2-point conversion?

Donate To GopherHole
Husker in Gopherland

Husker in Gopherland

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Why didn't the Gophers go for 2 after McKnight's 4th quarter TD cut the lead to 33-20? I know chances were slim at that point of pulling off the comeback, but there's still no question you go for 2 in the hopes of bringing the deficit down to just a TD and FG.

I was at the game, so I'm curious if this was discussed on this board or during the TV broadcast?
 

Horton's chart only goes up to 9. Unlike BB who has a chart that goes into the upper twenties.
 


Right when it happened I started convincing the fans around me that they should have gone for 2. Most didn't understand until I started explaining it. If you make it - you're down 11, and can get a FG and a TD/2Pt to tie. If not, you're down 13 and need two TDs. By kicking the XP they were down 12 and needed 2 TDs anyway. Thus, there was zero risk to go for it - only upside if you make it. Because there was no risk and only upside, they definitely should have gone for 2.
 



josh087 said:
Right when it happened I started convincing the fans around me that they should have gone for 2. Most didn't understand until I started explaining it. If you make it - you're down 11, and can get a FG and a TD/2Pt to tie. If not, you're down 13 and need two TDs. By kicking the XP they were down 12 and needed 2 TDs anyway. Thus, there was zero risk to go for it - only upside if you make it. Because there was no risk and only upside, they definitely should have gone for 2.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. I was doing the same thing in my section and most agreed we should go for two.

Why does the chart say go for 1 when down by 13? I'm not a genius, but I cannot figure that one out. It seems obvious, but we must be leaving some obvious possibility out.

Anyone know?
 

If you're down by 13 at that point do you even need a 'chart'.
 

Because he couldn't go for a rouge.

Wait...is Trestman coaching yet?
 

Husker in Gopherland said:
Why didn't the Gophers go for 2 after McKnight's 4th quarter TD cut the lead to 33-20? I know chances were slim at that point of pulling off the comeback, but there's still no question you go for 2 in the hopes of bringing the deficit down to just a TD and FG.

I was at the game, so I'm curious if this was discussed on this board or during the TV broadcast?
Click to expand...

If you make it, you still have to score 2 TDs to win or a FG, TD, and 2PT (just as difficult as scoring another TD) to tie.

If you miss it, you have to score 2 TDs to win or a TD and 2 FG to tie.

When it comes right down to it, I figure you have to put the ball in the endzone twice either way. You also have to recover 2 onside kicks as well. Take the easy point first.
 



highwayman said:
If you make it, you still have to score 2 TDs to win or a FG, TD, and 2PT (just as difficult as scoring another TD) to tie.

If you miss it, you have to score 2 TDs to win or a TD and 2 FG to tie.

When it comes right down to it, I figure you have to put the ball in the endzone twice either way. You also have to recover 2 onside kicks as well. Take the easy point first.
Click to expand...

On what planet is successfully converting a 2 point attempt "just as difficult as scoring another TD"?
 

dpodoll68 said:
On what planet is successfully converting a 2 point attempt "just as difficult as scoring another TD"?
Click to expand...

Exactly, plus converting a two point attempt would take less time off the clock than another td.
 

highwayman said:
If you make it, you still have to score 2 TDs to win or a FG, TD, and 2PT (just as difficult as scoring another TD) to tie.

If you miss it, you have to score 2 TDs to win or a TD and 2 FG to tie.

When it comes right down to it, I figure you have to put the ball in the endzone twice either way. You also have to recover 2 onside kicks as well. Take the easy point first.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your logic. The only possible benefit of kicking the PAT would be that scoring a TD and 2 FG would then put you ahead. Versus if you miss the 2 point conversion, then a TD and 2 FG would only tie the game. I don't see how this scenario outweighs the fact that if you make the 2 Pt. conversion you now bring the score within 2 possessions, one of which only needs to be a FG.

This is a huge difference!! With only 5 minutes remaining, bringing the score to a TD, 2 pt. and FG is a no-brainer. Coaching gaffe #1 for Horton. (At least it didn't cost the Gophers like Ferentz's time out call cost Iowa.)
 

I think I was yelling "Go for 2!" before Cannon Guy even pulled the string.

At least it eliminates whatever slim chance Horton had of getting the job.
 



dpodoll68 said:
On what planet is successfully converting a 2 point attempt "just as difficult as scoring another TD"?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately on Planet Gopher Nation 2010, everything is difficult. :) We would either have to pound the rock for 2.5 yards or count on Weber to be accurate with a short pass.
 


tato2001 said:
According to this chart:

http://www.footballcommentary.com/twoptchart.htm

The Gophers should have gone for two.
Click to expand...

If I had that chart the first thing I would do is throw it out with the trash.

What ever happened to simple logic and basic math.

Can anyone make change anymore with out a machine.:eek:

Q: If team A is down by 13 and score 2 more points, how far are they down then.
A: I'm not sure, let me check the calculator on my Iphone after I finish texting.

There, I feel better.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom