Went for two points too early

[sshulk]

With a whole quarter still to play you kick the PAT - you can't assume Clemson won't score again and even if they don't you keep more options on the table by kicking PAT and making it a 2 score game at -11 ... It's football 101

 

[Pazuzu]

At the time ND was down 12 points, making the 2 pts cuts it to 10. How is it some of you don't understand this?

The chart that Dick Vermeil developed in the 1970's is still used today and to give you credit IrishJohn, the chart does say to go for 2 when you are behind by 12. However, it just seems that whatever Kelly does backfires. I don't think the fans would be so annoyed with his decision if he did not have a history of blowing games with inane decision making.

Plus, I think this chart was designed to be used when it is very late in the game and you need one, max 2 defensive stops. Not in the 3rd quarter.

 

[HDK]

As I said earlier we would have needed to go for two at some point. going for it early gives us a chance to make it up later. Don't get it twisted. the slow start out of the gate and the turnovers cost us the game.

We would have only "needed" to go for two early if we knew Clemson wasn't going to score again and we were only going to score one TD and one field goal. Had we kicked, it would have been 21-10, 24-10, 24-17 and 24-24.

It wasn't the only thing that cost us the game: four turnovers, poor starts to both halves, lots of dropped passes were more than enough.

But the simple fact remains, if we had kicked the extra point after the first TD we would have been in position to tie the game with a kick and taken it to OT. And with the way we were playing late, I like our chances.

 

[cgvr]

9 minutes to go or whatever it was trying to cut it to a 10 point game, But had the Irish waited till the second score to go for 2 by that Time they would have realized it was a 14 point game and two touchdowns would tie. Reeks of Northwestern.

The fumbled are on the players, having to go for 2 is on the coaches.

We can argue the going for 2 call until we're blue in the face.

At the end of the day we needed the point.

If we make the 2 point conversion and everything holds to form we're kicking for the win....

It didn't work out and we lost.

PS for all those that criticize fans for being armchair quarterbacks... pre-game Sal, others were calling for swing/screen passes to Prosise, plus utilizing our speed underneath with short passing shots.... Clemson had no answer for the short stuff we threw at them. That may have opened up the running lanes too.... We failed to adjust until too late....

Clemson escaped....credit to them.... Lastly, I like Dabo and think he's heckuva guy.

 

[mbd11]

It could be that Kelly was trying to avoid OT on the road. You make 2 the first time, the next TD wins it. You miss, you can still try it again to tie. So I suppose I could understand that rationale.

 

[Johnnie82]

Had the Irish gone for the easier and more likely extra point, Notre Dame would have been down 11 points. That is still a bit of an uphill battle that would require a two-point conversion later on anyway, but it also meant Notre Dame had to score two touchdowns instead of a touchdown and a field goal for a shot at tying the game.

 

[Johnnie82]

here is Coach's answer to the question...

Brian Kelly: Well, I mean, you're obviously looking at the situation after the fact. If you look at it after the fact, you can draw any conclusion that you would like. But I wasn't -- I didn't have any of the information that you have right now after the fact. All I had was we were down and we got the chance to put that game into a two-score with a field goal. I don't chase the points until the fourth quarter, and our mathematical chart, which I have on the sideline with me and we have a senior adviser who concurred with me, and we said go for two. It says on our chart to go for two. We usually don't use the chart until the fourth quarter because, again, we don't chase the points. We went for two to make it a 10-point game. So we felt we had the wind with us so we would have to score a touchdown and a field goal because we felt like we probably only had three more possessions. The way they were running the clock and probably get three possessions maximum and we're going to have to score in two out of the three. So it was the smart decision to make, it was the right one to make. Obviously, you know, if we catch the two-point conversion, which was wide open, then we just kick the extra point and we've got a different outcome

 

[FightingIrish44]

As I said earlier we would have needed to go for two at some point. going for it early gives us a chance to make it up later. Don't get it twisted. the slow start out of the gate and the turnovers cost us the game.

I think this is a very valid point. However, I think ND should have taken the delay of game and kicked the XP rather than a TO.