Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Going for 2 was the correct call...Denver made mistake

November 28, 2016 06:15AM
Should the Broncos have gone for two after Fowler scored to try to put the game away?

I discussed this topic a few years ago, but it's come up in recent weeks after Pete Carroll went for two in a similar situation against the Patriots. Here, the Broncos were up 23-16 after the Fowler touchdown pending the extra point, again with about 3:02 to go.

There's two tantalizing benefits to going for two and trying to make it a nine-point game late. If you do it while there isn't much time left on the clock, you've basically ended the game -- the other team needs to find two possessions in an impossible length of time. The Chiefs could have scored twice in three minutes, but it would have required an expected onside kick recovery, which is somewhere in the 10 percent range.

The other benefit is that there's little punishment given how opposing coaches are likely to react. If you go for two and succeed to go up nine, the game is basically over. If you go for two and fail, the downside isn't all that bad. You're still up seven, and if the other team comes down the field and scores, they virtually never go for two to end the game in regulation, which is about a once-per-decade moment of coaching gutsiness.

Chase Stuart wrote about some of the problems in that logic back in 2012, though, and he correctly distilled it down to a simple choice. It's true that if you go for two and succeed, you win the game. It's also true, though, that if you kick the extra point, and the opposition responds with a touchdown, and then you stop the two-point conversion, you win the game. The question you should ask yourself in the situation, then, is simple: Do you think your offense has a better shot of succeeding on a two-point conversion than your defense does of stopping a two-point try?

Yes, I understand that the Chiefs would later go for two and get it to tie the game up at 24. We didn't know that with three minutes to go. In this case, Kubiak was right. Burke's model suggests the Broncos would have needed a 57 percent chance of converting the two-pointer to justify the move, and the outdated (pre-extra-point changes) model from Football Commentary is similarly dismissive, at 64 percent.


[www.espn.com]
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

  Denver should have gone for 2 on previous TD

Blue and Gold445November 27, 2016 06:49PM

  Yep

RFIP271November 27, 2016 06:53PM

  absolutely, and

JamesJM188November 27, 2016 06:55PM

  Re: Kubiak trusted his defense who let him down...NM

laram223November 27, 2016 07:00PM

  disagree... Here is the chart that most teams use. Attachments

Rampage2K-222November 27, 2016 07:20PM

  But late in game, you go up by 9 it's great advantage

Blue and Gold189November 27, 2016 07:22PM

  Re: But late in game, you go up by 9 it's great advantage

Rampage2K-196November 27, 2016 07:26PM

  What?

Blue and Gold189November 27, 2016 07:30PM

  Re: What?

Rampage2K-245November 27, 2016 07:34PM

  But you don't have to block a PAT

Blue and Gold181November 27, 2016 07:38PM

  Re: But you don't have to block a PAT

Rampage2K-255November 27, 2016 07:43PM

  I know all about the chart, I know it was DV who invented it Attachments

Blue and Gold133November 27, 2016 08:14PM

  Re: I know all about the chart, I know it was DV who invented it

Rampage2K-137November 27, 2016 08:37PM

  Not one man's opinion

Blue and Gold102November 28, 2016 06:06AM

  Going for 2 was the correct call...Denver made mistake

RFIP129November 28, 2016 12:24AM

  Re: Going for 2 was the correct call...Denver made mistake

Blue and Gold110November 28, 2016 06:15AM

  And now they risk a miss FG??????

Blue and Gold108November 27, 2016 07:24PM

  And they missed it

Blue and Gold191November 27, 2016 07:25PM

  Kubiak screwed the pooch

Blue and Gold301November 27, 2016 07:26PM

  Re: Bad, bad Kubiak...NM

laram215November 27, 2016 07:32PM

  Totally agree..

PaulButcher59118November 28, 2016 07:05AM