The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

You score a TD on the opening drive.  Do you go for one or two?

Good question, you have to assume that no matter what your opponent will go for two. I think it depends on which you trust more your offense or your defense. I think I’d go for it as either way the pressure is still on the opponent and your D just has to keep out of the end zone

I think the conventional wisdom says you go for one, just for the mental aspect of the other team knowing that they have to go for a TD, then for a 2 pt.  And teams screw up and might still kick the XP.  It's just a lot that has to happen for you to lose the game after scoring.

But it's going to be such a rare case, since these situations will almost never arise.

Why would the other team need to go for a 2 pt conversion? Tie the game and you just keep playing.

Because then it becomes sudden death and you have to prevent a FG and many kickers can do around 55 anywhere minus 40 and it’s likely made..much harder to stop someone from making a kick

This is tougher than going for 2? There's a lot that can go wrong starting from your own 25 especially since you're not going to be in automatic 4 down situations because you can punt in that situation. Just because your defense didn't stop them on the first drive doesn't necessarily mean they are giving up a FG on the 2nd drive. I guess it depends on whether you trust your offense more than your defense and whether or not you want to risk it all on that one play.

You go for 1 if you make the first TD so that you at least have an opportunity to win the game after an opponent TD, if you stop a 2-pt conversion.

You go for 2 on the second TD because your defense just showed that they couldn't prevent a TD (much less a FG), while your offense was clearly just able to drive down the field, so it makes more sense to put the game in the hands of your offense than the hands of your defense.

Well I can’t say if it is or not I think I as you say and I said it  depends on which unit you trust more ( special teams included even though most kicks go out the end zone ).

It usually seemed like whoever won the coin toss in the old OT days typically won the game on a kick, as far as I know that’s why the changed the rules.

It probably wasn’t as much as it seemed but how many sudden death games came down to luck on winning the toss?

I guess this goes back to my whole argument about going for 2 when down by 8. The safe play to me is to kick the extra point. I prefer to take the safe play and kick the extra point and let the game play out rather than risking it all on 1 play especially when the odds of making it are only slightly above a coin flip. At least when you are down by 8 you are assuming that you're going to get another chance at it. Not true in this case.

I also think it's easy for everyone to say they would take the Dan Campbell approach to games when you're not actually in the situation and just hypothetically talking. It's a lot harder to take that gamble when the actual Superbowl is on the line in my humble opinion. Don't forget that Campbell has taken a fair amount of criticism being so aggressive even though for the most part it's worked for him. I think there were some even questioning in that Cowboys game if he should have gone for 2 when essentially there was no risk because win or lose didn't really effect their playoff position. If you go for 2 and don't make it, you're going to be second guessed by a LOT of people. Takes some real guts to go that route in my opinion. I couldn't do it. I'd give my defense a chance to force a punt or a turnover.

Just be aware that when you say this, what you are saying in practice is, "I would rather have my defense decide the game than my offense."

Notwithstanding the fact that the Chiefs' declared plan was to go for 2 in the Super Bowl, you're describing a timeless and well-worn strategy in the NFL:

Delay losing for as long as possible.

Coaches tend to believe that if they just take the action that keeps them mathematically in the game for much time as they can, this will protect them from criticism.  They're not taking the action that gives them the best chance to win; they just want to delay that point of no hope as long as they can.  This was standard practice in the NFL for the first 40-50 years of the Super Bowl era, but has changed somewhat over the last decade or so.

That's not true at all, I trust them equally. I trust my defense to get a stop or a turnover. I also trust my offense to get points. Why put all my eggs in one basket? Now I'm not saying that I would NEVER do that. If I absolutely felt like the offense or the defense had a MUCH better chance at winning the game for me, sure I'd go with my instincts but ONLY if I felt that way.

Agreed. I'm not really sure what was wrong with that strategy before. Seems the "statisticians" have decided the last 40-50 years were wrong, but "statiticians" don't play the game. The odds are just the odds from viewing past history and has absolutely nothing to do with THIS MOMENT IN TIME. I'd much prefer to simply go with my gut instincts in that situation. I don't really care what history shows, I care about how I feel about it right now. Right at that moment in time, 5 percentage points one way or the other historically isn't going to influence my decision.

I think there are too many variables to have it decided ahead of time. Because of the nuances of the game my decision would have to be fluid. I'd have a preference with all things being equal but they seldom are by that point.

It's sudden death after the first two scores.

So, to just keep playing gives you a MUCH worse chance than 50/50 to win the game, since your opponent gets the first (and every subsequent first) crack at it.  The 2 pt gives you around a 50/50 chance (but probably better than that).