Should teams start going for two if they get the ball first in OT?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Legatron4

Legatron4

Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
9,875
ROD Credit 2025
19,230
Name
Wes
After Puka scored the TD in OT last night I was thinking if we went for two and got it, even if Seattle did the same we would put the ball in our hands to win it. In reality, the extra point really does nothing for you. If you’re point if that they can just score and an extra point wins it, well then you need to stop them from scoring in the first place anyway.

I just think with the way the rules are, the best way to go about it is to go for the win at all costs. Dont put it in the hands of the defense in a long game. Thoughts?
 
  • Like
  • High Five
Reactions: Varg6 and Karate61
Nah. If you score a TD on the first possession, it means the opponent has to do the same. They can't just take a FG. If your opponent does get into the end zone, they can try a 2PT attempt to win it, or kick the PAT to extend the game. But a 2PT is more or less a coin flip. No way teams convert it much more than 50-60% of the time. Whereas PAT is successful 90%+ Why do you want to flip the coin , instead of making your opponent do so?
 
In this case it may have made sense because a tie was actually a win for the Rams and you knew the opponent needed the win.

So if they did score a TD to tie, you knew your defense was likley under the gun and the Seahawks had the momentum.

So it comes down to whether you trust your offense while they had the momentum to convert or do you trust your defense when the opposing offense had the momentum to then stop that momentum?

Being on the road, in OT, on a short week, highlights the impact of that momentum and a likley tired defense trying to stop it.

So no, not all OTs are equal, so in this unique case I think it made sense to go for it.
 
Just try to score on every possession. When you have oppurtunities take them. No points should ever be left on the field. Thats where McVay needs to get better. Stop being soft and go for the kill.
 
PhillyRam said:
In this case it may have made sense because a tie was actually a win for the Rams and you knew the opponent needed the win.

So if they did score a TD to tie, you knew your defense was likley under the gun and the Seahawks had the momentum.

So it comes down to whether you trust your offense while they had the momentum to convert or do you trust your defense when the opposing offense had the momentum to then stop that momentum?

Being on the road, in OT, on a short week, highlights the impact of that momentum and a likley tired defense trying to stop it.

So no, not all OTs are equal, so in this unique case I think it made sense to go for it.
Click to expand...


I agree.

In general, I think 2 pt conversions make more sense if you have an elite offense. Davante not playing may have influenced that last night, but in this case I still would have.
 
The more I think about this the more I think our unique circumstances dictated that going for two was a must.

It wasn't playing for a tie or a win or anything in this game - it would have been a play to effectively clinch the division and 1 seed
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhillyRam
Legatron4 said:
After Puka scored the TD in OT last night I was thinking if we went for two and got it, even if Seattle did the same we would put the ball in our hands to win it. In reality, the extra point really does nothing for you. If you’re point if that they can just score and an extra point wins it, well then you need to stop them from scoring in the first place anyway.

I just think with the way the rules are, the best way to go about it is to go for the win at all costs. Dont put it in the hands of the defense in a long game. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Red Wine Ugh GIF by Married At First Sight
 
Ram_Rally said:
Nah. On average you're more likely to stop a 2 point conversion than an extra point.
Click to expand...
Not in OT. I had zero confidence they were going to stop it. The pass rush was dead tired. Darnold had all day on the last handful of snaps on that drive.

Really, it's a shame we scored as quickly as we did. If we could have eaten a few more minutes off the clock, they would have had less time to mount a long time consuming drive that did gas our defense.
 
Keep in mind that a tie was essentially a win for the Rams here, i.e. we would retain #1 seed. In this instance going for 2 and making it would have pretty much kept us #1. So, in this case going for 2 (or winning the toss and choosing to kick like Seattle did) could be a good choice.

For any generic football game, I wouldn't go for 2 unless my team was really aces at going for 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back