Gotcha. But the main thing I was getting at was that the going for 2 wasn't actually stupid, so it shouldn't be discussed, much less obscuring this actual dumb decision.Because the going for two happened with 5 mins left to play & the sneaks happened 4 mins and 20 seconds later.
The simple explanation is “chronology of events”.
Plenty of people were discussing the stupidity of the QB sneaks.
I believe i said in this very topic something to the effect of “when it didn’t work the 1st time they would have been better off spiking the ball instead of running the 2nd one, to save the 20 seconds.”
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter GreenNGold
- Start date
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I think it’s a choice. It’s a risk.
Maybe the *math* says go for two.
But the game isn’t played with calculators. It’s played with 22 dudes on the field.
The math takes into account all teams, over however many plays averaged out to say “this, statistically is what *should* be the result”
that result is not guaranteed.
one can easily argue that being conservative, and kicking the PAT was the smarter play.
Because math is emotionless. Math doesn’t get disappointed when the 1st 2PAT fails. Math doesn’t put a little feeling of greater pressure on the defensive players. Math doesn’t kill momentum (or even believe in momentum at all, for that matter)
it occurs to me that some of the arguments in favor of the math seem to believe in momentum. I’ll hear an analyst say “they had momentum & the math said to go for it”
Math will tell you that momentum as a concept applied to football doesn’t exist. There’s just a series of plays that each have a chance to succeed or fail.
humans playing a game do seem to have momentum though.
So while I will not argue the math (because hey, math is math. 2+2 is actually 4) I will suggest that there’s more to the game of football than math, and that kicking that PAT might - just might result in the Giants feeling a little less pressure. Maybe they feel like he win is a little more attainable since it’s a 7 point game and not and 8 point game. Maybe they’re able to channel that into making a stop so the Falcons don’t kick that FG. Maybe they make it 20-19 and then have a chance to go for the win if they’re feeling it. Maybe.
Impossible to quantify? You bet. But that doesn’t mean these aren’t factors.
Math don’t care about their feelings tho. I get it.
And so some will feel it’s not a wise play.
Theres a reason the Oakland A’s don’t win (or make it to) the WS every year. Math ain’t the reason - they have the best analytics in the game. What they lack is the payroll & the talent. Math don’t care about talent either, right? As long as the OBP & spin rate & VORP all jive, they should win every game.
But they don’t.
Last edited by a moderator:
Short Corner
Footballguy
Nobody makes this argument. Analytics is about maximmizing expectation. If you think that taking a 12.5% hit in ev is worth keeping up team morale, well hey good for you. You are going to lose a lot more games than you win. As others have stated, the momentum argument is a double edged sword. You can also argue that getting the two pumps up your defense even more to get a stop thereby increasing your ev by 50%. But we both know the emotional argument is BS and usually the last stand for someone with a faulty premise.
trader jake
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
We do?
This seems like projection rather than fact.
We’ve seen momentum. It exists. Sort of like the concept of “clutch“.
Math says there’s no such thing as a clutch hitter. And yet some hitters simply do better in high-pressure situations.
Last edited by a moderator:
Short Corner
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Momentum may "exist" at some level, but the problem is that it has almost zero predictive value. It is almost always invoked either theoretically or as a post-hoc explanation. Look at last night's game. Did the Giants missing the 2PC lead to a loss in momentum? The Falcons got a few first downs, so yes. But then their drive stalled out, so no. But then they hit a super-long FG, so yes. But then the Giants drove down and scored a TD (and made the 2PC!) so no.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
You are sort of making my point for me.Momentum may "exist" at some level, but the problem is that it has almost zero predictive value. It is almost always invoked either theoretically or as a post-hoc explanation. Look at last night's game. Did the Giants missing the 2PC lead to a loss in momentum? The Falcons got a few first downs, so yes. But then their drive stalled out, so no. But then they hit a super-long FG, so yes. But then the Giants drove down and scored a TD (and made the 2PC!) so no.
Predictive models are great when you have madden 19 and you’re running simulations between rosters. You can very easily make a predictive model that says so many times out of so many, such and such play will work.
But the game of football is not played by machines. It’s played by human beings. Humans get injured, they get emotional. They get adrenaline rushes. They get fatigued.How do you quantify happiness? Or love? Or depression?
That’s my issue with applying statistical models to play calling in a football game.
Just because you can’t easily predictably quantify momentum does not mean it doesn’t exist. We’ve all seen teams “get hot”. In 2010, the San Francisco Giants had no business winning, or even appearing in the World Series. They won nine straight elimination games to get there. Statistically speaking, they were the worst of any of the teams in the postseason, and even worse than some teams that did not make the post season.
Every attempt to predict the winner of the World Series that year had the Giants illuminated in the first round.
And yet every member of that team in clubhouse has a shiny World Series ring as evidence that momentum exists.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
For every time I've seen a team "with momentum" go on to win, there's a time I've seen a team "with momentum" end up losing. In the latter case, did they not have enough momentum or something? If we're using baseball examples, just last year the Indians finished the regular season 33-4. Doesn't get much hotter than that. They lost in the ALDS. The reality is that teams "have momentum" until they somehow lose momentum, which is to say that momentum doesn't really mean anything.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
what about clutch?
Short Corner
Footballguy
Or the 2002 Athletics breaking the MLB win streak record. They blew an 11 run lead. Surely the Royals had seized momentum and should have gone on to win that game. Hatteberg had no business stepping to the plate with any sort of confidence.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Probably a mixed bag of real effects and post-hoc explanations. I'm sure some players are able to manage anxiety better than others, etc. and therefore may be better suited to perform in high-stress situations. That's almost certainly a real thing. On the other hand, some of what we call "clutch" is probably better attributed to talent. We don't often hear about a guy who sucks but is clutch, right?
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Not to derail the thread too much but that's the paradoxical thing about momentum. If momentum really helps you do better, than a little momentum would help you do a little better, and the more momentum you build up the more and more of an advantage you should have over your opponent. A team that gets hot should eventually be nearly unstoppable if momentum had a real effect on the balance of power in a game. But inevitably teams "with momentum" lose it. How is that possible?
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
We also see guys who are elite who are known to be chokers in high pressure situations - the “anti-clutch” if you will.
not quantifiable - not predictable - yet a pettern. I’m sure there’s nothing to sports psychology though - it’s all just math.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
By definition a pattern IS quantifiable/predictable. Who would you say are some examples of elite players who are known to be chokers? It's very likely that this, too, is just misattributed variance or something. Never said there's nothing to sports psychology, I said the opposite in my post. But we're not psychologists and most of what casual fans would say is evidence "clutch" and "choke" is probably wrong.We also see guys who are elite who are known to be chokers in high pressure situations - the “anti-clutch” if you will.
not quantifiable - not predictable - yet a pettern. I’m sure there’s nothing to sports psychology though - it’s all just math.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Barry Bonds is probably the best example of a superstar player who’s notorious for poor post-season performances.
Some would say “yeah; but the pitching in the post season is so much better than regular season” - and yet Bonds performed poorly against those same pitchers he owned in the regular season.
(insert snarky “steroids must’ve worn off by then” retort here)
thats one example - there are many.
ETA: note - the 2002 World Series helped to dismiss some of the “bonds is a postseason choker” rhetoric as he performed very well.
Last edited by a moderator:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
If "momentum" exists, then it's even more evidence that you should go for 2:
- go for 2 and succeed = major increase in momentum (because you are playing for a ~95% chance of winning)
- go for 1 and succeed = no change in momentum (because you are still playing for a ~47% chance of winning in overtime)
- go for 2 and fail = no change in momentum (because you are still playing for a ~47% chance of winning in overtime)
- go for 1 and fail = major decrease in momentum (because you've lost faith in your kicker and because you're playing for a ~47% chance of winning in overtime)
Momentum is higher when players feel like they have a greater chance to win, right?
- go for 2 and succeed = major increase in momentum (because you are playing for a ~95% chance of winning)
- go for 1 and succeed = no change in momentum (because you are still playing for a ~47% chance of winning in overtime)
- go for 2 and fail = no change in momentum (because you are still playing for a ~47% chance of winning in overtime)
- go for 1 and fail = major decrease in momentum (because you've lost faith in your kicker and because you're playing for a ~47% chance of winning in overtime)
Momentum is higher when players feel like they have a greater chance to win, right?
CalBear
Footballguy
Well that's exactly the problem, isn't it? Every player will have periods when he does better or worse. In a small sample size like the number of postseason games a baseball player has had in his career, there will be some players who do better than their averages and some who do worse. If "being a choker" is a real thing, the ones who do worse will continue to do worse.
Because they're chokers. Like Barry Bonds, supposedly. Who is now #1 in World Series history in OPS and a bunch of other batting statistics, by a huge margin.
I know there's a whole debate about this in baseball, but I haven't followed it closely enough to discuss it intelligently (here's the part where you get to say, "Never let that stop you before."). ?
In football, there's definitely an element to that with QBs. The average NFL team will, over the long term, be .500 in one-score games, but teams with elite QBs like Brady and Peyton tend to outperform. Then again, as @Ignoratio Elenchi points out, it can be difficult to disentangle "clutch" from just "good". Certainly, you don't need to look at numbers to know that you should try to keep the ball out of Brady's hands with the game on the line in the 4th quarter.
Still, to the extent that it can be used prospectively, that can be valuable information. Let's say you have a large sample size showing that Bonds or A-Rod or whoever does worse in "pressure situations". Then yeah, maybe you're more likely to pitch to him than to walk him. So that's information you can actually incorporate into your decision-making process.
Momentum, by contrast, has no such value. You shouldn't go for two because failing will hurt your momentum. Or maybe you should because converting will help. What's more valuable, positive momentum or negative? Does it affect offense or defense more? Are some teams better at capitalizing on momentum than others? How long does momentum last before it dissipates? Do certain events cause bigger momentum swings than others?
All of those questions are unanswerable -- and to the extent that people have tried to measure it, they've found little to no correlation -- which means trying to incorporate momentum into your decision-making process is really just a way to justify your pre-existing beliefs.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Answerable but not predictable.
it’s a fun discussion - I’ve played FBB much longer than FFB, and I’ve got some SABR geeks in my leagues. We debate stuff like this allllll the time.
I’m actually less of a Luddite than I play on the Internet.
But at the same time I’m also believer in “clutch” and “momentum” and other things that predictive modeling can’t or won’t account for. I still believe something to “the moment”’ as opposed to “what usually should happen given 100 of those moments across 100 players in 100 situations.
And hey - maybe I’m wildly wrong. Maybe it’s all a perfect science.
Seems like sports betters would win a lot more though if it werrr this exact. Probability not being the same thing as certainty and all that.
And worth pointing out anecdotally, I kick my friends butts at FBB pretty much every year. Before the season I’m sure their teams are statistically much more likely to win though.
The problem I’m having with all of you brilliant mathematicians is you’re assuming all teams have the same odds of converting two pointers. Sorry, not realistic. “Oh, but if they’re below average at converting two pointers, they’re also less likely to win in OT”. Ok, well get back to me when you’ve calculated all of the odds specific to the Giants, to red zone offense versus overall offense, etc
What might be right for the Chiefs, Patriots, etc, isn't necessarily right for the Giants and Eli who was pretty horrid passing (and running QB sneaks) in the red zone last night as I recall. At least in OT you could benefit from a lucky long play from OJ or Saquon.
Last edited by a moderator:
Short Corner
Footballguy
Even a bad rate of 33% still makes it the right decision given how bad their kicker is. Their rate this year is 60% fwiw. 67% before last night
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
To be fair, they are not necessarily predicting anything. They’re speaking to statistical probability & making an a evaluation of risk versus reward for a given situation.
so they’re not speaking in absolutes about the outcome - the outcome still might be failure.
But when evaluating whether or not going for 2 is the right call, the math says there’s X% chance of reward with no greater risk.
But you’re also hinting at what I take issue with - the data set used for analysis leading to that conclusion has a ton of variables....from team personnel to field conditions to weather conditions to defensive ranking, etc, etc, etc all the way down to minutia like “does the center have a bout of twitchy tmh from last ifht’s burrito?”.
In a statistical model those are all averaged out & theoretically accounted for to give you your odds of success or failure. But I’m the moment, those variables matter more, and make things less predictable.
But even with that in mind, I don’t disageee with the mathematicians - none of them have said “doing XYZ guarantees this or that result” - it’s just an evaluation of whether or not it was the right or (in the context of this topic) a “dumb” call.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
It's not even that complicated. The basic premise doesn't rely on finely-tuned statistical models. Almost no team in the NFL is so bad at 2pt conversions that it makes sense to kick the PAT instead. A 14 point deficit means you need 15 points to win. The easiest way to get 15 points is 8 + 7.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Some coaches & other more conservative minds believe in playing for the tie.A 14 point deficit means you need 15 points to win. The easiest way to get 15 points is 8 + 7.
CalBear
Footballguy
That is a true statement. And doing so is obviously stupid, which is why we're talking about it in this thread.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
No NFL coach is ever playing for a tie. They're always playing to win, they just sometimes take different approaches in different situations to try to get a win. Some coaches, for example, erroneously believe tying a game is a necessary intermediate step to winning a game.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I meant situationally.
Like, they’re playing to tie the game to extend it so as to not lose the game & later win.
i thought that was obvious.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
It was obvious. My point is that the whole "extend the game" approach is wrong. Just like in the similar situation where a team is down by 15 and kicks a PAT to "keep it a one score game." Coaches do lots of things that are dumb.
A couple thoughts on this:
- Yes, of course you need to consider variables. That's where confidence intervals come in. If you tell me the numbers say it's 51/49 to go for it, I'm assuming the margin of error swamps that 2% difference. But in this case, the numbers say going for two increases your EW% by at least 12.5% (probably a little more, given that 2PC% have gone up and XP% is down since the rule change). That's a big gap, and it can cover a lot of potential variance
- There's also the question of how much the different variables contributing to the margin of error are correlated. If you're talking about weather, field conditions, QB play, etc., OK, maybe they all move in the same direction and make a 2pt attempt a worse play. But more likely they affect it in different (and unknown) directions. Does a sloppy field mean you shouldn't go for it, because your WRs will fall down? Or does it mean that you should, because unlike the DBs, they know where they're going? Or maybe it makes an XP harder.
- That brings me to my biggest objection to the "variables" argument: I'm not going to say that this is always the case, but in my experience the vast majority of people arguing against the 2PC are people who, having been challenged on what they had previously regarded as an obvious conclusion, are working backward to find arguments that justify that conclusion. I think all of us, before we ever heard the quantitative argument in favor of the 2PC, just knew that teams should kick the XP there. It's something we never even thought about, much less questioned. And I think the natural human response when an obvious belief is questioned is to try to reject the revisionist take and try to poke holes in it.
BTW, I'll give you one example where I absolutely buy the "variables" argument: In that famous GB-AZ playoff game, after Rodgers hit two consecutive Hail Marys to bring the Packers to within one, a lot of people argued they should have gone for two and tried to win it in regulation. I totally buy that in theory -- they were heavy road dogs, and if there were ever a time when momentum did exist, it would be at that moment -- but I read afterward that McCarthy was concerned because GB was down a couple WRs, and didn't feel like they had any good 2PC plays they could run with the personnel available. That is a variable that a) clearly affects the decision in a specific direction, and b) potentially has a large enough impact to overwhelm the quantitative argument in favor of going for it. (Of course, they kicked the XP and it came back to bite them when AZ scored on its initial OT possession. But I think the process was good in that case.)
Grahamburn
Footballguy
Then, of course, in OT Koetter decides to challenge a spot of 1 yard by throwing the challenge flag, which if he had been listening to the referee announce the rules heading into OT he would known all reviews come from the booth. Cost them a timeout.
kittenmittens
Footballguy
Nice play call by McCarthy there for the safety... If you're going to run the ball from the inch yard line, do a QB sneak because you almost certainly won't use yards.
Running up the middle is so stupid in this situation. Is there a play call with a higher chance of losing a foot or two which means a safety in that situation?
Running up the middle is so stupid in this situation. Is there a play call with a higher chance of losing a foot or two which means a safety in that situation?
cheese
Footballguy
I might have to post the Bengals play calling from the time they went up 27-6 until they needed to rush down the field for a FG to win it.
They all of a sudden tried to be a running team like they were killing off the last 3 minutes of a game and got zero first downs total in that time. I think it was 5 straight 3 and outs and a pick 6 by the Bengals D saved them. You know what helps kill clock? First downs. Run, Run, pass in the interest of clock when there is a whole half left is a good recipe to let the other team get a lot of possessions to catch up.
They all of a sudden tried to be a running team like they were killing off the last 3 minutes of a game and got zero first downs total in that time. I think it was 5 straight 3 and outs and a pick 6 by the Bengals D saved them. You know what helps kill clock? First downs. Run, Run, pass in the interest of clock when there is a whole half left is a good recipe to let the other team get a lot of possessions to catch up.
Rove!
Footballguy
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
And of course right on cue, the announcer says, “If you wanted any hope you had to make the XP there. If you don’t get 2 there, that wipes you out pretty much.... They kicked the XP with a chance to go down and score, and then decide whether they want to tie it or go for 2 for the win.” They scored with :17 left in the game, they're not waiting to decide lol. They're either playing for the tie (which is basically only because Shurmur did the right thing last week and got lambasted for it), or they're playing for the regulation-time win with a 2-pointer, in which case they should've gone for it on the first TD.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’m just going to make a general statement about 1st and goal at the 1.
run the damn ball.
I know, I know - sometimes it works. I know.
But more times it doesn’t. And sometimes it ends in disaster.
and I’m specifically looking at teams with great RBs. And even more so at teams with young QBs behind center.
Browns had a 1st and goal at the 1 and did not hand it to Chubb. Well why TF did you draft Chubb then?
At one point in the game, LAR gave Gurley 1 shot from 1st and goal and passed on 2nd down. really? Run the damn ball!
I get the element of surprise & I get mixing it up, but it’s gotten to the point that teams get to the 1 and forget they have a running game at all. And its dumb.
/rant
run the damn ball.
I know, I know - sometimes it works. I know.
But more times it doesn’t. And sometimes it ends in disaster.
and I’m specifically looking at teams with great RBs. And even more so at teams with young QBs behind center.
Browns had a 1st and goal at the 1 and did not hand it to Chubb. Well why TF did you draft Chubb then?
At one point in the game, LAR gave Gurley 1 shot from 1st and goal and passed on 2nd down. really? Run the damn ball!
I get the element of surprise & I get mixing it up, but it’s gotten to the point that teams get to the 1 and forget they have a running game at all. And its dumb.
/rant
I don't totally disagree with you, but ...
If you are going to pass, it makes more sense to do it on 1st. The ol' jumbo-lineup/play-action/throw it to the backup TE leaking out to the end zone seems to have a pretty good track record.
The one that kills me is the empty-backfield shotgun from the 1, a la the Titans in London last week.
doeseatplace
Footballguy
all these coaches think they are outsmarting the other team. It's a disease. Last night, what did Belicheck do with tiny RB, White? Just what you said, ran the ball, easily scored. What else do they never do? Bootleg. One of the easiest scores there is.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Seems like spitting a WR out to the left and another out to the right is the best formation for goaline. If they single one of the WRs you at least have the option to audible. If the have an extra guy shadowing both, sure makes running easier. I see too many trips right or trips left crap close to the goaline ,and it's just dumb.
Yeah, and the empty backfield crap, unless the QB is Newton-like and runs it in
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove!
Footballguy
If you want to mix it up, you can do that with the run:
HB Dive
FB Dive
HB toss
QB sneak
HB Off tackle
wildcat
etc
too many times it’s just HB dive outside the one and QB Sneak inside the 1...that is predictable
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Yep - and as the saying goes, when you throw the ball 3 things can happen & 2 of them are bad.
sure; there’s the occasional GL fumble, but that seems more rare than the GL Int.
Ask Pete Carroll.
Short Corner
Footballguy
Brilliant next level coaching or something obviously stupid? You make the call.
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article220607710.html
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article220607710.html
Similar threads
