Here’s what analytics say about Nick Sirianni’s decision to go for two after Eagles’ final score
PHILADELPHIA — What Nick Sirianni decided to do after the Eagles finally scored a second-half touchdown Friday was low on the list of reasons his team suffered an embarrassing 24-15 loss to the Chicago Bears that soured the holiday spirit of the crowd at Lincoln Financial Field.
The four-yard touchdown pass from Jalen Hurts to A.J. Brown came with 3:10 remaining and the Eagles still holding on to all three of their timeouts. The score left the Eagles down by nine points, so if they kicked the extra point they’d be guaranteed a chance to at least tie the game if they could get a stop and score another touchdown.
Go for two and get it and the Eagles would only need an extra point to even the score in the event they scored again or they could even be ultra aggressive and try for the victory.
Miss a two-point conversion attempt and it’s desperation time because they’d need two scores.
Siranni went for the last of those options and when Hurts’ frantic pass to Saquon Barkley fell incomplete, the game was essentially over.
The Eagles tried an onside kick that failed and later tried a 52-yard field goal to get within one score with 13 seconds left and that, too, failed.
It could be argued that the ill-conceived play on the two-point attempt was a much more accurate depiction of the Eagles’ biggest problem right now, but Sirianni was naturally asked about his decision to go for two.
“Obviously, we had to get one at one point,” Sirianni said. “We had to get a two-point conversion at one point. I’ve done a lot of studies on (what to do) in my notes (when) down nine (points). I’m always going to go for a two in that scenario, so I followed the plan. I don’t try to wing anything in situational football.
“Obviously, we didn’t (get it) in that particular case, but at some point, you’re going to need it and I always want to know early what I need going forward.”
Sirianni’s answer was based entirely on his own analytics study, but you’ll never get all football people to agree on what he did.
Former Giants quarterback and CBS analyst Phil Simms was quick to criticize the decision on an X post, saying this: “Why go for 2. Go for 1 . Put the pressure on Chicago.. Up 9 instead of 8. EAGLES NOW NEED TWO SCORES… Does not make sense”
Seth Walder, the analytics writer for ESPN, wrote about the topic in a 2023 article and came to an interesting conclusion about what a team should do down by nine points: “This actually is not so clear cut. Logically, it makes sense to go for two late, though the advantage is smaller than you might think. The idea is to find out now if you are down one score or two scores rather than finding out later, because it can affect your future decision-making. Our win probability model doesn’t always see it this way, however. If you were asking me: I’d go for two, but the advantage gained is certainly small.”
The beginning of Walder’s article, which covered a long list of scenarios that involve analytics, hit the nail on the head.
“NFL coaches make tough fourth-down and 2-point conversion decisions on every game day. Quantitative analysis can inform those decisions, both for those making calls on the sideline and fans evaluating their coach’s decision-making. So what do analytics tell us about these choices? Well, it’s complicated. Is there a cheat sheet that could help show the correct decisions? No and yes. There is not a simple answer because the permutations of game-management decisions in football are endless. That’s why it’s hard!”
