Two point conversion decisions

[slag]

Pretty much everyone in this thread had already concluded it was a 50/50 pick

[art vandelay]

DSG wisdom here. intuitively, going up by 6 made more sense, as the falcons needed a TD whether we were up by 4, 5, or 6.

i don't think that's new school analytics. i think it's what the chart always said. worst-case scenario was that we failed to convert, the falcons got the ball back with 2:19 left, then scored while giving us enough time to get in FG range - realistically that's like a 90 second TD drive. then we manage to get to ATL's 40 in about 45 seconds to kick a game-tying FG with 5 seconds left. then ATL has to win the coin toss and score a TD or stop us and kick an FG for a missed 2PC to bite us in the ass.

odds of getting the 2 points are 50%. especially when you consider how both offenses struggled all night, i think the odds of the above scenario playing out were below 50%.

[art vandelay]

did doug's decisions backfire in any games besides @ NYG in 2016? he took points off the board to go for 2 in a couple of early games and it worked out. we did fail to get 2 at the end of the baltimore game, but i think that more about doug giving his young QB a chance to win and avoiding injuries in OT since we were already out of the playoffs.

what i like about doug's approach is that he is consistently aggressive instead of picking and choosing where to get aggressive. if you play the odds, you have to do it every time.

i also think he's making some common sense decisions that coaches historically don't make because they don't want to deal with the backlash or possibly get fired.

[Maniac]

i don't think that's new school analytics. i think it's what the chart always said.

Yeah, the original chart developed by Vermeil (for college) in the seventies says lead by 4, go for 2. I suppose that's "old school" analytics.

http://www.theredzone.org/Features/T...onversionChart

[DEERSPINE GUY]

DSG wisdom here. intuitively, going up by 6 made more sense, as the falcons needed a TD whether we were up by 4, 5, or 6.

i don't think that's new school analytics. i think it's what the chart always said. worst-case scenario was that we failed to convert, the falcons got the ball back with 2:19 left, then scored while giving us enough time to get in FG range - realistically that's like a 90 second TD drive. then we manage to get to ATL's 40 in about 45 seconds to kick a game-tying FG with 5 seconds left. then ATL has to win the coin toss and score a TD or stop us and kick an FG for a missed 2PC to bite us in the ass.

odds of getting the 2 points are 50%. especially when you consider how both offenses struggled all night, i think the odds of the above scenario playing out were below 50%.

UP BY 6 MAKES THEM MAKE THE EXTRA POINT TO WIN, WHICH ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN WITH THE LONGER EXTRA POINT. BEING UP BY 5 DOES NOT, EXTRA POINT IS THEN, WELL, EXTRA AND NOT NEEDED.

KICK THE POINT, MAKE IT 5 POINT GAME, INSTEAD OF GETTING THE TWO, FALCS GET THAT TD AT THE END OF REGULATION, DON'T NEED THE EXTRA POINT, IT'S OVER.

[Maniac]

UP BY 6 MAKES THEM MAKE THE EXTRA POINT TO WIN, WHICH ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN WITH THE LONGER EXTRA POINT. BEING UP BY 5 DOES NOT, EXTRA POINT IS THEN, WELL, EXTRA AND NOT NEEDED.

KICK THE POINT, MAKE IT 5 POINT GAME, INSTEAD OF GETTING THE TWO, FALCS GET THAT TD AT THE END OF REGULATION, DON'T NEED THE EXTRA POINT, IT'S OVER.

Hey ... I thought you wanted to end this thread!!

[DEERSPINE GUY]

HAHA YEAH. MY ANAL-LYSTICS ON PAGE 67 OF THE ANALBOOK SAID IT WAS TO LATE FOR THAT. BESIDES BORED WATCHING CHUMP KELLY LOSING. POOH IS LIKE A CAR WRECK. YA DON'T WANT TO LOOK BUT YA DO ANYWAY.

[TerpEagle]

I'm my opinion, and I thought this long before Pederson or even Kelly came to town, is that NFL coaches are far to conservative.

Statistics and analytics have shown for a long time that teams punt and kick far too often when it comes to how those decisions affect their chances to win.

There is always a chance that being aggressive comes back to bite you in the ass, but over the long term it's the smarter way to play. And Pederson has shown that it's a winning way to play.

That being said, I don't think going for 2 on Thursday should even be considered an "aggressive" call. I think most coaches would have made that call because if they convert, the other team needs to score twice to take the lead. If they don't or if they kick it, the other team just needs to score once.

[Maniac]

That being said, I don't think going for 2 on Thursday should even be considered an "aggressive" call. I think most coaches would have made that call because if they convert, the other team needs to score twice to take the lead. If they don't or if they kick it, the other team just needs to score once.

Since "go for two" is on Vermeil's venerable chart at +4, I agree its not an aggressive call. But the two score angle is irrelevant because realistically Atlanta needed a TD considering the time left. Score/Onsides kick/score is not a reasonable assumption.

I accept the analysis that two points was marginally advantageous. And I believe thats what the Eagles analytics guy told Doug.

Apologies for continuing this thread.

[art vandelay]

level of agreement: 100%

[IronEagle]

Since "go for two" is on Vermeil's venerable chart at +4, I agree its not an aggressive call. But the two score angle is irrelevant because realistically Atlanta needed a TD considering the time left. Score/Onsides kick/score is not a reasonable assumption.

I accept the analysis that two points was marginally advantageous. And I believe thats what the Eagles analytics guy told Doug.

Apologies for continuing this thread.

I have to say "go for two" is what was going on in my friend and my mind in the stands at that moment. We didn't have the chart but we debated the call.

We came to the conclusion that you had to go for two there b/c that gave you the best advantage overall. But that was just our analysis in the stands at the time. The one thing neither of us considered was the possibility that Atlanta could score quickly.

I'd like to see the analytics on how situations like that work in college.

Gonna watch the game from the televised perspective and see if it's different from the view in the stands.

[TerpEagle]

Since "go for two" is on Vermeil's venerable chart at +4, I agree its not an aggressive call. But the two score angle is irrelevant because realistically Atlanta needed a TD considering the time left. Score/Onsides kick/score is not a reasonable assumption.

I accept the analysis that two points was marginally advantageous. And I believe thats what the Eagles analytics guy told Doug.

Apologies for continuing this thread.

Score 1 is the TD. Score 2 is the XP or conversion.

[Maniac]

Score 1 is the TD. Score 2 is the XP or conversion.

XP are 95 percent successful. If you think an XP miss is a significant consideration, fine. I don't. We're going in circles. I'm out.