12-20-2020, 01:31 PM
It makes sense to gamble on a two point conversion defense. The penalty for guessing wrong is the same as for being one step slow, which is to say the try is converted. You probably wouldn't all out blitz on a random third and long at the opponent's 30; if you don't get to the QB, that can be a brobdingnagian gain. However, on a two point conversion, a big blitz makes sense, as if you get through (as we did) before the QB can get rid of it, you stop the conversion, and if you don't, the outcome (a conversion) is the same as if you rush four and the receiver catches the ball in the end zone and is immediately tackled. Likewise, selling out on a run blitz doesn't hurt you if the runner goes at the spot vacated by the blitzing linebacker any more than if you play it conservative and stop the runner after a 2.5 yard gain.
By the way, this is one place where Shaw has generally excelled in play calling. He often gambles successfully on two point conversion defenses (twice against Oregon, the play against UNC), and when he goes for a try, he often take advantage of the defense gambling (for example the two point conversion where we brought the heavy package against OSU, and proceeded to throw to Heimuli or in the past where we have run a naked bootleg).
BC
By the way, this is one place where Shaw has generally excelled in play calling. He often gambles successfully on two point conversion defenses (twice against Oregon, the play against UNC), and when he goes for a try, he often take advantage of the defense gambling (for example the two point conversion where we brought the heavy package against OSU, and proceeded to throw to Heimuli or in the past where we have run a naked bootleg).
BC