Go for two

Dmanuhone · Unread post by **Dmanuhone** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:10 pm

Just wondering why we did that. I think I saw at least one other team try that so far on first score.

Appftw · Unread post by **Appftw** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:12 pm

Was Hallock really the QB for that play? Don't get me wrong, he's talented, but it seemed really strange.

huskie3 · Unread post by **huskie3** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:16 pm

I would imagine we did it to get a 'real game situation' to see how we would do. You can practice it all you want but do not know how the play will work until you try it in a game. I believe UNC-CH tried the play earlier this year.

TheMoody1 · Unread post by **TheMoody1** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:26 pm

Bobby Lamb signaled in that play from the stands.

hapapp · Unread post by **hapapp** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:29 pm

Appftw wrote:Was Hallock really the QB for that play? Don't get me wrong, he's talented, but it seemed really strange.

Hallock is the holder, so he would be out there. It is an option that is predicated on how the opposition lines up for the XP. If the defense doesn't line up a particular way, the option is available to go for 2. Notice the difference in formations between the missed two point conversion and the one we made. The second attempt was clearly going for 2, I believe the first one was based on what the defense was giving us.

Maddog1956 · Unread post by **Maddog1956** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:35 pm

I think the coaches believed the hype and thought it was going to be an easy win and after the defeat we needed to "get the funk off". If it would have worked it might have got everyone in the game. As it turned out I think it was humbling.

ASUGoose · Unread post by **ASUGoose** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:08 pm

I don't have any problem with it. I know at Oregon they always go for 2 on their first TD score. If you can pull it off, that extra point will pay off later in the game and of course vice versa it can hurt but the assumption is that you can make it up on another 2 pt conversion try if you miss on the first.

T-Dog · Unread post by **T-Dog** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:25 pm

If Logan had signaled otherwie, the team would have set up for a PAT. He saw the defense and decided to stay where they were.

I have no problem with going for two. It wasn't like it was 60-0. The option is there.

appalum2003 · Unread post by **appalum2003** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:38 pm

ASUGoose wrote:I don't have any problem with it. I know at Oregon they always go for 2 on their first TD score. If you can pull it off, that extra point will pay off later in the game and of course vice versa it can hurt but the assumption is that you can make it up on another 2 pt conversion try if you miss on the first.

Yup - it's a growing trend in CFB right now. More and more teams are going for 2 on "random" possessions. Why not? If you make 50% of your tries, it's a wash, right?

App91 · Unread post by **App91** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:12 pm

of all the issues that we have-had-going for two is not one of them!

Black Saturday · Unread post by **Black Saturday** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:10 pm

App91 wrote:of all the issues that we have-had-going for two is not one of them!

Excellent point on your 2000th post!

Mtneer · Unread post by **Mtneer** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:33 pm

True, that 2-point attempt didn't matter in the end but it was not the right call. You always kick the extra point when you lead or trail by 6 (unless you're trying to win a game in the last seconds of regulation). Of course Coach could have decided at the last second to go in to the "Always Attack" mode.

App91 · Unread post by **App91** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:00 pm

Black Saturday wrote:
App91 wrote:of all the issues that we have-had-going for two is not one of them!

Excellent point on your 2000th post!

Thanks BS for pointing that out. Was not aware. Sure could have used you talking me off the ledge sat. night. was about 4 am before i could get to sleep

Dazed and Confused '13 · Unread post by **Dazed and Confused '13** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:18 pm

Exactly. Lots of college teams treat XPs like that nowadays. It's a simple option.
I don't understand why some folks saw it as disrespectful to A&T...Score was very much close.

T-Dog · Unread post by **T-Dog** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:20 pm

Thought this needed a bump.

Just so everyone knows, the team lined up in the exact same formation after the first touchdown, but then Logan called it back to a regular PAT formation.

DaphneUrquhart · Unread post by **DaphneUrquhart** » Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:45 pm

T-Dog wrote:Thought this needed a bump.

Just so everyone knows, the team lined up in the exact same formation after the first touchdown, but then Logan called it back to a regular PAT formation.

... and the guy behind me who thought he knew tons of football (last name was Lombardi or Bryant, I believe

) went absolutely nuts.

The nice thing about a 3+ hour drive and Sirius is the chance to listen to lots of games. The two point attempt seems to be much more common on first attempts throughout the country - particularly when a team scores early. It simply creates another wrinkle in the game.

I have no problem with lining up for the two point attempt so long as Logan can make that call to kick if he doesn't like what he sees. They had Logan with a headset on on the sidelines Saturday. The kid knows his football and will likely make an outstanding coach in the years ahead.

Go for two

Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Re: Go for two

Login • Register