An article from a couple of years ago (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...hey-should-be/)

Basically it's pretty much equivalent now, and because historically it was more obviously correct to not go for two coaches go with what they have always done. Good offenses probably should be choosing to go for two in more spots than they currently are but it's a pretty small difference generally.

I'm not saying this is right but one thing I can imagine coaches thinking is that there are only so many 2pt plays they can come up with and if they go for 2 every time opposing teams will have much better info and be able to better prepare and so when they HAVE to go for two they will have much less of an informative edge/advantage of surprise etc.

again I'm not saying I think it's correct just saying it's probably something a lot of coaches believe.

however late in games when down 14 it's so ****ing obv better to go for 2 and it's godamn ridic that the ppl being paid outrageous sums to give "expert" analysis don't understand the most simple strategy and basic math.

really infuriating listening to these ****ing morons rant about how terrible the vrabel and shurmur decisions were.

all these so called experts dismiss math as some silly cult obsession while babbling about momentum and extending the game, like losing later is somehow better than losing sooner and completely ignoring the fact that having the ball on the 2 yard line is just about the best possible scenario a team could hope for if they make it to OT.

makes my brain bleed.

coaches gotta love that they can make either decision and the math backs them up either way now.

for one you put yourself at an informational disadvantage and allow the other team to play optimally against you. remember the goal ISN'T maximizing your expected points, it's maximizing the expected percent of time you score more points than your opponents.

take a simple example using 50%/100% conversion in a game in which each team scores one TD. you score and go for 2.

50% of the time you miss and the other team wins by kicking an XP
25% of the time you make and they make so you go to OT
25% of the time you make and they miss so you win

so it's basically the opposite of why you should go for two when scoring down 14.

also I agree teams only have so many 2 pt plays that they like as said above.

addendum: last year teams were 37/82 on 2 pts, right at the widely cited 45%. this year so far they are much better at 34/59. teams have only played 6 or 7 games so thats a pace to increase 2 pt attempts by like 30%+ so coaches have caught on a bit that this year they are more successful.

As a Giants fan, was impressed that Shurmur went for 2. Obv the sneaks were terrible but who knows who really called them.

I gotta say as a "nerd" I can appreciate Booger for being so confident in his ignorance. Quinn kicks a 56 yard FG and he is praising Dan Quinn's confidence in his team. Yes, his team is inspired in the confidence he showed in the kicker that he signed off the street on Tuesday.

Booger also claimed on twitter that because the giants d was playing well it was dumb to go for 2, as if them making or missing would have any impact on the defense lol. If football players are that soft, he should really question himself.

By that logic, the coaches would also kick chip field goals as well so it kinda makes sense that they would think that way.

It is however, dumb to think that they don't have goal-line packages that can be used for two point plays as well as anything inside the 5.

Vrabel going for 2 with 30s and 2 LAC timeouts left I thought was bad. Anthony Lynn had 2 timeouts and 30s at the end of the 1st half and knelt it or ran - hes a pussy. If you take a lead it forces Rivers to be aggressive trying to get a game winning FG. Tie it up and I think LAC play way more conservative with the final 30s. You wanna be giving your opponent opportunities to make bad decisions. Not forcing them into playing correctly. If there was 10s left it would be a different situation.

Should you go for 2 a lot? Again you wanna give opponents the chance to **** up. There are a decent amount of teams that when down 8 and score a TD won't go for 2 unless its 4th quarter. Recently Andy Reid kicked the extra point vs the Pats in the 4th - which is not that uncommon. So assuming the Expected Pts is close to the same it would make sense to go for 2 after the 1st TD of the game just to put dumb HCs in spots where you expect them to make a mistake.

Teams with great power running games should probably go for it every time.

The early 2000s Chiefs could sweep left with Priest Holmes behind Roaf and Shields and Waters pulling and get it almost every single time. I never understood why they didn't go for 2 more and go for 4th more. It's not like Vermeil had that much to lose. He knew he was done in a year or two either way.

There's so many different plays that can be ran at the 2. I would laugh at a coach if he said that, as it means he's a ****ty coach or has a ****ty coordinator

Yes. I highly doubt that the bolded part is the case across the league. That is why I believe at least in the early game that the teams capable of converting at the higher rate should be taking their edge on that fact alone. I can understand how later game dynamics can change strategy but why not play a strategy that maximizes your edge and or possible expected points early for the most part.

This is another thing about that two point play. How often do teams call a running play on this conversion play? I rarely recall seeing it. Talk about one dimensional for a play call. I often see a boot leg or roll out type play but cannot recall the last time I saw a designed running play to the tailback for this conversion. Maybe teams should actually considering adding that to keep the defense off guard a bit.

Yeah that's why if you have a power running game, you can play off that and mix it up. But still have your bread and butter that works most of the time.

the giants handed off to barkley for the second 2pt last night

ive definitely seen it mixed in a bit more recently but it is still crazy how often teams will run on any regular play from the 2 compared to a conversion though.

FTR, by going for 2, it's 57% win chance compared to 50% of kicking 2 XP

assuming: 45% 2pc, 100% XP, OT is a 50/50 proposition

Whats the % chance when the playcall is a #fade

Something I've always wondered - if you jump offsides when going for 2, can you change your mind and decide to kick? If so are you kicking from 5 yards further back?

Same thing if you kick and get a personal foul, can you accept the penalty as half the distance from the 2 and try to go for it from the 1?

If a kick goes bad and an offensive player somehow runs it in, it's still 2 pts right?

I miss faking the kick and going for 2. Those were some exciting plays. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...int-conversion

85%, it's the smartest playcall in sports

fade was successful 31% (smallish sample) of the time while running was successful over 60% (large sample) of the time. Also the intuition that roll outs are bad is correct. If I'm a coach I have this **** memorized...

https://rileykolstefootball.com/2018...o-point-study/

I don't get how people understand the idea of taking the risk and going for 2 after the 2nd touchdown to go for the win but don't understand doing it after the 1st touchdown (even before considering for the obvious extra benefit of doing it after the first one)

I've noticed that, too. Seems like it's always some sort of rollout.

I figure that straight-up running plays aren't used that much because a pass play gives an offense more options. You run the ball, that's it. You're either stuffed or get into the endzone. On some occasions, a RB might be able to bounce one outside or reverse field to salvage a play, but most of the time, it's win or lose right from the snap.

On a pass play, there are multiple receivers that could get open even if they are covered initially and the QB could still possibly run it in.

If a coach is smart enough to know to go for 2 after scoring a TD to go down 8, then they're probably smart enough not to run super idiotic plays like fades, which means their conversion rate will be 5-10% higher than the 48% cited and makes going for 2 the overwhelming favorite after most TDs.

It's the same reason coaches are so damn conservative in most spots, fear of media/fan backlash. If you have a 2PC and you run the ball and it gets stuffed then it kinda looks like an idiotic playcall (even though statistically it's not).

If they are close to equivalent, coaches will choose to kick. If the 2-pt play fails, the coach gets the blame for a poor playcall or declining to kick the PAT. It the kick fails, the kicker shoulders the blame.

Over the long run, it is "better" from the coach's perspective to kick unless there is a persuasive situational reason to go for two.

Well I googled that for myself. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...after-penalty/

So except for situations where 1pt wins the game, coaches should probably change their minds and go for 2 on any defensive penalty. I bet they don't though.

A more accurate comparison would be the run/pass ratio on 4th&goal from the 2, which I would guess leans towards pass as well.

I think people don't get that the logic behind that play pretty much assumes that there's really only enough time for a stop and a single drive after that first TD. I think once you get over 4min left in the 4th quarter, people get into this "zomg so many possibilities anything could happen better just kick" mentality.

Honestly I think coaches might be throwing away potential equity if you can change your mind.

Run a 2 point try and commit holding or OPI, if it doesn't get flagged you get a very +EV 2 point play. If it does get flagged, then just kick the EP from 10 yards further back (if your kicker is good they should still make it probably 90-95%)

Except if the play fails you're reverse freerolling yourself when the defense declines the penalty. I'm not sure how much equity you lose going from 33 to 43 yards on a FG, but I let's say you can bump your percentage up from 50% to 60% by committing an obviously penalty that only gets flagged half the time. So 30% of the time you get 2, 40% of the time you get nothing, and then you get a 43 yard XP the remaining 40%. I guess it would depend on the numbers you plug in, but hard to see doing something that bumps up the conversion percentage too much without being flagged the majority of the time.