Dumb a$$ coaches and 2-pt conversions

[NJO]

The SF-StL game yesterday is a microcosm of coaches not knowing when to go for 2, and when to go for 1.

SF scores IN THE 1ST HALF to go up 13-12, and goes for 2? Why? It's the first freakin' half! Kick the extra point so you don't end up having to chase that point the rest of the game!

Of course, they miss it, and when the score was 30-26 instead of 27, do you think Mariucci missed that point then?

Which brings me to the score at 30-16, and SF scores to make it 30-22 in the 4th.

If Mariucci's intent later was to kick field goals (which it apparently was, given he kicked from the 16 with 6:47 left to only cut it to 4, thus still needing a TD), why not go for 2 again to try and cut it to 6, rather than 7?

In the end, I had no money in either direction on this game, but Mariucci's approach toward 2-point conversions is so similar to many of the coaches in the NFL and NCAA that I just needed to rant

Coaches should not go for 2 until the 4th quarter, period -- maybe the end of the 3rd is OK, too, but to do so any earlier than the later half of the 3rd quarter just strikes me as flat-out stupid.

 

[Valuist]

Agree 100%. I didn't have $$ on the SF/StL game but Rams bettors were robbed. They outgained the Niners by almost 200 yards and didn't cover. Wannstedt almost cost Miami bettors a cover by going for 2 w/5 seconds left but that was completely different since it was at the end of the game. Fortunately, Miami made the two pt conversion.

 

[Ice Picks]

I agree - take that 1 point when you can - you never know if it may come back to haunt you later...happens time and again in pro and college...

 

[Woodson]

Interesting point. During the Denver blowout last night, the commentators were grasping for something to talk about in between kickoffs. This subject came up. They said that every coach in the NFL has a card with point comparisons on them. The cards are conditional and depending on the the numbers and period within the game, they go for one or two. They went as far as to say most coaches live by them. I don't know how how much truth that has in the situation your describing though.

 

[scrubbo]

I've been saying the same thing forever. I don't understand why any coach would go for 2 points so early in the game.

The only times I agree with the 2 point play is when your team is getting skunked in the 3rd quarter and you need to make up a lot of points (say 24 pins) or if its the 4th quarter and you think there might be only 1 or two scores the rest of the game.
This bullshit about going for 2 points to make it a 3 point game in the first half is ludicrus.

 

[NJO]

scrubbo, I agree completely!

13-12 in a game you know is going to be high scoring, it is stupid to go for 2 early; if you score to go up 13-12 with 5 minutes left, then go for 2 because there aren't going to be many more scores, thus making the 3-point lead much more valuable.

Woodson mentioned the situation cards coaches have -- though I generally agree with those situation cards, I don't believe the ESPN guys when they say it also depends on the period -- I think these coaches start going to these cards way too soon.

Another patented situation when the coaches don't do the right thing: when they score to cut a lead to 16 or 9.

They always go for 2, and that is stupid -- why is it stupid? because if you don't get it, you are still down 2 scores. Kick the point to cut it to 8 or 15, and don't go for 2 untill you absolutely need to -- that is another case where guys go for 2 too early and end up chasing it and regretting it later.

Also, memo to coaches: if you miss a PAT early in the game (say, to go up 6-0), just accept that and keep kicking. Many coaches feel the need to make that point back, and end up leading 18-7 instead of 20-7, for example, and end up losing games because they go 0 for 3 on PATs instead of 2 for 3, accepting the miss.

 

[pepin46]

in my book, the 2 pt conversion should be reserved for the late stages of the game. assinine? absolutely. time after time we see these capricious decisions that in many cases put the game at stake.

i think it was last year that tenn went for 2 pt conversions twice in the first half, for no reason, losing both of them. of course they lost the game, and of course, it change their possibities of winning toward the end of the game.

after the first miss, it becomes a double or nothing proposition, getting deeper and deeper in the hole, with the coach thinking the law of "averages" is on his side after the first miss.

the sf game is just a recent illustration. i have seen it over and over. the only reason to go for it early is psychological, where the coach needs to fire up a team that is way behind or outclassed. certainly not when you are ahead and holding your own. this may have just the opposite effect when missed.

i know that if i was in there, working real hard for those extra yards or points, i would not take it in a good way when my coach decides to give away a point or two, even if converted, as it becomes a gamble. i.e.: you are gambling my hard work on the field.


pep

 

[scrubbo]

great finish, Njo and Pepin
Why don't some of NFL coaches understand this?

 

[scrubbo]

great finish, Njo and Pepin
Why don't some of NFL coaches understand this?

 

[UMRebel]

I was on St. Louis and got screwed then. ;( I was up 14 points at one point and then found out the final was 30-26 while it could have been 30-23. My spread was -6.5. I was pissed at the results because kicking a field goal would still put you down another score. Why not go for the td? Stupid a$$ coaches! Well, you win some, you lose some. Luckily, I faired better on the jets and under......and also won on denver and over....finished out a good night! GL tonight guys!

------------------
Good Luck and keep the bank rollin'!!

 

[ESQAJM]

In all the replys above, nobody talked about the Miami game where Wannstadt went for 2 points with 5 seconds left on the clock. What on earth could he possibly have been thinking. A fumble and recovery by Oakland could have cost him the game. All he had to do was have Fiedler get the snap and run around for a few seconds till the clock ran out. There was no reason to kick the extra point or run for 2. I analyzed this from all angles and can't find a reason for the play.

 

[ironlock]

LOL....LMFAO

Hoops, Kosar, anybody...did you read that...

 

[Teddy KGB]

Hey ESQ, the clock doesn't run on 1 or 2 point conversions. He coulda ran all the way back to the 1 yard line and chewed up 30 seconds.. the clock wouldn't move.

------------------
THAT ACE COULD NOT HAVE HELPED YOU!

 

[NJO]

To add something to KGB's post:

In the NFL, as Teddy posted, the clock doesn't run and there is no points for the D should they run something back to the other end zone. That said, going for 1 or 2 there, from a pure (ignoring the spread) viewpoint, didn't really matter because the only way Oakland was going to win would be a TD.

However, the stakes change in college because a team can run a blocked kick, intercepted pass, or recovered fumble back the other way for 2 points (it happens once in a blue moon, but it does happen).

The clock doesn't run in college, but that rule difference I noted above is huge, and most coaches don't recognize how important that rule can be.

Let's say the Oakland-Miami game was played under college rules -- in that case, the most prudent thing to do would be to just take the snap and kneel down.

Why?

1) So little time left, a TD to beat you is the only option

2) If you kick and it is blocked and run back, 2 points for Oakland = a miracle 17-16 win for Oakland

3) If you run a play from scrimmage and a pass is intercepted and run back or a fumble is run back, same miracle victory for Oakland

The only college coach I have ever seen who recognizes this rule is Snyder at K State -- a few years ago versus Nebraska, he did sit on the ball after a TD late in the game.