Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Going For The Win (2 Pointer)?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CanDB
    replied
    Originally posted by dgobronco View Post
    One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the TV cameras caught multiple coaches on the sidelines extending with 2 fingers immediately after the score, long before the commentators noticed it. So they were planning to go for 2 if the drive ended in a touchdown. It wasn't an in the moment decision. I still like it, and as others have mentioned, I'm sure some of the decision came from knowing the team hasn't gotten off to a good start, and there was little to lose. It was definitely exciting in the moment!
    On second thought, what I said is incorrect. In most situations late in the game, the coaches have a plan to either go for it or not. Clearly they are preoccupied with scoring the TD first, but yes, coaches should be ready in advance. The point I was making is that I'd love to see what we'd do, if we had the decision to make, 1 point or 2. It's great to judge the decision after the play is over, but coaches don't have that liberty. You go, or you no go. And you will likely be criticized if you come out on the low side of the score.....no matter how logical the decision.

    Big bucks, right!!

    Leave a comment:


  • dgobronco
    replied
    One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the TV cameras caught multiple coaches on the sidelines extending with 2 fingers immediately after the score, long before the commentators noticed it. So they were planning to go for 2 if the drive ended in a touchdown. It wasn't an in the moment decision. I still like it, and as others have mentioned, I'm sure some of the decision came from knowing the team hasn't gotten off to a good start, and there was little to lose. It was definitely exciting in the moment!

    Leave a comment:


  • CanDB
    replied
    Good discussion folks! And I do respect those who admit they did not like the call, even though it worked. If there was a meter of some sort, I'd like to see what people think of such calls the moment the call to go for it happens. No time to think about it, or reflect on it after the play happens. That's not much less time than the coach actually has to make the decision....unless they take a time out, or penalties occur.

    And if so, I have a hunch that even though loads of folks may not like the call, the overall energy level likely goes upward, in anticipation of the outcome. The entertainment value tends to rise.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnlimburg
    replied
    If it works you're a genius, if it doesn't, you're an idiot. I personally think it is a case by case judgement call based on how the flow of the game is going, and I think in that specific situation it was a great call. As the coach said, would he do it again, it depends, but I love the commitment to being aggressive, and it appears he backed up what he has been preaching all off-season, so I like it. The fan base has clamoured for an aggressive head coach for years now, so I would assume most are happy with going for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • haciendadad
    replied
    Originally posted by CanDB View Post
    So gang, did you like the gutsy 2 point call, to go for the win?

    Last year when other coaches went for the 2 pointer win, I seem to remember lots of criticism, especially when it did not work. My gut tells me a lot of fans love it, WHEN it works.

    I think Fangio is trying to send a message. And I am ok with that type of call, because a tie only gives you about a 50% chance to win, typically that would be resolved in OT, but...they scored the winning FG prior to. For me, if you believe in your play design, and your ability to produce, you go for it, because a single extra point does not win you the game. Now, if your team has been faltering in pressure situations, the tie is not a foolish idea. Live another set of downs or more.

    But the real question is not whether you liked the outcome of it yesterday, but were you on board when we went for it....not knowing the outcome?

    Then again, it was a strange ending....2 point conversion, which is penalized, which turns into a missed extra point, which was penalized, to return the ball to the 1 yard line, which prompted the 2 point attempt, again. Strange brew!!
    It was refreshing. When was the last time we had a coach that made a gutsy call at the right time and it made a difference. Those situational plays they practice during the week, well that was a chance to see if it will work in a game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam_Z
    replied
    Originally posted by Sophia23 View Post
    I was one of the ones saying no, go for tie and send it to overtime.. Then McManus missed and I was all for the Yes, another shot at the 2 point conversion... Then I loved it! Thought it was bold and liked that it showed confidence in our offense, was just nervous as it took through the fourth quarter to get our first TD ... like that both went to Sanders after the earlier interception on a throw to Sanders. I thought it showed a lot of confidence and we had that game up until the bad call on Chubb.

    Super disappointing loss yesterday, but I'm not one who is throwing in the towel already for the Broncos season. If they went for the win vs an extra point in future.... I'm all for that.
    Fangio just couldn’t believe his offense could march down the field if they even got a shot in overtime.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fantaztic7
    replied
    I didn’t like the call. The offense struggled to make plays in the red zone in back to back games. The odds of making the 2 pt conversion with our offense were low based on the way they’ve played.

    If you take the extra point to tie the game, I believe Nagy would have taken the game to overtime. In Mile High and the momentum on I believe we win the game.
    Last edited by Fantaztic7; 09-16-2019, 06:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sophia23
    replied
    I was one of the ones saying no, go for tie and send it to overtime.. Then McManus missed and I was all for the Yes, another shot at the 2 point conversion... Then I loved it! Thought it was bold and liked that it showed confidence in our offense, was just nervous as it took through the fourth quarter to get our first TD ... like that both went to Sanders after the earlier interception on a throw to Sanders. I thought it showed a lot of confidence and we had that game up until the bad call on Chubb.

    Super disappointing loss yesterday, but I'm not one who is throwing in the towel already for the Broncos season. If they went for the win vs an extra point in future.... I'm all for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Saddletramp
    replied
    Thought it was a great call. As for those that think it's a great call when it works, the missed the field goal was a "called" play that didn't work. We all would of complained if there had not been the penalty that gave us the chance to run it again. Everbody would be saying we should of went for 2 for the win and fangio has no guts and is playing too conservative.
    Last edited by Saddletramp; 09-16-2019, 03:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • beastlyskronk
    replied
    Originally posted by MileHighInNY View Post
    Ah, but in that context only a TD by the Bears would win the game--an FG on the opening possession of OT would still give the Broncos a chance on offense to win or tie it up.

    Look at it this way: NFL teams convert somewhere around 47-48% of 2-point PAT attempts. Let's also assume that kicking the one-point try will have a 100% success rate (not a given, I know, but when making the call a coach needs to assume that the kicker would make the PAT). So, down by one after a TD that late in a game, a coach can opt to certainly tie the game with a PAT kick, or take a 47/53 shot to either take the lead by 1 or definitely lose the game if the conversion fails. Let's even put aside the fact that succeeding on the conversion there probably raises your win probability to something like 95% but obviously does not automatically win the game, and say that getting the conversion results in 100% victory. So in this simplified universe, Fangio could elect for a 100% chance to tie and force OT, or he could take a gamble on a 48% probability to win or lose right now.

    If he forces OT, there is a 50% chance to get the ball first in the coin flip. Since 2012 and the implementation of the new OT rules, the team to get the ball first wins just about 50% of OT games (the second team to get the ball wins slightly less than 50%, with the difference made up by the rare tie game). So, statistically, the "coin flip" nature of OT is largely a myth nowadays. OT may still be roughly a 50/50 proposition, but it's not based on a coin flip anymore; rather, it's based on the performance of the teams. And in this situation, the fact that the Bears' D was obviously gassed and could no longer stop the Broncos from moving the ball should significantly enhance Denver's chances over a longer period of time. So, statistically speaking, Denver actually had a better chance to win there by taking the tie and forcing OT than they did in gambling with the 2-point conversion.

    If they hadn't made the conversion, then we'd all be here complaining about Fangio's idiotic call rather than complaining about the refs.
    Was our defense not as gassed? I couldn’t tell on that 4th down play. And with the lack of pressure all game, there is no way Nagy doesn’t try to get down the field to end the game in regulation, he knew his defense was wore out too. As we saw 31 seconds and a timeout is 1 second too long to keep them out of FG range for this defense. I don’t think us kicking an extra point changes anything. And even if the defense did hold after tying it up, they would’ve been more worn out had they gone out on the field first whereas Chicago’s defense would’ve got a little extra rest if they came out first.

    Not to mention Bolles likely would’ve killed the drive anyway. He could’ve been called for 15 holding penalties yesterday. He’s out there trying to rip guy’s nametape off the back of their jerseys.

    Leave a comment:


  • MileHighInNY
    replied
    Originally posted by dipablo View Post
    You are assuming We get the ball first, which as Can said is 50/50 with the flip of a coin. If they get the ball first our defense that couldn't hold for 30 secs is up.
    Ah, but in that context only a TD by the Bears would win the game--an FG on the opening possession of OT would still give the Broncos a chance on offense to win or tie it up.

    Look at it this way: NFL teams convert somewhere around 47-48% of 2-point PAT attempts. Let's also assume that kicking the one-point try will have a 100% success rate (not a given, I know, but when making the call a coach needs to assume that the kicker would make the PAT). So, down by one after a TD that late in a game, a coach can opt to certainly tie the game with a PAT kick, or take a 47/53 shot to either take the lead by 1 or definitely lose the game if the conversion fails. Let's even put aside the fact that succeeding on the conversion there probably raises your win probability to something like 95% but obviously does not automatically win the game, and say that getting the conversion results in 100% victory. So in this simplified universe, Fangio could elect for a 100% chance to tie and force OT, or he could take a gamble on a 48% probability to win or lose right now.

    If he forces OT, there is a 50% chance to get the ball first in the coin flip. Since 2012 and the implementation of the new OT rules, the team to get the ball first wins just about 50% of OT games (the second team to get the ball wins slightly less than 50%, with the difference made up by the rare tie game). So, statistically, the "coin flip" nature of OT is largely a myth nowadays. OT may still be roughly a 50/50 proposition, but it's not based on a coin flip anymore; rather, it's based on the performance of the teams. And in this situation, the fact that the Bears' D was obviously gassed and could no longer stop the Broncos from moving the ball should significantly enhance Denver's chances over a longer period of time. So, statistically speaking, Denver actually had a better chance to win there by taking the tie and forcing OT than they did in gambling with the 2-point conversion.

    If they hadn't made the conversion, then we'd all be here complaining about Fangio's idiotic call rather than complaining about the refs.

    Leave a comment:


  • L.M.
    replied
    Fangio: “Analytics is good, stats are good, but you’ve just got to go with your gut sometimes. Any my gut told me to go for two there. It doesn’t mean I’ll do it the next time.”

    Leave a comment:


  • GMTD
    replied
    I imagine it was discussed in practice as a possibility should the 2pts take the team into the lead with seconds remaining on the clock. You don't just spring this kind of decision on the team.

    I didn't like it at the time. Maybe because I saw a team try it and fail last week in a practically identical situation. However, I did understand it. We were on top and sometimes it's worth striking when the iron is hot, and if we converted, the Bears would have needed a FG when they had failed to score for the whole 4th quarter up to that point. Also, it's a vote of confidence in both the offence and defence.

    Leave a comment:


  • 58Miller
    replied
    Loved the call, The Bears d was on the ropes. They were on the field for 70 plays, it was hot and they couldn’t cover Sanders.
    If we go for the tie as we saw the extra point isn’t a gimme anymore. Why not go for the win.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hadez
    replied
    If the coaches have a play and they have solid reason to think it will work I am good with the call.

    It has to come from a solid foundation. There is always risk involved when the other team is paid to stop the play. As long as there is solid foundation behind the reasoning I am good with the call.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X