D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
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.
But they also converting 2's (including playoffs) at a rate of 71.4%.
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???
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.
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.
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.
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.
It depends on which numbers you look at. McCarthy took the safe route and I understand the reasoning behind it.
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.
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.
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???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.