The move was intended to save time however you are right they had nothing to lose had they used 3 or 2 downs to try a pass into the end zone. If no one is open they could throw it away stopping the clock. The most they would lose is apx. 24 seconds.
I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest (like me) you had Atlanta +7
We really lost when the guy dropped the ball on the 2 point conversion those 2 points make us winners.
I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest (like me) you had Atlanta +7
We really lost when the guy dropped the ball on the 2 point conversion those 2 points make us winners.
Biz....we are both right just looking at it differently. And they are not consistent either way. Inside a box an individual play can be looked at through analytics and choose that play like it or not. But it does not make sense to pick and choose when to use it if you are trying to play the odds. I myself may choose to do such things if I were a coach but would not say it is analytics because why not always play the odds? And they dpn't....theefore not analytics. You can change your words up but it is what it is.End....of.....story
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2005
- Messages
- 4,536
- Reaction score
- 77
All around town in ATL I hear people saying nothing but nice things about Dan Quinn, how good a person he is , how much the player like him, but he has to go.
I think his problem is at QB. Matt Ryan consistently held the ball too long, targeted covered receivers when others were open, and threw lousy passes.
He's done. The best coaches can't win without good QB play.
Hang 'em up, Matty.
He's done. The best coaches can't win without good QB play.
Hang 'em up, Matty.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2011
- Messages
- 14,762
- Reaction score
- 591
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2005
- Messages
- 4,536
- Reaction score
- 77
I'm 100 percent convinced that Ryan threw the super bowl, and that is the only reason he is still playing now . It is a quid pro quo of some sort. We were up 28-3 and would have been up 31-3 if Ryan had just thrown the pass into the stands and they had made the FG.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2011
- Messages
- 14,762
- Reaction score
- 591
You're missing the point.
Some people are resistant to change, even if you can show them a better way. That is true in many aspects of life.
Kicking the XP has been the way for years and years. With the new rules that help offenses, going for 2 has been shown to make sense in certain situations.
You want to leverage your odds of winning. When you go for 2 in the 2nd quarter, the other team has time to react to your successful 2 pt conversion.
When you cut the margin to 11 later in the game, it makes sense to go for 2. If you make it, you can win with a FG and TD/XP. Miss it and you can tie with a FG and TD/2pt.
The odds are that you will usually make one of the 2 pt conversions. It is around 48% historically, XP are made at around 95.2% down from 99.5% from the old distance.
You can do a search and find several articles that explain why this strategy makes sense.
To your point about some do it, some don't...I've explained that. The fact some do some don't doesn't change the pure math.
Some people are resistant to change, even if you can show them a better way. That is true in many aspects of life.
Kicking the XP has been the way for years and years. With the new rules that help offenses, going for 2 has been shown to make sense in certain situations.
You want to leverage your odds of winning. When you go for 2 in the 2nd quarter, the other team has time to react to your successful 2 pt conversion.
When you cut the margin to 11 later in the game, it makes sense to go for 2. If you make it, you can win with a FG and TD/XP. Miss it and you can tie with a FG and TD/2pt.
The odds are that you will usually make one of the 2 pt conversions. It is around 48% historically, XP are made at around 95.2% down from 99.5% from the old distance.
You can do a search and find several articles that explain why this strategy makes sense.
To your point about some do it, some don't...I've explained that. The fact some do some don't doesn't change the pure math.
RX, not to knock you, but you keep asserting this unassailable belief in playing the odds. That is fine if you really do have the "odds" as you call it. The problem I have is similar to what i posted in another note to you about the decision to go for 2 or 1. I would like to see exactly where those supposed odds come from. I have studied the nfl for over 40 years of past games, and I can tell you that even in a massive database of many thousands of games, the ones that can be used to draw conclusions based on data often shrink the database to a small level that is no longer reliable enough to even produce good odds. So while you might have the data in sufficient numbers and in similar situations, I am very doubtful. Just having a powerful computer or computer program does not help one iota if your original database is too small, not specific enough, or you don't have the sophistication to correct for multiple inherent possible errors. I have a background in stats, among other things, and there are many who claim stats this and stats that when they have no idea what they are talking about. Not saying you are not doing it right, but your comments about having odds on rare situations, like going for 1 or 2 in specific game situations, makes me think you are a bit more enthusiastic than your database.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 89,636
- Reaction score
- 4,096
Three time outs, don't dink and dunk, throw it into the end zone or throw it away
Then again, Matty Ice showed he really doesn't understand that throw it away concert, he'd rather take a loss
Then again, Matty Ice showed he really doesn't understand that throw it away concert, he'd rather take a loss
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 89,636
- Reaction score
- 4,096
How many times do you see those aggressive plays to "go for the win" work out? I think teams going for two AT THE END OF GAMES fail at least 3 out of 4 times
Ask Mike Tomlin how those "analytics" worked out for him. Why don't other NFL coaches rely on analytics? Does Bill Belichick use analytics? Or are his decisions made based on what he sees on the field?
The Ravens are real good at using analytics, or maybe it's more about having Lamar Jackson. I guess if you have the right players, those analytics can work. Matt Ryan ain't no Lamar Jackson, so maybe we need different analytics for different skill sets.
Ask Mike Tomlin how those "analytics" worked out for him. Why don't other NFL coaches rely on analytics? Does Bill Belichick use analytics? Or are his decisions made based on what he sees on the field?
The Ravens are real good at using analytics, or maybe it's more about having Lamar Jackson. I guess if you have the right players, those analytics can work. Matt Ryan ain't no Lamar Jackson, so maybe we need different analytics for different skill sets.
