Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Raider Nation

"With Tebow, Jets should always go for two after a TD"

104 posts in this topic

I can 100% guarantee you that Tebow will have snaps in the preseason for the Jets. How they use those snaps (exactly same offense that Sanchez runs, more short yardage, or a combination) is the question. Those snaps will not come at the expense of Sanchez. This is the whole point of having multiple weeks of training camp.This is when the entire offense is installed. Teams have all of their playbook installed before Week 1, and after that each week's gameplan is a subset of that playbook. The practices each week is a refresher of those plays, but not EVERY play. It is meant more to practice plays that they haven't run since training camp for the most part.Having Tebow focus on short yardage won't cost the Jets time in the weekly game plan installations. It WILL cost the teams that the Jets play game plan installation time on defense as they'll have to practice things they normally don't practice on a weekly basis.

So your position is that the number of snaps Sanchez will get with the #1 offense, whether in OTAs, training camp, preseason, and in season practices, will be the same with Tebow on the team as it would have been without Tebow on the team? As if without Tebow the #2 QB would have gotten the exact same number of snaps with the #1 offense as Tebow will? If that is what you are saying, I think you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to do math, we probably shouldn't pretend like the XP is a 100% play.

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-pct

Anyway, 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).

The second half of this is the best thing in the thread. And probably will vary with quality of opponent. If you realize your only going to score one or two TDs you are betting a lot on the outcome of one play in any one game.
With regard to the bolded, it only matters if the extra point gained from a converted two point conversion on the one play in question is the winning margin, or the extra point lost by going for two and not converting on the one play in question is the losing margin. How often does that happen? Perhaps not often enough to justify that you are "betting a lot on the outcome of one play".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the problem now. You don't understand the mathematics so you don't see how the math applies. "Throwing numbers around" as you put it, when done properly, can lead to insight. That is why we do mathematics. Nobody is disputing that it is possible to go for two and lose the game. That is not what is in question.

I'll make a basic outline of the provable point.

Assume that the probability of success is greater than 50%. Further, assume that from any game situation, we can assess the probability of winning based on the score and game situation. We can then see the chance of winning the game if we score 0,1, or 2 on our conversion attempt. Lets only go for two those times that our chances of winning goes up at least as much scoring 2 instead of 1 as our chances go down scoring 0 instead of 1. From here it is simple algebra to show that our win rate is going to be higher going for 2-pt conversions instead of EPs.

Now if you want to dispute issues like "momentum swings" or injury risk, I can't quantify those things. I don't think they are going to change the right position but a person could reasonably disagree.

:nerd:

The problem is you can't do these things- you don't know that your probability of success is greater than 50%, and you can't calculate your probability of winning based on any score and game situation (at least not accurately).
The website Advanced NFL Stats has calculated the probability of winning for any score and game situation, based on the play-by-play data for every game over the past several years. Those numbers only tell you the average probability for that score and game situation, averaging across all teams, all opponents, and all other conditions that have varied. If you treat the average numbers as applying to your particular case there will be some errors, but errors in both directions should be equally common. Sometimes (based on the specifics of your team, the matchups, the weather, and other circumstances) going for 2 is a worse bet than the average numbers suggest, and just as often it's a better bet than the average numbers suggest.

If you always do what the average numbers suggest, then you'll do better than if you ignored the numbers and just always followed the convention of kicking the extra point. And if you have some knowledge about when the average numbers are off for your particular case (in either direction), and you use that information to make some rough estimates and modify the numbers to make them more accurate for you, then you can do even better.

I know the site, and I'm a pretty big numbers guy. I also understand that there is no way to accurately predict your odds of converting a 2 pt. conversion or winning a game in advance. The success rates of all teams previous attempts at a 2 pt. conversion has zero bearing on your odds of converting your next 2 pt. conversion. It doesn't matter if teams up by 3 with 8 minutes remaining in the 1st quarter have won 54% of the time in the past (pulled those numbers out of thin air).

You can use those numbers to estimate your chances if you'd like, but this isn't a simple mathematical equation because we can't know the values of the inputs for sure. Even if you wanted to use those numbers as estimates, you'd still run into the problem of having a large variance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can 100% guarantee you that Tebow will have snaps in the preseason for the Jets. How they use those snaps (exactly same offense that Sanchez runs, more short yardage, or a combination) is the question. Those snaps will not come at the expense of Sanchez. This is the whole point of having multiple weeks of training camp.This is when the entire offense is installed. Teams have all of their playbook installed before Week 1, and after that each week's gameplan is a subset of that playbook. The practices each week is a refresher of those plays, but not EVERY play. It is meant more to practice plays that they haven't run since training camp for the most part.Having Tebow focus on short yardage won't cost the Jets time in the weekly game plan installations. It WILL cost the teams that the Jets play game plan installation time on defense as they'll have to practice things they normally don't practice on a weekly basis.

So your position is that the number of snaps Sanchez will get with the #1 offense, whether in OTAs, training camp, preseason, and in season practices, will be the same with Tebow on the team as it would have been without Tebow on the team? As if without Tebow the #2 QB would have gotten the exact same number of snaps with the #1 offense as Tebow will? If that is what you are saying, I think you are wrong.
No, that's not what I am saying. I do think Tebow will "eat into" the reps with the first string offense at the expense of Sanchez, but that's a different question. The question at hand (in this discussion thread) is what the Jets should emphasize when Tebow's under center with either the first or second string when he gets those reps. In the preseason I think they should emphasize - not 100%, but more than usually done with the second quarterback - short yardage plays. As for during the season, I think they'll reduce Tebow's reps, but if they emphasize short yardage reps prior to Week 1 then it will be relatively easy to install 2-pt plays at any given time and won't really hurt the game planning on a weekly basis.I personally like alternative game planning, and would love to see the Jets go for two more. (I wonder what Belichick would have done if he had a player like this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, personally I was talking more about Tebow's overall involvement, not just with 2 pointers/short yardage plays, but you're correct in what we're debating here. But Ryan has been quoted as saying Tebow will get up to 20 snaps a game. That is a lot of the offense (they averaged 64 per game last year from a link I saw).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally like alternative game planning, and would love to see the Jets go for two more. (I wonder what Belichick would have done if he had a player like this).

He would answer this question for us, or at least give us a bigger sample size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it's helpful to test extremes. What if Tebow's 2 point conversion rate were 95%. Does anyone think going for 2 is not justifiable?

Yeah, it does seem people are really hung up on the 51%. If folks wants to give up the extra point or two over a season at 51% (for no valid reason I have been able to wrap my head around), I guess that's OK. But at what point does it stop making sense to those folks?Just some basics:The Jets got 44 TDs last year (or somewhere in that vicinity, so let's just assume that as good a starting point as any). Let's also assume that every TD would get them 1 pt for the standard kick (prob didn't because of misses and/or 2 point attempts, but it's easier to assume). So the baseline is about 44 pts from kicks. So the math works out that every percentage point above 50% on 2 pt conversions yields a shade under an extra scored point per season. At what point do you stop throwing away "bonus" points scored?Yes, the sample sizes and probable impacts on the average INDIVIDUAL game are both very small. But if the percentage is 60%, do you give up 9 points per season? If it's 70% do you give up 18? If it's 95% do you give up 40 points?This is obviously very different than saying a team WILL go at a 60% pace, but if you are assuming they will, all of the mathematical funny business in the world won't make scoring fewer total points a winning proposition over the long haul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because 2 point conversions alone is too small of a sample size, I went and looked at all of the Broncos offensive attempts from inside the 5 w/ Tebow @ QB. Here is the complete list:

opponent:	down	resultSD	2 pt	(Pass formation) TWO-POINT CONVERSION ATTEMPT. W.McGahee rushes up the middle. ATTEMPT SUCCEEDS.SD	2 pt	(Pass formation) TWO-POINT CONVERSION ATTEMPT. T.Tebow pass to B.Lloyd is incomplete. ATTEMPT FAILS.@ mia    3-3-MIA5	(2:52) (Shotgun) T.Tebow pass short right to D.Thomas for 5 yards, TOUCHDOWN. The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld.@ mia    1-3-MIA3	(:29) (Shotgun) T.Tebow pass incomplete short right to D.Thomas.@ mia	2-3-MIA3	(:25) T.Tebow pass short right to D.Fells for 3 yards, TOUCHDOWN.@ mia	2 pt	(Pass formation) TWO-POINT CONVERSION ATTEMPT. T.Tebow rushes right tackle. ATTEMPT SUCCEEDS. MIA-J.Odrick was injured during the play. His return is Questionable.@ min	2 pt	(Run formation) TWO-POINT CONVERSION ATTEMPT. T.Tebow rushes right guard. ATTEMPT SUCCEEDS.	NE	1-2-NE2	(8:46) (Shotgun) T.Tebow right guard for 2 yards, TOUCHDOWN.@buf	2-5-BUF5	(7:36) (Shotgun) W.McGahee up the middle for 5 yards, TOUCHDOWN. The Replay Assistant challenged the runner broke the plane ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Shotgun) W.McGahee up the middle to BUF 1 for 4 yards (K.Sheppard, J.Byrd). Runner's knee down inside 1-yd. line.@buf	3-1-BUF1	(7:18) (Shotgun) T.Tebow left tackle for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.pit	3-2-PIT2	(7:38) (Shotgun) T.Tebow pass incomplete short left to M.Willis (W.Gay).@NE	1-5-NE5	(15:00) (Shotgun) W.McGahee up the middle for 5 yards, TOUCHDOWN. PENALTY on DEN-Z.Beadles, Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, enforced between downs.@NE	1-3-NE3	(7:39) (Shotgun) C.Clark reported in as eligible. T.Tebow pass incomplete short left to D.Rosario.@NE	2-3-NE3	(7:34) (Shotgun) T.Tebow pass incomplete short left to E.Royal (M.Anderson).@NE	3-3-NE3	(7:31) (Shotgun) T.Tebow pass incomplete short left to D.Thomas.@NE	4-3-NE3	(7:25) (Shotgun) T.Tebow pass incomplete short right to E.Royal (K.Love).

Note: there were a few handful of plays I'm not counting: on TO @ Min, after an Int, Denver had the ball on the 5. They ran it up the gut a couple of times, Tebow centered the ball on 3rd down, and the FG for the win...I'm not counting those here. I'm also not counting the botched extra point vs NE in the regular season.

Anyways, from the 5 or less, the Broncos had 16 plays. They managed to put the ball in the end zone on 9 of those plays, for 56%. Not sure how this equates to the NFL average.

We should also note: the final 4 plays in NE - that was when Tebow had the bruised lung/dislocated rib thing. If one were so inclined to discard these, the conversion rate would be 75%.

Based on this, I don't think it's out of the question to think Tebow could sustain a long-term 2 point conversion rate at around 60%. If the Jets scored 44 TD's over the course of a season, going for 2 would net the team roughly 9 points, which would have bumped the Jets from 13th in the league to 10th.

The other side of the coin is that NYJ didn't lose many games by 2 or less in 2011, so if it actually would account for wins is another story.

edited to fix the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are other issues that have yet to be explored in this discussion.

Many people (detractors, mostly) are debating about the value of one point.

I'd like to think of it as changing the amount of pressure on the other team. If you are up 8-0 vs. 7-0, that's very significant.

If you are down by 8, not only must you score a TD to catch up and get a tie, but you also have to find a way of either converting a 2-pointer or plan on getting two scores. That's a significant difference.

I see this situation come up a lot at lower levels of football. For example, in youth football (to encourage learning to kick), they give 2 points instead of one if you kick an extra point. That's a big advantage to a team with a kicker. A team up 8-0 against a team with no kicker is being up by essentially two scores, not one.

Yes, I understand that the NFL has elite kickers, but the point is that if you are up 8-0, you may force the other team to go for two when they are not comfortable in executing those two-point conversions. That forces their hand and also puts extra pressure on that team to score a TD, go for two or plan for a FG on top.

My point is that "one point" is a big difference (even more significant if you are up 9 instead of 8, a guaranteed two-score advantage). I'd argue it is worth more to go for two when you are up by one point and score a touchdown instead of taking that extra point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are other issues that have yet to be explored in this discussion.Many people (detractors, mostly) are debating about the value of one point.I'd like to think of it as changing the amount of pressure on the other team. If you are up 8-0 vs. 7-0, that's very significant.If you are down by 8, not only must you score a TD to catch up and get a tie, but you also have to find a way of either converting a 2-pointer or plan on getting two scores. That's a significant difference.I see this situation come up a lot at lower levels of football. For example, in youth football (to encourage learning to kick), they give 2 points instead of one if you kick an extra point. That's a big advantage to a team with a kicker. A team up 8-0 against a team with no kicker is being up by essentially two scores, not one.Yes, I understand that the NFL has elite kickers, but the point is that if you are up 8-0, you may force the other team to go for two when they are not comfortable in executing those two-point conversions. That forces their hand and also puts extra pressure on that team to score a TD, go for two or plan for a FG on top.My point is that "one point" is a big difference (even more significant if you are up 9 instead of 8, a guaranteed two-score advantage). I'd argue it is worth more to go for two when you are up by one point and score a touchdown instead of taking that extra point.

Obviously 1 point can make a big difference in some situations, but you're only looking at it assuming you make the conversion. If you miss the conversion, that 1 point is just as significant, only it's a negative, not a positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Jeff with the 8 becoming a 9 point lead, turn it into a two possesion game late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are other issues that have yet to be explored in this discussion.Many people (detractors, mostly) are debating about the value of one point.I'd like to think of it as changing the amount of pressure on the other team. If you are up 8-0 vs. 7-0, that's very significant.If you are down by 8, not only must you score a TD to catch up and get a tie, but you also have to find a way of either converting a 2-pointer or plan on getting two scores. That's a significant difference.I see this situation come up a lot at lower levels of football. For example, in youth football (to encourage learning to kick), they give 2 points instead of one if you kick an extra point. That's a big advantage to a team with a kicker. A team up 8-0 against a team with no kicker is being up by essentially two scores, not one.Yes, I understand that the NFL has elite kickers, but the point is that if you are up 8-0, you may force the other team to go for two when they are not comfortable in executing those two-point conversions. That forces their hand and also puts extra pressure on that team to score a TD, go for two or plan for a FG on top.My point is that "one point" is a big difference (even more significant if you are up 9 instead of 8, a guaranteed two-score advantage). I'd argue it is worth more to go for two when you are up by one point and score a touchdown instead of taking that extra point.

Obviously 1 point can make a big difference in some situations, but you're only looking at it assuming you make the conversion. If you miss the conversion, that 1 point is just as significant, only it's a negative, not a positive.
Of course it is a positive if you make it and a negative if you don't. There are absolutely situations where it makes sense to go for it and as a result putting more pressure on the other team. If you are leading by 6 and get a TD, it is probably better to go for 2 instead of one. We've had plenty of discussions as well about the "down by 14, go for two after the first TD" (someone can bump the thread). I am pretty sure I can make a very good argument to go for two if you are up by 7 before the try late in the game, and it is to your advantage whether you make it or not. The upside of possibly getting 2 points far outweighs the negative of getting zero, even if the odds of making that 2-pointer are minimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are other issues that have yet to be explored in this discussion.

Many people (detractors, mostly) are debating about the value of one point.

I'd like to think of it as changing the amount of pressure on the other team. If you are up 8-0 vs. 7-0, that's very significant.

If you are down by 8, not only must you score a TD to catch up and get a tie, but you also have to find a way of either converting a 2-pointer or plan on getting two scores. That's a significant difference.

I see this situation come up a lot at lower levels of football. For example, in youth football (to encourage learning to kick), they give 2 points instead of one if you kick an extra point. That's a big advantage to a team with a kicker. A team up 8-0 against a team with no kicker is being up by essentially two scores, not one.

Yes, I understand that the NFL has elite kickers, but the point is that if you are up 8-0, you may force the other team to go for two when they are not comfortable in executing those two-point conversions. That forces their hand and also puts extra pressure on that team to score a TD, go for two or plan for a FG on top.

My point is that "one point" is a big difference (even more significant if you are up 9 instead of 8, a guaranteed two-score advantage). I'd argue it is worth more to go for two when you are up by one point and score a touchdown instead of taking that extra point.

Obviously 1 point can make a big difference in some situations, but you're only looking at it assuming you make the conversion. If you miss the conversion, that 1 point is just as significant, only it's a negative, not a positive.
Of course it is a positive if you make it and a negative if you don't. There are absolutely situations where it makes sense to go for it and as a result putting more pressure on the other team. If you are leading by 6 and get a TD, it is probably better to go for 2 instead of one. We've had plenty of discussions as well about the "down by 14, go for two after the first TD" (someone can bump the thread).

I am pretty sure I can make a very good argument to go for two if you are up by 7 before the try late in the game, and it is to your advantage whether you make it or not. The upside of possibly getting 2 points far outweighs the negative of getting zero, even if the odds of making that 2-pointer are minimal.

Clearly there are times where it makes sense to go for 2 (just like there are times where it makes sense to go for 1), that's not what we're talking about. This thread is about always going for 2. Regardless, you were only talking about the positive aspects of converting the 2 pt. conversion in your scenario- I'm just pointing out that there is a downside to not converting it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are other issues that have yet to be explored in this discussion.Many people (detractors, mostly) are debating about the value of one point.I'd like to think of it as changing the amount of pressure on the other team. If you are up 8-0 vs. 7-0, that's very significant.If you are down by 8, not only must you score a TD to catch up and get a tie, but you also have to find a way of either converting a 2-pointer or plan on getting two scores. That's a significant difference.I see this situation come up a lot at lower levels of football. For example, in youth football (to encourage learning to kick), they give 2 points instead of one if you kick an extra point. That's a big advantage to a team with a kicker. A team up 8-0 against a team with no kicker is being up by essentially two scores, not one.Yes, I understand that the NFL has elite kickers, but the point is that if you are up 8-0, you may force the other team to go for two when they are not comfortable in executing those two-point conversions. That forces their hand and also puts extra pressure on that team to score a TD, go for two or plan for a FG on top.My point is that "one point" is a big difference (even more significant if you are up 9 instead of 8, a guaranteed two-score advantage). I'd argue it is worth more to go for two when you are up by one point and score a touchdown instead of taking that extra point.

Obviously 1 point can make a big difference in some situations, but you're only looking at it assuming you make the conversion. If you miss the conversion, that 1 point is just as significant, only it's a negative, not a positive.
Of course it is a positive if you make it and a negative if you don't. There are absolutely situations where it makes sense to go for it and as a result putting more pressure on the other team. If you are leading by 6 and get a TD, it is probably better to go for 2 instead of one. We've had plenty of discussions as well about the "down by 14, go for two after the first TD" (someone can bump the thread). I am pretty sure I can make a very good argument to go for two if you are up by 7 before the try late in the game, and it is to your advantage whether you make it or not. The upside of possibly getting 2 points far outweighs the negative of getting zero, even if the odds of making that 2-pointer are minimal.
I like aggressive decisions going for 2-pt conversions. But going for 2 when up by 7 late in the game, if it is low percentage?! I don't think so. Lets assume the losing team scores a late TD and look at the possibilities using round numbers. Make a 2pt conversion 40%, make a EP 100%, overtime 50%. No rescore chancesCase 1: Miss the 2-pt conversion, the other team can tie it up. We win 50%Case 2: Make the 2-pt conversion, we win 100%Case 3: We make the extra point. Now they need to make the 2-pt conversion and then win in overtime, we win 80%.If we go for the 2-pt conversion, we get case 1 60%, and case 2 40%. That comes to winning a total of 70% of the time. Going for the EP gives us 80% wins.If we make all the same assumptions except the 2-pt conversion is 50%, then it is equal whether to go for 1 or 2.Furthermore, I would make the case that the assumptions favored going for 2. In reality, by going for 1 you force the other team to inefficiently handle the clock. When they are down by 8, they don't know if they need to kill the clock to minimize the chances of them tying it up and losing in regulation time, or scoring quickly so they have time for an onside kick. When they are down by either 7 or 9 they know what they need to do and can handle the clock efficiently. It seems to me a team would have to be somewhat better than 50% to justify going for 2 when up by 7 late in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if they'll at least be more aggressive for going for 2 with Tebow. This whole discussion involves accepting the premise that Tebow would be successful more than 50% of the time. Let's say the Jets score a TD with 2 seconds left on the clock to put themselves behind by one point. Either you can kick the gimme extra point or go for two. The extra point will essentially give you a 50/50 chance to win the game in OT. The two pointer will give you a 100% chance of either winning or losing, depending on its success. Even if Tebow is only a 51% successful 2-point QB, isn't a 51% chance at winning better than a 50% chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they did away with the PAT kick altogether, would any of us really miss it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they did away with the PAT kick altogether, would any of us really miss it?

Just think how much better football would be without it. Less tie scores too if you always have to go for 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they did away with the PAT kick altogether, would any of us really miss it?

The major reason I would miss it is that would give me less time to get the waitress's attention, go to the bathroom, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they did away with the PAT kick altogether, would any of us really miss it?

Just think how much better football would be without it. Less tie scores too if you always have to go for 2.
:confused: que?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they did away with the PAT kick altogether, would any of us really miss it?

Just think how much better football would be without it. Less tie scores too if you always have to go for 2.
:confused: que?
We appear to have a bunch of math nerds in this thread. Maybe they could discuss this a little. It would seem to me that the greater variance inherent with the 2-point conversions would lead to fewer ties but it's only an uneducated guess with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My conclusion:

100% of the time people will pontificate to the death on message boards.

Oh and 86.4% of the time, statistics are made up on the spot. I'm 90% sure of that! :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that the Jets want their starting QB plowing into the endzone 3-4 times a game though... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.