Was There A Logical Reason To Go For A 2 Point Conversion?

[cantonman2]

I did not see the end of the game, so I don't know the circumstances that led to a 2 point conversion try, but since the success rate is only about 50%, unless the Purdue kicker
was unavailable, I don't understand the decision to try it!

 

[HUD628]

To win the game?

 

[cantonman2]

To win the game?

Granted, but he percentage of making a kicked extra point is over 90%, and would have resulted in another overtime, which would still have given a Purdue a chance to win! It appears Walters picked the lowest percentage opportunity!

 

[z_one]

Granted, but he percentage of making a kicked extra point is over 90%, and would have resulted in another overtime, which would still have given a Purdue a chance to win! It appears Walters picked the lowest percentage opportunity!

Under the circumstances Walters did what he should have done. I would have kicked the field goal and the reason is that we had been successful on 2 two point conversions already. Looking at the odds it was very unlikely we would succeed on a third. The problem with how I'm looking at it is that the defense was totally gassed and continuing may have favored Illinois more than going for two.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

I did not see the end of the game, so I don't know the circumstances that led to a 2 point conversion try, but since the success rate is only about 50%, unless the Purdue kicker
was unavailable, I don't understand the decision to try it!

Yes. Bret bielema’s mom could have got open and made big plays on the Purdue secondary

 

[Wolegib]

2 reasons: the 2 point conversion play had been successful earlier in the day.

I guess you could say Illinois learned how to defend it and adjusted.

Second. Walters said he got tired of playing for a tie.

I guess he knew if the game went to a second overtime, he knew Illinois would score another TD against our defense and he wasn’t so sure our offense would.

So he went for two with the same play Illinois expected him to run and they adjusted and stopped it. It’s a shame Purdue doesn’t have more than 1 extra point play.

 

[PUQBMan.]

Under the circumstances Walters did what he should have done. I would have kicked the field goal and the reason is that we had been successful on 2 two point conversions already. Looking at the odds it was very unlikely we would succeed on a third. The problem with how I'm looking at it is that the defense was totally gassed and continuing may have favored Illinois more than going for two.

That's not how odds work.

 

[z_one]

That's not how odds work.

Ok, my "gut" told me we wouldn't be successful 3 out of 3 times.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

I thought it was the right decision to go for 2. Didn't agree with emptying the backfield for the play. Remember that if they went to a 2nd OT, Purdue would have had the ball first, which inherently puts them at the disadvantage strategy-wise. Win the game.

And this was with knowing that it ended in that way because my DVR messed up and I saw the final score before I knew the game went to OT.

 

[Gemini95]

Granted, but he percentage of making a kicked extra point is over 90%, and would have resulted in another overtime, which would still have given a Purdue a chance to win! It appears Walters picked the lowest percentage opportunity!

Given the state of our team, and playing a decent team on the road, getting a shot to win with one 50/50 play had a far higher percentage of success than trying to win another overtime period.

 

[cantonman2]

2 reasons: the 2 point conversion play had been successful earlier in the day.

I guess you could say Illinois learned how to defend it and adjusted.

Second. Walters said he got tired of playing for a tie.

I guess he knew if the game went to a second overtime, he knew Illinois would score another TD against our defense and he wasn’t so sure our offense would.

So he went for two with the same play Illinois expected him to run and they adjusted and stopped it. It’s a shame Purdue doesn’t have more than 1 extra point play.

When was Walters play for a tie? Hard to see how 66 to 7, 52 to 6, 28 to 10, 38 to 21 can be called playing for ties! Please clarify!

 

[cantonman2]

I thought it was the right decision to go for 2. Didn't agree with emptying the backfield for the play. Remember that if they went to a 2nd OT, Purdue would have had the ball first, which inherently puts them at the disadvantage strategy-wise. Win the game.

And this was with knowing that it ended in that way because my DVR messed up and I saw the final score before I knew the game went to OT.

It's unfortunate, but Purdue is at a disadvantage anytime they play!

 

[RossMackey]

It's unfortunate, but Purdue is at a disadvantage anytime they play!

I don’t subscribe to this phony bravado “play to win” attitude people are using to rationalize that call.

Take the infinitely higher- percentage extra point , then take your best shot in the next round when you MUST go for two.

Those who argue that “Purdue couldn’t stop UI” on defense ignore the fact that Ui couldn’t stop Purdue either!

 

[RossMackey]

Given the state of our team, and playing a decent team on the road, getting a shot to win with one 50/50 play had a far higher percentage of success than trying to win another overtime period.

In all fairness,There were several “50-50” plays prior to that one, most notably the absolute BS no-fumble call.

UI wasn’t doing any better stopping us than we were doing stopping them…

 

[TC4THREE]

It's stunning to me that anyone thinks we shouldn't have gone for 2 in that spot. Their offense was moving the ball against us. We were moving the ball on them. They were a heavy favorite and at home. If you think our chances at converting that are anywhere near 50/50 it's a no brainer to go for it.

 

[PUQBMan.]

I don’t subscribe to this phony bravado “play to win” attitude people are using to rationalize that call.

Take the infinitely higher- percentage extra point , then take your best shot in the next round when you MUST go for two.

Those who argue that “Purdue couldn’t stop UI” on defense ignore the fact that Ui couldn’t stop Purdue either!

You aren’t just taking the odds of the extra point. You’re taking those odds, plus the odds that you win from that point forward. The odds of getting the 2 point conversion (based on how the offense was performing) was probably about 60%. The odds of making the extra point, Purdue scoring again, and stopping UI (who will be at an advantage since they will be on defense first) were less than that. It was the right call. Just because it didn’t work out doesn’t change that.

 

[Gemini95]

I don’t subscribe to this phony bravado “play to win” attitude people are using to rationalize that call.

Take the infinitely higher- percentage extra point , then take your best shot in the next round when you MUST go for two.

Those who argue that “Purdue couldn’t stop UI” on defense ignore the fact that Ui couldn’t stop Purdue either!

It's not bravado. It's math. And your use of "infinitely higher" is telling.

 

[POTFHBTFU]

I thought it was the right decision to go for 2. Didn't agree with emptying the backfield for the play. Remember that if they went to a 2nd OT, Purdue would have had the ball first, which inherently puts them at the disadvantage strategy-wise. Win the game.

And this was with knowing that it ended in that way because my DVR messed up and I saw the final score before I knew the game went to OT.

This. I loved the call. With brownes ability to run I put the odds at a little over 50%, hey we got the first one! If we kick the extra point I’d put our odds at less than 50% to win the game since we were getting the ball first in OT2.

 

[bonefish1]

I can see both sides of the argument.
I like the message Walters sent to the team in going for the win. At 1-4, you have nothing to lose. I think the play call wasn't the best since you know IL was going to bring a blitz.
But, I also understand kick the point and live to fight another series, in which, anything could happen (turnover, blocked/missed FG, etc).
I'm not a big believer in moral victories, but maybe this game gave them a different perspective heading into the OR game. Shock the world?

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Logical? Yes....as many of my fellow posters have stated......

IF Purdue had continued on, eventually it would have been required to make a stop against Illinois (or pray for a self-inflicted mistake).....that's also putting aside it would need to keep pace in each OT. This opportunity (i.e. the "last" play) could circumvent that......so, would you rather roll the dice with the offense (that scored 40 points in the second half mind you) that was 2/2 on 2pt conversions......or put your trust in a defense (that is probably fatigued), a defense that just had a chance to win you the game and failed......and that showed no ability to stop the opponent close to the goal?

The actual play call? Predictably, flooded the neurons with Boilerepherine......and substantially muted response levels back to their homeostatic states within nanoseconds.....

 

[Purdue58]

2 reasons: the 2 point conversion play had been successful earlier in the day.

I guess you could say Illinois learned how to defend it and adjusted.

Second. Walters said he got tired of playing for a tie.

I guess he knew if the game went to a second overtime, he knew Illinois would score another TD against our defense and he wasn’t so sure our offense would.

So he went for two with the same play Illinois expected him to run and they adjusted and stopped it. It’s a shame Purdue doesn’t have more than 1 extra point play.

I was surprised he ran that play. I was hoping for a role out with an option to pitch , pass or run.

 

[PaBoiler78]

I was surprised he ran that play. I was hoping for a role out with an option to pitch , pass or run.

I was all in on going for 2 there, the one play I like down there is line up up heavy to the right including the TE, then have the TE block go to the ground get up and drag to the left side

 

[RossMackey]

It's not bravado. It's math. And your use of "infinitely higher" is telling.

That's fair-- I'll never be mistaken for someone with an ironclad grasp of probability and statistics.

Maybe it was the lameness of the actual play Purdue drew up, but i still don't think it was absolutely necessary at that point to make an all-or-nothing decision, especially when considering how ineffective UI was in stopping us.