Is everybody really overlooking this?

**Cj34** · 12-09-2012, 04:23 PM

I'm in full agreement that Harbaugh and the coaching staff made numerous mistakes. However, going for the XP in that situations is NOT one of them. There is zero, zilch, nada chance of any coach (other then maybe Belichek when he gets in one of his crazy moods) going for 2 pts in that situation. I know the Ravens played shitty, I know the coaches can be boneheads a lot and we're all frustrated as hell but going for 1 and not 2 in that situation was the correct call and not one of those mistakes.

**GaTechRavens** · 12-09-2012, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

We already discussed this thoroughly when the exact same thing came up in the Dallas game. And needless to say, but the decision is not anywhere close to automatic.

Your argument/claim makes the same errors that a lot of people in that thread made, namely looking at the risk and not the reward of the other option.

I will try to find the other thread so you can look at the math and see the assumptions that have to be made in order to make going for 2 the best option. Suffice it to say that it is not always an EPIC demonstration of stupidity. Though saying it is could be an EPIC display...

Except I'm pretty sure the math doesn't back you up here. I believe the odds of converting are slightly under 50%.

**Boulderraven** · 12-09-2012, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by MD Boy

I'm surprised it's been overlooked that we won the coin toss in OT and we chose to Receive rather than Punt.

Rookie QB coming off the bench - yes, I'm aware he already scored a TD on us - but you hold them to a 3 & Out and play for field position.

With the new rules, I thought that was the strategy?

Agreed. If you even score a FG you dont win. The other team has a chance to win and will playing with 4 downs. YOU KICK when you win the toss. VERY STUPID TEAMS THESE RAVENS ARE.

**Haloti92** · 12-09-2012, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by GaTechRavens

Except I'm pretty sure the math doesn't back you up here. I believe the odds of converting are slightly under 50%.

The math backs me, because all the math says is that there are assumptions that make the 2-pt conversion the correct call, and that is all I am saying. The assumptions required may not back the decision to go for 2 here, but that is a separate issue. The two odds one needs to consider are your own odds of making a 2 and the opponents odds of making the two. But in general I agree, my assumptions for both would lean towards kicking it, just like against Dallas. But it is relatively close, which is what I want to make sure people understand (and most do not).

**Ravenous1** · 12-09-2012, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

We aready discussed this thoroughly when the exact same thing came up in the Dallas game. And needless to say but the decision is not anywhere close to automatic.

You are argument makes the same errors that a lot of people in that thread made, namely looking at the risk and not the reward of the other option.

I will try to find the other thread so you can look at the math and see the assumptions that have to be made in order to make going for 2 the best option. Suffice it to say that it is not always an EPIC demonstration of stupidity. Though saying it is could be an EPIC display...

I see no scenario were making a team score both the TD and the 2pt conversion is not beneficial.

Yes getting the 2pt conversion ensures the win, IF YOU MAKE IT.

By going for it, you put the pressure of successfully converting it on your team instead of the opposition. That makes no sense to me. I agree with the decision. You have the opportunity to make the opposing team put the ball in the end zone TWICE, you make em do it. The fact the Ravens were not able to stop them is why they lost...not the decision.

If they had gone for two there and missed and then the Skins tied the game on a TD and PAT are you seriously gonna tell me you would have been ok with that? Even so, I would venture the vast vast majority of NFL coaches would not even give going for 2pt there a second thought.

**MD Boy** · 12-09-2012, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Boulderraven

Agreed. If you even score a FG you dont win. The other team has a chance to win and will playing with 4 downs. YOU KICK when you win the toss. VERY STUPID TEAMS THESE RAVENS ARE.

I was shocked with the decision. Basically, the strategy we should have implemented at the beginning of OT backfired on us and all the Redskins needed was a FG to win it after our 3 & Out and they gained great field position on the punt return.

Imagine now the inverse, where we hold them to 3 & Out and Jones runs it back for favorable field position putting us in the position to win it with Tucker's leg.

**akashicrecorder** · 12-09-2012, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by landspeed

This comment sums up our coaching staff

Wanna take the condescension down a notch?

I was asking because I really want to know the exact situation, not to vindicate the coaches for going Turtle Mode.

**Haloti92** · 12-09-2012, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Boulderraven

Agreed. If you even score a FG you dont win. The other team has a chance to win and will playing with 4 downs. YOU KICK when you win the toss. VERY STUPID TEAMS THESE RAVENS ARE.

Not necessarily true. You kick they score a TD, you lose without getting the ball. Then fans yell at you.

You receive and score a TD and its over.

In general, if the offenses are getting the better of the defenses you certainly receive. If not, it becomes a decision, but still riskier as a coach to kick away (and never see the ball and lose).

**Ravenous1** · 12-09-2012, 04:30 PM

http://www.theredzone.org/Features/T...sionChart.aspx

Thats the chart most NFL coaches go by.....it clearly states taking the PAT.

If you want to make an argument for going for it, its not based on Math its based on gut feeling or a conviction that your D cant keep them out the end zone and stop the two point conversion.

**Ravenous1** · 12-09-2012, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Not necessarily true. You kick they score a TD, you lose without getting the ball. Then fans yell at you.

You receive and score a TD and its over.

In general, if the offenses are getting the better of the defenses you certainly receive. If not, it becomes a decision, but still riskier as a coach to kick away (and never see the ball and lose).

All of your arguments work on the assumption that your defense cant stop them. You cant just make that assumption...even with an injury ridden D

Going for two there would have been dumb. It would have made it easier for the Skins to tie. Instead of arguing about the call which was correct...... worry about the D which let them get it and maybe, just maybe give the Skins some credit for some good playcalling ...something we know nothing about here.

**iggyman555** · 12-09-2012, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by MD Boy

I'm surprised it's been overlooked that we won the coin toss in OT and we chose to Receive rather than Punt.

Rookie QB coming off the bench - yes, I'm aware he already scored a TD on us - but you hold them to a 3 & Out and play for field position.

With the new rules, I thought that was the strategy?

i agree, if RGIII is out there i take the ball otherwise kick

**Haloti92** · 12-09-2012, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenous1

I see no scenario were making a team score both the TD and the 2pt conversion is not beneficial.

Yes getting the 2pt conversion ensures the win, IF YOU MAKE IT.

By going for it, you put the pressure of successfully converting it on your team instead of the opposition. That makes no sense to me. I agree with the decision. You have the opportunity to make the opposing team put the ball in the end zone TWICE, you make em do it. The fact the Ravens were not able to stop them is why they lost...not the decision.

If they had gone for two there and missed and then the Skins tied the game on a TD and PAT are you seriously gonna tell me you would have been ok with that? Even so, I would venture the vast vast majority of NFL coaches would not even give going for 2pt there a second thought.

You see no scenario except the one you finally mentioned. You succeed, you win. That is the pro. You fail, and the other team, if they score a TD, only has to kick a PAT to tie vs getting a 2-pter. That is the con. They are weighed to determine which decision is better.

No, if you go for 2 and fail all you are doing is saying that IF the other team scores a TD you are going to OT, instead of IF the other team scores a TD and a 2-pter you are going to OT. No pressure, because in either case the worst outcome is OT (ignoring the once-every-two-decades ballsy coaching decision to go for 2 for the win, I think Vermeil was the last).

Your last paragraph can be turned around. You saying "if the worst thing that possibly could happen would have happened would you still be okay with that" is uncompelling, because the answer is obvious. How about "if the team went for the 2 and got it would you not have been ok with that"?

I agree that the vast majority of coaches kick there. For two reasons. One, is that according to league-average success rates for 2-pt conversions the math does say to kick (i.e. the odds of you making a 2-pter or them making their 2-pter are not high enough to make going for it worth it). And two, coaches are way too risk-averse in general. They routinely lower their chances of winning because they over-weight risks and under-weight rewards (and probably factor in that the average fan cannot comprehend the math and would therefore criticize an unconventional, but smart, decision that fails; and criticism is to be avoided for job security)

**steelerhater** · 12-09-2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Logan

On the last td, Harbaugh elected to kick the extra point to make it 28-20 instead of going for 2 and possibly make it 29-20 and a 2 possession game. Even if the 2 pt fails, its still 27-20 and this isn't college so they won't go for 2 to win the game when they score. IMO, that is what cost us the game. Everyone wants to point the finger at Cam and Pees, but the head coach is what is holding this team back. He is the one who needs to grow some nuts and fire Cam and play to WIN the game, not play to not lose the game.

You can't be serious. There isn't a coach in the world (NFL, College, High school, whatever...)who wouldn't have kicked the extra point to go up by 8. If Harbaugh goes for 2 and doesn't make it, he would be destroyed (and rightfully so) on every NFL tv/radio show in the country.

**Haloti92** · 12-09-2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenous1

All of your arguments work on the assumption that your defense cant stop them. You cant just make that assumption...even with an injury ridden D

Going for two there would have been dumb. It would have made it easier for the Skins to tie. Instead of arguing about the call which was correct...... worry about the D which let them get it and maybe, just maybe give the Skins some credit for some good playcalling ...something we know nothing about here.

No, all my assumptions do not work on anything of the sort. Let me find the Dallas thread so I don't have to repeat the arguments.

Stop telling me that a failed risk is bad, while ignoring the good in a successful risk. It is obvious and doesn't support your argument. It would have been easier for the Skins to tie IF we don't get the 2 pointer. That is the cost of a failed decision. The reward of asuccessful decision is that the game is OVER, which is not an option when you kick the PAT.

**Boulderraven** · 12-09-2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by steelerhater

You can't be serious. There isn't a coach in the world (NFL, College, High school, whatever...)who wouldn't have kicked the extra point to go up by 8. If Harbaugh goes for 2 and doesn't make it, he would be destroyed (and rightfully so) on every NFL tv/radio show in the country.

I agree with this, but they have a great 2 pt play, but wasted vs Oakland up 24 points. I would have kicked.

**Haloti92** · 12-09-2012, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenous1

http://www.theredzone.org/Features/T...sionChart.aspx

Thats the chart most NFL coaches go by.....it clearly states taking the PAT.

If you want to make an argument for going for it, its not based on Math its based on gut feeling or a conviction that your D cant keep them out the end zone and stop the two point conversion.

Wrong it is based on either: above average confidence in your own offense getting it and/or lack of confidence in your defense stopping their two. The chart is basic and uses standard assumptions (probably based on league-wide averages). But every matchup/game does not go according to league average.

Here is how to look at it simply. What if someone assured you that our odds of making the two pointer was 80%. Do you go for it or kick the PAT? In other words, there are 4 black balls and one white ball in a bag, and if you pull out a black ball, we make the 2. Do you kick or go for it?

**Boulderraven** · 12-09-2012, 04:52 PM

You need to use the college stategy in OT nowdays. Against Manning or Brady maybe I take the ball, but not against ROOKIE Cousins.

**Haloti92** · 12-09-2012, 04:56 PM

Here is the Dallas thread on the issue:

http://russellstreetreport.com/forum...ealed-the-game

**Boulderraven** · 12-09-2012, 05:54 PM

They should have LOST the Dallas game. If not for a penalty and a missed FG.

**GOTA** · 12-09-2012, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenous1

HUH????
This whole post just shows a complete lack of football knowledge.
Why would you put yourself in a position to allow a TD and PAT tie the game if you miss the 2 pt conversion.
If you think the board is on a witch hunt now...geez....
Going for the 2 pt conversion there is the wrong move period the end.....it would have been an EPIC demonstration of stupidity

Yup. THe 2 point conversion is a 25% play. Extra point is a 99% play. You don't go for 2 unless you have no other choice. By making the extra point the Redskins were forced to go for 2. Unfortunately for us they beat the odds and converted.