Converts: 1 point or 2?

[B.C.FAN]

Leone is primarily a punter, so when you have an inexperienced rookie FG kicker it is not a bad idea to get him some extra live action convert kicking. So the convert becomes sort of a practice FG.

I'd rather let the offence practice scoring from the 3-yard line. It might help their red-zone efficiency.

[Qman]

Fyi

Roar Report ‏@RoarReport

@calstampeders 6 for 6 on 2pt conversions this year. Tedford are you watching #CFLgameday #BCLions

[Toppy Vann]

Lapo and Stegall at the half on the 2 pointers etc show what's happening to get DBS heading the wrong way and how offenses are structured to turn the DBs the wrong way. But that call on the fumble of the OTT 2 pointer brings real disrespect to the game. Climie says its due to the Ref arms up signalling score that killed the play. That is brutal considering if the DEF gets an INT they can run it all the way back. Two weeks of brutal fumble rule calls. Only in the CFL. It's a new 2 pt rule and fixable -but it harms the league when a fumble recovery like that is nullified to ref mis-call. CLimie says this came from Glen Johnson.

[B.C.FAN]

In the two Friday games this week, teams were 4 of 6 on 1-point attempts (for 4 points total) and 4 of 5 on 2-point attempts (for 8 points total). Calgary seems to be the only team that has figured out that the odds favour 2-point attempts, and they've executed perfectly.

[DanoT]

In the two Friday games this week, teams were 4 of 6 on 1-point attempts (for 4 points total) and 4 of 5 on 2-point attempts (for 8 points total). Calgary seems to be the only team that has figured out that the odds favour 2-point attempts, and they've executed perfectly.

I'm happy with the Lions going for 1 point converts in most situations. When they tried the 3rd and 3 gamble it was essentially the 2 point convert offense and it failed.

[Toppy Vann]

In the two Friday games this week, teams were 4 of 6 on 1-point attempts (for 4 points total) and 4 of 5 on 2-point attempts (for 8 points total). Calgary seems to be the only team that has figured out that the odds favour 2-point attempts, and they've executed perfectly.

I'm happy with the Lions going for 1 point converts in most situations. When they tried the 3rd and 3 gamble it was essentially the 2 point convert offense and it failed.

It was situational for BC as it would have made no sense to go for two on the first TD or 2nd and 3rd as TOR had zero at that time. Having said that If they were up 24 pts and not 21 to zip, it would have made a difference but they equally could have been 18 to 0 before TOR came back.

I don't see the third down gamble at all like a 2 pt attempt. There is nothing but spin being put on this by the 1040 commentators (showed confidence in their offense). The opposite could be then be said. Our DEF sucks ergo we must go for 3rd and 3 despite not getting a first down since we went up 3. It helped shift the momentum to the Argos who all of a sudden are WTF - these guys can be beaten - and they were.

I think the consensus will be this 32 yd PAT is a good thing. TSN said the Kickers are better from 33 out. Go figure. Missing at 32 but nailing the long ones including OTT's kicker last night who then wins it in OT with a FG.

[TheLionKing]

I prefer they move the ball back to the 5 yard line on the 2 point conversion. Make it more of a challenge. It's almost like a gimme scrimmaging on the 3

[Qman]

In the two Friday games this week, teams were 4 of 6 on 1-point attempts (for 4 points total) and 4 of 5 on 2-point attempts (for 8 points total). Calgary seems to be the only team that has figured out that the odds favour 2-point attempts, and they've executed perfectly.

I'm happy with the Lions going for 1 point converts in most situations. When they tried the 3rd and 3 gamble it was essentially the 2 point convert offense and it failed.

It was situational for BC as it would have made no sense to go for two on the first TD or 2nd and 3rd as TOR had zero at that time. Having said that If they were up 24 pts and not 21 to zip, it would have made a difference but they equally could have been 18 to 0 before TOR came back.

I don't see the third down gamble at all like a 2 pt attempt. There is nothing but spin being put on this by the 1040 commentators (showed confidence in their offense). The opposite could be then be said. Our DEF sucks ergo we must go for 3rd and 3 despite not getting a first down since we went up 3. It helped shift the momentum to the Argos who all of a sudden are WTF - these guys can be beaten - and they were.

I think the consensus will be this 32 yd PAT is a good thing. TSN said the Kickers are better from 33 out. Go figure. Missing at 32 but nailing the long ones including OTT's kicker last night who then wins it in OT with a FG.

Game would have been tied and went to OT if they went 3 for 3 on 2 pointers like calgary is doing. its a big difference

[Lions4ever]

I prefer they move the ball back to the 5 yard line on the 2 point conversion. Make it more of a challenge. It's almost like a gimme scrimmaging on the 3

I think setting the ball at the 3 is the smart move. Allows for more of a run/pass option. Placing the ball at the 5 is a passing only down for all intents and purposes.

[sj-roc]

Game would have been tied and went to OT if they went 3 for 3 on 2 pointers like calgary is doing. its a big difference

By the same token we could have been down by 6 instead of 3 if we'd failed on all of them. There was also a 7th point left on the field when Tor missed a 1PC on their final TD. So it cuts both ways.

And that's not even getting into whether Tor, given that they went for 2 (and got it) on the second of their three majors, would have also tried the 2PC on those other two scores because of whatever success we would have had doing likewise on our 3 TDs. Every play affects all that follows; to some extent you have to play to the scoreboard.

[sj-roc]

I prefer they move the ball back to the 5 yard line on the 2 point conversion. Make it more of a challenge. It's almost like a gimme scrimmaging on the 3

I think setting the ball at the 3 is the smart move. Allows for more of a run/pass option. Placing the ball at the 5 is a passing only down for all intents and purposes.

It seems like teams are having more success from the three that might have been expected. That being the case — and considering the goal of the change was not to give teams an almost automatic 2 points, but rather to make the convert decision more complicated and intriguing — I wouldn't be surprised if the league continued to tinker with the spot, perhaps moving it back to the 4YL next year.

It would be interesting to see the pass/run balance on these 2PC attempts this year — and perhaps on 2nd or 3rd down with 3 to 4 yards to go, in general, whether near goal or otherwise — and the relative success rates of the pass and the rush.

[B.C.FAN]

Through Week 5, teams are still attempting 1-point converts more than two-thirds of the time. Here are the updated success rates:

1-point attempts: 58 of 72 (80.6%). Points per attempt: 0.806
2-point attempts: 21 of 29 (72.4%). Points per attempt: 1.448

Of the 2-point attempts:
Run attempts: 6 of 8 (75.0%) - see note
Pass attempts: 15 of 21 (71.4%) - see note

With 1-point and 2-point converts having similar success rates, teams that don't attempt 2-point converts are leaving points on the field.

Note: There is at least one error in the official CFL stats package relating to the number of running and passing converts and success rates in Game 12, and the overall success of running and passing attempts, so these numbers do not coincide with the official league stats. I haven't doubled checked other games.

[DanoT]

Through Week 5, teams are still attempting 1-point converts more than two-thirds of the time. Here are the updated success rates:

1-point attempts: 58 of 72 (80.6%). Points per attempt: 0.806
2-point attempts: 21 of 29 (72.4%). Points per attempt: 1.448

Of the 2point attempts:
Run attempts: 6 of 8 (75.0%)
Pass attempts: 15 of 21 (71.4%)

With 1-point and 2-point converts having similar success rates, teams that don't attempt 2-point converts are leaving points on the field.

The problem with league wide statistical averages is that they skew the numbers for the above/below average teams. In other words if a team lacks the plays or personnel to consistently execute the 2 pointer then they should kick for 1.

[B.C.FAN]

The problem with league wide statistical averages is that they skew the numbers for the above/below average teams. In other words if a team lacks the plays or personnel to consistently execute the 2 pointer then they should kick for 1.

The argument can also be made that teams whose kickers can't reliably hit 1-point attempts should try for 2 instead. Calgary is the best example of that. Here are the success rates for 1-point converts:

Ham: 9 of 9 (100%)
Sas: 9 of 9 (100%)
Tor: 7 of 8 (88%)
B.C.: 7 of 8 (88%)
Ott: 4 of 5 (80%)
Edm: 8 of 11 (73%)
Mtl: 5 of 7 (71%)
Win: 6 of 10 (60%)
Cal: 3 of 5 (60%)

[Toppy Vann]

The CFL would be nuts to tinker any further with this rule. They got it right. It's not a gimme but it does make it either pass or run. I think it could have the unintended consequence of getting teams better in the final few yards and that is only good for the league.

That there can actually be things to discuss on what was a gimme before suggests it's a good thing.