SWC
Bromigo
right on d dog like do you even have a short guy on your roster that is a total unknown right now no way to answer take that to the bank bromigo
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!
You're down by 14 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TakiToki
- Start date
Glad to see this topic get resuscitated, because I had been thinking of starting a similar one. My interest is less in debating the specific choices than it is in exploring the psychology behind the decision-making process. Consider three scenarios:
1. The one in the OP: Should you go for two after scoring in the 4th quarter to make it an 8-point game
2. Should the Pats have gone for it on 4th and 2 in the famous 2009 Colts game?
3. Should the Packers have gone for two after last week's Hail Mary, rather than sending the game to OT?
In all three cases, the numbers argue pretty strongly in one direction, and in all three cases, what they argue is different from what the conventional wisdom would say you should do.
What I find really fascinating -- and Bill Barnwell touched on this when he appeared on 538.com's "Hot Takedown" podcast -- is that whenever people argue that the stats should be ignored in the specific case under discussion, it's always to argue in favor of the CW. You never hear anyone say, "Well, the numbers say we should punt here, but based on these conditions it makes sense to go for it."
I think what happens is that people start out with the assumption that of course you should kick the XP/punt/etc., and then, when challenged, come up with rationalizations to support it. Read this entire thread from the beginning, and it's like the living embodiment of the famous Gandhi quote "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." The initial reactions to the OP were incredulous ("The owner would fire you on the spot!") Then people started acknowledging the numbers and saying that maybe it was a close call. Then they started accepting that it might make sense in a vaccuum, but listing exceptions where you should ignore the numbers. Maybe in another year or two everyone will have come around to the default assumption that you should make the higher-percentage play. (And then, five years after that, NFL coaches may even start doing it.)
1. The one in the OP: Should you go for two after scoring in the 4th quarter to make it an 8-point game
2. Should the Pats have gone for it on 4th and 2 in the famous 2009 Colts game?
3. Should the Packers have gone for two after last week's Hail Mary, rather than sending the game to OT?
In all three cases, the numbers argue pretty strongly in one direction, and in all three cases, what they argue is different from what the conventional wisdom would say you should do.
What I find really fascinating -- and Bill Barnwell touched on this when he appeared on 538.com's "Hot Takedown" podcast -- is that whenever people argue that the stats should be ignored in the specific case under discussion, it's always to argue in favor of the CW. You never hear anyone say, "Well, the numbers say we should punt here, but based on these conditions it makes sense to go for it."
I think what happens is that people start out with the assumption that of course you should kick the XP/punt/etc., and then, when challenged, come up with rationalizations to support it. Read this entire thread from the beginning, and it's like the living embodiment of the famous Gandhi quote "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." The initial reactions to the OP were incredulous ("The owner would fire you on the spot!") Then people started acknowledging the numbers and saying that maybe it was a close call. Then they started accepting that it might make sense in a vaccuum, but listing exceptions where you should ignore the numbers. Maybe in another year or two everyone will have come around to the default assumption that you should make the higher-percentage play. (And then, five years after that, NFL coaches may even start doing it.)
Glad this thread got bumped. I was pretty against it back then, but with the longer extra point attempt, the inconsistency of kickers lately, and the increase in offensive production (not sure if 2 point conversion rate has gone up but i assume it has, or at least WILL as the league evolves), it seems to actually be the right move mathematically. Can't think of many times coaches have done this lately though.
When Josh Levin wrote about this scenario in Slate in 2013, he could only find one instance, a Ravens game in 2001 during which Billick feared his team was too tired to win in OT (as it happened, they missed the two-pointer and failed to recover the onside kick, so the question became moot).Deamon said:
I don't believe it had happened since he wrote the article until Pederson did it today.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
And in Pederson’s post game press, he was basically like “duh, it’s common sense to go for 2 in that situation” when questioned about the decision
Ya, on the surface this decision seems crazy. But with the kickers and offensive efficiency of 2018, I think it's a great move. It's likely smart to even do this when you go up 6-0 at the start of the game. Anyone know the 2 point conversion rate this year?
2 point conversions are being executed at 63% this year. XP's are 95% this year. It would make sense to go for 2 every time.
Each conversion gives you (1*.95) 0.95 Points when kicking, and (2*.63) 1.26 points when going for 2. This is up a lot from the 42% of 2 Point converts being successful last year.
With offenses being better this year, if this keeps up, it would be a no brainer to go for 2 every td, no?
Each conversion gives you (1*.95) 0.95 Points when kicking, and (2*.63) 1.26 points when going for 2. This is up a lot from the 42% of 2 Point converts being successful last year.
With offenses being better this year, if this keeps up, it would be a no brainer to go for 2 every td, no?
And now Shurmur becomes the second coach this year to go for two in that situation! (Giants failed to convert.)
Best part is watching announcers head explode. They literally can't understand it. Reminds me of this scene.
Best part is watching announcers head explode. They literally can't understand it. Reminds me of this scene.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
What some people seem to be missing is the perception put forth - and that’s no small thing in a HC keeping his job. If the HC goes for 2 on the first TD and the try fails, he looks like an idiot because now he’s put himself in a position where he is forced to go for 2 and succeed on the next TD just to salvage a tie. If a HC loses a game doing that, he’s going to get raked over the coals badly, and probably rightfully so.
If he chooses to go for the XP, the only person getting blamed for missing is the kicker (except for a bad snap or bad/fumbled hold). No one holds the HC responsible in that situation.
Right or wrong, perception can be reality. And for the slight edge in gaining that advantage on the first point after going against looking really dumb in a lot if peoples’ eyes - most importantly the GM and the owner - going for 2 in that situation and missing could significantly shorten a HC’s career.
And let’s not forget the perception that a team gets if it somehow manages to overcome a 2 TD deficit and salvage an OT in that short a period. There’s a ton of goodwill that goes with that kind of comeback, even if it ends in an OT loss. Put that against the risk of losing the game in regulation due to a HC’s decisions despite the team putting itself in a position to get to OT. You lose there and you can dial up all the math you want in the post game pressers and still look like a complete moron who probably shouldn’t be a HC.
If he chooses to go for the XP, the only person getting blamed for missing is the kicker (except for a bad snap or bad/fumbled hold). No one holds the HC responsible in that situation.
Right or wrong, perception can be reality. And for the slight edge in gaining that advantage on the first point after going against looking really dumb in a lot if peoples’ eyes - most importantly the GM and the owner - going for 2 in that situation and missing could significantly shorten a HC’s career.
And let’s not forget the perception that a team gets if it somehow manages to overcome a 2 TD deficit and salvage an OT in that short a period. There’s a ton of goodwill that goes with that kind of comeback, even if it ends in an OT loss. Put that against the risk of losing the game in regulation due to a HC’s decisions despite the team putting itself in a position to get to OT. You lose there and you can dial up all the math you want in the post game pressers and still look like a complete moron who probably shouldn’t be a HC.
Short Corner
Footballguy
You would look like a moron in the eyes of other morons.Bronco Billy said:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
That would probably make you feel a whole lot better when you got your pink slip.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Short Corner
Footballguy
Some smart GM will see merits in my decisions and hire me in some capacity. Plus I get paid by a moron for not working for him. Win-win.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
And yet no HC has done it to date, to my knowledge in the history of the NFL. Not one. What a bunch of morons.
Lombardi: moron. Halas: moron. Knoll: moron Walsh: moron. Belicheck: moron.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Pederson and Shurmur have both done so within weeks of each other, I think. Fourteen points down, go for two.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
I guess they are the smartest coaches in NFL history. Glad they both won those games.
rockaction
Footballguy
Yeah, I'm not defending the decision, even though I do defend it. I was just pointing out that sometimes things change and that's why this theoretical got bumped after a period of dormancy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Understood. And I do believe moving the XP back may change the strategy so that going for 2 becomes more accepted. I know the vast majority of HCs hate putting the fate of the game (and their records) in the hands of Ks.
Short Corner
Footballguy
Win or loss they both made the decision that gave their team the best chance to win. Dummies
You know what the best way is to avoid getting fired? Winning.Bronco Billy said:
You know what the best way is to win? Make decisions that increase your chances of winning.
This isn't theoretical. Ron Rivera was on the verge of getting fired after his first couple years at Carolina; he had a mediocre record (including 2-14 in games decided by a touchdown or less), and was often overly conservative in games. At some point in 2013, he had a Road to Damascus moment and began embracing more aggressive decision making. Panthers turned it around and won the division that year, and two years later were in the Super Bowl.
Look around the league: The best coaches are the ones like Belichick and Pederson who take calculated risks designed to increase their WP; they also happen to be the ones with the most job security. Meanwhile, I think we all can agree that making coaching decisions in order to avoid being criticized is not a great strategy for long-term success.
Short Corner
Footballguy
It was still the correct the decision with the short XP. Chasing 14 late, variance is your friend.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
i think that everyone is aware that risk aversion and potential criticism is probably the main reason that coaches don't do this more.Bronco Billy said:
Given that the NFL didn't institute the two-point conversion until 1994, it would have been very strange indeed if any of those first four coaches had ever gone for two.
Last edited by a moderator:
Short Corner
Footballguy
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I don't disagree with anything you said. This is just the most frustrating part: if the HC goes for 2 and fails, he looks like an idiot... to other idiots. Going for 2 is clearly the right call, and a HC should not be criticized for getting the process right, even if the results don't work out. But sadly that's not the world we live in. There are a lot of stupid people, and they can be very loud.Bronco Billy said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Ya it makes no sense comparing if those guys did it. Like another poster mentioned, it wasn't even implemented until '94.
Also moving the xp back and there being more misses changes things.
Also coaches are getting more analytical and looking at things in different ways.
Also we are seeing offences move the ball much easier and 2point conversions are now easier to convert.
Lots of reasons why it makes more sense to do it this year than it ever has before.
I'd be surprised if Bill didn't do it now if the pat's ever were down 14 in the 4th. However, I'd trust brady in OT a lot so his situation might be a touch different.
shadyridr
Footballguy
The math may make sense but the psychology of missing the 2 pointer right after the first TD is sort of a let down to the team trying to come back. Id rather have the positive momentum of... A. "TD, PAT, now we're down 7 boys!", than B. "TD, missed 2pt conversion, oh ####, well hopefully we can get the ball back, score a TD, and then score 2". Whereas if they make the 2 on the first try the momentum hasn't really shifted much from scenario A. They still need a TD.
Thats the way I see it. Its all about keeping the mood high on the sidelines while trying to make a big comeback.
Thats the way I see it. Its all about keeping the mood high on the sidelines while trying to make a big comeback.
Short Corner
Footballguy
I'd trust him more to convert than I would my defense getting a potential stop in OT to put it in his hands
But if you make the 2 pointer, the mood is even greater than if you had just made the PAT. I'm not sure if having a good mood is more important than giving your team a better chance to win.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Interestingly, it looks like Belichick has faced this situation 8 times since joining the Patriots. The first time was in his third game ever as HC, and he went for 2. The try failed. He's kicked the PAT in the other 7 times since. I agree though that I'd be a bit surprised if we didn't see him go for 2 if it happens again this year now that the precedent has been set and there's a discussion about the merits.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Properly coached, a team should be more excited to play for a win than to play for a tie.
Yeah, the problem with momentum arguments -- aside from the fact that it's BS, and momentum doesn't exist in any predictable sense that you can use to your advantage -- is that the people using it always focus on the negative aspect of it if you get a bad result, never on the positive side.
Assume for a second that momentum is quantifiable, and failing to convert the 2PC costs you 5% win expectancy apart from the game situation. From there it follows that making it would add 5% WE, and since the 2PC is a 50/50 proposition, it's a wash from a momentum perspective
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
bostonfred
Footballguy
Psychology really isn't a factor. Needing 7 to tie or 8 to tie doesn't really change much for either team. It might change it for the coaches. Needing 7 to win, though, is a big change.
The threat of scoring a game winning touchdown changes your opponent's strategy. But it depends on the coach. Instead of sitting on the ball, confident that the best you can do is tie, they might have to consider aggressively going for a field goal. Other coaches would try to run it out.
Depending on the coach, the chance to play situational defense against a team that's likely to run twice on first and second downs is part of the value proposition of going for 1.
On the other hand if you're down 8, you allow the other coach to take risks. Because the worst thing that can happen is you score a touchdown, and then you still have to make a two pointer just to tie. Then you probably even get the ball back. So from your opponent's perspective they have this possession, a chance to stop a touchdown, a chance to stop a two pointer, another possession, and overtime, and any stop or field goal wins the game. You've given them a license to be aggressive.
So there's a lot involved. You might be against a conservative coach who would run it out with a 1 point lead. You might be better on defense than offense, so you want them taking chances. You might be in a last team with the ball shoot out and want them to run instead of scoring again. There are a lot of things that go into this decision.
I agree with the math, but i don't think you can criticize the decision either way. In the case last night, the giants did miss the 2 point conversion, and the Falcons did aggressively go for the field goal, passing on almost every down. Would they have done the same thing leading by 6? 7? That has to be part of the calculus imo.
The threat of scoring a game winning touchdown changes your opponent's strategy. But it depends on the coach. Instead of sitting on the ball, confident that the best you can do is tie, they might have to consider aggressively going for a field goal. Other coaches would try to run it out.
Depending on the coach, the chance to play situational defense against a team that's likely to run twice on first and second downs is part of the value proposition of going for 1.
On the other hand if you're down 8, you allow the other coach to take risks. Because the worst thing that can happen is you score a touchdown, and then you still have to make a two pointer just to tie. Then you probably even get the ball back. So from your opponent's perspective they have this possession, a chance to stop a touchdown, a chance to stop a two pointer, another possession, and overtime, and any stop or field goal wins the game. You've given them a license to be aggressive.
So there's a lot involved. You might be against a conservative coach who would run it out with a 1 point lead. You might be better on defense than offense, so you want them taking chances. You might be in a last team with the ball shoot out and want them to run instead of scoring again. There are a lot of things that go into this decision.
I agree with the math, but i don't think you can criticize the decision either way. In the case last night, the giants did miss the 2 point conversion, and the Falcons did aggressively go for the field goal, passing on almost every down. Would they have done the same thing leading by 6? 7? That has to be part of the calculus imo.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
great post, bf.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Here's one from the other night. Patriots chiefs. Chiefs offense is starting to catch fire. Chiefs score a touchdown in the late third quarter, down by 8, and go for one.
Unlike the topic of this thread, that was a huge mistake.
Yes, i understand the mantra that you take the points. And i understand the argument that two field goals vs a touchdown and you're tied. Still an enormous mistake.
Why?
Because of what happens if the Patriots score a touchdown. Leading by one, some coaches might kick the extra point. But i don't think belichick would have.
Up seven, if you go for one you force the chiefs to score a touchdown and go for two. If you go for two and miss, they still have to score a touchdown, but they won't go for two. They'll go for one to tie the game
But if you go for two and make it, yoo lead by nine. Two possessions. And if you swap touchdowns again, you're in the same boat. That's an enormous advantage, and reid conceded it by not going for two.
Unlike the topic of this thread, that was a huge mistake.
Yes, i understand the mantra that you take the points. And i understand the argument that two field goals vs a touchdown and you're tied. Still an enormous mistake.
Why?
Because of what happens if the Patriots score a touchdown. Leading by one, some coaches might kick the extra point. But i don't think belichick would have.
Up seven, if you go for one you force the chiefs to score a touchdown and go for two. If you go for two and miss, they still have to score a touchdown, but they won't go for two. They'll go for one to tie the game
But if you go for two and make it, yoo lead by nine. Two possessions. And if you swap touchdowns again, you're in the same boat. That's an enormous advantage, and reid conceded it by not going for two.
I would argue that bring down 7 vs. down 8 should be a huge factor for coaches. Down 8, you have to play as though you still need two scores to win - because, about half the time, you will.
Going for 2 when down 8 requires you not just to accept the risk that you’ll miss the first conversion but to keep your foot on the gas thereafter when you do miss. Of course, most coaches are nowhere near aggressive enough in these situations, but using that as an excuse to kick the XP instead is treating the symptoms instead of the disease.
rockaction
Footballguy
I noticed that in the game and despite Michaels's cool announcing which sort of glossed it over, I was a little taken aback.
But I couldn't fault him, really, for taking the one. It's situation and game-dependent. But it was a pivotal moment in the game.
solorca
Footballguy
I think you should, but I'm likely in the minority.
If you make it, you're setting yourself up to win. If you miss it, you still can go for two the next time to tie the game...and I like my chances of scoring at least on one of two attempts.
I think you should go for two a majority of the time and should go for it on fourth down a majority of the time as well, but that's why I would only last a couple weeks as a coach. People aren't willing to take the heat if it fails, even though logically it's the right move.
If you make it, you're setting yourself up to win. If you miss it, you still can go for two the next time to tie the game...and I like my chances of scoring at least on one of two attempts.
I think you should go for two a majority of the time and should go for it on fourth down a majority of the time as well, but that's why I would only last a couple weeks as a coach. People aren't willing to take the heat if it fails, even though logically it's the right move.
While statistically, going for two is the correct play in a vacuum, I think we can all agree that he potential success rate for these Giants in this situation, on the road, was far less than the 2018 league average of 63%, and likely significantly less than the historic average of 48%.
The head coach did a fine job of explaining himself in the press conference, but he was working with incomplete data.
The head coach did a fine job of explaining himself in the press conference, but he was working with incomplete data.
This has been discussed elsewhere. If your offense is bad, that also reduces your likelihood of winning in OT, which gives you more incentive to try to win in regulation. The one scenario where it might make sense is a Jacksonville type team with a terrible offense but a D that is good enough to give them a decent shot in OT.
Short Corner
Footballguy
Based on the team I've seen on the field, I would put their expectation somewhere between 1:3 and 2:5. Actual results are significantly higher than that at the moment, but I don't think that percentage is sustainable with Eli helming them.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I don't think there's any way their true rate would be "significantly less than the historic average of 48%." This Giants team has a lot of problems but they do have weapons on offense, and they're not historically terrible at picking up 2 yards. And as @zftcg mentioned, if you're really that bad you should be gambling on a single play to win in regulation, not to extend the game into OT.
Short Corner
Footballguy
They finished 2017 with a 20% conversion rate, are they significantly better than that right now?
Similar threads
