Indeed getting the ball a few inches into the end zone (or a few inches short of the end zone) leaves it up to the guys in stripes. Blast the ball a full yards past the goal line and it’s pretty much a no-brainer you got in.
But like our response where our offense twice drove the length of the field to seize the game.
It’s almost like there’s another team that is trying to stop our guys from doing that. Go back and look at the spacing and tell me if Simpkins could run that route and catch the ball.
This line of thinking has never made sense to me. There is no reason to think that procrastinating on the two-point conversion is going to increase your chances of success. You are just as likely to fail on the conversion when there are 2 minutes left in the game as when there are 18 minutes.
Right. The Utes had nothing to lose by going for 2 and eveything to gain.
This should be a no-brainer but coaches (and fans) get it wrong all the time. If the likelihood is extremely high that a comeback will involve a 2-point attempt you go for it first. That way you know if you miss it that you have to change your gameplan; you might go for an onsides kick that you would not otherwise have the opportunity to go for later, and it could impact your playcalling if you know you need a TD and a FG to win.
I agree Scratch. It’s also TV commentators who get it wrong. You often hear them denounce the idea of “chasing points” (whatever that means).
Anyway, the coaching staff manages the clock much differently depending on how much you trail. If you are down 9+ points in the 4th Quarter, the team knows they need to score as quickly as they can due to the 2 possession game. When you are down anywhere from 4 to 7 points, you know you need a touchdown, but ideally you try to leave as little time on the clock as possible. You don’t want the other team to have a game-winning or game-tying field goal. Coaches try to leave less than a minute for the other team.
But what is a coaching staff supposed to do when they are down exactly 8 points? Pretend like the 2-point conversion is a sure thing and try to score a touchdown with less than a minute to play? Or does the coaching staff treat it like they are down 9+ points and score with as much time as possible? There’s no right answer when it’s a 50/50 proposition like a 2-point conversion.
Nice still. See that guy in the middle right where Simpkins is breaking. Demari gets up there and he’s bumped off his route.
But that doesn’t tell the whole story does it?
Start at 11:40ish. See how fast the defender gets there. Now close that gap by a yard or so. Make the ball travel that much further. Give the defender that much more time to get there. It won’t be completed. If that dude was half a step slow. That’s two. Defender was on point. Give him credit.
Maybe he does get bumped off his route if its run differently, but one scenario is not speculative…the route that was run produced zero points. I’m not arguing with you…defender certainly did make a great play and being critical of what our receiving corps has done to date is probably misplaced. It’s been a pleasure to watch them.
Two point conversions have a lower percentage of success than an extra point (and it’s less that 50%, so 2 points is less than half as likely as 1).
So, if the game is in what is perceived to be the the final stages - not a lot of time/scoring left (and this is the KEY, how has the game gone thus far, what are the injuries, which defense is better, offense is better…) you go for the 2, as it is not prudent to wait and hope for more scoring opportunities. You need to try to tie now, and/or minimize your potential for lost opportunities to score significantly in the very near future.
However, if the game has a lot of time, or the prospect that you will and the opposition will score multiple times during the remainder of the game, then the best option is to take the point, and assume that if it becomes necessary later, you’ll risk the (lower likelihood) 2 point conversion when it is absolutely needed.
If someone knows Whitt, ask him… he is a stat geek. I assume that he went for the 2, as a result of believing that the low scoring game up to that point, meant that his lower priority 2 point chance, was likely to be his best option as he was betting there would be very little scoring in the second half.
