2018 NFL thread

[Sylvanfan]

The other thing is that the extra point being from 10 more yards out has really reduced that guarantee. Used to be the PAT was like 99%. Today I think its 94 or something like that.

But I would agree, down by 14 points, you go get the extra point the first time. That way if you miss you still have a chance to tie if you score the second TD, and the option to tie or win if you play the Cheifs.

But say you're down 8 with 3 and a half minutes to go with 4th and 7 from the 25...it's not a bad idea to kick a field goal there, and set yourself up to drive for the win at the end.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The point of going for two when down 28-20 rather than the extra point is that the likelihood of coming back from 28-14 with 7 minutes left, even if this era, is still less than 5%. So since your odds are long to begin with, going for two early means that even if you miss you can still go for it again on the second touchdown. But if you get it on the first one then you've simply made things much easier if you get the second touchdown. Since statistically speaking the rate of conversion for two is 50%, going for it twice statistically nets you 14 points. If you do as the Chargers did last night and miss the two at the end, well then obviously you've lost. If they had missed it going for two at 28-20, they still at least have the chance to tie, but if successful for two at 28-20, they have made winning a 95% chance instead of a 50% chance if they score the second TD.

Doug Pederson tried this earlier this year against the Vikings and they missed the two. But it's still something coaches should do. Statistically speaking the worst case scenario should be a tie if you score two TDs.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The point of going for two when down 28-20 rather than the extra point is that the likelihood of coming back from 28-14 with 7 minutes left, even if this era, is still less than 5%. So since your odds are long to begin with, going for two early means that even if you miss you can still go for it again on the second touchdown. But if you get it on the first one then you've simply made things much easier if you get the second touchdown. Since statistically speaking the rate of conversion for two is 50%, going for it twice statistically nets you 14 points. If you do as the Chargers did last night and miss the two at the end, well then obviously you've lost. If they had missed it going for two at 28-20, they still at least have the chance to tie, but if successful for two at 28-20, they have made winning a 95% chance instead of a 50% chance if they score the second TD.

Doug Pederson tried this earlier this year against the Vikings and they missed the two. But it's still something coaches should do. Statistically speaking the worst case scenario should be a tie if you score two TDs.

Like I said before if the score was 28-22 it's doubtful the Chargers get the ball back as Reid wouldn't have gone conservative on offense.

[FireGilbert]

I also turned the game off after the Chiefs made it 28-14 but thankfully kept recording.

It was taking me a while to figure out why they should have gone for 2 down 28-20 but I think I’ve got it. If you succeed you have pretty much won the game with another TD while if you fail you still have a chance to tie with another TD. By saving the 2 points to the end you either win or lose on a coin flip with no chance at a tie.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Like I said before if the score was 28-22 it's doubtful the Chargers get the ball back as Reid wouldn't have gone conservative on offense.

It's fundamentally the same equation, it would seem utterly bizarre that a coach would totally change what he does up 28-22 vs 28-21 or 28-20. Andy wouldn't have all of a sudden gone with three straight deep shots to Tyreek if it was 28-22 instead of 28-21. The difference between being up three or four, or eight or nine is a lot different obviously. It's why coaches should always go for two when scoring a TD up by one in the fourth quarter.

[d_phaneuf]

There is no argument with the math on this, you go for 2 when scoring a td down 14 in the 4th after cutting it to 8

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/h...fans-feelings/

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/p...-was-easy-call

https://predictivefootball.com/late-...r-a-touchdown/

Each link explains it in detail but from the espn one

Talking about when the eagles went for 2 on the first td when down 2 in a game earlier

For those keeping score at home, that’s 46 percent to win, 28 percent to tie and 26 percent to lose. Since we’re assuming that’s the only other score in the game, let’s just split the 28 percent evenly between the two teams in overtime for simplicity -- leaving us with the Eagles having a 60 percent chance to win and a 40 percent chance to lose.

And if they attempted a pat

In this case, it’s 0 percent to win, 91 percent to tie and 9 percent to lose. Or, after factoring in overtime, 45.5 percent to win and 55.5 percent to lose. Much worse.

[GirlySports]

I like going for 2 on the 2nd TD because it surprises the other team in a do or die situation. They're probably bummed out about giving up the game-tying TD think the game is going to OT.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I like going for 2 on the 2nd TD because it surprises the other team in a do or die situation. They're probably bummed out about giving up the game-tying TD think the game is going to OT.

I agree there’s an emotional/momentum component to the decision. You miss the 2 pointer on touchdown 1 and you just lost some of the pop you got from scoring. I do believe that’s a factor in a game like football.

And yeah, better chance of getting the 2 points when the other team is reeling like that at the end of the game.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I really can't understand how much "pop" you can lose from going from a one score deficit to a....one score deficit. It's not like a defense is going to go out there with less effort, the goal is still the same, get the ball back as you are down one score. Going for it earlier is truly more of a "conservative" play in terms of risk management, since it offers a level of protection that doesn't exist going for it at the end. And the same argument that a defense could be reeling can be reversed that an offense feels the pressure since anything less than a conversion is a loss.

At the end of the day it's mostly important that the Chargers went for two at all. Overtime is a 50/50 proposition, so is going for two. The Chargers chose to avoid letting a coin possibly decide things. A lot of coaches (including Andy Reid I suspect) would have kicked since that is the safe play (especially with the OT rule changes a few years ago).

[troutman]

NFL teams are converting at a 60 percent clip in 2018, which equals 1.2 points per two-point attempt

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.61932d17089d

Should go for 2 every time.

https://rileykolstefootball.com/2018...o-point-study/

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by troutman

NFL teams are converting at a 60 percent clip in 2018, which equals 1.2 points per two-point attempt

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.61932d17089d

Should go for 2 every time.

https://rileykolstefootball.com/2018...o-point-study/

That's a bit skewed because teams that have good red zone offenses tend to go for more 2 point conversions. There's a lot of teams that have issues scoring from close in. If those teams went for more 2 point conversions it would bring down the averages. If you have a really good red zone offense or unreliable kicker then yeah you should probably go for two points more but not all red zone offenses are created equal.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Mahomes is truly ridiculous, some of these throws are just not believable.

He's the real deal. Next NFL Superstar. I am neck deep in Chiefs fans around here and some are complaining about the interceptions he's thrown the last 8 games or so. Why???

The guy is unbelievable. He's Brett Favre.

[KelVarnsen]

As great as Brett Favre was. He threw a lot of boneheaded INTs

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

As great as Brett Favre was. He threw a lot of boneheaded INTs

He did. But I value the aggressiveness in a QB. There's a point where it becomes too much and Favre didn't really get there until very late in his career.

Mahomes has thrown some bad INTs but most of them have been extremely late in the game when they were trailing. Plus...it's still his first year starting...surely he'll get even better at avoiding those.

[dirk diggler]

If Mahomes doesnt have to score 40 every game and had a solid defense his INT's would likely be down. He needs to keep the pedal down constantly to compensate for that D

[GirlySports]

Amazed the Jets didn't challenge. Texans even called a TO for them.

But they made it on 4th down.

[Drake]

Is DeAndre Hopkins the best WR in the game?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Drake

Is DeAndre Hopkins the best WR in the game?

He has incredible hands and as a result makes some of the most amazing catches. The one that was called back earlier this year that he trapped against the back of his leg was jaw dropping.

[Nsd1]

Clevelands miracle senario is still alive.

[GirlySports]

Anyone check on joborule and resalien?