Jump to content

When do you go for 2?


gatorman-uf

Recommended Posts

Some people were saying Mullen shouldn't have gone for 2 so early in the 4th and if he hadn't then the worse the Kentucky FG would have been is a tie if the Gators had just kicked the 2 extra points. 
Today, Doug Marrone (Jax) has a chance to tie the game with an extra point and decides to go for 2 and misses. 

I truly believe that Mullen made the right call, even early in the 4th. His offense hadn't done much all game, his defense was playing ok, but not lights out and who knows what was going to happen with your back-up QB in. I look at the decision to go for 2 as the right decision even if they didn't get it.

Marrone, on the hand, went with the idea win on the road, tie at home. I get it, but as a coach, you gotta see a bigger picture. Your team is 0-1, has lost it's starting QB for half the season at least, you are coming a dreadful season, you have had a shouting match on the sidelines with a star CB, you gotta play to not lose. I don't get the decision here and I am usually on the 4th and short, go for it. 2 point conversion, go for it, but overall whether Fournette makes it or not, I don't like the call. 

When should coaches go for two? (Any level)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

Some people were saying Mullen shouldn't have gone for 2 so early in the 4th and if he hadn't then the worse the Kentucky FG would have been is a tie if the Gators had just kicked the 2 extra points. 
Today, Doug Marrone (Jax) has a chance to tie the game with an extra point and decides to go for 2 and misses. 

I truly believe that Mullen made the right call, even early in the 4th. His offense hadn't done much all game, his defense was playing ok, but not lights out and who knows what was going to happen with your back-up QB in. I look at the decision to go for 2 as the right decision even if they didn't get it.

Marrone, on the hand, went with the idea win on the road, tie at home. I get it, but as a coach, you gotta see a bigger picture. Your team is 0-1, has lost it's starting QB for half the season at least, you are coming a dreadful season, you have had a shouting match on the sidelines with a star CB, you gotta play to not lose. I don't get the decision here and I am usually on the 4th and short, go for it. 2 point conversion, go for it, but overall whether Fournette makes it or not, I don't like the call. 

When should coaches go for two? (Any level)

This is probably what i would call a loaded question because in all honesty it depends on a lot of factors

 

In the general sense though and from my experience (both as a volunteer/fan/media at Columbia) I'm used to seeing Coach Allen being very aggressive with these type of play calls as they go for 2pts many times when situations come up and we probably go for it on 4th down at least 3 or 4 times a game and more times then not it works out

 

Even when we fail to pick it up I can understand why we did it and normally feel it's the right call, I feel that the more aggressive the play calling the more pressure you place on your opponent and because of that I feel in most cases that going for it on 4th down or 2pt conversions are generally a good move to make but like stated above it's not whether going aggressive is right decision, it's about do you make the right play call for that play

 

As long as the coach has a good play in place for those situations that generally works I think it is the right move 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a JV Head Coach for a long time and I would go for two every time we scored for the sheer fact that we didn't have kids who could field goal block or a kid who could consistently kick. On our varsity team, we run a swinging gate so the defense dictates how we attack them.

 

My personal philosophy is to go for two with your regular offense as often as possible. But, that's just me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Coach said:

I was a JV Head Coach for a long time and I would go for two every time we scored for the sheer fact that we didn't have kids who could field goal block or a kid who could consistently kick. On our varsity team, we run a swinging gate so the defense dictates how we attack them.

 

My personal philosophy is to go for two with your regular offense as often as possible. But, that's just me...

I do think there are some teams (mostly middle school or high school level) who will go for 2 simply because they don't have someone who can kick even a XP 

 

Sometimes that's just the hand some teams are given

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

I do think there are some teams (mostly middle school or high school level) who will go for 2 simply because they don't have someone who can kick even a XP 

 

Sometimes that's just the hand some teams are given

Totally. I've always pulled double duty as JV HC and a Varsity assistant and I'm the one who advocates going for two. Maybe I'm just too aggressive but I think it puts other teams in a bind, especially if you're good near the goal line, because it changes the way they have to call plays. Plus, if you go 1/2 you still have 14 points.At least that's how I look at it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video is a couple of years old at this point, but my buddies and I have watched it as instinctive of what a coach should generally do on 4th down. It is also the reason why I loved watching Georgia Tech and Paul Johnson's triple option because of how aggressive he was in trying for it on 4th down (except last year). 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbgqKHxzTfU

A good example of a lack of aggressiveness in hurting the team was the PItt-Penn State game. Pitt on the 1 yard line decides to kick the FG rather than try a 4th attempt from the 1 yard line. The kicker misses the kick and Pitt never really recovers. Pitt was down 7 at the time with 5 minutes left. 

Interestingly, Denver went for 2 when they were down 1 at home with 30 seconds left and got it and Chicago drove 40 yards in 31 seconds to allow former Gator Eddie Pineiro to hit the game winning 53 yard field goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

The video is a couple of years old at this point, but my buddies and I have watched it as instinctive of what a coach should generally do on 4th down. It is also the reason why I loved watching Georgia Tech and Paul Johnson's triple option because of how aggressive he was in trying for it on 4th down (except last year). 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbgqKHxzTfU

A good example of a lack of aggressiveness in hurting the team was the PItt-Penn State game. Pitt on the 1 yard line decides to kick the FG rather than try a 4th attempt from the 1 yard line. The kicker misses the kick and Pitt never really recovers. Pitt was down 7 at the time with 5 minutes left. 

Interestingly, Denver went for 2 when they were down 1 at home with 30 seconds left and got it and Chicago drove 40 yards in 31 seconds to allow former Gator Eddie Pineiro to hit the game winning 53 yard field goal. 

I was happy to see Eddie hit the game winner, but that roughing the passer call that gave the Bears 15 yards on their final drive??? Ugghh!   Horrible call in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The High School Football Coach Who Never Punts

Pulaski Academy football coach Kevin Kelley never punts. He always kicks on-side. His teams play … weirdly. Now the Arkansas squad is going back to Dallas to face its rival, Highland Park, a team that has won 84 games in a row at home and outplayed Pulaski Academy last year. Will Kelley’s data-driven plays lead to the win? The latest film in FiveThirtyEight and ESPN Films’ short-documentary series Collectors, “Undefeated,” directed by Jamie Schutz, follows Pulaski as the team adds a new wrinkle to its playbook and tries to end Highland Park’s streak.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-high-school-football-coach-who-never-punts/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


  • Posts

    • Unions want their members compensated. Districts are slow to compensate teachers and coaches, period. Because ultimately coaches/sponsors are extracurriculars, and not the primary focus of the district despite what some on this board would have you believe. Make it easy, ask your local principal how many teaching openings they have this year in their faculty, ask how much turnover will exist in their ranks this summer, and when they replace them, how many will be highly qualified teachers. Ask the AD how many of their coaches are not highly qualified. The problem from the district and unions' perspective is that there isn't a coaching shortage, somebody always wants to be a coach, but few want to be a math teacher or special education and have their career tied to a test that they have no control over. So just like in the business world, you should pay more to get a person to do the job if nobody is willing to do it. Now if you want to blame the unions, blame them and the districts for not being flexible in salaries for areas of critical needs/shortages. Despite their being a shortage, it isn't a universal shortage. Florida isn't struggling for social studies teachers, PE teachers, or elementary teachers, but secondary math, science, english, special ed (all levels), and world languages. Unions/districts have been reluctant to give extra pay to those subjects to entice people to enter the field, but notice, PE teacher isn't on that list. __________________ To give an idea of what will happen, let's use Madison County (since they were mentioned in an above post). Madison County has 30 head coaches and JV/assistant coaches (including cheerleading). The total amount of salaries that they put to those positions is %66,706. Madison County had a budget of $24 million, so .27% of their total budget. If the proposed bill passes, Madison County would spend 322,500, which represents 1.34% of their budget, about 4.8 times more than current. Now, if the state legislature would simple just add the $260,000 onto the budget, the unions wouldn't care other than making sure that all assistant/jv/and non mentioned coaches from the PB Post article are included. But that isn't what will happen, instead it will be a specific line in the budget from the state legislature, similar to technology or textbooks, money will be required to be spent on the salaries and the state will offer no additional funding (or they will only do it for 2 or 3 years, and when there are new priorities, they will still require it but provide no funding for it). Now, if they offer no additional funding, what happens is that money comes from somewhere in the budget. Considering that that this be part of "teacher salaries", that means it will be pulled from general instructional salaries portion of the budget, which means less money for teachers. So yes, teachers will be upset when the state legislature yet again promises something and then underdelivers (see making the starting salary $47,500).
    • low pay and high expense on housing, while are in the talks, coaches are leaving becuase of resources.  Mike Coe of coffee who was at union county and was a state championship contender year in and out, leaves to go to ga, in 3 seasons they went 15-0 this past yr, have an indoor field being built, makes a ton of money, all his 20 coaches do as well.  resources, the ability to say if we want something, we dont have to sell discount cards and do car washes to buy 10 helmets, we go to people with power/money/boosters/etc and say we need 10 helmets.  look up his twitter, thats where this all came from. camden county and travis roland, same deal.  win a title at mainland and goes fundraising the next week.  or go to camden, takes his staff, make more money, have incredible resources to facilitate what a state championship program should look like, same-read his twitter. id say majority of coaches would work in FL for what coaches rate is, if there were resources available that if you ask for it, its done.  not having to spend the summer selling cards or raffle tickets or whatever they do....
    • The rationale for allowing unlimited transfers, while also allowing an effectively unregulated "NIL" market, is that players should be able to do ANYTHING that helps them better themselves. ANY limits or regulations are said to be immoral, and probably rooted in "white supremacy". Welp, imagine a player playing on a team that's getting their butts kicked. You can't argue that it wouldn't improve his marketability to simply take off his uniform and walk over to the other sideline during the game. NOW, he's on the WINNING team. It would be MUCH better for the player to be on the winning team than to be a no-good loser. And, since "equity" is seen as THE most (if not only) important thing-whereby "equity" is defined and measured by the equivalence (or lack thereof) of outcomes- allowing all of the players on the losing team to simply leave and join the winning team, it all makes perfect sense!* *While bitter sarcasm was employed here, this is not really a joke. Using the current rationale, the above IS consistent with the rationale.
    • Teachers are sometimes their own worst enemies.
    • This is a bit of an incoherent mess. The matter of parents' rights is separate from teacher/coaches pay and teacher certification. All are valid, but distinct, concerns. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...