http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/9/24/9391581/pittsburgh-steelers-two-point-conversions-missed-extra-points-nfl

Basically says that in the long run going for two will pay off better than getting the extra point.

What do you think? Wave of the future? Could the Bengals pull it off?

(09-25-2015, 12:45 PM)kdgjr Wrote: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/9/24/9391581/pittsburgh-steelers-two-point-conversions-missed-extra-points-nfl

Basically says that in the long run going for two will pay off better than getting the extra point.

What do you think? Wave of the future?

it will pay off if you are converting those 2 points conversion...

but if you always go for 2 and convert 1/3 chances and the other team just gets 3 extra points with their TDs you lost.

The Steelers have the best QB/RB/WR combo in the NFL and have a 3rd rate kicker who can't make FGs nor XPs with any reliability. I'm not surprised they are finding more success going for 2, but everyone wouldn't be as good at it.

To me it makes sense if you're the first team to score (a TD) then you go for 2 points. If you make it (2 pointer) then if you score again you kick the extra point. Why? Pressure on the opponent. This forces them to go for 2 at some point just to tie.

If you don't make the 2 pt conversion then you go for 2 the next time too. This gets you back level to kicking an extra point.

I've also been of the mind that if you score and you're up 7 points you should go for 2 points in the 4th quarter. You make it and now the opponent has a two score deficit. You don't and it's a tie proposition and with the extra point being back 15 yards you still have a descent shot (6%) of winning on a missed kick.

Forgive my ignorance of the new rule but I have a question. Can you still line up looking like you're going for the PAT but fake it and go for 2 or is the line of scrimmage different?

According to this graph



Going for it on 4th and 2 from inside the 10 has a success rate above 50% So I can understand why the Steelers may try this strategy....

I still have my doubts... and think they will get snakebitten by this strategy sooner or later.





graph was from this article http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-3.html

(09-25-2015, 02:04 PM)Tankvet Wrote: Forgive my ignorance of the new rule but I have a question.  Can you still line up looking like you're going for the PAT but fake it and go for 2 or is the line of scrimmage different?

Yes.

But the line of scrimmage is placed at the 15 yard line.  I see what you're saying though.  The element of surprise would add something... but the extra distance would lessen the effectiveness.

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2012/11/to-fake-or-not-to-fake-fourth-down.html

According to this guy's analysis you'd be around 20%.

(Similar to GreenCorn's chart above)

I remember reading something similar about always going for it on fourth down. They used a bunch of dubious math to say that statistically it is better in the long run. Sure maybe it works for high school teams that can only kick 30 yard punts but you don't see NFL teams doing it.

I don't think always going for 2 is a good idea either because you show your very limited 2 point conversion playbook. Since it's practically useless to fake it now, its best to save those plays for critical situations were it's necessary to get the 2.

I am good with just sticking with PATs and taking the points upfront. I feel like being dependent on that can be a liability down the run, especially if teams expect it (and now they will).

I hate the new PAT rule...

(09-26-2015, 09:34 PM)BayouBengal Wrote: I remember reading something similar about always going for it on fourth down. They used a bunch of dubious math to say that statistically it is better in the long run. Sure maybe it works for high school teams that can only kick 30 yard punts but you don't see NFL teams doing it.

I don't think always going for 2 is a good idea either because you show your very limited 2 point conversion playbook. Since it's practically useless to fake it now, its best to save those plays for critical situations were it's necessary to get the 2.

That's something I had not thought of before and would interested to see how that would effect it.  Clearly something that has not (can not) go into the analysis that currently says it is better to go for 2.

(09-26-2015, 09:34 PM)BayouBengal Wrote: I remember reading something similar about always going for it on fourth down. They used a bunch of dubious math to say that statistically it is better in the long run. Sure maybe it works for high school teams that can only kick 30 yard punts but you don't see NFL teams doing it.

I don't think always going for 2 is a good idea either because you show your very limited 2 point conversion playbook. Since it's practically useless to fake it now, its best to save those plays for critical situations were it's necessary to get the 2.

I have also seen the story about the high school team, that never punts.  I think they got away with that a lot because they were a better team.  It wasn't like some small school using this new plan to beat stronger opponents.  Plus as Bayou said, punts are not as effective on the high school level.

Also a good point about keeping your best 2 point plays for crucial times.

Although I still think a team should kick most of the time, there are times when it is appropriate to go for 2.  Just yesterday my Tennessee Vols scored a td early in the fourth quarter to go up 26-14.  At this point it was doubtful that the Gators would score a td and 2 FG  in the tine remaining, so it might have been a good time to go for two and be up 14 instead of 13.  At the time I didn't think a lot about it, but sure enough, the Gators scored a late td to win 28-27.

(09-26-2015, 09:34 PM)BayouBengal Wrote: I remember reading something similar about always going for it on fourth down. They used a bunch of dubious math to say that statistically it is better in the long run. Sure maybe it works for high school teams that can only kick 30 yard punts but you don't see NFL teams doing it.

I don't think always going for 2 is a good idea either because you show your very limited 2 point conversion playbook. Since it's practically useless to fake it now, its best to save those plays for critical situations were it's necessary to get the 2.

AND, remember that it is really a short yardage situational playlist.  So you really are revealing a lot of information which might be useful to future opponents.

The Steelers are doing it because they knew their kicker stunk before he got injured, and the next two guys they've used were never capable of beating out the terrible first guy.  The 50% rate of going for 2 is a higher rate than they would have going for 1.

I think you should try at least one a game. Do it early enough, that you can make it up if it's no good, but if you do convert the pressure is on the other team, most likely late in the game