Going For 2

[Deleted member 6794]

But they also converting 2's (including playoffs) at a rate of 71.4%.

Seven tries is a really small sample size and I wonder what the reactions would be if the Packers failed to convert the two-point conversion.

 

[Un4GivN]

Well, the Packers were 4-for-6 on two point conversions this season, which is a pretty small sample size.



Do you understand that an 80-yard drive to start overtime isn´t the only way to win the game in OT???

Ok well the other way is to (on best case scenario, excluding a turnover) Stop them and have them go three and out maybe a sack and get the back at mid field. You still have to average 3.33 yards per play. To gain at least 2 first downs to get in field goal range.

You also have more risk of turnovers given more plays. Need to gain more yardage. And need your defense to make a stop.

Honestly there is no way that "statistically" your odds are better to go to OT. There is no math that could possibly support that. Especially with a low rated offense going against a top defense. You are much more likely to get 2 yards on 1 play. Than to continue 3.33 yards per play to get into range of field goal.

 

[adambr2]

What about 2 point conversion?

Also... What is the rate of touchdowns in 80 yards drives against top rated defense? Probably still lower than 27 percent.

Statistically I still think you are very very wrong... This is basically what I do for a living. And I can't see how your odds would be better to drive the field 80 yards than getting 2 yards. It is against all logic.

I mostly agree. I think this is a situation where both sides can twist the numbers to make their side look more favorable. That said, given the game situation, location, etc. if these are your options to try to win :

Option A: Do all of the following - Make a 33 yard FG under immense kicker pressure. If you win a coin toss, drive 80 yards downfield to win or at least drive 60 yards and convert another FG. If you fail to do that or lose the coin toss, stop the #1 offense in the NFL in their stadium from driving 80 yards to score or driving for the game winning FG if you fail to score first.

or

Option B: Convert a do or die play from the 2 yard line with a HOF quarterback.

I'll take option B every single time.

 

[Un4GivN]

Seven tries is a really small sample size and I wonder what the reactions would be if the Packers failed to convert the two-point conversion.

It would have been bad no doubt... But that doesn't mean it was the wrong move.

If you lose, no matter how there is going to be a reaction.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ok well the other way is to (on best case scenario, excluding a turnover) Stop them and have them go three and out maybe a sack and get the back at mid field. You still have to average 3.33 yards per play. To gain at least 2 first downs to get in field goal range.

You also have more risk of turnovers given more plays. Need to gain more yardage. And need your defense to make a stop.

Honestly there is no way that "statistically" your odds are better to go to OT. There is no math that could possibly support that. Especially with a low rated offense going against a top defense. You are much more likely to get 2 yards on 1 play. Than to continue 3.33 yards per play to get into range of field goal.

It depends on which numbers you look at. McCarthy took the safe route and I understand the reasoning behind it.

 

[Half Empty]

Not getting the ball to start overtime doesn´t automatically result in losing. Since the league changed the OT rule 46.2% of the teams kicking off have won the game, overall it seems the win probability is close to being the same than going for two. You have to realize though that the Packers have had huge troubles in short yardage situations all season long.

Pretty much why I mentioned the rant-and-vent thing. What you say is true (or at least feels that way - I'm sure there are those who can defend the other side), but there's also the consideration of that exact time and place, not the season - a shell-shocked Cardinal team with no idea that the 2-pointer might be coming because they had no idea the TD would be scored. From the Packer side, they could have been working on the 2-pointer because, in the absence of a TD, they lose.

 

[Un4GivN]

It depends on which numbers you look at. McCarthy took the safe route and I understand the reasoning behind it.

I understand why people think "its safe"... I think the actually reasoning is that it is "more widely accepted". Doesn't go against the grain.

Honestly, I think the safe route was to go for two. Anytime you have a statistical advantage. Wouldn't that be the safe route?

But you are 100% right that this was the safer move for his career. As he would have taken much more flack for missing a two point conversion. If that did happen.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Honestly, I think the safe route was to go for two. Anytime you have a statistical advantage. Wouldn't that be the safe route?

There are stats as well supporting the call to kick the extra point, you´re just ignoring the one not supporting your claim.

 

[Un4GivN]

There are stats as well supporting the call to kick the extra point, you´re just ignoring the one not supporting your claim.

Please quote them, Ill grab the ones for going for 2.

Heres one and pertains to going for two at the end as well, there are thousands though... Because it is true, I would love to see any statistician try to prove otherswise. The funny thing about math is there is rarely 2 right answers. And there never is in this type of situation. One way certainly had better odds of winning. So one of us is right the other is wrong. There is no 2 ways about it.

"So should coaches go for 2 more often than not? Perhaps. The score and time remaining would ultimately dictate the strategy in each situation, but as long as the game is a point-maximization contest, which is usually until the end of the 3rd quarter, I'd say it's good idea. And in the end-game, when an extra point ties, but a 2-point conversion takes the lead, it would almost certainly be a good idea, all other things being equal."

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/12/almost-always-go-for-2-point.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/yahoo...oint-conversion-is-better-call-015449095.html

http://www.milehighreport.com/2015/...r-go-for-2-math-favors-the-2-point-conversion

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Please quote them, Ill grab the ones for going for 2.

Already did, like the Packers abysmal conversion rate on third- and fourth-and-2.

 

[Un4GivN]

Already did, like the Packers abysmal conversion rate on third- and fourth-and-2.

But you are ignoring all other data. Like the fact they would likely have to do that on a drive to win the game in OT anyways, the fact that turnover rate is higher, the fact they may never see the ball, the fact they were IN ARIZONA, the fact they were going against one of the top offenses in the NFL...

That stat alone doesn't flip the odds in the Packers favor. If anything it proves going for 2 was the right call. Because you only needed to do it once to win. Not go 50+ yards and win a coin toss, or stop their offense.

Honestly this is one sided fight, math will tell you it was the right move.

I don't even disagree with McCarthy just because it is the more socially accepted route to go.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But you are ignoring all other data. Like the fact they would likely have to do that on a drive to win the game, the fact that turnover rate is higher.

Do you have any data to support those claims???

 

[Un4GivN]

Do you have any data to support those claims???

Which one... That you are more likely to turn the ball over given 20 plays than one?

That is just simple math if every play has 2% (arbitrary number, have no idea the actual percentage but for this argument the number doesn't matter) chance of a turnover.... And you do 20 plays, your odds are higher combined than on 1 play. Because you would have a 2% chance 20 times.

So in math terms, anytime you have a greater number of plays you have a greater chance of a turnover.

 

[Vrill]

We should have went for two and the win. We scored on a miraculous play and Arizona was stunned. We shouldn't have scored that TD, yet we did. So yeah, go for two and try to steal the game while Arizona was back on their heels.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Which one... That you are more likely to turn the ball over given 20 plays than one?

That is just simple math if every play has 2% (arbitrary number, have no idea the actual percentage but for this argument the number doesn't matter) chance of a turnover.... And you do 20 plays, your odds are higher combined than on 1 play. Because you would have a 2% chance 20 times.

So in math terms, anytime you have a greater number of plays you have a greater chance of a turnover.

The same is true for the Cardinals as well, so that doesn´t result in a decrease of the Packers chances to win OT.

 

[adambr2]

Seven tries is a really small sample size and I wonder what the reactions would be if the Packers failed to convert the two-point conversion.

Any difficult key moment decision for an NFL head coach, particularly if it violates conventional wisdom, is going to be subject to heavy media scrutiny and fan's second guessing if it doesn't work. There is simply no escaping that possibility.

As someone who was touting the 2 point conversion in the preseason as the better statistical choice now based on the new rules, I would think you would agree that as long as a coach can support his choice with reason and logic, he should not be afraid to make an unconventional decision.

 

[Un4GivN]

The same is true for the Cardinals as well, so that doesn´t result in a decrease of the Packers chances to win OT.

It's difficult to explain math if you don't get it man. Arizona didn't have the chance for 1 play victory. Only the Packers did. So yes once their odds go to overtime that math is the same. Which further proves my point. Not yours.

But the Packers had a chance to go for two. Only one team had that opportunity. The Packers. And that is when the turnover rate comes into play. Not once you are in overtime.

To put this in reverse, Arizona had a better chance of victory going into OT than stopping a 2pt conversion. There was more opportunity for error. There was the chance to win the coin the flip. They have a top offense/defense.

Like I stated, the ONLY argument that can be made is it goes against the grain. And for that he would take some heat. Did that stop Belichick from deferring in overtime? No. And he lost because of it. But whomever figured that out for him/or if he did it, figured his odds of victory are better. This doesn't guarantee a victory. Just maximizes your odds.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's difficult to explain math if you don't get it man. Arizona didn't have the chance for 1 play victory. Only the Packers did. So yes once their odds go to overtime that math is the same. Which further proves my point. Not yours.

But the Packers had a chance to go for two. Only one team had that opportunity. The Packers. And that is when the turnover rate comes into play. Not once you are in overtime.

Well, but taking their struggles in short yardage situations into consideration going for two had a less than 50% chance of succeeding, which is less than kicking the extra point and win in OT.

 

[OldSchool101]

According to nearly every "expert" .. We had absolutely zero business winning this game at Arizona.
Speaking of Bill Belichek or Vince Lombardi for that matter. I asked myself if they would have given the ball back to Brady or Starr at the 2 with all the marbles on the line after this type of dynamic season.
My intuition said immediately Yes.
I also understand the logic in "staying alive" into OT and initially it makes sense. But if you had asked me before kickoff this same question? Id say yes go for it.
We had no business being this deep in the playoffs with our eradic Offensive play the majority of the year. If you play eradic all year and then can't get 2 yards when all the marbles are on the line in a Major postseason game, You don't deserve to advance IMO
That play being successful would've earned us the right to be in a Championship match

 

[Vrill]

I wonder if us not having a timeout resulted in the quick PAT decision? We really didn't have a lot of time to process what just happened. So a quick decision had to be made and we took the safe route.

 

[adambr2]

I wonder if us not having a timeout resulted in the quick PAT decision? We really didn't have a lot of time to process what just happened. So a quick decision had to be made and we took the safe route.

Don't remember how long the review took, but I would think that was sufficient time to figure it out.

 

[Un4GivN]

Well, but taking their struggles in short yardage situations into consideration going for two had a less than 50% chance of succeeding, which is less than kicking the extra point and win in OT.

You keep bringing this up, but that means. What are the odds of driving it 40 yards against a top defense for at least a field goal? Or a touchdown to win. The odds you won't have at least 1 or 2 short yardage plays during that drive. (So is it easier to make 3 third 1's than 1 2 point conversion?).

Compound that with the fact if you lose the coin toss you have to first stop a top offense from getting to the end zone. Adding all those things together I bet your odds are something like 10 percent given the strengths of each team.

There is no way that math comes out. PERIOD.

 

[adambr2]

Well, but taking their struggles in short yardage situations into consideration going for two had a less than 50% chance of succeeding, which is less than kicking the extra point and win in OT.

Again the chance of kicking the XP and winning in OT was not 50%. It's impossible to pin down an exact number, probably anywhere between 40-49%, but it's a huge stretch to say it was 50/50 after the Hail Mary.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You keep bringing this up, but that means. What are the odds of driving it 40 yards against a top defense for at least a field goal? Or a touchdown to win. The odds you won't have at least 1 or 2 short yardage plays during that drive. (So is it easier to make 3 third 1's than 1 2 point conversion?).

Compound that with the fact if you lose the coin toss you have to first stop a top offense from getting to the end zone. Adding all those things together I bet your odds are something like 10 percent given the strengths of each team.

There is no way that math comes out. PERIOD.

It's ridiculous to suggest the Packers had only a 10% chance of winning in OT. How did they even make it to OT if the Cardinals were that much better???

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again the chance of kicking the XP and winning in OT was not 50%. It's impossible to pin down an exact number, probably anywhere between 40-49%, but it's a huge stretch to say it was 50/50 after the Hail Mary.

According to ESPN the Packers had a 47% win probability immediately after the hail mary.