SF - NO great game. HORRENDOUS coaching

Like I said, I will go so far as to agree taking a last second chip shot is a *very* plausible strategy. I also get the four-downs, but that’s more than nullified by the fact they have to run only the two-minute offense. I’ll buy 90-plus, not so much the 60 percent. It’s probably splitting hairs but I don’t even know if it is being oblivious to percentages as it is being counterintuitive to the mindset of every athlete and coach to purposely not score a go-ahead touchdown when trailing (hence throw out the Wesbrook example). A new can of worms—but what I don’t get is if a team is down by 15 and scores a touchdown, they kick an extra point and only go for two when they have to—scoring another TD. The school of thought is “extend the game as long as you can.” My thought is they are only buying themselves a false sense of security. If they wait until the second score to go for two and fail, more times than not they don’t have enough time to get the ball back again and score for a third time. My thought is go for the two right away, that way if you miss it, you know you still need two scores and can play accordingly. The traditional way, by the time you find out you need to score again, it’s too late.

[QUOTE=rexd;50156]Like I said, I will go so far as to agree taking a last second chip shot is a *very* plausible strategy. I also get the four-downs, but that’s more than nullified by the fact they have to run only the two-minute offense. I’ll buy 90-plus, not so much the 60 percent. It’s probably splitting hairs but I don’t even know if it is being oblivious to percentages as it is being counterintuitive to the mindset of every athlete and coach to purposely not score a go-ahead touchdown when trailing (hence throw out the Wesbrook example). A new can of worms—but what I don’t get is if a team is down by 15 and scores a touchdown, they kick an extra point and only go for two when they have to—scoring another TD. The school of thought is “extend the game as long as you can.” My thought is they are only buying themselves a false sense of security. If they wait until the second score to go for two and fail, more times than not they don’t have enough time to get the ball back again and score for a third time. My thought is go for the two right away, that way if you miss it, you know you still need two scores and can play accordingly. The traditional way, by the time you find out you need to score again, it’s too late.[/QUOTE] This exact scenario has been discussed here before and yes you should go for 2 the first time.

I do have one more that I’ve discussed over a few beers. Let’s say you are coaching Sheboygan and up by two points. Peoria is in field goal range and out of challenges. You hit their QB as he’s throwing. The officials rule it a fumble. One of your DBs picks the ball up and races for the end zone. If you score, it’s automatically reviewed and hence the call could be overturned. Don’t you take a knee at the one-yard line instead of risking an automatic review? Peoria is out of challenges, so you are guaranteed to have the ball first and goal at the one. Conversely if you score the touchdown, it is automatically reviewed and could be overturned where Peoria will get the ball back and have the ball in winning field goal range. This is not that outlandish of a scenario. In fact, I can’t remember the game but I first thought of this when a fumble return for a touchdown was overturned, though I’m not sure if the other team was out of challenges.

Accidentally or not, this could be why all challenges inside two minutes come from upstairs, not the sideline.

I too think 60% of SF winning was too low (I kept betting the Pinny line). I thought it should be about 70% or so but anyways, pinny's lines (especially in a big televised games) are somewhere near correct. Whether it is 60 or 70% and whether it is 97+% as an extra point or 90% because of pressure, the smart move is to down the ball. The bottom line is the coaches always take the "safe" way instead of the mathematically "smart" way.