Comments on: Up by 1, after scoring a late touchdown, should teams go for two? http://www.footballperspective.com/up-by-1-after-scoring-a-late-touchdown-should-teams-go-for-two/ NFL History and Stats Sat, 18 Jul 2015 16:54:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Anonymous http://www.footballperspective.com/up-by-1-after-scoring-a-late-touchdown-should-teams-go-for-two/#comment-309340 Sat, 18 Jul 2015 16:54:00 +0000 http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=3429#comment-309340 Running on third and two converts at a higher rate than passing on third and two does. Third and three is roughly a wash while passing is better on third and four or more. (A potential advantage of running even on third and medium to long situations is that failing to convert at least can make it a shorter fourth down, but as it is that’s kind of irrelevant since coaches are so conservative on down four.) It doesn’t surprise me that running is higher percentage on 2 point conversions.

]]> By: Chase Stuart http://www.footballperspective.com/up-by-1-after-scoring-a-late-touchdown-should-teams-go-for-two/#comment-3340 Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:04:04 +0000 http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=3429#comment-3340 In reply to Jason Lisk.

Those are both probably correct.

Still, calling a run play almost feels gimmicky to me; it will work a few times, and maybe it’s the right call, but I think it’s only the right call because the defense isn’t expecting it (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

Put it this way: If I was a HC, of an average team against an average opponent in a key game, and I needed a two-point conversion, and I only had one chance at it, I wouldn’t call a running play. Would you?

]]>