On the subject of 2 point conversions

When your offense is clicking on all cylinders, and your team has talent akimbo, then I can see no reason why you shouldn't go for those pretty little 2 point conversions. However, it looks like Tomlin is operating under the mistaken pretext that our offense is just as good, if not better, than it ever has been before, which the last few games have clearly shown it not to be. So, I believe this should count against Tomlin, in terms of judgement about the current state of his team, and should serve as a benchmark for anyone thinking about pursuing the almighty 2-pt conversion WHEN YOU DON'T NEED TO, as if it needed to be such.

If a 2 point try makes mathematical sense, then by all means, go for it. But if it doesn't, then you'd better have some really good reasons to even think about it.

Steel Peon wrote:

When your offense is clicking on all cylinders, and your team has talent akimbo, then I can see no reason why you shouldn't go for those pretty little 2 point conversions. However, it looks like Tomlin is operating under the mistaken pretext that our offense is just as good, if not better, than it ever has been before, which the last few games have clearly shown it not to be. So, I believe this should count against Tomlin, in terms of judgement about the current state of his team, and should serve as a benchmark for anyone thinking about pursuing the almighty 2-pt conversion WHEN YOU DON'T NEED TO, as if it needed to be such.

If a 2 point try makes mathematical sense, then by all means, go for it. But if it doesn't, then you'd better have some really good reasons to even think about it.

I agree. We probably would have lost anyway but you shouldn't lesson the odds by going for 2 point conversions. I said in the other thread that if we drive with little resistance and punch it right in first try well then sure. Why not go for 2 but if you fail you kick for one the rest of the game unless going for 2 gives you a chance to tie it up. Yesterday was just plain stupid by Tomlin! What message is he trying to send? I really want to hear his explanation for this.

solardave wrote:

Steel Peon wrote:

When your offense is clicking on all cylinders, and your team has talent akimbo, then I can see no reason why you shouldn't go for those pretty little 2 point conversions. However, it looks like Tomlin is operating under the mistaken pretext that our offense is just as good, if not better, than it ever has been before, which the last few games have clearly shown it not to be. So, I believe this should count against Tomlin, in terms of judgement about the current state of his team, and should serve as a benchmark for anyone thinking about pursuing the almighty 2-pt conversion WHEN YOU DON'T NEED TO, as if it needed to be such.

If a 2 point try makes mathematical sense, then by all means, go for it. But if it doesn't, then you'd better have some really good reasons to even think about it.

I agree. We probably would have lost anyway but you shouldn't lesson the odds by going for 2 point conversions. I said in the other thread that if we drive with little resistance and punch it right in first try well then sure. Why not go for 2 but if you fail you kick for one the rest of the game unless going for 2 gives you a chance to tie it up. Yesterday was just plain stupid by Tomlin! What message is he trying to send? I really want to hear his explanation for this.

His explanation is just as I thought" trying to be aggressive"

Once the first one fails, you're always chasing that point and trying to get the point back, so you feel compelled to go for 2 again, then the next one fails, and then the next one....before you know it you're looking at a "lost field goal."

Bad coaching period. I wouldn't call it aggressive....I'd call it a dumb move from a coach trying too hard to put his mark on the game.

I don't believe the 2 point conversions lost us the game overall, but when you look at the distance Boswell has been able to kick FGs this year, those points left on the field certainly played a role in this loss.

That and missed tackles.

Thing I never understood, is if the coaches believe our offense is great, why do we need to get cute and go for 2 pointers?

Getting cute / trickery is usually what bad teams desperate for a win do...

Well, I guess that could apply to this current team, though.

Steelcitian wrote:

His explanation is just as I thought" trying to be aggressive"

Of course he said that, so next why don't we start doing an onside kick every time? Blitz the QB every time? Throw Hail Marys on every down? Be aggressive Mike! Do it! Do it!

FrancoLambert wrote:

Once the first one fails, you're always chasing that point and trying to get the point back, so you feel compelled to go for 2 again, then the next one fails, and then the next one....before you know it you're looking at a "lost field goal."

Bad coaching period.  I wouldn't call it aggressive....I'd call it a dumb move from a coach trying too hard to put his mark on the game.

You're right and there is a 12 step program for this kind of thinking.

I'm against 2 pointers unless its crunch time.

0-4 yesterday, lets say we went for and made all 4 point afters and we didn't miss the long FG and the refs thru the flags on the pass interference calls in the end zone.

Damn near a 50 point game.

Early 2 pointers stick in my crawl.

The 2 points are fantastic if they work, but, as mentioned, once the first is missed you are almost forced to keep trying to make up for lost points. For the Dallas game I don't know how advisable it is to even try one...they were playing a hot team, already on a 3 game losing streak, I think you take the points that are more guaranteed, if you need 2 points at the end try it then. Some of the decisions of late feel like they are closing their eyes and flailing wildly at fastballs in the dirt.

I don't like going for 2 after the first touchdown. I don't know about the players, but as a fan, a 7 point lead feels bigger, psychologically, than 1 point compared with a 6 point lead. If the other team responds with a touchdown, they're losing instead of being tied. I'm ok with going for 2 if playing catch-up or to put their foot on the neck of the other team. But neither of those scenarios are applicable after the first touchdown.

Last year I had no issue with it.  However, it seems that Tomlin thinks that we have last year's offense.  We don't have Bryant or Heath.  We are already down Coates, Wheaton, and Heyward-Bey right now.  He's trying these 2 point conversions with much different personnel and expecting the same results.

Wallace108 wrote:

I don't like going for 2 after the first touchdown. I don't know about the players, but as a fan, a 7 point lead feels bigger, psychologically, than 1 point compared with a 6 point lead. If the other team responds with a touchdown, they're losing instead of being tied. I'm ok with going for 2  if playing catch-up or to put their foot on the neck of the other team. But neither of those scenarios are applicable after the first touchdown.

According to this P-G Steelers reporter Tomlin is on his own doing it

NFL is very much a copycat league, when you're doing something smart and innovative, teams take notice and follow suit, You see any other teams going for 2pts early in games?

Ray Fittipaldo: No, I do not.

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2016/11/14/Ray-Fittipaldo-s-Steelers-chat-11-14-16/stories/201611140123

I'm okay with the two point attempts every once and awhile or when the situation dictates it but the Cowboys game was overkill. Too many points left off the board.

I recently posted this in another forum, which was inspired by the debate whether or not we should've gone for that 2 pointer in the Bungholes game in an attempt to go up by 6 points, so why not tack it onto the thread of the same name in this one, and bump it at the same time? I'll attempt to throw out some 2 point try logic, and how some of it should depend on the point difference. Maybe a chart is in order?

Losing by:

1 point = Tie the game dumbass, kick the 1 pointer.
2 points = Duh, go for it.....tie the game.
3 points = I can see no mathematical reason to go for the 2 point attempt.
4 points = A FG after a 1 point kick will tie the game from here, and there's no reason to risk losing by attempting a low probability 2 pointer.
5 points = A TD from here will put you ahead regardless of either's success, so it's still a matter of future FGs (of which 2 more would be needed to move ahead), and a 2 pointer plus a following FG will tie the game, so why the hell not go for it?
6 points = Kick the 1 pointer, and go ahead after 2 more FGs, or a TD dumbass.
7 points = Kick the 1 pointer, and tie the game after 2 more FGs, or go ahead with a TD plus the 1 point kick dumbass.
8 points = Kick the 1 pointer dumbass.
9 points = You have little to lose by going for 2 here. Being 8 points away after a 1 pointer still sucks (along with requiring a TD plus an 8 pointer just to tie), and 7 away is a whole lot better.
10 points = The probabilities are starting to stretch a bit here, and a 2 pointer plus another TD, PLUS another 2 pointer ties it, but 3 FGs will tie after a 1 pointer, so it might depend on the state of your team and the environment they're playing in.
11 points = Kick the 1 pointer and be a FG plus a TD and 1 pointer away from tying. I can see no reason to plan on 3 future FGs to tie the game.
12 points = A successful 2 pointer puts you 10 points away from tying it, and a failed 2 pointer puts you 4 FGs away, so the 1 pointer doesn't really matter at all here.
13 points = 2 points gets you barely anywhere here, so just kick the 1 pointer.
14 points = 1 point puts you 2 TDs away from winning, and a chance at gaining a 12 point margin would hardly be worth the risk.
15 points = kick the 1 pointer dumbass.
16 points = Why am I still doing this?

Ok, now we can move onto winning by:

1 point = Go for 2 dumbass.
2 points = Kick the 1 pointer dumbass.
3 points = Being 5 or 4 points ahead doesn't matter a whole lot, so just take the 1 point and try not to lose.
4 points = So now were in familiar territory here, and being 6 ahead sounds really good, along with making mathematical sense, but then you run the risk of not being able to win with a FG should your opponent score a 7 point TD. It looks like making decisions on your team's future performance is easier when you're behind, because you have no where to go but up, and consequently nothing to lose. But when you're ahead it gets a little more complicated, and now (I think) you'd just be better off planning for the worst, which is TDs.
5 points = Sure a 2 pointer puts you up 7, but the smart money says kick the 1 pointer. I guess this would depend on how unstoppable your offense was at the time, and if you're pretty sure the opponent will score an immediate TD.
6 points = Kick the 1 pointer dumbass.
7 points = Going for 2 here is relatively pointless, and I can see no reason to plan on your opponent scoring 3 future FGs.
8 points = I wouldn't blame anybody for trying to make it a 10 point game, but I think 9 is just fine.
9 points = Kick the 1 pointer dumbass.
10 points = I'd like to win by 1 point if my opponent scored a TD plus a FG.
11 points = I think it would be smarter to go for 2 here, but if the game is currently a FG war in a defensive standoff, then you might want to get that 1 pointer.
12 points = The 1 pointer makes more sense to me here, but going for 2 could make a lot of sense given the right situation. It's getting kind of redundant now, so here is where I'll stop.

I understand that a lot of what a coach decides to do really depends on the game's momentum, state of the team, how much time is left, and the weather conditions, so feel free to disagree with any of my judgements, and clarify the hell out of them. The drivel spewing outta me is over for now.

One thing I have liked about Mike Tomlin in his tenure is his go for broke mentality. Sure, it works less than more, but when you play to win, I have seen it enough, more good comes from it in crunch time than not. I was in San Diego last year on a go for broke win instead of a FG to tie the game. And it was an unbelievable feeling watching it.

Great explanation Steel Peon! Like OX said playing to win is putting your players in a mentally comfortable situation, both on offense and defense. It shows that the coach has a lot of confidence in his team and that pays off in critical situations.
I know that a lot of people on this board hate going for 2, but the psychological impact on a team is huge, even when it's missed.