Why isn't the 2 point conversion used more?

[Big Willie]

If I were an NFL coach, I think I would use the 2 point conversion most of the time rather than kicking the longer extra point. While I haven't seen any numbers on the change in made extra point percentage in 2015, I imagine it has gone down from the previous year's near 100 percent rate. I am curious as to what the ROD participants think as to...

• Why isn't the 2 point conversion used more consistently in 2015?
• Would you use it as a strategy for potentially making other teams score three times to beat your two scores with 2 point conversion?

While I know the historical 2 point conversion rate is less than 50%, it is a relatively small sample size annually. Also, I believe a creative OC could devise more short yardage packages and make this a viable strategy. Thoughts?

 

[Moostache]

Kickers are hitting the XP around 95% of the time from the 15...

If you go for 2 and miss, you are in essence putting yourself behind the score and you will be chasing points the rest of the game.
Take the Notre Dame - Clemson game as an example:

ND is down 21-3 and score a TD at the beginning of the 4th quarter. Instead of taking the XP kick and a 21-10 deficit, Brian Kelly went for 2 and the pass was dropped (pass was high but catchable and dropped).
Now the rest of the game unfolds and ND ends up in a wild, frantic comeback, culminating with a TD with 0:07 left to get to within 24-22....but because they went for 2 earlier in the game, instead of being down 24-23 an kicking an XP to go to OT, they HAD to go for 2 and failed on the attempt.

The reason coaches don't always go for 2 is the same reason they are coaches in the first place...MOST of them know better than to be reactionary in the heat of battle. They don't go for it on 4th down all the time. They don't onside kick for no reason. They also take the points that are available and only chase points when they have to in order to extend a game or avoid the loss.

 

[Ramhusker]

Good question. I know I was screaming at my TV yesterday when our Rams went up 23-15 for Fisher to go for two. I just thought it made sense. 20/20 hindsight though makes me realize why Fisher chose to take the one and make it 24-15. If we had tried the 2pt conversion and failed, we would of been up 23-15 when Arizona made it 23-21 and they would have gone for two also. If they tie it up there, who knows how the game would of ended up.

 

[shaunpinney]

I'm sure it depends on the way the game is going, a missed 2pter means you're only 2 FGs away from OT or one converted TD away from losing the game...

Unless you're offense is dominating their D and are ahead by a couple of TDs the the risk may not be worth it - I'll stick to going for the 2pter on Madden

 

[Fatbot]

The reason coaches don't always go for 2 is the same reason they are coaches in the first place

The more cynical view is that coaches are coaches in the first place because of their political savvy to get the job and their talent at not losing the job. And the easiest way to lose a coaching job is to lose a game where it looks like you went against conventional wisdom; i.e. "did something stupid". So even if the advanced data supports going for 2 more often, coaches are deathly afraid of going out on the limb and doing it because nobody will remember how it helped a win, but the coach will get all the blame if a "new strategy going for 2" loses. It's pretty impossible to defend yourself with nerdy math in front of a screaming fan base and media swimming for blood.

 

[Big Willie]

Kickers are hitting the XP around 95% of the time from the 15...

If you go for 2 and miss, you are in essence putting yourself behind the score and you will be chasing points the rest of the game.
Take the Notre Dame - Clemson game as an example:

ND is down 21-3 and score a TD at the beginning of the 4th quarter. Instead of taking the XP kick and a 21-10 deficit, Brian Kelly went for 2 and the pass was dropped (pass was high but catchable and dropped).
Now the rest of the game unfolds and ND ends up in a wild, frantic comeback, culminating with a TD with 0:07 left to get to within 24-22....but because they went for 2 earlier in the game, instead of being down 24-23 an kicking an XP to go to OT, they HAD to go for 2 and failed on the attempt.

The reason coaches don't always go for 2 is the same reason they are coaches in the first place...MOST of them know better than to be reactionary in the heat of battle. They don't go for it on 4th down all the time. They don't onside kick for no reason. They also take the points that are available and only chase points when they have to in order to extend a game or avoid the loss.

My line of thinking is that if you always go for 2 the other team will be chasing points when you make them. Further, hitting on 3 conversions (24 points) means the other team has to score 4 times (3 touchdowns, and a field goal) to your 3. It to me is the difference between playing to win and playing not to lose.

 

[HometownBoy]

Because usually kickers don't suck, you get the easy points and win the game the way it's been won for years, rather than gambling and getting beat because of it because you thought you were clever.

 

[bskrilla]

Because usually kickers don't suck, you get the easy points and win the game the way it's been won for years, rather than gambling and getting beat because of it because you thought you were clever.

If the statistics start to show that going for 2 can be roughly a 50/50 chance, and higher than 50/50 for good teams it's gonna start changing regardless of how football has been played for years. It's not about being "clever" it'll be about playing the best odds on how to score the most points. Which is kinda the driving force behind all offensive scheme/ideas.

Especially if kickers continue to miss at the higher rates they have been.

 

[Psycho_X]

If our o-line and Gurley keep playing like they did the 4th quarter we might see Fisher start thinking about it hehe.

Personally, it's hard to justify giving up the almost guaranteed 1 point for a 50/50 chance at 2 statistically speaking. However, if I was a coach I'd play the odds based on how good my goal line offense was and how good or bad the opposing defense was. Especially if I had a Marshawn Lynch or a soon to be Todd Gurley stud... I think the first three quarters of a game I would be hesitant but in the 4th quarter if your offense has had a nice long drive and the opposing defense has been on the field a long time I think I try for those 2 points more often than not.

So anyway, to actually answer the questions, I am surprised we haven't seen more attempts for 2 points. But not surprised that it hasn't become the norm.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

The Steelers were bragging about their two point success before playing the Rams. Are they back to doing that now?

 

[Isiah58]

I think statistically, the success rate for teams going for two points in a non-surprise situation (see Rams' attempt v. Washington last year as a counter-example) is about 47% for all teams. I do not think that the distance for the new field goals was an arbitrary distance. They chose a distance having approximately a 94% success rate over the last 10 years. So, going for two should be successful half the time when compared with kicking, but give you twice as many points. Thus, statistically its an even proposition. But coaches still see the higher probability outcome as the better choice, unless you feel like you can perform the two point conversion at a higher rate than the average.

 

[CGI_Ram]

I hate the longer extra point.

Games shouldn't be decided based on missed extra points. Kind of lame, IMO.