So...Those 2 Point Conversions

[PleaseCutStewart]

18 hours ago, Panthercougar68 said:

I’d be interested to see the analytics on it because it’s probably what was followed.

I think you have to go for 2 there. We score a TD late in the 3rd - there was no way I would trust this offense to score 3 more times in the game.

Let's face it, if we didn't have a miraculous onside kick recovery, we never would have had that last chance. Bryce (and to a lesser extend Canales) blew the once in a million chance we will give him recovering an onside kick

[toldozer]

You think Bryce would have kept us in the range once they gifted us that roughing the passer penalty?

[bigdog_10_2002]

We were down 24 points late in the third with a qb incapable of scoring quick and a defense incapable of getting a quick three and out. 
 

I get the thought process of getting as many points as you can. 

[Tomcatn]

19 hours ago, Htarnation4.0 said:

Chasing points will get ya beat by the points you were chasing. Kick the FG and extra point. If you need the 2pt conversion late, go for it. 

That's all this team does is chase points no matter the situation.

Edited 9 hours ago by Tomcatn

[Shotgun]

19 hours ago, cranky said:

Didn't like it but understood it. What I really didn't like was the lack of agressivness at the end of the first half. Down that many points you don't play conservative. Even if they don't score, the Cardinals probably don't either. I literally had to walk away at that point I was so pissed.

The Young Canales combo will never be anything resembling aggressive. They are both very mild mannered and timid. 

[Davidson Deac II]

Going for two was the correct decision at the time.  Three td's and three two point conversions ties the game.  Otherwise, you have to score four times.  

The coach made the correct call, I don't think any objective analyst would say otherwise.  

Edited 9 hours ago by Davidson Deac II

[WhoKnows]

40 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Going for two was the correct decision at the time.  Three td's and three two point conversions ties the game.  Otherwise, you have to score four times.  

The coach made the correct call, I don't think any objective analyst would say otherwise.  

If we were a top offense, I’d agree but we aren’t so our chance of getting 3 2 pointers is basically 0.

There were two calls. Go for 2, which I understand but don’t agree based on our futility, and the actual play call, which was awful both times. Play action fake with a leak out and/or rollout to increase the number of opportunities like a QB run in or multiple targets. We, unfortunately, limited ourselves to one chance and after the first run was stuffed you’d think we wouldn’t do the same thing twice but we did and got the same result.

[OneBadCat]

3 hours ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Going for two was the correct decision at the time.  Three td's and three two point conversions ties the game.  Otherwise, you have to score four times.  

The coach made the correct call, I don't think any objective analyst would say otherwise.  

That's true but that's not considering the other variables that would happen the rest of the game. The defense would be more likely to cause a turnover and get the ball back than you would converting 3 two-point conversions.

[Jon Snow]

3 hours ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Going for two was the correct decision at the time.  Three td's and three two point conversions ties the game.  Otherwise, you have to score four times.  

The coach made the correct call, I don't think any objective analyst would say otherwise.  

Going for 2 when you need 8 to win is one thing. When you need 3, 2 point conversions to even tie the game is nearly impossible. They would need to score 4 times to win the game regardless. Going for 2 at that point was idiotic because missing just 1 puts back to needing to score 4 touchdowns anyway. It was dumb then and it is still dumb now.

[Davidson Deac II]

55 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Going for 2 when you need 8 to win is one thing. When you need 3, 2 point conversions to even tie the game is nearly impossible. They would need to score 4 times to win the game regardless. Going for 2 at that point was idiotic because missing just 1 puts back to needing to score 4 touchdowns anyway. It was dumb then and it is still dumb now.

I disagree, and I think 99% of coaches go for two in that situation.  If you go for two and don't make it, you have to score three more times.  If you do make it, you only have to score twice.  

Edited 5 hours ago by Davidson Deac II