Browns, Manziel unlikely to be featured on HBO’s “Hard Knocks”
May 22, 2015Reds Manager Bryan Price is Tribe Manager Lou Boudreau? Roger Recalls
May 22, 2015The NFL changed the extra point, pushing the kick back to the 15-yard line, turning it into a 33-yard field goal. The two-point conversion will remain from the two-yard line. It has me thinking about what the Browns should do after scoring touchdowns. There will be obvious debates back and forth about statistics and there will be definitive statements about what a team “has” to do purely based on expected points and percentages. Before we get to all that stuff, I’ve already decided that I want the Cleveland Browns and Mike Pettine to consider making it a team directive to go for two nearly every single time they score a touchdown.
I fully understand that I might be wrong and might be forced to change my mind at some point. I read the post at Fivethirtyeight where they tell us that NFL kickers are getting better and better over time, and that they converted 94.4 percent of field goals from 33 yards over the last three years and 96.7 percent in the 2014 season alone. That kind of data indicates that this rule change probably shouldn’t impact a team’s M.O. all that much. Still, I’m holding firm. I think I want the Browns to go for two and make it a part of their identity as a team, from the coach, to the players, all the way to the fans. Make it a campaign and make up T-shirts that say, “We won’t settle for just one” or something.
No, it’s not because the Browns have a guy nicknamed “Murderleg” on their roster right now. But, the Browns do have Carey “Murderleg” Spear on their team, and I can’t wait for a chance for them to line up from the two-yard line in field goal position even though they’re not allowed to kick a field goal. It will just be a ruse so they can run this play.
In all seriousness, I think a team will use this opportunity to take this change and make it their advantage. It will be a part of some team’s identity and it might as well be the Cleveland Browns. Mike Pettine needs to commit to it and remain unwavering. Call all his veterans in and sell them on it. The Cleveland Browns will score touchdowns, skip celebrations, acting like stone-faced killers as they proceed straight to eight — eight points, that is. The Browns will calmly set right back up to make the defense pay more times than not by giving up two points. The Browns will work on special packages of plays and they will run them consistently and confidently so that over the course of the season they will score some percentage higher than what they could if they converted 95 out of 100 extra points.
In 2014, the Cleveland Browns scored 30 points in 30 PAT tries. Mike Pettine needs to tell his team that they are going to attempt twos no matter what and that he expects the point total to be higher than the attempt number by the end of the year. If they go for two 25 times, then he wants to see them score 26 points or more over the course of the year, and hopefully some number far greater than that. That is the directive. That will be the mission. They will execute better than the defense that just got scored on and they will prevail in a better position than the opposition.
It’s true that in 2014 the league-wide conversion percentage in the NFL on two-point conversions was just over 47 percent (28 conversions on 59 attempts). That stat might indicate that the Browns shouldn’t go for two, but it doesn’t have to be the deciding factor. The Bears were five for five. The Vikings were four for four. The Bills converted two out of two. Yes, the Browns were zero for two, but that’s irrelevant when a team with a great offensive line makes the determination to do it. Commitment to setting a goal is the first step toward achieving a goal.
Over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion about the NFL that, while it’s a copycat league, you’re better off being the one that everyone else decides to try and copy. The Browns could be that team by taking the first-mover advantage and making the opposition play catch-up as the Browns start scoring eight on touchdowns more often than not.
30 Comments
It’s pretty simple for me. I suspect that extra points will be made somewhere North of 90%. So, if you think you can convert 2pters somewhere near 50% of the time, then go for it. If you don’t, then don’t.
——-
The interesting thing for the stat-heads is that the sample sizes are so small because “and goal” from the 2yd line does not happen enough per team to be meaningful (and per team is definitely a big part of this discussion).
——–
I like Craig’s idea of making it an identity, and I like the idea that the Browns can convert 50% of 2pters. But, I’d like to see our offense before being overly assertive with the notion too.
Sadly, scoring the 6 points previous to the PAT has been an ongoing issue for this team.
I like the idea, but unwavering devotion to a dogma is going to be problematic. What if we tie the game up with a last-second touchdown? A PAT is much more guaranteed money; winning with style doesn’t trump winning.
Good point! That would be a fair decision and an exception to my rule, I think.
You silly man..last second touchdown…what are those?
What if you only score 1 TD a game? Or 3? 5?
So, based on my calculations, there were 1,187 touchdowns scored in the NFL in 2014. Even at 96.7% completion, that’s roughly 40 missed PATs from the 15-yard line. It ain’t much, but it’s something.
I still advocate that the best way to fix the PAT problem (and make the game more exciting) is to have the player that scores the TD kick the PAT. I will go to my grave believing this is the best approach. My grave, I say!
What if you only score 1 TD a game?
—-well, then you might as well make it fun for your fans that 1 time, right?
What if you score 5 TDs a game?
—-well, then you are probably winning the game regardless.
😉
I want Joe Thomas kicking FGs
“What if you score 5 TDs a game?”
Then we’re probably not talking about the Browns.
Hey, it happened on Dec 20, 2009 against the Chiefs (I believe that was the last time, ugh). Of course, one of those was a Josh Cribbs TD.
I’ve got you marked down for the “McCown Doubter” camp (don’t worry, there’s plenty of company).
Who is this McCown you speak of?
http://jennytrout.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/highlanderimage01.jpg
“The Cleveland Browns will score touchdowns, skip celebrations, acting like stone-faced killers as they proceed straight to eight — eight points, that is.”
I have no idea if going for two all the time is a good idea, but this statement makes me want it regardless. So pumped.
No offense ment,but this article and the idea in it is the worst thing I have read by you. IF the browns could score touchdowns,by running it into the end zone more often than not,and maybe had a good tightend I might buy what you are selling,as the team is now well it’s not gonna be that easy,and could backfire and lose more games as a strategy than it wins. I get that we don’t have a proven/good kicker…but if they can’t make point’s at the extended range they should not be on the team EVER. The fakes you show by the new rules don’t work,at 15-20 yards out a fake is gonna fail usually, and setting up to kick when it’s not allowed will give the D a heads up,assuming the new rules will even allow it, heck why would they?
nah that’s McCloud, which is Irish and not Highland Scottish,even though the film says it is.
That could be interesting…..the next Lou “the Toe” ….
Didn’t read all the comments, so forgive me if someone pointed this out.
They should absolutely go for two every time…but not because they need to shoot for 95% conversion. They should go for two because the odds of scoring the same number of points is nearly identical.
If a PAT is converted 95% of the time for 1 point, and two point conversions succeed 47% of the time but for 2 points, then your odds of scoring the same amount of points are virtually the same. You only need to score two-pointers at half the conversion rate because they’re worth double.
Therefore, if the odds are nearly exactly the same to have identical outcomes, then you might as well ALWAYS go for two.
☁☁☁☁►➤➤♫♫Get Hourly by this site waitingfornextyear < I didn't believe …that…my brother woz like truly making money part time at their computer. . there aunt had bean doing this 4 only seventeen months and resantly paid the dept on there apartment and bourt themselves a Lotus Elise .
see this her ►►►►► ===—->-> SEE MORE DETAIL
While part of me wants a 2-point attempt every time, I at least hope that they do them every time it’s a strategic advantage. If you’re up by 1 and score a TD, go for two. If you only go for one, you’re just forcing the other team to go for two at the same odds of you getting your one. If you go for two and you get it though, you’re up 9. If you miss, the other team would still need a TD and a 33-yard FG to tie.
Well, I can think of a reason that it isn’t a good idea. If you only convert 47% of the two-pointers, what about the games where you score 3 touchdowns? PAT = 3 pts guaranteed. Two-point conversion means scoring 2 or 4 pts
What if you only make 1/3 attempts? You’ve given a point away for no good reason.
Using your logic, I could just as easily ask, “What if you convert 3 of 3 for 6 points? That’s like adding a touchdown!”
I’m not looking at this over the short term. Im looking at it over the course of the season. Over 16+ games, the odds of ending up with the same point total are nearly identical. I’m saying that if the odds of scoring the same points are virtually the same, then why not go for it?
I’m saying over the long term, there’s no real risk of taking the chance, so you might as well take the option with the better reward. Sure, you’ll have some games where it backfires, but you’ll also have some games where it pays off.
I hear you, but the odds favor converting 50% of the time. So what is 50% of 3, 5, or 7 (touchdowns)?
Score three times and you kick three PATs.
Or, Score three times and convert 1 or 2 two-pointers.
I hear you too, but what you’re asking is besides the point. You don’t use statistics to guarantee short term results. A coin flip is a 50/50 shot. If you bet on heads every time and it comes up tails 2 of 3 times, it doesn’t prove that tails is more likely.
I think the real question is why don’t more teams go for the touchdown on 4th and goal from the two yard line or closer? If the odds of a field goal and a touchdown converting from the same distance are virtually the same over the long term, then you should take the option with the greater point value…go for the touchdown…every time.
OK, I think your example actually proves my point…so let me ask: you don’t use statistics to guarantee (successfully predict) results, then why use them at all?
In any single game you are going to score an odd number of touchdowns 50% of them time. So, this forces the coach to choose between kicking 3 PATs, or rolling the dice on two-pointers. There are 4 outcomes: scoring 0,2,4 or 6 points. If the success rate is 50%, then you are guessing between scoring 2 or 4 points each game. You never know when you are going to get 2 or 4 points and you never know if you will need the 3rd point.
It’s a dilemma that should make for fun and unpredictable football. Personally, I’d stick with PATs.
would be a return to Rugby heritage
You use statistics to predict results, but there are never guarantees.
When you send a .400 batter to the plate over a .150 batter, you’re doing it because it’s more likely that he’ll get a hit, but it’s no guarantee it will happen.
If you’re saying you should use statistics to guarantee results, then I can’t subscribe to that line of thinking.
I’m approaching points after touchdowns from an economist’s point of view…looking at the season as a whole. You can’t look at one game, or even worse, one single play to decide whether or not your decision has paid off.
Let’s say you’re on the 1 foot line and it’s fourth down and goal. You’d go for that, right? You go for it because you know it is much more than likely that you can successfully gain twelve inches and get the score. If you go for it in that instance and fumble the ball or get stuffed behind the line, it doesn’t mean you made the wrong call…it just means that on that one single attempt, the defense beat the odds and stopped you.
You can make these calculations all over the field. One of my favorites is the decision whether or not to punt on your opponent’s side of the field. If it’s fourth and 2 from your opponent’s 39 yard line, and you know your kicker hits only 20% of 50+ yard field goals, you must decide whether or not to punt or go. Your odds of converting are roughly 50%…a coin flip. The benefit is that if you get the first down, you are now about 35 yards from a touchdown (and 5 yards from a reasonable field goal attempt). If you don’t get the first down, you give to ball to your opponent at their 39 yard line.
However, if you punt, you have a 0% chance of scoring, and unless you down the punt short (it’s likely the punt will go through the end zone), you only gain 19 yards of field position.
To add another variable, let’s say there’s only 30 seconds left in the half, meaning if you don’t get the first, there’s little chance your opponent will score after the turnover on downs.
In this hypothetical, I would always go for the first…not because it guarantees that I’ll make it, but because I’ve selected the option with the best risk/reward payout. Best case scenario, you can still score. Worst case scenario, the half is over anyway. I’d take a 50% chance of converting over a guarantee of punting the ball to my opponent with 0% chance of scoring, especially since if I don’t convert, my opponent probably only has a 20% chance of scoring before the half.
Sorry…long winded.
I will try to be brief!
The “always go for two” strategy only works if you have better than 50% success. Otherwise, you’re just guessing between 2and 4 points. No way to predict it. It doesn’t help your cause.
It has been debated before and If it were some fancy new idea, they’d all be doing it.
You say “they’d all be doing it”, but the new rule for extra points is going into effect for the first time this year. We haven’t seen whether or not it has had an impact.
I would bet there are at least a couple offensive minded coaches that think they can beat those 50/50 odds…the Eagles and Patriots essentially proposed this rule change together with slight variations. I would bet that those two teams, at least, believe there’s something to be gained from this rule change. Otherwise, why propose it.
Let’s circle back in a year. I bet both of those teams go for it more often this season.
And for the record, I probably would have kept the rule as is. The change removes the element of surprise…unless someone has the guts to line up for an extra point from the 15 and fake it for a long two point attempt.