I still think it depends on the offense and the situation. I have a lot less of a problem going for 2 in the first quarter with a trusted quarterback than I do at the end of the game or with a shitty quarterback. Play calling is important too. I feel like run/pass options are the only real way to go when going for 2, and not many teams have that luxury.
Except yesterday you 1000% wouldn't go for 2 up 7...cause if you don't make it there's a pretty decent chance the Browns themselves take a shot to win at the end of regulation with two since they're 0-7. That's the nightmare scenario, you don't want to lose the game in regulation when you don't have to.
The NFL created this scenario purposefully and it's in every team's best interest to start game planning the 2pt conversation after every TD as soon as possible. The problem is that most teams are slaves to stats and won't do this until kickers shit the bed on a large scale.
Kickers have had over a year with the longer extra points. They aren't missing them at a rate that makes going for 2 every time significantly better than kicking the ball.
I would love to see this, but I they would have to move the extra point even further back for this to realistically happen.
The longer distance makes weather a huge factor and especially later in the season. Kicker practice simply can't negate that unless the kicker is elite. You'll see a trend as the years go on of teams going for two later in the season, then teams will start weighing the odds of just going for two as the standard. It's going to happen. Because that's what the shield wants.
If the weather is bad, a 2 pointer is going to be more challenging too. Regardless, unless the NFL changes the rules more, teams will continue kicking extra points for two reasons IMO. One is that 2 pointers put the players at a greater injury risk, however small that risk is. And two is that extra points give the kicker extra reps, which you'll be glad he had when you send him out for a game-winning FG attempt.
You're just being stubborn now. That's okay, it's probably in your nature. But you just don't seem to have any foresight into the direction of the league. I had this same argument with running game purists 10 years ago about how the rules would change the offense and defense. Some people don't want to understand how this will change, they just know their side of the argument makes more sense. Keeping the corners from grabbing after 5 yards won't change the game, the defense will adapt and coaches will be good with that. Ten years from now you'll act like going for two is a no-brainer.
I wouldn't mind going for two in order to turn a 7 point lead into a 9 point lead and more importantly a two possession game. On the flipside with Fitzpatrick's inconsistency along with his decision making at times, going for two points isn't a 'given success' under those circumstances. Why give Cleveland even more hope while potentially taking away team momentum with a failed two point try? Kick the XP & make it 8 points. God forbid Cleveland does drive down the field for a TD score, at least they'll still need to convert another play in order to tie the game. Sometimes football comes down to a game of inches. With Fitzpatrick as your QB, going for the XP was the safest call for a win. Shitzpatrick and/or Fitztragic going for two is a gamble within itself.
you mean like that OAK game where the coach did that and failed and OAK scored the TD and instead of taking the PAT for the tie and OT they went for 2 with no time left and got the win by 1 point? There is no right answer but in almost all cases you take the guaranteed points if they make any difference.
If going for 2 becomes more of a sure thing, or extra points become less so, then yes, coaches will start going for 2 regularly. But you or I can't know for sure what will happen.
That's not what happened. You have it wrong. Saints scored and kicked the PAT to go up by 7. They did not go for two. Then the Raiders scored and instead of going for a tie, they made a two point conversion.
If that's the case, then you should also be against Bowles going for that 4th and 1 inside the 5 instead of the chip shot FG. But you were probably on board with that one ... so you can't just say to always take the guaranteed points. Every situation is different, but as a general philosophy ... If I can basically end the game with a two point conversion after scoring a late TD, and the ONLY downside to trying is that I still have a 7 point lead and the entire field to defend, I'm going to take that chance. It astonishes me that coaches don't try to grab that crucial 9 point lead. The upside is SO much bigger than the downside. Don't you think?
Lol so if your insane logic is true. Then why would teams who score and cut the lead by 1 not go for 2 and the lead if the 2 point conversation is a 90% guarantee?
If the Jets offense didn't look so bad, I'd be with you, but I can't see a logical reason to go for 2 there. You have to take the points unless mathematically necessary, because in all likelihood the conversion fails. I could see high powered offenses going for it there, but the Jets aren't close to that.
I don't think your idea is all that crazy. I would like to see a coach with some balls try that move but I doubt you'll ever see it.
