The 2 Pt Conversion...

18in32

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
27,979
Gotta say that the 2 pt conversion was probably the first time in five games that a CGC coaching decision really jumped out at me as both bold and wise. I was not expecting it, and it gave us a chance to win the game on a late FG rather than continue to play overmatched in OT. And it was executed very well.

What says the board? Would it have been a good call even if it hadn't worked?
 
It was the right call. We needed the defense to step up, but it was worn down. I can see a vision for what he wants to do where as before I couldn’t.
 
it was a shot at Mack



spoiler: Mack blew a 2 pt option conversion against clempson
 
Last edited:
It was a very bad call. I understand that it would let you win with a TD and a FG but if that's what you want then you do it on the second TD. Don't take the risk until you have to, because you don't know what will happen in rest of the game (e.g. safety like we had last week.)

On the other hand if you think we have a higher expected point value than the XP, then you should go for two almost every time. But obviously CGC doesn't think that or we would go for 2 much more often.
 
andrew said:
It was a very bad call. I understand that it would let you win with a TD and a FG but if that's what you want then you do it on the second TD. Don't take the risk until you have to, because you don't know what will happen in rest of the game (e.g. safety like we had last week.)

On the other hand if you think we have a higher expected point value than the XP, then you should go for two almost every time. But obviously CGC doesn't think that or we would go for 2 much more often.
Click to expand...
You're overlooking the element of surprise. I'd say we executed it perfectly, and part of that is that they weren't ready for us at all.
 
andrew said:
It was a very bad call. I understand that it would let you win with a TD and a FG but if that's what you want then you do it on the second TD. Don't take the risk until you have to, because you don't know what will happen in rest of the game (e.g. safety like we had last week.)

On the other hand if you think we have a higher expected point value than the XP, then you should go for two almost every time. But obviously CGC doesn't think that or we would go for 2 much more often.
Click to expand...
Ahh, welcome back sunshine
 
andrew said:
It was a very bad call. I understand that it would let you win with a TD and a FG but if that's what you want then you do it on the second TD. Don't take the risk until you have to, because you don't know what will happen in rest of the game (e.g. safety like we had last week.)

On the other hand if you think we have a higher expected point value than the XP, then you should go for two almost every time. But obviously CGC doesn't think that or we would go for 2 much more often.
Click to expand...
When they scored the next TD, it meant we were down by 2 scores not three.
 
BainbridgeJacket said:
When they scored the next TD, it meant we were down by 2 scores not three.
Click to expand...
johncu said:
I'm thinking this was the reason we did it. I've got no problem going for 2 in that situation if you like your odds.
Click to expand...

It's a bad sign if you're going for 2 and risking needing two TDs if you fail, and the rationale is that if you make it you'll be in a better position after your opponent scores another touchdown.

I mean, I guess it's not wrong, because they did score another TD, but it's still a bad sign.
 
Before everyone gets their panties a wad due to chart violations that say you go for 1 in that situation, there is a growing analytics that suggest going for two is a better choice if you convert > 50% of the time and you have a kicker who misses < 95% of the time. Now I think we meet the kicking criteria but I am not so sure I have confidence in our offense to pick up the conversion > 50% of the time. Regardless, I like the aggressiveness and it actually allowed us to stay in the game even after UNC's last TD, which would've made it out of reach had we gone for one.
 
I like the play call
I didn’t like the decision to go for 2. Didn’t need it and now when we face a time that there’s a need to go for 2, we really can’t go back to that play

If the thinking is if they score another TD, we’ll only be two scores down, I have a novel idea - stop em
If you think they can score again, what’s to stop them scoring after that?

Granted, UNC probably could have put 50 on us. They hurt themselves with a bad penalty when they had first and goal at the 6, and Howell missed some open guys
I liked the play we ran, I just thought going for two was unnecessary at that point
 
TampaBayJacket said:
Before everyone gets their panties a wad due to chart violations that say you go for 1 in that situation, there is a growing analytics that suggest going for two is a better choice if you convert > 50% of the time and you have a kicker who misses < 95% of the time. Now I think we meet the kicking criteria but I am not so sure I have confidence in our offense to pick up the conversion > 50% of the time. Regardless, I like the aggressiveness and it actually allowed us to stay in the game even after UNC's last TD, which would've made it out of reach had we gone for one.
Click to expand...

Kicker who makes < 95% of the time you mean?
 
The 2pt conversion made it a 9 point game. CGC trying to cover. :rotfl:

If we score again at the end we cover also. Hence the timeouts to get the ball back. Prove me wrong.
 
I'd like to hear Collins' rationale rather than speculating on it. Seems like several possibilities. It'd be easier to determine whether it was a good decision then.

For instance, if you're 95% confident a two-point play will work, why not?

The play worked beautifully.
 
RussianOffense said:
I'd like to hear Collins' rationale rather than speculating on it. Seems like several possibilities. It'd be easier to determine whether it was a good decision then.

For instance, if you're 95% confident a two-point play will work, why not?

The play worked beautifully.
Click to expand...

I hope you’ve learned your lesson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top