Game Thread ***OFFICIAL GAME THREAD: UF vs UT***

Spurdog98

Preston Brooks
Lifetime Member
Jan 3, 2018
4,804
7,203
The 2 pt conversion to make it 9 pts down was specifically to end the game in regulation.
We weren't going to stop them in an OT shootout, so being 10 pts down only gets you to OT.

Had we gotten the first (and we've been pretty good at 2 pt conversions haven't we?) Then the end of the game being just like it was would have meant a FG would win the game after that onside kick.
Yep, and I do agree with that one and I understood immediately why he was going it. OT at either end of that field would have been a nightmare for crowd noise. End it in regulation.
 

78

Founding Member
Dazed and Confused
Lifetime Member
Jun 9, 2014
19,745
27,635
Founding Member
And if he settled for 3 and punted on the other 4th downs and we get blown out, you'd be criticizing Napier for that as well.

He's seen the same defense that we have; he knows the wholes in personnel better than we. So his game plan was to be as aggressive on offense as possible. It's obvious that was his game plan. Me personally, I'm glad he went into Knoxville with some plan to win instead of just survive.

I don't see it as the same. A 2-point conversion has special risks. You're dealing with a highly compressed playing field. Receivers and secondary clog the end zone. Passing lanes are limited.

I'm not against taking risks where the odds are better. And I'm apparently not alone in my thinking. Neuheisel made the same point in the CBS studio afterward.
 

NOLAGATOR

God uses the unlikely to accomplish the impossible
Lifetime Member
Aug 20, 2018
16,979
21,201
And if he went for a tie and lost in OT? Then what?

And those who are complaining about low risk plays? 4 down deep in your own territory? Onside kick?

Oh, that's right those were successful.
 

Spurdog98

Preston Brooks
Lifetime Member
Jan 3, 2018
4,804
7,203
I don't see it as the same. A 2-point conversion has special risks. You're dealing with a highly compressed playing field. Receivers and secondary clog the end zone. Passing lanes are limited.

I'm not against taking risks where the odds are better. And I'm apparently not alone in my thinking. Neuheisel made the same point in the CBS studio afterward.
What do you think SOS would have done?
 

Spurdog98

Preston Brooks
Lifetime Member
Jan 3, 2018
4,804
7,203
I don't see it as the same. A 2-point conversion has special risks. You're dealing with a highly compressed playing field. Receivers and secondary clog the end zone. Passing lanes are limited.

I'm not against taking risks where the odds are better. And I'm apparently not alone in my thinking. Neuheisel made the same point in the CBS studio afterward.
Neuheisel? He's all of a sudden become risk averse?
 

Sec14Gator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Oct 8, 2017
2,157
5,523
The only logic I can see is he was not wanting to play for overtime. It was his way of saying we win or lose in regulation and we won’t have time for 2 full possessions. So get a stop, get a TD, and then with seconds left be in position to win with a FG. He had the time gauge correct. It’s not what I would’ve liked, but it’s aggressive and going for the win, which when execution and talent catch up, will pay some dividends.

Remember Mullen and really each of the last three playing the “___ points away” card. He’d rather lose by 5 going for the win than settle for a loss. Again, not my favorite idea, but it’s better than what those guys would

I would be very curious of the number of data points making up that chart posted here. When down 14 and scoring a TD, going for 2 on the first TD is the much better choice and coaches mess it up all the time.

There are two primary advantages: (1) it’s easier to got 1/2 than 1/1 on a 2 pt conversion. So, if you make the first great, but if you don’t you have the second shot at it to at least tie. And since odds on a 2 pt conversion are about 50/50 and going for the win is understandable (1 play to win va additional risks of OT), this strategy makes sense.

(2)(and here is where I think it broke down Saturday) is it leaves the most optionality. For instance, if you get the 2 pts and are down 6, and end up with 4th and 15 due to a penalty or a sack and have enough TOs left, you leave a fg option to need just a fg to tie. Similarly, if you miss both 2 pt conversions you can adjust strategy to try to get enough time for an onside kick and work for a game winning FG. Essentially, you leave the most possible outs and an ability to adjust if the comeback plan doesn’t go perfectly.

In our instance, the difference of going for 2 on the first Td, isn’t necessarily going for the win VS going for OT. That was the mindset but the options he leaves are far different. Ideally there, because you need two TDs and a fg is to maintain that need to leave you the most flexibility of game scenarios, including the far more likely scenario of getting another TD and FG, instead of a 3 TDs, which is exactly what played out.

The benefit of the 1/2 VS 1/1 two point conversion odds seem far set off by risking needing 3 TDs within the last few minutes opposed to just 1TD and a FG. Another strategy option is to kick the fg right away if you are only down 10 and then go for the inside with about 1 minute still left. That option is also completely off the table once you miss after the 2 pt try on the first attempt.
 

TheMarylandGator

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Jan 24, 2022
595
1,299
I would be very curious of the number of data points making up that chart posted here. When down 14 and scoring a TD, going for 2 on the first TD is the much better choice and coaches mess it up all the time.

There are two primary advantages: (1) it’s easier to got 1/2 than 1/1 on a 2 pt conversion. So, if you make the first great, but if you don’t you have the second shot at it to at least tie. And since odds on a 2 pt conversion are about 50/50 and going for the win is understandable (1 play to win va additional risks of OT), this strategy makes sense.

(2)(and here is where I think it broke down Saturday) is it leaves the most optionality. For instance, if you get the 2 pts and are down 6, and end up with 4th and 15 due to a penalty or a sack and have enough TOs left, you leave a fg option to need just a fg to tie. Similarly, if you miss both 2 pt conversions you can adjust strategy to try to get enough time for an onside kick and work for a game winning FG. Essentially, you leave the most possible outs and an ability to adjust if the comeback plan doesn’t go perfectly.

In our instance, the difference of going for 2 on the first Td, isn’t necessarily going for the win VS going for OT. That was the mindset but the options he leaves are far different. Ideally there, because you need two TDs and a fg is to maintain that need to leave you the most flexibility of game scenarios, including the far more likely scenario of getting another TD and FG, instead of a 3 TDs, which is exactly what played out.

The benefit of the 1/2 VS 1/1 two point conversion odds seem far set off by risking needing 3 TDs within the last few minutes opposed to just 1TD and a FG. Another strategy option is to kick the fg right away if you are only down 10 and then go for the inside with about 1 minute still left. That option is also completely off the table once you miss after the 2 pt try on the first attempt.
Absolute ice-cream headache.
 

NOLAGATOR

God uses the unlikely to accomplish the impossible
Lifetime Member
Aug 20, 2018
16,979
21,201
Absolute ice-cream headache.
GIF by Digg
 

GatorInGeorgia

Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 25, 2014
6,340
7,068
All the numnuts on here, me included, that said go with the statistics, well here it is.

Not sure if either of you two rocket scientists realize this but that chart incorporates the safety net of getting the game to OT if the team misses the first 2 point conversion attempt-by making the second attempt-in its’ statistical analysis. We all understand that (hell, a blind man can see that).

The point that was brought up, though, is Napier wanted to win it or lose it in regulation, which changes this statistical analysis entirely. Saving the 2 point try for the 2nd TD still stands as the correct option. When you miss on the first try, you give the defense the flexibility to play/defend against the deep ball & be willing to sacrifice a FG, knowing that they can’t lose in regulation. By kicking the PAT after the first TD, the team playing comeback retains more flexibility/options in how the remainder of the game is called.

And then there’s the momentum aspect, which thus silly analytics sheet doesn’t account for. Kick the PAT to pull within 10 and get the ball back (be it onsides kick recovery or a defensive stop) & all the sudden the opposing team’s buttocks pucker up, they’ve lost the initiative and the crowd starts to go quiet.
 

GatorInGeorgia

Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 25, 2014
6,340
7,068
The 2 pt conversion to make it 9 pts down was specifically to end the game in regulation.
We weren't going to stop them in an OT shootout, so being 10 pts down only gets you to OT.

Had we gotten the first (and we've been pretty good at 2 pt conversions haven't we?) Then the end of the game being just like it was would have meant a FG would win the game after that onside kick.

You do realize that kicking the PAT after the first TD and then going for 2 & converting it after the second TD would also end the game in regulation don’t you?

The difference is, kicking the PAT after the first TD rather than going for 2 & missing keeps the momentum on our side for the last few minutes of the game.
 

GatorInGeorgia

Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 25, 2014
6,340
7,068
Not sure if either of you two rocket scientists realize this but that chart incorporates the safety net of getting the game to OT if the team misses the first 2 point conversion attempt-by making the second attempt-in its’ statistical analysis. We all understand that (hell, a blind man can see that).

The point that was brought up, though, is Napier wanted to win it or lose it in regulation, which changes this statistical analysis entirely. Saving the 2 point try for the 2nd TD still stands as the correct option. When you miss on the first try, you give the defense the flexibility to play/defend against the deep ball & be willing to sacrifice a FG, knowing that they can’t lose in regulation. By kicking the PAT after the first TD, the team playing comeback retains more flexibility/options in how the remainder of the game is called.

And then there’s the momentum aspect, which thus silly analytics sheet doesn’t account for. Kick the PAT to pull within 10 and get the ball back (be it onsides kick recovery or a defensive stop) & all the sudden the opposing team’s buttocks pucker up, they’ve lost the initiative and the crowd starts to go quiet.

@RocketCityGator tell me where I’m wrong then…
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    Birthdays

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    31,644
    Messages
    1,615,778
    Members
    1,642
    Latest member
    fishermb