McDermott chasing a point early was dumb

[jerryaldini]

McDermott going for 2 just because a penalty gave them the short extra point wound up cascading to a 3 point swing in our favor. They fail on another try and then it incentivised us to get a successful 2 for a 7 point lead in the 4th quarter. It showed their arrogance in assuming Allen is unstoppable from 2 yards out, and that arrogance continued in their later tush push failures.

Here's where the counterfactual gets interesting. Instead of being down 32-29 on their last drive, it would have been 31-31 on their 4th and 5 at the 2 minute warning. Decision time. Kick us deep, or don't take a chance on letting Mahomes have the ball back? I think they definitely still go for it given the history of Mahomes having the ball last.

Assuming so, it would have made the ending a little more dramatic with a Butker kick to end it. A good reminder why you don't chase points early. They were just trying to make it 21-18 instead of 21-17 at the end of the first half.

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

Originally Posted by BWillie

A variance calculator will actually prove you should then go for it MORE. Lets just say that you get 55% of two point conversions and you make 95% of XPs. Since your success rate (or winrate as I know it in poker is HIGHER) you will actually reduce your variance and in any given game increase the probability of victory. It is a fallacy that you don't want to do it if given one game sample size.

Not only is it a 1 game sample size, its 2-3 opportunities at a +1 point differential on average. In a game where the lowest reasonable scoring opportunity is 3 points. If you get 1 extra possession over your opponent and get at least a field goal, all that work you put into the 2 point conversion is null and void.

Going for it on 4th down is the real game changer because it leads to more scoring opportunities, its the difference between 0 points and 3 points, or 3 points and 7 points. Going for 2 is just a 1 point differential. The amount of risk you're taking for 1 single point is absurd.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by DRM08

Mostly true, but I do think you should chase the points in the 4th quarter when you already have the 7 point lead and a chance to make the game a 9 point lead instead of a 8 point lead. Massive difference between a two possession lead and one possession lead in the 4th quarter.

Chiefs had this exact scenario against Houston. Andy chose to take the 8 point lead instead of trying for the 9 point lead against Houston. Thankfully it didn't matter in the end, but he extended Houston's chances by keeping it a one possession game at the time. 9 point lead would have been a lot closer to a kill shot.

Meh, I don't necessarily think Andy made the wrong decision. Think about it like this. What if you go for 2 and don't get it. Then, you only have a 7 point lead. The other team comes down, scores a TD, goes for 2 and you lose on that stupidity.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DRM08

Mostly true, but I do think you should chase the points in the 4th quarter when you already have the 7 point lead and a chance to make the game a 9 point lead instead of a 8 point lead. Massive difference between a two possession lead and one possession lead in the 4th quarter.

Chiefs had this exact scenario against Houston. Andy chose to take the 8 point lead instead of trying for the 9 point lead against Houston. Thankfully it didn't matter in the end, but he extended Houston's chances by keeping it a one possession game at the time. 9 point lead would have been a lot closer to a kill shot.

It would've also opened up the possibility, though remote, of a regulation loss against a team you're clearly better than at home.

Make it an 8 point game. Make them score, go for 2 to tie, and STILL have to hang on against a superior team with home field.

If you try for the 2 and don't convert, it's a 7 point game and they could score, get the 2 and now have the lead in regulation.

Kicking was the right decision in that scenario and EXACTLY the sort of instance that the 'large numbers' just don't adequately take into account. Spreadsheets may have said to go for the 2, but it would've been the wrong decision in that scenario.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Its just math.

.475 x 2 = 0.95 points

.95 avg XP make x 1 = 0.95 points

It honestly doesn't really make much of difference either way because two point conversion percentages fluctuate wildly year to year but since inception of the conversion I believe teams convert close to the .475 number. Its just that an elite Patrick Mahomes offense will get the 2 more often than that. So would Josh Allen.

You don't know how the rest of the game will go. So if you look back on it every game and then second guess the decision you are incorrectly making results based decisions. If you get the 2 and win a game where you would have just went for one that wouldn't be talked about near as much as the failure. Its also the reason football coaches never used to go for it on 3rd and 4th downs in obvious situations because they were scared. It all comes down to emotional fear.

With that said its not a huge mistake to go for it everytime or kick it everytime because the difference between the two is close to nil. Thats why the NFL should consider getting rid of the XP altogether or move it back to a 50 yard FG to entice coaches to go for it more.

Your math works just fine with a large sample size. We are talking 1, maybe 2, instances per game. Your math doesn't work situationally. It doesn't account for scarcity of opportunities in a game where 1 point could be the difference between going on and going home

There are situations where it absolutely makes sense. But to make a blanket statement like you have is just ignoring too many variables.

[Wisconsin_Chief]

The Bills are in such a tough spot. They have a really good QB and decent head coach, both of whom their fans believe are better than they actually are. Not saying Allen isn't a really good QB, but he's yet to prove he has any shred of clutch in him. We may have permanently ended any hope of that with the 13 second game. In order for that team to ever have a chance of beating us when it counts, they're going to have to find a head coach who is several steps from McDermott. They have clearly peaked with him, and I'm sure they know that internally.

Problem is, who in the hell are they going to get? My guess would be they give him one more year, and then if he fizzles out again they will go hard after Belichick if he proves he can still coach after a year at UNC. I don't know what the hell else they can possibly do at this point.

[tyecopeland]

Originally Posted by BWillie

You only need to convert 47.5% of the time to beat the extra point taking into account avg misses of XPs.

Elite offenses should always go for two in the first halves and of course where end of the game game theory supports it.

In the first halves of games all you should be doing is trying to maximize your EPA.

I dont often agree with you, but I do here to a degree.

The math is clearly in favor of more 2 point attempts. And being on the 1 makes it a no trainer. However, if there hadn't been thr ball moved to the 1 I disagree with chasing points early, EPA be damned.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Your math works just fine with a large sample size. We are talking 1, maybe 2, instances per game. Your math doesn't work situationally. It doesn't account for scarcity of opportunities in a game where 1 point could be the difference between going on and going home

There are situations where it absolutely makes sense. But to make a blanket statement like you have is just ignoring too many variables.

Thats right. One point could be the difference between going home or not. Thats why you should go for two more often when you are a good offense to win more often.

If Im the ****in Raiders yeah I'm not goin for it. But if I have PATRICK bleeping MAHOMES I'm going for points anytime I can.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Absolutely.

Coaches are afraid of failure and what the fans think. As is evidenced in this thread.

Ask Sean McDerpitt and John Harbaugh how it worked out for them.

Oh. Sitting at home now?

K cool.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Thats right. One point could be the difference between going home or not. Thats why you should go for two more often when you are a good offense to win more often.

If Im the ****in Raiders yeah I'm not goin for it. But if I have PATRICK bleeping MAHOMES I'm going for points anytime I can.

You said it right there - "win more often".

You're talking about shifting the odds over multiple games with multiple attempts per game.

It simply does not work in a one-game playoff.

There intangibles inside a single game that can't be quantified with your math.

Good try though.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

Ask Sean McDerpitt and John Harbaugh how it worked out for them.

Oh. Sitting at home now?

K cool.

Pretty simple. They don't have Patrick Mahomes.

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Thats right. One point could be the difference between going home or not. Thats why you should go for two more often when you are a good offense to win more often.

If Im the ****in Raiders yeah I'm not goin for it. But if I have PATRICK bleeping MAHOMES I'm going for points anytime I can.

It's really not, though.

Very rarely is a game decided by 1 point. Its usually at least 2. The extra point that you get doesn't matter, maybe 2 points can make the difference, but there's a 25% chance of that happening even if youre good at it.

You know what has a higher chance of happening? Getting a turnover. Getting to the 40 and kicking a 55+ yard FG. Being aggressive on 4th down when the situation calls for it to turn 0 points into 3 points or 3 points into 7 points. Those all yield a better point differential and statistically are more likely than converting two 2pt conversions in a row.