Did we really just go for two when down 9?
- Thread starter Mr. Royce
- Start date
No, youre just really dense.
If there is any angle whatsover to be had, why risk even a miniscule chance to gain absolutely nothing by going for the 2 first?
Even if its 1 in millions vs 0 in a million, you take the better odds.
Theres no reason not to.
How does this even need to be explained?
Umm, actually yes they can. Iowa recovers the onside kick and their first offensive play a Purdue DB gets ejected for targeting. Next play a DE tears his ACL, then the Purdue head coach gets run over and knocked out after a receiver runs out of bounds after getting a first down. Then an old Russian satellite falls on the sideline and kills most of Purdue players. You see where this is going right? Sure would make the possible TD and 2pt conversion easier, just had to wait a little.
You make the choice to kick the 1 first because that allows you to be nearly sure you are forceing the receiving team to make a play on the onside.
Its really that simple.
Being sure you extend the game allows you to be sure there is a chance that they make a mistake that helps you.
I will not explain this again because its not debatable.
Its really that simple.
Being sure you extend the game allows you to be sure there is a chance that they make a mistake that helps you.
I will not explain this again because its not debatable.
They can't make a mistake on the onside kick if you go for two? Only if you kick the extra point? Your argument makes no sense.
They can make a mistake on the onside kick if you go for 2, but there's a 50% chance that it would even matter (because 50% chance that you convert the 2.)
Kick the extra point, and there's a 97% chance that it would matter. (97% chance you make the extra point)
This is not my fight but I can't take it anymore. If anyone doesn't think the right move is to kick the extra point to make it an 8 point game then onside kick it your an idiot. You can debate it all day long and your still an idiot.
dont you understand by going for 2 when we did and not making it ANY chance of a comeback was over ( they were very slim as it was ). time was a major factor.
Ok I'm going to try to make this real easy for you folks that don't understand. First I need to ask a question, can we all agree that the odds of getting a 2 point conversion with 2 minutes left is essentially the same as the odds of getting the conversion with three seconds left? I would hope so. Iowa only had one chance at the two, they failed.
So, if you are going to fail the two point conversion that you know you'll need, would you rather fail the conversion attempt with two minutes left in the game or three seconds left in the game? I would hope everyone would say two minutes left. If you wait to go for the 2 and fail (like you would have with two minutes left) the game is simply over. You've left yourself no time to make an adjustment to strategy and still potentially win the game. No matter how unlikely.
Try to think about it critically for a second. The "extending the game" argument always gets thrown around but doesn't really mean anything if you really stop to think about it. It all comes down to the inevitable two point conversion. It doesn't matter when you run the play, the odds of getting it will be the same. So why not run it earlier? It's better to not convert it with two minutes left than it is to not convert it with no time on the clock. I would hope that you could at least agree with that sentence.
No. If you go for 2 when Iowa went for 2, and don't get it, the game is simply over.
You're implying Iowa still had a realistic chance after not getting the 2. I'll be generous to the Hawks, and put their chances at 1 in 1000 at that point. Not realistic.
I need to start using that line more often. Good way to win an argument when I don't understand something. Or at least help me think I won the argument.
Obviously it was very unrealistic, but still technically possible to get the onside, one big play then attempt a fg before trying for another onside. Better odds than failing a two point conversion with no time or very little time left.
classic.... "your" an idiot!
Once again, the correct answer is to go for 2 after each of the TDs we were going to score so we could win in regulation. Anyone that disagrees is an idiot AND a pu$$y. This is NOT debatable.
let me make this easy for you , by missing the 2 pointer when we did we are down 9 , we need to recover 2 onside kicks to have any chance at all of winning . i pick the 3 seconds because that means we are only down 2 and we have a chance to tie and extend the game.
God this frustrating, but I'm determined! You aren't getting the two! Do you not agree that the odds of getting the conversion are essentially the same with two minutes left than they are with three seconds left? Please just answer that question.
but if you miss the first 2 pointer going for the second does not win the game . i may be a pussy but i am a pussy with a brain.
Believe me, I know the math. Answer the question, are the odds not essentially the same of getting the conversion with two minutes left than they are with no time left?
frustrating for me too. why is it so hard to figure out we were down 9 after missing the 2 pt try which means the game is over.
http://www.footballperspective.com/...are-foolish-to-not-go-for-2-after-touchdowns/
Here's a good write up on why going for two first makes sense when down 15 later in the 4th quarter.
Here's a good write up on why going for two first makes sense when down 15 later in the 4th quarter.
explain to me why answering the question is that important? remember 9,9,9,9,9
Why is it so hard to answer a question I've asked you twice now? It's like you don't want to figure out that you are wrong. Some day it will click for you, I have faith. Took me a little while too before I started thinking about it more critically instead of just repeating the old "extend the game" argument I'd always been told.
Because you know the answer is the odds are the same of getting a two point conversion with two minutes left versus no time left. It's the same play. So in that sense, it doesn't really matter when you go for it in terms or succeeding on the conversion. So if it doesn't affect the two point conversion success rate, why would you wait until there is no time left to try for it? Information is valuable! It's always better to know whether or not you will be successful on the conversion in advance.
someday you will figure out we were down 9
time left on the clock when we scored was 1:04, not much time left to score twice.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...ts-throwing-football-unwritten-rules-nfl-2016
Here's another article that talks about it. About 5 or 6 points down. I really want you to figure this out. Some day you will realize when we didn't get the two point conversion with no time left we still would have lost the game, yet had no time to potentially recover. You are a big fan of false hope. You know you are not getting the two!!! Why not give yourself some more time on the clock?
dude there was only 1:04 left in the game. you really think we were going to recover 2 onside kicks in that amount of time with only 2 timeouts?
Its being explained exactly why but you just refuse to understand it lol.
You keep repeating the simple part that everyone gets but you're not grasping the rest of it.
So you're saying you go for two when we did, and if it fails, at least we know we lost, not what we need. Try again.
