forums

Down 8 go for 2?

Canes Device said:
I’m not entirely familiar with the concept, buit I have seen for years writers saying the math works out that way.

2PT conversions are a 50/50 preposition, so you should get at least one time. If you succeed on the first try you only need a TD and PAT to win and if you don’t you still have a second crack at it if you manage to score again.

The playcall was brutal tho, Wildcat in a condensed space is a tough call imo, we got lucky that time.
Click to expand...
Plus, say baxa is only making 90% of xps, which would be generous.

His probability of making 2 is .9 x .9 =.81

Much better probability by going for 2.

If the D doesn’t collapse, mannys decision to go for 2 literally saves us from Baxa and brings us to OT. How are you guys criticizing this??
 
Advertisement
Analytics say it's the correct call.

Same reason when people go ballistic when teams score to go up 7 and then go for 2 to try to make it a 9 point game. It blows "traditionalists" minds. But it's the correct call per the numbers. Having a kicker who is virtually a quadriplegic only makes the decision easier. Even if you had Justin Tucker it's not a bad call. Doesn't give you a huge advantage but it's a slightly better call via the analytics.
 
Imagine how bad it would have been if Miami would have lost 35-33 by going for 2 twice and not making it. DJ made a great play for 2. You would probably see the plane this week. It worked but that does not make it right or a smart call. Maybe a little desperation. The other side of the coin a 36-35 win would have felt like winning the national championship. Baxa and the defense had other ideas especially after the unsportsman like penalty on the DJ td giving VT great field position. Where the **** is the discipline.
 
OrangeBowlMagic said:
Analytics say it's the correct call.

Same reason when people go ballistic when teams score to go up 7 and then go for 2 to try to make it a 9 point game. It blows "traditionalists" minds.
Click to expand...

It is unbelievable that more teams don't go for 2 in that scenario...up by 7 after scoring a touchdown. It actually started happening in the NFL before the colleges figured it out. Pete Carroll did it with the Seahawks against New England in 2016. I was watching that game while on a trip to watch two Canes road games at Virginia and North Carolina State. I immediately told others nearby that it was mathematically the correct decision for Carroll to go for 2 and get a 9 point lead. But when Seattle missed then naturally everybody piled on me and said I was a fool for suggesting it was smart. Everybody loves to play the result. Diaz was correct last week but if Dallas doesn't shift the ball to his left hand and barely get it inside the pile on, then you'd have hundreds of posts here assailing the decision as idiocy.

Bill Belichick is normally on top of things regarding mathematically sound decisions. But even he was caught off guard by Carroll's choice, as evidenced in this thread and a close up of Belichick asking, "Why would they go for 2 here?"

www.sbnation.com

Why did the Seahawks go for 2 against the Patriots?

Even the Patriots were confused.
www.sbnation.com www.sbnation.com
 
#1cane said:
Imagine how bad it would have been if Miami would have lost 35-33 by going for 2 twice and not making it. DJ made a great play for 2. You would probably see the plane this week. It worked but that does not make it right or a smart call. Maybe a little desperation. The other side of the coin a 36-35 win would have felt like winning the national championship. Baxa and the defense had other ideas especially after the unsportsman like penalty on the DJ td giving VT great field position. Where the **** is the discipline.
Click to expand...

A one-game sample does not make it the wrong move. Two misses on the 2 point conversion would have been fine. As others have posted, we are in infancy stages of these type of decisions being made. That's why fans are shocked, and naturally the worst case scenario stuff will be highlighted. That is like the marching caravan that we were supposed to be petrified of at this time last year.

Once these analytics choices become more common in regard to going for the first down instead of punting, and going for 2 more frequently, then fans and analysts will no longer be shocked.
 
Awsi Dooger said:
It is unbelievable that more teams don't go for 2 in that scenario...up by 7 after scoring a touchdown. It actually started happening in the NFL before the colleges figured it out. Pete Carroll did it with the Seahawks against New England in 2016. I was watching that game while on a trip to watch two Canes road games at Virginia and North Carolina State. I immediately told others nearby that it was mathematically the correct decision for Carroll to go for 2 and get a 9 point lead. But when Seattle missed then naturally everybody piled on me and said I was a fool for suggesting it was smart. Everybody loves to play the result. Diaz was correct last week but if Dallas doesn't shift the ball to his left hand and barely get it inside the pile on, then you'd have hundreds of posts here assailing the decision as idiocy.

Bill Belichick is normally on top of things regarding mathematically sound decisions. But even he was caught off guard by Carroll's choice, as evidenced in this thread and a close up of Belichick asking, "Why would they go for 2 here?"

www.sbnation.com

Why did the Seahawks go for 2 against the Patriots?

Even the Patriots were confused.
www.sbnation.com www.sbnation.com
Click to expand...

Yup. Pederson for the Eagles has been doing this for a long time. You've got 1 play from the 3 yard line (with a roughly 50% conversion rate) to make it a 2 score game. Worst case, you miss and you're still up 7.
 
Maybe because he was capitalizing on our momentum and had no confidence Baxa could make an extra point with all the pressure. Its a big ask for a P5 Kicker at Miami to make an extra point... especially in a game as big as VT / Miami
 
It's a new day with analytics becoming much more of a factor. To his credit, Manny's logic makes since . . . but fortunate that Dallas' incredible effort made something of a busted play.
 
It made perfect sense. You only had to to 1/2 on the 2 point conversion in contrast to having to go 2/2 with a struggling kicker. If you make the first try for 2 you can win with a made PAT or tie with a missed one. If you miss the first try for 2 you still have another try.
 
Advertisement
ALLoverCANE said:
The numbers say it's the right move. You see it from time to time now, but in 5-10 years, every team will be doing it. The logic is as follows:

-2-pt conversions succeed 50% of the time. PATs are basically 100% (except for Bubba)
-Let's say you go for 2 after the first TD, and let's assume you hold the opponent scoreless the rest of the game
-You succeed 50% of the time on that first attempt. After you score your second TD, you kick a PAT and win. So, 50% of the time, you win the game.
-You fail 50% of the time on that first attempt. However, you succeed 50% of the time on that second attempt. So, 25% of the time (50% x 50%) you tie and go to OT, and the remaining 25% of the time you lose.
-OT is basically 50-50 since the format is so wacky and each team only gets 1 possession. So now, 12.5% of the time you win (50% x 25%) and 12.5% of the time you lose.

To recap:
-When you go for 2 on the first (and potentially second) attempt, you win 62.5% : 50% when you succeed on the first 2 pt attempt + 12.5% (50% x 25%) when you fail on the first attempt, succeed on the second, and go to OT
-When you kick the PAT, you win 50%: you go to OT 100% of the time, and win half the time
-You win 12.5% (or 1 out of 8 times) more when you go for 2 than when you kick the PAT

Throw in our terrible PAT kicking, and it was no doubt the right move.
Click to expand...
Great post
 
If you truly believe our kicker is a head case who is unlikely to make kicks when they matter most, then going for 2 at that point is the smart call.
If you fail, you can still go for 2 on the next score to tie. If you make the conversion and your charmin soft kicker does what you think he will do after the next score (miss), then you're still tied. If your kicker surprises you, has his nuts drop, and makes the XP, then you're up 1.

If you go for the XP down 8, and the kicker manages to make it (because the game's not on the line yet), but then misses the next one (with the game on the line). You lose by 1 point.

I saw it as Manny saying he has ZERO faith in our kicker's ability to make a kick with the game on the line. Based on what I've seen, I can't disagree.
 
CaneDogX said:
Maybe because he was capitalizing on our momentum and had no confidence Baxa could make an extra point with all the pressure. Its a big ask for a P5 Kicker at Miami to make an extra point... especially in a game as big as VT / Miami
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with Baxa. He was asked to kick the 3 prior PATs and was asked to kick the final one. It was a statistical probability decision as others have mentioned in this thread.
 
Back
Top