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

[FreeBaGeL]

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.

That's great that you've defined statistical variance for everyone that already knew that it was, but you don't seem to be applying it properly.You're making the same mistake that B3TD did, you're assuming statistical variance only applies in the negative direction. It applies both ways, and if the overall percentage in the long-run is above 50% than it's more likely to end up over 50% after the variance is applied than it is to end up under it.We all know that just because they missed their last 2 point conversion it doesn't mean they're going to make the next one. What you're neglecting is that, likewise, just because they made the last one doesn't mean they're going to miss the next one. The result of the last one has no effect on the result of the next one and if we're telling you that we've gone into the future and seen that the success rate is over 50% then each of those individually will have a more than 50% chance of converting, which means that each pair will have a better than 50% chance of leading to 2+ points. It's entirely possible for a sample pair of attempts that they miss both and get 0 points. Likewise it's entirely possible that for that pair they make both attempts and get 4 points (or make 1 and get 2 points). If the overall percentage is over 50% than we know that overall each pair will average more than 2 points while with extra points each pair will average slightly under 2 points (accounting for the occasional miss). We don't know the situation that each applies to, so if we have to choose one we take the one that gives us a higher predictable average of points.The other thing you seem to be taking issue with is the idea that just because they've made > 50% doesn't mean they'll continue to do so. While true, this is also true of anything else. They're not guaranteed to continue making 99.6% of their extra points either, yet that's a number you've continued to throw around. Regardless, this point is moot because we're operating under the hypothetical situation that we're all from the future and we already know that they've converted more than 50% in the coming season.

 

[Mookie]

The one big assumption everyone in this thread is making is that the Jets will score TDs this season. The whole issue could be moot.

 

[RUSF18]

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.

I've heard this line of reasoning also coming from the Jets in regards to bringing in Tebow in the first place. "If we give Tebow all these snaps per game, our opponents will lose valuable gameplanning time to prepare for this." But why doesn't anyone look at it the other way as well? By devoting time to Tebow, you're taking X% of your practice time away from Sanchez and the traditional offense. Am I overlooking the invested time the defense uses vs the offense? To me it would seem, at best, negligible. A part of me thinks that it would take more time for the offense to prepare (blocking patterns, actual play design and execution, etc) than the defense to account for. Correct me if I'm wrong please...

 

[Holy Schneikes]

One thing that confuses me is all of this discussion about extra gameplanning (on both sides) for this situation. Huh? I'm fairly certain both the offense and defense are going to spend some time preparing for the ball on the two at the goal-line scenario. Doesn't make much difference (in terms of play options or preparation) if it is for a TD or a 2 point conversion.

The rest of the stats stuff is a bunch of hooey too. Yes, of course more than 50% (of two) is more better than 99.whatever% (of one) in general. Of course there will be game specific situations late in the game that dictate one approach or the other, just as there are now. But early in games, if you are at 51% you are better off going for the two.

It always kills me when folks are so worried about missing a two point conversion and losing by one at the end of the game, but totally ignore the fact that a team could just as easily lose by one at the end of a game because they only got one point (from a kick) when they could have gotten two from a conversion. All of that stuff evens out in the aggregate. Sleep well tonight knowing that getting more points over the course of a season is ON AVERAGE going to help a team win more games.

 

[DoubleG]

One thing that confuses me is all of this discussion about extra gameplanning (on both sides) for this situation. Huh? I'm fairly certain both the offense and defense are going to spend some time preparing for the ball on the two at the goal-line scenario. Doesn't make much difference (in terms of play options or preparation) if it is for a TD or a 2 point conversion.

The rest of the stats stuff is a bunch of hooey too. Yes, of course more than 50% (of two) is more better than 99.whatever% (of one) in general. Of course there will be game specific situations late in the game that dictate one approach or the other, just as there are now. But early in games, if you are at 51% you are better off going for the two.

It always kills me when folks are so worried about missing a two point conversion and losing by one at the end of the game, but totally ignore the fact that a team could just as easily lose by one at the end of a game because they only got one point (from a kick) when they could have gotten two from a conversion. All of that stuff evens out in the aggregate. Sleep well tonight knowing that getting more points over the course of a season is ON AVERAGE going to help a team win more games.

There you go.[/thread]

 

[Run It Up]

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.

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.

This isnt true and youre right, it is basic statistics.

 

[DoubleG]

The difference is that if you're converting 60% of them, the latter scenario (it causing more wins than losses) is more likely.

This isnt true and youre right, it is basic statistics.

Please explain how you are not more likely to win if you are, on average, scoring more per conversion attempt, then your opponent.While many would agree that it certainly is not the only factor, increasing your PPG would likely increase your odds of winning, all else remaining the same.

I'll hang up and listen for the answer.

ETA: This has to be a fishing trip - there is no way someone is this mathmatically dense. :(

 

[Faust]

The NFL Network made the observation the other day that Tebow convered 3 of 4 two point attempts last year (yes that is a small sample size).

 

[Perfect Tommy]

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.

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.

This isnt true and youre right, it is basic statistics.

Not only is it true, but it is easily provable. I am sure nobody thought it was worth proving something so obvious. I am curious what it is that you think you see that makes you ignore simple, provable mathematics. Is it the fear of the sense of loss if you could have had an EP and instead go for and fail a 2pt conversion? Certainly people's subjective value of a EP vs. a 2pt conversion might not match the the actual value towards winning a game. Oh, and it isn't statistics but mathematics.

 

[coolnerd]

The problem here is two-fold and related (variance and sample size) assuming the average team scores 50tds in a season(they don't, btw). Overtime EPs are 99% accurate so I will go 49 points. If a team is 51% accurate on 2 point conversions over this span then they will score 3 more points over the season (note what I did math wise). So that 3 points to spread over 16 games, to go from I know that I am getting 7 points all but one time, to not knowing whether I get 6 or 8 points at anytime. It is NOT just habit or risk aversion, the risk/reward numbers don't hold up to the limited reality of what NFL coaches are facing.

Yes, the math works over the course of time with enough samples, but an NFL game (3Tds) and season (50tds) is not the course of time, so to sell this to any team the percentage is going have to more than 3 points randomly placed over 16 games. I don't know where the "sweet" spot is terms of enough points (or percenteage of two point conversion), but I am guessing 3 points a year is not that answer.

So the answer is that the math is correct, but not correct enough for any team to ever truly impliment.

 

[cobalt_27]

The problem here is two-fold and related (variance and sample size) assuming the average team scores 50tds in a season(they don't, btw). Overtime EPs are 99% accurate so I will go 49 points. If a team is 51% accurate on 2 point conversions over this span then they will score 3 more points over the season (note what I did math wise). So that 3 points to spread over 16 games, to go from I know that I am getting 7 points all but one time, to not knowing whether I get 6 or 8 points at anytime. It is NOT just habit or risk aversion, the risk/reward numbers don't hold up to the limited reality of what NFL coaches are facing.Yes, the math works over the course of time with enough samples, but an NFL game (3Tds) and season (50tds) is not the course of time, so to sell this to any team the percentage is going have to more than 3 points randomly placed over 16 games. I don't know where the "sweet" spot is terms of enough points (or percenteage of two point conversion), but I am guessing 3 points a year is not that answer. So the answer is that the math is correct, but not correct enough for any team to ever truly impliment.

If you believe you can get 51% conversion rate and it's going to net you +3 points over the course of a season, then you do it. Bottom line, unless the situation is idiotic (e.g., tie game, 2 min to go, and the choice of a 1 or 2), there is no reason to take less points. Why give away those 3 points when you can add them to your total? Those points are not inconsequential. Not only can that mean the difference of a win in an extra game (and potentially the difference of a 10-win season versus a 9-win season and making the playoffs or not), but it also puts your team in a position to be more versed/adept at such conversions at the end of the game when it matters the most.Also, it needs to be pointed out (I haven't seen this explored yet) that the XP and 2PT conversion rates are miscalculated because botched snaps that result in failed extra points are considered failed 2pt conversions not failed XPs. This results in an artificially high XP rates and artificially low 2pt conversion rates. CAR and NYJ have a real opportunity to exploit this to their advantage and should, without question.Anyone know the Ducks' conversion rate on 2pt conversions over the past few years? They seemed unusually good at this, but I haven't learned how to use Google yet.

 

[Run It Up]

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.

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.

This isnt true and youre right, it is basic statistics.

Not only is it true, but it is easily provable. I am sure nobody thought it was worth proving something so obvious. I am curious what it is that you think you see that makes you ignore simple, provable mathematics. Is it the fear of the sense of loss if you could have had an EP and instead go for and fail a 2pt conversion? Certainly people's subjective value of a EP vs. a 2pt conversion might not match the the actual value towards winning a game. Oh, and it isn't statistics but mathematics.

Because a successful conversion doesnt lead to a win everytime, nor can it be quantified whether the 60% leads to a victory (there, disproven) - and throwing numbers around is equally frivolous. Mathematics and Statistics are squares and rectangles, but when your talking about probability and variance of a STATISTIC its a rectangle, not a square. When your just spouting numbers with percentage marks and creating hypothetical scenarios where no actual information is introduced its less than neither. The best argument for it (and against me) has been that scoring more points can directly be correlated to winning more games. Which in a round about way is true - but goes no further in supporting the idea that going for a 2pt conversion outside of a necessity is a good thing (especially in comparison to the alternative, which has overwhelming evidence in its favor). Now why can no one else actually produce an argument that isnt just mathematical diarrhea?

 

[bonesman]

Ummmm... unless you and only one other person bought a ticket, your odds are not 50/50. HTH.

"gambler's phallacy"

Freudian

 

[coolnerd]

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.

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.

This isnt true and youre right, it is basic statistics.

Not only is it true, but it is easily provable. I am sure nobody thought it was worth proving something so obvious. I am curious what it is that you think you see that makes you ignore simple, provable mathematics. Is it the fear of the sense of loss if you could have had an EP and instead go for and fail a 2pt conversion? Certainly people's subjective value of a EP vs. a 2pt conversion might not match the the actual value towards winning a game. Oh, and it isn't statistics but mathematics.

Because a successful conversion doesnt lead to a win everytime, nor can it be quantified whether the 60% leads to a victory (there, disproven) - and throwing numbers around is equally frivolous. Mathematics and Statistics are squares and rectangles, but when your talking about probability and variance of a STATISTIC its a rectangle, not a square. When your just spouting numbers with percentage marks and creating hypothetical scenarios where no actual information is introduced its less than neither. The best argument for it (and against me) has been that scoring more points can directly be correlated to winning more games. Which in a round about way is true - but goes no further in supporting the idea that going for a 2pt conversion outside of a necessity is a good thing (especially in comparison to the alternative, which has overwhelming evidence in its favor). Now why can no one else actually produce an argument that isnt just mathematical diarrhea?

The reality is that you don't know when you are going to score more or less poins in a particular game under alway going for 2. It might work perfectly as your case, or it might come in a game that a team would have won anyway or loss anyway. The randomness of the extra three points in 16 games is the reason it is not significant. The NFL is NOT a total points league, but more points this particular week than your opponents league. Until someone can tell where those extra points are going to be added, then my running somewhat realistic numbers proves this to be theorically correct, but practically not useful.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

It would fit the Jets mold of seeming kind of desperate to score points. Belichick and Brady would just go out and score another TD on the next offensive drive after kicking the XP. That's how to outscore opponents in today's league, score again when you have the ball. In fact, given Brady's competitiveness, it would probably just piss him off to rely on gimmicks. Just take the 7, and score again when you get the ball. The serious offensive teams with big QBs don't need to consider going for 2 every time. Reeks of desperation.

That said, the Jets should probably try it out given their offensive limitations. But if I was Carolina, no way. Cam is their franchise QB. With Tebow, you don't have as much to lose.

 

[humpback]

The reality is that you don't know when you are going to score more or less poins in a particular game under alway going for 2. It might work perfectly as your case, or it might come in a game that a team would have won anyway or loss anyway. The randomness of the extra three points in 16 games is the reason it is not significant. The NFL is NOT a total points league, but more points this particular week than your opponents league. Until someone can tell where those extra points are going to be added, then my running somewhat realistic numbers proves this to be theorically correct, but practically not useful.

 

[Tau837]

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.

I've heard this line of reasoning also coming from the Jets in regards to bringing in Tebow in the first place. "If we give Tebow all these snaps per game, our opponents will lose valuable gameplanning time to prepare for this." But why doesn't anyone look at it the other way as well? By devoting time to Tebow, you're taking X% of your practice time away from Sanchez and the traditional offense. Am I overlooking the invested time the defense uses vs the offense? To me it would seem, at best, negligible. A part of me thinks that it would take more time for the offense to prepare (blocking patterns, actual play design and execution, etc) than the defense to account for. Correct me if I'm wrong please...

I've had exactly the same thought, and I don't know why it is never addressed. The bottom line is that Sanchez needs as much practice as he can get with the offense, but his practice time will be reduced if Tebow is getting practice time with the starting offense.

 

[DoubleG]

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.

I've heard this line of reasoning also coming from the Jets in regards to bringing in Tebow in the first place. "If we give Tebow all these snaps per game, our opponents will lose valuable gameplanning time to prepare for this." But why doesn't anyone look at it the other way as well? By devoting time to Tebow, you're taking X% of your practice time away from Sanchez and the traditional offense. Am I overlooking the invested time the defense uses vs the offense? To me it would seem, at best, negligible. A part of me thinks that it would take more time for the offense to prepare (blocking patterns, actual play design and execution, etc) than the defense to account for. Correct me if I'm wrong please...

I've had exactly the same thought, and I don't know why it is never addressed. The bottom line is that Sanchez needs as much practice as he can get with the offense, but his practice time will be reduced if Tebow is getting practice time with the starting offense.

The amount of time isn't equal - nor does it have to be even close. The main reason (not to oversimplify, but I will) is that the offense knows which of the plays it's going to run, whereas the defense has to prepare for every offensive play the offense might/could run. Just as an example, in the preseason say the Jets ran 8 different plays from 3 different formations for a 2 point conversion. In regular season, game 1, the opposing defense would have to prepare for at least those 8 plays. Whereas in practice that week, the Jets might only practice 3 of them, planning on only using those 3 this week. As time goes by, the Jets may add more formations/plays - maybe a handful per week. Each succesive week though, the opposing defense has to prepare for all of the plays the Jets have run to that point in the season (even though the Jets may only be planning on using 2 plays from week 1 and 2 they've added since).

 

[RUSF18]

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.

I've heard this line of reasoning also coming from the Jets in regards to bringing in Tebow in the first place. "If we give Tebow all these snaps per game, our opponents will lose valuable gameplanning time to prepare for this." But why doesn't anyone look at it the other way as well? By devoting time to Tebow, you're taking X% of your practice time away from Sanchez and the traditional offense. Am I overlooking the invested time the defense uses vs the offense? To me it would seem, at best, negligible. A part of me thinks that it would take more time for the offense to prepare (blocking patterns, actual play design and execution, etc) than the defense to account for. Correct me if I'm wrong please...

I've had exactly the same thought, and I don't know why it is never addressed. The bottom line is that Sanchez needs as much practice as he can get with the offense, but his practice time will be reduced if Tebow is getting practice time with the starting offense.

The amount of time isn't equal - nor does it have to be even close. The main reason (not to oversimplify, but I will) is that the offense knows which of the plays it's going to run, whereas the defense has to prepare for every offensive play the offense might/could run. Just as an example, in the preseason say the Jets ran 8 different plays from 3 different formations for a 2 point conversion. In regular season, game 1, the opposing defense would have to prepare for at least those 8 plays. Whereas in practice that week, the Jets might only practice 3 of them, planning on only using those 3 this week. As time goes by, the Jets may add more formations/plays - maybe a handful per week. Each succesive week though, the opposing defense has to prepare for all of the plays the Jets have run to that point in the season (even though the Jets may only be planning on using 2 plays from week 1 and 2 they've added since).

I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, as just may be my lack of technical knowledge of football in terms of strategy/preparation, but is this really how it works...the defenses literally prepare for every play an offense runs? I thought they focused on personnel packages and situational tendencies.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

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.

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.

This isnt true and youre right, it is basic statistics.

Not only is it true, but it is easily provable. I am sure nobody thought it was worth proving something so obvious. I am curious what it is that you think you see that makes you ignore simple, provable mathematics. Is it the fear of the sense of loss if you could have had an EP and instead go for and fail a 2pt conversion? Certainly people's subjective value of a EP vs. a 2pt conversion might not match the the actual value towards winning a game. Oh, and it isn't statistics but mathematics.

Because a successful conversion doesnt lead to a win everytime, nor can it be quantified whether the 60% leads to a victory (there, disproven) - and throwing numbers around is equally frivolous. Mathematics and Statistics are squares and rectangles, but when your talking about probability and variance of a STATISTIC its a rectangle, not a square. When your just spouting numbers with percentage marks and creating hypothetical scenarios where no actual information is introduced its less than neither. The best argument for it (and against me) has been that scoring more points can directly be correlated to winning more games. Which in a round about way is true - but goes no further in supporting the idea that going for a 2pt conversion outside of a necessity is a good thing (especially in comparison to the alternative, which has overwhelming evidence in its favor). Now why can no one else actually produce an argument that isnt just mathematical diarrhea?

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.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

At worse it will at least make Jets games more watchable.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

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.

I've heard this line of reasoning also coming from the Jets in regards to bringing in Tebow in the first place. "If we give Tebow all these snaps per game, our opponents will lose valuable gameplanning time to prepare for this." But why doesn't anyone look at it the other way as well? By devoting time to Tebow, you're taking X% of your practice time away from Sanchez and the traditional offense. Am I overlooking the invested time the defense uses vs the offense? To me it would seem, at best, negligible. A part of me thinks that it would take more time for the offense to prepare (blocking patterns, actual play design and execution, etc) than the defense to account for. Correct me if I'm wrong please...

I've had exactly the same thought, and I don't know why it is never addressed. The bottom line is that Sanchez needs as much practice as he can get with the offense, but his practice time will be reduced if Tebow is getting practice time with the starting offense.

Because if you've dedicated a given % of time to it in the preseason (when most of the playbook is installed) then re-visiting a few plays or just adding them to a given week's game plan is minimal change, if any.It's the same reason why college teams hate playing Air Force or Georgia Tech. They may not be the best teams, but their lack of a conventional offense creates a headache on a one-week game plan installation schedule.

 

[humpback]

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.

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).

 

[ZWK]

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.

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.

 

[moleculo]

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?

 

[cobalt_27]

If you disagree that a team cannot score > 50% on 2 pt conversions, that's one thing. But, if you are arguing that it is better to score less points over the course of the season due to convention and rectangles, then you should probably return whatever diploma you've earned, as you clearly shouldn't have passed basic math.

Situationally, there are rare exceptions where you should go for 1 instead of 2, such as tying the game in the final minute on a late TD. But, if you strongly believe you can manufacture a success rate of 50.1% going for two, then you're applying poor logic, poor math, or both in stubbornly settling for the XP all the time.

Whether anyone can sustain better than chance odds going for 2 is open for debate, though.

 

[Tau837]

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.

I've heard this line of reasoning also coming from the Jets in regards to bringing in Tebow in the first place. "If we give Tebow all these snaps per game, our opponents will lose valuable gameplanning time to prepare for this." But why doesn't anyone look at it the other way as well? By devoting time to Tebow, you're taking X% of your practice time away from Sanchez and the traditional offense. Am I overlooking the invested time the defense uses vs the offense? To me it would seem, at best, negligible. A part of me thinks that it would take more time for the offense to prepare (blocking patterns, actual play design and execution, etc) than the defense to account for. Correct me if I'm wrong please...

I've had exactly the same thought, and I don't know why it is never addressed. The bottom line is that Sanchez needs as much practice as he can get with the offense, but his practice time will be reduced if Tebow is getting practice time with the starting offense.

Because if you've dedicated a given % of time to it in the preseason (when most of the playbook is installed) then re-visiting a few plays or just adding them to a given week's game plan is minimal change, if any.It's the same reason why college teams hate playing Air Force or Georgia Tech. They may not be the best teams, but their lack of a conventional offense creates a headache on a one-week game plan installation schedule.

Poor example IMO. Georgia Tech is committed to their offense full time. There is no opportunity cost for them to practice it at the expense of something else. Not the same thing as the Jets practicing with Tebow rather than Sanchez. Sanchez is the notional starter and primary QB, yet he won't be getting all the reps, because they will be committing reps to Tebow. That will not help Sanchez or the Jets offense as a whole.

 

[moleculo]

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.

I've heard this line of reasoning also coming from the Jets in regards to bringing in Tebow in the first place. "If we give Tebow all these snaps per game, our opponents will lose valuable gameplanning time to prepare for this." But why doesn't anyone look at it the other way as well? By devoting time to Tebow, you're taking X% of your practice time away from Sanchez and the traditional offense. Am I overlooking the invested time the defense uses vs the offense? To me it would seem, at best, negligible. A part of me thinks that it would take more time for the offense to prepare (blocking patterns, actual play design and execution, etc) than the defense to account for. Correct me if I'm wrong please...

I've had exactly the same thought, and I don't know why it is never addressed. The bottom line is that Sanchez needs as much practice as he can get with the offense, but his practice time will be reduced if Tebow is getting practice time with the starting offense.

Because if you've dedicated a given % of time to it in the preseason (when most of the playbook is installed) then re-visiting a few plays or just adding them to a given week's game plan is minimal change, if any.It's the same reason why college teams hate playing Air Force or Georgia Tech. They may not be the best teams, but their lack of a conventional offense creates a headache on a one-week game plan installation schedule.

Poor example IMO. Georgia Tech is committed to their offense full time. There is no opportunity cost for them to practice it at the expense of something else. Not the same thing as the Jets practicing with Tebow rather than Sanchez. Sanchez is the notional starter and primary QB, yet he won't be getting all the reps, because they will be committing reps to Tebow. That will not help Sanchez or the Jets offense as a whole.

He's had 4 years already. If he really needs the extra smaps at this point in his career, he might as well be the back-up amyhow.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

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.

I've heard this line of reasoning also coming from the Jets in regards to bringing in Tebow in the first place. "If we give Tebow all these snaps per game, our opponents will lose valuable gameplanning time to prepare for this." But why doesn't anyone look at it the other way as well? By devoting time to Tebow, you're taking X% of your practice time away from Sanchez and the traditional offense. Am I overlooking the invested time the defense uses vs the offense? To me it would seem, at best, negligible. A part of me thinks that it would take more time for the offense to prepare (blocking patterns, actual play design and execution, etc) than the defense to account for. Correct me if I'm wrong please...

I've had exactly the same thought, and I don't know why it is never addressed. The bottom line is that Sanchez needs as much practice as he can get with the offense, but his practice time will be reduced if Tebow is getting practice time with the starting offense.

Because if you've dedicated a given % of time to it in the preseason (when most of the playbook is installed) then re-visiting a few plays or just adding them to a given week's game plan is minimal change, if any.It's the same reason why college teams hate playing Air Force or Georgia Tech. They may not be the best teams, but their lack of a conventional offense creates a headache on a one-week game plan installation schedule.

Poor example IMO. Georgia Tech is committed to their offense full time. There is no opportunity cost for them to practice it at the expense of something else. Not the same thing as the Jets practicing with Tebow rather than Sanchez. Sanchez is the notional starter and primary QB, yet he won't be getting all the reps, because they will be committing reps to Tebow. That will not help Sanchez or the Jets offense as a whole.

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.

 

[Runningman]

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-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).

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.

 

[Tau837]

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.

 

[Tau837]

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".

 

[humpback]

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.

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.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

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).

 

[RUSF18]

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).

 

[Leroy Hoard]

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.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

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.

 

[moleculo]

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.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

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.

 

[humpback]

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.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

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

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

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.

 

[humpback]

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.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

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.

 

[coolnerd]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/02/rex-ryan-going-for-two-every-time-might-make-sense-with-tebow/

Ryan addresses this in a realistic manner, imo.

 

[dollarbill13]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/02/rex-ryan-going-for-two-every-time-might-make-sense-with-tebow/Ryan addresses this in a realistic manner, imo.

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?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

:sharkpoolmath:

 

[roadkill1292]

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

 

[Leroy Hoard]

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.

 

[coolnerd]

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.