I’m completely baffled by Tampa’s choice to go for 2 in the 4th quarter yesterday. I’ve thought about it at length and cannot understand why they’d go for that, putting even more pressure on themselves to get the next one.
Anyone have an explanation as to why they’d do it? To try and win ahead of OT?
They wanted to win in regulation if they had a chance.
Going for 2 and getting it would allow them to with TD but also allowed them to go for 2 again and tie if missed it.
If they waited for second TD and missed would have needed 3 possessions. This allowed them to still tie or win based on outcome of the try when they did.
I don’t agree with the call but it was the right time to do it if that is the mentality.
Because they wanted to go for the win on the following drive(assuming they made a stop which they did)
They were horrified, went into “fight or flight” mode, and started making horrible decisions.
it’s not a completely terrible decision, though I think it was the wrong decision.
A two point conversion has a 50% success rate. And if they had made it, all the pressure is on Detroit and if Tampa recovers the ball they have a much better chance of winning the game
If they miss, which they did, they would need to go for a two-point conversion again to tie it, and go into overtime, obviously. At that point, the odds are with you ostensibly that you wouldn’t fail again.
Analytics are ridiculously flawed in football.
That’s my best explanation
I’m sure that is why Bowles left the time out in his pocket, too. They had their shot and failed.
I agree with Bowles decision there, and I would have gone the same route. In case no one noticed, Ford Field was a wee bit of a hostile place yesterday. 
. Give yourself a chance to win in regulation and get out of dodge, and if you miss you still get a shot to tie anyway.
Also, and this is important, there’s a chance you miss the extra point anyway. 95% and 95% chance vs 50% chance and 95% chance (if you make the first two point attempt) vs 50% chance and 50% chance.
In terms of playing the percentages, going for two there, in that situation, was the right call.
55% x 2 > 95% x 1
There is a 52% chance of making a 2 point conversion, league wide… consider some, but not all are attempted by “trailing teams” it would indicate a higher percentage for good offense playing average or below defenses?
Now consider 52% plus… 52% plus is technically betters odds that making back to back PATs (especially under pressure with crazy noise?) which I read was about 94%
It’s another example of how dumb analytics can be. A 2pt conversion is converted slighty above 50% of the time. So in theory (which using theory during a sporting event with so many other variables is asinine) you will get a 2pt conversion at least 50% of the time. If the conversion rate for 2pt conversions were 49%, analytics would say it’s dumb to go for two.
Analytics are meant to be used as a guideline and not meant to be taken as gospel as so many coaches have begun doing. Follow analytics, without using what is supposed to make you a coach (decision making), is a great way to get fired over time. But fans have completely bought in because going for it or gambling, is so much “cooler” than not.
Once you do the math, the real question is why doesn’t everyone go for 2 all the time?
I think there’s a situational aspect to when you go for two, not just binding yourself to math blindly. I think yesterday was the right situation.
I think the Tampa decision could be justified by analytics. Many variables to consider though, some that are team specific, like how good is your kicker… I don’t believe analytics is ever bad, but you can do a bad job with analytics. I think it would be worth it for a NFL team to hire a professional, you don’t want to leave your analytics in the hands of amateurs.
Because using math to make decisions in a sporting event is really dumb. This isn’t a simple math equation. There is a human element involved among so many other things. You really want to make your decisions on winning a football game based on tossing a coin? Because that’s what going for 2 in that situation is suggesting. As converting a 2pt conversion is just slightly above 50%
Analytics takes nothing into consideration but math. Not the game flow, players involved, etc.
If you left it to the analytics folks you would never kick a PAT at the current distance
word is if they made it and were only down by six, stopped us and scored another TD they were prepared to go for two again
Because winning by two points is way cooler than winning by one
Analytics say that you have about a 95% chance of making the FG which gives you one point. You have roughly a 55% chance of getting the 2 point conversion. So in theory your chance of making 1 of the two point conversions is a higher probability than the field goal.
So according to the math if you don’t make the first two point conversion you should make the 2nd two point conversion. And if you do make the first two point conversion you have a 95% chance of winning the game by kicking the extra point after the second touchdown.
