Why Teams Go For 2 Down By 8 Points (And Every Time It's Happened in NFL History)

[@ck1011Original]

Also, if successful, the bucs are down 6 and can kick 2 FG to tie. 4:37 left and 2 timeouts? Plenty of time for a couple drives, especially with how quick the TD drive was. I think that's a way bigger deal than the analytics stuff. Nobody seems to mention that.

[@jasonfischer8946]

It sounds like the obvious conclusion is to go for 2 on every touchdown since there's more than a 50% chance for it to work.

[@mandospence]

Very good analysis. I’m sold.

[@DoctorNovakaine]

Things I'm getting from this video: 1. The strategy has a better track record than I thought 2. We've apparently never even had a team in a POSITION to fail the second try 3. Even when it works, it usually doesn't matter in the end - only 2 of the 14 successes actually led to wins (but given that most are late 4th-quarter efforts, that isn't a shock), though one did lead directly to a lead that just had other factors chime in afterwards 4. Even considering the above, that leaves 3 times total that it ended up being relevant and 3 successes, with two of those being direct wins and the other being a loss that had nothing to do with the strategy 5. The Eagles really seem to have a knack for finding themselves down by 14 In sum...if you're in the position in the first place, you're probably going to lose - but there's not really much reason not to take this option, because in the long run, even if it fails, it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. And when it doesn't fail, there's a strictly nonzero chance that it will make all the difference. I have to say, I would not have expected this conclusion before seeing it laid out.

[@tylermathis-kx7pu]

23:38 that was due to the terrible roughing the passer call for Brady.

[@mrmajikjr]

I think Wilpon has a point. You can't use analytics for situations that your team isn't built for. It doesn't matter if analytics say go for it on 4th and 5, you can't do it if your QB is Tim Boyle. The Bucs have a weak running game and just a serviceable enough QB with Mayfield. It does not make sense to be overly aggressive non-mandatory 2-point scenarios where failure is more likely than not.

[@danielbowden6330]

No one brought up the fact that these were all regular season games. A different animal entirely. What was the cost to these teams losing the game, compared to a ayoff game?

[@pronkb000]

@@danielbowden6330If Green Bay loses that Saints game, they're 8-9 and likely sitting at home for the playoffs. So, a lot.

[@syu_ra]

@@danielbowden6330 the colts also did it in the wild card round against the bills after the 2020 season, it was left out of the video due to being a playoff game and likely not showing in JG9's search. the 2pt conversion failed but the bills scored again so it didn't make a difference anyway.

[@syu_ra]

the most important factor here anyway is that this strategy has an extremely low chance of outright losing you the game, due to so much else needing to happen to even score the second TD without giving up any more points or running out of time first. if you fail the 2pt conversion then don't make the stop on defense, then your defense lost you the game, not the strategy, you wouldn't have won the game anyway. the fact that this strategy already worked successfully 3 times (counting the browns game where they eventually lost), while never losing a team the game, shows that it has some merit, yet people always freak out when their team fails the 2pt despite not scoring a TD later anyway, making the decision irrelevant. great video 👍

[@DavidLimofLimReport]

10:48 - only time in history that Chris Berman got something wrong.

[@johnnyroberts3761]

There were two high school football championship games last year (one in Minnesota and one in Wisconsin) where the coaches, after scoring a TD late and being an XP away from tying the game- decided to go for the win instead. Both times that happened, the conversion failed. It’s one thing to try a 2-pt conversion in the regular season to take the lead, give yourself an advantage, or even the win- but you don’t do it in a championship game.

[@KingIsaiahZ]

Great observation! I would go for 2 down 8 as well. One thing I also wanted to mention is that if you cut the lead down to 6 by converting, you can take two field goals and tie the game that way. I also think it would be smart for teams to go for 2 when down 4 late in the game!

[@dangeiger9796]

I find this very interesting. I majored in math in colleges and did research on sports probability. The real question is what is more likely converting the first two point conversion then kicking the second PAT or going for two twice and missing both

[@Christoph5782]

P(A)=.55•.92≈.51 P(B)=(1-.55)•(1-.55)≈.20 Granted this ignores all of the nuances of the game, and the fact that the offense would need multiple two points conversion plays as otherwise the defense would have seen the play before, and etc. But with these numbers, 51% of the time you get the win and 20% of the time you lose outright Id say if you are the worse/underdog team, you always go for two in this spot (or even if its a 1 point game pending the extra point or conversion). If you are the favorites and the better team, do not take the risk as the greater the sample size the more chance you have to win regardless

[@derfvcderfvc7317]

​@@Christoph5782a simpler way to look at it would be, 50% chance of winning in overtime vs 55% chance of winning with the 2 point conversion

[@simplebutpowerful]

This is how I think of it: I simplify to 50% success for 2 pt, ~100% success for xp. So the expected score is the same regardless. Conventional method results in an essentially guaranteed tie, in which case OT is 50/50. Savvy method results in 50% win (by 1) in regulation, 25% go to OT, 25% lose (by 2) in regulation. The increase in winning probability is greater than the increase in losing probability. But why? Because you only gotta win by 1, but if you lose, it don't matter if you lose by 1 or 2. The average score is still the same, but the probability distribution is manipulated to maximize the chance that you come out ahead in regulation.

[@randytracy1742]

Very good video, jg9! 😊😊😊😊

[@scottybbadd]

JG9, I've been wanting to do do this video for a while

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

The intangible -when you score a touchdown you have positive momentum, when you miss a 2 pt. you give the defense a small victory, which shifts the momentum.

[@JayTemple]

8:57 I wondered when they brought in the 2-point conversion, because you've mentioned so many games where it wasn't an option. Long before this video, I had read that it was actually an innovation of the AFL, so I was surprised to hear that the AFC played without it for so long. (I'm assuming they got rid of it with the merger.)

[@AJ11OH-IO]

Great channel!! Only up from here

[@markdaniel8740]

The rates that you used to explain the analytics give results for the average teams in average situations. There are so many variables that the best decision could be reversed.

[@pronkb000]

The math holds up even if your chances of a 2PC are as low as 37%. At least at the NFL level, the variable is just not big enough. The difference between the best team in the league and the worst is just not that big.

[@turbotron42069]

by far the best breakdown on the whole going for 2 down by 8 thing. well done

[@cf1696]

I got a 5, so I converted my 2 point conversion! Great video, go Lions!

[@felixorozco6514]

You should check the money lines on these games😮

[@MillionaireWizard]

Although unrelated to the video, Darrell Royal decided to go for 2 down by 8 points in the 1969 Game of the Century between Texas and Arkansas and succeeded. Texas ended up winning the game 15-14.

[@toddbiesel4288]

This strategy was also used by Notre Dame in the 1979 Cotton Bowl against Houston. You know, Joe Montana, chicken soup, yada yada yada.

[@anthony0358]

Excellent point about that game in 1969. I think Royal wanted to not have a tie , and he used this strategy 50 years ahead of its time

[@WaltGekko]

@@anthony0358 There was no overtime in college football until the late 1990's. That is why he did it.

[@katherinebrown8071]

Wow this is a phenomenally well-done and thorough breakdown! This clearly took a lot of work

[@WilliamMorrison-rp6ws]

The biggest thing about all these situations is all announcers and talking heads only say it's a bad decision if it fails. If it succeeds the coach is a "genius." It's all results oriented. In this case I agree with the analytics even though there's more nuance. A fade route is a low % throw, so the play's chance of success is lower than what the analytics show. It's the play call that should be scrutinized

[@Boyso5407]

Bill Belichick has always said that you only go for 2 when you HAVE to. So unless your kicker is injured you should always take the extra point, even with it being more difficult than it used to be.

[@pronkb000]

What does "have to" mean? Would Bill not go for 2 if he scored a late TD to go up by 1? If going for 2 increases your chances of winning, you do it, period. You have to win.

[@derfvcderfvc7317]

Who gives a fuck what that fraud thinks. Took all of Brady's credit and fell apart and got fired after he left.

[@RicoCosta317]

I'm as into analytics as anyone (anyone who's old and was really restitant to them that is 😂). But I'm sorry I can't get behind this one. Ok yeah the odds are good that going for two down by 8 will work , but geez it's still nearly 50-50. If you don't make it, you still have to drive down the field and go for two again just to tie the game, and now it's do or die and if that doesn't work, you have to hope recover and onside kick and we know what the odds of that are. I would be screaming if my team did something like that.

[@miche1df]

It's the Monty Hall problem of football: so counterintuitive that it seems absurd, but demonstrably correct mathematically. Also I think there should be an asterisk on the cases where the offense ran a fade #banthegoallinefade

[@scottybbadd]

This feels more like an In Defense Of.

[@OfficialJaguarGator9]

It was originally gonna be an IDO, but I decided to go deep down the rabbit hole because there was a lot of confusion, and no one had done a history video on this

[@stooch66]

A huge factor is the confidence you have in the play call. You can’t add that to the analytics when looking from the outside.

[@pronkb000]

Is that a huge factor? I don't know how you go into any NFL game without a 2-point play that you feel confident in executing.

[@jvanek8512]

That's the problem. You can tell people who support analytics have never competed in anything because they forget the human part and other factors analytics can't factor in. They treat the sport like the players are these robots that do the exact preprogrammed motion everytime or a computer simulation.

[@Mxxx-ii9bu]

@jvanek8512 You decided to continue to be wrong despite the evidence provided in this video. Yikes!

[@jvanek8512]

@@Mxxx-ii9bu Riddle me this. If analytics acolytes are these near God like people then why do they sign the back of checks and not the front? All the analytics gurus I've seen are employees not employers

[@PAGoTribe1963]

@@Mxxx-ii9bu You're missing what he said. You can have the best 2-point play ever devised and players playing at the peak of their ability, but if someone's head is not where it should be, it doesn't matter.

[@agrofindastation]

Simulated 50000 games in excel using randbetween(1,9). Lost (12 pts) 19.69% (nice). Tied (14 pts) 49.17%, won (16 pts) 31.13%.

[@davidclevenger3403]

When you started rattling off numbers my brain started hearing the Scott Steiner math promo.

[@raidger4]

Collinsworth did it during the game Sunday too

[@TheT0N1c]

Didnt the pats do it during 28-3 too?

[@manligi9701]

Yeah I was wondering why he didn't mention that one. Imo it's an iconic play

[@pronkb000]

The Patriots were never down 14 in that game. They were down by 25, then 19 (failed 2PC), then 16, then they tied it with two 2PCs. But going for 2 when down 16 and 8 are absolute no-brainers.

[@tfd7915]

You convinced me. Good work on the numbers and the history. One thing though you kept talking about being down by eight. I think you mean down by 16 there. Down by eight you of course go for two. Might as well.

[@chargingbadger867]

He means down by 8 after the TD

[@JayTemple]

@@chargingbadger867 OHHHH! Now it makes sense.

[@tfd7915]

@@chargingbadger867 well, at least to me. Anyway, I took a different way. But you could be right

[@gakster29]

One thing i always wondered since I was a kid: If you're down 9 or 10 late without the ball, but there's a fumble loose in your opponents end zone, do you pounce on it for the TD, or do you kick the ball out of bounds for a safety and get the ball back?

[@ck1011Original]

That would be illegal batting, unless you are the seahawks and playing the lions

[@pronkb000]

@@ck1011Original You might be able to "accidentally" knock it OOB while "trying" to recover it. It's an interesting question.

[@harpercole5321]

Excellent work! I like these investigative videos.

[@imback15]

W vids

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

Trying to remember when, Eric Berry I think for Chiefs picked off a 2 point pass and turned it into a 'Pick-2".

[@peterpatrickcoyle1779]

His math didn’t take in consideration when talking about kicking the extra point, if you miss the first extra point you’d go for 2 on the 2nd TD. So the 4% chance you miss the extra point would mean you still have a 55% chance of tying the came with a 2 pt conversion on the 2nd TD.

[@CTubeMan]

Before watching this video I was in the camp of kicking the extra point in that situation. I did believe, however, that going for the extra point in that scenario is now up for criticism. For one, it’s the less aggressive strategery. For another more coaches are going for two. This video shows that recent trends call for going for two. This is one of your best videos.

[@travs8048]

If you think you can beat the other team in overtime go for 1. If you think you can't go for 2.

[@Jesse2188]

Love the vids man, great work! Always very entertaining and interesting.

[@colbyforfun8028]

What about the strategy of going for 2 when you score to go up by 7? I’m surprised more teams don’t do this. If you get it, you go up by 9 which is a 2 possession game. If you miss, it’s still a 7 point game and the other team will try to tie with a touchdown.

[@OfficialJaguarGator9]

I’ve been banging the table for that for years. Seahawks did it a few years ago against the Patriots and ever since I’ve said that it’s genius to do it

[@pronkb000]

Win Probability Added models are actually kind of indifferent on that, just like they're indifferent on going for 2 when down 1. I think it makes sense in the same situation: when you're an underdog, or facing an overwhelming offensive attack. If you don't get it and are up by 7, the opposing team is very unlikely to put everything into a 2-point play, so you're looking at OT at worst. But if you get it, you can ice the game. I *wouldn't* do it if I were the Brady Patriots, or a blueblood like Michigan playing an unexpected dogfight against a team like Illinois. If I'm a fairly heavy favorite, I'd kick it and be content with 8 points and trust my team to either defend the 2PC or win in OT. One instance where WPA models are *strongly* in favor of going for 2 is when you're down 4. Almost nobody does this--the 49ers did it in the playoffs against the Falcons way back because of a bad snap on a kick, and Doug Pederson did it in the Jags-Chargers comeback game but only after a Chargers penalty put the 2PC attempt at the 1. The chance to win with a FG if you get it outweighs the decrease caused by having to score a TD if you miss. (And if you miss and get that TD, you can still kick to go up 3 and save a tie if the other team kicks a FG to respond.)

[@marcus813]

The only times I would do this if I were a head coach is if my roster was suffering some sort of attrition and we needed to end the game ASAP or if my kicker wasn't any good. Otherwise, I'm not afraid of OT.

[@derfvcderfvc7317]

A two point conversion has a higher than 50% success rate. Overtime is as 50/50 as you can get. You're decreasing your odds of winning by kicking the extra point.

[@marcus813]

@@derfvcderfvc7317 The 2-pt. conversion is not so much higher than 50/50 that I would rely on such a strategy on the regular, though. I would rather not be forced to go for 2 if the 1st attempt goes awry, defeating the whole purpose of avoiding OT.

[@awesomezombie115]

Did the random number generator took me like 15-20 try’s to lose the game

[@jamesgoss1860]

I hate it when teams are up by 1 late in a game and then score a TD and just kick an extra point to go up 8. No, that's when you go for 2 to make it a two-score lead. You make it, you're golden. You miss it, you're still up by 7. Being up 8 over 7 is good, being up 9 over 8 is huge.

[@pronkb000]

Interestingly, WPA models are kind of indifferent on 9 vs. 8 and thus indifferent on going for 2 or not. I would do it if I were playing Mahomes or Lamar or Peak Brady (since they're not likely to go for 2 and the win if they score if you don't get it), but I don't know if I'd do it every time out.

[@stashi0189]

Thank you for the great explanations. As a retired chemist I understand math and probability. If you play for overtime you then have a 50/50 chance. Less if you are road team. Roll the frigging dice 🎲

[@wesleywildcat84]

Someone did the math, and I’m not sure if it’s road team (Bucs) or overall (likely loser of the toss), but the Bucs faced 44% chance of success going to OT, so it’s 55 or 80% with the twos, or 44%. A lot of math, but it all points to “go for the win!”

[@thenextsteveblackman]

I have no idea what the actual data is, but assuming you can get a two point conversion about 45-48 percent of the time, it makes sense to go for two in this situation. I think the only reason coaches don't do it is because they're worried about job security. The more decisions a coach makes, the more potential opportunities to look bad on a big stage.

[@utopianverve]

It's over 50% he even mentions this early in the video

[@pronkb000]

It's happening more and more now. If even a relatively conservative coach like Todd Bowles is doing it, it's officially a mainstream strategy.

[@simplebutpowerful]

Yep... the conventional wisdom is to appear to avoid sudden losses of win probability and to maximize the chance of at least tying in regulation. Whereas the new movement is to actually maximize the chance at winning.

[@jret65541]

What’s the chances of Somoa joe besting Scott Steiner at Sacrifice

[@mrmoose6619]

It's interesting that only 2 times of the 14 that the 2 point conversion was successful that it actually mattered as to which team eventually won the game... so the scoreboard really should look like: Outright Wins: 2 Got it to 6 after the 2 pointer but still lost: 12 Stayed at 8 after 2 Pointer failed and lost: 9 Didn't work the first time nor the second and lost: 0 So teams are 2-21 when using this strategy, an 8.7% winning percentage. Since 2018, how many times has a team been down by 8, kicked the XP to go down by 7 and what happened subsequently? I would chalk the results up as: Outright loss as they never scored again and/or the other team scored and won by 2+ possessions Scored again, went for 1 and eventually won Scored again, went for 2 and eventually won Scored again, went for 1 and eventually lost Scored again, went for 2 and eventually lost Then what the combined record is from there. For the record, I am not convinced with this that the 2 down by 14 is correct... but if 8.7% chance over these last 6 seasons is better, then I can be convinced...

[@Koyasama]

I'm not sure what your point is. There was only one instance outside of those two wins where the team going for 2 scored again at all. In all the rest, it wouldn't have mattered whether they went for 1 or 2, because they would have lost either way--8.7% was still the best winning percentage you could hope for in those scenarios, with it only going down in the event of an overtime loss.

[@reintaler6355]

​@@Koyasama their point is that we should compare the 8.7% ''2pt + stop + TD + 1pt walkoff'' process in the video to the probability of ''1pt + stop + TD + 2pt walkoff'' process

[@paulm7842]

​@@reintaler6355I think he also wants to compare "1 pt + stop + TD w/ 1 pt + OT" as well.

[@Koyasama]

@@reintaler6355 And I'm asking what the point of that analysis would be, when the TD rate was so low. Are you seriously arguing that going for 1 instead of 2 would make it more likely that the team would get back to the end zone again?

[@pronkb000]

The bottom line is if you're down 14 in the 4th quarter, then you're probably losing no matter what. You have to score two TDs without the other team scoring at all. The odds are against you to start with even with perfect strategy. It's about maximizing what odds you have, and going for 2 first does that.

[@louisnemzer6801]

I was at the Titans/Dolphins game in which this happened. Even though the Titans were down 14 in the fourth quarter, it was because of a fumble and a muffed punt, so their comeback was not as surprising as it might have otherwise felt. I saw at the time what they were doing going for two after the first touchdown, even though I'm a dolphins fan I thought it was a very clever strategy.

[@utopianverve]

Should've kept that tally on your chart of only 2 instances it worked AND you won because of it.

[@pronkb000]

But giving up a score or not scoring again has no bearing on whether going for 2 first is the right decision. If you don't score another TD, it's irrelevant whether you went for 1, 2, 3, or 5 on the first one.

[@HunteronaBudget]

So JG9...... What's your opinion of the XFL/UFL 3 point conversion and should it be implemented in the NFL?

[@johnny__topside]

I’d be curious to see how these numbers stack up against kicking the xp first and then going for 2. How many times has that worked vs failing?

[@Mxxx-ii9bu]

@johnny__topside The numbers indicate that is a poor strategy. Lets see if I can illustrate this for you. 55% of the time when your (first) 2-pt conversion is successful there is no difference between your scenario and the one depicted in the video. But in the 45% of games where the (first) 2-pt conversion is unsuccessful you miss an opportunity to tie the game and go into OT. If you plan on PAT first\2-pt conversion second and you fail at the 2-pt you lose. But if you plan on 2-pt first\PAT second and you fail at the (first) 2-pt you can then attempt a 2-pt conversion to tie the game.

[@johnny__topside]

@@Mxxx-ii9buI understand it’s a poorer strategy and I’m not advocating for it, but I’m wondering how often teams go for a 2 point conversion down by 1 point after choosing to kick an xp to go down by 7 earlier. For example in 2016, the 49ers were down by 14 against the Rams, kicked the xp to trail by 7, and then went for 2 at the end of the game and won by 1 point. That’s just 1 example, but it worked for San Francisco in that case. I don’t know who else would do what the 49ers did, so I’m curious to see if that strategy works at a higher success rate

[@Mxxx-ii9bu]

@johnny__topside The success rate is the same for the two scenarios. The probability of converting a successful 2-pt conversion followed by a successful PAT is equal to the probability of a successful PAT followed by a successful 2-pt conversion. Ergo if you are planning on attempting a 2-pt conversion when done by 14 the only difference between the two scenarios is you increase your probability of losing if your tactics are attempt the PAT when down by 8.

[@AJ11OH-IO]

I never liked fades on a make or break play

[@StainlessSteelPolish]

15:17 That's gotta be the ugliest touchdown I've ever seen. I'm sure Saquon isn't complaining though.

[@Jason_Maier]

You mentioned the success rate for two point conversions this year was 55.1% (70 conversions on 127 attempts). That is the highest percentage of successful two point conversions since it was introduced in 1994 (yes I did check the 2023 NFL Record & Fact Book)

[@derfvcderfvc7317]

You should still go for two since going to overtime is 50/50.

[@RobertReital]

​@@derfvcderfvc7317I don't think he's making the argument not to. Just pointing out an interesting fact that may have flown under the radar

[@DavidBaruffi]

This is one I don't fully get. I mean, it's doesn't bother me per se, because at least, if you miss you're still down one score, but I don't like the idea of going for two unless you absolutely have to. I kinda get it if they're at the one, and not the two, that's worth the gamble, hypothetically, and I also kinda get it since the extra point's been moved back, I think it is more 50-50 there, but all that said, I feel like it's a trap. I think you gotta use the times for when you're going for the win on the extra point more selectively. This feels like doing it to do it, and I don't like that. Even with the extra point moved back, I'd still just presume and trust my kicker, especially on the first TD. On the second one, then I think situationally, go for it. And I don't agree with the, "If you don't go for it, it effects the clock on the next TD" either, 'cause you gotta get the TD Either way, and just because you got the 2-pt conversion, you'd still have to kick the extra point and make that. No, I really don't agree with that. If you're down a TD, whether it's 6, 7, or 8, you need to get the TD. If you're thinking about how much time's left after, you're in trouble. It'd be nice if there's no time on the clock, but y'know, if you can't presume your defense is stopping the offense the next possession, you got bigger problems. So, I completely disagree with that one.

[@pronkb000]

"You don't chase points" or "You don't go for 2 unless you have to" are oft-repeated talking points with no actual evidence supporting them. People just repeat it because...people repeat it. They don't actually think about it. You don't "have to" go for 2 if you go up by 1 late, but teams still do it.

[@brianl2513]

This is simple game theory. The chance of getting the 2pt conversion would need to be somewhat under half the chance of hitting the extra point (which it's not especially since extra points have been moved to 15 yard line) for this to not be the positive advantage play. Case closed. Was the right call

[@Izboy112]

I would always go for 2, even when it is early in the game.

[@rh9477]

I’ve been watching football almost 40 years now, and analytics aside I get the impression that coaches are just less risk averse than they were when I was young. I’m not sure if it’s the influence of media and the glorification of the “riverboat gambler” style approach or what, but it seems to be more than just analytics. In any event, great job on this detailed breakdown

[@pronkb000]

I think a lot of it is the Madden games and I'm not kidding when I say that. A lot of these coaches and players played Madden as kids and going for it on 4th down and going for 2 are way easier and more common in a video game than in real life. Video games don't equate to real life but the mindset gets planted and you can see how these strategies may actually be viable. Going way back before video games, my dad learned the value of on-base percentage and walks decades before the Oakland A's Moneyball revolution, because of Strat-o-Matic baseball.

[@Rockhound6165]

Analytics is going to ruin football like it did baseball.

[@pronkb000]

It's hurt baseball and basketball but I dunno...I'm all for more 4th down attempts and 2-point conversions. I get the argument against baseball being a series of HR swings and strikeouts and the demise of the short-range jumper in basketball, but who in the hell prefers a kicked PAT to a 2-point attempt? Who besides Kirk Ferentz prefers a punt to a real play?

[@Rockhound6165]

@@pronkb000 but if we're going to use computers to run the game then they might as well play everything on Madden.

[@pronkb000]

@@Rockhound6165You didn't answer the question. Do you honestly prefer kicked PATs to 2-point plays and punts and field goals to 4th down attempts?

[@mbar7777]

So it’s won 2 games and lost 0 is what the results seem to be

[@pronkb000]

Remember, if you're down 14 late, the odds of you winning are against you, no matter what you do. There's no magic bullet to give yourself a win in that situation--it's about maximizing what chances you have. If you don't score twice, it doesn't matter if you go for 1, 2, 3, or 5 the first time. If you give up a score, it doesn't matter if you go for 1 or 2.

[@RicoCosta317]

Ok I posted the comment below before I watched the video. Let me see if my mind will change but I serious doubt that even JG9, the sports nerd supreme, can persuade me. Stay tuned (like you really care what I think! 😛)

[@RicoCosta317]

Ok I watched it. Excellent video and very persuasive but I'm still not sold. It's kind of a sleight of hand. Yes, the number of times it worked is higher than the number of times a team kicked the extra point but that really doesn't prove anything except that one number is higher than the other. Ok the times it succeeded gave the team a better chance to win, which two teams did. But what about when it doesn't? Your odds are dramatically lower than if you just kicked the point because the odds of even tying the game are way lower because the odds of kicking the point are quite a bit higher than getting the two. Like I said if my team did it, I would be P***ED because to me it's better to be safe than to possibly decrease your chances of winning, or even tying the game. I'm definitely a Luddite when it comes to this strategy.

[@pronkb000]

Scared money don't make money. Herman Edwards did not say YOU PLAY TO TIE THE GAME or YOU PLAY TO EXTEND THE GAME. You play to win.

[@manligi9701]

Yo, you missed the Pats doing it in Super bowl 51. They were down 28 to 20 and went for it to eventually win the game. I dont remember if there was a penalty though

[@gregpearson1223]

They were down 28-12 and got two touchdowns and two 2-point conversions to tie it up. Not the same scenario.

[@pronkb000]

Super Bowl 51 does not apply--the Patriots were never down by 14 at any point. Going for 2 when down 8 is an absolute no-brainer not worth discussing.

[@andrewschultz6608]

I'd never heard the term "the octopus" before. But it is intuitively obvious what it is ... very cool! As someone who did a lot of math problems in high school and college I wondered why more coaches didn't try this. Even at a 40% success rate (back, say, in the 90s with less offense) it seems like a pretty good risk. Rough math (assuming 95% extra point): (2 pointer) Win = 40% * 95% = 38% Loss = 60% * 60% = 36% win - loss = 2% Xpoint: win = 0 Loss = 5% * 60% (missed xp, 2 pointer) + 95% * 5% (xp, missed xp) ~ 8% Tie = 95% * 95% (make both) + 5% * 40% = 92%. win - loss = 8% So even with a low probability of a 2 point conversion it makes sense! BTW if you assume you always make an XP then the break even point for this strategy is (1 - golden ratio). as you want x^2 = 1 - x where x = chance of failure. Also if the other team clearly has a better offense or if you have an injured player or a gassed D it makes sense to roll the dice even on one play. So even if your team is bad on offense it seems like it's a good gamble. This seems counterintuitive because aren't your expected points less? But there's no difference between losing by 2 points and losing by 1. If you are down 4 touchdowns the break even point is higher but then of course you have other problems :)

[@derfvcderfvc7317]

This also ignores overtime. Which is again roughly 50/50. So by kicking both extra points. You still only have a 50% chance to win

[@vidowatcher91]

I'm with Mina Kimes, I actually love the strategy and hate the goaline fade. Sometimes it's not the fact you go for it, but the play call

[@rainbowdillard8581]

I have to disagree with, "The math just makes sense no matter which team is doing it." You really should consider the strength of your offense and the strength of the opposing team's defense. If you just watched your team have to take all four downs to get from the 2-yard line into the end zone, going for two is not a good decision.

[@pronkb000]

At least at the NFL level the strength differences are simply not wide enough to affect this strategy. Even if you're Carolina going up against Baltimore. If anything, if you're Carolina playing Baltimore, you want to do everything in your power to avoid OT at all.

[@jimboslice6367]

Now show all the times it didn’t work

[@OfficialJaguarGator9]

That literally was every single instance in NFL history. I didn't miss one

[@raidger4]

@@OfficialJaguarGator9I know this would be a big undertaking, but how many times has a team down 8 kicked the xp to go down 7 and scored another TD, kicked the xp and forced OT?

[@jimboslice6367]

@@OfficialJaguarGator9 bullshit. I know you didn’t check every game because there was a giants game a few years back when reporters asked why he tried this scenario

[@OfficialJaguarGator9]

@jimboslice6367 That game was in there. 2018 against the Falcons. That was one of the ones that did not work

[@pronkb000]

If it "doesn't work" then does that mean it was the wrong move? If you're down 14 late, there's a good chance that NOTHING you do will work because most teams down 14 in the second half lose. This entire premise is predicated on you scoring two TDs and the other team not scoring at all. If you don't score that second TD, then it doesn't matter what you did on the first PAT whether you went for 1, 2, or 6.

[@wasteland5000]

Did the RNG. I lost.

[@jvanek8512]

Riddle me this. Are those examples the same players, in the same place or conditions are they getting hot during that point in the season we're all the off field issues the same. That's the problem using analytics like the players are robots or in a computer simulation. It can't factor in all the chaos. Analytics was shown to be overused when they were crowning or burying teams throughout the season saying team X has a 5% chance or team Y has a 98% chance to make the playoffs and as we saw The Jaguars collapsed and teams like The Packers got hot after starting 3-6.

[@pronkb000]

"All models are wrong, some are useful." British mathematician George Box said that in 1976, and his point was we should focus more on whether something can be applied to everyday life in a useful manner rather than debating endlessly if an answer is correct in all cases.

[@jvanek8512]

I would have laughed if The Bucs made the two point conversion, but the missed the game winning PAT.

[@briandonegan8480]

If you listened to Westwood One there was never any question. The announcer said the analytics say the Bucs should go for two and they are before the play. It was clear that if they did not the announcer would have demanded an explanation for not doing so.

[@toadofsteel]

Anyone that plays d&d knows that 95% is not guaranteed. Take your percentages and round to the nearest 5%. If youre kicking XPs, roll 2 d20s, if you get a nat 1 on either roll you lose outright, otherwise you go to overtime. If you go for 2 in the first attempt, you need a 9 or higher. If not, second roll needs to be a 9 or higher to go to overtime, else you lose. If the first roll is 9+, second roll is either nat 1 for overtime or anything else wins the game.

[@chicgamingqueens1647]

Teams go for 2 in the 4th Quarter down by 8 because they want to win it at the end. The new OT rules change the way teams think about it, Teams just don't want to have to go to OT, lose the coin toss and their QB never sees the ball and lose on a TD. This was stated by the BUF-KC AFC Championship when the game went to OT and Josh Allen never saw the ball while Mahomes got the TD and won, there was talk to change it afterwards (which they did) but it can still happen since a TD wins the game in OT anyway. Going for 2 guarantees you that you can win it with a TD down 6. This is going to be the norm in football for years to come.

[@lukevacca1537]

Personally going for 2 in the last 10 minutes of the game is optimal (to varying degrees) in the following scenarios (you score a TD when you are): Up by 9, Up by 4, Up by 1, Down by 1, Down by 2, Down by 5, Down by 7 (If under 15/20 seconds left), Down by 8, Down by 10, Down by 11, Down by 13, Down by 14, Down by 15 and Down by 16. Happy to explain my reasoning for my opinion in the comments below

[@kenw2225]

Well , I'd argue the mental aspect is the issue. You miss the first 2pt attempt. Still down by 8. The defense knows that even if they stop them, the offense has to go down and get the td and 2pt. During a game that the offense hasn't been pulling their weight. The defense probably feels defeated and then get defeated in real life by not being able to stop them. Buca should have went for pat . I'd like to know the percentages of success for all 2 pt attempts the past 20 years, won pass plays vs. runs. I'd guess runs are 50 % and pass are 60%,.

[@zack9777]

@@kenw2225 Runs are 51% and Passes are 49% Successful

[@lukevacca1537]

@@kenw2225 I disagree about the Bucs game (think Bowles made the right call) but could understand how the circumstances are different in a game where the score was 14-0 vs a game where the score was 35-21.

[@jimmcrosby9229]

Good analysis BUT you missed one very important option in your chart: unsuccessful on first try, successful on second try. I guess it has never happened? But you did include unsuccessful/unsuccessful as an option even though that never occurred - resulting a zero on your chart. The unsuccessful/successful combination is a crucial part of why this strategy is correct, because that option, which should occur about one fourth of the time, gets you to the situation you'd be in if you just (successfully) kicked two extra points. All assuming you score two touchdowns and surrender no more points. So you have a better than 50% to win in regulation (successful 2 on first try, kick on second) and a 12.5% chance to win in overtime (miss first 2 , then make the second one, at 25% likelihood followed by approximately 50/50 chance in overtime: 1/4 x 1/2 = 1/8). This strategy gives you an overall 62.5% of winning whereas two kicks and going to overtime gives you a 50% chance of winning. I'd rather have a 62.5% chance of winning than a 50% chance of winning....and so would Todd Bowles.

[@thekingbarrelmaker7642]

I tried the random number generator thingy. The first time I got an eight, and the second time I got a three. So in this simulation, the strategy didn't hurt my team.

[@ChiefsFanInSC]

Based on your logic, you should always go for the 2 pt conversion. Right?

[@pronkb000]

Why? Would you go for 2 if you're down by 6 and you score a TD to tie?

[@DeweyManloveX]

It's funny that anyone would criticize a head coach in this situation as if he made a terrible snap decision. The teams no doubt have a chart to determine when to go for 2 depending on the score and time remaining. Coaches make mistakes, but obviously teams have planned contingencies for cut and dried situations.

[@neilbochmann173]

I am pretty old school but I think you have convinced me.

[@sparklerbc9898]

i think a better analysis would be to look at every play since 2018 where a team was down 8 points, whether they went for 1 or 2, and see the winning percentage of each approach. throw out penalties maybe and situations where there wasnt a realistic chance at winning no matter what they did. i also cant help but think if the stat is 55% of 2pt conversions are made and you believe in that number, shouldnt you always go for 2? if you hit that 55% success rate you are going to score more than 1 point per touchdown. the likely reason why no one does that is because if you try that many you probably are not going to make them at a steady 55% clip. by extension, the idea that if you try twice at the end of the game youre likely to make 1 is also probably an illusion.

[@raidger4]

What should a team do if they score a TD and are down 9 before the conversion and let’s say there’s 6 minutes to go in the 4th?

[@emmanuelgarcia5841]

Kick the extra point to make it a one point game.

[@kenw2225]

You have to kick it. Just like they should have kicked it on Sunday down 8. It's a psychological thing for the defense that has to try to stop the offense that's been outperforming your offense all day. After your offense just failed to do what they will have to again successfully, after you stop them. Defense probably felt mad they went and missed the 2pt. And then they didn't get it done

[@raidger4]

@@kenw2225if you go back to 2021 game 272, Chargers were down 29-14 and scored a TD and went for 2 and converted, making it 29-22. Defense held and Chargers scored a TD on the final play of regulation, but then opted to kick the extra point. Raiders ended up winning 35-32, clinching a playoff spot. Makes you wonder why go for 2 first only to kick an extra point to force OT.

[@pronkb000]

According to the charts at 538, this is an instance where it really depends on how good you think you are at converting 2PCs. Going for 2 down 8 should be pretty much automatic even if your 2PC rate is down in the upper 30s% (the lower-bound for most NFL teams). When down 9, if your (estimated) rate is above 50%, you should go for 2, but not if it's lower.

[@AJ11OH-IO]

Im not a big fan of a 50-50 shot of FORCING yourself to go for 2 at the end of the game. I understand the math tho. Missing the 1st means it could shift momentum. The other team now knows they can't lose in regulation up 8. Idk 😆

[@thekingbarrelmaker7642]

The Bucs still would have had to get a defensive stop and march the length of the field for another touchdown all in under five minutes regardless of whether they: converted the extra point missed the extra point converted the two point attempt missed the two point attempt And you’re telling me that missing the two point attempt could “shift momentum.” Brother give me a break.

[@arthurhall8238]

This is assinine....absolute stupidity. The analytics in no way take the game into account. Based on this, teams should NEVER go for the 1 point! The math DOESNT include how good your kicker is, weather conditions, or anything else. So, just go for 2 every time and be done with it....

[@pronkb000]

Teams 100% should go for 2 more often than they do. WPA models think that teams should pretty much always go for 2 when down 4, for example. Nobody does that, except Doug Pederson in the playoffs after a penalty put the 2-point PAT at the 1 (and it won him the game). But no, analytics do not say you should "never" go for 1. If you're down 6 and score a TD, of course you kick.

[@arthurhall8238]

@@pronkb000 models are worthless...you either 1) go with previous approach of keeping it to one score with your competition if you are down...or 2) Always go for 2 period. It is that simple.

[@arthurhall8238]

@@pronkb000 models don't take into account weather conditions, players involved, team you are playing, their success with 2 point conversions and many other intangibles.

[@pronkb000]

@@arthurhall8238How is it "that simple"? If you make the 2 the first time, of course you kick the second time, because 1 point wins it (or puts you ahead).

[@pronkb000]

@@arthurhall8238At least at the NFL level, the gap between the very best 2PC-converting teams and the very worst just isn't that large. The math holds up even if the 2PC onversion rate is down around 37%--I'm hard-pressed to think that the Carolina Panthers couldn't convert 37% of their 2PCs given a large enough sample size. If you look at the top 5 offenses in the league by success rate and the bottom 5, the range in 2-point success between them is pretty much the same.

[@anthony_rivera4735]

Better question; Why do teams go for 2 when they're getting blown out?

[@Lionsandgiantsfan69]

Fr lol

[@the6thpackbrewbuck]

That's what I do in Madden, for the rare times I'm getting blown out

[@AnimalClans]

I wouldn't consider being down by two scores as being blown out.

[@JayTemple]

A reasonable guess would be practice for when they're not being blown out.

[@poohbear4702]

As a Vikings fan, I'm wondering what the extra point % is if you subtract Greg Joseph from the league and all of his XP misses. LOL

[@CTubeMan]

This unofficial Official Jaguar Gator 9 historian will remind everyone you made a video about this year’s Titans-Dolphins game you mentioned.

[@dianenicolini3331]

Here's the thing that statistics/analytics misses. Your chances of making a second 2 point conversion does not improve. It is still 55% EACH time. Just as the chances of kicking an extra point are 95% for the first kick, they do not drop to 92% for the second kick. The chance of making that second kick is still 95%. The chance does not change. Gathering up instances and calculating odds may be mathematically accurate but that doesn't change the fact that each attempt's odds do not change. Additionally, analytics does not take into consideration the team, the players' skills or the likelihood a 2 point attempt would have a greater chance of success because of the play's design. Depending on the defensive play called versus the offensive play called there are some 2 point attempts that have 100% chance of success; and the reverse can exist too where the right defense versus the wrong play can lead to a100% chance of failure. Statistically 5 of every 9 two points attempts should succeed but on the ground, in reality, that's not the way it works out. Statistically speaking, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6 on a six sided die but that doesn't mean if you roll the die six times that you will roll just one 6. Statistically speaking you should but after rolling the die six times you may roll more than just one 6 or you may roll none at all. Each and every time you roll that die, EACH TIME, there is a 5 in 6 chance you will not roll a 6. This is the problem when using these types of calculations.

[@Christoph5782]

The Probability of kicking 2 extra points is equal to the probability of kicking 1 extra point squared. Hence: P(2x) = P(x)•P(x) = .96 •.96 ≈ .92 or 92%

[@pronkb000]

The math holds up even if your chances of converting are as low as 37%. That's pretty much the absolute lower-bound of an NFL offense against even the best NFL defense.

[@koldonn1111]

Missed pass interference tbf.

[@robertleite6650]

It took me 8 tries to get consecutive even numbers. I understand the philosophy behind going for 2 there, but when it’s the team you root for, it’s pretty stressful to watch

[@danieljackett4193]

I thought it was a great strategy to go for 2 there...Say they make it, Tampa Bay got the ball back, and maybe Baker Mayfield doesn't Baker Mayfield and throw the he pick that ended the game

[@YourPalAlRetroGamer]

Wrong. Going for 2 after a TD that make you down by 8 is still a terrible idea, and the math don't lie. Take those 14 successes, BUT only 3 actually succeeded in them winning the game. That's only a tad less than 21.5%. Also, NONE of those games were as big stakes than the Bucs had against the Lions with a chance to go to the NFC Championship Game. So, if you were a coach and your Super Bowl dreams are on the line, would you go for 2 that had less than 21.5% success rating? NO! Take the higher percentage and kick it. The numbers don't lie.

[@thekingbarrelmaker7642]

You are really stupid. Did the teams in question that lost these games (regardless of whether they succeeded their two point attempts) lose BECAUSE of this strategy? NO! It’s almost like a team’s chances of winning the game when they are trailing by 6+ in the final five minutes of the game are VERY LOW.

[@pronkb000]

If you don't score that second TD, then you lose no matter whether you went for 1, 2, 3, or 5 on the PAT. The real lesson is "don't be down by 14 in the 4th quarter." It's a losing proposition most of the time.

[@paulsansonetti7410]

Please no Reba Just let Chris Stapleton do it every year please Like Pink said ,it's only him and Whitney that should ever do it ,and Whitney is dead

[@patrickperot6296]

Your official scoreboard may read 14-9-0 (and I commend you on the research), but the score for the strategy actually mattering and making a difference is 2-21. So I don't really care what my team decides to do.

[@pronkb000]

Those teams would be 2-21 if they kicked the PAT as well. Most teams that are down 14 lose.

[@oofusthenoob]

why must the titans ruin everything? instead of playing the freaking steelers at home we had to play the chiefs in kc which is basically a death sentence

[@johnguess2683]

Unfortunately, this is one dimensional thinking. Anyone who has gambled knows that even on a fifty-fifty odds bet, you run into streaks that decimate your chances of winning. The only time this is a good strategy is if you know something about your opponent that gives you at least an 85+% chance of being successful.

[@bucnhere7698]

I maybe mistaken, did u say 2 teams won out of 23??? I'm not a betting man, but those odds are terrible!

[@pronkb000]

You're not grasping the point of the tallies. Your odds are terrible when you're down 14 no matter WHAT you do. The entire premise is based on scoring twice--in some cases in a very short timespan requiring an onside kick--and not giving up any more points. It's about maximizing what slim chances you have, not finding some magical formula that can make up a 14-point deficit with the snap of your fingers. This is a measure of whether the specific 2-point strategy worked--it's not a referendum on the ability to stop the other team or score a second time. If you don't stop the other team, or don't score a second time, then your first PAT decision doesn't matter either way. So for the purposes of the exercise those situations aren't worth discussing.

[@okolo22000]

Mina Kimes brought this up already (of sorts) in another video and she pointed out that the criticism is focused on the wrong thing. The fade route call was a dumb decision, not going for it. One other thing that should’ve been brought up more is that it’s become apparent that any defender having your back turned on a passing play is perfectly OK to do as long as you’re not either grabbing the receiver or forcing your weight onto them since it seems there’s still playing the ball at the time.

[@pronkb000]

I know sports is a results-based business but that doesn't mean you only evaluate certain decisions by the final result. Sometimes you make the right decision and it still doesn't work--that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. That's just football. If you're down 6 and you score a TD to tie, and the kicker shanks the PAT, does that mean it was the wrong decision to kick? If your kicker is healthy but you no longer trust him after he missed a kick earlier, and you put in an O-lineman who's never kicked before to do the PAT, and he manages to hook it in, does that make that the right decision?

[@johndavidson1944]

Do the analytics take into account the number of successful 2 point conversions that were conceded by a defense who has already won the game? (aka garbage time) This is just one factor of many that could easily skew the numbers....analytics dont work.

[@pronkb000]

Do you think defenses just give up and don't defend 2-point plays? Even in garbage time guys are playing for their tape and for playing time in the future.

[@johndavidson1944]

@@pronkb000 that may be true in preseason or week 18 aka preseason week 4 lol....if you think starters are out there playing their heart out to stop a 2 pt conversion when they're up 2 or 3 scores....you must not watch football lol. This happens on a weekly basis in multiple games

[@thekingbarrelmaker7642]

JG9, here's another way of thinking why a team should not kick the extra point the first time and then go for two the second time (provided that the extra point is successful): Going for two on the first TD is smart because it’s almost like going for two after the second TD, but you know the outcome of the two point attempt in advance. If you knew in advance that the two point attempt after the second TD would fail, would you decide to kick the extra point after the first TD? No! But if you fail a two point attempt after the first TD, you can make up for the failure by trying another two point attempt after the second TD. If you succeed on the extra point after the first TD and then fail a two point attempt after the second TD, you’re locked into failure.

[@DragonMoth34]

This response right here^^^

[@DEXTER35able]

The Bucs went for the potential win early as a surprise. I think they knew if they had an opportunity to go for the win, they would do it regardless, and the strategy was to catch the Lions off guard. It didn't work this time, but to me it's no different than when the Chargers went for two to beat the Chiefs a few years back.

[@simplebutpowerful]

Lemme try to convince you that it is not the same. What the Chargers did was merely gutsy; what Bowles did was smart. If a team down by 7 proceeds to score a TD and decides to go for 2 rather than kick the XP and tie, that doesnt substantially manipulate the likelihood of winning; it merely makes the 2 pt attempt equivalent to the entire OT period. OT is 50/50, a 2 pt try is (roughly) 50/50: 50% to win by 1, 50% to lose by 1. But, what Bowles did was to manipulate the chances of winning, as follows: Kicking XP twice sends the game to OT. But, going for 2 first actually ends up yielding a 50% chance of winning in regulation (by 1), 25% chance of OT, and 25% chance of losing in regulation (by 2). See that? The increase in the chance of winning is larger than the increase in the chance of losing. It's a smart strategy, and it's not the same. Give this a like if you agree it's not the same 🤙

[@VyperByteX]

The problem is the very large database you are getting these numbers from. You are just boiling it down to raw numbers, instead of looking at the field and seeing who the human beings are playing the game, and what the chances of those exact players playing against the exact other players have to convert the 2 point conversion. The data you are using includes a bunch of people who are not on the field at that moment, so their numbers mean nothing.