Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Perspective on 2 point conversions
RaceBannon
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 101,443
I have been a Duck fan for a very long time. For me, Duck football doesn't start or end with Chip Kelly as appears to be the case for some here. My long history of being a fan of the Ducks gives me some perspective that I think is lacking for some on this board. I wasn't panicking in 2009 when we lost to BSU or 2011 when we lost to LSU, despite how horrendous those Chip Kelly coached losses were. I wasn't calling for Chip's head after the NC loss, despite that his questionable calls likely cost the NC. So I'm certainly not going to panic and call for MH's head after this loss to Nebraska.
Here's some perspective.
Vegas pegged the Ducks as 3.5 point underdogs and the over/under at 73.5 points. The Ducks lost by 3 points (beat the spread) and the over/under was 67 points. Thus, at least in the eyes of Vegas, the Ducks outperformed expectations. Especially given the injuries during the game. Vegas is not the end all or be all, but it is a reference which can provide some perspective that's lacking when all you have to go on to compare teams is poll rankings, which are often lousy, especially early in the year.
Not surprisingly, we see spoiled and whiney fans freaking out at the loss. And the funniest thing I see is the criticism of the 2 point conversion calls.
First call: I have no doubt that every Oregon fan was cheering the 2 point attempt when the score went to 8-0 just as they were cheered when Chip used to routinely make that call. Judgment: It was a good call.
Second call: Having succeeded once, I have no doubt that after the second touchdown every Oregon fan was hoping the Ducks would go for 2 and run up the score (after all, the worst case is you move to 14-7 and the best case is you move to 16-7 and inflict more psychological hurt on Nebraska -- part of the Oregon strategy since Chip took over). Judgment: It was a good call given Oregon's philosophy.
Third call: That two point attempt after the third TD occurred when the score was 20-7. This is the call many focus on. But, the analysis here is the exact same as after the first TD. Do you kick the PAT and keep the score in sequence or do you put pressure on Nebraska to go for two? It is better to go up 22-7 or 21-7, despite the risk of being up only 20-7? Given that at Oregon we think it is better to go up 8-0 than 7-0, despite the risk of 6-0, it is a given under the Oregon philosophy installed by Chip that we feel free to go for two in this situation. Judgment: Good call given Oregon's philosophy. A tough call by MH given the prior failure. But, he stuck to his guns and the Oregon philosophy, and had faith in his players. The downside of this call was far less than the call after the first TD.
Fourth call: The two point conversion attempt after the fourth TD occurred when the score was 26-28. Again, just based on the chart, you go for two because the difference between being down 26-28 versus 27-28 is non-existent and the upside of being tied 28-28 is HUGE. Judgment: Good call.
Fifth call: The two point conversion attempt after the fifth TD occurred when the score was 32-28. Again, just based on the chart, you for two because the difference between being up four points or five is non-existent and the upside of being up 6 pts (two field goals doesn't beat you) is HUGE. Judgment: Good call, albeit a much harder call for a coach to make based on the prior failures to convert. What this call, which was the right call, says about MH is that he's not afraid to make the right call over the easy call.
In summary, the two point conversion calls were the right calls. The only way you can second guess those calls is with 20/20 hindsight and by abandoning the philosophy that's guided our program since Chip took over.
What I saw from the Ducks was a young team and a QB not experienced enough in our system who have the capacity to improve. How I judge the coaching staff, especially the defensive coaches who are instilling a new system, will be based on how this team evolves. How I judge the players will be one how they evolve. For those who have already made their judgments three games into this season based on the two point conversion calls ... well, that's your right, but it sure makes you look bad.
Here's some perspective.
Vegas pegged the Ducks as 3.5 point underdogs and the over/under at 73.5 points. The Ducks lost by 3 points (beat the spread) and the over/under was 67 points. Thus, at least in the eyes of Vegas, the Ducks outperformed expectations. Especially given the injuries during the game. Vegas is not the end all or be all, but it is a reference which can provide some perspective that's lacking when all you have to go on to compare teams is poll rankings, which are often lousy, especially early in the year.
Not surprisingly, we see spoiled and whiney fans freaking out at the loss. And the funniest thing I see is the criticism of the 2 point conversion calls.
First call: I have no doubt that every Oregon fan was cheering the 2 point attempt when the score went to 8-0 just as they were cheered when Chip used to routinely make that call. Judgment: It was a good call.
Second call: Having succeeded once, I have no doubt that after the second touchdown every Oregon fan was hoping the Ducks would go for 2 and run up the score (after all, the worst case is you move to 14-7 and the best case is you move to 16-7 and inflict more psychological hurt on Nebraska -- part of the Oregon strategy since Chip took over). Judgment: It was a good call given Oregon's philosophy.
Third call: That two point attempt after the third TD occurred when the score was 20-7. This is the call many focus on. But, the analysis here is the exact same as after the first TD. Do you kick the PAT and keep the score in sequence or do you put pressure on Nebraska to go for two? It is better to go up 22-7 or 21-7, despite the risk of being up only 20-7? Given that at Oregon we think it is better to go up 8-0 than 7-0, despite the risk of 6-0, it is a given under the Oregon philosophy installed by Chip that we feel free to go for two in this situation. Judgment: Good call given Oregon's philosophy. A tough call by MH given the prior failure. But, he stuck to his guns and the Oregon philosophy, and had faith in his players. The downside of this call was far less than the call after the first TD.
Fourth call: The two point conversion attempt after the fourth TD occurred when the score was 26-28. Again, just based on the chart, you go for two because the difference between being down 26-28 versus 27-28 is non-existent and the upside of being tied 28-28 is HUGE. Judgment: Good call.
Fifth call: The two point conversion attempt after the fifth TD occurred when the score was 32-28. Again, just based on the chart, you for two because the difference between being up four points or five is non-existent and the upside of being up 6 pts (two field goals doesn't beat you) is HUGE. Judgment: Good call, albeit a much harder call for a coach to make based on the prior failures to convert. What this call, which was the right call, says about MH is that he's not afraid to make the right call over the easy call.
In summary, the two point conversion calls were the right calls. The only way you can second guess those calls is with 20/20 hindsight and by abandoning the philosophy that's guided our program since Chip took over.
What I saw from the Ducks was a young team and a QB not experienced enough in our system who have the capacity to improve. How I judge the coaching staff, especially the defensive coaches who are instilling a new system, will be based on how this team evolves. How I judge the players will be one how they evolve. For those who have already made their judgments three games into this season based on the two point conversion calls ... well, that's your right, but it sure makes you look bad.
Comments
After their first TD, they almost always go for 2. I get what they are trying to do in that they are trying (by succeeding) to get their opponent off of what it is that they are trying to do.
But the problem in how game theory is applied in situations like going for 2 points or how poker players leverage it in coin flip situations when their tournament life is over if they lose is that they fail to factor in the fact that even though they may be a 53% favorite (for example) to succeed in the situation, the risk to losing is often far greater than the benefits of winning.
Once Oregon gets its advantage, there is no benefit for them to continue to press their luck. By going for 2 after the 2nd TD, Oregon risked the benefit that they had achieved. There is not a significant difference for them to have 15 or 16 points at that point.
I'm a firm believer that generally speaking early in the game you take all the points that you can get and start pressing later as needed.
What I'm not in favor of is if you have the option to take a 30 yard FG or go for it on 4th and 3, you should take the FG.
My take - they got the first one. So the second one thus made sense - convert that and you're up two scores, fail and you're still up a full 7. The third one after missing the 2nd one was the only problem. It put them behind 7pt increments and left them chasing it the rest of the game. I'm sure helfrich thought 'I'm up 20-7, this will be a plunger. Fuck it'. Oops.
In a game that is supposed to be close, take your points ... particularly when your kicker is perfect on extra points.
In a game where it is expected to be low scoring, take your points ...
If the game is supposed to be a shootout ... then I've got no problem with trying to get ahead of the game and taking advantage of a suspect defense. Again, that's playing the situation as much as it is anything else.
Once you succeed going for 2, you're forcing your opponent to have to go for 2 at some point to match you ... it also puts them in a position where it screws up FG situations and more than anything else messes with the other team's head. That's the main benefit of going for 2 IMO.
I'm not sure I've ever seen Oregon win a team with this strategy ... perhaps the closest is what the Steelers did last year a bit when they were having kicking issues early in the year. I have seen plenty of games lost because of missed extra point conversions early in the game coming back and biting a team in the ass.
When Chip installed his offense down there, no one in cfb had ever seen it, and to his credit teams could not stop it. So he then pushed the envelope and started to go for two the first td with a good deal of success. But there was no downside risk if they failed, as they were going to score another 50 points along the way in 9 or 10 of their games and essentially have put their games away by halftime.
That philosophy works just fine, until you aren't naming the score on everyone (or your d is just as epically bad), then those points matter, and right now Oregon is slightly above being "just another team" if they played in the SEC/ACC/Big 10, but they play in the Pac-12, so are the third best team in the conf, and since they've beat us like a mule for 13 years, I put them #2 until we prove otherwise behind Stanford.
Sledoog and Hondo need a third.