute.
What does this even mean?
Let's establish ourselves as a professional football team before getting cute.
What does this even mean?
See the sentence prior to the one you quoted.
Let's establish ourselves as a professional football team before getting cute.
What does this even mean?
See the sentence prior to the one you quoted.
So you should go against what you think is the right move because it's "cute"?
Football coaches should just listen to the analytics people about when to go for it on 4th down, when to go for 2, etc. It comes down to the reality that these are not really football problems, they are more game theory problems and most coaches have no idea how to approach them.
How many teams in that situation would have gone for two? Not too damn many. We always seem to be the ones going against the grain, trying to outsmart the other guy, not doing what teams would normally do in a given situation. Let's establish ourselves as a professional football team before getting cute.
Oakland won in week 1 because instead of trying to tie the game they went for 2 and won it.
Football coaches should just listen to the analytics people about when to go for it on 4th down, when to go for 2, etc. It comes down to the reality that these are not really football problems, they are more game theory problems and most coaches have no idea how to approach them.
If you can get 2.5 yards per play you could technically use all 4 downs and never have to punt..