ADVERTISEMENT

Did we really just go for two when down 9?

I'm not sure I would have gone for it there, but here is the argument for going for it.

The only possible explanation I can understand is the idea that the team has momentum after the TD. But the same would be true if they scored a TD after an onside kick. That's why I think it was a horrible call. I was surprised they even bothered with an onside kick after that. The game was over.
 
The game was over as soon as we missed the 2-pt conversion. Make a 1-pt PAT and we're still able to tie later

Remind me again what it would have taken to tie the game later? A 2 point conversion?

picard-facepalm.jpg
 

  • When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all).
Here's the thing. There's no tactical adjustment to make if you miss the 2-point conversion that late in the game (Iowa only had 2 TOs). Game's over no matter what if you miss because there was less than a minute left. Team just has to kneel on the ball to run out the clock. Of course the stats are low because most teams never recover the onside kick or they fail to score a TD, not because they get an onside kick then score a TD and THEN miss a 2-pt conversion. Just sayin'.
 
I honestly can't believe that there are football fans here who don't understand why you don't go for it there. I guess watching Kirk for so long has led to more severe brain damage in Iowa than I ever imagined.
agreed these folks are not very aware of real world football coaches
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eternal Return
There is not a single NFL coach that agrees with you.

Your chances of winning are much less than 1%. You need an onside kick, TD with less than 1 minute, and a 2 pt conversion just to get to a tie where it is 50/50... It is standard practice to postpone going for two, but you are really splitting hairs over a snow ball's chance in heck.

Where coaching matters is getting an OLine that can protect and run block and getting a defense that doesn't just sit back and do same thing every snap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aleister_Crowley
Your chances of winning are much less than 1%. You need an onside kick, TD with less than 1 minute, and a 2 pt conversion just to get to a tie where it is 50/50... It is standard practice to postpone going for two, but you are really splitting hairs over a snow ball's chance in heck.

Where coaching matters is getting an OLine that can protect and run block and getting a defense that doesn't just sit back and do same thing every snap.

I agree in the sense that the 2-pt conversion call at the end has overshadowed just how shitty the coaching and execution was the entire game. Pathetic.

EDIT: The article I responded to above said that there was a 2.9 percent chance to win if you go for 2 and a 3.4 percent chance if you kick the XP. But that only applies if there is enough time and enough timeouts to get the ball back if you miss the onside kick. If it is a situation in which it is absolutely essential that the team gets the onside kick then you go for the XP first.
 
I can maybe see going for the two IF there is three or four minutes left in the game. In that situation, you at least have a shot at a third possession. By attempting the 2 with one minute to go, you negate that last minute if you fail.
Kirk's "logic" in the past has been that game experience is vitally important. If that's true, why discard a golden opportunity to give his young players valuable crunch-time experience? Kick the extra point and give your onside team something to play for. Get the onside and give your offense something to play for. Or, miss the two-point and wipe your ass with the final minute of football in Kinnick for 2017.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeDenny
But they don't give any points for "being in the game longer". It literally does not matter.

You apparently missed my reply to your previous post. Here you go since you missed it:

  • When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all).
Here's the thing. There's no tactical adjustment to make if you miss the 2-point conversion that late in the game (Iowa only had 2 TOs). Game's over no matter what if you miss because there was less than a minute left. Team just has to kneel on the ball to run out the clock. Of course the stats are low because most teams never recover the onside kick or they fail to score a TD, not because they get an onside kick then score a TD and THEN miss a 2-pt conversion. Just sayin'.

That article said that there was a 2.9 percent chance to win if you go for 2 and a 3.4 percent chance if you kick the XP. But that only applies if there is enough time and enough timeouts to get the ball back if you miss the onside kick. If it is a situation in which it is absolutely essential that the team gets the onside kick then you go for the XP first.
 
I think you’re supposed to go for 2 when down nine. If you get it then it’s a 7 point game. If you kick the extra point then you need the 2 anyway. This way you know if you don’t get it that you need 2 possessions and it changes the way you play out the next series.
 
I think you’re supposed to go for 2 when down nine. If you get it then it’s a 7 point game. If you kick the extra point then you need the 2 anyway. This way you know if you don’t get it that you need 2 possessions and it changes the way you play out the next series.

The problem is that there wasn't enough time on the clock or enough TOs left to make it a 2-possession game. But if there had been enough time, you'd have been right about going for 2.
 
Theres no advantage to be gained by going for 2 first. There is only the possible negative of ending the game sooner.

Thats why no one does it.

It comes down to getting the onside either way but if you take 1 first, you are at least assured of being able to put some pressure on the receiving team to recover.
 
Theres no advantage to be gained by going for 2 first. There is only the possible negative of ending the game sooner.

Thats why no one does it.

It comes down to getting the onside either way but if you take 1 first, you are at least assured of being able to put some pressure on the receiving team to recover.
How is that a negative though?
If you try for 2 after the first TD and fail, you lose with 90 seconds left.
If you try for 2 after the 2nd TD and fail, you lose with like 15 seconds left.
How is either outcome better or worse?
 
we had to make a 2. did not matter when. Stop bitching and moaning.

Exactly, the people that hate going for two early are morons. You have to go for two one way or another, it doesn't matter when that occurs. If you go for it early and don't get it, at least you know you have to plan for two more possessions. If you don't get it at the end of the game with no time on the clock, well then you're just screwed. Kirk still needs to go though, but that was actually a good call to go for it earlier rather than later.
 
Theres no advantage to be gained by going for 2 first. There is only the possible negative of ending the game sooner.

Thats why no one does it.

It comes down to getting the onside either way but if you take 1 first, you are at least assured of being able to put some pressure on the receiving team to recover.

Not a lot of logic here. If you go for two and get it the first time then your odds of tying the game are obviously higher as you only need a touchdown and extra point, if you don't go for two you still need a touchdown and a two point conversion and obviously you will agree that it's more likely to make an extra point than a two point conversion
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawgs_04
You're an idiot if you don't understand the argument of going for it early. I can't help you. It's really not that hard to understand.
If you kick it, then get the onside kick, you sure have a heck of a lot of momentum. Of course, it is Kirk and he doesn't allow the team to get fired up and excited, but I am just speaking in theory...
 
If you kick it, then get the onside kick, you sure have a heck of a lot of momentum. Of course, it is Kirk and he doesn't allow the team to get fired up and excited, but I am just speaking in theory...

What if you get the 2 point and then get the onside? More or less momentum?
 
No, I didn't prove your point. If you miss the 2-pt conversion there's no point in even trying an onside kick because the game is out of reach. That onside kick would have been meaningful if Iowa had just kicked an XP and been down only 8 instead of 9. Come on, quit trolling me, man. lol

What if you get the inside, get a quick 25 yd pass play, and then kick the field goal. Now you still have 45 seconds left to get another onside kick and try for the win. Versus waiting to go for two and getting the inside kick, running the clock down and not getting the two (Just like you didn't get the two in the other situation) only now the game is just over instead of you still having a little time to plan around it. This isn't that complicated folks. It obviously works better when there's like 5 to 8 minutes left, but the same logic applied in that situation. You have to go for two no matter what, so it's always better to know sooner rather than later if you are going to get the two or not.
 
You're an idiot if you don't understand the argument of going for it early. I can't help you. It's really not that hard to understand.

Have you read any of the other posts I made later when the other poster put up the stats link? You haven't? Yeah, that's what I thought.
 
What if you get the inside, get a quick 25 yd pass play, and then kick the field goal. Now you still have 45 seconds left to get another onside kick and try for the win. Versus waiting to go for two and getting the inside kick, running the clock down and not getting the two (Just like you didn't get the two in the other situation) only now the game is just over instead of you still having a little time to plan around it. This isn't that complicated folks. It obviously works better when there's like 5 to 8 minutes left, but the same logic applied in that situation. You have to go for two no matter what, so it's always better to know sooner rather than later if you are going to get the two or not.


Here you go. This was the post I made to the guy who posted about stats when a team is down by 9 points:

  • When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all).
Here's the thing. There's no tactical adjustment to make if you miss the 2-point conversion that late in the game (Iowa only had 2 TOs). Game's over no matter what if you miss because there was less than a minute left. Team just has to kneel on the ball to run out the clock. Of course the stats are low because most teams never recover the onside kick or they fail to score a TD, not because they get an onside kick then score a TD and THEN miss a 2-pt conversion. Just sayin'.

That article said that there was a 2.9 percent chance to win if you go for 2 and a 3.4 percent chance if you kick the XP. But that only applies if there is enough time and enough timeouts to get the ball back if you miss the onside kick. If it is a situation in which it is absolutely essential that the team gets the onside kick then you go for the XP first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: papabeef
What if you get the inside, get a quick 25 yd pass play, and then kick the field goal. Now you still have 45 seconds left to get another onside kick and try for the win. Versus waiting to go for two and getting the inside kick, running the clock down and not getting the two (Just like you didn't get the two in the other situation) only now the game is just over instead of you still having a little time to plan around it. This isn't that complicated folks. It obviously works better when there's like 5 to 8 minutes left, but the same logic applied in that situation. You have to go for two no matter what, so it's always better to know sooner rather than later if you are going to get the two or not.

What??? Down by 7 with 45 seconds left you think they would consider a field goal and trying for another onside kick?

No way
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT