Forgive me I don't follow college football so I don't get the college football reference. At least Ron Rivera will get a few extra hours of sleep tonight and a bit of a head start on the Panthers next opponent than if he had to coach a OT quarter of football. Sleep tight, Ron Rivera.
PFT is saying that Alex Smith's injury happened 33 years to the day Joe Theisman suffered his injury. How eery is that?
Alex Smith broken leg. Mariota hurt his elbow. Titans defensive coordinator had to leave the game due to a medical issue. Texans had two guards go down. Colts lost their center. Falcons down a safety. OJ Howard down with an ankle injury. Jason Kelce already hurt. Kinda glad this is our bi-week. Edit: Eagles lost a DB in addition.
You see that kind of thing more often in college football. Many important games have been decided that way. I think it's because many college teams don't trust their D in OT. In the NFL, it's a dumb move, almost never justified, but seems to happen more and more often.
Newton is no Tom Brady. It's always higher percentage to go for 1, unless the kicker/long snapper was hurt.
It is? From what I've heard, the odds of making a 2 pointer are about 47% and the odds of making an extra point are about 94-95%. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-nfl-teams-are-going-for-two-just-as-they-should-be/ Which means on average a 2 pointer is higher percentage. So considering the Panthers offense and Lions defense are both league average, the Panthers kicker is shaky, and there's no reason to think the Panthers would have a significant edge in OT, it seems going for 2 was the right choice. Then again, if you're Rivera you know the media will treat you the same no matter how you win, but if you lose the media will blast you if you lost by going for 2.
It's only higher percentage if you go for 2 every time you score, and is also dependent on how good your offense is. If it all comes down to that one last play in a game, why would you take a 47% chance over a 94% chance? It makes no sense. I'm thinking the kicker was hurt or something was wrong with him.
First of all, I made a typo, the odds of a 2 pointer are 48%, not 47%. If they were 47%, an extra point would be the higher percentage play. So the 2 point conversion is a 48% chance of winning, 52% chance of losing. The extra point isn't a 94.5% chance of winning, 5.5% chance of losing. It's a 94.5% chance of going to overtime, 5.5% chance of losing. Which means (disregarding ties), to equal the 48% chance of winning by going for 2, you need a 51% chance of winning in overtime. So in the end, the probabilities are close enough that if this was a typical game, you can't conclude whether Rivera made the right decision. But considering the Panthers were on the road and Gano already missed an extra point, I understand why Rivera did what he did.
Actually the Raiders winning isn't too bad. Now the Jets are 3-7 behind three 2-8 teams. They could actually get up near the 1!
I don't agree with that math at all. Going for a win rather than a tie, does not increase your chance of success on a 2 point conversion, nor does it make an XP near equal probability. The XP will always be the higher percentage play at the time. You take the high percentage chance to tie and live to fight another day, rather than risk the game on essentially a coin flip. The only time I'd make an exception is from an injury to kicker/long snapper or if the team has really bad defense, making it not worth the risk of going to OT. Panthers are middle of the pack in both offense and defense. It's not like the Patriots or Chiefs going for 2. The skill of the offense has to be a factor in that. A better QB doesn't miss that throw.
That ended up being the worst loss (41 points) for a defending Super Bowl champion ever. The Saints are really, really, good, and the Eagles, not so much.
