Ok ... 90% might have been a bit of an exaggeration. I'll give you that. As far as "insane logic" goes ... read my post #37 above. I'm not backing off that philosophy. It's a simple risk/reward decision ... minimal risk / big reward.
in general yes I'm against it, but as a 2-5 team desperate for wins i didn't dislike the call. it's extremely hard to stop a 4th an inches in the NFL. they are just as successful as a FG if not more. 2 point conversions not so much.
And there's this ... http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rsions-remain-a-better-bet-than-extra-points/
And this one talks about going for two when nobody on earth thinks it's a good idea ... http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...he_late_game_scenario_in_which_going_for.html Doesn't really apply to my specific argument, but still interesting.
lol article is dumb and contradicts itself 60% going for 2 95% going for 1 its basing the fact that if you were to go for each 10 times say at the average you'd get 5 points going for 1 and 6 points going for 2. but that assumes your scoring enough TDs and actually converting more then half your 2 point tries. something the jets don't do well. maybe for a team with a better offense it might be worth the risk, but leaving points on the table and losing a close one will always be bad on a coach and thats an average. Take the jets who are dead last in goal to go and dead last in red zone efficiency and our chances would be much less then 60%
I don't think this year's 60% success rate on 2 point conversions is sustainable. Nevertheless, there isn't really an advantage to kicking anymore, so it should come down to the strengths/weaknesses of your team.
The article doesn't contradict itself. But you raise a valid point about the Jets's lack of success in the red zone.
I'm watching a perfect example ... Denver scored and kicked a PAT to go up by 8 with 3:00 left. They could have ended the game with a successful two point conversion to go up by 9. Instead, they left KC with life. TD - 2pt conversion ... and here comes OT. JUST PLAIN STUPID When will these coaches learn? It has nothing to do with balls. It's just simple Risk / Reward.
Carroll did what you wanted two weeks ago, and the second guessers were within a yard of having a field day. Honestly though I'll admit I'm starting to come around to the mindset of being agressive. Generally the worst case is ONLY that you make it easier for the other team to tie the game. Either way you can't lose in regulation though, well unless the other team pulls a Del Rio and goes for two themselves.
Hindsight is 20/20. Had KC's 2 point conversion failed, Kubiak's decision would have seemed great. In this case, it comes down to whether you think you or your opponents have a better chance of a successful 2 pointer.
It's not hindsight. Been saying it for years. The right move is to go for the 9 point lead, and it's just mind boggling how many people don't get this. Best case -- you end the game with a successful conversion. Worst case -- you still have a 7 point lead, and they need to score and kick a PAT ... and you go to OT anyway. Basically, what you're doing when you make the lead 8 points instead of 7 or 9, is guaranteeing that the other team still has a chance to win. It makes no sense. The downside to failing on the 2 pointer is so minimal, you have to be crazy not to try it. EDIT --- btw ... imagine that we're talking about a team with a good NFL offense. Not the Jets.
Except that your two-pointer up 7 can win the game, the other team's down 8 can only tie it. The rub is there has to be so little time left there can literally be no chance of the other team getting two possessions, that's where it could backfire. Last night with three minutes left and the Chiefs having no timeouts was probably one of those situations where you could get away with it...unless they run the kickoff back for the TD or deep.
I couldn't agree more. It makes no sense not to try to go up by 9. One play wins the game, and missing on it doesn't lose you the game.
Mathematically, this situation doesn't favor going for two any more than the regular run of play. If you're interested in getting technical, here's how the math goes. First assume the success rate for an XP is 94% and that of a 2 pointer is 47%. I'm picking these numbers so that during the regular run of play, there's no difference between going for 1 or 2. If you go for 2, the only way you can lose the game is if you miss the conversion, concede a TD, concede an XP, and lose in OT. The probability of this happening is 0.53*p*0.94*q, where p = the probability of conceding a TD, and q = the probability of losing in OT. This simplifies to 0.4982*p*q. If you go for 1, there are two ways you can lose. You can make the XP, concede a TD, concede a 2 pointer, and lose in OT. Or you can miss the XP, concede a TD, concede an XP, and lose in OT. The probability of Scenario 1 is 0.94*p*0.47*q = 0.4418*p*q, and the probability of Scenario 2 is 0.06*p*0.94*q = 0.0564*p*q. Adding these probabilities (which you can do because they're mutually exclusive, considering you can't both make and miss your XP), we get 0.4982*p*q. This is the same probability of losing if you go for 2.
I have to admit my brain is bleeding, but there is one major flaw in your analysis ... All you talk about is the probability of losing. You completely ignore the fact that you effectively end the football game if you convert the 47% play. So almost half the time, you bury them. And even if you don't end it right there, the probability of winning, is still in your favor. It's not as if getting stopped puts you in a bad position, or changes momentum. The downside is so small compared to the upside. In fact, the ONLY way your opponent can take advantage of the miss, is if they go the length of the field and score. A lot still has to to go right for them before you have to flip that coin for OT. The bottom line is, the advantage between having an 8 point lead with 3:00 left, or a 7 point lead with 3:00 left is minimal. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, But it PALES in comparison to the difference between an 8 point lead and a 9 point lead. That difference is enormous. That's why you take advantage of the opportunity to extend the lead to 9. I've said all along ... this is a simple risk/reward decision. Minimal risk / Big reward. As in anything in life, those are exactly the opportunities you look for and try to take advantage of. Let me ask you this ... look at it from the other side ... As a Jet fan, how would you be feeling if you just gave up the late TD to go down 7, and now you see them lining up for two? Would you be wishing they would just set up for the XP? I bet you would. And let's suppose the Jets stopped them. Would you like our chances of winning so much more, because we're only down 7 instead of 8?
If you want to convert the probability of losing to the probability of winning, just take 1 minus the probability of losing. Also, I addressed the fact that you end the game if you get 2 by saying there's only one way you can lose, and that happens if you didn't get the 2. It seems intuitive that a 2 point attempt is better, but in this case, the intuition isn't correct. It's kind of like the Monty Hall problem in that way. Chase Stuart gives a similar explanation in this article. http://www.footballperspective.com/up-by-1-after-scoring-a-late-touchdown-should-teams-go-for-two/
I agree with the going for 2 there but there is a second way to lose, though unlikely. Don't convert the 2, concede TD, other team makes 2. Though you also have another win possibility if the team doesn't convert.
