Teams should start going for two more frequently

I don't like it. XP's are now too unpredictable. Granted they got to be too automatic but 33 yards is too far for an XP. Should be 28 yards.

 

At some point, a coach will figure out that the odds are in their favor if they go for 2 EVERY SINGLE TIME and have the balls to do it, that is the only way that it would make sense. Don't worry about chasing points, or going up a certain amount or what the current score is. If you simply played the mathematical percentage and went for 2 every single time, you would come out ahead. You basically would have broken even or close to it doing it at the old spot at the 2.

It is like playing blackjack and hitting a 12 when a dealer is showing a 3. It is mathematically close, and you should hit. But if you choose to stand, you need to stand every single time to keep your chances close to even. If you start trying to pick and choose when to hit and when to stand, you may get lucky but most likely you will hurt your odds.

 

I agree to an extent. I think they should go for it every time in the first half. The first half should be about getting as many points as you possibly can no matter what. It doesn't matter if the score is 14-12 or 14-14 or 15-8, 15-10, at half time, etc.. its all about getting as many points as you can to make it easier to outscore the opponent in the end. The first half the game is checkers.. go for it all every time.

In the second half, I feel a little differently, if it doesn't benefit you much to go for 2 then take the safer bet and kick or vice versa. At that point the game becomes chess. you just need to come out on top

 

That's not really true most of the time. If you're 45 percent from 2 and 90 percent from 1 it's a net neutral. Now if you're particularly good at two-point conversions or particularly bad at PAT's then you can say that. But league average it's a net neutral at worst. PAT's are still above 90% so it isn't even neutral on average yet.

Of course playing the overall percentages per 100 attempts don't help if you lose a game 24-23 when you score three TD's and a FG cause you went for two three times and only hit on one instead of two of them that particular game.

 

Since it was brought back in 1994 through last season, 2 point conversions were made 48.2% of the time. A good sample size.
PAT's this year right now are 854/901 or 94.78%

So your numbers are off a little, and given the new rate of the PAT, if it continues to hold true going for 2 EVERY single time will net you more points.

 

If that were possible, the P*ts would be doing it... or they will at some point.

 

This was posted a few posts ago:

Did they rise significantly in the last three years somehow? That's where I got 45% from. Clearly 90-95% was underselling it, it's really almost 95%

 

Ahh, but what if your running game sucks and it gives you more open space for the pass. Seriously Goodell fucks everything up:Thursday night football, the prolonged draft, and now the Extra Point.

 

I think you have to take those figures with a grain of salt as far as projecting future success in going for 2 all the time. From 1994-2012 teams only went for 2 point conversions when they absolutely had to. So the defense is more focused on getting the stop than usual, the offense is not used to going for 2, etc, advantage defense.

You start going for 2 all the time or on a whim and you'll see those numbers go up IMO, especially in the short term before people work to figure you out. Pittsburgh has been ahead of others this year opting to go for 2 instead of the longer extra point quite a bit this year, far more than other teams, and not in just situations when they need to go for it. Pittsburgh is at 70% conversion rate.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-two-point-conversion-statistics/2015/

----------

Another thing I always think about is why people don't think red zone conversion rates apply? The Jets are currently the no.1 red zone team in the league in 2015, a TD conversion rate at 68%, 73% in home games. So they are great at scoring TDs from inside the 20, especially when at home, but if they were faced with needing to score from the 2 yard line they'd somehow fall far below 50%?? My guess is that they would have similar conversion rates from 2 point conversions as they would from the "red zone" .. if that hypothesis is true than 25 teams would have a higher conversion rate than 50%, as evidenced by the number of teams with a red zone rate that high.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct

 

Fuck that, needs to be at least 29 1/2

 

You get three, sometimes four downs to score from the red zone...heck, sometimes 6-8 downs since the red zone is the 20 and in. It's apples and oranges to compare that with a one-shot two point play

 

When this rule first went into effect, I expected a lot of teams to go for 2 right away. Totally wrong.

I still expect a 3rd of the league to go for 2 more than PATs next season, but I'll probably be wrong again. But maybe not.

 

Coaches still view it as an automatic point; not a 33 yard attempt. They should be lining their kickers up at the hash mark like they would for a 33 yard field goal. The fact that they're not even doing that shows that they've put zero thought into it. They still view it as "the automatic extra point."

The argument for the 1 pointer would be its consistency, that getting 1 point 98% of the time is better than getting 2 points 50% of the time or whatever. But if it's 10 degrees out and that 1 point success rate drops to 80% or whatever, I think clearly you should be trying for 2 all game long, if you have a 50% chance.

The other big factor aside from weather is that not all teams are equally good at scoring from the 2. A team with a bad red zone offense versus a team with a good red zone defense might make it only 20% of the time, so they should (almost) always take the extra point (i.e. what they do now.) A team that can make it 65% of the time, they should almost always go for 2.

On the other hand, I completely understand that an NFL HC is not going to want some skinny math nerd "who never played a down" giving him an opinion on when to go for 2 point conversions. The HC will have to answer for it if you lose by 1 because you went for 2 in the first quarter, and that absolutely will happen. And coaches fear that more than they care about getting an edge over their rivals, which IMO is what they should be focusing on.

If the NCAA changed their extra point rules you'd see a huge overnight shift (way more teams jockeying for that slight edge and way less media scrutiny except at a few huge programs), but the NFL will be slow to adapt.

 

I believe the way it should optimally work is that you go for 2 most of the time and you go for 1 when the 1 is a really important number. Getting to a 3 point lead or tieing the score late are good examples of when 1 makes more sense than 2. You don't want to lose the game 55% of the time based on a single decision late in the game, it's better to go for the 93% shot at the point you need for sure.

There are situations where you don't want to go for 2 that are not related to score, like a meaningless conversion where one of your better players could get hurt on the play, but those will sort themselves out as they occur. Also if you are facing a great goal-line defense, well there's no reason to give them an extra point by not kicking the XP because you are probably already scraping and scrapping for points against them.

 

Thursday Night Sucks.

The expanded draft really sucks.

And moving it to Chicago, was a big fuck you to the people that made it an event in the first place.

 

This discussion merits more thought than I am willing to give it, as I am still.....having trouble geting past Coughlins look, when that jackoff went for 6 when he needed 3.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

obviously the weather isn't a factor tonight but I expect we will see more 2 point attempts due to weather these last few weeks.