for Wentz all night long for how poorly he is playing
Griese is right overall. While Wentz isn't playing well, the entire offense is coming apart at the seams.
Some of those All-22 shots are quite revealing in how much the Eagle receivers are struggling to get open....
Have you seen these throws tonight ? He is undethrowing and overthrowing everyone and they are not even close. He might not have all world talent around him but these throws are garbage
RE: When the Giants beat WAS, they are a doormat..
But, now WAS is dangerous. Just cracks me up, the Giants never get credit for those wins.
It’s interesting that aside from those 2 losses to the Giants, Washington is 4-5. They really aren’t a bad team at all. I’m saying that to point out the fact we swept them isn’t saying more than I think most people think IMO
I think it was the same situation as we had against the Falcons in Shurmur's first year. Gives them an opportunity to win in regulation and if they missed it were still in a one possession game.
Down 14, score TD , covert 2pt, next possession you can win with TD and XP. If you don’t covert the first 2pt you can still tie on the next possession.
The more reasonable explanation is that pederson is an arrogant dick and probably wanted to piss off bettors.
When Frank Reich was the OC in Philly. I wonder if he ends up there at some point.
There is a lot of talk about Wentz having bad practice habits in Philly. Supposedly, Reich and DeFillipo (QB coach) were supposedly on him constantly about that. They also had dominate lines at that point. Wentz's struggles without a superior run game have been well documented. They also played a very easy schedule that year as in their opponents had the lowest winning percentage of any team in the NFC.
He looked pretty bad up until the last 4 games of the season last year. Then he played the NFC East which was probably worse last year.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Simply put, its a trade off between making the 2 pointer to win in regulation vs missing twice to lose in regulation.
Green Bay did it this year. They got within 6 and got the ball but they couldn't get the winning touchdown.
Giants and Philadelphia did it last year.
However I do wonder whether the team that has scored two late touchdowns would have an advantage in OT (momentum argument).
Pederson with a really stupid answer about not kicking
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Great explanation Paul, thanks. I thought there could be something like that, that's why I asked what I was missing. Just looked insane at the time.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Simply put, its a trade off between making the 2 pointer to win in regulation vs missing twice to lose in regulation.
Green Bay did it this year. They got within 6 and got the ball but they couldn't get the winning touchdown.
Giants and Philadelphia did it last year.
However I do wonder whether the team that has scored two late touchdowns would have an advantage in OT (momentum argument).
They are using blanket percentages across the league, however I believe the odds of a crappy team like Philly getting two 2-pointers are worse than lets say KC. KC I can see it, they will get one. Philly sucks.
Personally I would kick the XP if I were the crappy Eagles. There is a lot going on and a lot more to day, why add the extra risk. Take it to over time if you have played that well to catch up
that was one of teh points I was making before with Pederson.
On a good team, his gambles work. On a bad team they don't. And it starts to snowball into more poor decisions.
It is like the whole riverboat Ron narrative. When rivers takes chances with good teams - it tends to pay off and when he does it with poor teams, it often backfires.
I think some of these guys don't factor in the quality of the team when doing the math.
some teams are better than others, sure, but blanket percentages are using league averages and you can go back several years and see that even bad teams can be decent at 2 point conversions and vice versa. Even still, teams would have to be VERY, VERY bad at 2 point conversions to make it not worth while.
In fact, even if you used a 40% conversion rate, the team would end up with a 52% chance of winning by going for 2 early, rather than a 50% sending it to overtime. And when you consider that XPs are only ~94% likely, then the true 2-point conversion rate to make it worthwhile to go for 2 is actually down to 37.6% to still be better off.
The other thing you aren't factoring is that a bad team that is less likely to score a 2 point conversion is also a bad team that is less likely to win in Overtime. So even kicking two extra points just to get to OT isn't necessarily a good thing if it's a bad team, because then you have to throw out the blanket 50-50 OT proposition.
And again, it's worth remembering that XPs are not automatic. They are 93.9% this year across the league, meaning that landing both XPs just to get to OT is only 88%.
still makes sense to go for it. At that point, the Eagles were down 11, meaning they needed all of the following things to happen:
FG
TD
2 point conversion
Prevent Seattle from getting a FG or TD
... and that just gets them to Overtime, which is a 50-50 proposition if you give them an equal chance to win.
I think a big mental hurdle involved with these decisions is that there is the belief that just getting to overtime is a "win." That scoring multiple times to tie it up gives the team fresh life in overtime. And while getting to overtime sure beats losing in regulation, it isn't a win. It' still a coin-flip at that point.
In most cases, going for it on 4th and 4 from the opponent's 15 should be a go for it decision. The value of a TD in that case is so much more valuable than a FG.
The Eagles didn't need a TD on that play-- they could have picked up a first down.
By going for it on that play (lower likelihood than a FG, but higher expected value), the Eagles were trying to set themselves up to win the game.
If they get the TD, they are down 5, at which point they could go for 2 to make it a 3 point game, or kick an XP to make it a 4 point game. In either event, the Eagles scoring anotheer TD wins the game. And it also allows the Eagles to give up a FG to Seattle in the remaining 9 minutes, and still win the game in regulation or overtime.
These announcers are duds.
Well there is no 5th down but if there was...yes. Yes, he most definitely would.
Nice to know that the QB is blameless up in situations like this wish I’d known earlier the year for Jones threads.
Griese is right overall. While Wentz isn't playing well, the entire offense is coming apart at the seams.
Some of those All-22 shots are quite revealing in how much the Eagle receivers are struggling to get open....
Quote:
for Wentz all night long for how poorly he is playing
Griese is right overall. While Wentz isn't playing well, the entire offense is coming apart at the seams.
Some of those All-22 shots are quite revealing in how much the Eagle receivers are struggling to get open....
Add in 9 or 10 OL combinations and nearly 5 sacks a game on average. He's not playing well by any stretch but yeah, hes not getting *any* help at all.
Quote:
for Wentz all night long for how poorly he is playing
Griese is right overall. While Wentz isn't playing well, the entire offense is coming apart at the seams.
Some of those All-22 shots are quite revealing in how much the Eagle receivers are struggling to get open....
Have you seen these throws tonight ? He is undethrowing and overthrowing everyone and they are not even close. He might not have all world talent around him but these throws are garbage
Never at all! This is surely a great win for Seattle. Not impressive when we did it.
It’s interesting that aside from those 2 losses to the Giants, Washington is 4-5. They really aren’t a bad team at all. I’m saying that to point out the fact we swept them isn’t saying more than I think most people think IMO
Get your shot together!
Right ???? 😂 I was trying to figure out what the hell that was about (going for 2)
It adds to the self-perceived legend of Pederson being a misunderstood genius
Just pederson being pederson.
We get almost six days of this. Ahhhhh.
IF the Giants win on Sunday, it won't stop. MmmmmmMM!
Quote:
Am i missing something?
It adds to the self-perceived legend of Pederson being a misunderstood genius
The misunderstood genius is going to get eviscerated by the local media tomorrow.
I think it was the same situation as we had against the Falcons in Shurmur's first year. Gives them an opportunity to win in regulation and if they missed it were still in a one possession game.
Quote:
In comment 15062725 j_rud said:
Quote:
Am i missing something?
It adds to the self-perceived legend of Pederson being a misunderstood genius
The misunderstood genius is going to get eviscerated by the local media tomorrow.
Actually gonna listen to the WIP postgame on radio.com. Eagles losses are almost as good as Giants wins.
The more reasonable explanation is that pederson is an arrogant dick and probably wanted to piss off bettors.
He looked pretty bad up until the last 4 games of the season last year. Then he played the NFC East which was probably worse last year.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Simply put, its a trade off between making the 2 pointer to win in regulation vs missing twice to lose in regulation.
Green Bay did it this year. They got within 6 and got the ball but they couldn't get the winning touchdown.
Giants and Philadelphia did it last year.
However I do wonder whether the team that has scored two late touchdowns would have an advantage in OT (momentum argument).
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Great explanation Paul, thanks. I thought there could be something like that, that's why I asked what I was missing. Just looked insane at the time.
What on earth makes Jim Schwartz think that is a good idea?
Quote:
Said he wasn't where Megatron is. What a douche that guy is.
What on earth makes Jim Schwartz think that is a good idea?
Just his personality.
Quote:
after the first TD.
You have to assume that you score two TDs, or the whole debate is moot anyway.
But going for 2 after the first TD would give the team a 62.5% to win, whereas kicking an XP would give the team a 50% to win.
Assume XPs are 100% and 2pt conversions are 50% for sake of ease (in reality, it's closer to 94% and 47%, so still 2:1).
If you kick an XP after the first TD, then after the second TD you have two choices: kick another XP just to get to OT which is a 50-50 crap shoot. OR, go for 2 to try and win the game, which is also 50%. Either way, kicking an XP first gives you about a 50% to win.
Also, if you're going to go for 2 after the second TD anyway, then you are much better off doing it after the first TD so that you have more information earlier and so that you at least have two chances at a conversion.
BUT, if you go for 2 after the first TD, here's what happens. You can set yourself up to win in regulation, AND gives yourself a chance to win in OT if you fail.
Simply put, its a trade off between making the 2 pointer to win in regulation vs missing twice to lose in regulation.
Green Bay did it this year. They got within 6 and got the ball but they couldn't get the winning touchdown.
Giants and Philadelphia did it last year.
However I do wonder whether the team that has scored two late touchdowns would have an advantage in OT (momentum argument).
They are using blanket percentages across the league, however I believe the odds of a crappy team like Philly getting two 2-pointers are worse than lets say KC. KC I can see it, they will get one. Philly sucks.
Personally I would kick the XP if I were the crappy Eagles. There is a lot going on and a lot more to day, why add the extra risk. Take it to over time if you have played that well to catch up
On a good team, his gambles work. On a bad team they don't. And it starts to snowball into more poor decisions.
It is like the whole riverboat Ron narrative. When rivers takes chances with good teams - it tends to pay off and when he does it with poor teams, it often backfires.
I think some of these guys don't factor in the quality of the team when doing the math.
In fact, even if you used a 40% conversion rate, the team would end up with a 52% chance of winning by going for 2 early, rather than a 50% sending it to overtime. And when you consider that XPs are only ~94% likely, then the true 2-point conversion rate to make it worthwhile to go for 2 is actually down to 37.6% to still be better off.
The other thing you aren't factoring is that a bad team that is less likely to score a 2 point conversion is also a bad team that is less likely to win in Overtime. So even kicking two extra points just to get to OT isn't necessarily a good thing if it's a bad team, because then you have to throw out the blanket 50-50 OT proposition.
And again, it's worth remembering that XPs are not automatic. They are 93.9% this year across the league, meaning that landing both XPs just to get to OT is only 88%.
Yeah, I don't get this one either. Just kick the stupid FG, then they wouldn't need two TDs at the end
FG
TD
2 point conversion
Prevent Seattle from getting a FG or TD
... and that just gets them to Overtime, which is a 50-50 proposition if you give them an equal chance to win.
I think a big mental hurdle involved with these decisions is that there is the belief that just getting to overtime is a "win." That scoring multiple times to tie it up gives the team fresh life in overtime. And while getting to overtime sure beats losing in regulation, it isn't a win. It' still a coin-flip at that point.
In most cases, going for it on 4th and 4 from the opponent's 15 should be a go for it decision. The value of a TD in that case is so much more valuable than a FG.
The Eagles didn't need a TD on that play-- they could have picked up a first down.
By going for it on that play (lower likelihood than a FG, but higher expected value), the Eagles were trying to set themselves up to win the game.
If they get the TD, they are down 5, at which point they could go for 2 to make it a 3 point game, or kick an XP to make it a 4 point game. In either event, the Eagles scoring anotheer TD wins the game. And it also allows the Eagles to give up a FG to Seattle in the remaining 9 minutes, and still win the game in regulation or overtime.
I didn't get this at all - what a dumb decision.