Let us talk about the 2 pt conversion

[chad72]

We are ahead 26-22 after T.Y's TD. If the 2 pt. conversion gets taken back on a pick, don't the Chargers get 2 pts for it? That would have made it 26-24 giving the Chargers a chance to win it with a FG. If we had just kicked it and gone ahead 27-22, even if the Chargers score on a quick long ball strike or kickoff return, we would still have a chance to tie (assuming Chargers go for a 2) or win it with a late FG.

 

On several fronts, I felt the 2 pt. conversion was not necessary and added unnecessary risk. It worked out, so it is all great but just wanted to discuss it and see if that was something the Colts fans thought about as well. Did Pagano feel that there was a greater probability of Adam V's PAT blocked and returned for 2 pts than Luck's pass being picked off for 2 pts? Is that why we went for a 2 pt. conversion?

[braveheartcolt]

Perhaps he thought if they got in range quickly, they may go FG, on-side kick and FG, so wanted a little insurance to not lose, take it into OT? But I was puzzled like you....

 

[achcolts]

Didn't make sense to me either 

[csmopar]

5 minutes ago, chad72 said:

We are ahead 26-22 after T.Y's TD. If the 2 pt. conversion gets taken back on a pick, don't the Chargers get 2 pts for it? That would have made it 26-24 giving the Chargers a chance to win it with a FG. If we had just kicked it and gone ahead 27-22, even if the Chargers score on a quick long ball strike or kickoff return, we would still have a chance to tie (assuming Chargers go for a 2) or win it with a late FG.

 

On several fronts, I felt the 2 pt. conversion was not necessary and added unnecessary risk. It worked out, so it is all great but just wanted to discuss it and see if that was something the Colts fans thought about as well. Did Pagano feel that there was a greater probability of Adam V's PAT blocked and returned for 2 pts than Luck's pass being picked off for 2 pts? Is that why we went for a 2 pt. conversion?

I agree with what bob lame said on the radio during and after the game. He liked the 2 pt call. Said that way if SD scored a TD, all we would have need was a fg, that and considerin SD had already missed a PAT,he thought they'd have a higher chance of missing again. Either way, the risks were low so why not try it.

 

 

 

[Malakai432]

Yeah since they already shanked one pat I can see the rationale for it but at the same time I could see them not going for it.

[chad72]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I agree with what bob lame said on the radio during and after the game. He liked the 2 pt call. Said that way if SD scored a TD, all we would have need was a fg, that and considerin SD had already missed a PAT,he thought they'd have a higher chance of missing again. Either way, the risks were low so why not try it.

 

It does not factor in the fact that SD may go for 2, given their previous missed PAT, much like the Raiders did vs the Saints on the road.

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I agree with what bob lame said on the radio during and after the game. He liked the 2 pt call. Said that way if SD scored a TD, all we would have need was a fg, that and considerin SD had already missed a PAT,he thought they'd have a higher chance of missing again. Either way, the risks were low so why not try it.

 

 

 

At first I was also puzzled. But after thinking about it I didn't think it was a bad call because of what you just said.

Maybe Chuck is not as much of a deer in headlights as some think?

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

It does not factor in the fact that SD may go for 2, given their previous missed PAT, much like the Raiders did vs the Saints on the road.

Exactly. Let's say we kick a PAT, 5 point lead,SD hail Mary's it or returns the kick off for a TD, they go for 2, and convert,  it's now a 3 point game and you need a TD to win or a FG to tie. If you get the 2, you then have a 6 point game, meaning you only need a FG to win no matter what SD does. Or if they do try the 2, it's a tie game if they fail.

 

Now granted, we didn't convert but SD still needs a TD to win. That was the point Bob also made

[crazycolt1]

5 minutes ago, Malakai432 said:

Yeah since they already shanked one pat I can see the rationale for it but at the same time I could see them not going for it.

The pat was not shanked. If you go back and look at the reply you will see that Cromartie got enough of a block on the ball to send it left.

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, chad72 said:

It does not factor in the fact that SD may go for 2, given their previous missed PAT, much like the Raiders did vs the Saints on the road.

Cromartie got enough fingers on the pat to send it wide left IMO. I guess it wasn't counted as a block but if you watch the replay he did get a finger or two on the ball.

[chad72]

21 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Exactly. Let's say we kick a PAT, 5 point lead,SD hail Mary's it or returns the kick off for a TD, they go for 6, it's now a 3 point game and you need a TD to win or a FG to tie. If you get the 2, you then have a 6 point game, meaning you only need a FG to win no matter what SD does. 

 

Now granted, we didn't convert but SD still needs a TD to win. That was the point Bob also made

 

They would have still needed a TD, whether we went for the 2 or not, is my point.

 

OK, let's assume 28-22 with a successful 2 pt conversion. SD scores quickly and goes for 2 and converts, it is 30-28. We win with a FG instead of tying with a FG, that is the point you are making, right? But if the 2 pt conversion fails and SD gets their 2 pt conversion following a TD, it is a 4 pt. swing instead of a 3 pt. swing, we are down 26-30 needing a TD to win. That is the part I was inferring to. If we kick the PAT, even if SD gets the 2, we don't have to drive too far for a game tying FG being down just 3 with little time, at 27-30.

 

If we are thinking 2 scores ahead like you did, we have to factor in that, IMO. Are you now tracking with me?

 

Just to be clear, I am not dogging on Pagano. I thought his game plan for Rivers was very well done and if not for the offensive turnovers, we would have taken care of the Chargers easily. That was the only thing I was curious about, so I thought I'd discuss.

[csmopar]

6 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

They would have still needed a TD, whether we went for the 2 or not, is my point.

 

OK, let's assume 28-22 with a successful 2 pt conversion. SD scores quickly and goes for 2 and converts, it is 30-28. We win with a FG instead of tying with a FG, that is the point you are making, right? But if the 2 pt conversion fails and SD gets their 2 pt conversion following a TD, we are down 26-30 needing a TD to win. That is the part I was inferring to. If we kick the PAT, even if SD gets the 2, we don't have to drive too far for a game tying FG being down just 3 with little time, at 27-30.

 

If we are thinking 2 scores ahead like you did, we have to factor in that, IMO. Are you now tracking with me?

That's is exactly what I've said.............

[chad72]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

That's is exactly what I've said.............

 

So, you are agreeing with me that we'd have increased our odds of not losing (taking the game to OT) by kicking the PAT? I was talking about the 3 pt. swing (kicking PAT and SD getting 2 pt. conversion) vs 4 pt. swing (missing 2 pt. conversion and SD getting 2 pt. conversion).

[lollygagger8]

I liked going for it, I just didn't like the play call. 

 

BTW, why does Chud hate slants? 

[chad72]

1 minute ago, lollygagger8 said:

I liked going for it, I just didn't like the play call. 

 

BTW, why does Chud hate slants? 

 

I agree, when we did hit them, we scored big. Our slants have to be a must with our WR speed. Maybe he does not trust our guards to give clean pockets??? Not sure.

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

I liked going for it, I just didn't like the play call. 

 

BTW, why does Chud hate slants? 

I don't know the reason for the slant issue but we should have let Gore try to pound it into the endzone. He had been running over dudes all game.

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

So, you are agreeing with me that we'd have increased our odds of not losing (taking the game to OT) by kicking the PAT? 

No. Not at all. I don't think the odds increase or decrease regardless of the 2 or the 1. Either way, it was gonna be on the D to stop them. And the clock was gonna be a huge factor. 

 

 

What I am saying is that I agree with Bob Lamey, going for 2, if you get it, great, if not, youre still up 4 and SD still needs a TD to win. They can't tie it either way. 

 

Chuck Pagano has a bad rep and rightfully so, for his game managing. However in this case, the call was correct one.  If we'd only been up by 2, and needed a single point to make it a 3 point game, then yes, going for 2 would be dumb. But being up 4, SD needing a TD regardless,  the risks were minimal and it dosent change them needing a TD thing either way.

 

 

 

[open window]

It was the correct call to make it six, especially with the longer extra point attempts. The only scary part was that if they returned it for 2 pts then we would have had a possible situation.

*

[2006Coltsbestever]

Going for 2 was the right call. We had nothing to lose, if we get it we are up 6, if we don't still up 4. With 1:17 left SD either scores a TD or they lose but if we are up 6 and they score and miss the Extra point it's tied.

[indyagent17]

The scary part is that the pass was thrown in the flat which meant a sure 2 points for SD should the Chargers were able to jump the route

[#12.]

It's 26-22 - we go for 1.  It's 27-22.  If they score a TD, it's 28-27, and they go for two.  There's no reason for them to only go for 1.  They want a FG lead. 

 

It's 26-22, we go for 2.  If it's successful and they score a TD, at 28-22, they only go for 1 - they need the lead.  If it's unsuccessful, they go for 2.  They want a FG lead.

 

Ignoring the 2 point return possibilities, in the end, it was the correct decision, right?  It was the only scenario where, if successful, they don't go for 2, and you're assured a FG will still win it.  Right? Or, did I miss something? 

 

No, I believe Chuck actually had his thinking cap on here, and his early successful challenge may have saved 4 points on that Charger drive as well.

 

 

[Imrryr]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

We are ahead 26-22 after T.Y's TD. If the 2 pt. conversion gets taken back on a pick, don't the Chargers get 2 pts for it? That would have made it 26-24 giving the Chargers a chance to win it with a FG. If we had just kicked it and gone ahead 27-22, even if the Chargers score on a quick long ball strike or kickoff return, we would still have a chance to tie (assuming Chargers go for a 2) or win it with a late FG.

 

On several fronts, I felt the 2 pt. conversion was not necessary and added unnecessary risk. It worked out, so it is all great but just wanted to discuss it and see if that was something the Colts fans thought about as well. Did Pagano feel that there was a greater probability of Adam V's PAT blocked and returned for 2 pts than Luck's pass being picked off for 2 pts? Is that why we went for a 2 pt. conversion?

I think it was that the chargers had already missed one, you are up 4 so 2 more points puts it at 6 which then if they miss the xp you are tied. Also if the chargers drove down the field and scored and the colts had any more remaining time the leg of AV could win it off a 2pt conversion. All in all the rarity of that pick being returned like that Imo did not outweigh the potential upside. Reading through I see peeps have done a much better job with the math than I. I agree with csmopars statement.

[chad72]

8 minutes ago, #12. said:

It's 26-22 - we go for 1.  It's 27-22.  If they score a TD, it's 28-27, and they go for two.  There's no reason for them to only go for 1.  They want a FG lead. 

 

It's 26-22, we go for 2.  If it's successful and they score a TD, at 28-22, they only go for 1 - they need the lead.  If it's unsuccessful, they go for 2.  They want a FG lead.

 

Ignoring the 2 point return possibilities, in the end, it was the correct decision, right?  It was the only scenario where, if successful, they don't go for 2, and you're assured a FG will still win it.  Right? Or, did I miss something? 

 

No, I believe Chuck actually had his thinking cap on here, and his early successful challenge may have saved 4 points on that Charger drive as well.

 

 

 

That was the point I was not ignoring, jumping the route to get 2 points there. Maybe that is a lower probability than a PAT being blocked and returned for 2 points. That had to factor in since PATs are now farther than they used to be. I did infer to that as possibly being an important factor, at least to me it might have been. 

[jbaron04]

1 hour ago, achcolts said:

Didn't make sense to me either 

No it made a lot of sense, they missed and extra point already so if they scored we still had a chance to go to ot with another missed or block pat 

[jbaron04]

1 hour ago, braveheartcolt said:

Perhaps he thought if they got in range quickly, they may go FG, on-side kick and FG, so wanted a little insurance to not lose, take it into OT? But I was puzzled like you....

 

No it made a lot of sense, they missed and extra point already so if they scored we still had a chance to go to ot with another missed or block pat 

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, jbaron04 said:

No it made a lot of sense, they missed and extra point already so if they scored we still had a chance to go to ot with another missed or block pat 

 

Why does everyone keep assuming that they will go for an extra point for PAT when they have already missed one? They will most likely be going for 2 if they did score a TD. That is why I'd rather it be 27-22 if they do get to 30 with a 2 pt conversion instead of 26-22. There will be pretty much little to no time by the time they score.

 

At least we might have a prayer for a long completion and a game tying FG then.

[jbaron04]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

Why does everyone keep assuming that they will go for an extra point for PAT when they have already missed one? They will most likely be going for 2.

And if they we're to go for 2 we have a better chance to stop them and even win on a return . So just ask your self what is harder to do block a kick/force a miss or stop a 2-pt conversation 

[ColtsLegacy]

3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Why does everyone keep assuming that they will go for an extra point for PAT when they have already missed one? They will most likely be going for 2.

 

Why the hell would they not go for the extra point?? If the game is tied 28-28 they would 100% kick the XP, if not they're the biggest boneheads in the world.

 

The call to go for 2 was the absolute right call. Going up by 6 is much more important at that point than the difference between 4 and 5 because there is a chance that SD misses the XP if they did score. All your other scenarios are so far fetched and really irrelevant.

[chad72]

Just now, jbaron04 said:

And if they we're to go for 2 we have a better chance to stop them and even win on a return . So just ask your self what is harder to do block a kick/force a miss or stop a 2-pt conversation 

 

I don't know, to be honest. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, ColtsLegacy said:

 

Why the hell would they not go for the extra point?? If the game is tied 28-28 they would 100% kick the XP, if not they're the biggest boneheads in the world.

 

The call to go for 2 was the absolute right call. Going up by 6 is much more important at that point than the difference between 4 and 5 because there is a chance that SD misses the XP if they did score. All your other scenarios are so far fetched and really irrelevant.

Exactly. I agree 100%

[ColtsLegacy]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I don't know, to be honest. 

 

Are you serious? Don't you think every team would go for 2pt every time if it were as easy as making a PAT? PATs are made at like a 92-95% clip and 2pt conversions are like 50-50.

[Malakai432]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

The pat was not shanked. If you go back and look at the reply you will see that Cromartie got enough of a block on the ball to send it left.

 

Yes good point, spaced out about that.

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, ColtsLegacy said:

Are you serious? Don't you think everyone would go for 2pt every time if it were as easy as making a PAT?

 

If that is the logic, why did we go for the 2 pt. conversion knowing that 2 pt. conversion probabilities are low and SD missing another PAT probability is also low?

 

The upside is what everyone is talking about, I get it. The downside is what I was talking about. Chuck played to win and make it harder on SD, and I commend him for that.

[Happy2BeHere]

I was also wondering about the call myself like many of us....I'm still scratching my head on it just not too much because in the end it just is a moot point now.

[ColtsLegacy]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

If that is the logic, why did we go for the 2 pt. conversion knowing that 2 pt. conversion probabilities are low and SD missing another PAT probability is also low?

 

The upside is what everyone is talking about, I get it.

 

Because the difference between 4 and 5 is largely irrelevant in that situation, whereas, 6 still gives you a chance at OT if SD scores and Lambo misses the PAT. It was really a simple call and the correct call.

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, ColtsLegacy said:

 

Because the difference between 4 and 5 is largely irrelevant whereas 6 still gives you a chance at OT if Lambo misses the PAT.

 

Our entire premises are based on "ifs" (mine is if they jump the 2 pt. conversion to make it 26-24) and you feel your "ifs" (if we make the 2 pt. and Lambo misses PAT again) are better than mine, I will just agree to disagree and move on. 

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, Malakai432 said:

 

Yes good point, spaced out about that.

You mean I am not the only one who spaces out ? 

[Malakai432]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

You mean I am not the only one who spaces out ? 

 

 indeed you aren't, it's only multiplied by no sleep.  I'm like The Walking Dead right now!!

[ColtsLegacy]

2 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Our entire premises are based on "ifs" (mine is if they jump the 2 pt. conversion to make it 26-24) and you feel your "ifs" (we make the 2 pt. and Lambo misses PT) are better than mine, I will just agree to disagree and move on. 

 

Your premise is ridiculous. Luck threw the ball out of the endzone. He was not going to take that risk. Going for 2pt was the right call and the only call, really.

[chad72]

3 minutes ago, ColtsLegacy said:

 

Your premise is ridiculous. Luck threw the ball out of the endzone. He was not going to take that risk. Going for 2pt was the right call and the only call, really.

 

One last question, if the score is 22-26 after our missed 2 pt. conversion, and the Chargers score and the score is 28-26, do you think they will go for 1 or 2?