Going for 2, down 8, with 22 seconds to go

[bke1984]

A poor bet, because your opponent will be looking for it. Those have a success rate of about 20%.
But when it's unexpected, the success rate jumps to 60%.

I would argue that you should show onside every time. If they defend it then squib it and try to stop it at the 5. If they don’t…

 

[bobongo]

I would argue that you should show onside every time. If they defend it then squib it and try to stop it at the 5. If they don’t…

Not a bad strategy.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Not a bad strategy.

Sure looks like it would work for us.

And how much fun would games be if Tech lined up every time for an onside kick! Bet we would even get a little film coverage on ESPN.

 

[CuseJacket]

I would argue that you should show onside every time. If they defend it then squib it and try to stop it at the 5. If they don’t…

Great minds?

Kelley Named ACC Specialist of the Week

Is Jude Kelley human? For his career, Kelley is now an astounding 5-for-5 on onside kick attempts, including 3-for-3 this season.

gtswarm.com

 

[Root4GT]

How long did it take Gibbs to run 71 yards for a touchdown? Nope, going for 2 pts was meaningless if the offense was no longer going to be firing on all cylinders after failing.

Are you implying we weren’t hitting on all cylinders when we got the ball back with 22 seconds left? If so please explain your point. I pointed out we moved 29 yards in three plays/15 seconds. What is your vision of hitting on all cylinders?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Are you implying we weren’t hitting on all cylinders when we got the ball back with 22 seconds left? If so please explain your point. I pointed out we moved 29 yards in three plays/15 seconds. What is your vision of hitting on all cylinders?

Winning.

Seriously, nobody knows whether going for 2 the first time or not is the correct call. Nobody. We are sharing opinions. But some people want to go to the mat based on dubious analytics. My opinion is simply a different opinion. In my experience teams that go for 2 in that situation and fail never come back to score again. I can’t base my opinion on what might happen in some theoretical universe. I can only go by real world results.

 

[Root4GT]

Winning.

Seriously, nobody knows whether going for 2 the first time or not is the correct call. Nobody. We are sharing opinions. But some people want to go to the mat based on dubious analytics. My opinion is simply a different opinion. In my experience teams that go for 2 in that situation and fail never come back to score again. I can’t base my opinion on what might happen in some theoretical universe. I can only go by real world results.

Do you have data to back up you claim on real world results or is that simply you gut feeling. If it’s simply a gut feeling that’s fine. Analytics are by no means perfect but the do lay out logical reasons for decisions.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Do you have data to back up you claim on real world results or is that simply you gut feeling. If it’s simply a gut feeling that’s fine. Analytics are by no means perfect but the do lay out logical reasons for decisions.

Simple observation over many decades. Is that solid data? No, it’s anecdotal evidence, which has limitations. But the best coaches I have observed over the years didn’t just rely on a statistical formula to make their decisions. Arguing analytics is usually something coaches do after the fact to justify a decision that failed. That lets them off the hook and is easier to defend than saying, “I went with my gut.”

Going for it on fourth down seems to be the area where coaches are most likely to consider factors other than the statistical odds of making it. But that is another conversation.