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!
Why wouldn't the Raiders go for 2? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter DropKick
- Start date
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
Yes 8 is really different from 7................
livetogo4sub4
Footballguy
This is why you're not a football coach.
CaptainHook
Footballguy
cause your odds are lower than 50%
shadow2k
Footballguy
If given the choice, you put your opponent in the position of lower odds. Going for one is something like 96% successful. Going for two is less than 50%. So yes, 8 is very different than 7. Sure, 9 would be great, but you have less than a 50% chance of getting there.So you take a 96% chance to put them in a less than 50% spot, rather than putting yourself in the less than 50% spot, which more often than not, would leave THEM in the 96% position to tie.
DropKick
Footballguy
It's interesting to quantify...Assuming the Chargers were going to score, to make the play relevant... At 50% success rate the decision is a wash. At 44% success rate, you have ~72% chance of winning going for two and ~78% chance by kicking the extra point. So, yes - mathematically the extra point is the "safer" play but closer than some would dismiss off-hand.But I've seen Mike Shanahan contend that the broad percentages don't apply. From an article when he decided to win the game by going for two instead if kicking the tying extra point: "There are so many variables in a football game – momentum, weather, match ups, fatigue, play calling, etc. – that each 2-point conversion should be treated as an isolated action and not part of some statistical trend compiled by other teams against other opponents in other situations often in other seasons." He made his decision based on feel for the game situation. I think Belichick's infamous 4th and 2 call was also "feel for the game".Some would think the Saints foolish to try on on-side kick to open the second half of the SB. Incredible risk/reward situation. In today's game, there wasn't much time left - just under a minute and based on "feel for the game" the Raiders may have felt the Chargers had little chance to drive the field plus convert.What if you had today's situation in the SB and were about to give the ball back to a high powered offense that you hadn't been able to contain - say a Manning or Brees led team. Does your decision change? Do you play the percentages or would you take the opportunity to ice the game with the conversion?shadow2k said:
DropKick
Footballguy
It is. Here is another...San Fran down 14. You could go for two after the first TD and, if you make it, have the luxury of kicking an XP for the win later. If you miss, you can go for 2 again (to tie). I know some will dismiss it immediately because it isn't the traditional, conservative approach. Try putting some numbers to it. You might be surprised.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Compared to this thread, your thread about how the Yankees don't deserve to be in the playoffs is sheer genius.
DropKick
Footballguy
You missed the point of both threads. Go figure.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Can you really expect anyone to grasp the brilliance of your novel ideas? I'm honored just to be here.
DropKick
Footballguy
Thanks for the in-depth analysis. If you want to play straight percentages, I've seen the conversion rate stated at 40% or better and even 44%. In the SF example, assume you will score at least two TDs to make the situation matter. 3 points is a win; 2 points is OT and 0 point is a loss. If you kick XP, you have certain OTFor simplicity, assume the XP is always converted (100%)At 40%, the odds of scoring:3 - 40%2 - 24% 0 - 36% - a 52% chance of winning with 50/50 OTAt 44%, the odds of scoring:3 - 44%2 - 24%0 - 32% - a 56% chance of winning with 50/50 OT
Last edited by a moderator:
CaptainHook
Footballguy
this is something ive always considered and wondered why they didnt do it. Seems like a no-brainer.
DropKick
Footballguy
Raider fan meet calculator.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
We get it. You took a math class. Have a cookie.
elshagon
Footballguy
An intelligent thread on the Raiders game should have read "Why did the Raiders run the fumble back for a TD when they could have just gone down and ran out the clock?" Arizona did the same thing this week and got away with it, the 49ers last week also had the opportunity to fall on a turnover but instead fumbled the return and it cost them the game. Do these players even know how to play football? In tonight's game Philly intercepted the ball at the end, and the player promptly went down, sealing the game. This is how it's done.
Utter Chaos
Footballguy
You know if the Raiders had kicked the extra point on their previous touchdown instead of going for two then they would have won by 9 and this thread wouldn't exist.
DropKick
Footballguy
I learned to read too. Try reading the other thread again...
DropKick
Footballguy
Then we would have utter chaos.
sklansky itt
DropKick
Footballguy
And "9" almost takes away all chance. It boils down to how much weight do you put on icing the game.Just trying to get people to think about and debate the strategy. Funny how many of you want to jump down my throat by posing the question.
As far as the worst thread ever, maybe you'd rather answer an "is this collusion" question.
DropKick
Footballguy
If you use the 40% figure, they have close to a 64% chance of scoring at least two; a 69% chance with the 44% success rate figure. Does seem like a no-brainer.However, I don't really think this is a math game. I think it's psychological and political. It is easy to play close to the vest and you'll seldom be questioned. Look at the backlash in this thread. Imagine the real world questions from the press, ownership, etc. upon failure. We've seen well established coaches like Shanahan and Belichick roll the dice. Their stature helps them do that.One of the greatest sequences of play calling I've ever seen was in the 07 Fiesta Bowl when Boise State ran a game winning 2 point conversion on a Statue of Liberty play instead of kicking an XP. Absolutely awesome.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
it used to be when I was in school, but it's been a while.DropKick said:
Lash
Footballguy
only way i would even THINK about doing this is to line up for 1 and fake it ... this is if scouting reports have shown that they go through the motions once they get their head down after scored upon OR that they line up for an all out block cause they know 7 is alot better than 8
DropKick
Footballguy
I know I could have worded that better. With a 7 point lead, you likely couldn't do any worse than OT. Even with an 8 point lead, OT is still possible. 9 (virtually) puts in out of reach. Do you take the opportunity to end the game right there? The debate might have been interesting if SD had scored and forced OT. As someone mentioned, the criticism would have been for returning the fumble for a TD rather than running out the clock.
Bill Haverchuck
Footballguy
Really?!!??
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
haha....I'm just busting your balls, but whatever the decision is, it can always go the other way and you could start a thread about "why didn't they kick the extra point?"I don't think in this particular instance the decision they made is all that controversial.they could've gone either way on that, I suppose, but I think there's something to be said for taking the 'safer' route when you have the upper hand, and force the other team to execute and beat you --- in this case forcing them to score the td, then punch it back in again just to tie and fight it out in ot.look at that cincy game --- they were aggressive in trying to ice it by going for a first down on 3rd and 13 in their own territory, and they let tb back in the game.I don't think this would really happen, but if you want to talk what ifs, what if you fail the 50/50 (let's say) chance at the 2, the other team drives down the field for the td that we're assuming in this conversation, and THEY punch it in for 2 --- you're screwed.you take the easy 8 and that can't happen.
Dropkick,
I think that you've answered your own question here:
-- In the question posed in the OP, you go for one, for the reasons that you and others have pointed out
-- You are correct that if down by 2TDs, then going for two is better with the assumptions you've made. But that's a different question. Going for two there is better, but going for one in the Raiders scenario was better
I think that you've answered your own question here:
-- In the question posed in the OP, you go for one, for the reasons that you and others have pointed out
-- You are correct that if down by 2TDs, then going for two is better with the assumptions you've made. But that's a different question. Going for two there is better, but going for one in the Raiders scenario was better
Voice Of Reason
Footballguy
basically comes down to whether a team is more confident either their offense beating the defense for the 2pter vs their defense stopping the opponents offense.
the %'s on 2 pt conversions are not too far off 50%, so i'd assume factors like a fatigued defense, weather conditions, quality of your offensive and defensive personnel vs your opponents are the relevant factors in this decision.
in this specific case, the raiders probably made the best call. the Raider offense is probably not better than the NFL average and the SD defense was sitting on the sideline leading up to the play. although the Raider D would be more fatigued on a 2pt try, they are still a better defensive unit than offensive and being at home really helps the D.
the %'s on 2 pt conversions are not too far off 50%, so i'd assume factors like a fatigued defense, weather conditions, quality of your offensive and defensive personnel vs your opponents are the relevant factors in this decision.
in this specific case, the raiders probably made the best call. the Raider offense is probably not better than the NFL average and the SD defense was sitting on the sideline leading up to the play. although the Raider D would be more fatigued on a 2pt try, they are still a better defensive unit than offensive and being at home really helps the D.
This is kind of a spinoff of the "bad coaching moves" thread...and just the utter disregard by players to end the game or the lack of intelligence to understand the situation.
So we know that most players aren't smart enough or can't suppress their ego enough to not score at the end of the game...even when the risk/reward says that if their team holds the ball, game over...but if you score, the other team has a chance to come back.
The end of the Oak/SD game went something like this...with Oakland up 1 and about a minute to go, SD fumbled, Oakland returned the fumble for a TD. So, this puts Oakland up 7 pending the extra point. My question is this: why not go for 2 here? If you make it, game over...if you miss it, then you're still up by a TD.
Is this another strategy that the coaches simply can't process (like time management) or just a dumb idea?
So we know that most players aren't smart enough or can't suppress their ego enough to not score at the end of the game...even when the risk/reward says that if their team holds the ball, game over...but if you score, the other team has a chance to come back.
The end of the Oak/SD game went something like this...with Oakland up 1 and about a minute to go, SD fumbled, Oakland returned the fumble for a TD. So, this puts Oakland up 7 pending the extra point. My question is this: why not go for 2 here? If you make it, game over...if you miss it, then you're still up by a TD.
Is this another strategy that the coaches simply can't process (like time management) or just a dumb idea?
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
you dont go for 2.
Even if SD gets a TD the 2 pointer is less than a 50% conversion rate (no?). So you take your chances on them making 2 plays to jsut Tie you then they still probably need OT
Even if SD gets a TD the 2 pointer is less than a 50% conversion rate (no?). So you take your chances on them making 2 plays to jsut Tie you then they still probably need OT
That's a terrible call to go for two. You show you have ZERO faith in your defense. If you blow an 8 point lead with under 2 minutes left in the game, you deserve to lose.
Choke
Footballguy
Lash
Footballguy
johnny G
there was a huge thread on this exact question already this week but you probably didnt see it because it got pushed back a couple pages
i have no idea who started it or what word to type in search to find it
the search engine on here not good anyways so you just may have to manually go til you find it
there was a huge thread on this exact question already this week but you probably didnt see it because it got pushed back a couple pages
i have no idea who started it or what word to type in search to find it
the search engine on here not good anyways so you just may have to manually go til you find it
I don't think it's a dumb idea at all. Everyone always focuses on the risk part of the risk/reward calculation. But there's a lot of reward there.
Let's do the most basic analysis.
p = your probability of getting the 2.
q = their probability of scoring the TD
r = their probability of getting the 2
s = your probability of winning in OT
Assume extra points are 100%.
If you go for two, the only way they win is if you miss the two, they score a TD (assuming they kick the PAT), and they win in OT. The chances of that are (1-p)*q*(1-s). So your chance of winning is 1 - (1-p)q(1-s) = 1 - q + pq + qs - pqs.
If you go for one, you lose if they get a TD, a two, and an overtime win. The chances of that are: q*r*(1-s). So your chance of winning is 1 - qr + qrs.
If the two teams are equal, then p=r and s=.5. In that case, the two puts your chances at 1 - .5q(1-p). The PAT puts your chances at 1 - .5qp. The two is better if you think you have a 50/50 shot at making it.
In general, the two is better if r > 1-p, or to put it another way, if r+p > 1. I believe that NFL average is something along the lines of .4ish, which would mean that in general the two is probably not the way to go. But if either you or your opponent is very good at making two-pointers, then a two becomes a good idea. This makes sense and is easy to see in the extreme cases. If you have a 100% chance of making the two, then you should obviously go for two, right? Well, what if your chances are 90%? Still seems like a good idea to have a 90% chance of ending the game. 80%? I'd still go. 20%? Definitely not. The point is, there's a line somewhere past which going for two is the right call. Likewise, if your opponent is very good at making two-pointers, then the difference between being up 7 and being up 8 is worth that much anyway, so why not take the chance of making it 9?
Conclusion: I don't think it would have been a good idea for the Raiders to do it in that particular situation. But I also don't think it's a dumb idea. There are situations where it would be the right call.
Let's do the most basic analysis.
p = your probability of getting the 2.
q = their probability of scoring the TD
r = their probability of getting the 2
s = your probability of winning in OT
Assume extra points are 100%.
If you go for two, the only way they win is if you miss the two, they score a TD (assuming they kick the PAT), and they win in OT. The chances of that are (1-p)*q*(1-s). So your chance of winning is 1 - (1-p)q(1-s) = 1 - q + pq + qs - pqs.
If you go for one, you lose if they get a TD, a two, and an overtime win. The chances of that are: q*r*(1-s). So your chance of winning is 1 - qr + qrs.
If the two teams are equal, then p=r and s=.5. In that case, the two puts your chances at 1 - .5q(1-p). The PAT puts your chances at 1 - .5qp. The two is better if you think you have a 50/50 shot at making it.
In general, the two is better if r > 1-p, or to put it another way, if r+p > 1. I believe that NFL average is something along the lines of .4ish, which would mean that in general the two is probably not the way to go. But if either you or your opponent is very good at making two-pointers, then a two becomes a good idea. This makes sense and is easy to see in the extreme cases. If you have a 100% chance of making the two, then you should obviously go for two, right? Well, what if your chances are 90%? Still seems like a good idea to have a 90% chance of ending the game. 80%? I'd still go. 20%? Definitely not. The point is, there's a line somewhere past which going for two is the right call. Likewise, if your opponent is very good at making two-pointers, then the difference between being up 7 and being up 8 is worth that much anyway, so why not take the chance of making it 9?
Conclusion: I don't think it would have been a good idea for the Raiders to do it in that particular situation. But I also don't think it's a dumb idea. There are situations where it would be the right call.
I guess I'm kinda surprised at how many people would pass on a 2-yard chance at ending the game.
Without using the calculations DD just listed...just simple English:
1) Go for 2
Risk=miss and you're up by 7...opponent can score and send game into OT w/ TD+XP
Reward=convert and the game's over
2) Go for 1
Risk=low
Reward=you're up by 8...opponent can score TD but will need to convert 2 ptr to send game into OT
In this situation (such as the Oak/SD game), SD had about 1 minute on the clock. So, if they do drive the length of the field and score a TD, Oakland's defense would more than likely be a little gassed from defending an uptempo drive. I'm pretty sure the rate of conversions for 2 would go up from the 40-45% range (just an educated assumption...I have zero stats to back this up).
Without using the calculations DD just listed...just simple English:
1) Go for 2
Risk=miss and you're up by 7...opponent can score and send game into OT w/ TD+XP
Reward=convert and the game's over
2) Go for 1
Risk=low
Reward=you're up by 8...opponent can score TD but will need to convert 2 ptr to send game into OT
In this situation (such as the Oak/SD game), SD had about 1 minute on the clock. So, if they do drive the length of the field and score a TD, Oakland's defense would more than likely be a little gassed from defending an uptempo drive. I'm pretty sure the rate of conversions for 2 would go up from the 40-45% range (just an educated assumption...I have zero stats to back this up).
Paul Brown
Footballguy
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
But this means that there is still a 36% chance that they lose outright (without even making OT). By playing it safe and kicking the extra points, there is more like a 1-2 % chance that they lose outright (without making OT). If they make that first 2 point conversion, things are golden. In my opinion, there is just too much of a risk (36%) of losing the game without even making it to OT.
It is not traditional and if it fails the coach is on the hotseat. Sad but true it works that way.
I wondered that myself. Scoring td's on special teams/defense is fun but this is one that actually hurt their chances of winning. Running out the clock was the play there.
