No, going for a 2pt conversion wasn't a bad decision

Krieg's list · Nov 14, 2016

Holy moly!!! A two page thread without anyone correctly pointing out that this choice was essentially a coin flip? All these posters calling Pete a fool for choosing tails, when *EVERYBODY* knows you always choose heads! What a moron!!! :sarcasm_off:

League 2pt conversion average: ~48%
League PAT average: ~95%

So the expected point value for either kind of attempt is more or less a wash, at roughly 0.95 pts/atttempt. Absent late game point differential considerations, there is no distinct advantage to kicking or going for it.

Case where SEA goes for 2 (and assumes NE scores a subsequent TD):
48% 2pt success -- SEA 2 score lead
2.6% (52% x 5%) SEA fail 2pt and NE missed PAT -- SEA 2 score lead
49.4% (52% x 95%) SEA fail 2pt and NE kick good -- Tied game

Result: 50.6% of the time SEA maintains a lead after NE TD.

Case where SEA kicks PAT (and assumes NE scores a subsequent TD):
4.75% (5% x 95%) SEA kick fails and NE kick good -- Tied game
0.25% (5% x 5%) SEA kick fails and NE kick fails -- SEA 2 score lead
45.6% (95% x 48%) SEA kick good and NE 2pt good -- Tied game
49.4% (95% x 52%) SEA kick good and NE 2pt fails -- SEA 2 score lead

Result: 49.65% of the time SEA maintains a lead after NE TD.

So based on NFL league averages of kick and 2pt PATs, the decision to go for it was actually a slightly higher percentage play, albeit with some non-arithmetic strategic disadvantages*. Hardly an "obvious" decision to kick, it was actually the better play based purely on NFL average** conversion percentages, with the caveats below.

* Mainly, by going for 2 yourself early, you provide the trailing team with valuable information. With 4 mins left and NE down 9 points, they could adjust their tempo to attempt to score quickly to maximize their chance at 2 scores. By instead choosing to kick, 95% of the time they can delay the inevitable 2pt conversion attempt to the opponent, who, not knowing the outcome of the attempt, will almost always choose to maximize their chances for scoring a single TD, usually failing to leave sufficient time should a second score be needed after a failed 2pt attempt. This is the main argument I can see against going for 2 while ahead 7 pts. In a situation with less time on the clock and/or an opponent with fewer timeouts left, this time concern becomes less significant and the choice for a 1 or 2pt attempt is mostly personal preference as there is no appreciable statistical difference.

** I am not about to open up a can of worms on individual team conversion rates, let alone offensive vs defensive personnel matchups, "momentum", "Bevell is a moron", etc. I'm merely trying to point out that this wasn't even an important decision, it really was akin to calling tails instead of heads, nothing to get worked up over. The playcall and the result weren't good, but the decision to go for 2 didn't really cost Seattle anything.

Rob12 · Nov 14, 2016

Krieg's list":2vjw6mvj said:
Holy moly!!! A two page thread without anyone correctly pointing out that this choice was essentially a coin flip? All these posters calling Pete a fool for choosing tails, when *EVERYBODY* knows you always choose heads! What a moron!!! :sarcasm_off:

League 2pt conversion average: ~48%
League PAT average: ~95%

So the expected point value for either kind of attempt is more or less a wash, at roughly 0.95 pts/atttempt. Absent late game point differential considerations, there is no distinct advantage to kicking or going for it.

Case where SEA goes for 2 (and assumes NE scores a subsequent TD):
48% 2pt success -- SEA 2 score lead
2.6% (52% x 5%) SEA fail 2pt and NE missed PAT -- SEA 2 score lead
49.4% (52% x 95%) SEA fail 2pt and NE kick good -- Tied game

Result: 50.6% of the time SEA maintains a lead after NE TD.

Case where SEA kicks PAT (and assumes NE scores a subsequent TD):
4.75% (5% x 95%) SEA kick fails and NE kick good -- Tied game
0.25% (5% x 5%) SEA kick fails and NE kick fails -- SEA 2 score lead
45.6% (95% x 48%) SEA kick good and NE 2pt good -- Tied game
49.4% (95% x 52%) SEA kick good and NE 2pt fails -- SEA 2 score lead

Result: 49.65% of the time SEA maintains a lead after NE TD.

So based on NFL league averages of kick and 2pt PATs, the decision to go for it was actually a slightly higher percentage play, albeit with some non-arithmetic strategic disadvantages*. Hardly an "obvious" decision to kick, it was actually the better play based purely on NFL average** conversion percentages, with the caveats below.

* Mainly, by going for 2 yourself early, you provide the trailing team with valuable information. With 4 mins left and NE down 9 points, they could adjust their tempo to attempt to score quickly to maximize their chance at 2 scores. By instead choosing to kick, 95% of the time they can delay the inevitable 2pt conversion attempt to the opponent, who, not knowing the outcome of the attempt, will almost always choose to maximize their chances for scoring a single TD, usually failing to leave sufficient time should a second score be needed after a failed 2pt attempt. This is the main argument I can see against going for 2 while ahead 7 pts. In a situation with less time on the clock and/or an opponent with fewer timeouts left, this time concern becomes less significant and the choice for a 1 or 2pt attempt is mostly personal preference as there is no appreciable statistical difference.

** I am not about to open up a can of worms on individual team conversion rates, let alone offensive vs defensive personnel matchups, "momentum", "Bevell is a moron", etc. I'm merely trying to point out that this wasn't even an important decision, it really was akin to calling tails instead of heads, nothing to get worked up over. The playcall and the result weren't good, but the decision to go for 2 didn't really cost Seattle anything.

Great post.

Monday Morning QB'ing our highly successful coach is fun.

Hawk-Lock · Nov 14, 2016

1. Great post

2. You are good at math.

seafence82 · Nov 14, 2016

Thank you, i was about to post something similar in the other thread about how that math was wrong. If the 2pt success rate it is basically a coin flip, its statistically MUCH better to go for it also because you may never get the ball again if it goes to OT and they win the coin flip and score, just like Dallas did 2 weeks ago. This is especially true when you playing against a good offense.

Didn't like the play call, but mathematically it was an easy decision to go for it there playing against Brady.

Krieg's list · Nov 14, 2016

seafence82":1epvayse said:
Thank you, i was about to post something similar in the other thread about how that math was wrong. If the 2pt success rate it is basically a coin flip, its statistically MUCH better to go for it also because you may never get the ball again if it goes to OT and they win the coin flip and score, just like Dallas did 2 weeks ago. This is especially true when you playing against a good offense.

Didn't like the play call, but mathematically it was an easy decision to go for it there playing against Brady.

Nooooooooooo! :lol: You missed the entire point of my post. It wasn't a bad decision, but it wasn't a good decision either. It was essentially a meaningless decision from a probability standpoint. It did not affect the likelihood of overtime. There was a roughly 50-50% chance NE would have tied the game after scoring a touchdown regardless of our PAT decision.

From a strategic standpoint, I think a solid argument can be made for kicking in that spot, particularly because of the time remaining and 3 timeouts for NE. As previously mentioned, you would still hold in your back pocket the roughly 50-50% chance of maintaining a 2 point lead after a NE TD. But since an 8 point lead is a "one score" game, you've lessened the opponent's incentive to hurry even though there is still a 50% chance they will need a second score to avoid losing, thereby reducing the likelihood of that second score. Additionally, you've removed possibilities such as FG -> TD. For example, the opponent quickly drives into the red zone, but a penalty pushes them back and 3 straight incompletions lead to 4th and long from the 30 yard line with 2:20 left. Down 9 pts, they can take advantage of the knowledge that they DO need two scores by kicking the FG and going for a TD on the next drive (they will need to get the ball back somehow regardless of FG or TD on the first drive). Had they instead been down 8, they would've been "forced" to go it on 4th and long (even though there is a 50% chance they will still need a FG after a TD), potentially turning the ball over on downs or inefficiently using time to score a TD first when an additional score may be needed. The inability of coaches (and, to be fair, pretty much everyone) to properly account for the 52% probability of a 2pt conversion failure and optimize their offensive strategy accordingly makes a strong case for kicking to go up 8 points.

All that said, I liked the call to go for it when watching the game-- it's more satisfying to necessitate two opponent scores by punching in a 2pt conversion to go up 9 than by backdooring into it by defending a crucial 2pt conversion after having given up a TD the play before. The resulting point differential may be the same, but the feeling and perception as a fan are vastly different.

NJSeahawk · Nov 14, 2016

great post thanks!

Canhawks · Nov 14, 2016

I agree 100%,the way it was unfolding a 2pt conversion was going to be attempted.It came to either us taking it now or NE if they got the TD.Pete felt more comfortable with us attempting it

Skansi82 · Nov 14, 2016

The million dollar question: Would Belichick have gone for 2 had the Patriots scored on that last drive with the Seahawks up 7? Given how well Seattle's "D" was playing, and how the coin toss can skew the chances of success in OT, is it out of the realm of possibility? If not, then we also need to crunch some numbers for the probability that's Pete's decision could have resulted in a loss if NE goes for 2:

Probability of a loss in regulation based on Pete's decision:

Seattle misses kick/Pats convert 2 points= 2.4% (5% x 48%)
Seattle fails 2 point conversation/Pats convert 2 points= 24.96% (52% x 48%)

Obviously Belichick would have likely kicked it, but you never know.....

justafan · Nov 14, 2016

Mathematically you might be right but I want a team to get into the endzone twice to earn the tie.

kidhawk · Nov 14, 2016

Skansi82":6k3elxz2 said:
The million dollar question: Would Belichick have gone for 2 had the Patriots scored on that last drive with the Seahawks up 7? Given how well Seattle's "D" was playing, and how the coin toss can skew the chances of success in OT, is it out of the realm of possibility? If not, then we also need to crunch some numbers for the probability that's Pete's decision could have resulted in a loss if NE goes for 2:

Probability of a loss in regulation based on Pete's decision:

Seattle misses kick/Pats convert 2 points= 2.4% (5% x 48%)
Seattle fails 2 point conversation/Pats convert 2 points= 24.96% (52% x 48%)

Obviously Belichick would have likely kicked it, but you never know.....

Pete was asked if they'd considered the Patriots going for 2 and the win if they scored there and he said not really, but he'd have welcomed it. He said he likes our chances there with one play to decide the game.

thebanjodude · Nov 14, 2016

Good post. I disagree, specifically for the reasons you said you wouldn't get into

namely that the Seahawks struggle in the red zone on O but have been beasts on D this year. Thus, they would have maximized *their* win probability by kicking the XP and forcing NE to go for 2.

SeaToTheHawks · Nov 14, 2016

Krieg's list":myhyfzam said:
seafence82":myhyfzam said:

Thank you, i was about to post something similar in the other thread about how that math was wrong. If the 2pt success rate it is basically a coin flip, its statistically MUCH better to go for it also because you may never get the ball again if it goes to OT and they win the coin flip and score, just like Dallas did 2 weeks ago. This is especially true when you playing against a good offense.

Didn't like the play call, but mathematically it was an easy decision to go for it there playing against Brady.

Click to expand...

Nooooooooooo! :lol: You missed the entire point of my post. It wasn't a bad decision, but it wasn't a good decision either. It was essentially a meaningless decision from a probability standpoint. It did not affect the likelihood of overtime. There was a roughly 50-50% chance NE would have tied the game after scoring a touchdown regardless of our PAT decision.

From a strategic standpoint, I think a solid argument can be made for kicking in that spot, particularly because of the time remaining and 3 timeouts for NE. As previously mentioned, you would still hold in your back pocket the roughly 50-50% chance of maintaining a 2 point lead after a NE TD. But since an 8 point lead is a "one score" game, you've lessened the opponent's incentive to hurry even though there is still a 50% chance they will need a second score to avoid losing, thereby reducing the likelihood of that second score. Additionally, you've removed possibilities such as FG -> TD. For example, the opponent quickly drives into the red zone, but a penalty pushes them back and 3 straight incompletions lead to 4th and long from the 30 yard line with 2:20 left. Down 9 pts, they can take advantage of the knowledge that they DO need two scores by kicking the FG and going for a TD on the next drive (they will need to get the ball back somehow regardless of FG or TD on the first drive). Had they instead been down 8, they would've been "forced" to go it on 4th and long (even though there is a 50% chance they will still need a FG after a TD), potentially turning the ball over on downs or inefficiently using time to score a TD first when an additional score may be needed. The inability of coaches (and, to be fair, pretty much everyone) to properly account for the 52% probability of a 2pt conversion failure and optimize their offensive strategy accordingly makes a strong case for kicking to go up 8 points.

All that said, I liked the call to go for it when watching the game-- it's more satisfying to necessitate two opponent scores by punching in a 2pt conversion to go up 9 than by backdooring into it by defending a crucial 2pt conversion after having given up a TD the play before. The resulting point differential may be the same, but the feeling and perception as a fan are vastly different.

This is some next level $***. Damn.

SoulfishHawk · Nov 15, 2016

Pete was playing to win. Sure I'd prefer he just gets the extra point. But, one was already blocked earlier, and he's trying to make it a 2 score game. Shoot, Russ just sailed the pass, Baldwin was in position to make the play. One of the few really bad passes of the day.

Natethegreat · Nov 15, 2016

kidhawk":2gyvox13 said:
Skansi82":2gyvox13 said:

The million dollar question: Would Belichick have gone for 2 had the Patriots scored on that last drive with the Seahawks up 7? Given how well Seattle's "D" was playing, and how the coin toss can skew the chances of success in OT, is it out of the realm of possibility? If not, then we also need to crunch some numbers for the probability that's Pete's decision could have resulted in a loss if NE goes for 2:

Probability of a loss in regulation based on Pete's decision:

Seattle misses kick/Pats convert 2 points= 2.4% (5% x 48%)
Seattle fails 2 point conversation/Pats convert 2 points= 24.96% (52% x 48%)

Obviously Belichick would have likely kicked it, but you never know.....

Click to expand...

Pete was asked if they'd considered the Patriots going for 2 and the win if they scored there and he said not really, but he'd have welcomed it. He said he likes our chances there with one play to decide the game.

If Pete likes our chances of stopping a two point try then why would you not kick the extra point? His reasoning has no consistency here.
By the way I completely agree with him. I trust our defence to not allow two touchdowns consecutively. I think next time he puts the pressure on them to score twice instead of ourselves.

BirdsCommaAngry · Nov 15, 2016

I'm starting to like the call now. If the probabilities are as close as Kreig suggests, going for 2 might have been more advantageous simply through being the unexpected decision. In other words, we score the go-ahead TD and the Pats begin preparing for a drive where they assume they'll need a 2 point conversion. They would assume they would need to a 2 point conversion because typically teams would take the XP for an 8 point lead in that situation. By going for 2 we trade little or no likelihood of winning the game for an opportunity to catch them off-guard and muddle their decision-making with our unexpected decision. Regardless, the choice to go for 2 should only be done against more offensive teams where it's more likely we'll convert for 2 and it's more likely they'll be able to score a TD, like it was against the Pats.

mikeak · Nov 15, 2016

We only needed 1 to at the worst put our defense in position to stop our opponent on one play from the 2

I take that over our offense scoring from the 2 on one play

And that would be based on statistics comparing our redzone offense to our goal line defense

NJlargent · Nov 15, 2016

mikeak":1w3z1uij said:
We only needed 1 to at the worst put our defense in position to stop our opponent on one play from the 2

I take that over our offense scoring from the 2 on one play

And that would be based on statistics comparing our redzone offense to our goal line defense

Good post

hawkfan68 · Nov 15, 2016

Seahawks ST had an extra point attempt blocked earlier. Even if they didn't convert, it would be a 7 pt lead for the team, it was fine to go for 2 at that point. Now that the extra point attempts are moved back they are not gimmes as they once were. Lately the Seahawks have had issues converting extra points and field goals. Most likely due to a long snapper that should not even be on the team.

mikeak · Nov 15, 2016

Natethegreat":3acx20ls said:
If Pete likes our chances of stopping a two point try then why would you not kick the extra point? His reasoning has no consistency here.
By the way I completely agree with him. I trust our defence to not allow two touchdowns consecutively. I think next time he puts the pressure on them to score twice instead of ourselves.

Agree 100%

I honestly thought when the 2pt thing happened that come Monday we would hear how someone made a mathematical error prior to the touchdown thinking we would be up by 6 if we kicked the extra point......

Pete has put every single egg in the basket and handed it to the defense on so many occasion. Heck he has mortgaged the house and bought eggs to put in that basket.

Anyone remember 1-2 years ago and there was like 40 secs of the game. Opponent was on the goal line about to score on us and we didn't use our final time-out?

He justified it by he wanted to put pressure on the defense to stand up to the opponent and tell them he didn't need time to score because our defense would hold.

To see that the same coach with the same defense (basically) doesn't think our D can hold the opponent on a 2pt conversion is stunning to me

Pandion Haliaetus · Nov 15, 2016

Skansi82":274zh90n said:
The million dollar question: Would Belichick have gone for 2 had the Patriots scored on that last drive with the Seahawks up 7? Given how well Seattle's "D" was playing, and how the coin toss can skew the chances of success in OT, is it out of the realm of possibility? If not, then we also need to crunch some numbers for the probability that's Pete's decision could have resulted in a loss if NE goes for 2:

Probability of a loss in regulation based on Pete's decision:

Seattle misses kick/Pats convert 2 points= 2.4% (5% x 48%)
Seattle fails 2 point conversation/Pats convert 2 points= 24.96% (52% x 48%)

Obviously Belichick would have likely kicked it, but you never know.....

Hypothetically, had Gronk for that TD at the end, 100% certain they would have kicked a FG to go to OT. Only because the sequence of plays that happened on that GL stand.

If Pats had scored on the play maybe on 1st and Goal, Belicheck might have went for 2 considering how horrible his D was playing. But i doubt it.

But despite the big plays on Pats final drive it seemed like they were running out the clock and playing for the tie. A reason why i dont hate the 2pt call or its failure... Pats would have had a different mentality in terms of clock management, sense of urgency, and thusly play-calling on their final drive if they were down 8 or 9. They would have looked for a quick score and given themselves an opportunity or time to get an onside kick had they failed the 2pt or force a Seahawks punt to get the ball back with like a minute. If the ball bounces in the Pats favor, it possible this is a loss at worst in regulation instead of an OT battle at worst.

That's why in retrospect I loved being down by only a TD in that situation, Pats did us a favor by being their own enemy... mentally speaking... on that last drive, especially that GL stand. They absolutely did not want to give the Wilson the opportunity and time to win the game had they tied the game.

No, going for a 2pt conversion wasn't a bad decision

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

Member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads