I think there could be plenty of debate over whether to go for 2 points or not, and a lot of it would involve the red zone defense / offense. Not getting into it though, I think that based on how quickly the game became 14-12 both teams could likely expect the score to go much higher.

Sure you can say that they needed 4 at the end of the game, but teams can always grip about not going for two on every single touchdown, and where does that leave them if they fail? If we went for the two against cleveland it would have been 8-6 in the end, a much more attainable goal for them. If we went for it and got it it would have been 11-6, just as far away as 10-6. You don’t know what the total outcome of the game is going to be, so you have to be awfully confident to go for 2 instead of just taking your 1.

That was still early in the 2nd quarter, if I’m reading the box score correctly. That early in the game, it doesn’t make any sense to take points off the board. A PAT is like 95+ pct assured. Thats a point, pretty much with no doubt, especially with Akers. A 2Pt conversion is completed roughly 55 pct of the time, according to Gregg Easterbrook (I didn’t run the numbers, so I’m assuming the statistician and economics PhD can do that correctly). So that is just over a point per try if you add up all the total 2-pt tries and successes/failures, statistically speaking.

If they don’t make it they’ve got 2 more points to climb out of. It’s way too early in the game to do the “possessions” arithmetic, because the game is so dynamic. What you’re talking about is the end-game scenario. I think, up until the late 3rd quarter, they will go for the PAT (generally speaking), unless you’ve got their number somehow and you think you can raise that 55 pct up to closer to 90 pct through trickeration or a stud RB (cough Bettis cough) behind a behemoth OL.

You add to that the fact that Andy Reid is not the most aggressive coach (I can name the guys who might have gone for 2 that early on one hand I think), and it’s pretty much a lock for the PAT.

That’s what they’re thinking. My personal opinion is that you should go for the 2 whenever you feel confident. Put the ball in the hands of your offense and tell them to win it. But the numbers don’t really bear out that line of thinking.

I’d never go for two until at least the last half of the fourth quarter. The only way going for it at that point would make sense is if you’re going to commit to doing it throughout the rest of the game.

Last year’s playoff game against Jacksonville. Think about it.

I would only go for 2 later in the second half. Those PAT’s add up and can cost you the game if you don’t have them. The only way I go for 2 early is if my kicker is hurt.

Because you don’t know the series of scores that are coming later, it’s best to wait until halfway through the 4th before going for 2. In the MNF game, I think Reid made the right call. The Eagles scored to go up by 5. If they go for 2, they’re up by 7, if they miss, they’re up by 5. Considering the Cowboys kicked a field goal on their next drive, the Eagles were then up by 3. At that point, do you think the Eagles wanted to take back that extra point and go for 2? I doubt it.

In the end, the Coyboys made a TD on their next drive and the Eagles couldn’t get even close to FG range, so it didn’t matter.

As far as going for two all the time, if the success chance stayed at 55, you’d probably score more points overall, but you’d introduce more risk and variance into the equation. Since it’s not a huge statistical advantage, you could easily lose 5 extra games in a season because of this and miss out on playoffs, etc. Furthermore, just because the league average since the rule was changed is 55 doesn’t mean that that’s truly the probability of the event happening. Right now there’s still a pretty low sample count. Some teams/players are better at converting than others, some teams/players are better at stopping the plays than others. Momentum and mentality plays a huge part. If everyone started going for 2 all the time, it would dramatically change how teams tried to score on and defend the plays, which would certainly affect the so called probability. Maybe the number decreases to 47% and Easterbrook starts suggesting that teams go for 1. If you could show over the course of a season that you could convert 65-70 of the time, I’d say go for it. 55%, though, just isn’t a statistically significant advantage if you consider how many variables there are.

are also usually the better coaches, the guys who go for it more on 4th down. I’d ilke to see a team go for it 99% of the time, except late game situations where only 1 additional point is needed to win.
 If your team is very bad at short yardage conversions, you should almost never go for 2 pts.
But what are the odds of making a 2pt conversion, if they are greater than 49.x% for a team, you are leaving points on the table.

The nfl, though, is risk-averse. Coaches get killed by the media, booed by the fans and fired by the owner when they go for 2 points, or go for it on 4th and fail. But nobody gets fired or called out for always kicking the pat and punting conservatively, except in very extreme situations.

The simplest test, to me, is as a fan, are you ever excited when an opponent goes for two or goes for it on 4th down? I never am, I always want to see the opponent’s playmakers leave the field and the kicker/punter come on.