Seattle - NYG - question

[Crapshoot]

Why on earth didnt Holgrem go for 2 there after scoring the TD? You're up 20-13 with 4 min left - 2 points makes it a definite 2 possesion game - and missing it means the other team still needs a TD. Instead, going for 1 means that the Giants don't even have to worry about scoring it twice a TD could tie it. It seems defensive on Seattle's part IMO.

[streetballer22]

I'd rather kick the extra point in that situation but it's understandable either way.

[INDalltheway]

Ummm.. You normally don't see teams go for two in that situation.. Basically going up 8 ensures OT and you can lose if you fail and the other team scores a TD and a 2-pointer.. I would always go for one in that situation.

[ThunderingHERD]

All it means is that he thought it more likely that NY would miss the conversion than SEA would make it. Which is the proper call, considering that the success rate is something like 45%.

[ThunderingHERD]

"You've also got the two minute warning!"
They just scored a touchdown, you moron.

[Crapshoot]

Huh - just saw that the NFL average is 50%. I think that given that the Giants are the no 1 offense in the NFL, you should have gone for 2 there.

[ThunderingHERD]

Huh - just saw that the NFL average is 50%. I think that given that the Giants are the no 1 offense in the NFL, you should have gone for 2 there.

From 1994-2003 the cumulative rate was 43.5%. Don't know what it has been the past few years.

[Crapshoot]

From 1994-2003 the cumulative rate was 43.5%. Don't know what it has been the past few years.

Okay, fair enough. Just during the game, they flashed the conversion rate this season, which was 50%. Not a hindsight thing, but Seattle's been good - and it seems that could have ended the game, especially since you know that the Giants wouldn't have gone for 2 if they scored. Worst case - a tie IMO.

[Rizon]

Seattle gets away with one there. Is it just me, or does Ray Rhodes' defenses go from good to extremely bad with the game on the line? It just seems like teams go to town on them late in 4th quarters.

[Crapshoot]

Rhodes isnt the DC - he's out for the season I believe.

[Logan]

Huh - just saw that the NFL average is 50%. I think that given that the Giants are the no 1 offense in the NFL, you should have gone for 2 there.

Never. Always take the point and the 8 point lead.

[ThunderingHERD]

How 'bout that Jay Feely?

[Crapshoot]

Jay Feely is trying to get himself cut - short on a 45 yarder ?

[gottimd]

Jay Feeley should get NFL MVP :) I wonder if the Giants will murder him in the locker room, and then skin him and eat him. And when they are done, go after his family as well.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Jay Feely is so fired... or at least he should be. Missing the really long one, I can understand. The other two, though. Gah.

As for going for two when you're up by seven, my opinion doesn't mean anything, but I completely disagree. Even if the Giants convert half their two-point conversions, they convert far more of their extra points. At least make them work for the tie if they score a touchdown. There would be no need for the Seahawks to risk donking off their own two-point conversion try and then handing the Giants seven points on the other end.

The Giants made a great call on their two-point conversion play, but at least Seattle could've stopped it if they'd been prepared on defense. If the lead had only been seven points, there's really not a whole lot that Seattle could've done to prevent a tie. In addition to that, with the Giants being on the road and having a decent two-point conversion success rate and with going for two being all the rage with the coaches these days, I'm not 100% certain that Coughlin wouldn't have gone for two points and the win in regulation.

I know there are lots of times that coaches look like geniuses when their crazy plans work, and there are times when they look like idiots when they fail. Regardless of the outcome of this game, however, I don't think Holmgren could ever come off looking bad for taking an eight-point lead over a seven-point lead, even if the Giants had won. No personal offense meant to Crapshoot, but this seems like one of the weirdest times to second-guess a coach's decision.

[TroyF]

I disagree, I first guessed the decision.

The Giants aren't going to try to win the game with a two point conversion. That happens very rarely. In fact, the only time I can remember a team scoring the TD and going for two to win vs. a tie is the TB game a week ago and there was a series of bizzare circumstances to make that happen.

Coughlin isn't the most unpredictable coach in the world. I'd say the odds are 99.999999% he takes the tie and kicks the extra point.

So you can seal the game with a two and a miss leaves you with the same situation you ended up in anyway. I think it was a poor coaching decision.

[cthomer5000]

You kick the ball there every single time. But thanks for playing!

[oykib]

I wouldn't have killed Holmgren if he had gone for two. But it wasn't a bad decision to kick the XP. I'd have kicked.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I disagree, I first guessed the decision.

The Giants aren't going to try to win the game with a two point conversion. That happens very rarely. In fact, the only time I can remember a team scoring the TD and going for two to win vs. a tie is the TB game a week ago and there was a series of bizzare circumstances to make that happen.

Coughlin isn't the most unpredictable coach in the world. I'd say the odds are 99.999999% he takes the tie and kicks the extra point.

So you can seal the game with a two and a miss leaves you with the same situation you ended up in anyway. I think it was a poor coaching decision.
I see your point. However, the chances of stopping a two-point conversion that the Giants have to attempt are far greater than the chances of stopping an extra point. Yes, if the Seahawks go for two and miss, they probably end up in the same situation, but that's looking at it from a results-oriented position. If the Giants hadn't made their two-point conversion, does Holmgren look so bad then? I would guess that you'd say yes to that, but consider the question rhetorical.

If we forget for a moment that Jay Feely did get a chance to win the game in regulation, the Seahawks practically assured themselves of no worse than overtime. Sure, going for two and missing could do essentially the same thing, but Seattle couldn't lose the game in regulation by kicking that extra point (again, ignoring Feely's last-second attempt).

Have two-point conversions become so easy that coaches are now assuming that the other team WILL make them? It is, at its absolute best, a 50-50 play. An extra point is, at its absolute worst, 98-2 (unless Chip Lohmiller unretires). Holmgren took the 98-2 play on offense and the 50-50 play on defense. To me, I think it's the right move because he forced the other team to take a 50-50 shot at forcing overtime.

When two-point conversions become nearly as automatic as an extra point, maybe I'll see it the other way. Right now, there must be something that I'm just not wrapping my head around.

[Schmidty]

Ummm..

You're the man Ross, but I hate it when people start off their point with "Umm". It's so damned condescending, it makes me ignore whatever point is made by the person.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I look at it this way. If you kick, you can't lose, and can still win even if NYG scores a TD (50/50). If you go for two and get it, you win. If you go for two and fail, you get a tie if there is a TD (I am pretty sure Coughlin would have taken OT instead of going for two when down by 7). With this assumption, you are guaranteed of not losing either way. So, what gives the best chance of winning? If you feel you have a better chance of stoppng NYG from making the two than your own team getting it, then you kick it. Historically, teams get the two about 40-45% of the time, so you kick it. If its 50-50, it's a push.

But, how about the great call Holmgren made with the timeout after the Shockey "fumble." This was done specifically to give the booth officials time to review the play on their own (not for the fumble but whether Shockey made the catch to begin with). The loss of 16 yards was why Feely missed the kick.

[cthomer5000]

I look at it this way. If you kick, you can't lose, and can still win even if NYG scores a TD (50/50). If you go for two and get it, you win. If you go for two and fail, you get a tie if there is a TD (I am pretty sure Coughlin would have taken OT instead of going for two when down by 7). With this assumption, you are guaranteed of not losing either way. So, what gives the best chance of winning? If you feel you have a better chance of stoppng NYG from making the two than your own team getting it, then you kick it. Historically, teams get the two about 40-45% of the time, so you kick it. If its 50-50, it's a push.
But there if you go for two and miss you do give the opponent the option of going for the win on a TD. Given the calls by Vermeil and Gruden in the last few weeks, you really can't rule that out.

Take the easy point and make them get in the endzone twice to tie the game.

[Samdari]

You'd rather be kicking and extra point and have the other team going for two than missing the two and having the other team kick an extra point to tie. Its a no-brainer to kick, and NFL coaches will do it 100% of the time.

[TroyF]

Still disagree. You go for the throat there. Especially with the way the Seahawks defense has been collapsing the last few weeks. If you have a chance to put the game out of reach, you do it.

[Samdari]

Still disagree. You go for the throat there. Especially with the way the Seahawks defense has been collapsing the last few weeks. If you have a chance to put the game out of reach, you do it.

You'd rather go for a 45% proposition and give your opponent a 99% one than take a 99% one yourself and force your opponent to take the 45% one?

Can you come play poker at my house some time? Please.

[stevew]

You'd rather go for a 45% proposition and give your opponent a 99% one than take a 99% one yourself and force your opponent to take the 45% one?

Can you come play poker at my house some time? Please.
Lol

[TroyF]

You'd rather go for a 45% proposition and give your opponent a 99% one than take a 99% one yourself and force your opponent to take the 45% one?

Can you come play poker at my house some time? Please.


That's just my point, I disagree with your odds.

The way the Seahawks D has been playing lately, I think the odds they stop the two vs converting it themselves are actually better for the Seahawks offense. I'd have given them around a 60% chance of converting it and about a 25% chance of stopping the Giants. I realize that's my personal opinion, but comparing it to poker where the odds are set in stone (ie a K/10 suited is worse than an AA on the deal 100% of the time) is not a fair comparison.

But if you want to compare it to poker I equate it to one guy having the slightly better hand but letting the other guy see free card by not being aggressive in his bet. Instead of getting him the hell out of the hand, you let him hang around where he doesn't belong and he beats you.

Now, if the Seahawks had a real defense? You kick the extra point and wish the Giants luck in not only moving up the field but adding the two. Please understand, this is a team specific thing. Were this the Bears, I'd say you kick the point in a second.

No matter, the other kicker choked his way through the game and the Hawks got the win.

[Ksyrup]

I agree with Troy. I think the wise play would be to go for 2 and force Coughlin to make the gutsy call to go for the win if you miss it and the Giants get a TD. At that point, you put him on the hotseat to make the call to win the game instead of just tie it. And odds are - Gruden/Vermeil notwithstanding - he doesn't take the bait, kicks the extra point, and at worse, you go to OT. It's worth it for the chance to make it a 2 score game.

[Raiders Army]

You're the man Ross, but I hate it when people start off their point with "Umm". It's so damned condescending, it makes me ignore whatever point is made by the person.
Umm...okay.

[Samdari]

The way the Seahawks D has been playing lately, I think the odds they stop the two vs converting it themselves are actually better for the Seahawks offense. I'd have given them around a 60% chance of converting it and about a 25% chance of stopping the Giants.

Well, that's why you're not an NFL coach (among other things, like lack of pedigree, connections and experience). I'll give you 60%, but I would say that's the highest possible chance any NFL team would have to score a two against any other. To suggest higher is ludicrous. No offense is that good, no defense is that bad.

EDIT: I especially do not see the disparity you mention here, since the teams ended up tied. Wouldn't that indicate that they had roughly equal chance against the other's defense? Would't the average number of points each scored against the other indicate that each's offense vs. defense success rate be just about at the league average? I just don't see where what happened on the field validates your evaluations.

[Joe]

I'd go for 2, but thats why I'll never be a head coach.

[Crapshoot]

Jay Feely is so fired... or at least he should be. Missing the really long one, I can understand. The other two, though. Gah.

As for going for two when you're up by seven, my opinion doesn't mean anything, but I completely disagree. Even if the Giants convert half their two-point conversions, they convert far more of their extra points. At least make them work for the tie if they score a touchdown. There would be no need for the Seahawks to risk donking off their own two-point conversion try and then handing the Giants seven points on the other end.

The Giants made a great call on their two-point conversion play, but at least Seattle could've stopped it if they'd been prepared on defense. If the lead had only been seven points, there's really not a whole lot that Seattle could've done to prevent a tie. In addition to that, with the Giants being on the road and having a decent two-point conversion success rate and with going for two being all the rage with the coaches these days, I'm not 100% certain that Coughlin wouldn't have gone for two points and the win in regulation.

I know there are lots of times that coaches look like geniuses when their crazy plans work, and there are times when they look like idiots when they fail. Regardless of the outcome of this game, however, I don't think Holmgren could ever come off looking bad for taking an eight-point lead over a seven-point lead, even if the Giants had won. No personal offense meant to Crapshoot, but this seems like one of the weirdest times to second-guess a coach's decision.

Pumpy, look at the timestamp on my post- I first guessed the decision as it happened - not after the game. To me, Seattle scoring 2 ends the game right there- therefore, they should have done so.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Pumpy, look at the timestamp on my post- I first guessed the decision as it happened - not after the game. To me, Seattle scoring 2 ends the game right there- therefore, they should have done so.
Even so, I still stand by everything I've said so far. It just seems like an odd decision to question. I certainly don't know if I can apply this thought to everyone here, but on the surface, it seems like "video game thinking" for Seattle to go for two points. I mean that if I was playing a video game and I was in Holmgren's spot, I'd probably go for the two points, because I wouldn't really expect my opponent's two-point try to be only 50-50 (at best). Making two yards for a conversion in a video game isn't usually that hard, so I figure that I'd go ahead and get my two points and essentially wrap the game up. In real life, it's obviously not easy to make two-point conversions. It seems that Holmgren decided not to risk conceding overtime. He'd make the Giants score a touchdown (which should be difficult enough) and then force them to do no better than tie. Of course, we've already been through this, so it's just a matter of how we want to interpret it.

I hope I'm not coming off as condescending, as I see where you're coming from and understand your view. I just don't agree. As it is, I don't see Holmgren's PAT decision as being the reason for overtime anyway. Seattle's prevent defense allowed the Giants to walk down the field and score. Then, Seattle's offense turned into a puddle of goo and allowed the Giants another possession. In a series of errors by the Seahawks, I just can't see the PAT as being one of them.

Just a difference of opinion, of course.

[rkmsuf]

I think the PAT is the play there. Force the Giants to make all the plays.

[cougarfreak]

Who won? I'd guess he made the right call.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Who won? I'd guess he made the right call.
Just because Seattle won, that doesn't make that particular decision right. As much as I'm arguing that it was the right call, they almost lost the game three times because of that decision.

[cougarfreak]

Just because Seattle won, that doesn't make that particular decision right. As much as I'm arguing that it was the right call, they almost lost the game three times because of that decision.

I think it does.......if he's have gone for two and not converted, they might have lost for sure w/o Feeley even kicking. As it stands, it was the right call.

[Daimyo]

I think you can argue which decision is better strategically for the team, but its clear to me which is better stragically for the coach. If you take the point and then the team allows a touchdown drive, a 2 pt conversion, and then loses in OT its a pretty easy sell that the team just didn't execute. If you go for the 2 pt conversion and fail and then the team allows a touchdown drive and a freak 2 pt conversion everyone is going to point to the one decision by the coach as the reason for the loss. Heck, people will probably still bring it up four years later ala the Detroit decision to kick away in OT.

[ZXTT]

That's just my point, I disagree with your odds.

The way the Seahawks D has been playing lately [...]

They'd given up one touchdown in about 55 minutes, and that on a play where you couldn't quite tell if Shockey got his second foot down.

Sorry, make the other team execute on offense. The Seahawks have won two games in a year (Atlanta at the end of last year and SF this year) by stopping 2-point conversion attempts at the end.

Taking league averages and ignoring getting the ball back in regulation, I'd say the odds play out like this:

If the other team scores a TD, ~50% chance to win (0 to lose) when they go for the 2-point conversion and ~50% chance to win if the game goes to OT: hence a 75% chance to win (.5 * .5 = .25 chance to lose).

Playing at home and the potential for an extra possession before OT increase the odds of victory. Sleepy offense, of course, reduces the odds...

But really, with Phil Luckett on the field, the Seahawks had to win because Karma owed them one...

[Schmidty]

But really, with Phil Luckett on the field, the Seahawks had to win because Karma owed them one...

"Heads or Tails?"........."Heads....Tails".........."Tails it is!"

[ZXTT]

"Heads or Tails?"........."Heads....Tails".........."Tails it is!"

Well, I was thinking of Luckett's other shining moment: it's a bird, it's a plane, it's the football in the endzone - touchdown... bzztt, sorry Phil, that was Vinny's helmet, you know, the green and white probably should've tipped you off...

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yeah, I watch the Hawks every week, and I don't quite get the comment by Troy that the way the Hawks defense was playing lately, they stood only a 25% chance of preventing the 2-point score. I haven't seen anything that would make me believe that they stood a chance of being worse than most other Ds. Frankly, I think the way they have been playing lately, they stand a better chance than the average team of stopping the 2-point conversion.

[Travis]

Hell, they stood as good a chance as any team in the NFL of stopping the two point convert. It's quite hard to play a true prevent D on your own 2 yard line.

Now between the 20's, we've got that prevent thing down pat. 10-15 yards per play, they'll never have time enough to move it down the field that way...

[Pumpy Tudors]

Wasn't Phil Luckett also responsible for getting in the way of Joe Horn catching an easy touchdown pass? This was maybe a year or two after Luckett got demoted?

[st.cronin]

Thinking about the decision to go for two in this case, I think it's the right call.

Make it, and you're up by 9 and the game is over.

Miss it, OR kick the extra point, and the other team can still tie. I think it's worth it.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Thinking about the decision to go for two in this case, I think it's the right call.

Make it, and you're up by 9 and the game is over.

Miss it, OR kick the extra point, and the other team can still tie. I think it's worth it.
CAN still tie or WILL still tie? I know that there was no guarantee that the Giants would score a touchdown, but if they had, you could guarantee that they'd make their extra point. You couldn't guarantee that they'd make a two-point conversion to tie.

[st.cronin]

CAN still tie or WILL still tie? I know that there was no guarantee that the Giants would score a touchdown, but if they had, you could guarantee that they'd make their extra point. You couldn't guarantee that they'd make a two-point conversion to tie.

The point is that a 7 or 8 point lead with that amount of time left is still a ballgame. Going for two is going for the win.

[Desnudo]

The point is that a 7 or 8 point lead with that amount of time left is still a ballgame. Going for two is going for the win.

I think it's more like the following. Seahawks 50% to make a 7 pt lead, a Giant's score 100% to tie. Seahawks 100% to make an 8 pt lead, a Giant's score is 50% to tie,. Seahawks 50% to make 9 pt lead, Giant's need two scores, 0% to tie.

With that, you have to factor in what you think the odds are of the Giants scoring a TD in the first place.

[sabotai]

Giant's need two scores, 0% to tie.
More like 10%-20% to tie (onside kick chance).

[Desnudo]

More like 10%-20% to tie (onside kick chance).

But they won't tie. It'd be to win, although I have no idea what % of onside kicks are actually recovered and then converted for the winning score.

[rkmsuf]

I think it's more like the following. Seahawks 50% to make a 7 pt lead, a Giant's score 100% to tie. Seahawks 100% to make an 8 pt lead, a Giant's score is 50% to tie,. Seahawks 50% to make 9 pt lead, Giant's need two scores, 0% to tie.

With that, you have to factor in what you think the odds are of the Giants scoring a TD in the first place.


Yeah I'm sure Holmgren was really crunching those numbers in between thinking about a delicious post game supreme pizza.

[Desnudo]

Yeah I'm sure Holmgren was really crunching those numbers in between thinking about a delicious post game supreme pizza.

I'm thinking about a delicious post post supreme pizza right now.

[st.cronin]

I think the general theory on the 2-point conversion is that there is a negligible difference between a 7 and an 8 point lead - moving up to 9 or down to 6 are much bigger moves.

[ZXTT]

The point is that a 7 or 8 point lead with that amount of time left is still a ballgame. Going for two is going for the win.

Let's label these scenarios. S1, Seattle goes for 1, S2, Seattle goes for 2. And we need some assumptions to bound the problem, otherwise it quickly become too complex to consider. In both cases, we assume NYG score a TD afterward, leaving no time on the clock. EP's are 100%, 2-point conversions are 50%.

S1: 50% chance Seattle wins in regulation. 50% chance the game goes to OT. Note that there is 0% chance Seattle loses before OT.

S2: 50% chance Seattle wins in regulation. UNKNOWN, <= 50%, chance the game goes into OT, because Coughlin can choose to take a 50% chance to win the game. Note that there is an UNKNOWN, although <= 25%, chance that Seattle can lose before OT. These is also another UNKNOWN, although <= 25%, chance that Seattle can win before OT.

The problem is the unknowns. And because of human nature, losing is viewed as twice as bad as winning is viewed as good. Therefore almost all people in almost all circumstances would choose S1, because you can't lose without getting a whole new game (OT).

If you consider OT to be 50/50, then each scenario has Seattle winning 75% and losing 25% of the time, but one scenario goes against human nature.

[sabotai]

But they won't tie. It'd be to win
Yeah. (The way I took it, it looked like you were saying Seattle gets 9 and the game is over. I guess I took it the wrong way)