I was actually going to call in to the coaches show last night to ask this question, but life.

 

Hajrullahu is 4 for 7 on converts this year, clipping along at a rate that is nearly unacceptable. I don't know how much they want to tinker with things, seen as how he's perfect on field goals, but at what point does O'Shea make the call to start going for the two point convert on a regular basis?

 

Here's how the touchdowns we've scored breakdown this year.

 

Week 1 - 1st Q - Winnipeg 7 Saskatchewan 0 (convert good)

Week 1 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 14 Saskatchewan 7 (convert good)

Week 1 - 3rd Q - Winnipeg 23 Saskatchewan 23 (2 point convert good)

Week 1 - 4th Q - Winnipeg 30 Saskatchewan 26 (convert good)

 

Week 2 - 1st Q - Winnipeg 7 Hamilton 3 (convert NO good)

Week 2 - 2nd Q - Hamilton 38 Winnipeg 13 (convert NO good)

Week 2 - 4th Q - Hamilton 49 Winnipeg 26 (2 point convert good)

 

Week 3 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 12 Montreal 3 (convert NO good)

Week 3 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 19 Montreal 10 (convert good)

 

I understand why in some cases (all 3 converts in the SSK game) you would go for the single point. But Lirim is 1 for 4 since then and in nearly every situation, you could've argued it was reasonable to go for the 2 point convert.

 

Let's say we average 3 touchdowns a game (our current average) over the span of the year going forward. Even if we generously boost Lirim's conversion percentage from his current 57% to a fairly level 75% going forward, that would give him a total of 34/45 on single point converts going forward for the rest of the year. If that is the case, all we would need to do is see a 40% conversion rate of the 2 point convert (18/45) for us to actually end up coming out ahead.

 

Obviously this ignores the situational nature of some of those converts and I wouldn't expect O'Shea to not manage the game properly, but with the combination of Cam Marshall and Robert Marve looking so smooth in the 2 point conversion set they've been working, how bad does Lirim have to get before O'Shea elects to go for the 2 on a more regular basis? If he made the commitment to go for 2 every time EXCEPT for when it absolutely made sense to go for 1 (to give a 4 point lead late in a game, etc) I don't think I would be opposed to it ...

I just don't understand how Lirim is missing so many converts and yet obviously showing he is rather capable on field goals

I was actually going to call in to the coaches show last night to ask this question, but life.

 

Hajrullahu is 4 for 7 on converts this year, clipping along at a rate that is nearly unacceptable. I don't know how much they want to tinker with things, seen as how he's perfect on field goals, but at what point does O'Shea make the call to start going for the two point convert on a regular basis?

 

Here's how the touchdowns we've scored breakdown this year.

 

Week 1 - 1st Q - Winnipeg 7 Saskatchewan 0 (convert good)

Week 1 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 14 Saskatchewan 7 (convert good)

Week 1 - 3rd Q - Winnipeg 23 Saskatchewan 23 (2 point convert good)

Week 1 - 4th Q - Winnipeg 30 Saskatchewan 26 (convert good)

 

Week 2 - 1st Q - Winnipeg 7 Hamilton 3 (convert NO good)

Week 2 - 2nd Q - Hamilton 38 Winnipeg 13 (convert NO good)

Week 2 - 4th Q - Hamilton 49 Winnipeg 26 (2 point convert good)

 

Week 3 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 12 Montreal 3 (convert NO good)

Week 3 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 19 Montreal 10 (convert good)

 

I understand why in some cases (all 3 converts in the SSK game) you would go for the single point. But Lirim is 1 for 4 since then and in nearly every situation, you could've argued it was reasonable to go for the 2 point convert.

 

Let's say we average 3 touchdowns a game (our current average) over the span of the year going forward. Even if we generously boost Lirim's conversion percentage from his current 57% to a fairly level 75% going forward, that would give him a total of 34/45 on single point converts going forward for the rest of the year. If that is the case, all we would need to do is see a 40% conversion rate of the 2 point convert (18/45) for us to actually end up coming out ahead.

 

Obviously this ignores the situational nature of some of those converts and I wouldn't expect O'Shea to not manage the game properly, but with the combination of Cam Marshall and Robert Marve looking so smooth in the 2 point conversion set they've been working, how bad does Lirim have to get before O'Shea elects to go for the 2 on a more regular basis? If he made the commitment to go for 2 every time EXCEPT for when it absolutely made sense to go for 1 (to give a 4 point lead late in a game, etc) I don't think I would be opposed to it ...

 

At this point, I am not really worried about the in-game scoreboard situation. At a just over 50% rate of conversion on the single point, the rate of conversion for 2 points conversions being roughly 40-50%, it may become a case of "we might as well just go for two" and have the same rate of success. Not sure why Lirim is having problems with these but I suspect it's a mental thing.

 

I was actually going to call in to the coaches show last night to ask this question, but life.

 

Hajrullahu is 4 for 7 on converts this year, clipping along at a rate that is nearly unacceptable. I don't know how much they want to tinker with things, seen as how he's perfect on field goals, but at what point does O'Shea make the call to start going for the two point convert on a regular basis?

 

Here's how the touchdowns we've scored breakdown this year.

 

Week 1 - 1st Q - Winnipeg 7 Saskatchewan 0 (convert good)

Week 1 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 14 Saskatchewan 7 (convert good)

Week 1 - 3rd Q - Winnipeg 23 Saskatchewan 23 (2 point convert good)

Week 1 - 4th Q - Winnipeg 30 Saskatchewan 26 (convert good)

 

Week 2 - 1st Q - Winnipeg 7 Hamilton 3 (convert NO good)

Week 2 - 2nd Q - Hamilton 38 Winnipeg 13 (convert NO good)

Week 2 - 4th Q - Hamilton 49 Winnipeg 26 (2 point convert good)

 

Week 3 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 12 Montreal 3 (convert NO good)

Week 3 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 19 Montreal 10 (convert good)

 

I understand why in some cases (all 3 converts in the SSK game) you would go for the single point. But Lirim is 1 for 4 since then and in nearly every situation, you could've argued it was reasonable to go for the 2 point convert.

 

Let's say we average 3 touchdowns a game (our current average) over the span of the year going forward. Even if we generously boost Lirim's conversion percentage from his current 57% to a fairly level 75% going forward, that would give him a total of 34/45 on single point converts going forward for the rest of the year. If that is the case, all we would need to do is see a 40% conversion rate of the 2 point convert (18/45) for us to actually end up coming out ahead.

 

Obviously this ignores the situational nature of some of those converts and I wouldn't expect O'Shea to not manage the game properly, but with the combination of Cam Marshall and Robert Marve looking so smooth in the 2 point conversion set they've been working, how bad does Lirim have to get before O'Shea elects to go for the 2 on a more regular basis? If he made the commitment to go for 2 every time EXCEPT for when it absolutely made sense to go for 1 (to give a 4 point lead late in a game, etc) I don't think I would be opposed to it ...

 

At this point, I am not really worried about the in-game scoreboard situation. At a just over 50% rate of conversion on the single point, the rate of conversion for 2 points conversions being roughly 40-50%, it may become a case of "we might as well just go for two" and have the same rate of success. Not sure why Lirim is having problems with these but I suspect it's a mental thing.

 

 

I thought I heard/read that he's having trouble with the angle on the converts as they are centered rather than placed on the hash marks like field goals.   If that's the case, I'd assume it's just a matter of time before he's comfortable with them.

I like the idea of going for 2 more often and not just for us.  Assuming a 100% 1 point convert, and that's actually a bad assumption, all you need is 50.1% on two pointers for them to be a better idea.  The only question is.. Is that realistic from the 3?  With a good offense and the new rules I think it is.

I like the idea of going for 2 more often and not just for us.  Assuming a 100% 1 point convert, and that's actually a bad assumption, all you need is 50.1% on two pointers for them to be a better idea.  The only question is.. Is that realistic from the 3?  With a good offense and the new rules I think it is.

 

Earlier in the game, I think using pure math like this can make sense.  Come the second half and especially the 4th quarter the score has to be taken into account to decide what to do.  

 

If your touchdown puts you two points ahead of your opponent, do you really want to risk that 49.9% chance (or whatever the number is) of missing your 2 point convert, or take the more likely scenario of being up by a field goal.

I think the convert percentage will start going up. Right now it's in the kickers head. They'll get used to it. The '2s' will be more frequent in bad weather and windy conditions. IMO a professional football kicker has a much better chance of kicking the singles and once they figure it out they'll be fine.

Ignoring Lirim's struggles - that's just a temporary blip - the math supports going for the 2 points every time.  I was using different numbers the other day when discussing this with a friend but the conclusion was the same.

 

If we're needing a point to send the game into overtime or some other specific situation, that's the tough decisions he gets paid to make.  Otherwise, for the run of the mill touchdowns, it shouldn't be a decision at all.  Go for 2 every time.

 

Coaches have it ingrained into their old school psyche - take the sure points.  Thing is, a single is no longer sure points.  Be a rebel and follow the new school math.

I've been thinking the same thing all season.  If we're going to be 75% on convert kicks... every 10 TD's we score, the converts are worth 7.5 pts. 

 

The NFL's historical success rate to-date on 2 pt converts is 47.9%.  If we do that, that's 9.5 pts per 10 TD's.

 

The math is in favor of being progressive... if only the coaches would buy in.

The only time I am in favour of kicking for 1 point now is if it's in the second half and it's really a no-brainer to get the extra point. To win, to put yourself within 3, etc.

You only need to make just over 50 percent on your two point tries to make it worth it, and I feel given our red zone, goal line offense that we would easily surpass it.

There are NFL studies showing that teams should be going for 2 more consistently. I would be willing to bet that the evidence holds up in the CFL too.

I'll think he'll start using the 2 point around the same time he realizes Hurl isn't cutting it at MLB ... translation? We may have to wait awhile

I was actually going to call in to the coaches show last night to ask this question, but life.

Hajrullahu is 4 for 7 on converts this year, clipping along at a rate that is nearly unacceptable. I don't know how much they want to tinker with things, seen as how he's perfect on field goals, but at what point does O'Shea make the call to start going for the two point convert on a regular basis?

Here's how the touchdowns we've scored breakdown this year.

Week 1 - 1st Q - Winnipeg 7 Saskatchewan 0 (convert good)

Week 1 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 14 Saskatchewan 7 (convert good)

Week 1 - 3rd Q - Winnipeg 23 Saskatchewan 23 (2 point convert good)

Week 1 - 4th Q - Winnipeg 30 Saskatchewan 26 (convert good)

Week 2 - 1st Q - Winnipeg 7 Hamilton 3 (convert NO good)

Week 2 - 2nd Q - Hamilton 38 Winnipeg 13 (convert NO good)

Week 2 - 4th Q - Hamilton 49 Winnipeg 26 (2 point convert good)

Week 3 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 12 Montreal 3 (convert NO good)

Week 3 - 2nd Q - Winnipeg 19 Montreal 10 (convert good)

I understand why in some cases (all 3 converts in the SSK game) you would go for the single point. But Lirim is 1 for 4 since then and in nearly every situation, you could've argued it was reasonable to go for the 2 point convert.

Let's say we average 3 touchdowns a game (our current average) over the span of the year going forward. Even if we generously boost Lirim's conversion percentage from his current 57% to a fairly level 75% going forward, that would give him a total of 34/45 on single point converts going forward for the rest of the year. If that is the case, all we would need to do is see a 40% conversion rate of the 2 point convert (18/45) for us to actually end up coming out ahead.

Obviously this ignores the situational nature of some of those converts and I wouldn't expect O'Shea to not manage the game properly, but with the combination of Cam Marshall and Robert Marve looking so smooth in the 2 point conversion set they've been working, how bad does Lirim have to get before O'Shea elects to go for the 2 on a more regular basis? If he made the commitment to go for 2 every time EXCEPT for when it absolutely made sense to go for 1 (to give a 4 point lead late in a game, etc) I don't think I would be opposed to it ...

At this point, I am not really worried about the in-game scoreboard situation. At a just over 50% rate of conversion on the single point, the rate of conversion for 2 points conversions being roughly 40-50%, it may become a case of "we might as well just go for two" and have the same rate of success. Not sure why Lirim is having problems with these but I suspect it's a mental thing.

I thought I heard/read that he's having trouble with the angle on the converts as they are centered rather than placed on the hash marks like field goals. If that's the case, I'd assume it's just a matter of time before he's comfortable with them.

This....it was in the paper last week.

The maths behind this came out on esksfans.com:

 

Farhan Lalji has tweeted that so far this season across the CFL, success rates are 80% for 1 pt converts (35/44) and 2 pt converts at 72% (13/18).

 

Until near the end of the game (when situational issues determine what you choose), you should be maximizing your point total at every opportunity. From the stats quoted by GWN, going for a PAT nets you 0.8 points on average, and going for 2 nets you 1.44 points on average. You score, say, three TDs in a game, that's a difference of roughly 2 points every game. Could make the difference between winning and losing a game or two per year.

 

Since Lirum is way below the CFL average for 1 pointers, we should be going for the 2 points.

Teams should always go for two unless it's late in the game and a single point will increase your lead to either 4 or 8. Statistics are great but they don't neccesarily account for situational aspects.

The only time I am in favour of kicking for 1 point now is if it's in the second half and it's really a no-brainer to get the extra point. To win, to put yourself within 3, etc.

You only need to make just over 50 percent on your two point tries to make it worth it, and I feel given our red zone, goal line offense that we would easily surpass it.

There are NFL studies showing that teams should be going for 2 more consistently. I would be willing to bet that the evidence holds up in the CFL too.

 

You actually only need to make over 50% of your 2 pt tries if you assume that you would make 100% of your 1 pt converts. 

 

I wasn't able to quickly find a hard number, but field goals 30-39 yards since 2010 have averaged approx. 85%.  So let's say that Lirim hits 85% of his field goals.  That's 17 pts. on 20 TD's.  Contrast that with hitting the NFL average of 47.9% of 2 pt. converts... 19 pts on 20 TD's. 

 

I'll agree with your point of kicking for 1 in no-brainer situations... but that's the only time I would support it personally.

Pffft... Math Geeks

 

Lirim spent the off days this weekend in Ontario with his kicking coach. I am sure they were working on his converts.

I wouldn't mind at all if the Bombers made 2 point conversions "our thing", especially in the 1st half of the games. We have the potential, with the personnel packages we could employ, to own this two-point thing.

One thing to remember is that Lirim's struggles might affect his chances at a NFL look-see.  Bad for him sadly, but potentially, good for us.

Yeah, it'd be awesome for us if he sucked....................................

Yeah, it'd be awesome for us if he sucked....................................

Sucked, relatively speaking.  We walk a fine line in this league.  We need players to be good, but not too good.  

They should go for the two points. Not only do they have a reasonable chance of making it they also are able to work on different plays that could be helpful when they need a few yards to score a touchdown. 

another option - take a knee!

I think as coaches and players start to adjust we'll start to see 2 pointers on a more consistent basis... it just takes time for things like this to really sink in...

another option - take a knee!

No one asked you Tim Burke. 

Easy way to keep the options open.......score more touchdowns....