Go for it every time. If you are beating a team by 5 scores. Why not go for two get your 2 and 3 string in the game and do not risk your starters. Even if your 2 or 3 string get scored on once or twice the running clock will melt the game away and those scores will not matter.

Go for it every time. If you are beating a team by 5 scores. Why not go for two get your 2 and 3 string in the game and do not risk your starters. Even if your 2 or 3 string get scored on once or twice the running clock will melt the game away and those scores will not matter.

An opposing thought might be to ask why do you need the running clock to get your 2's and 3's in the game? If you go for 1, couldn't you still put your younger guys in the game, and they would get more minutes without the running clock?

I have seen a lot of coaches that will go for the 2 on the second or third TD. That way when the time comes you just kick the xp and all the sensitive people are none the wiser.

I would go for 2 to get a running clock especially if you don’t have the players. (Mason county) for example.... too many kids hurt or for other reasons. So yes I would protect what I have especially if I am playoff bound.

I Get what you are saying. But you don't want to put your 2 and 3 string in and let them give up big lead and have to return your starters to the game. Especially if you get a running clock at half time. Just my personal opinion I would not want to risk it or my starters.

Go for 2

I really like what Boyle did last week. Once the running clock was achieved, Boyle went with subs and JV. But when they got down into the red zone, the coaches kicked 2 field goals with the first team unit just to get the practice reps in. One was from the right hash, one from the left. And they didn't do it on 4th down, just whenever they got within reasonable field goal range. Constantly working to get better in game situations.

An opposing thought might be to ask why do you need the running clock to get your 2's and 3's in the game? If you go for 1, couldn't you still put your younger guys in the game, and they would get more minutes without the running clock?

 

That's where I'm at. I hate shortening the game. It only hurts the kids that already don't get much playing time.

In general, I am finding it hard to come up with a situation where I would go for 2. It would have to be some unusual situation for me to go for 2.

 

In the first half of a game, I would never go for 2. I want my first team to play the entire first half, stay conditioned and stay in the game routine so why go for 2. The only time I would ever consider going for 2 in the first half were if I was playing an opponent that I legitimately thought could come back on us. In that case, get the clock running and shorten the game. Except for that, I would never go for 2 in the first half.

 

In the second half, again, I have a hard time thinking why I would go for 2. It would be a call based on opponent and game situation but what that situation is that would cause me to go for it, I am not sure.

In general, I am finding it hard to come up with a situation where I would go for 2. It would have to be some unusual situation for me to go for 2.

 

In the first half of a game, I would never go for 2. I want my first team to play the entire first half, stay conditioned and stay in the game routine so why go for 2. The only time I would ever consider going for 2 in the first half were if I was playing an opponent that I legitimately thought could come back on us. In that case, get the clock running and shorten the game. Except for that, I would never go for 2 in the first half.

 

In the second half, again, I have a hard time thinking why I would go for 2. It would be a call based on opponent and game situation but what that situation is that would cause me to go for it, I am not sure.

 

Starters play until halftime regardless of the score, although I may put in some backups I would like to get some reps with my first team. I’m not so much worried about conditioning etc, if it’s late in the season. Anytime you can shorten a game late in the season to reduce wear and tear, you do it.

I am perplexed by this. On one hand you want to put a team out of their misery early and getting the running clock and putting in back-ups will prevent you from running up the score and on the other hand, you want your starters to get the kind of minutes to prepare them for future games. Either way, you trust your coaching staff to make the right decision for the situation you are in.

Yep. Let's get this thing over with ASAP.

I really like what Boyle did last week. Once the running clock was achieved, Boyle went with subs and JV. But when they got down into the red zone, the coaches kicked 2 field goals with the first team unit just to get the practice reps in. One was from the right hash, one from the left. And they didn't do it on 4th down, just whenever they got within reasonable field goal range. Constantly working to get better in game situations.

 

Good idea by Smith. He did similar things his first go-around at Boyle, before the running clock was a state mandate, kicking field goals on early downs at the end of blowouts.

I once saw a team take a knee on an extra point to NOT get to the running clock.

Would it be too gauche to ask the opposing coach what he would prefer you do?