Two point conversion decision

[kbltheman]

Obviously all the talk is on the McNabb benching, but another aspect of the game that had me wondering was the decision to try for two points after Williams' TD run. Yes the score at that time was 19-14 and a successful 2 point conversion would have made it a 7-pt game, but I am a firm believer that with a few limited exceptions (such as very, very late in games when a 2-pt conversion will give a team a 3 point lead) if you are ahead in the game you kick the extra point rather than go for two. It seems to me that coaches are too often thinking about a "one more score" scenario in which there is no real downside to missing out on a two point conversion but on many occassions there ends up being more scoring and in a number of those cases a failed two point attempt can be the difference in winning and losing. In the game yesterday had the Redskins kicked the extra point, what later was a 28-25 deficit would have been a one point game and possibly a tie game and things might have played out a bit differently.

[Burgold]

No, that was absolutely the right call. there really is no difference at the end of a game between a five and a six point lead. Both require the opponent to score a touchdown. You make it a seven and they can only fight to a tie.

Sometimes, you have to make the play.

[SkinsHokieFan]

It was the right call

4th quarter you take the 2 TD lead. If you don't get it, worst that happens is you are still within a FG if they score a TD.

Odds are the team won't have enough time/possesions to get 2 FGs to beat you

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think this was the right call. At a minimum, you could go either way with this decision. Anytime you're in the 4th quarter, you're in a situation where giving up a TD doesn't put you behind. I'll put it this way...each time, I wanted us to go for 2 until AFTER we didn't get it. Then I started thinking about maybe we should have kicked.

[Dukes and Skins]

It was the right call

4th quarter you take the 2 TD lead. If you don't get it, worst that happens is you are still within a FG if they score a TD.

Odds are the team won't have enough time/possesions to get 2 FGs to beat you

Agreed it was the right call I would have done the same thing, you want to get the lead to 7 and make them have a TD to tie

[rumplestilskin]

No, that was absolutely the right call. there really is no difference at the end of a game between a five and a six point lead. Both require the opponent to score a touchdown. You make it a seven and they can only fight to a tie.

Sometimes, you have to make the play.

Right on the money about both. Freds gotta catch those balls. Cooley would have had at least on of those. But the decision was the only one.

[SAli457180]

I don't care what the chart says, but the decision to go for 2 made no sense. Go for one and then go for the conversion when it's absolutely necessary. I think they got sort of cocky there and really didn't have to. Decisions like that ultimately come back to bite in the *** and in a way it did. Take the points instead of taking risks.

[PeterMP]

I think teams with good offenses should actually go for 2 a lot. That isn't us. With this offense, I'd only go for 2 when it was absolutely necessary.

[drowland]

With over 11 minutes to go in the 4th quarter, I thought it was too early to go for 2 pts. However, it didn't matter since Detroit wasn't able to convert their first 2 pt attempt either.

[kbltheman]

There was still something like 12 minutes on the clock when the Redskins made the decision to try for the two point conversion--plenty of time left on the clock for the opponent to get two more possessions (especially given the fact that the Redskins couldn't run or move the ball) so that 2 FG's could have beat them. Again, if it is very late in game, where the opposing team is almost certainly not going to get more than one possssion, the 2-pt try to turn a 5pt lead to a 7pt lead is certainly the play to make but I think it was too early in game to start going for 2 pts when you are already in the lead.

[DixieFlatline]

There was still something like 12 minutes on the clock when the Redskins made the decision to try for the two point conversion--plenty of time left on the clock for the opponent to get two more possessions (especially given the fact that the Redskins couldn't run or move the ball) so that 2 FG's could have beat them. Again, if it is very late in game, where the opposing team is almost certainly not going to get more than one possssion, the 2-pt try to turn a 5pt lead to a 7pt lead is certainly the play to make but I think it was too early in game to start going for 2 pts when you are already in the lead.

Agreed. IMO, there was too much time left to worry about gaining an extra point.

[bobzmuda]

I agree with the OP. You don't go for 2 until you KNOW whether you need 2 or 1. Otherwise, you should be going for 2 a lot more.

It would also help if McNabb could throw a 2 yard gimme pass for the conversion on either of those failed attempts.

[Renegade7]

Hindsight is a B, but if we didn't go for 2 both the last times, it would've been 27-27 once the lions scored their last touchdown. The way our offense was playing, the odds of us getting either two-point conversion were slim to none. I would've tried to trust my defense and take what ever points i could get, but it is what it is now...

[redskins55]

Me and my friend looked at each other in amazement when they lined up for the 2point conversion. We both agreed it was a bad decision when we were up and with so much time left on the clock. It was a bad decision along with many other bad decisions made by our coaching staff.

[SkinsCrushCowboys]

in hindsight it did not work out (obviously), but had the scoring as well as the extra points stayed the same, we would hvae been tied. I was a little suprised we did go for two that soon on the first one, then the second was trying to play catch up,

[greenspandan]

silly thread. it was a perfectly justifiable decision. there'd be a LOT more more anger if we'd gone for one point and then the exact same stuff happened. people would be all "IF WE'D GONE FOR TWO, WE WOULDA MADE IT TO OVERTIME AT LEAST WTF SHANNAHAN"

there are plenty of bad decisions worth criticizing. this one that has a reasonable explanation. perhaps you would have done it differently, but nobody can say this decision didn't make some sense.

[SkinsNumberOne]

I disagree with the people saying the 2-point decision was a good one. There are times when logic tells you to do something different than simple statistical analysis may tell you. Look, you have to draw the line on making 2-point conversions somewhere. Otherwise, your argument is we should never go for 1, and always go for 2. So, when is the magic line? When is the game "close enough to over" where going for 2 becomes a good option? I don't think with time for 3 or even 4 drives is a good time (8+ minutes left). The way these teams were playing, it might have been 50 drives. It was a game where a fluke play could seal it, because both Ds were destroying the Os. In THAT game, points are a premium. I agree that going for 2 was not warranted in that situation. I could understand with less than 2 minutes left, or even 3 minutes. At THAT point, it doesn't matter if you're up by 5 or 6, vs 7. Not with 8+ minutes.

[drowland]

Hindsight is a B, but if we didn't go for 2 both the last times, it would've been 27-27 once the lions scored their last touchdown. The way our offense was playing, the odds of us getting either two-point conversion were slim to none. I would've tried to trust my defense and take what ever points i could get, but it is what it is now...

No, the only reason the Lions went for 2 pts is because the Skins tried it and failed. If the Skins kick the extra pt, it makes no sense for the Lions to go for 2. They just kick the extra pt, and take the 1 point lead. If both teams kick the extra pts it's 28-27, Lions.

[Larry]

No, that was absolutely the right call. there really is no difference at the end of a game between a five and a six point lead. Both require the opponent to score a touchdown. You make it a seven and they can only fight to a tie.

Sometimes, you have to make the play.

Agreed.

Originally, my opinion was "don't get fancy".

But then I thought about it for a minute. And the only way going for two hurts is is if we fail, and they score six points. With, what, 5 minutes to go in the game at that point, and neither O being worth doodoo, the odds of them scoring two FGs were . . . zero.

It was the right call, absolutely.

[Larry]

There was still something like 12 minutes on the clock when the Redskins made the decision to try for the two point conversion--plenty of time left on the clock for the opponent to get two more possessions (especially given the fact that the Redskins couldn't run or move the ball) so that 2 FG's could have beat them. Again, if it is very late in game, where the opposing team is almost certainly not going to get more than one possssion, the 2-pt try to turn a 5pt lead to a 7pt lead is certainly the play to make but I think it was too early in game to start going for 2 pts when you are already in the lead.

Yes, there was time for DET to have two more possessions.

In fact, the way that stinker of a game was going, there was time for 3-4 more possessions.

But the reason there was time for so many possessions, was because both teams were going three-and-out on like 80% of their possessions.

IMO, odds of them getting two FGs was zero.

[WesB]

I agreed with the call to go for 2. As close as the past few games have been; the coaches did right. You never know what will happen, but you have to go for the extra points. They complete those passes and Shanny is hero on this board.

[RandyHolt]

i was torn, i could see the reasoning by both sides. But I think play calling is a factor. Really, we have NO go to WR to complete a 2 yard pass. Cooley and Davis in his absence is really our only goal to go pass catching threat. Its no secret IMO that Davis is soley Cooley's backup and is not one of Shanny's favs. So we throw the short pass, McNabb's weakness, to our backup TE. Twice. The same play.

If we go for 2, we almost need to be running the ball. Since we couldnt or wouldnt, we should have kicked. We are not built to complete the 2 yard pass. "Going three wide with Galloway" made us even more one dimensional. We should have gone 4 wide, and then run.

[skinsforlife101]

Oh My God, I hate to say this but I have to agree with Chris Collensworth You do not go for 2 when you are up by 6 points with 7:45 left no matter what. It was a horrible decision plain and simple.

[Rypien1191]

In the 4th quarter, if a score puts you up 5, you go for 2. Every coach in the league will tell you that.

I can't believe this is a thread. If Davis catches it, nobody thinks twice about it.

[peanut0862]

I just think you take a positive feeling after the TD and turn it in to a negitive with the failed two point conversion

[redskins55]

I If Davis catches it, nobody thinks twice about it.

If Davis catches it is a big IF!! Go for the automatic points until you have to go for two.