What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

"With Tebow, Jets should always go for two after a TD" (1 Viewer)

Raider Nation

Raider Nation

Devil's Advocate
Aaron Schatz from Football Outsiders brought up this article by Jason Lisk on ESPN radio today.

Interesting theory. Incidentally, Schatz includes the Panthers among teams who should always go for two, as both Tebow and Newton figure to be successful on about 67% of 2-point attempts. I think that number might actually be a little low.

If the New York Jets are doing it right, Nick Folk should be dead last in extra points made next season. By right, I don’t mean impersonating the 1976 Buccaneers and rarely scoring, either. I’m talking about using Tim Tebow on two-point conversion attempts after every touchdown, until late game strategy dictates otherwise.

Teams go for the extra point instead of going for two, until mandated by late game situations, for a couple of reasons. The first, tradition and safety, is why coaches make a lot of decisions. Extra points have been around forever; the two-point conversion attempt was not adopted by the NFL until 1994 (the AFL used it until the merger). Thus, the norm is the extra point. It’s also the lower risk strategy, as the point is almost assured. Coaches tend to think about the negative and the potential loss of a point far more than the positive potential gain.

The other reason is that typically, the extra point has the slightly higher value. Last year, kickers made 99.4% of extra points attempted. The two point conversion rate typically hovers around 45%. Of course, that overstates the difference, because a percentage of “two point attempts” are really failed extra points, where the holder tries to run or pass after bobbling the snap. The true rates are closer, but if an average team employed a strategy of going for two instead of kicking the extra point, they would lose about 1 to 2 points over the course of an entire season.

The Jets, though, should press their advantage and disregard tradition when it comes to extra points. They should line up for two point conversions with Tim Tebow at QB after every score, until late game strategy dictated otherwise.

The Jets will surely use Tim Tebow in two point packages when they do attempt them. I’m just taking it a step further. Always use him, because it is a positive advantage for producing points. I would wager you that if the Jets used Tim Tebow on two-point plays, he would convert more than 50%.
Click to expand...
Full article
 
if they do it every time the odds would go down but as long as it is over 50%, they should keep going for it besides special situations of coarse

 
'flc735 said:
if they do it every time the odds would go down but as long as it is over 50%, they should keep going for it besides special situations of coarse
Click to expand...
Until they win games by more than 1 point and lose games by more than 1 point (all of them).
 
Im not sure about always, but they can start the game doing so, the game should dictate if you go for it again.

 
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.

 
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every timeso as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situationthe only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Run It Up said:
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.Variance and probability are almost completely opposed thoughts, mathmatically speaking. Probability actually supports the the side you are arguing against. I think you are trying to point out that the problem is when "probability" is misinterpretted as "gambler's phallacy" - which is that something that is 50% will (should) happen exactly (or close to) every other time. Variance suggests that there can be long stretches that, if you take a small sample size, could look like they are way out of whack. For example if you flip a coin 10 times, it could come up heads 9 times. But the chance of it coming up tales the next time is still 50/50 - as are the chances of it coming up heads.

As this pertains to whether or not the Jets should go for 2 everytime - the fact is, it really doesn't help much. Part of the reason, imho, is that there are simply way too many variables. Teams will prepare more - will that change the success rate? But you have Tebow who is a legit dual threat - does that change the success rate? If you know youre going for two all the time, you will have more plays prepared - does that alter the success rate?

Even at the end of the season if you did, and looked back at the stats (i.e. "we made 19 of 40 - 2 point conversions") - that wouldn't even tell you much for two reasons:

1) Small sample size

2) Part of the point of "always going for two" is the other team knowing you are always going to go for two and having to spend practice time preparing for those plays during the week - practice time that could have been spent working on other aspects of their games.

I do think if you were ever considering an "always go for two" approach, there are few better QB than Cam or Tebow to run it. As was stated on the radio yesterday (Eric Mangini in an interview said it best) - pretty much with a "standard pocket passer" on those "gadgety" type 2 point plays, you are often trying to get him "out of the way" of the play, as he can typically only two one thing well - whereas the dual threat QBs are actually more valuable in those situations.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.Variance and probability are almost completely opposed thoughts, mathmatically speaking. Probability actually supports the the side you are arguing against. I think you are trying to point out that the problem is when "probability" is misinterpretted as "gambler's phallacy" - which is that something that is 50% will (should) happen exactly (or close to) every other time. Variance suggests that there can be long stretches that, if you take a small sample size, could look like they are way out of whack. For example if you flip a coin 10 times, it could come up heads 9 times. But the chance of it coming up tales the next time is still 50/50 - as are the chances of it coming up heads.

As this pertains to whether or not the Jets should go for 2 everytime - the fact is, it really doesn't help much. Part of the reason, imho, is that there are simply way too many variables. Teams will prepare more - will that change the success rate? But you have Tebow who is a legit dual threat - does that change the success rate? If you know youre going for two all the time, you will have more plays prepared - does that alter the success rate?

Even at the end of the season if you did, and looked back at the stats (i.e. "we made 19 of 40 - 2 point conversions") - that wouldn't even tell you much for two reasons:

1) Small sample size

2) Part of the point of "always going for two" is the other team knowing you are always going to go for two and having to spend practice time preparing for those plays during the week - practice time that could have been spent working on other aspects of their games.

I do think if you were ever considering an "always go for two" approach, there are few better QB than Cam or Tebow to run it. As was stated on the radio yesterday (Eric Mangini in an interview said it best) - pretty much with a "standard pocket passer" on those "gadgety" type 2 point plays, you are often trying to get him "out of the way" of the play, as he can typically only two one thing well - whereas the dual threat QBs are actually more valuable in those situations.
Click to expand...
Its like he read what I typed with no knowledge of what sarcasm even is. Then didnt read the quoted post. Then threw up words all over this thread.I thought my point was pretty clear, even through the sarcasm. The guy I quoted clearly has no idea how variance or probability affect chance. Outside of maybe the first attempt, it would never even be close to a 50/50 shot and to say that it only has to work 51% of the time is also incredibly disingenuous.

You have to take into account a handful of variables that all essentially point to this being a terrible idea. Tebow is not some mold breaker, their have been players like him and better in the past, this also isnt the first time someone suggested to "herp durr always go for 2" its just the first time they weren't laughed out of the room - and thats entirely tebows fault.

P.s. I didnt win the megamillions, maybe the coin will land heads next time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.Variance and probability are almost completely opposed thoughts, mathmatically speaking. Probability actually supports the the side you are arguing against. I think you are trying to point out that the problem is when "probability" is misinterpretted as "gambler's phallacy" - which is that something that is 50% will (should) happen exactly (or close to) every other time. Variance suggests that there can be long stretches that, if you take a small sample size, could look like they are way out of whack. For example if you flip a coin 10 times, it could come up heads 9 times. But the chance of it coming up tales the next time is still 50/50 - as are the chances of it coming up heads.

As this pertains to whether or not the Jets should go for 2 everytime - the fact is, it really doesn't help much. Part of the reason, imho, is that there are simply way too many variables. Teams will prepare more - will that change the success rate? But you have Tebow who is a legit dual threat - does that change the success rate? If you know youre going for two all the time, you will have more plays prepared - does that alter the success rate?

Even at the end of the season if you did, and looked back at the stats (i.e. "we made 19 of 40 - 2 point conversions") - that wouldn't even tell you much for two reasons:

1) Small sample size

2) Part of the point of "always going for two" is the other team knowing you are always going to go for two and having to spend practice time preparing for those plays during the week - practice time that could have been spent working on other aspects of their games.

I do think if you were ever considering an "always go for two" approach, there are few better QB than Cam or Tebow to run it. As was stated on the radio yesterday (Eric Mangini in an interview said it best) - pretty much with a "standard pocket passer" on those "gadgety" type 2 point plays, you are often trying to get him "out of the way" of the play, as he can typically only two one thing well - whereas the dual threat QBs are actually more valuable in those situations.
Click to expand...
Its like he read what I typed with no knowledge of what sarcasm even is. Then didnt read the quoted post. Then threw up words all over this thread.I thought my point was pretty clear, even through the sarcasm. The guy I quoted clearly has no idea how variance or probability affect chance. Outside of maybe the first attempt, it would never even be close to a 50/50 shot and to say that it only has to work 51% of the time is also incredibly disingenuous.

You have to take into account a handful of variables that all essentially point to this being a terrible idea. Tebow is not some mold breaker, their have been players like him and better in the past, this also isnt the first time someone suggested to "herp durr always go for 2" its just the first time they weren't laughed out of the room - and thats entirely tebows fault.
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly where to start, as I disagree with virtually everything here.First off, perhaps you could explain, if 2 point conversions, many which include "typical pocket passers" as QBs, are succesful just under 50% of the time (which they are - I believe the number is 47-48%) - why they would be less effective with a 6' 3", 245 lb. QB who is fast, elusive and can run the ball as well as throw it.

Secondly, if you score 2 TDs in a game and it works 50% of the time, you still have 14 points, why is it disingenous to suggest that it realistically only has to work just over 50% of the time?

Third, why, exactly, given all of the above, is this a "terrible idea"? And please enlighten as to the number of 6' 3" 245 lb. QBs that have broken numerous passing records in college there have been.

Yes, I got the sarcasm - but other than that, I didn't see much in terms of actual contribution to the discussion. Please share your brilliance with the rest of us.

 
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.Variance and probability are almost completely opposed thoughts, mathmatically speaking. Probability actually supports the the side you are arguing against. I think you are trying to point out that the problem is when "probability" is misinterpretted as "gambler's phallacy" - which is that something that is 50% will (should) happen exactly (or close to) every other time. Variance suggests that there can be long stretches that, if you take a small sample size, could look like they are way out of whack. For example if you flip a coin 10 times, it could come up heads 9 times. But the chance of it coming up tales the next time is still 50/50 - as are the chances of it coming up heads.

As this pertains to whether or not the Jets should go for 2 everytime - the fact is, it really doesn't help much. Part of the reason, imho, is that there are simply way too many variables. Teams will prepare more - will that change the success rate? But you have Tebow who is a legit dual threat - does that change the success rate? If you know youre going for two all the time, you will have more plays prepared - does that alter the success rate?

Even at the end of the season if you did, and looked back at the stats (i.e. "we made 19 of 40 - 2 point conversions") - that wouldn't even tell you much for two reasons:

1) Small sample size

2) Part of the point of "always going for two" is the other team knowing you are always going to go for two and having to spend practice time preparing for those plays during the week - practice time that could have been spent working on other aspects of their games.

I do think if you were ever considering an "always go for two" approach, there are few better QB than Cam or Tebow to run it. As was stated on the radio yesterday (Eric Mangini in an interview said it best) - pretty much with a "standard pocket passer" on those "gadgety" type 2 point plays, you are often trying to get him "out of the way" of the play, as he can typically only two one thing well - whereas the dual threat QBs are actually more valuable in those situations.
Click to expand...
Its like he read what I typed with no knowledge of what sarcasm even is. Then didnt read the quoted post. Then threw up words all over this thread.I thought my point was pretty clear, even through the sarcasm. The guy I quoted clearly has no idea how variance or probability affect chance. Outside of maybe the first attempt, it would never even be close to a 50/50 shot and to say that it only has to work 51% of the time is also incredibly disingenuous.

You have to take into account a handful of variables that all essentially point to this being a terrible idea. Tebow is not some mold breaker, their have been players like him and better in the past, this also isnt the first time someone suggested to "herp durr always go for 2" its just the first time they weren't laughed out of the room - and thats entirely tebows fault.
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly where to start, as I disagree with virtually everything here.First off, perhaps you could explain, if 2 point conversions, many which include "typical pocket passers" as QBs, are succesful just under 50% of the time (which they are - I believe the number is 47-48%) - why they would be less effective with a 6' 3", 245 lb. QB who is fast, elusive and can run the ball as well as throw it.

Secondly, if you score 2 TDs in a game and it works 50% of the time, you still have 14 points, why is it disingenous to suggest that it realistically only has to work just over 50% of the time?

Third, why, exactly, given all of the above, is this a "terrible idea"? And please enlighten as to the number of 6' 3" 245 lb. QBs that have broken numerous passing records in college there have been.

Yes, I got the sarcasm - but other than that, I didn't see much in terms of actual contribution to the discussion. Please share your brilliance with the rest of us.

 
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.Variance and probability are almost completely opposed thoughts, mathmatically speaking. Probability actually supports the the side you are arguing against. I think you are trying to point out that the problem is when "probability" is misinterpretted as "gambler's phallacy" - which is that something that is 50% will (should) happen exactly (or close to) every other time. Variance suggests that there can be long stretches that, if you take a small sample size, could look like they are way out of whack. For example if you flip a coin 10 times, it could come up heads 9 times. But the chance of it coming up tales the next time is still 50/50 - as are the chances of it coming up heads.

As this pertains to whether or not the Jets should go for 2 everytime - the fact is, it really doesn't help much. Part of the reason, imho, is that there are simply way too many variables. Teams will prepare more - will that change the success rate? But you have Tebow who is a legit dual threat - does that change the success rate? If you know youre going for two all the time, you will have more plays prepared - does that alter the success rate?

Even at the end of the season if you did, and looked back at the stats (i.e. "we made 19 of 40 - 2 point conversions") - that wouldn't even tell you much for two reasons:

1) Small sample size

2) Part of the point of "always going for two" is the other team knowing you are always going to go for two and having to spend practice time preparing for those plays during the week - practice time that could have been spent working on other aspects of their games.

I do think if you were ever considering an "always go for two" approach, there are few better QB than Cam or Tebow to run it. As was stated on the radio yesterday (Eric Mangini in an interview said it best) - pretty much with a "standard pocket passer" on those "gadgety" type 2 point plays, you are often trying to get him "out of the way" of the play, as he can typically only two one thing well - whereas the dual threat QBs are actually more valuable in those situations.
Click to expand...
Its like he read what I typed with no knowledge of what sarcasm even is. Then didnt read the quoted post. Then threw up words all over this thread.I thought my point was pretty clear, even through the sarcasm. The guy I quoted clearly has no idea how variance or probability affect chance. Outside of maybe the first attempt, it would never even be close to a 50/50 shot and to say that it only has to work 51% of the time is also incredibly disingenuous.

You have to take into account a handful of variables that all essentially point to this being a terrible idea. Tebow is not some mold breaker, their have been players like him and better in the past, this also isnt the first time someone suggested to "herp durr always go for 2" its just the first time they weren't laughed out of the room - and thats entirely tebows fault.
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly where to start, as I disagree with virtually everything here.First off, perhaps you could explain, if 2 point conversions, many which include "typical pocket passers" as QBs, are succesful just under 50% of the time (which they are - I believe the number is 47-48%) - why they would be less effective with a 6' 3", 245 lb. QB who is fast, elusive and can run the ball as well as throw it.

Secondly, if you score 2 TDs in a game and it works 50% of the time, you still have 14 points, why is it disingenous to suggest that it realistically only has to work just over 50% of the time?

Third, why, exactly, given all of the above, is this a "terrible idea"? And please enlighten as to the number of 6' 3" 245 lb. QBs that have broken numerous passing records in college there have been.

Yes, I got the sarcasm - but other than that, I didn't see much in terms of actual contribution to the discussion. Please share your brilliance with the rest of us.
Click to expand...
You clearly didnt and also dont understand probability or variance.And its disingenuous because games dont take place in a vacuum, you cant say well two tds + extra points is 14 points, so is two tds and 1 successful conversion - they simply arent the same thing, the probability of the two events happening do not have the same success rate simply because the numbers add up to the same amount. Add to that the variance of thousands of different variables that take place in a conversion to the relatively few that take place in a PAT - and additionally add to that the probability of success going down as the number of attempts goes up.

There are contributing factors to why the success rate is anywhere near 50% as is now, most notably being that its attempted only a few times a year (almost always as a necessity).

Its simply not a good idea and im glad youre content with it because the drama will be magnificent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.Variance and probability are almost completely opposed thoughts, mathmatically speaking. Probability actually supports the the side you are arguing against. I think you are trying to point out that the problem is when "probability" is misinterpretted as "gambler's phallacy" - which is that something that is 50% will (should) happen exactly (or close to) every other time. Variance suggests that there can be long stretches that, if you take a small sample size, could look like they are way out of whack. For example if you flip a coin 10 times, it could come up heads 9 times. But the chance of it coming up tales the next time is still 50/50 - as are the chances of it coming up heads.

As this pertains to whether or not the Jets should go for 2 everytime - the fact is, it really doesn't help much. Part of the reason, imho, is that there are simply way too many variables. Teams will prepare more - will that change the success rate? But you have Tebow who is a legit dual threat - does that change the success rate? If you know youre going for two all the time, you will have more plays prepared - does that alter the success rate?

Even at the end of the season if you did, and looked back at the stats (i.e. "we made 19 of 40 - 2 point conversions") - that wouldn't even tell you much for two reasons:

1) Small sample size

2) Part of the point of "always going for two" is the other team knowing you are always going to go for two and having to spend practice time preparing for those plays during the week - practice time that could have been spent working on other aspects of their games.

I do think if you were ever considering an "always go for two" approach, there are few better QB than Cam or Tebow to run it. As was stated on the radio yesterday (Eric Mangini in an interview said it best) - pretty much with a "standard pocket passer" on those "gadgety" type 2 point plays, you are often trying to get him "out of the way" of the play, as he can typically only two one thing well - whereas the dual threat QBs are actually more valuable in those situations.
Click to expand...
Its like he read what I typed with no knowledge of what sarcasm even is. Then didnt read the quoted post. Then threw up words all over this thread.I thought my point was pretty clear, even through the sarcasm. The guy I quoted clearly has no idea how variance or probability affect chance. Outside of maybe the first attempt, it would never even be close to a 50/50 shot and to say that it only has to work 51% of the time is also incredibly disingenuous.

You have to take into account a handful of variables that all essentially point to this being a terrible idea. Tebow is not some mold breaker, their have been players like him and better in the past, this also isnt the first time someone suggested to "herp durr always go for 2" its just the first time they weren't laughed out of the room - and thats entirely tebows fault.
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly where to start, as I disagree with virtually everything here.First off, perhaps you could explain, if 2 point conversions, many which include "typical pocket passers" as QBs, are succesful just under 50% of the time (which they are - I believe the number is 47-48%) - why they would be less effective with a 6' 3", 245 lb. QB who is fast, elusive and can run the ball as well as throw it.

Secondly, if you score 2 TDs in a game and it works 50% of the time, you still have 14 points, why is it disingenous to suggest that it realistically only has to work just over 50% of the time?

Third, why, exactly, given all of the above, is this a "terrible idea"? And please enlighten as to the number of 6' 3" 245 lb. QBs that have broken numerous passing records in college there have been.

Yes, I got the sarcasm - but other than that, I didn't see much in terms of actual contribution to the discussion. Please share your brilliance with the rest of us.
Click to expand...
You clearly didnt and also dont understand probability or variance.And its disingenuous because games dont take place in a vacuum, you cant say well two tds + extra points is 14 points, so is two tds and 1 successful conversion - they simply arent the same thing, the probability of the two events happening do not have the same success rate simply because the numbers add up to the same amount. Add to that the variance of thousands of different variables that take place in a conversion to the relatively few that take place in a PAT - and additionally add to that the probability of success going down as the number of attempts goes up.

There are contributing factors to why the success rate is anywhere near 50% as is now, most notably being that its attempted only a few times a year (almost always as a necessity).

Its simply not a good idea and im glad youre content with it because the drama will be magnificent.
Click to expand...
This has to be :fishing: If not, nothing said here makes an ounce of sense. It's almost worse than your first attempt.

 
'cobalt_27 said:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.Variance and probability are almost completely opposed thoughts, mathmatically speaking. Probability actually supports the the side you are arguing against. I think you are trying to point out that the problem is when "probability" is misinterpretted as "gambler's phallacy" - which is that something that is 50% will (should) happen exactly (or close to) every other time. Variance suggests that there can be long stretches that, if you take a small sample size, could look like they are way out of whack. For example if you flip a coin 10 times, it could come up heads 9 times. But the chance of it coming up tales the next time is still 50/50 - as are the chances of it coming up heads.

As this pertains to whether or not the Jets should go for 2 everytime - the fact is, it really doesn't help much. Part of the reason, imho, is that there are simply way too many variables. Teams will prepare more - will that change the success rate? But you have Tebow who is a legit dual threat - does that change the success rate? If you know youre going for two all the time, you will have more plays prepared - does that alter the success rate?

Even at the end of the season if you did, and looked back at the stats (i.e. "we made 19 of 40 - 2 point conversions") - that wouldn't even tell you much for two reasons:

1) Small sample size

2) Part of the point of "always going for two" is the other team knowing you are always going to go for two and having to spend practice time preparing for those plays during the week - practice time that could have been spent working on other aspects of their games.

I do think if you were ever considering an "always go for two" approach, there are few better QB than Cam or Tebow to run it. As was stated on the radio yesterday (Eric Mangini in an interview said it best) - pretty much with a "standard pocket passer" on those "gadgety" type 2 point plays, you are often trying to get him "out of the way" of the play, as he can typically only two one thing well - whereas the dual threat QBs are actually more valuable in those situations.
Click to expand...
Its like he read what I typed with no knowledge of what sarcasm even is. Then didnt read the quoted post. Then threw up words all over this thread.I thought my point was pretty clear, even through the sarcasm. The guy I quoted clearly has no idea how variance or probability affect chance. Outside of maybe the first attempt, it would never even be close to a 50/50 shot and to say that it only has to work 51% of the time is also incredibly disingenuous.

You have to take into account a handful of variables that all essentially point to this being a terrible idea. Tebow is not some mold breaker, their have been players like him and better in the past, this also isnt the first time someone suggested to "herp durr always go for 2" its just the first time they weren't laughed out of the room - and thats entirely tebows fault.
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly where to start, as I disagree with virtually everything here.First off, perhaps you could explain, if 2 point conversions, many which include "typical pocket passers" as QBs, are succesful just under 50% of the time (which they are - I believe the number is 47-48%) - why they would be less effective with a 6' 3", 245 lb. QB who is fast, elusive and can run the ball as well as throw it.

Secondly, if you score 2 TDs in a game and it works 50% of the time, you still have 14 points, why is it disingenous to suggest that it realistically only has to work just over 50% of the time?

Third, why, exactly, given all of the above, is this a "terrible idea"? And please enlighten as to the number of 6' 3" 245 lb. QBs that have broken numerous passing records in college there have been.

Yes, I got the sarcasm - but other than that, I didn't see much in terms of actual contribution to the discussion. Please share your brilliance with the rest of us.
Click to expand...
You clearly didnt and also dont understand probability or variance.And its disingenuous because games dont take place in a vacuum, you cant say well two tds + extra points is 14 points, so is two tds and 1 successful conversion - they simply arent the same thing, the probability of the two events happening do not have the same success rate simply because the numbers add up to the same amount. Add to that the variance of thousands of different variables that take place in a conversion to the relatively few that take place in a PAT - and additionally add to that the probability of success going down as the number of attempts goes up.

There are contributing factors to why the success rate is anywhere near 50% as is now, most notably being that its attempted only a few times a year (almost always as a necessity).

Its simply not a good idea and im glad youre content with it because the drama will be magnificent.
Click to expand...
This has to be :fishing: If not, nothing said here makes an ounce of sense. It's almost worse than your first attempt.
Click to expand...
You guys say im not contributing yet all you reply with is this. And Double G wrote an incredibly long winded parrotting of flc's post.Just because you dont understand a concept does not mean it is any less valid - its not even complicated. Everything I said makes sense to anyone that understands highschool level mathematics.

Alternatively you could simply say you disagree, as opposed to making it seem like this is somehow confusing.

The fact that people have even taken the time to do the math on a such a small sample size (best information I could find was from 2000-2009 - totaling 709 attempts) in which passing attempts (80% of the attempts were pass plays) were 43% successful and running attempts (20% of attempts were run) were 61% successful is hilarious, at best its grasping at straws. Whereas the success rate of PATs over the entirety of the NFL's existences is almost 99%.

A bird in the hand everytime is better than two in the bush less than half the time.

Especially when games are won or lost by 1 pt only 4.27% of the time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Run It Up said:
The fact that people have even taken the time to do the math on a such a small sample size (best information I could find was from 2000-2009 - totaling 709 attempts) in which passing attempts (80% of the attempts were pass plays) were 43% successful and running attempts (20% of attempts were run) were 61% successful is hilarious, at best its grasping at straws. Whereas the success rate of PATs over the entirety of the NFL's existences is almost 99%.
Click to expand...
This argument is fine if you are debating the merits of EVERY team going for two after every TD. We are only talking about doing it with Tebow and Newton. Over the course of an entire season, knowing you're going for two every time, practicing it religiously (see what I did there?) and having entire packages designed for a 2-point play (instead of just a few plays), I think it would certainly be beneficial for those two QBs to go for two every time.Again, you modify this for late-game situations.

If you score a TD with 1:14 left to put you up 8, of course you kick the XP to go up by 9.

 
'Raider Nation said:
'Run It Up said:
The fact that people have even taken the time to do the math on a such a small sample size (best information I could find was from 2000-2009 - totaling 709 attempts) in which passing attempts (80% of the attempts were pass plays) were 43% successful and running attempts (20% of attempts were run) were 61% successful is hilarious, at best its grasping at straws. Whereas the success rate of PATs over the entirety of the NFL's existences is almost 99%.
Click to expand...
This argument is fine if you are debating the merits of EVERY team going for two after every TD. We are only talking about doing it with Tebow and Newton. Over the course of an entire season, knowing you're going for two every time, practicing it religiously (see what I did there?) and having entire packages designed for a 2-point play (instead of just a few plays), I think it would certainly be beneficial for those two QBs to go for two every time.Again, you modify this for late-game situations.

If you score a TD with 1:14 left to put you up 8, of course you kick the XP to go up by 9.
Click to expand...
Finally contributing discussion.In the end I dont believe there is a way to know if the planning (schemes and practice) can counter act the preparedness of the opposition, without actually seeing it in action. Like I said, I can only hope they do end up doing this, it should be entertaining.

 
mathematics is one thing, the real-world with its media and folks' jobs on the line is another. the odds will need to tip much more than 51% to encourage an NFL coach to go for two as a matter of course. imo 67% is tempting enough that maybe Rex will do it.

 
run it up, we get what you are saying. i completely understand what variance is. i said what i said because to me, it was assumed that tebow would be able to convert 2 pointers more than 1 out of every 2 times, or more than 50 out of every 100 times.

its a 2 outcome result and there is absolutely no need to over complicate thing. this is just as bad as the "redskins gave up 2 1sts" vs the "redskins gave up 3 1sts" argument.

either your fishing or you dont realize it buy what your doing is cherry picking statistical rules that only effect outcomes with high diversity. yes, they technically do apply in a small, 2 outcome result, but the effects are negligible to the point where they should be ignored.

 
'pecorino said:
mathematics is one thing, the real-world with its media and folks' jobs on the line is another. the odds will need to tip much more than 51% to encourage an NFL coach to go for two as a matter of course. imo 67% is tempting enough that maybe Rex will do it.
Click to expand...
yes, your right. this is the only reason this will never happen.look back at the atl/nyg playoff game. smith was heavily criticized for going for it on 4th down so often even though it was the right call to make in those situations. something like that could get a coach fired
 
'Run It Up said:
'cobalt_27 said:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.Variance and probability are almost completely opposed thoughts, mathmatically speaking. Probability actually supports the the side you are arguing against. I think you are trying to point out that the problem is when "probability" is misinterpretted as "gambler's phallacy" - which is that something that is 50% will (should) happen exactly (or close to) every other time. Variance suggests that there can be long stretches that, if you take a small sample size, could look like they are way out of whack. For example if you flip a coin 10 times, it could come up heads 9 times. But the chance of it coming up tales the next time is still 50/50 - as are the chances of it coming up heads.

As this pertains to whether or not the Jets should go for 2 everytime - the fact is, it really doesn't help much. Part of the reason, imho, is that there are simply way too many variables. Teams will prepare more - will that change the success rate? But you have Tebow who is a legit dual threat - does that change the success rate? If you know youre going for two all the time, you will have more plays prepared - does that alter the success rate?

Even at the end of the season if you did, and looked back at the stats (i.e. "we made 19 of 40 - 2 point conversions") - that wouldn't even tell you much for two reasons:

1) Small sample size

2) Part of the point of "always going for two" is the other team knowing you are always going to go for two and having to spend practice time preparing for those plays during the week - practice time that could have been spent working on other aspects of their games.

I do think if you were ever considering an "always go for two" approach, there are few better QB than Cam or Tebow to run it. As was stated on the radio yesterday (Eric Mangini in an interview said it best) - pretty much with a "standard pocket passer" on those "gadgety" type 2 point plays, you are often trying to get him "out of the way" of the play, as he can typically only two one thing well - whereas the dual threat QBs are actually more valuable in those situations.
Click to expand...
Its like he read what I typed with no knowledge of what sarcasm even is. Then didnt read the quoted post. Then threw up words all over this thread.I thought my point was pretty clear, even through the sarcasm. The guy I quoted clearly has no idea how variance or probability affect chance. Outside of maybe the first attempt, it would never even be close to a 50/50 shot and to say that it only has to work 51% of the time is also incredibly disingenuous.

You have to take into account a handful of variables that all essentially point to this being a terrible idea. Tebow is not some mold breaker, their have been players like him and better in the past, this also isnt the first time someone suggested to "herp durr always go for 2" its just the first time they weren't laughed out of the room - and thats entirely tebows fault.
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly where to start, as I disagree with virtually everything here.First off, perhaps you could explain, if 2 point conversions, many which include "typical pocket passers" as QBs, are succesful just under 50% of the time (which they are - I believe the number is 47-48%) - why they would be less effective with a 6' 3", 245 lb. QB who is fast, elusive and can run the ball as well as throw it.

Secondly, if you score 2 TDs in a game and it works 50% of the time, you still have 14 points, why is it disingenous to suggest that it realistically only has to work just over 50% of the time?

Third, why, exactly, given all of the above, is this a "terrible idea"? And please enlighten as to the number of 6' 3" 245 lb. QBs that have broken numerous passing records in college there have been.

Yes, I got the sarcasm - but other than that, I didn't see much in terms of actual contribution to the discussion. Please share your brilliance with the rest of us.
Click to expand...
You clearly didnt and also dont understand probability or variance.And its disingenuous because games dont take place in a vacuum, you cant say well two tds + extra points is 14 points, so is two tds and 1 successful conversion - they simply arent the same thing, the probability of the two events happening do not have the same success rate simply because the numbers add up to the same amount. Add to that the variance of thousands of different variables that take place in a conversion to the relatively few that take place in a PAT - and additionally add to that the probability of success going down as the number of attempts goes up.

There are contributing factors to why the success rate is anywhere near 50% as is now, most notably being that its attempted only a few times a year (almost always as a necessity).

Its simply not a good idea and im glad youre content with it because the drama will be magnificent.
Click to expand...
This has to be :fishing: If not, nothing said here makes an ounce of sense. It's almost worse than your first attempt.
Click to expand...
You guys say im not contributing yet all you reply with is this. And Double G wrote an incredibly long winded parrotting of flc's post.Just because you dont understand a concept does not mean it is any less valid - its not even complicated. Everything I said makes sense to anyone that understands highschool level mathematics.

Alternatively you could simply say you disagree, as opposed to making it seem like this is somehow confusing.

The fact that people have even taken the time to do the math on a such a small sample size (best information I could find was from 2000-2009 - totaling 709 attempts) in which passing attempts (80% of the attempts were pass plays) were 43% successful and running attempts (20% of attempts were run) were 61% successful is hilarious, at best its grasping at straws. Whereas the success rate of PATs over the entirety of the NFL's existences is almost 99%.

A bird in the hand everytime is better than two in the bush less than half the time.

Especially when games are won or lost by 1 pt only 4.27% of the time.
Click to expand...
It was pretty obvious that the discussion here was operating under the assumption that, with Tebow and a gameplan behind going for 2 every time, the success rate would be above 50%. Obviously there's no one here trying to argue that they should go for 2 every time if they were converting the league average 43% of them.You seem to be backing off your argument as well. From what I can tell, you've backed your argument down to "they probably wouldn't convert more than 50%" when several times you were responding to posts that specifically said "they should go for two if they feel they'll convert more than 50%".

If it is indeed your intention to say that they wouldn't convert above 50% then no one could really argue as its all just guesswork, but everyone in here read your posts as if they were saying that they shouldn't do it even if they are converting better than 50%. Likewise, if that is your argument, then this whole spiel about statistical variance and whatever other terms you threw out there that were better understood by the people you were trying to "explain" them to was useless because no one was using previous statistics to prove that they'd convert more than 50%. No one was saying the league average is better than 50% (because it's not), and likewise no one was taking Tebow's 2-pt conversion percentage thus far and trying to extrapolate it out.

 
'FreeBaGeL said:
It was pretty obvious that the discussion here was operating under the assumption that, with Tebow and a gameplan behind going for 2 every time, the success rate would be above 50%. Obviously there's no one here trying to argue that they should go for 2 every time if they were converting the league average 43% of them.

You seem to be backing off your argument as well. From what I can tell, you've backed your argument down to "they probably wouldn't convert more than 50%" when several times you were responding to posts that specifically said "they should go for two if they feel they'll convert more than 50%".

If it is indeed your intention to say that they wouldn't convert above 50% then no one could really argue as its all just guesswork, but everyone in here read your posts as if they were saying that they shouldn't do it even if they are converting better than 50%. Likewise, if that is your argument, then this whole spiel about statistical variance and whatever other terms you threw out there that were better understood by the people you were trying to "explain" them to was useless because no one was using previous statistics to prove that they'd convert more than 50%. No one was saying the league average is better than 50% (because it's not), and likewise no one was taking Tebow's 2-pt conversion percentage thus far and trying to extrapolate it out.
Click to expand...
My initial post was my opinion on the situation.Its silly to think that for this to be viable it simply has to be successful 51%+ of the time.

I then had to explain my opinion using math (the spiel), I never put words in anyones mouth, someone said the success rate was already close to 50% so I did what people who contribute to discussions (that dont actually know the specifics) does, I spent five minutes looking it up and in fact it is closer to 50% than to 40%.

I havent backed off my opinion once, I want the jets to do this, it will fail terribly - because it is a bad idea. I do not think it will be close to 50% success rate. Nor do I think that even if it was it would be justifiably a "success".

I could have cut the sarcasm out but when I typed it it had never occurred to me that it would be confusing.

 
'Run It Up said:
'cobalt_27 said:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.Variance and probability are almost completely opposed thoughts, mathmatically speaking. Probability actually supports the the side you are arguing against. I think you are trying to point out that the problem is when "probability" is misinterpretted as "gambler's phallacy" - which is that something that is 50% will (should) happen exactly (or close to) every other time. Variance suggests that there can be long stretches that, if you take a small sample size, could look like they are way out of whack. For example if you flip a coin 10 times, it could come up heads 9 times. But the chance of it coming up tales the next time is still 50/50 - as are the chances of it coming up heads.

As this pertains to whether or not the Jets should go for 2 everytime - the fact is, it really doesn't help much. Part of the reason, imho, is that there are simply way too many variables. Teams will prepare more - will that change the success rate? But you have Tebow who is a legit dual threat - does that change the success rate? If you know youre going for two all the time, you will have more plays prepared - does that alter the success rate?

Even at the end of the season if you did, and looked back at the stats (i.e. "we made 19 of 40 - 2 point conversions") - that wouldn't even tell you much for two reasons:

1) Small sample size

2) Part of the point of "always going for two" is the other team knowing you are always going to go for two and having to spend practice time preparing for those plays during the week - practice time that could have been spent working on other aspects of their games.

I do think if you were ever considering an "always go for two" approach, there are few better QB than Cam or Tebow to run it. As was stated on the radio yesterday (Eric Mangini in an interview said it best) - pretty much with a "standard pocket passer" on those "gadgety" type 2 point plays, you are often trying to get him "out of the way" of the play, as he can typically only two one thing well - whereas the dual threat QBs are actually more valuable in those situations.
Click to expand...
Its like he read what I typed with no knowledge of what sarcasm even is. Then didnt read the quoted post. Then threw up words all over this thread.I thought my point was pretty clear, even through the sarcasm. The guy I quoted clearly has no idea how variance or probability affect chance. Outside of maybe the first attempt, it would never even be close to a 50/50 shot and to say that it only has to work 51% of the time is also incredibly disingenuous.

You have to take into account a handful of variables that all essentially point to this being a terrible idea. Tebow is not some mold breaker, their have been players like him and better in the past, this also isnt the first time someone suggested to "herp durr always go for 2" its just the first time they weren't laughed out of the room - and thats entirely tebows fault.
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly where to start, as I disagree with virtually everything here.First off, perhaps you could explain, if 2 point conversions, many which include "typical pocket passers" as QBs, are succesful just under 50% of the time (which they are - I believe the number is 47-48%) - why they would be less effective with a 6' 3", 245 lb. QB who is fast, elusive and can run the ball as well as throw it.

Secondly, if you score 2 TDs in a game and it works 50% of the time, you still have 14 points, why is it disingenous to suggest that it realistically only has to work just over 50% of the time?

Third, why, exactly, given all of the above, is this a "terrible idea"? And please enlighten as to the number of 6' 3" 245 lb. QBs that have broken numerous passing records in college there have been.

Yes, I got the sarcasm - but other than that, I didn't see much in terms of actual contribution to the discussion. Please share your brilliance with the rest of us.
Click to expand...
You clearly didnt and also dont understand probability or variance.And its disingenuous because games dont take place in a vacuum, you cant say well two tds + extra points is 14 points, so is two tds and 1 successful conversion - they simply arent the same thing, the probability of the two events happening do not have the same success rate simply because the numbers add up to the same amount. Add to that the variance of thousands of different variables that take place in a conversion to the relatively few that take place in a PAT - and additionally add to that the probability of success going down as the number of attempts goes up.

There are contributing factors to why the success rate is anywhere near 50% as is now, most notably being that its attempted only a few times a year (almost always as a necessity).

Its simply not a good idea and im glad youre content with it because the drama will be magnificent.
Click to expand...
This has to be :fishing: If not, nothing said here makes an ounce of sense. It's almost worse than your first attempt.
Click to expand...
You guys say im not contributing yet all you reply with is this. And Double G wrote an incredibly long winded parrotting of flc's post.Just because you dont understand a concept does not mean it is any less valid - its not even complicated. Everything I said makes sense to anyone that understands highschool level mathematics.

Alternatively you could simply say you disagree, as opposed to making it seem like this is somehow confusing.

The fact that people have even taken the time to do the math on a such a small sample size (best information I could find was from 2000-2009 - totaling 709 attempts) in which passing attempts (80% of the attempts were pass plays) were 43% successful and running attempts (20% of attempts were run) were 61% successful is hilarious, at best its grasping at straws. Whereas the success rate of PATs over the entirety of the NFL's existences is almost 99%.

A bird in the hand everytime is better than two in the bush less than half the time.

Especially when games are won or lost by 1 pt only 4.27% of the time.
Click to expand...
I have a very good grasp on mathematics, and the above is still wrong.There are a couple of things going on here:

1. probability of Tebow & Jets converting

2. what level of conversion probability would we consider acceptable.

The OP of this chain says nothing about point 1, and only says that a 51% or better is acceptable. If the conversion probability is 51% or better, the math works out that going for two every time is a good idea. Note the word "if"...this statement has no relationship to what the actual probability would be.

 
'PlasmaDogPlasma said:
If we're going to do math, we probably shouldn't pretend like the XP is a 100% play.
Click to expand...
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/extra-point-is-almost-always-good-is-that-a-good-thing/and for 24 teams last year it was a 100% operation.http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/extra-point-conversion-pctAnyway, the problem with going for two is the unpredicatability of how the percentage obtained, not the "fact" the one would score more during a season at 51% if they always went for two. In other words, this strategy looks great when a team hits 5 in a row, but not so much when they miss 4 in row. Over time the analysis appeaars corect, the problem is that NFL games are not played over time and have an extremely small sample size ( ~3 TDs a game per team).
 
'Run It Up said:
'cobalt_27 said:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
'flc735 said:
pretty simple. 2 half the time is the same as 1 every time

so as long as its over 51% success and you applying common sense according to the situation

the only downside is the media and fans will call for rex ryans head for the one time it looses them a game and quickly forget about the one time it wins them the game.
Click to expand...
Lmfao, on good days I pretend variance and probability dont exist too.Tomorrow I have a 50/50 chance of winning the megamillions.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.Variance and probability are almost completely opposed thoughts, mathmatically speaking. Probability actually supports the the side you are arguing against. I think you are trying to point out that the problem is when "probability" is misinterpretted as "gambler's phallacy" - which is that something that is 50% will (should) happen exactly (or close to) every other time. Variance suggests that there can be long stretches that, if you take a small sample size, could look like they are way out of whack. For example if you flip a coin 10 times, it could come up heads 9 times. But the chance of it coming up tales the next time is still 50/50 - as are the chances of it coming up heads.

As this pertains to whether or not the Jets should go for 2 everytime - the fact is, it really doesn't help much. Part of the reason, imho, is that there are simply way too many variables. Teams will prepare more - will that change the success rate? But you have Tebow who is a legit dual threat - does that change the success rate? If you know youre going for two all the time, you will have more plays prepared - does that alter the success rate?

Even at the end of the season if you did, and looked back at the stats (i.e. "we made 19 of 40 - 2 point conversions") - that wouldn't even tell you much for two reasons:

1) Small sample size

2) Part of the point of "always going for two" is the other team knowing you are always going to go for two and having to spend practice time preparing for those plays during the week - practice time that could have been spent working on other aspects of their games.

I do think if you were ever considering an "always go for two" approach, there are few better QB than Cam or Tebow to run it. As was stated on the radio yesterday (Eric Mangini in an interview said it best) - pretty much with a "standard pocket passer" on those "gadgety" type 2 point plays, you are often trying to get him "out of the way" of the play, as he can typically only two one thing well - whereas the dual threat QBs are actually more valuable in those situations.
Click to expand...
Its like he read what I typed with no knowledge of what sarcasm even is. Then didnt read the quoted post. Then threw up words all over this thread.I thought my point was pretty clear, even through the sarcasm. The guy I quoted clearly has no idea how variance or probability affect chance. Outside of maybe the first attempt, it would never even be close to a 50/50 shot and to say that it only has to work 51% of the time is also incredibly disingenuous.

You have to take into account a handful of variables that all essentially point to this being a terrible idea. Tebow is not some mold breaker, their have been players like him and better in the past, this also isnt the first time someone suggested to "herp durr always go for 2" its just the first time they weren't laughed out of the room - and thats entirely tebows fault.
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly where to start, as I disagree with virtually everything here.First off, perhaps you could explain, if 2 point conversions, many which include "typical pocket passers" as QBs, are succesful just under 50% of the time (which they are - I believe the number is 47-48%) - why they would be less effective with a 6' 3", 245 lb. QB who is fast, elusive and can run the ball as well as throw it.

Secondly, if you score 2 TDs in a game and it works 50% of the time, you still have 14 points, why is it disingenous to suggest that it realistically only has to work just over 50% of the time?

Third, why, exactly, given all of the above, is this a "terrible idea"? And please enlighten as to the number of 6' 3" 245 lb. QBs that have broken numerous passing records in college there have been.

Yes, I got the sarcasm - but other than that, I didn't see much in terms of actual contribution to the discussion. Please share your brilliance with the rest of us.
Click to expand...
You clearly didnt and also dont understand probability or variance.And its disingenuous because games dont take place in a vacuum, you cant say well two tds + extra points is 14 points, so is two tds and 1 successful conversion - they simply arent the same thing, the probability of the two events happening do not have the same success rate simply because the numbers add up to the same amount. Add to that the variance of thousands of different variables that take place in a conversion to the relatively few that take place in a PAT - and additionally add to that the probability of success going down as the number of attempts goes up.

There are contributing factors to why the success rate is anywhere near 50% as is now, most notably being that its attempted only a few times a year (almost always as a necessity).

Its simply not a good idea and im glad youre content with it because the drama will be magnificent.
Click to expand...
This has to be :fishing: If not, nothing said here makes an ounce of sense. It's almost worse than your first attempt.
Click to expand...
You guys say im not contributing yet all you reply with is this. And Double G wrote an incredibly long winded parrotting of flc's post.Just because you dont understand a concept does not mean it is any less valid - its not even complicated. Everything I said makes sense to anyone that understands highschool level mathematics.

Alternatively you could simply say you disagree, as opposed to making it seem like this is somehow confusing.

The fact that people have even taken the time to do the math on a such a small sample size (best information I could find was from 2000-2009 - totaling 709 attempts) in which passing attempts (80% of the attempts were pass plays) were 43% successful and running attempts (20% of attempts were run) were 61% successful is hilarious, at best its grasping at straws. Whereas the success rate of PATs over the entirety of the NFL's existences is almost 99%.

A bird in the hand everytime is better than two in the bush less than half the time.

Especially when games are won or lost by 1 pt only 4.27% of the time.
Click to expand...
Run it up...you may want to revisit your High School Math class and maybe even try some statistics courses. Not only are you missing the statistical probability part, but you are missing the points about where the probability is increased having a Tebow/newton type. Finally, a bird in hand is a silly example because there are times you should always go for two regardless of whether you have Tebow/Newton on the team. The only negative on going for two almost every time (obviously there are times where going for one is the only choice) is where you do miss the first time and you don't get another chance and it put you behind. Then again, the expected value was still higher and should be used more frequently if you are the Jets/Carolina.Of course, people like Run It Up will take the 40% of the time where they didn't get the two pointer as proof to why this is a failed strategy :popcorn:

 
A couple made the comment that coaches afraid of scrutiny won't takes risks outside of the box. I think this is true and also very lame. It also point out why I disagree with so many people who say, "he knows what he is doing better than you; that is why he is a coach of an NFL team." :confused: How many times have we seen horrible uses of time outs and simply making terrible decisions in the heat of battle? Anyway, getting back to the coaches taking risks, BB goes for the 1st down more than others and the stats guys will tell you he is right almost every time he has done it; whether he makes it or not is not the point.

Last comment on this...I don;t remember the coach, but it was a Detroit coach who won the OT coin flip an elected to kick off and the other team went down field and scored on the opening possession and then the coach crucified by the media and the fans and was fired. This was a classic case of the fans and media not having a clue, but because it didn't work out he was a moron. the FACT that in the average scoring game (by memory), every single score was made going the other direction because of the wind. He made the right move and because it failed and was against the norm, he lost his job...this is why coaches who aren't secure are not making a lot of good decisions. Just like in business, you need to make smart decisions PERIOD.

Anybody want to help with the coach (who BTW, might have been bad outside of this)?

 
'Run It Up said:
I havent backed off my opinion once, I want the jets to do this, it will fail terribly - because it is a bad idea. I do not think it will be close to 50% success rate. Nor do I think that even if it was it would be justifiably a "success".
Click to expand...
No one has a problem with you having an opinion - and sticking to it is fine. It's just that you haven't one time in this entire thread tried to explain why you think it won't succeed 51% or more of the time. It's great to have an opinion, but refusal to change said opinion when the facts dictate otherwise is hardly admirable.As you already conceded, the current rate (with all types of QBs) is already close to 50%. Why then would it not work more often with a QB that has the skill set of Tebow/Newton? (a skillset that Eric Mangini in the interview I quoted said was "ideal" for running a 2 point conversion). At 50% dead on, it is a (or could be) a "break even" philosohpy. But at what point is it actually a +EV move? And how much would Tebow/Cam running the two point conversion bump the current average?

 
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
I havent backed off my opinion once, I want the jets to do this, it will fail terribly - because it is a bad idea. I do not think it will be close to 50% success rate. Nor do I think that even if it was it would be justifiably a "success".
Click to expand...
No one has a problem with you having an opinion - and sticking to it is fine. It's just that you haven't one time in this entire thread tried to explain why you think it won't succeed 51% or more of the time. It's great to have an opinion, but refusal to change said opinion when the facts dictate otherwise is hardly admirable.As you already conceded, the current rate (with all types of QBs) is already close to 50%. Why then would it not work more often with a QB that has the skill set of Tebow/Newton? (a skillset that Eric Mangini in the interview I quoted said was "ideal" for running a 2 point conversion). At 50% dead on, it is a (or could be) a "break even" philosohpy. But at what point is it actually a +EV move? And how much would Tebow/Cam running the two point conversion bump the current average?
Click to expand...
Can Run it up explain why if the Jets did this and were successful 50%+ of the time, it would not be a success? I think we all agree that at 44% it doesn't make sense, but at 50% it clearly is at least the same expected value of points and at 55%+ it is a choice that should be made unless late in the game it does not dictate.
 
This is a great idea and the Jets should absolutely do it for several reasons.

1) If it isn't working often enough, they can easily abandon the strategy so it only hurts them for a few games, but if it is working it can help them all season long.

2) It will keep some different players involved in the game. The players will be much more excited to go for two than take the EP.

3) Jets players will be used to the ups and downs of getting or missing the 2pters while the opponents will feel uncomfortable, being down 8-7 instead of tied for example.

4) The fans will get their weekly fix of Tebow.

The owner should back up Rex 100% on this. Then when Rex is second guessed, he just smiles and says "I'm a gambler" or something like that. If the owner won't back up Rex 100%, it is impossible for Rex to risk his job for such a nebulous gain.

There are improvements to going for it every time until the end of the game strategy kicks in. If the Jets are favored going forward (if they have a lead, or are playing a weaker team) it makes sense to limit the variance and just go for the EP. Also, mixing it up will keep the other team guessing. They don't get to relax. The opposing players won't know if they have a play off or not. It just puts a little extra pressure on the opponents to not be predictable for one more play. If they find they are successful 2/3 of the time then they can adjust and go for 2pts every time.

The one big downside is that this is a few extra plays each week where somebody could get injured. Nobody gets injured on EP attempts for the most part.

I feel like Rex is one of the most risk averse coaches in the league. I would love for him to prove me wrong and adopt this strategy.

 
'Liquid Tension said:
A couple made the comment that coaches afraid of scrutiny won't takes risks outside of the box. I think this is true and also very lame. It also point out why I disagree with so many people who say, "he knows what he is doing better than you; that is why he is a coach of an NFL team." :confused: How many times have we seen horrible uses of time outs and simply making terrible decisions in the heat of battle? Anyway, getting back to the coaches taking risks, BB goes for the 1st down more than others and the stats guys will tell you he is right almost every time he has done it; whether he makes it or not is not the point.Last comment on this...I don;t remember the coach, but it was a Detroit coach who won the OT coin flip an elected to kick off and the other team went down field and scored on the opening possession and then the coach crucified by the media and the fans and was fired. This was a classic case of the fans and media not having a clue, but because it didn't work out he was a moron. the FACT that in the average scoring game (by memory), every single score was made going the other direction because of the wind. He made the right move and because it failed and was against the norm, he lost his job...this is why coaches who aren't secure are not making a lot of good decisions. Just like in business, you need to make smart decisions PERIOD.Anybody want to help with the coach (who BTW, might have been bad outside of this)?
Click to expand...
The coach was Marty Mornhinwheg, Lions head coach, against the Bears. He's now the OC for the Eagles.
 
An added bonus in Carolina or the Jets announcing that they're going to do this with Cam or Tebow is that other teams will have to game plan for the possibility. During regular season work weeks there's only so much time and so many practice reps to put things in - and taking snaps and time to get ready for this possibility, even if it doesn't happen, can have a negative impact on the opponent. Kind of like not announcing injuries to key players and making other teams prep for them even if they don't play.

 
'Liquid Tension said:
'DoubleG said:
'Run It Up said:
I havent backed off my opinion once, I want the jets to do this, it will fail terribly - because it is a bad idea. I do not think it will be close to 50% success rate. Nor do I think that even if it was it would be justifiably a "success".
Click to expand...
No one has a problem with you having an opinion - and sticking to it is fine. It's just that you haven't one time in this entire thread tried to explain why you think it won't succeed 51% or more of the time. It's great to have an opinion, but refusal to change said opinion when the facts dictate otherwise is hardly admirable.As you already conceded, the current rate (with all types of QBs) is already close to 50%. Why then would it not work more often with a QB that has the skill set of Tebow/Newton? (a skillset that Eric Mangini in the interview I quoted said was "ideal" for running a 2 point conversion). At 50% dead on, it is a (or could be) a "break even" philosohpy. But at what point is it actually a +EV move? And how much would Tebow/Cam running the two point conversion bump the current average?
Click to expand...
Can Run it up explain why if the Jets did this and were successful 50%+ of the time, it would not be a success? I think we all agree that at 44% it doesn't make sense, but at 50% it clearly is at least the same expected value of points and at 55%+ it is a choice that should be made unless late in the game it does not dictate.
Click to expand...
This is the entire reason why I was posting.If it is successful even 51% of the time it would not be "successful". I come to this conclusion by my definition of success. The average margin of victory dictates that 96% of all football games are won or lost by more than 1 pt, in addition to this you have to account for variance.

Variance is simply how the possible outcomes are distributed. If you went for it twice in a game and failed the first attempt, it doesnt mean you will succeed the second time, in fact you still have the same success rate as before - but the results to do not reflect the odds, especially with such a small sample size. For example if you flip a coin a thousand times its a safe guess it will be somewhere around 50/50 split, wherein reality it likely will not be (if it were over one hundred million attempts its a different story, but were talking about football and between 2000-2009 there were only 700 conversion attempts thats for all 32 teams).

As I stated several times already in this thread, this is all without even accounting for variables which cant be quantified (Tebow, scheming and practicing, defensive preparedness, accounting for as conversion attempts go up the success rate goes down, etc) and throwing numbers around is even funnier, because there isnt a valid sample size out there that can even be taken seriously.

And for the people that keep saying that average margin of victory isnt important, instead of saying I need to take a math class maybe you should explain why it not mattering isnt completely stupid.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony Sparano tried this in the past and it failed bad. Why give up the extra point that is 98.9% successful. Really want to risk the point to gain one, when two point conversion are only 47.9% successful. Just kick the extra point!

 
'Perfect Tommy said:
This is a great idea and the Jets should absolutely do it for several reasons.

1) If it isn't working often enough, they can easily abandon the strategy so it only hurts them for a few games, but if it is working it can help them all season long.

2) It will keep some different players involved in the game. The players will be much more excited to go for two than take the EP.

3) Jets players will be used to the ups and downs of getting or missing the 2pters while the opponents will feel uncomfortable, being down 8-7 instead of tied for example.

4) The fans will get their weekly fix of Tebow.

The owner should back up Rex 100% on this. Then when Rex is second guessed, he just smiles and says "I'm a gambler" or something like that. If the owner won't back up Rex 100%, it is impossible for Rex to risk his job for such a nebulous gain.

There are improvements to going for it every time until the end of the game strategy kicks in. If the Jets are favored going forward (if they have a lead, or are playing a weaker team) it makes sense to limit the variance and just go for the EP. Also, mixing it up will keep the other team guessing. They don't get to relax. The opposing players won't know if they have a play off or not. It just puts a little extra pressure on the opponents to not be predictable for one more play. If they find they are successful 2/3 of the time then they can adjust and go for 2pts every time.

The one big downside is that this is a few extra plays each week where somebody could get injured. Nobody gets injured on EP attempts for the most part.

I feel like Rex is one of the most risk averse coaches in the league. I would love for him to prove me wrong and adopt this strategy.
Click to expand...
On the flip side it would reduce the chances of overtime significantly, which reduces playing time. Say you eliminate overtime in two games per season, tha might make up for the extra plays on 2 pt. conversions.
 
'couchpotatoe said:
Tony Sparano tried this in the past and it failed bad. Why give up the extra point that is 98.9% successful. Really want to risk the point to gain one, when two point conversion are only 47.9% successful. Just kick the extra point!
Click to expand...
The premise is that Tebow puts you over 50% conversion rate. I think the greater question is variance. If the variance is too great, then might not be worth it, as someone else mentioned. You could get a bad streak of missing and feel really stupid when you lose a game by a point or two. I guess the question is how many games do you win by using the strategy, which requires only winning the game probably by 3 or less. Also, what if teams adjust to your 2 pt package halfway through the season and then you have a bad dip in %.
 
'Run It Up said:
And for the people that keep saying that average margin of victory isnt important, instead of saying I need to take a math class maybe you should explain why it not mattering isnt completely stupid.
Click to expand...
Games where a team loses by 1 point are as common as games where a team wins by 1 point (exactly as common). So if the Jets follow the conventional strategy, they're equally likely to end up down by 1 (wishing that they had gone for a 2 point conversion so that maybe they'd be tied instead) as they are to end up ahead by 1 (relieved that they didn't go for 2 because they might have missed it and only be tied).Early in the game (when it's too soon to be focusing on specific combinations of scores), the benefit of an additional point (getting 2 instead of 1) is about the same as the cost of missing out an extra point (getting 0 instead of 1), so a team increases its chance of winning by going for 2 as long as their chance of converting is more than half their chance of making the extra point.

Edit: typo

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'couchpotatoe said:
Tony Sparano tried this in the past and it failed bad.
Click to expand...
:confused:In 2011, Miami scored 33 total TDs. They attempted 32 extra points.In 2010, Miami scored 26 total TDs. They attempted 25 extra points.In 2009, Miami scored 41 total TDs. They attempted 38 extra points.In 2008, Miami scored 40 total TDs. They attempted 40 extra points.BTW, guess who Tebow's OC with the Jets is?
 
'ZWK said:
'Run It Up said:
And for the people that keep saying that average margin of victory isnt important, instead of saying I need to take a math class maybe you should explain why it not mattering isnt completely stupid.
Click to expand...
Games where a team loses by 1 point are as common as games where a team loses by 1 point (exactly as common).
Click to expand...
Are you leveling me, or is this a typo?
'ZWK said:
So if the Jets follow the conventional strategy, they're equally likely to end up down by 1 (wishing that they had gone for a 2 point conversion so that maybe they'd be tied instead) as they are to end up ahead by 1 (relieved that they didn't go for 2 because they might have missed it and only be tied).
Click to expand...
Yes this is one of the few positive outcomes possible, no denying that.
'ZWK said:
Early in the game (when it's too soon to be focusing on specific combinations of scores), the benefit of an additional point (getting 2 instead of 1) is about the same as the cost of missing out an extra point (getting 0 instead of 1), so a team increases its chance of winning by going for 2 as long as their chance of converting is more than half their chance of making the extra point.
Click to expand...
None of these things you compare to one another are even of a similar value and in the examples you've given it is only beneficial in the same circumstances that 2pt conversions are normally attempted (when necessary).
 
'Run It Up said:
'ZWK said:
'Run It Up said:
And for the people that keep saying that average margin of victory isnt important, instead of saying I need to take a math class maybe you should explain why it not mattering isnt completely stupid.
Click to expand...
Games where a team loses by 1 point are as common as games where a team loses by 1 point (exactly as common).
Click to expand...
Are you leveling me, or is this a typo?
Click to expand...
Ooops, typo. Games where a team loses by 1 point are exactly as common as games where a team wins by 1 point.Let's say that there was a genie that showed up at random times during a football game, picked one of the coaches at random, and offered him a deal: I'll flip a coin, and if it's heads your team gets 1 point but if it's tails the other team gets one point. How often should coaches accept the genie's 50-50 deal?

Half the time. The coin flip can't possibly be a bad deal for both coaches at the same time - if it reduces one team's chances of winning, then it can't also reduce the other team's chances of winning. If one coach wisely turns it down because it hurts his team's chances of winning, that must mean that it helps the other team's chances of winning so the other coach would be smart to accept the deal if he is offered it instead.

Going for 2 instead of kicking an extra point is like that coin flip - it might benefit your team by one point or it might benefit the other team by one point. There are two main differences. One is that it is not offered at random times - you only get to make the choice immediately after you score a touchdown. That could be important because the relative benefits of gaining or losing a point depend on the current difference in scores, but it's probably not very important until late in the game. The other difference is that it's not exactly a 50-50 shot. For most teams, going for two is worse than a 50-50 gamble, so it's usually a bad idea. But if a team is good enough at goal-line offense to have better than a 50-50 shot, then it will usually be a good idea.

 
You wanna know why "better than 50%" doesn't mean squat? It's pretty simple.

Say the Jets make it 60% of the time going for it, but there was a big enough lead difference one way or the other, and so only it only contributes to 2 wins... Now let's say that the 40% of the time they didn't make it is directly responsible to 3+ of their losses.

Point being that if going for it loses you more games than it makes the difference for the win, then it means nothing if it works 65, 70, 80 percent of the time... And since you can't predict ahead of time if it's going to cost you more games than it wins, then you simply don't do it unless the situation calls for it. The previous poster was absolutely correct that 1 in hand is worth 2 in the bush.

Further, from a PR standpoint, the first game where you miss 3 times and lose by 3, and no one is going to care how often it works if it costs a win you easily would have had by kicking it. Fans don't give nearly the credit when it works as they do scrutiny when it doesn't and cost wins.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'B3TD said:
You wanna know why "better than 50%" doesn't mean squat? It's pretty simple. Say the Jets make it 60% of the time going for it, but there was a big enough lead difference one way or the other, and so only it only contributes to 2 wins... Now let's say that the 40% of the time they didn't make it is directly responsible to 3+ of their losses. Point being that if going for it loses you more games than it makes the difference for the win, then it means nothing if it works 65, 70, 80 percent of the time... And since you can't predict ahead of time if it's going to cost you more games than it wins, then you simply don't do it unless the situation calls for it. The previous poster was absolutely correct that 1 in hand is worth 2 in the bush.Further, from a PR standpoint, the first game where you miss 3 times and lose by 3, and no one is going to care how often it works if it costs a win you easily would have had by kicking it. Fans don't give nearly the credit when it works as they do scrutiny when it doesn't and cost wins.
Click to expand...
This is called "risk aversion". People are normally irrationally too risk averse. Sure, it MIGHT cause more losses than wins, but it also might cause more wins than losses. If the Jets really are over 49.5% to make the 2-pt conversion with Tebow under center, then they rate to win more games than they lose from this strategy. You ask about what happens when they try it and it fails and costs them a game? What about the slightly more likely possibility that it wins the game for them?As I said in my previous post, if the Jets see it isn't working, they can just abandon the strategy. If it is working well, they can continue to use it. They can also use it in games where they need to get lucky anyway. If they are playing at Green Bay, they need to have things go right for them to pull the upset. Going for two-pointers can give them an extra chance to get lucky and win. If they are playing Baltimore and their tough defense, they can simply choose to kick the EPs that game. Also, if they are playing a crappy team like the Browns they can kick the EPs to avoid giving the Browns an extra chance to pull of the upset.The fans like excitement. The fans like their team to stand out in some ways from all the other teams. The fans like to win more than they like to lose. And the fans love Tebow. I am sure there were some fans that got angry when their team first went for the TD on 4th and goal from the 1-yard line. Some fans no doubt still get angry when their team doesn't punt on 4th down from the opponent's 38-yard line. But these strategies win more often than they lose and nowadays coaches are more likely to get criticized for making the old fashioned decisions. As long as Rex has 100% commitment from the owner, the fans will like it if it only breaks even. If Tebow can really deliver a high success rate for 2-pt conversions Rex will be considered a genius and the fans will be in 2-pt frenzy mode. I am actually skeptical that Tebow can actually make more than 50% of 2-pt conversions, but it is definitely worth a try.
 
'B3TD said:
You wanna know why "better than 50%" doesn't mean squat? It's pretty simple. Say the Jets make it 60% of the time going for it, but there was a big enough lead difference one way or the other, and so only it only contributes to 2 wins... Now let's say that the 40% of the time they didn't make it is directly responsible to 3+ of their losses. Point being that if going for it loses you more games than it makes the difference for the win, then it means nothing if it works 65, 70, 80 percent of the time... And since you can't predict ahead of time if it's going to cost you more games than it wins, then you simply don't do it unless the situation calls for it. The previous poster was absolutely correct that 1 in hand is worth 2 in the bush.Further, from a PR standpoint, the first game where you miss 3 times and lose by 3, and no one is going to care how often it works if it costs a win you easily would have had by kicking it. Fans don't give nearly the credit when it works as they do scrutiny when it doesn't and cost wins.
Click to expand...
Wow. And I thought Run It Up was cherry picking stats. :shock: Seriously? "If they happen to lose all the games they miss and make it in all the games they happen to win"? That's the best statistical argument against it?First off there is absolutley no basis in fact for that argument. You are correct on one point in all of the above - you can't predict which situations it matters - which is exactly why, if the average NFL team scores ~3 TDs/game and it works >50% of the time, it doesn't matter. Everyone has already said that there are clear situations when you go for 1. At the end of the game when the TD you just scored ties the score, or near the end, when the TD puts you up by 8 or 3 and an extra point will make it 9 or 4 respectively. Also, for those citing the number of games that are won or lost by a single point, there are many reasons that point is irrelevant:1) First off, most basically, there is no way to score only 1 point. That means near the end of games teams are either kicking FG or scoring TDs. All OT games automatically, by virtue of this fact, ALWAYS end in a score differential of more than 1. 2) Near the end of close games (i.e. within a TD) teams often adjust their strategy based on the score - onside kicks, going for 2, settling for a FG. No team is going to settle for a FG when they are down 4 points with 1:30 lft just to make it close. Similarly, every team is going to go for 2 if they just scored a TD to bring them to within two with 1:30 left. Thus the chances of a game being decided by 1 point are low to begin with.Ironically, the entire point of going for 2 on a regular basis is to force opposing teams into making difficult decisions in those late game situations . As an example, let's say the Jets have scored 3 TDs, made 2 of the 3 - 2 point conversions (missed the other) and kicked a FG. So they have 25. The opponenet has scored 2 TD, kicked both extra points and also kicked a FG. So they have 17. It's the 4th quarter and the opposing team just scored a TD with 4:47 seconds left and 2 timeouts. Do they go for 2 to try to tie? If they don't (or do and fail) if they Jets kick another FG, then the Jets are up by 4. We could go through numerous examples - but the point is the same. If you always go for two, and make it more often than you miss, you are dictating what the other team must do. As another example on the other end of the proverbial spectrum. The Jets score a TD on their opening posession. They go for 2 and make it. You're the other team's coach. Your team marches down the field and scores a TD. Do you go for 2 to try to "keep up", or trust that your team will score another TD and that if the Jets score again you'll be able to stop their conversion?
 
'B3TD said:
You wanna know why "better than 50%" doesn't mean squat? It's pretty simple. Say the Jets make it 60% of the time going for it, but there was a big enough lead difference one way or the other, and so only it only contributes to 2 wins... Now let's say that the 40% of the time they didn't make it is directly responsible to 3+ of their losses. Point being that if going for it loses you more games than it makes the difference for the win, then it means nothing if it works 65, 70, 80 percent of the time... And since you can't predict ahead of time if it's going to cost you more games than it wins, then you simply don't do it unless the situation calls for it. The previous poster was absolutely correct that 1 in hand is worth 2 in the bush.
Click to expand...
:wall: It's entirely possible that even if they make it 60% of the time the misses still cause more losses than the successes cause wins. It's also possible that the successes cause more wins than the misses cause losses.The difference is that if you're converting 60% of them, the latter scenario (it causing more wins than losses) is more likely.This is basic statistics, and the point you're making above is no different than someone making the ludicrous point that a team should go for two in a tie game because there's a chance they'll miss the extra point, or that a team should go for it on 4th and 20 with a 1 point lead and 15 seconds left because there's a chance that they could convert the 4th and 20 if they go for it, and a chance that the punt could get blocked and run back for a TD if they punt.There is always the chance that the bad statistical play will work out better in some situations. All you can do is play the odds and if you're converting 60% of the time than the odds say it's more likely to cause more wins than losses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spin
Down 14 with under 5 minutes and you score, do you go for 2?
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
Brunell4MVP
B
Ministry of Pain
How should the New York Jets move forward after losing Aaron Rodgers for the season in Week 1?
3 4 5
Replies
238
Views
6K
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain
creepythinman
True League Winners - Upgrading the Playoff Roster
Replies
25
Views
1K
creepythinman
creepythinman

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top