Donatel needs the axe

[Texas Vike]

No you don't need two stops. You just go for two on next td. It doesn't mean they need two stops in that scenario.

Score td.
21-13

Kick xp
21-14

Get 1 stop
21-14

Score td
21-20

Go for two (or kick xp to tie)
21-22

One stop.

There was also over a full quarter of game left.

When down by two TDs it's better to go for 2 on the first TD you make, because it: 1) can put pressure on your opponent and 2) you know ahead of time what you need. By NOT making it, you obviously negate #1, but you can still tie by converting the second one.

[makila]

No you don't need two stops. You just go for two on next td. It doesn't mean they need two stops in that scenario.

Score td.
21-13

Kick xp
21-14

Get 1 stop
21-14

Score td
21-20

Go for two (or kick xp to tie)
21-22

One stop.

There was also over a full quarter of game left.

When down by two TDs it's better to go for 2 on the first TD you make, because it: 1) can put pressure on your opponent and 2) you know ahead of time what you need. By NOT making it, you obviously negate #1, but you can still tie by converting the second one.

Thats a debate worth having.

You still don't need two stops, which is what was said. That's an inaccurate statement.

And fwiw you don't have to go for two to tie if you kick the 1st xp. You have the option to go for win or tie.

[TheCoolerOne]

No you don't need two stops. You just go for two on next td. It doesn't mean they need two stops in that scenario.

Score td.
21-13

Kick xp
21-14

Get 1 stop
21-14

Score td
21-20

Go for two (or kick xp to tie)
21-22

One stop.

There was also over a full quarter of game left.

It’s about maximizing your chances to win. You go for two on your first TD to inform your decision making for the rest of the game.

[makila]

No you don't need two stops. You just go for two on next td. It doesn't mean they need two stops in that scenario.

Score td.
21-13

Kick xp
21-14

Get 1 stop
21-14

Score td
21-20

Go for two (or kick xp to tie)
21-22

One stop.

There was also over a full quarter of game left.

It’s about maximizing your chances to win. You go for two on your first TD to inform your decision making for the rest of the game.

Ok thats not what you said.

Not trying to debate semantics. However the statement was inaccurate about needing two possessions.

[makila]

Back on point, every scenario ends with us needing to get stops.

That was the issue. Lack of defensive stops.

[TheCoolerOne]

It’s about maximizing your chances to win. You go for two on your first TD to inform your decision making for the rest of the game.

Ok thats not what you said.

Not trying to debate semantics. However the statement was inaccurate about needing two possessions.

I’m suggesting in a traditional comeback where you aren’t attempting two point conversions.

Not to mention I say you need two stops, you say you don’t, and then proceed to map out what needs to be done including two stops.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

Except that you're ignoring the fact that the Vikings have to attempt a two point conversion at some point regardless of when you do it (in order to force the win). If you do it when KOC did, then you still have the opportunity to try it again if it fails (assuming the aforementioned stop and second touchdown occurs) to at least send the game to OT. If you try it when KOC did you have a chance to put yourself in the driver's seat for the outright win with the safety net of still having an option for forcing OT if it fails. If you wait until the last touchdown and fail, you just lose outright. See? It's a matter of opinion...

I'm not ignoring anything. If they kick the extra point, they are down by 7. Why do you think they have to go for two at ANY point? If they stop the Lions on the next drive, they only need a TD and XP to tie. I'm really not following the logic of going for two at all.

[makila]

Ok thats not what you said.

Not trying to debate semantics. However the statement was inaccurate about needing two possessions.

I’m suggesting in a traditional comeback where you aren’t attempting two point conversions.

Not to mention I say you need two stops, you say you don’t, and then proceed to map out what needs to be done including two stops.

No that's wrong. Again. Go back and read.
One stop.

[TheCoolerOne]

Except that you're ignoring the fact that the Vikings have to attempt a two point conversion at some point regardless of when you do it (in order to force the win). If you do it when KOC did, then you still have the opportunity to try it again if it fails (assuming the aforementioned stop and second touchdown occurs) to at least send the game to OT. If you try it when KOC did you have a chance to put yourself in the driver's seat for the outright win with the safety net of still having an option for forcing OT if it fails. If you wait until the last touchdown and fail, you just lose outright. See? It's a matter of opinion...

I'm not ignoring anything. If they kick the extra point, they are down by 7. Why do you think they have to go for two at ANY point? If they stop the Lions on the next drive, they only need a TD and XP to tie. I'm really not following the logic of going for two at all.

This is about playing to win, not playing to force OT. A successful two point conversion puts you down 6 and a subsequent 7 point TD gives you the lead.

Again, none of this is specific to the Vikings. When you take Viking-specific stats into account, the decision makes even more sense. With OT being about who wins the coin toss, the way our defense was playing, how good the Lions offense is, playing for a tie is simply prolonging the time it takes to lose

[makila]

You can still go for two on the 2nd td. FYI. It counts the same either way.

TexasVike is debating the point of when to go for two. You're trying to make it sound like you have to score a third possession. Which isn't true.

If only we could get stops. Larger problem solved.

[TheCoolerOne]

You can still go for two on the 2nd td. FYI. It counts the same either way.

TexasVike is debating the point of when to go for two. You're trying to make it sound like you have to score a third possession. Which isn't true.

Man, I’m speaking it terms of not going for two at all, the same way Eagleland is looking at it.

Traditionally you look at the scoreboard and say, “okay we’re down 14 we need to score two touchdowns to get back in this thing.”

[makila]

You can still go for two on the 2nd td. FYI. It counts the same either way.

TexasVike is debating the point of when to go for two. You're trying to make it sound like you have to score a third possession. Which isn't true.

Man, I’m speaking it terms of not going for two at all, the same way Eagleland is looking at it.

Traditionally you look at the scoreboard and say, “okay we’re down 14 we need to score two touchdowns to get back in this thing.”

You've moved the goal post on your original point now man, so whatever.

I get the point of debating when to go for two. Again, like TexasVike is saying.

It wasn’t a mistake. It was the correct decision. You not understand that doesn’t make it wrong.

It is more likely to make the two point conversion than it is to put together two more scoring drives, which is what they would have needed to win.

This was what I responded to initially. It isn't correct.

All dependent on getting defensive stops, which we were doing little of. : (

Off to work. Happy Monday all. heh.

[Texas Vike]

You can still go for two on the 2nd td. FYI. It counts the same either way.

TexasVike is debating the point of when to go for two. You're trying to make it sound like you have to score a third possession. Which isn't true.

If only we could get stops. Larger problem solved.

I wasn't initially a huge fan of going for 2 there, but having heard Mackey and Judd talk about the strategy on the vent line made me rethink things and understand the rationale. I do think it makes sense, analytically, to go for 2 and my last post just states why a team in that situation would make that choice.

Cooler one stated that by going for 2 (instead of 1) you reduce the number of stops your D needs to make. I believe what he meant was by going for 2 ON AT LEAST ONE OF YOUR TWO TDS, you make this reduction, assuming you are going for the win. In other words, if you simply kick two XPs, you would then need another stop on D to get the W. So if you make the decision to go for 2 instead, it's better to do that on the first TD, for the reasons I outlined above.

[TheCoolerOne]

Man, I’m speaking it terms of not going for two at all, the same way Eagleland is looking at it.

Traditionally you look at the scoreboard and say, “okay we’re down 14 we need to score two touchdowns to get back in this thing.”

Two TDs with XPs ties.
Two TDs with 1 XP and 1 2pt wins.

We're talking the same thing.
Both dependent on getting defensive stops, which we were doing little of.

You've moved the goal post on your original point now man, so whatever.

It wasn’t a mistake. It was the correct decision. You not understand that doesn’t make it wrong.

It is more likely to make the two point conversion than it is to put together two more scoring drives, which is what they would have needed to win.

You can still go for 2pt conversion here.

The entire basis of my argument was binary. I apologize if it wasn’t presented that way. Either going for two, or not going for two at all.

Posters are asking why are we going for two. Those posters are thinking we need two standard touchdowns to tie.

I’m trying to explain it from their perspective.

When we go for two is not the question. Why they went for two at all, is.

[makila]

You can still go for two on the 2nd td. FYI. It counts the same either way.

TexasVike is debating the point of when to go for two. You're trying to make it sound like you have to score a third possession. Which isn't true.

If only we could get stops. Larger problem solved.

I wasn't initially a huge fan of going for 2 there, but having heard Mackey and Judd talk about the strategy on the vent line made me rethink things and understand the rationale. I do think it makes sense, analytically, to go for 2 and my last post just states why a team in that situation would make that choice.

Cooler one stated that by going for 2 (instead of 1) you reduce the number of stops your D needs to make. I believe what he meant was by going for 2 ON AT LEAST ONE OF YOUR TWO TDS, you make this reduction, assuming you are going for the win. In other words, if you simply kick two XPs, you would then need another stop on D to get the W. So if you make the decision to go for 2 instead, it's better to do that on the first TD, for the reasons I outlined above.

Yeah for sure. I think the debate of 1st or 2nd TD makes sense.

If you have decided you're going to go for 2 on ONE of the TDs, then the 1st probably makes more sense. A lot because of what you said, it puts the pressure back on them now and controls the rest of the decision making.