This has been a recommendation by analytics-minded people for a long time. It was considered a better play even before they moved the PAT kicks back to the 15.
I had the opportunity to ask a person in an NFL front office about it a couple of years ago and was told "you will see it".
My son was with me at the time and on a phone call with him yesterday he said the Eagles did it this year. He said the Eagles made the 2 but still lost the game.
But this was fucking stupid.
--If you don't, it forces you to go for 2 again
--Even if you make it, the other team still makes it a 2 possession game with a FG
I think if you want to avoid OT, you have to wait until the very end of the game to go for the win instead of conceding OT, like Vrabel did
You miss then make 25%
You miss then miss 25%
So it wins 50%, loses 25%.
That was a good call. The dumb one was rushing at the end of the 1st half.
Saw no problem going for 2....OBj should have had it anyways....
Otherwise - I don't see how the analytics favor you, when your short yardage and red zone percentages are as low as ours are. The fact that the last 2PAT worked is irrelevant, that was garbage time.
you need a stop either way.
The analytics are very general. In baseball for example, on a high powered offensive team you're number 1 and 2 hitters are on base a lot. As a result the guy who hits 3rd in the lineup will continually have men on base. The people that think the 3rd spot should be the 5th best hitter don't understand that crummy teams don't have their 1 or 2 hitter on base near as much. So the data used is skewed.
Same thing here. For a team like the Saints or CHiefs etc sure you can go for 2. But for a team like the Giants in which so many things can go wrong, it's completely idiotic. You can't trust the OL, you can't trust the QB that much, the defense has a chance to make a great play and as we've seen even the best can drop a pass. It isn't just one of these reasons, but the sum of all of them highlighted by the poor OL.
WHen I hear Coach call his play aggressive as if that justifies stupidity - all I can do is laugh at him and shake my head. How did these guys ever get to other positions? is OL sucks. To try this was a mind-boggling ignorant decision.
This highlights the incompetency of the coach and probably the GM. That's why it gets brought up. And the coach doesn't realize it's dumb. It's noteworthy.
And for poster who said it’s dumb because you still need to score a touchdown, you kind of still need to score a touchdown with an extra point. That made no sense.
Also assume all kicks are good (this will actually lead to going for 2 looking worse).
Then probability of win in regulation is x.
Probability of loss in regulation is (1-x)(1-x).
Break even point is when
x = (1 - x) (1 - x)
x = x^2 - 2x + 1
x^2 - 3x + 1 = 0
Solution is x = (3 + sqrt(9 - 4*1*1))/2
x = 0.38
At the NFL rate which is about x=0.49 you should double your changes of a win (as Schurmur says) if overtime is a 50/50 proposition.
But given how we perform in the red zone, one can make the argument that we can't even get to 0.38.
Feel of the game imo takes precedence over analytics at times js
Feel of the game imo takes precedence over analytics at times js
the D has the same responsibilities either way.
And for poster who said it’s dumb because you still need to score a touchdown, you kind of still need to score a touchdown with an extra point. That made no sense.
Your question is silly. Why bother to play then? Teh team would have come back from a 14 point deficit int he 4th quarter and as a coach you'd have no belief whatsoever that your team can win?
Quote:
Offense - the same is true for this offense in OT. Would you trust them to win a game in OT or score a 2 point conversion. I am taking 2 point conversion all day.
And for poster who said it’s dumb because you still need to score a touchdown, you kind of still need to score a touchdown with an extra point. That made no sense.
Your question is silly. Why bother to play then? Teh team would have come back from a 14 point deficit int he 4th quarter and as a coach you'd have no belief whatsoever that your team can win?
It's not a matter of having no belief, it is a belief that your team has no more than a 50% chance of winning in overtime that motivates a strategy that gives more changes to win in regulation than to lose.
Also assume all kicks are good (this will actually lead to going for 2 looking worse).
Then probability of win in regulation is x.
Probability of loss in regulation is (1-x)(1-x).
Break even point is when
x = (1 - x) (1 - x)
x = x^2 - 2x + 1
x^2 - 3x + 1 = 0
Solution is x = (3 + sqrt(9 - 4*1*1))/2
x = 0.38
At the NFL rate which is about x=0.49 you should double your changes of a win (as Schurmur says) if overtime is a 50/50 proposition.
But given how we perform in the red zone, one can make the argument that we can't even get to 0.38.
The problem with the pov that this was a good decision and they use the formula to prove it-- the formula doesn't separate lousy offenses vs good offenses. AN offense that is explosive/effective in the Red Zone skews the data. For a poor Oline, and a subpar QB playing away from home the odds to get a 2 pt conversion are poor unless someone can prove otherwise using this decision was incredibly dumb.
And for the dude that suggested w'ed have have lost in overtime anyways. The person is making it up to justify his position. So if the GMen come back from a 14 pt deficit int he 4th qtr- this person is suggesting the Gmen have no chance in a game thet is essentially zero-zero to start with. WHy would he or anyone else b other to even watch then? If your team has no chance to win when the score is tied and even after you've scored the lats 14 points in the game leading into overtime, what's the point of the GMen playing or him watching? His pov makes no sense.
Quote:
In comment 14142480 bhill410 said:
Quote:
Offense - the same is true for this offense in OT. Would you trust them to win a game in OT or score a 2 point conversion. I am taking 2 point conversion all day.
And for poster who said it’s dumb because you still need to score a touchdown, you kind of still need to score a touchdown with an extra point. That made no sense.
Your question is silly. Why bother to play then? Teh team would have come back from a 14 point deficit int he 4th quarter and as a coach you'd have no belief whatsoever that your team can win?
It's not a matter of having no belief, it is a belief that your team has no more than a 50% chance of winning in overtime that motivates a strategy that gives more changes to win in regulation than to lose.
But they don't have a 50% chance of winning by trying to get 2 pt conversions. Not with THIS team. You're assuming all teams are equal at 2 pt conversions. They aren't.
One play to get 2 yards or one play to get 6 yards? Which one is more likely? Same oline and same QB....
I am not supporting the position of the other poster who seemed to say that we'd lose in OT anyway.
It would be like a baseball team utilizing the shift the once, getting beat by it and then never using it again.
The strength in using analytics is that over time the data should approach the mean. But if you choose to spot implement it, you can get burned.
It would be like a baseball team utilizing the shift the once, getting beat by it and then never using it again.
The strength in using analytics is that over time the data should approach the mean. But if you choose to spot implement it, you can get burned.
You gotta start somewhere.
That's the difference between using analytics smartly versus haphazardly deciding to use them. Again with the baseball analogy, teams practice using the shift, they don't just put their guys into it and expect them to succeed.