Perspective on 2 point conversions

RaceBannon said:

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.

RaceBannon said:

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.

RaceBannon said:

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.