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.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by TripleThreat

Because a ton of people around the NFL said the same thing about the patriots, just like people here did as well… posters here still stand by that Brady “maybe” has earned 4 super bowls… success breeds haters.

Taking away the Super Bowls where the league verified the Patriots were cheating is not really that much of a extraordinary position.

[wazu]

I still strongly believe that any team with a "good" offense should go for 2 every single time. It isn't chasing points, it is maximizing the points you will get per game. A good offense should be able to get 2 yards, even at the goal line, more than 50% of the time.

[morphius]

With only getting stopped once all season on 3rd/4th and 1, and that we hadn't shown much ability to stop it, I can see why they went for it. When you are that good at something, that is what they game planned to do, and I don't think they could believe we would keep stopping them and didn't have a backup plan.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by wazu

I still strongly believe that any team with a "good" offense should go for 2 every single time. It isn't chasing points, it is maximizing the points you will get per game. A good offense should be able to get 2 yards, even at the goal line, more than 50% of the time.

This completely ignores the scarcity of practice time.

The amount of effort and energy that would go into perfecting the literally DOZENS of necessary short yardage plays you'd go burning through over the course of a season just isn't available.

And in the process, those 'gotta have it' plays you use on 4th down in a playoff game have been on tape, multiple times, for opposing DCs.

It's not Madden.

People that try to reduce this game to math when it's a small sample size sport simply don't understand enough about it.

This ISN'T a game that lends itself to winning it on math. Baseball is and basektball is but football and hockey absolutely are not. These are singular, small sample size events where you absolutely MUST be ready to make a decision based on a single moment in time and not some large-number calculus.

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong, IMO.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

This completely ignores the scarcity of practice time.

The amount of effort and energy that would go into perfecting the literally DOZENS of necessary short yardage plays you'd go burning through over the course of a season just isn't available.

And in the process, those 'gotta have it' plays you use on 4th down in a playoff game have been on tape, multiple times, for opposing DCs.

It's not Madden.

People that try to reduce this game to math when it's a small sample size sport simply don't understand enough about it.

This ISN'T a game that lends itself to winning it on math. Baseball is and basektball is but football and hockey absolutely are not. These are singular, small sample size events where you absolutely MUST be ready to make a decision based on a single moment in time and not some large-number calculus.

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong, IMO.

You would be devoting practice time and play design to picking up 2-11 yards against a compressed defense. It isn't like that is only needed on 2-point conversions. You also force opponents to devote practice time to defending it.

[Chieftain]

I said this last year. Taking the points is one of the smartest things Andy does during a game because it always results in us being in a position to tie or win the game at the end. Results speak for themselves. Take the points and don't be overagressive.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

If only Andy thought the way you do, we could have lost more games and avoided the #1 seed.

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by wazu

You would be devoting practice time and play design to picking up 2-11 yards against a compressed defense. It isn't like that is only needed on 2-point conversions. You also force opponents to devote practice time to defending it.

Sure.

But you'd need to be able to do it, what, another 50 times over the course of a season? A really good offense, maybe 70?

So again, you're showing more. And I just feel like we HAVE to have learned the utility of not doing that by now.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by wazu

I still strongly believe that any team with a "good" offense should go for 2 every single time. It isn't chasing points, it is maximizing the points you will get per game. A good offense should be able to get 2 yards, even at the goal line, more than 50% of the time.

Absolutely.

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

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Absolutely.

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

Fans think they should go for it.

Andy Reid's complete lack of ****s to give as to what ANYONE thinks is a big part of why he doesn't.

The coaches that are hyper-aggressive are the ones being duped by a fans mindset.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Fans think they should go for it.

Andy Reid's complete lack of ****s to give as to what ANYONE thinks is a big part of why he doesn't.

The coaches that are hyper-aggressive are the ones being duped by a fans mindset.

Imagine if those coaches had Patrick Mahomes.

And fans are absolutely the ones scrutinizing this. When you go for two you fail. Alot. Alot alot. When you get the XP you almost always get it but its one point less. Its human nature to not want to "fail" even if it is incorrect thinking.

If I keep getting in QQ vs AK preflop and lose it 9 times in a row. Im not going to stop doing it just because of short term results.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Sure.

But you'd need to be able to do it, what, another 50 times over the course of a season? A really good offense, maybe 70?

So again, you're showing more. And I just feel like we HAVE to have learned the utility of not doing that by now.

At what point does "showing more" hit a tipping point where you've shown so many plays that your opponent has no idea which to prepare for?

If the reason for not going for 2 comes down to gamesmanship and wanting to show fewer plays, then I will defer to Andy on that call and maybe it is the right thing to do. It does seem like we excuse a LOT of decision making and play calling as "not wanting to show our hand". There is also value in executing plays and getting really good at running them so that they are a comfortable part of your arsenal. Maybe the value of that is not enough, though.

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

This completely ignores the scarcity of practice time.

The amount of effort and energy that would go into perfecting the literally DOZENS of necessary short yardage plays you'd go burning through over the course of a season just isn't available.

And in the process, those 'gotta have it' plays you use on 4th down in a playoff game have been on tape, multiple times, for opposing DCs.

It's not Madden.

People that try to reduce this game to math when it's a small sample size sport simply don't understand enough about it.

This ISN'T a game that lends itself to winning it on math. Baseball is and basektball is but football and hockey absolutely are not. These are singular, small sample size events where you absolutely MUST be ready to make a decision based on a single moment in time and not some large-number calculus.

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong, IMO.

It's also a best of 1 tournament.

In the NBA playoffs, 1 night going cold from the 3-point line doesn't kill you. That buffer of 3 losses allows you to go with that strategy without completely throwing your season away.

In the NFL, if you miss back to back 2 point conversions, its possible you just threw your whole season away.

And don't get me started on the difference in scoring opportunities. The 3-point shot heavily affects basketball because of the high volume of scoring opportunities, like 90 shots per game. In the NFL, you have to score a TD to get a shot at a 2 pt conversion. How many opportunities do you get per game to try that, maybe 2-3 on average? Its not statistics if the sample size is that low.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz

It's also a best of 1 tournament.

In the NBA playoffs, 1 night going cold from the 3-point line doesn't kill you. That buffer of 3 losses allows you to go with that strategy without completely throwing your season away.

In the NFL, if you miss back to back 2 point conversions, its possible you just threw your whole season away.

And don't get me started on the difference in scoring opportunities. The 3-point shot heavily affects basketball because of the high volume of scoring opportunities, like 90 shots per game. In the NFL, you have to score a TD to get a shot at a 2 pt conversion. How many opportunities do you get per game to try that, maybe 2-3 on average? Its not statistics if the sample size is that low.

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.

[RedinTexas]

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.

I assume your numbers are all correct, but I will throw one additional item into the analysis. When the Bills went for 2 the first time, they had already kicked the extra point. So, when they decided to go for 2, they weren't sacrificing a 95% chance to get 1 point, they were sacrificing a 100% opportunity for 1 point. Therefore, using all your probability numbers, over time you're making a huge mistake in going for 2 in that situation.