Going for 2 up 12-7

[AbsolutNET]

1st half, take the point

4th quarter go for two. The way the game was going, the chance of one Carolina big play was greater than two FG's.

I would guess every coach, college or pro given the same circumstances, goes for two.

Kick the PAT, then get one big play against you and you are now down 14-13, miss the 2 pointer, now down 14-12 FG still wins it for you. Definitely the right call and yes.... A no brainer!

I would like to see the data that supports your 1 big TD play vs 2 FG's in a 10 minute period. You cant just say the chance was greater, cause it wasnt greater. The chances of CAR getting into FG range and stuffed was far better then them getting into the endzone.

I dont understand why everyone doesnt want to use their brain. You keep saying no-brainer. Thats why you keep coming to these illogical conclusions, your not using your brain. I say it was a yes-brainer.

Someone not completely agreeing with you isn't a reason for you to keep insulting them. It's a difference of opinion.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

1st half, take the point

4th quarter go for two. The way the game was going, the chance of one Carolina big play was greater than two FG's.

I would guess every coach, college or pro given the same circumstances, goes for two.

Kick the PAT, then get one big play against you and you are now down 14-13, miss the 2 pointer, now down 14-12 FG still wins it for you. Definitely the right call and yes.... A no brainer!

I would like to see the data that supports your 1 big TD play vs 2 FG's in a 10 minute period. You cant just say the chance was greater, cause it wasnt greater. The chances of CAR getting into FG range and stuffed was far better then them getting into the endzone.

I dont understand why everyone doesnt want to use their brain. You keep saying no-brainer. Thats why you keep coming to these illogical conclusions, your not using your brain. I say it was a yes-brainer.

Why are you so angry about it?

 

[chawx]

Why isn't anyone seeing this from Carolina's standpoint? It benefits them that we went for two...here's why:

By us scoring and going up by 5 (12-7) we effectively made it so Carolina was going to be looking to score a TD on their next drive no matter what. Conventional wisdom and watching 1,000,000 hours of pro football in my life tells me, that Carolina was not going to try for 2 possessions and 2 FGs at home, especially if a drive came to a 4th down with a 50-yrd FG or longer. The fans would have cheered them into going for it.

By missing out on the 2pt conversion we gave Carolina an option IF they were to score a TD to go for 2 themselves. Think about it, if Carolina scores and goes up 13-12, they do NOT kick an extra point! A 2 point lead is worthless in the 4th quarter. Carolina goes for 2, and if they get it, now they are up 15-12 and we can only tie with a FG.

What the Seahawks should have done, was take the 6 point lead (13-7) and IF Carolina were to score a TD late, go for the extra point block for the tie. Yes, it's a 99.9% chance he's not going to miss or get the extra point blocked, BUT you atleast have a chance at OT in that scenario.

This would all be a moot point had we made the 2-point conversion obviously, but was it worth the risk? Ummm... well, not in my opinion.

 

[Perfundle]

One other factor, if you kick the extra point and then later add a FG, it becomes a 2 score game. If you miss the 2 pt. conversion and add a FG, Carolina could have still tied with an 8 pt. TD.

Although I agree with the decision to try for the conversion, this point isn't getting enough play. I've often seen teams try for the two point conversion when up 5, miss, and then watch the opposing team get a touchdown and succeed on their two point conversion; instead of being down 1 if neither conversion had taken place, they're down 3. I think this scenario is much more likely than Carolina kicking two field goals.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

Why isn't anyone seeing this from Carolina's standpoint? It benefits them that we went for two...here's why:

By us scoring and going up by 5 (12-7) we effectively made it so Carolina was going to be looking to score a TD on their next drive no matter what. Conventional wisdom and watching 1,000,000 hours of pro football in my life tells me, that Carolina was not going to try for 2 possessions and 2 FGs at home, especially if a drive came to a 4th down with a 50-yrd FG or longer. The fans would have cheered them into going for it.

By missing out on the 2pt conversion we gave Carolina an option IF they were to score a TD to go for 2 themselves. Think about it, if Carolina scores and goes up 13-12, they do NOT kick an extra point! A 2 point lead is worthless in the 4th quarter. Carolina goes for 2, and if they get it, now they are up 15-12 and we can only tie with a FG.

What the Seahawks should have done, was take the 6 point lead (13-7) and IF Carolina were to score a TD late, go for the extra point block for the tie. Yes, it's a 99.9% chance he's not going to miss or get the extra point blocked, BUT you atleast have a chance at OT in that scenario.

This would all be a moot point had we made the 2-point conversion obviously, but was it worth the risk? Ummm... well, not in my opinion.

Why do you assume that just because people are ok with the call that they don't understand how scoring in football works?

edit: sorry for my sardonic response. Cartire's angry tone made me read yours in the same way and I see now it wasn't meant to be that way.

 

[Seanhawk]

I liked the call, hated the play...

It was more of the formation thing for me. I hated that there was an empty backfield. With a RB like Marshawn and 2 yards to go, I think you at least have to put the possibility out there that you might give it to him.

 

[Perfundle]

By us scoring and going up by 5 (12-7) we effectively made it so Carolina was going to be looking to score a TD on their next drive no matter what. Conventional wisdom and watching 1,000,000 hours of pro football in my life tells me, that Carolina was not going to try for 2 possessions and 2 FGs at home, especially if a drive came to a 4th down with a 50-yrd FG or longer. The fans would have cheered them into going for it.

Despite making the same point as me, I don't agree with your certainty here. What if it was a long 4th down on, say, the 20? With Carolina forcing 4 three-and-outs on the day, it's easy to imagine Carolina kicking the field goal and trying to get the ball back, especially when Seattle would be likely to run out some clock and they had been bottling up Seattle's rushing attack all day. And if fans could cheer Rivera into going for it then, they would've succeeded in the first half as well. That they didn't suggests that he'd continue to be conservative in your scenario.

What the Seahawks should have done, was take the 6 point lead (13-7) and IF Carolina were to score a TD late, go for the extra point block for the tie. Yes, it's a 99.9% chance he's not going to miss or get the extra point blocked, BUT you atleast have a chance at OT in that scenario.

I, uh, don't think teams plan around trying to block extra points. All coaches assume that TDs are 7 points.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Meh, that was like not punting on 3rd down. Any other call wasn't even a consideration.

 

[HawkFan72]

I liked the call, hated the play...

It was more of the formation thing for me. I hated that there was an empty backfield. With a RB like Marshawn and 2 yards to go, I think you at least have to put the possibility out there that you might give it to him.

I agree. I have never understood why you take that threat away in short yardage situations.

 

[pehawk]

Hey guys, there's a lot of people on here that prefer to think of me as frat-boy poop joke type guy. We're getting too deep into great discussion. Let's be mindful and syympathetic to those posters feelings.

Please, end in-depth posts with "fart". It helps them reconcile things.

 

[kigenzun]

I have been completely wrong AND known for crazy logic before, but personally, I thought it was the wrong call at the time due to the circumstances of the scenario: Game clock at 10 minutes, the 35-40% probability of success on two-point conversions, the relatively low value of possible gain(a 14-7 simplified score), and the fact we were on the road.

IMO If we had gone for 2 and made it, they would not only tied on the ensuing drive, but would have likely gone for 2 to win late at home 15-14 in ultra-dramatic ESPN highlight reel fashion. And we would all be crying the blues like last year in MIA, DET, STL, ARI.

As it was, the extra point kept us rolling with momentum (they were in shock after Kearse's high point TDcatch) and was an easy 13 for us. After that their psychology would have been easy to predict (and defend!!!) "score a TD to tie and kick an extra point to win 14-13". But there were lots of variables... for example:

If(A) if they were stopped on the first drive, an additional Seahawks field goal would then give us the 9point advantage (16-7) and would have salted the game away. =WIN.

If(B) they were stopped within field goal range, they might well have played it for the 2 field goals theory; 13-10--->13-13 tie on next drive and tried to go to overtime at home. So they would likely kickoff deep vs. onside attempt that would put us right back in field goal range and negate their gain. We would have attempted to run out the clock (as we did)... But any score by us between their drives =WIN.

If(C) they had scored a TD to either take the lead in any scenario 12-13, 12-14, or 12-15: OR 13-13, 13-14, or 13-15: an additional Seahawks 3 in the waning seconds =WIN 16-14, or =WIN 16-15... anyways that was what was running through my 'Beautiful Mind' at the time. :lol:

If y'a'll are just totally lost just read this last part...
an extra point and an additional 3 gives us 16 and they would be effectively checkmated, given the 10 minute timeclock... :th2thumbs:


PS Have you noticed, I hate that stupid chart that supposedly sez 'no matter what the circumstances' do this...?

PPSS I thought the 12-7 crazy numbers actually worked for us cuz they couldn't just "settle" for the 2 field goals scenario (and the easy win), but instead tried to pound it in vs. the Legion of Boom who layed down the lumber and the law.=WIN.

No points for you. :mrgreen:

 

[Perfundle]

I have been completely wrong AND known for crazy logic before, but personally, I thought it was the wrong call at the time due to the circumstances of the scenario: Game clock at 10 minutes, the 35-40% probability of success on two-point conversions, the relatively low value of possible gain(a 14-7 simplified score), and the fact we were on the road.

I think the people who disagree with the decision continually understate the probability of completing the 2-pont conversion. It isn't 35-40%, it's around 50%.

IMO If we had gone for 2 and made it, they would not only tied on the ensuing drive, but would have likely gone for 2 to win late at home 15-14 in ultra-dramatic ESPN highlight reel fashion. And we would all be crying the blues like last year in MIA, DET, STL, ARI.

Okay, this is just crazy talk. A heavy road underdog, maybe, but no home team ever ever does this in the NFL.

 

[pehawk]

This is a GREAT thread. Dig football theory.

We need Scotte and Montana...

 

[kigenzun]

I think the people who disagree with the decision continually understate the probability of completing the 2-pont conversion. It isn't 35-40%, it's around 50%.

Just expressing my opinion. I saw the Seahawks hit a long pass in the first half, run up to the line quickly, and turn the ball over on a sack fumble within the next 15 seconds. On a similar scenario: a long bomb to Kearse for TD, running up to the line quickly, and now going for 2 with an empty backfield... I estimated a below the normal probability of success on that particular play.

And personally, I would have hated to lose 13-12 on 2 field goals.
Which, is why... I AM SO GLAD WE WON 12-7! :th2thumbs:

 

[Scottemojo]

This is a GREAT thread. Dig football theory.

We need Scotte and Montana...

Are you fartin me? I already posted.

 

[pehawk]

This is a GREAT thread. Dig football theory.

We need Scotte and Montana...

Are you fartin me? I already posted.

I was fartin you...the egg on the face.

But, it'd didn't really tell me where you stood on it?

 

[Perfundle]

I think the people who disagree with the decision continually understate the probability of completing the 2-pont conversion. It isn't 35-40%, it's around 50%.

Just expressing my opinion. I saw the Seahawks hit a long pass in the first half, run up to the line quickly, and turn the ball over on a sack fumble within the next 15 seconds. On a similar scenario: a long bomb to Kearse for TD, running up to the line quickly, and now going for 2 with an empty backfield... I estimated a below the normal probability of success on that particular play.

Well, the probability of a 2-point conversion given that suboptimal play call, I'll give you, but the league average is higher.

 

[Cartire]

I came back to people thinking Im angry? Sorry, I should have added a emoticon I guess.

I am making fun of the phrase "no-brainer" that everyone keeps saying. As if not needing your brain leads you to the right decision. The phrase is hilarious. Especially, since our conversation has clearly stated that it needed to be thought out.

 

[blkhwk]

1st half, take the point

4th quarter go for two. The way the game was going, the chance of one Carolina big play was greater than two FG's.

I would guess every coach, college or pro given the same circumstances, goes for two.

Kick the PAT, then get one big play against you and you are now down 14-13, miss the 2 pointer, now down 14-12 FG still wins it for you. Definitely the right call and yes.... A no brainer!

I would like to see the data that supports your 1 big TD play vs 2 FG's in a 10 minute period. You cant just say the chance was greater, cause it wasnt greater. The chances of CAR getting into FG range and stuffed was far better then them getting into the endzone.

I dont understand why everyone doesnt want to use their brain. You keep saying no-brainer. Thats why you keep coming to these illogical conclusions, your not using your brain. I say it was a yes-brainer.

I don't have any statistical data, but have been around the game as a player or coach for almost 40 years..... In the 4th quarter, you generally play the game as what happens with the next possession & if that score against you is a TD. You play it like the opponent is going to get a TD and try to keep it within 1 possession or fewer for you.

I do agree, many times early in a game, coaches apply this logic and before you know it, they are "chasing points".

 

[Hawknballs]

carolina had scored one time all game.

The chances of carolina scoring a TD on a drive or flukey play was much higher than the likelyhood that they would score two field goals. The least likely scenario is that they score two times.

It's way easier to kick 2 FGs than score 1 TD if you are struggling on offense.

I think part of Pete's calculation was that he trusted his offense to shorten the game. And in a shorter game it is harder to get 2 FGs than 1 TD. In that respect, Pete turned out to be correct, though with 10 minutes to go in the game, it didn't appear likely that our offense would burn the final 5:30 of game clock the way things had been going.

really? Then why didn't they? OH. Because they only scored once.

Even if they had all we had to do was score a FG.

Everyone is acting like this was a much closer game than it was.

Load up rewind and watch it again; the disappointment of watching our running game smothered and things not bounce our way for once has people thinking it was a travesty of a game.