Going For 2

[Daryl Muellenberg]

People don't understand odds, like at all.

If you cant get two yards, you are not anymore likely to get 80, especially when there is a chance you don't get the ball. I don't see how people don't understand this.

I don't know how you can compare the odds of the 2 scenarios, or even come up with odds in the first place. Yes, you can quote the percentages of outcomes in the past, but odds are completely different. For example, you can flip a coin 99 times and have it come up heads, but what are the odds of it coming up heads again? Past percentages show 100% but the odds are still just 50%. The probability that it will come up heads 100 times in a row is very small, even though the odds are 50/50 at that point. And no, I am not equating flipping a coin to football, just using it as an example to demonstrate the difference between probability and odds.

In this case I think it has to be pretty much a gut decision made by the coach taking into consideration how the game has transpired.

 

[Un4GivN]

I don't know how you can compare the odds of the 2 scenarios, or even come up with odds in the first place. Yes, you can quote the percentages of outcomes in the past, but odds are completely different. For example, you can flip a coin 99 times and have it come up heads, but what are the odds of it coming up heads again? Past percentages show 100% but the odds are still just 50%. The probability that it will come up heads 100 times in a row is very small, even though the odds are 50/50 at that point. And no, I am not equating flipping a coin to football, just using it as an example to demonstrate the difference between probability and odds.

In this case I think it has to be pretty much a gut decision made by the coach taking into consideration how the game has transpired.

Ok lets try it this way if we want to go more technical with it... In this scenario

If probability is X

Going for 2 would be.

X= 50% (league average... though the Packers are even higher this year)/1(represents the number of chances you get)

X=.5/1

X=.5 or 50% Probability


The probability in overtime... Not taking into account the horrible last games data.

X=.4 (The number of drives the Packers get a score of any type out of 10 against arizona)/1(number of times they get the ball)

X=.4/1

X=.4 or 40% Probability drops to 20% probability of scoring a touchdown given only 1 chance.

Now as I stated before, this is being VERY generous... It does not factor in the fact that to even get that 40 percent chance to score you first have to get the ball. WHICH 20 percent of the time you don't.

So now to explain what you are talking about in the difference in probability and odds.

The odds that you are using in the coin flip scenario is the version which uses a ratio to display the probability of something occuring. Like 1:1. (which is the coin flip)

The other definition of odds is
"the probability that something is so, will occur, or is more likely too occur than something else:
Example... The odds are that it will rain today."

Where no ratio is used and it is simply used designate that there is a certain probability of something occurring.

I see what you are getting at, but that is not how I was using the term.

 

[longtimefan]

Haven't read all 110+ messages in this thread, yet, but found this statistical analysis of pretty much THIS scenario.
http://chance.amstat.org/2015/04/nfl-overtime/

Quick summary is going for it from the 2 yd. line is 74% win even if a team isn't very good on 4th downs (or short yardage) and 78% chance if a team is good on 4th down (or short yardage).


BTW, as soon as Janis came down with the TD hail mary I wanted MM to go for 2 for the win. The D wasn't consistently stopping AZ's offense in the 4th quarter and I wanted the ball in AR's hands for the win or loss. 4th & 26 still makes me queasy, as Mike Sherman didn't go for a 4th & 1 with a dominant offensive line (& Ahman Green running for 156 yds that day), giving Philly opportunity to steal the win. When you have Favre or AR at the helm they should ALWAYS have the ball in their hand to win, IMHO.

I disagree that the def wasnt consistently stopping in 4th q

they held them to 6 yards after Packers turned it over on 4th down ....Cards kicked a fg...But to hold the #1 offense to yards on short field has to be account for something...Plus they got an int..

So a TD a FG (blamed on offense) and an int is inconsistent?

 

[El Guapo]

How does that make it the right decision? Just because you roll the dice 6 times in a row on 2, doesn't mean its less likely to roll a 2 on your next roll.

People don't understand odds, like at all.

Going for 2 and rolling dice are completely different. The likelihood of getting the 2-point conversion was affected by the play of the team and the players available. People don't understand variables, like at all.

If you cant get two yards, how are more likely to get 80 or even 40 for a field goal (needing to average 4 yards per play and likely needing short yardage gain anyways), especially when there is a chance you don't get the ball. I don't see how people don't understand this.

Because scoring in the red zone, especially when you only have 12 yards to work with, can be much harder than moving the ball in the middle of the field. I don't see how people don't understand this.

Check how the Packers where on two point conversion for the year.... Give me that percentage once, like not just your scenarios... But all of them? Because anyone with knowledge will tell you the game on the line or not doesn't change your odds. Or are you leaving that out because it doesn't make your point?

The Packers went 4 of 6 on 2 point conversions during the regular season. While this appears to support your theory on the surface, I believe that it fails when the other important variables are tossed in regarding the WRs available (or lack thereof of playmakers), the lack of offensive momentum, our inability to smash it up the middle, and the fact that the game was on the line. You seem to want to ignore that fact because we went 4 of 6 in the season on regular 2-point conversions. It is a factor that the Packers weren't good when it mattered.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Ok lets try it this way if we want to go more technical with it... In this scenario

If probability is X

Going for 2 would be.

X= 50% (league average... though the Packers are even higher this year)/1(represents the number of chances you get)

X=.5/1

X=.5 or 50% Probability


The probability in overtime... Not taking into account the horrible last games data.

X=.4 (The number of drives the Packers get a score of any type out of 10 against arizona)/1(number of times they get the ball)

X=.4/1

X=.4 or 40% Probability drops to 20% probability of scoring a touchdown given only 1 chance.

Now as I stated before, this is being VERY generous... It does not factor in the fact that to even get that 40 percent chance to score you first have to get the ball. WHICH 20 percent of the time you don't.

So now to explain what you are talking about in the difference in probability and odds.

The odds that you are using in the coin flip scenario is the version which uses a ratio to display the probability of something occuring. Like 1:1. (which is the coin flip)

The other definition of odds is
"the probability that something is so, will occur, or is more likely too occur than something else:
Example... The odds are that it will rain today."

Where no ratio is used and it is simply used designate that there is a certain probability of something occurring.

I see what you are getting at, but that is not how I was using the term.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think it is almost impossible to come with meaningful odds on whether to go for 2 points or overtime. There are just too many variables to take into consideration. You can't go just by past results. For example, saying the home team won 54% of the time in overtime is really pretty meaningless as far as who will win the next overtime. Different teams, different players, different weather conditions, etc. etc. etc. There is no right or wrong decision here, as there are arguments for both sides. We can debate this until we are blue in the face, nothing is going to change.

 

[Un4GivN]

Going for 2 and rolling dice are completely different. The likelihood of getting the 2-point conversion was affected by the play of the team and the players available. People don't understand variables, like at all.

While I will give you that they are different in the fact that there are more variables... Where they are not different is probability. Probability is probability. I explained above how I came up with this using only data from the game that they played. Not other games, other defense or anything else.

Green Bay had 10 possessions.... Scored on 4.

So basing this off of that.

40% chance they would score. (Which is higher then the yearly rate and still lower than their redzone touchdown rate which I will show below)
or
20% (scoring a touchdown)

Now if you take into account that you have a 50% chance of having to stop the other team first. You're odds are lower. On average the team that loses the coin toss doesn't get to touch the ball in 20% of games. Then subtract some more because the home team wins on average 61% of all overtime games.

Factor in the fact that Arizona is much higher on scoring offense, than green bay is on scoring defense, and your odds get even worse.

Note: I am being nice and leaving out the first game between them. Because if I include all data of these two teams from this year the choice is incredibly easy. But if you want me to add more credible data I can but it is even worse for your outcome.

Because scoring in the red zone, especially when you only have 12 yards to work with, can be much harder than moving the ball in the middle of the field. I don't see how people don't understand this.

Where do you see this stat? Or are you making this up? Ohh wait I know you are making it up.

Because according to stats Green Bay converted 55% of redzone drives into touchdowns this season. Yet they only scored 1.93 average points per drive including touchdowns. Meaning they scored on less than 35 percent of total drives if you take the total drives into account. SOOOO you are wrong.

You are more likely to score a TD from the redzone, then even a 2 point conversion. And much more likely to score on either of those then a vanilla starting position on the field.

Green Bay 55.00%
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct
and
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats
And
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-scoring-drive-efficiency-statistics/2015/

So please tell me how I don't understand... Please try to prove me wrong again.

The Packers went 4 of 6 on 2 point conversions during the regular season. While this appears to support your theory on the surface, I believe that it fails when the other important variables are tossed in regarding the WRs available (or lack thereof of playmakers), the lack of offensive momentum, our inability to smash it up the middle, and the fact that the game was on the line. You seem to want to ignore that fact because we went 4 of 6 in the season on regular 2-point conversions. It is a factor that the Packers weren't good when it mattered.

So they would be better converting these during a longer drive... You don't get better receivers if the field is longer, the line doesn't get better, and Aaron doesn't throw better.

The odds go up if the field is longer? No stat supports that theory at all. Because from everything I see the Packers on the year score on about 35 percent of their drives.

So for your theory to have any weight what-so-every you would have to prove to me that GB had less than 35 percent chance be successful on a 2pt conversion.

If you can't do that, then you ARE WRONG.

I know why McCarthy did it, because that is the accepted way of doing it. But any math you do will not support it.

 

[Un4GivN]

I guess what I'm saying is that I think it is almost impossible to come with meaningful odds on whether to go for 2 points or overtime. There are just too many variables to take into consideration. You can't go just by past results. For example, saying the home team won 54% of the time in overtime is really pretty meaningless as far as who will win the next overtime. Different teams, different players, different weather conditions, etc. etc. etc. There is no right or wrong decision here, as there are arguments for both sides. We can debate this until we are blue in the face, nothing is going to change.

No, you were trying to prove I didn't know the difference between Odds and Probability.

I don't know how you can compare the odds of the 2 scenarios, or even come up with odds in the first place. Yes, you can quote the percentages of outcomes in the past, but odds are completely different. For example, you can flip a coin 99 times and have it come up heads, but what are the odds of it coming up heads again? Past percentages show 100% but the odds are still just 50%. The probability that it will come up heads 100 times in a row is very small, even though the odds are 50/50 at that point. And no, I am not equating flipping a coin to football, just using it as an example to demonstrate the difference between probability and odds.

In this case I think it has to be pretty much a gut decision made by the coach taking into consideration how the game has transpired.

But you are wrong with that... I'm sorry but that point at least is wrong. Odds doesn't have to be 1:1, it is also a term used to express the likelyhood of a given situation. Good news is you learn something new everyday.

And that is exactly what I am trying to tell you. THERE IS A RIGHT ANSWER. You can debate my math, or how players and momentum add to it. But in the end whether any of us on these boards can figure it out or not, there is a right answer. One way has a better probability of victory. Easy as that.

 

[sschind]

Haven't read all 110+ messages in this thread, yet, but found this statistical analysis of pretty much THIS scenario.
http://chance.amstat.org/2015/04/nfl-overtime/

Quick summary is going for it from the 2 yd. line is 74% win even if a team isn't very good on 4th downs (or short yardage) and 78% chance if a team is good on 4th down (or short yardage).


BTW, as soon as Janis came down with the TD hail mary I wanted MM to go for 2 for the win. The D wasn't consistently stopping AZ's offense in the 4th quarter and I wanted the ball in AR's hands for the win or loss. 4th & 26 still makes me queasy, as Mike Sherman didn't go for a 4th & 1 with a dominant offensive line (& Ahman Green running for 156 yds that day), giving Philly opportunity to steal the win. When you have Favre or AR at the helm they should ALWAYS have the ball in their hand to win, IMHO.

I'll sum up all 110 posts for you

going for two was the best statistical option to win

no it wasn't

yes it was

no it wasn't

continue like this for 106 more posts.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Haven't read all 110+ messages in this thread, yet, but found this statistical analysis of pretty much THIS scenario.
http://chance.amstat.org/2015/04/nfl-overtime/

Quick summary is going for it from the 2 yd. line is 74% win even if a team isn't very good on 4th downs (or short yardage) and 78% chance if a team is good on 4th down (or short yardage).

I have never seen it personally, not sure it ever happened. Takes some major cojones to try.

The sample size might be zero. lol

Here is another article on it from a couple years ago before they changed the XP.

The math behind going for two.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...he_late_game_scenario_in_which_going_for.html

Do you guys even realize that you quote articles talking about a completely different situation to support your argument??? One of them talks about the chances on going for a TD on fourth down in overtime and the other about what to do trailing by two scores!!!

Ok lets try it this way if we want to go more technical with it... In this scenario

If probability is X

Going for 2 would be.

X= 50% (league average... though the Packers are even higher this year)/1(represents the number of chances you get)

X=.5/1

X=.5 or 50% Probability


The probability in overtime... Not taking into account the horrible last games data.

X=.4 (The number of drives the Packers get a score of any type out of 10 against arizona)/1(number of times they get the ball)

X=.4/1

X=.4 or 40% Probability drops to 20% probability of scoring a touchdown given only 1 chance.

Now as I stated before, this is being VERY generous... It does not factor in the fact that to even get that 40 percent chance to score you first have to get the ball. WHICH 20 percent of the time you don't.

You completely ignore that a team not scoring on the first possession of overtime has still a chance to win the game.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

No, you were trying to prove I didn't know the difference between Odds and Probability.

Sorry if it came out that way. I meant I don't know how 'anyone' (not just you) can determine meaningful odds for a situation that has some many different variables. Plus I was just giving an example to show the difference between odds and probability for the benefit of the board - it was in no way meant to prove you don't know the difference.

And that is exactly what I am trying to tell you. THERE IS A RIGHT ANSWER. You can debate my math, or how players and momentum add to it. But in the end whether any of us on these boards can figure it out or not, there is a right answer. One way has a better probability of victory. Easy as that.

I guess that depends on your definition of right. Your definition is based strictly on which one has the better odds. I would say that just means that one of the options is a better option, not necessarily the right one. IMO, the 'right' decision would be the one that works.

 

[Crockett&Tubbs]

I hear a couple cases today against going for 2. Remember, I was 100% set TO go for 2, way ahead of time. I was planning or talking about it before our defense even held AZ to the FG and left us down just 7. All along I was without hesitation planning, hoping we'd go for 2 and win, or lose, right there, on Rodgers talent from 2 yards.

Now I read today that James Lofton said he felt for sure we should have gone for 2, as I wanted.

But a couple things said against it are accurate.
#1- Janis, Abbrederis, Jones.... Jones is slow, Peterson would blanket him. Janis & Abbederis surely haven't had many reps on 2 pt conversions, although JA did catch one very nicely a few weeks ago.

#2- Our short yardage sucks. If we tried a shovel pass like they did to win it where Larry went in easily, you know darn well there'd be 2, 3, 4 Cardinal defenders in the backfield smothering that play.
We failed late in short yardage situations so many times, 4 vs Chicago when we had 1st & goal at the 8. Also failed at Carolina even though the play design was 100% perfect.
And you all remember our runs from the 1 yard line last year at Seattle in NFCCG, Kuhn didn't make it and then Lacy didn't either behind Kuhn's failed block (why wasn't it Daniels or Guion or Penell blocking)..... so our short yardage success recently is not re-assuring.

Still, our overtime record is worse, and we had the momentum & Arizona was shell-shocked. I will always believe going for 2 was the right play, and the result of NOT going for 2 will make kicking the 1-PAT the wrong play. History shows it.....

 

[Sanguine camper]

Putting the debate about probabilities aside I like the 2 pt option better because you can use a pass which let's a HOF qb make a play. If you go to OT you have a 50 percent chance that the defense will be on the field first. Given that the Cards moved the ball up and down the field on their last 4 drives, having a 50 percent chance of putting the game in the hands of the defense was the wrong call. The defense is just not clutch. If you go for two you don't have to take the risk of having your defense on the field.

 

[longtimefan]

Putting the debate about probabilities aside I like the 2 pt option better because you can use a pass which let's a HOF qb make a play. If you go to OT you have a 50 percent chance that the defense will be on the field first. Given that the Cards moved the ball up and down the field on their last 4 drives, having a 50 percent chance of putting the game in the hands of the defense was the wrong call. The defense is just not clutch. If you go for two you don't have to take the risk of having your defense on the field.

4 drives?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201601160crd.htm#drives

Regardless of yards gained, one series ended in an interception and one went 6 yards for a fg (blame offense for failed 4th down that gave Cards the ball at Packers 24) Couldnt really ask for much more..

In my eyes 2 drives were in favor of the defense, and 2 the Cards did moved the ball down the field easy..

 

[Mondio]

didn't one of those drives include another dropped INT and then finish with a tipped ball in the endzone for a TD? I give it to AZ for making the plays, but our defense was very good, and very close multiple times to being outstanding. I had no issues putting them back on the field.

 

[longtimefan]

didn't one of those drives include another dropped INT and then finish with a tipped ball in the endzone for a TD? I give it to AZ for making the plays, but our defense was very good, and very close multiple times to being outstanding. I had no issues putting them back on the field.

Yes it was at the end, his post said drive up and down the field..Meaning lot of plays..

Td one was 14 plays....One fg drive was 10 plays...

So technically he was right...But in only 2 drives not the 4

 

[Shawnsta3]

Advanced stats say McCarthy should have gone for two. Two point conversion rate is 48.8% league wide and successfully kicking the extra point and winning on the road in OT had a rate of 40.9% with about an 8% better rate of going for two.

Pretty interesting read by a great website if you've got a mind for numbers as well as a minute.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...mes-against-middle-school-math/?ex_cid=espnfb

 

[longtimefan]

Phil Simms says not going for 2 was right

boomer esiason said going for 2 would have taken a lot of balls

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Advanced stats say McCarthy should have gone for two. Two point conversion rate is 48.8% league wide and successfully kicking the extra point and winning on the road in OT had a rate of 40.9% with about an 8% better rate of going for two.

Pretty interesting read by a great website if you've got a mind for numbers as well as a minute.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...mes-against-middle-school-math/?ex_cid=espnfb

Just wanted to re-emphasize the 538 link above. It's very simple math that would support the decision to go for two. Just pointing out that what it's not taking into account is the psychological instinct to "herd", that people are afraid to do something different (even if it's better) because it's so much more accepted to be wrong when everyone else is wrong the same way; i.e., playing for OT is mathematically the wrong decision but it's the accepted decision that won't get as heavily criticized as going for two (the correct choice) if you fail at getting the two.

 

[RepStar15]

going for two would have been idiotically bold, but mostly stupid. We were on the road in a divisional game, give me the name of one coach that has gone for two in that situation and succeeded. I cannot come up with one, but if anyone can, please let me know. This is the National Football League, not a college Bowl game.

 

[Un4GivN]

Just wanted to re-emphasize the 538 link above. It's very simple math that would support the decision to go for two. Just pointing out that what it's not taking into account is the psychological instinct to "herd", that people are afraid to do something different (even if it's better) because it's so much more accepted to be wrong when everyone else is wrong the same way; i.e., playing for OT is mathematically the wrong decision but it's the accepted decision that won't get as heavily criticized as going for two (the correct choice) if you fail at getting the two.

This is soo true, and also why even though math with show you going for two increases your probability of victory... I don't blame

McCarthy for going for OT. Because it takes someone with MASSIVE cojones to go for the victory in regulation. Which i have yet to see from MM. Yes, he goes outside the box by faking punts or field goals... Or onside kicking in unusual times.

But this is a whole other level when you go against convention in the playoffs, to either win or go home.

 

[Un4GivN]

going for two would have been idiotically bold, but mostly stupid. We were on the road in a divisional game, give me the name of one coach that has gone for two in that situation and succeeded. I cannot come up with one, but if anyone can, please let me know. This is the National Football League, not a college Bowl game.

This is the type of thinking that holds back people from achieving greatness in all walks of life. It is a flawed way of thinking. Never in any walk of life should you hold yourself back because others don't do it that way.

Just because no one else does it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. That is the worst arguement of all. Doesn't work in any walk of life if you want to achieve something no one else has before.

When the probability of winning is higher you should ALWAYS go that direction. No matter if it is the accepted way, or a new way, it does not matter. And just as much as it would be scrutinized if he lost, if he wins that way it may be one of the single best coaching decisions of all time. Could lead them to the Super Bowl. While there is the obvious bad outcomes. Don't forget there is major upside as well.

Your goal of the game is to win, making any decision that gives you a worse probability of doing so is counter intuitive. Who cares what is accepted? Do you think Belichick follows the logic of "Well no one else did this." Scrap it. No because he innovates the game not follows the herd.

I have shown why you have a better chance of winning, the guy above posted now like the 10th website that has run the math as well. It's really not debatable as to which gives you a better chance at victory.

The only thing you can argue, it take some major balls to do it.

 

[RepStar15]

But Bill Bellicheck would never do that. This is a real life situation, not math. I think this is a ridiculous statement. If you know Bill Bellicheck you know he is extremely aggressive in play calling in the first half, then very conservative in the second half. Note their loss to Phili this year. He was overly aggressive in the first half and too conservative in the second which ultimately cost his team the game. Bill Bellicheck would NEVER go for two at the end of a divisional playoff game. Chip Kelly might, if he ever gets a shot at playoffs. This kind of thing doesn't happen for a reason. Had he gone for two and failed imagine what we would be saying about him today? The wildcat is a play no one in the NFL uses anymore. The Texans used it in their playoff game. It failed, right? JJ Watt and Vince Wilfork got stuffed quickly running the wildcat against the Kansas City defense. Did Bill Obrein look like a hero because he "gave it a shot"? No he looked like an idiot for trying a play that is obsolete in the NFL. If MM went for 2 and failed, he would look like an idiot for not doing the sure 50/50 shot in OT. He believed the defense would make a stop because they were playing at a high level all game. I believed the D would make a stop. They blew it and we lost. Enough over speculating. No one should go for two in the NFL with a playoff game on the line. And Bill Bellicheck would fully agree with me on that.

 

[PFanCan]

...Enough over speculating. No one should go for two in the NFL with a playoff game on the line. And Bill Bellicheck would fully agree with me on that.

I speculate that your statement that Bill Bellicheck would fully agree with your opinion is a good example of "over speculating".

 

[RepStar15]

Lol well I will ask him when I see him fishing in Nantucket this summer. He has the upmost respect for MM. He ranks MM as one of the best coaches in the NFL. His response will be "Mike did what he should have done to give his team the best chance to win that football game." I know Bill personally, he has the best football mind, potentially to ever live. Mike uses a lot of Bill's philosophies. When I ask Bill this, he's going to "laugh" and say "Fans are not coaches for a reason."

 

[Un4GivN]

Lol well I will ask him when I see him fishing in Nantucket this summer. He has the upmost respect for MM. He ranks MM as one of the best coaches in the NFL. His response will be "Mike did what he should have done to give his team the best chance to win that football game." I know Bill personally, he has the best football mind, potentially to ever live. Mike uses a lot of Bill's philosophies. When I ask Bill this, he's going to "laugh" and say "Fans are not coaches for a reason."

Until he's in the same position, and shows why he is the best coach in the NFL.

So basically your stance is, doesn't matter if it gives them a better chance. Don't do it because... Don't do it? lol

Solid.