__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
That Seahawks goal line stand to win was epic. The Pats tried the same play from their previous TD but this time the D was ready.
I saw the controversy on the Chargers not going for it 4th and 1 and was wondering if the Hawks, bad call on 3rd aside, should have gone for it late on their 4th and 1. It’s a 90% chance of game over vs a 10% shot NE gets good field position and has say a 50% TD chance. Punting gives NE like a 30% TD chance anyways. The Chargers situation seemed like a tougher decision with them only going for a first down with no win guaranteed.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
Random pet peeve as I was thinking more about the Falcons choke job, but even though coaches are getting better at certain aspects of decision making, there are other areas they are not. Quinn, for instance, went for 2 when up 26-7. The thinking of course is 21 is 3 TDs, plus 3 EPs. Fair enough, but the failure means it only takes 2TDs to tie, as 8+8+3=19. Kicking the EP there makes it 20, and yeah you lose if they get 3 TDs and 3EPs, but at least you make them score 3 TDs. I've said it before, but I really do think every team should have a dedicated game management specialist on staff to avoid these kinds of stupid mistakes. Falcons lost for far more reasons than just that, but even at the time mathematically it was a stupid decision.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 09-21-2020 at 06:39 AM.
I wonder if the number of extra points missed might be messing with coaches too. I have to think the math these days would favor always going for 2 because I think the PAT is now more like 94-95% and the 2 point conversion is 50-50. Although in time, I would guess defenses would get better at defending the two pointer if they were more prepared for it.
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
The Following User Says Thank You to Sylvanfan For This Useful Post:
In regards to the 2 point Convert it does seem like most teams are reluctant to use them when they have the lead until they start thinking about what the lead is and how many scores are needed to keep up...than factor in emotions like your kicker has already enraged you by missing one.
Pittsburgh was one of the only teams that I can remember who would open a game with a TD, and than go for 2 type of thing.
Most teams only start to use them when they fall behind which is why I think New England was low on that list...they typically are not behind late in a game.
I suspect most coaches are too concerned with the criticism they would face if they said screw it I'm going for 2, and only made 1 of 3 and lost a game 21-20 type of thing, vs the credit they would get for going 2 of 3 and winning 22-21. We have seen a lot of coaches go for 2 in a game where they are down one, not convert and get hammered for losing the game on that decision. Over 16 games the 0.1 points per game lost adds up to something....within the context of one game itself the extra 0.1 points becomes 1 whole point, and it's a question of are you going to get it or not?
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
I've always thought teams should go for 2 every time, except when it is illogical (i.e. when an EP can give you the lead late in the game, when an EP makes it a multi-score game etc..) because I think if teams had an entire playbook of 2 point plays they would be able to convert at a 70% rate, which justifies it. When Tomlin started doing it I actually mostly hated it because it was random, there was no rhyme or reason, basically when he felt like going for it he'd do it. If he did it most or all of the time, that would be different.
I think (hope?) eventually going for 2 all of the time will be a future evolution, like we're seeing with possession and teams going for it on fourth down in more circumstances. Some coaches will die on the play it safe hill (Kyle Shanahan, I'm looking at you), but John Harbaugh is the leader in progressive thinking so I'm always gonna be curious what he rides with next.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
^^I'm just glad it appears the Seahawks have finally stopped wasting Russ with their "establish the run" for three quarters before begging Russ to pull it out offense. Until the first game Russ throws three picks and they lose, then right back to that crap no doubt.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
John Harbaugh is the leader in progressive thinking so I'm always gonna be curious what he rides with next.
Yeah, Harbaugh first caught my attention on this last year. I think the Ravens were down 30-13 to the Chiefs and they scored 2 TD's where he went for 2 and they missed them both, in the middle of that was a Field goal. Ultimately they final ended up 33-28 and had it ended 33-30 I had a Sport select ticket good for $180+/- as I had picked the game as a tie. So conventional thinking would have been get the single point as scoring 2 TD's at 8 points wasn't going to close the gap. But when other potential scoring factored in, the math supported him going for 2. He also started the game off by going for 2 as well. So going 0-3 on the 2 point against what was a really bad defence at the time...was a real outlier.
__________________ "Some guys like old balls"
Patriots QB Tom Brady
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19653172/expectancy_difference.jpg)
