Football Interest MMQB Point: Teams may NOT go for ANY points in PAT situation

Amnorix · 09-14-2015, 07:43 AM

Thought this was a really interesting analysis.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/09/13/n...nnessee-titans

The PAT revolution? Not quite, but wait.

Imagine this scenario, painted for me by Indianapolis coach Chuck Pagano:
The Colts score a touchdown to go up nine points with 45 seconds left in the game. Now Pagano has to decide whether to go for the point-after touchdown, basically a 33-yard field goal, or to go for two, from the 2-yard line.

Or, as Pagano suggested, neither.

“Because the defense can score on the PAT or two-point conversion now, why would I go for either one?” Pagano told me. “Why wouldn’t I just take a knee and not go for anything?”

Suppose, Pagano went on, he tried to kick the PAT to go up 10, and it’s blocked and returned for a defensive point. Or the Colts went for two, it was fumbled or picked, and returned for a two-point play by the defense. Then the Colts would be up by either eight or seven—and have to kick off to a team that now would have a chance to tie the game and force overtime.

So imagine a team, late in a game, up by four or nine, lining up to go for two and then the quarterback simply takes a knee to kill the play. I’m not saying it positively will happen. But I am saying it makes zero sense for a team up four or nine in the last minute or so to attempt either the one or two-point conversion. There’s nothing to gain. That’s Pagano’s opinion. Chip Kelly’s too. “We felt that way at Oregon, because the defense could score points,” the Eagles’ coach said.

“I think you’ll see a change in the mentality, with more thought being put into the fact that the defense can return it now, and what impact that has,” Mike Pettine of the Browns said. “We already have a chart made.”

On our training camp trip, The MMQB asked head coaches if they planned to treat the PAT any differently this year with the line of scrimmage moved from the 2 to the 15-yard line—and with defenses now being able to score either one or two points on a failed conversion try returned to the far end zone. We got no sense that there would be a mass change from the one to two-point tries, and only a few echoed what Green Bay coach Mike McCarthy told me: In some games, depending on the defensive matchup, he could see the Packers going for two after every touchdown.

But most coaches were like Kelly. “The percentage in kicking from the 2 versus kicking from the 15, I think, goes from about 99.6 percent to 95.5 percent,” said Kelly, referring to the percentage of extra-point success in 2014, versus the percentage of field goals made from the low 30-yard-yard area. “The league wanted to encourage coaches to think about going for two, and I said you needed to change where you went from two from. [Kelly proposed moving the two-point line of scrimmage from the 2 to the 1-yard line.] I said, ‘It’s been on the 2-yard line and people haven’t gone for two, so why moving it back and changing four percentage points do you think that’s going to make a coach go for two?’ I don’t see the system really moving people much to go for two.”

Two other factors: Tom Coughlin of the Giants said part of the hesitancy in going for two is the risk of injury, and that would have been exacerbated if the league put the two-point line at the 1. “Do we need four, five extra full-speed plays every game by putting the ball at the 1 and enticing people to go?” Coughlin said. “I don’t think so. Who is going to play in December if these things are allowed to accumulate. You keep a pitch count. Well, you keep a snap count, too.”

But there will be more two-point tries, particularly if the defense jumps offside on the one-point tries. That means teams will have a choice whether to take a five-yard penalty and put the PAT line of scrimmage at the 10-yard line, or go half the distance, from the 2 to the 1, and try a one-yard two-point play. “I can choose to say, I’m going for two now,” said Houston’s Bill O’Brien. Several coaches echoed that.

The opposite of that scenario actually played out in Week 1. The Chargers scored a touchdown in the fourth quarter to go up five points on the Lions, 26-21. San Diego lined up to go for two but committed a false start and had to move back five yards. Coach Mike McCoy opted to try the 38-yard PAT (rather than a 7-yard two-point try) and Josh Lambo's kick was no good. It's a good example of the little strategic decisions that the longer PAT now forces coaches to make.

**Buehler445** · 09-14-2015, 07:56 AM

Makes some sense, but on a philosophical note, if my coach is playing scared like that, he needs to ****ing go. See: Squirimin Herman.

**loochy** · 09-14-2015, 07:56 AM

it makes sense

splatbass · 09-14-2015, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Makes some sense, but on a philosophical note, if my coach is playing scared like that, he needs to ****ing go. See: Squirimin Herman.

I don't think it is playing scared. It is playing smart. Why give the other team a chance to get back in it when you can just take a knee and win it?

This isn't really the same as "playing not to lose" where Herm and sometimes Andy play conservative for half the game. This is actually putting the game away when you have a chance.

King_Chief_Fan · 09-14-2015, 08:07 AM

Most stupid thing I have read.
What is the likelihood that would happen?
Less than 5%? Isn't it more likely the offense is successful?

**Buehler445** · 09-14-2015, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splatbass

I don't think it is playing scared. It is playing smart. Why give the other team a chance to get back in it when you can just take a knee and win it?

Eh, maybe I'm pissy on a Monday, but it stinks like Squimin Herman. It's one thing to take the position in football strategy, but to think that the media needs to hear about how many scary things can happen sounds an awful lot like Squimin Herman saying that when you pass 4 things can happen and only one of them is good or whatever he was spilling douche on the floor about.

If that's your playcall I don't have a problem with it, but it sounds like the bitch is coaching scared when your interview is all about how bad things might happen.

Reerun_KC · 09-14-2015, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Eh, maybe I'm pissy on a Monday, but it stinks like Squimin Herman. It's one thing to take the position in football strategy, but to think that the media needs to hear about how many scary things can happen sounds an awful lot like Squimin Herman saying that when you pass 4 things can happen and only one of them is good or whatever he was spilling douche on the floor about.

If that's your playcall I don't have a problem with it, but it sounds like the bitch is coaching scared when your interview is all about how bad things might happen.

chiefzilla1501 · 09-14-2015, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Makes some sense, but on a philosophical note, if my coach is playing scared like that, he needs to ****ing go. See: Squirimin Herman.

It's actually really smart. Taking a knee isn't playing scared. It's smart. It reminds me of a few years ago when mjd brilliantly took a knee on the one yard line instead of scoring a TD. If there is no advantage to be gained from going for points, there is no reason to take the risk no matter how small.

**Saul Good** · 09-14-2015, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Makes some sense, but on a philosophical note, if my coach is playing scared like that, he needs to ****ing go. See: Squirimin Herman.

Are you against going into victory formation and kneeling in the ball at the end of games?

Reerun_KC · 09-14-2015, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Are you against going into victory formation and kneeling in the ball at the end of games?

So you guys are saying that you would never go for 2 or kick the extra point and only kneel on the ball so you don't risk anything?

Gotcha...

**loochy** · 09-14-2015, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

So you guys are saying that you would never go for 2 or kick the extra point and only kneel on the ball so you don't risk anything?

Gotcha...

No, only do that when the situation calls for it.

Amnorix · 09-14-2015, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

So you guys are saying that you would never go for 2 or kick the extra point and only kneel on the ball so you don't risk anything?

Gotcha...

errr...no. Only at the end of a game where the point difference is such that the team going for the PAT gets, really, no advantage from scoring the point(s), but the other team WOULD get a significant advantage from scoring 2 if everything somehow went to hell.

Reerun_KC · 09-14-2015, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loochy

No, only do that when the situation calls for it.

Theres a difference between doing it when the situation calls for it vs stating what Buehler stated.

Most NFL coaches are slow to adapt and complete cowards when it comes to having the guts to win a game.

As Buehler stated, those coaches are the ones you don't want around. They will take the coward route vs putting a team away... We have seen it many a times in KC with Marty, Herm, Reid, Crennel and others...

Reerun_KC · 09-14-2015, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

errr...no. Only at the end of a game where the point difference is such that the team going for the PAT gets, really, no advantage from scoring the point(s), but the other team WOULD get a significant advantage from scoring 2 if everything somehow went to hell.

right, but what stops a coach from risking the play completely if there is a chance of a 2 pt return or 2 pt failure risk.

beach tribe · 09-14-2015, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

So you guys are saying that you would never go for 2 or kick the extra point and only kneel on the ball so you don't risk anything?

Gotcha...

Read it again, bro.

09-14-2015, 07:43 AM
Amnorix In BB I trust Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, Mass. Casino cash: $10029808	Interest MMQB Point: Teams may NOT go for ANY points in PAT situation Thought this was a really interesting analysis. http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/09/13/n...nnessee-titans The PAT revolution? Not quite, but wait. Imagine this scenario, painted for me by Indianapolis coach Chuck Pagano: The Colts score a touchdown to go up nine points with 45 seconds left in the game. Now Pagano has to decide whether to go for the point-after touchdown, basically a 33-yard field goal, or to go for two, from the 2-yard line. Or, as Pagano suggested, neither. “Because the defense can score on the PAT or two-point conversion now, why would I go for either one?” Pagano told me. “Why wouldn’t I just take a knee and not go for anything?” Suppose, Pagano went on, he tried to kick the PAT to go up 10, and it’s blocked and returned for a defensive point. Or the Colts went for two, it was fumbled or picked, and returned for a two-point play by the defense. Then the Colts would be up by either eight or seven—and have to kick off to a team that now would have a chance to tie the game and force overtime. So imagine a team, late in a game, up by four or nine, lining up to go for two and then the quarterback simply takes a knee to kill the play. I’m not saying it positively will happen. But I am saying it makes zero sense for a team up four or nine in the last minute or so to attempt either the one or two-point conversion. There’s nothing to gain. That’s Pagano’s opinion. Chip Kelly’s too. “We felt that way at Oregon, because the defense could score points,” the Eagles’ coach said. “I think you’ll see a change in the mentality, with more thought being put into the fact that the defense can return it now, and what impact that has,” Mike Pettine of the Browns said. “We already have a chart made.” On our training camp trip, The MMQB asked head coaches if they planned to treat the PAT any differently this year with the line of scrimmage moved from the 2 to the 15-yard line—and with defenses now being able to score either one or two points on a failed conversion try returned to the far end zone. We got no sense that there would be a mass change from the one to two-point tries, and only a few echoed what Green Bay coach Mike McCarthy told me: In some games, depending on the defensive matchup, he could see the Packers going for two after every touchdown. But most coaches were like Kelly. “The percentage in kicking from the 2 versus kicking from the 15, I think, goes from about 99.6 percent to 95.5 percent,” said Kelly, referring to the percentage of extra-point success in 2014, versus the percentage of field goals made from the low 30-yard-yard area. “The league wanted to encourage coaches to think about going for two, and I said you needed to change where you went from two from. [Kelly proposed moving the two-point line of scrimmage from the 2 to the 1-yard line.] I said, ‘It’s been on the 2-yard line and people haven’t gone for two, so why moving it back and changing four percentage points do you think that’s going to make a coach go for two?’ I don’t see the system really moving people much to go for two.” Two other factors: Tom Coughlin of the Giants said part of the hesitancy in going for two is the risk of injury, and that would have been exacerbated if the league put the two-point line at the 1. “Do we need four, five extra full-speed plays every game by putting the ball at the 1 and enticing people to go?” Coughlin said. “I don’t think so. Who is going to play in December if these things are allowed to accumulate. You keep a pitch count. Well, you keep a snap count, too.” But there will be more two-point tries, particularly if the defense jumps offside on the one-point tries. That means teams will have a choice whether to take a five-yard penalty and put the PAT line of scrimmage at the 10-yard line, or go half the distance, from the 2 to the 1, and try a one-yard two-point play. “I can choose to say, I’m going for two now,” said Houston’s Bill O’Brien. Several coaches echoed that. The opposite of that scenario actually played out in Week 1. The Chargers scored a touchdown in the fourth quarter to go up five points on the Lions, 26-21. San Diego lined up to go for two but committed a false start and had to move back five yards. Coach Mike McCoy opted to try the 38-yard PAT (rather than a 7-yard two-point try) and Josh Lambo's kick was no good. It's a good example of the little strategic decisions that the longer PAT now forces coaches to make.
Posts: 43,125

09-14-2015, 07:56 AM	#2
Buehler445 Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Scott City KS Casino cash: $1954734	Makes some sense, but on a philosophical note, if my coach is playing scared like that, he needs to ****ing go. See: Squirimin Herman.
Posts: 56,955

09-14-2015, 07:56 AM	#3
loochy Hey Loochy, I'm hooome! Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: PooPooKaKaPeePeeShire Casino cash: $1780752	it makes sense __________________ Hey Loochy, I'm hoooome!
Posts: 40,639

09-14-2015, 08:07 AM	#5
King_Chief_Fan Praise Him Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: none ya Casino cash: $5855486	Most stupid thing I have read. What is the likelihood that would happen? Less than 5%? Isn't it more likely the offense is successful? __________________ No Jesus No Peace Know Jesus Know Peace Ephesians 2:8-10 English Standard Version (ESV) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Posts: 12,181