[wodahs]

Wrong time of year for this I know, but just saw the '2nd and 2' topic.

You were 7 points behind in the game. You have just scored a touchdown, very late in the game ... there are scant seconds left, not enough to give the other team a chance to score. You can (1) elect to kick the 98% (or whatever) 1-point conversion, and play sudden-death, or (2) take your chances now with a 2-point conversion.

Seems to me (1) is a 50% proposition, so if your chances of scoring the 2-pointer are greater than 50%, you should go for that. I do believe I googled that awhile back, and the chances of scoring a 2-pointer were in the low 50's, but I might be misremembering.

The thing is, I've never heard this option discussed by any announcers, nor seen it discussed in print. Or maybe I'm overlooking something, and it is just a stupid idea.

[RunemPard]

Hmm...

I think the main reason for this is simple. No coach wants to be the idiot that blew any chances of winning by failing the 2 point conversion. Some might say the coach had "no faith in his team", however, he is actually putting a lot of faith into his offense taking this move. The other side however, which may not be true, is that he is lacking faith in his defense as well. You want the coach to believe that if you lose the OT toss, you as a defense can hold them off and give your team a chance to win it.

So I don't really think it has anything to do with odds.

Edit: Not to mention that you are also creating a do or die situation if any time does remain on the next kick-off. The other team will do whatever it takes to try and return the ball for a touchdown. Something they wouldn't risk if the game is tied and going to OT.

[FM75]

http://en.wikipedia....oint_conversion

[JLOGIC]

Between 2000 and 2009 in the NFL 2 point conversions were successful ~48 % of the time according to advancednflstats.

2 point conversions are widely considered to be <50 %. That said, I do believe top offenses are >50 % to convert one, especially if they are playing weak defenses. In an extreme case, imagine 2 elite offensive temas with horrible defenses, OT will be ~50/50, but the 2 pointer will be much better than 50/50 so they should go for it.

Of course, NFL coaches are risk averse and don't want to stand out for job security reasons. That said, Chip Kelly is going to change the game in the NFL. They say trends go from college to NFL (since NFL coaches are scared), and once it works in the NFL it's a copycat league. Chip Kelly is gonna be the guy to change the league when it comes to 4th down conversions, 2 point conversions, super up tempo pace, and general in game management (clock and TOs).

This guy just got paid like the 3rd highest coach in the NFL to come do what he did in college, so he's not going to become risk averse all of the sudden. In college, he frequently went for 2 on his first score (since his offenses were def >50 % to convert), did stuff like go for it on his own 36 4th and 4 routinely early in the game (which is clearly correct but it is so far above what NFL coaches do now, which includes punting on the enemy 40 on 4th and 5 and stuff lol), etc etc. I am really excited about his move to the NFL, coaching will become much closer to optimal within 5 years imo.

[paua]

A conversion is two points. A try is five points.

[billw55]

JLOGIC, on 2013-February-23, 00:14, said:

Of course, NFL coaches are risk averse and don't want to stand out for job security reasons.

True dat

JLOGIC, on 2013-February-23, 00:14, said:

That said, Chip Kelly is going to change the game in the NFL. They say trends go from college to NFL (since NFL coaches are scared), and once it works in the NFL it's a copycat league. Chip Kelly is gonna be the guy to change the league when it comes to 4th down conversions, 2 point conversions, super up tempo pace, and general in game management (clock and TOs).

This guy just got paid like the 3rd highest coach in the NFL to come do what he did in college, so he's not going to become risk averse all of the sudden. In college, he frequently went for 2 on his first score (since his offenses were def >50 % to convert), did stuff like go for it on his own 36 4th and 4 routinely early in the game (which is clearly correct but it is so far above what NFL coaches do now, which includes punting on the enemy 40 on 4th and 5 and stuff lol), etc etc. I am really excited about his move to the NFL, coaching will become much closer to optimal within 5 years imo.

I am excited too. The game could get much more interesting.

But what I think will actually happen is this: Kelly will make his bold calls. Some will turn out well, but a few will go bad. Fans and talking heads will have a field day. Like most people, they are bound in their preconceived ideas and selective perception. Eventually, the front office caves under the pressure and sends Kelly packing back to college. Thus the status quo is maintained, the fans and commentors can feel justified, and the owner and GM can pat each other on the back for a difficult but ultimately necessary (in their minds) decision.

[Codo]

Besides all the statistics: I would bet that a team that made the last score to tie the game has usually the momentum and will win the OT more often then their counterpart.
Is there a statistic to back up this believe?

[Cyberyeti]

I wonder whether a strategy of "go for a 2 point conversion on your first TD, if you don't get it go for one on your second" would pay.

My conjecture is that 1 and 2 point differences are much of a muchness, so an outcome of 50% +1, 25%=, 25% -2 is in your favour, particularly if your defence tends to give up TDs rather than FGs.

[billw55]

Personally, I think all conversions should be abolished, and the scoring changed: touchdown = 6, field goal = 2, safety = 4. The NFL has recognized that field goals have become too effective over the decades, which in turn reduced the incentive to try for touchdowns. They make minor rule changes to work on this problem (moving the spot after a miss) but it is too small to make a difference. I say change up the scoring and make the end zones really attractive.

This is waaay too radical though and will never happen.

[jjbrr]

JLOGIC, on 2013-February-23, 00:14, said:

Between 2000 and 2009 in the NFL 2 point conversions were successful ~48 % of the time according to advancednflstats.

2 point conversions are widely considered to be <50 %. That said, I do believe top offenses are >50 % to convert one, especially if they are playing weak defenses. In an extreme case, imagine 2 elite offensive temas with horrible defenses, OT will be ~50/50, but the 2 pointer will be much better than 50/50 so they should go for it.

Of course, NFL coaches are risk averse and don't want to stand out for job security reasons. That said, Chip Kelly is going to change the game in the NFL. They say trends go from college to NFL (since NFL coaches are scared), and once it works in the NFL it's a copycat league. Chip Kelly is gonna be the guy to change the league when it comes to 4th down conversions, 2 point conversions, super up tempo pace, and general in game management (clock and TOs).

This guy just got paid like the 3rd highest coach in the NFL to come do what he did in college, so he's not going to become risk averse all of the sudden. In college, he frequently went for 2 on his first score (since his offenses were def >50 % to convert), did stuff like go for it on his own 36 4th and 4 routinely early in the game (which is clearly correct but it is so far above what NFL coaches do now, which includes punting on the enemy 40 on 4th and 5 and stuff lol), etc etc. I am really excited about his move to the NFL, coaching will become much closer to optimal within 5 years imo.

I hope this is true and GMs see value in hiring stats guys to help coaches make decisions. I would say it would almost certainly have been the case had Kelly joined the Browns, as I'm led to believe Haslam is a very big advocate of his coaches making +EV but unconventional decisions. I don't know much about the eagle's GM but presumably since they hired Kelly he's on board as well.

Let us take this opportunity to lolbrowns and loleagles.

Pat Shurmur calls for a punt on 4th and 1 from the Indianapolis 41 down 17-13 with 6:38 left in the game. Haslam:


Pat Shurmur is now the OC for the loleagles.

[JLOGIC]

They not only hired Kelly, they paid him as a top 2 or 3 coach in the league (bellichick and payton level money). They are going to be on board with his play calling, that is why they paid him so much.

Now of course, if his teams lose he will be at risk for getting fired. However, he's not going to be fired because some 4th down play calling went wrong, they already know what he's going to do and obviously want it.

If his teams do well, the play calling is going to get more aggressive in the NFL. I'm very excited personally. Only thing I don't like is it's the eagles

[jjbrr]

JLOGIC, on 2013-February-26, 11:54, said:

They not only hired Kelly, they paid him as a top 2 or 3 coach in the league (bellichick and payton level money). They are going to be on board with his play calling, that is why they paid him so much.

Now of course, if his teams lose he will be at risk for getting fired. However, he's not going to be fired because some 4th down play calling went wrong, they already know what he's going to do and obviously want it.

If his teams do well, the play calling is going to get more aggressive in the NFL. I'm very excited personally. Only thing I don't like is it's the eagles

Yes, and I think his pay level is justified. He's going to be an elite NFL coach imo. It took him only 6 years to improve from a Div 1-AA assistant coach to the NFL.

+1 to disappointment that the eagles ended up getting him. definitely -cowboys EV

[billw55]

JLOGIC, on 2013-February-26, 11:54, said:

They not only hired Kelly, they paid him as a top 2 or 3 coach in the league (bellichick and payton level money). They are going to be on board with his play calling, that is why they paid him so much.

Now of course, if his teams lose he will be at risk for getting fired. However, he's not going to be fired because some 4th down play calling went wrong, they already know what he's going to do and obviously want it.

Like I said, I hope you are right, I just don't think so.

Also I consider the possibility that Kelly himself goes into CYA mode just like his new peers. Not likely I suppose, but I won't fall off the couch in shock either.

Lastly play calling isn't his only problem. He faces the same problems all college coaches face when transferring to NFL. Salary caps mean balanced personnel which means you can no longer win games by outrecruiting the other coach. Also college coaches have an initial credibility problem with pro players. There are reasons that college coaches tend to fail in the NFL, even the best ones. I will believe Chip Kelly is different when he makes it five years.

[ArtK78]

At least the hiring of Chip Kelly has some Cowboy fans worried about the Eagles. It is the first time they have been worried about the Eagles in some time.

[Cyberyeti]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-26, 14:00, said:

At least the hiring of Chip Kelly has some Cowboy fans worried about the Eagles. It is the first time they have been worried about the Eagles in some time.

They should be more worried about their own team atm.

[JLOGIC]

Heh, I think the cowboys and eagles both have good teams. The eagles are obviously lacking in the QB department but they're a good team otherwise, Chip has something to work with.

I hate to be a Romo apologist but...he's a good QB. After saying that Flacco is about league average I will lose some credibility no doubt The boys D was actually playing well before being decimated by injuries last year. We'll see. Being a cowboys fan does suck, it's always something, I have low expectations lol.

@billw, I see what you're saying, I guess we'll see.

[Cyberyeti]

JLOGIC, on 2013-February-26, 15:03, said:

Heh, I think the cowboys and eagles both have good teams. The eagles are obviously lacking in the QB department but they're a good team otherwise, Chip has something to work with.

I hate to be a Romo apologist but...he's a good QB. After saying that Flacco is about league average I will lose some credibility no doubt The boys D was actually playing well before being decimated by injuries last year. We'll see. Being a cowboys fan does suck, it's always something, I have low expectations lol.

@billw, I see what you're saying, I guess we'll see.

Neither the Eagles nor the Cowboys were terrible for most of last year, they just found some creative ways to lose games. Both teams need to get their mentality right. Eagles lost a lot of games they could have won, but also did win their 4 games by a total of 6 points.

[JLOGIC]

Yeah they ran really well at the beginning of the season IIRC. I mean, Vick just fumbled way too much, but other than that their team was pretty good.

[ArtK78]

JLOGIC, on 2013-February-26, 15:17, said:

Yeah they ran really well at the beginning of the season IIRC. I mean, Vick just fumbled way too much, but other than that their team was pretty good.

Not really. Jason Peters went down for the year in the preseason, and the offensive line went downhill from there. It was a real mess. That resulted in little running game and then a bunch of sacks, Vick fumbling and then getting hurt, etc.

Meanwhile, the defense was just pathetic.

They managed a come from behind win at Cleveland and then similar wins against the Giants and Ravens, but then they couldn't beat anyone. One more come from behind win at Tampa Bay was all there was.

All in all, a terrible last season in Philly for Andy Reid, who I respect.

I really don't expect much this year, but Chip Kelly has to start somewhere.

There is talent on this team. But unless they get the O-line fixed and the defense to perform competently, it will be hard to get to 8-8.

[FM75]

Codo, on 2013-February-26, 10:51, said:

Besides all the statistics: I would bet that a team that made the last score to tie the game has usually the momentum and will win the OT more often then their counterpart.
Is there a statistic to back up this believe?

No, the team that makes the next score wins. Almost always.