> Sparano - I felt like at that point 11 was a good spot to be for us, I was trying to take a scenario out of play, in that the only scenario that would have beat us was two touchdowns.


You guys miss the point. 11 pt lead is significant and as Sparano said a pretty decent place to be.

What is not said in the 12 pt lead argument is that tony would be forcing the opponent to do the same thing we were attempting (2pt) and to be successful. TD + FG + 2pt or 2 TDs.

I think you guys are getting in a lather over nothing.

Hind sight is 20-20, and we didn't make it, but i think it was a good call!

I know what the chart says but what would you say we should do if there were only 2 minutes left in the game? Still go for two b/c that's what the chart says to do? I think not. "The chart" not only doesn't but it CAN'T consider time as a factor.

Sparano danced around the subject like a politician b/c he knows it was the wrong call and if he had it to do over, would have kicked the pat. Think about it...barring the Illegal Procedure call (that could easily been overlooked), the jets tie that game, we go to overtime...and based on the play of both squads at the time, we probably lose that game.

What would you think of his call then? Everyone on here would be BLASTING Sparano for the STUPID two pt conversion attempt!

Dolfanmark posted the chart via a link for all those who would like to look at it.

You go for the sure points and kick the extra point...I'm not a fan of the two point conversion because it dosen't work often enough. If you need to do it to preserve a win or to win a game outright great. But otherwise forget going for two...JMO.

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would argue that the time of the game really
> isn't relevant...mostly cause I like to argue.
>
>
> If its the 1st half and I'm up by 12 a FG puts me
> up by 15 and puts my opponent in a bind. Kicking
> a FG or the threat of eventually kicking a FG
> forces him to go for 2 to even up. Forcing
> someone to go for two is obviously tougher than
> kicking a PAT. It improves my odds which is all
> I'm trying to do in the first place.
>
> The only advantage I see is that IF I go for two
> AND kick a fg I'm up 16 and they need two TD's and
> 2 2pt conversions. But the risk there isn't
> worth the reward.

RESPONSE: Here is why I say that time matters. Let's say that in the first quarter, we kick a field goal (now its 3-0) then we get a safety (then it becomes 5-0) then we score a touchdown (then before any conversion attempted it becomes 11-0).

Since it is only the first quarter, the choice is either be up 12-0 guaranteed, or trying to be up 13-0 with the risk that you could remain up 11-0.

I think most people would agree that you should go for the extra points because 11-0 still faces them to score a two point conversion to equal your score and 13-0 gives you a touchdown (7 points theoretically that is) and a two field goal advantage.

12-0 can be overcome with 2 touchdowns.

So at the beginning of the game, you are assuming a low scoring game and putting yourself in the best position to win assuming very little scoring occurs for the rest of the game.

However, at the end of the game, you have to take into account the dynamics that you yourself pointed out in the prior post.

I'm surprised by you arguing that a coach kick the extra point in all situations (presumably even you would except a situation wherein there was only 5 seconds left in the game and you were 2 points behind), even in the first quarter. You are contradicting what I thought was a damn good argument you had above and in effect adopting (in reverse) the same type of argument you condemned the coaching staff for engaging in, that is, following the chart blindly and ignoring the game situation only you are blinding rejecting a 2 point conversion except presumably when it is absolutely needed.

In a first quarter game situation (which I think that the chart is always premised on, which is why I think it should be ignored in the second half) it is better to be on a 10, 11, or 13, etc.lead and not to be on 12 lead which is a wierd number that can be overcome by 2 touchdowns.

On another subject, I don't understand the other chart. I don't know how he calculates the percentages he calculates. Is it based on the number of 2 point conversions made by that team that year? I don't know where he pulls those figures from if, like you say (and I have heard it myself) the odds of converting a 2 point conversion is ALWAYS about 40%.

Sparano seemed to be saying despite the odds, he was comfortable with an 11 point lead even if the 2 point conversion he was attempting were to fail. As others have pointed out, that is foolish given the fact that a 12 point lead would have forced the Jets to score 2 touchdowns.

By you should go for the "extra points" above, I mean go for the 2 point conversion.

I wrote:
> > I think most people would agree that you should
> go
> > for the extra points because 11-0 still faces
> them
> > to score a two point conversion to equal your
> > score and 13-0 gives you a touchdown (7 points
> > theoretically that is) and a two field goal
> > advantage.
Phinsfan2 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> Here's where you lose me. Going for two at 11-0
> in the first quarter, or even the first half to
> eliminate the chance that a TD and 2G's would put
> you behind is defeatist. It assumes that you
> can't score again and that you are going to give
> up 3 scoring drives.

RESPONSE: My point is that you have the whole rest of the game to go. It is really impossible to predict the millions of scenarios that could work out. That being said, Sparano's logic does come into play when he said essentially "11 is a good number to be on and 13 is better." However, I'm not defending Sparano because he said that at the wrong time. If you have a 12 point lead, it can be overcome by a touchdown and two field goals. If you have a 13 point lead, they need two touchdowns to overcome you or a touchdown and two field goals to tie you.

True, an 11 point lead can be overcome by two touchdowns but with only one touchdown, you need to also score a two point conversion to tie.

I WROTE:
> > 12-0 can be overcome with 2 touchdowns.
>
Phinsfan2 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- >
> So can 13-0.

RESPONSE: True but you want to get onto football numbers. Let's suppose at the beginning of the game you kick 4 field goals and are up 12-0. When you score a touchdown bring you temporarily to 18-0, most folks would go for 2 bringing them to 20 points, a good football number.

When you have a 12 point lead, it's simply not a comfortable number to just sit on. You want to get on a number that will allow you to tie the other person or force him to tie you or score a touchdown to go ahead.

I totally see Sparano's logic. Just not applied to late in the game.

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually by getting to 13-0 you are only ensuring
> a tie in the event you give up a TD and 2 FG's and
> a 1 point loss if you give up 2td's.
>
> My position is that you still need to score again
> if you can't stop the other team. If that's the
> case, then a FG wins the game for you if you are
> at 12-0 and they score 2td or a td and 2 fg's.

RESPONSE:

IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE SITTING ON 12-0, such as I said above where you kick 4 field goals, yes that logic applies but I don't think anyone in football wants to be on a 12 point lead because its vulnerable. They would rather try for a 13 point lead and if it fails, be comfortable with an 11 point lead.

Lookit, 12 points is better than 11 points, particularly at the end of the game. But at the end of the game your options are limited. At the beginning of the game, who knows what a multitude of possibilities may present themselves. That is why, all things considered, if you are sitting at 11 points (a football number) it is better to risk going to 13 rather than going to 12.

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I go for two and don't get it and am stuck at
> 11-0, my FG only ties the game for me if they
> scored 2 TD's. By kicking the PAT togo from 11-0
> to 12-0 I put myself in a position to win by
> stopping them or in a worst case scenario, kicking
> a FG to regain the lead.

RESPONSE:

I see our problem. Even at the beginning of the game, you are looking at each score as if it were near the end of the fourth quarter and you are going to end up with that score or the opposition is going to necessarily do X, Y or Z.

Like I said, I don't think at the beginning of the game you necessarily are really thinking that "I've got to assume that there will only be one more score on each side." I think you consider that if you are on an odd lead like 12 points, it can be overcome a number of ways. If you are on a more traditional football number such as 11, 13, or 14, then even if you can be overcome, your options of tying or go ahead are clearer and most likely don't involve ANOTHER two point conversion.

Let's suppose you have 12 points in the first half. There is no more scoring until late in the 3rd quarter. The other team then scores a touchdown 12-7. Then they score another touchdown, you are down 12-14, then they kick two field goals, you are down 12-20. Now its late in the fourth quarter, 3 minutes to go. You have the ball. Now, you're going to have to make that 2 point conversion because you're on that wierd 12 point number.

Late in the game, when you are up by 11, it makes sense to simply kick the extra point and go up by 12, rather than to try to be greedy and go to 13. But early in the game, you want to be on a good football number like 11 or 13.

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you may have confused my comments with
> someone elses. That or you misinterpreted what I
> was saying or I failed to express my thoughts
> clearly. But I don't beleive I said there
> weren't circumstances where I'd go for two.
>
> My general philosophy is never go for two when you
> have the lead and are not in the last 10 minutes
> of the game. At that point only go for two if the
> conversion moves you from a 1 point lead to a 3
> point lead, a 5 point lead to a 7 point lead, a 12
> point lead to a 14 poiont lead and so on.

RESPONSE: I did ORIGINALLY misinterpret your argument. I thought that you were condemning Sparano for applying the right logic in the wrong situation. But I thought your idea of the wrong situation was late in the game as opposed to early in the game, a philosophy with which I agree. You, however, NEVER seem to think that going for 2 is a good idea EARLY in the game. I think that it is worth a try early in the game to produce the very effect you talk about at the end of the last paragraph which is my idea of being on a good football number, i.e., going from a 1 pt to a 3 pt lead, or from a 5 pt to a 7 pt lead or from a 12 pt to a 14 pt lead. But I think that also applies to early in the game wherein there is really nothing to lose because there are so many other scenarios that can play out to compensate for any failure when by failing you are still on a good football number like an 11 point lead.
Phinsfan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I saw another article where Sparano indicated he
> was worried about how many possessions they'd get
> and wanted take the td and 2 FG scenario out of
> the equation.
>
> I agree, based on the time left, that was a poor
> decision. Instead of forcing the other team to
> react to us we were reacting to a deafeatist
> scenario where we couldn't get a 1st down on two
> possessions and allowed them to score on 3
> straight to end the game.


RESPONSE: I guess we are all agree that he made a bad decision but I disagree that he did it out of a defeatist attitude which I actually think would be an UPGRADE from his real reasons which I suspect to be just plain simple inability to realize that you don't use the chart at the end of the game, you analyze the situation.

I brought up the 4 field goals making 12 points to say that on the next touchdown, you are going to try to get to 20. That's a football number. You probably don't want to go to 19 which is a beatable number in case the other team gets to 17 and kicks a field goal to beat you.

When you say defeatist, you're looking at it the wrong way. You are not thinking (in any of these scenarios) what you have confidence you can do or lack confidence you can do (offensively) OR defensively what you think you can stop or what you don't think you can stop.

That's not the way you look at scenarios. You are making it way too personal from the standpoint of assessment of your team's ability or the other team's ability.

These charts and scenarios basically involve math and assuming that "if they do this, then we're in this position and if they do that, we're in that position."

Terms like "defeatist" and even "overly optimistic" on the other hand, simply do not apply in this game scenario analysis.

As far as the 4 field goals thing, I'm not going to go back and track it down but at some point you were saying I was being inconsistent and now talking about field goals whereas before I was talking about getting to there via touchdowns and I was trying to explain but it really is not important.

You say " I'm NOT basing my decision to go for two on the fact that I I need to get to 20 now because it gives me the best chance to win if I don't score again. That's what I consider defeatist."

See you are still thinking in concrete terms like at you are confronting a "RIGHT NOW DEFINITE SITUATION" or "let's assume I don't score again." That's not how you are supposed to look at it.

The way you are supposed to look at it is "Would you rather be up A number of points or B number of points." I can only say this like that. That is what Sparano meant when he said that 11 was a good number to be on. My only problem WITH HIM THINKING THAT was that since it was late in the game, then, unlike EARLY in the game, you don't think about the numbers in the abstract. You've got a finite clock and you can, as you said in your original post, can figure out how many possessions are left to each team. At that point, you take into account those factors.

Another example of your philosophy is when you say " If I assume that I'm going to score at least another FG before the end of the game, then going for two makes no sense. Its the difference between winning by 2 pts vs winning by 1 pt if I kick the PAT. "

Again, here you are at the very beginning of the game looking at things as if its in the 4th quarter and the clock is about to expire. Don't you see how odd that is?

You don't look at it that way. You look at it in terms of the lead that you have. Early in the game you can't PLAN on a fixed set of circumstances happening even in the abstract because anything could happen. Either one or both of the teams could score a safety. That could screw up your calculations. Either one of the teams could miss an extra point. That could screw up your calculations. So you don't decide what to do based on your belief or non-belief that the other team will or cannot do this or that. You look at the problem purely in the abstract and consider that a 12 or a 19 point lead can be overcome by 13 points or 14 points (which are both numbers that football teams usually end up on NOT SAYING END UP AT THE END OF THE GAME BUT SAYING THAT IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE FOOTBALL SCORES IN ALL GAMES YOU WILL SEE TEAMS LEADING OR WINNING BY THAT NUMBER MORE THAN BY 12 WHICH IS A WIERD NUMBER IN FOOTBALL), a 19 point lead is bested by a 20 or 21 point score.

So the question is, early in the game, do you want to be up by 13 points so bad that you are willing to risk staying at 11 points or do you go for the safe 12 point lead. Early in the game, Phinsfan2, I think most people would say, hell, why not go for 2?

Man, you guys have to much time on your hands.

Probably.

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leon In Denver Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Man, you guys have to much time on your
> hands.
>
>
> says the guy taking the time to follow our
> discussion...
>
> ehh, your probably right Leon, but we both like to
> argue...what are we gonna do....

Man that's a lot of words. I think I need break.

If you don't need to go for two, you don't do it. Especially when a PAT forces the other team to get 2 TDs. What kind of defense ya think we got there?

To Venom:

The game has just started and you sack the opposing QB in his endzone. You're up 2-0.

The opposition fails to convert after the kickoff.

You get the ball and drive for a touchdown. You're up 8-0. Do you kick the extra point (you certainly don't NEED to score 2) and go up 9-0 or do you go for two and go up 10-0?

I think most people would say go for 2 and be up 10-0.

PhinsFan2, you can ALWAYS increase ANY total at the beginning of the game (and remember we were talking about the beginning of the game). It's not gambling, its just a situation where you know at 19 points with the other team probably (barring them scoring a safety or missing an extra point) are probably very easily going to put together a number that can beat you. That's why, early in the game, you want to get on a good football number. Late in the game you play the situation.

PhinsFan 2, you are denying it but in the end all of your statistical arguments are based on game-scenario-ing the end of the game in the first quarter.

BTW, how can you call me "defeatist" and a "gambler" in the same argument. Aren't those polar opposites?

The end.

You go for one. Stupid to take points off the board that early. I don't care what the score is. If you don't HAVE to go for 2 you don't do it!

The end again.

And again.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"