Enough on not going for the FGs, I think not going for 2 down 22-9 was bigger

[aec4]

Watching the game, even when the Jets scored to make it 22-9, I never had the feeling they'd score 2 more TDs.  Turns out they had a chance to, but I never had that feeling.

Being down 13 at that point, there was no downside to going for 2.  Typically you don't go in the 3rd quarter, but you need to have a feel for your team that day.  I never felt comfortable with them on offense, and thought if we can reduce the # of TDs we needed it would be helpful.  Obviously, we would have had to hit the 2 pointer twice in order for it to have benefited, but failing was not going to cost us!  Think about it... if we hit both 2 pointers, it's 22-19 and we can kick FGs to tie.  

The first time we went for it and didn't get it, I could have seen us kicking a FG.  I get that.  I thought, given the circumstance, going for the TD with 3 minutes left down 5 was the right move.  Cimini, at least in my opinion, couldn't be more dead wrong about this.  Of course, that's not a surprising statement.  

 

[nyjunc]

no issue w/ not going for 2, they made the right decision there

[jetsbull]

would have had the lead in 4th possibly if went for fg's......disagree ....respectfully

[aec4]

no issue w/ not going for 2, they made the right decision there

You really think so?  Why?  You have to have a feel for the game, and realize your team isn't moving the ball.   It's ok to disagree, but usually in a discussion you state reasons why?   We need to get away from the "textbook" and observe the game.   

If we go for 2, down 22-9 and miss, the game is unchanged you try to get your TDs and win 23-22..  If you make it, you have a chance to not need 2 TDs to tie.   So now it's 22-11.. You score, 22-17.  If you miss, you are in the same boat we were last night.  If you hit, 22-19....   you can tie with a FG.

 

[peebag]

Here is the best two point rule:

only go for 2 when you absolutely have to.

[nyjunc]

You really think so?  Why?  You have to have a feel for the game, and realize your team isn't moving the ball.   It's ok to disagree, but usually in a discussion you state reasons why?   We need to get away from the "textbook" and observe the game.   

If we go for 2, down 22-9 and miss, the game is unchanged you try to get your TDs and win 23-22..  If you make it, you have a chance to not need 2 TDs to tie.   So now it's 22-11.. You score, 22-17.  If you miss, you are in the same boat we were last night.  If you hit, 22-19....   you can tie with a FG.

 

the thing is we moved it well on that drive and moved it well all 4th qtr.  Let's say we go for 2 and fail then it's 22-9, your team is deflated a bit even after the score and now you are chasing points and that is going into it think Buf won't score. if they even get a FG at 22-9 then we need 2 TDs and 2 2 pt conversions.  You have to think a team could score too.

[Jolot]

2nd and 2 from the 5 is and was the game imo...everything else is white noise at this point 

[Integrity28]

2nd and 2 from the 5 is and was the game imo...everything else is white noise at this point 

This really is the be all, end all. 

Failing there, was like saying "ah **** it, we quit".

[aec4]

This really is the be all, end all. 

Failing there, was like saying "ah **** it, we quit".

don't agree because if you ignore earlier mistakes you will repeat them 

[Larz]

if they didn't make it, we have a whole new thread about chasing points too early  and being down 6 instead of 5

amirite ?

 

[aec4]

if they didn't make it, we have a whole new thread about chasing points too early  and being down 6 instead of 5

amirite ?

 

no.  I wouldn't have anyway.  I understand the chasing points stuff but I know it was mid 3rd quarter.   I didn't think we'd get the breaks we got but I also know we were struggling offensively.  

Whether it worked or not I would have supported it. 

[LionelRichie]

Here is the best two point rule:

only go for 2 when you absolutely have to.

no.  

there is very little downside to being down 13 to being down 12.  either way its 2 TD's.   If buffalo kicks another FG it's 1 2pt conversion vs. 2 - which is an ok risk to me.   

this was a bad game for bowles on the decision making side period.   He's conservative by nature when it comes to decisions....which is fine, but this was bad and probably cost the jets a playoff spot.   the win was there to be had but he really put the jets in a bad spot last night.   

[ljr]

There was plenty of bad to be spread all around ... Imo, I don't hold the decision of going for 1 instead of 2 at that time as a problem

[aec4]

no.  

there is very little downside to being down 13 to being down 12.  either way its 2 TD's.   If buffalo kicks another FG it's 1 2pt conversion vs. 2 - which is an ok risk to me.   

this was a bad game for bowles on the decision making side period.   He's conservative by nature when it comes to decisions....which is fine, but this was bad and probably cost the jets a playoff spot.   the win was there to be had but he really put the jets in a bad spot last night.   

if buffalo scores another td the game was over, making the risk even less 

[JohnnyLV]

Watching the game, even when the Jets scored to make it 22-9, I never had the feeling they'd score 2 more TDs.  Turns out they had a chance to, but I never had that feeling.

Being down 13 at that point, there was no downside to going for 2.  Typically you don't go in the 3rd quarter, but you need to have a feel for your team that day.  I never felt comfortable with them on offense, and thought if we can reduce the # of TDs we needed it would be helpful.  Obviously, we would have had to hit the 2 pointer twice in order for it to have benefited, but failing was not going to cost us!  Think about it... if we hit both 2 pointers, it's 22-19 and we can kick FGs to tie.  

The first time we went for it and didn't get it, I could have seen us kicking a FG.  I get that.  I thought, given the circumstance, going for the TD with 3 minutes left down 5 was the right move.  Cimini, at least in my opinion, couldn't be more dead wrong about this.  Of course, that's not a surprising statement.  

 

Problem is going for 2 is less than 50/50 which means around 25% to make two of them. Plus if you miss and Buffalo makes just a FG now 2 TDs only gives you a tie.

There is no 100% answer on the 4th down vs. FG but football is about momentum, We had all of it at that time, we kick the FG there is a lot more pressure on Buffalo when they get the ball back, and it is quite likely they go through and out and we get the ball back with 2 minutes just needing a FG for the win. Kicking a FG there wins more games than going for 4th and 4 I think.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Problem is going for 2 is less than 50/50 which means around 25% to make two of them. Plus if you miss and Buffalo makes just a FG now 2 TDs only gives you a tie.

There is no 100% answer on the 4th down vs. FG but football is about momentum, We had all of it at that time, we kick the FG there is a lot more pressure on Buffalo when they get the ball back, and it is quite likely they go through and out and we get the ball back with 2 minutes just needing a FG for the win. Kicking a FG there wins more games than going for 4th and 4 I think.

 

This was my thinking as well but what do I know......

[jgb]

don't chase points until 4th Q

[aec4]

Problem is going for 2 is less than 50/50 which means around 25% to make two of them. Plus if you miss and Buffalo makes just a FG now 2 TDs only gives you a tie.

There is no 100% answer on the 4th down vs. FG but football is about momentum, We had all of it at that time, we kick the FG there is a lot more pressure on Buffalo when they get the ball back, and it is quite likely they go through and out and we get the ball back with 2 minutes just needing a FG for the win. Kicking a FG there wins more games than going for 4th and 4 I think.

 

my premise was if buffalo scores again we lose.  We wouldn't have had enough to come back. 

You are right making 2 2 point conversions is probably about a 23-24% proposition, but given my premise that if buffalo scores again we lose (don't think just about the 3 points think about the time it would have taken them to have a drive that yielded points), I would have liked a 1 in 4 shot to tie that game with an FG.  

[aec4]

don't chase points until 4th Q

old school thinking that doesn't take analytics and game situations into account.   If you listen to cowherd, this is coach Jim Bob thinking

[jgb]

old school thinking that doesn't take analytics and game situations into account.   If you listen to cowherd, this is coach Jim Bob thinking

maybe not smart enough but don't understand the reference to respond. Maybe old school but with so much game to be played you take the guaranteed points imho.

[aec4]

maybe not smart enough but don't understand the reference to respond. Maybe old school but with so much game to be played you take the guaranteed points imho.

you'd have to listen to know what I meant.  Basically it's the "old school" coach who ignores analytics and new ways of thinking.   

I hear what you are saying but being down 12 or 13 at that point in the game is identical.  

[FidelioJet]

I think they both (the not going for FG's and the not going for 2 are tied together)

By not going for two - you're saying we can tie win with a  TD and two FG's...if you're gonna play that game then play that game.  

If you go for 2 - then go for it on 4th, if you don't take the 2 - then be prepared to kick the FG's...

 

I liked not going for 2...but I also, without question, would have kicked that 1st FG...

[aec4]

I think they both (the not going for FG's and the not going for 2 are tied together)

By not going for two - you're saying we can tie win with a  TD and two FG's...if you're gonna play that game then play that game.  

If you go for 2 - then go for it on 4th, if you don't take the 2 - then be prepared to kick the FG's...

 

I liked not going for 2...but I also, without question, would have kicked that 1st FG...

the first FG should have been kicked.  Agree there.  My point is at 22-9 I didn't see buffalo going into the tank like they did so I thought we needed to get as many points as we could each score.  

[aec4]

 

 

 

 

 

[peebag]

no.  

there is very little downside to being down 13 to being down 12.  either way its 2 TD's.   If buffalo kicks another FG it's 1 2pt conversion vs. 2 - which is an ok risk to me.   

this was a bad game for bowles on the decision making side period.   He's conservative by nature when it comes to decisions....which is fine, but this was bad and probably cost the jets a playoff spot.   the win was there to be had but he really put the jets in a bad spot last night.   

never leave points off the board...again never go for 2 unless you absolutely have to.

[aec4]

never leave points off the board...again never go for 2 unless you absolutely have to.

old school, "Jim bob" thinking.  The steelers don't subscribe to this

https://twitter.com/theherd/status/664891159089582080

[aec4]

Here is an article showing you would average 0.949 points per XP attempt and 0.974 per two point attempt.   This means if you'd go for 2 every time in the long run you'd score more.  

#analyticsmatter

http://williamsrecord.com/2015/10/21/nfls-extra-point-change-shows-results/

[Ex-Rex]

Watching the game, even when the Jets scored to make it 22-9, I never had the feeling they'd score 2 more TDs.  Turns out they had a chance to, but I never had that feeling.

Being down 13 at that point, there was no downside to going for 2.  Typically you don't go in the 3rd quarter, but you need to have a feel for your team that day.  I never felt comfortable with them on offense, and thought if we can reduce the # of TDs we needed it would be helpful.  Obviously, we would have had to hit the 2 pointer twice in order for it to have benefited, but failing was not going to cost us!  Think about it... if we hit both 2 pointers, it's 22-19 and we can kick FGs to tie.  

The first time we went for it and didn't get it, I could have seen us kicking a FG.  I get that.  I thought, given the circumstance, going for the TD with 3 minutes left down 5 was the right move.  Cimini, at least in my opinion, couldn't be more dead wrong about this.  Of course, that's not a surprising statement.  

 

Two point conversions are harder to make than a 20 yard FG. If you don't get the deuce then you can only tie with a TD and FG. No man, the FG was definitely a worse call. If you make the FG then all you need is a FG to WIN.

[aec4]

Two point conversions are harder to make than a 20 yard FG. If you don't get the deuce then you can only tie with a TD and FG. No man, the FG was definitely a worse call. If you make the FG then all you need is a FG to WIN.

you are missing the point.   For starters, it's a 32-33 yard FG and analytics say in the long run you'd be better off going for 2 every time...

 

however when hen it was 22-9 the way the game was going there's no way you thought we were scoring 2 more tds.  Going for 1 meant we definitely needed 2 tds.   Going for 2 and getting it twice meant we could tie with FG.   Missing the first one meant 2 tds to win.  In other words no risk. 

[BRONX DUDE]

Here is the best two point rule:

only go for 2 when you absolutely have to.

ditto

[Warfish]

JMO.

1. Never leave points on the field unless you have absolutely no choice.  Always take points.

2. Never, ever go for 2 unless you absolutely have to.  Always take the sure 1 unless you absolutely must go for two.

I once heard a VERY respected Coach say this, and I agree with him.

Like I say, JMO.

[aec4]

JMO.

1. Never leave points on the field unless you have absolutely no choice.  Always take points.

2. Never, ever go for 2 unless you absolutely have to.  Always take the sure 1 unless you absolutely must go for two.

I once heard a VERY respected Coach say this, and I agree with him.

Like I say, JMO.

Lots of old school thinking here... The very respected coach said it when the XP was 20 yards.

The statistics say with the rule changes that if you went for 2 every time, and took the league average success rate this year, you'd score 0.974 points per attempt.  If you go for the XP every time, 0.949 points per attempt...    So the analytics say if you go for 2 every time, in the long run, you'd score more points.....  Granted, it's not a lot... but the XP is not guaranteed, and in that game, we needed the 2 so we didn't sit there down by 5 thinking we had to go for it.  

[jgb]

you'd have to listen to know what I meant.  Basically it's the "old school" coach who ignores analytics and new ways of thinking.   

I hear what you are saying but being down 12 or 13 at that point in the game is identical.  

Good thing you're not being a dick about it. All I said was I didn't understand the reference. This is where well-adjusted human beings say "oh, what I meant was X." Kindly flush on the way out.

[Larz]

Lots of old school thinking here... The very respected coach said it when the XP was 20 yards.

The statistics say with the rule changes that if you went for 2 every time, and took the league average success rate this year, you'd score 0.974 points per attempt.  If you go for the XP every time, 0.949 points per attempt...    So the analytics say if you go for 2 every time, in the long run, you'd score more points.....  Granted, it's not a lot... but the XP is not guaranteed, and in that game, we needed the 2 so we didn't sit there down by 5 thinking we had to go for it.  

so based on this you would gain 25 points in 333 years ?

1000 TD's = 25 points gained

teams score on average 30 TD's a year

1000 TD's / 30 = 333 years

you can see why coaches don't do it I guess

even if you move the XP to 90% rate for the new rules, its 74 points gained  and then its 74 points gained in 333 years

I suck at math so I'm probably wrong but I think if it's that close you can't use the %ages to make your case for any specific game and teams just don't score enough TD's for such a small difference to make a radical change in strategery

[aec4]

Good thing you're not being a dick about it. All I said was I didn't understand the reference. This is where well-adjusted human beings say "oh, what I meant was X." Kindly flush on the way out.

didn't mean to be a jerk.  Was just saying you didn't need to listen to the bit on the Herd to get what I meant.  Wasn't even trying to be a jerk.