Stop going for 2 pt conversions for no reason please

[MCHammer]

I've complained about this before and was told that percentage wise it makes sense for the Steelers to always go for 2. That is BS. There are times when it makes sense within the game to go for 2 and then there are times when it doesn't. Going for 2 when it makes no sense is a needless risk and something the Steelers do that is stupid.

It could have cost us this game. Of course, we ended up losing regardless because of face masks and a late TD that we did not come back from. But we easily could have lost because of leaving 3 extra points on the field. It would be nice for this never to happen again. Thanks.

[Starlifter]

I like the aggressive and I like going for 2. with all the playmakers this team has on offense - it's usually a better than 50/50 proposition. just didn't work out today.

ultimately however, don't think about the points we left off the board. the proper analysis is there is no amount of points we can score that our defense won't surrender. that is far more troubling than the 2 point conversion.

[MCHammer]

Usually better is not how I manage my affairs. I'm not in the charge of the Steelers though. My underlying point is that going for 2 in situations that don't call for it is an unnecessary risk. Unnecessary risks are bound to catch up with you, even if you usually get away with them.

I bring it up tonight because while it turned out to be irrelevant based on the final score, it sure seemed like we easily could have lost because of it for most of the game. This sort of thing is bad coaching and completely preventable. Sooner or later it will cost us a game. Keep us out of the playoffs. Or send us home earlier. I've said my piece.

[NorthCoast]

What the coaches may not be factoring in is that the more times you go for 2, the more teams see what you are doing and the chances of success start to drop. There is a reason why not every team is following Mike Tomlin's logic.

[bostonsteeler]

Usually better is not how I manage my affairs. I'm not in the charge of the Steelers though. My underlying point is that going for 2 in situations that don't call for it is an unnecessary risk. Unnecessary risks are bound to catch up with you, even if you usually get away with them.

I bring it up tonight because while it turned out to be irrelevant based on the final score, it sure seemed like we easily could have lost because of it for most of the game. This sort of thing is bad coaching and completely preventable. Sooner or later it will cost us a game. Keep us out of the playoffs. Or send us home earlier. I've said my piece.

The D would have responded very differently if they were protecting 4, rather than 1. Now they had to prevent the FG, and gave up the TD.
So the XPs did matter, and *did* affect the final outcome.

That said, I didn't mind his going for them. We'd be speaking differently if half of them succeeded (and two were close).

[Steelhere10]

I knew someone would blame this for the loss. But none was saying anything when it worked 11 out of 13 times last year and 2 for 2 this year. It wasn't a reason we lost, 31 teams would stop a team with 42 seconds left on the clock.

[Starlifter]

The D would have responded very differently if they were protecting 4, rather than 1. Now they had to prevent the FG, and gave up the TD.
So the XPs did matter, and *did* affect the final outcome.

That said, I didn't mind his going for them. We'd be speaking differently if half of them succeeded (and two were close).

lol. The D would have played differently? I'm afraid I have to disagree. I'm sure the game plan was not to commit stupid personal fouls and surrender the lead multiple times - so the amount of points we scored is irrelevant. This defense will do whatever it takes (not intentionally mind you) to let the other team score.

[MCHammer]

We'd be speaking differently if half of them succeeded (and two were close).

You can leave me out of the "we." It's a bad decision regardless of whether it works.

[papillon]

If this were a new "plan" for the Steelers I'd be a lot more upset by the decisions. However, since, this is something that the Steelers do often and are rather successful at converting, it doesn't bother me at all. They failed on the first and tried the 2nd to make for the first fail. The final two were dictated by the score of the game, which were dictated by the first failed attempt. Regardless, it's not new, so it is what it is, its easy to view it as idiotic in retrospect, but it was part of the game plan according to what I have read.

The part that is hard to understand is how futile those four plays looked. The offense was basically dictating the terms of every drive to the Cowboy defense and had them on their heels the entire game except for the four 2-point conversion attempts in which the offense looked totally inept.

The larger issue is the fact that the defense was handed two leads late in the game, one with a mere 42 seconds remaining and they were unable to close the door on Dallas.

Pappy

[SteelerOfDeVille]

i thought the commentators did a poor job of misrepresenting the facts... "spends the rest of the game chasing that point" is the dumbest statement ever. After the first 2, all the rest made perfect sense, based on score at the time...

Why be up 2 with an extra point when you could go for 2 and be up 3... you don't lose on a FG. It was just stupid for them to continue saying "chasing that point" when they did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do. Even Dallas went for 2 on both of their final 2 scores and failed.

Somehow i knew this would be a topic of discussion both here and in the media and it really was insignificant. Give them all 4 of the ones they tried and they still lose by 1... in fact, you could argue that it changed the game in a positive direction because had they not gone for them, Dallas would've not gone for their own - and would've had 37. The play to Brown would've been for a TIE, not for the lead...