Going For 2

Would you have gone for 2 at the end of Regulation time?

  • NO

    Votes: 38 48.7%
  • YES

    Votes: 40 51.3%

  • Total voters
    78
Status
Not open for further replies.

Un4GivN

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
811
Reaction score
82
Location
Green Bay
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???

Carson Palmer being off helped... But there are many reasons.

But you keep ignoring the fact that no matter how you do it, the math doesn't work out in their favor. Could it be closer yes, I am exaggerating since you are not understanding the point.

Top Defense vs Mediocre offense.

Top Offense vs above average defense.

That alone tilts the odds in Arizona's favor in a sudden death situation.
 

Bh676

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I know the conventional wisdom is to take the safe route and kick the extra point to go into OT, but I think it's time to challenge that conventional wisdom.

At some point in a tie game, you HAVE to make a play to win. Why not take the chance to make the play right then and there? Especially with the OT rules being the way they are. Yes the recent changes make them a bit more fair, but not completely. There's still a good chance that the team who loses the coin flip never gets to field their offence.

So if you were to ask me would I rather bank my chances on a coin flip and a tired defence (they were gassed at that point), or a future hall of fame QB from the two yard line, I'm taking the latter.

As for odds, the Packers were 4 for 6 this year on two point conversions, which is over 50%. The league average is right around 50% so even using that, your odds aren't less going for 2. So it comes down to what you feel more comfortable with. For me, I take Aaron Rodgers from the 2 yard line against a shell shocked defence that just got burned and was still trying to figure out what happened.

So that's my two cents. I certainly don't hold it against McCarthy for going with conventional wisdom, but I'm just saying it's time to challenge that idea.
 

Un4GivN

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
811
Reaction score
82
Location
Green Bay
According to ESPN the Packers had a 47% win probability immediately after the hail mary.

And what calculations are they using for this? Historical data of what? Or just a lump some of all games with these type of scenarios.

My guess knowing ESPN. Is they took 3 percent off for the xp... And gave 50/50 odds of winning in OT.

If this was after the xp but before overtime they took 3 percent off for the Packers being away team and nothing more.

Let's be honest here... ESPN probability tracker is likely not worthy of the name. Just a fun thing they use based off of previous games with very little variability for the actual teams playing.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
According to ESPN the Packers had a 47% win probability immediately after the hail mary.

Which doesn't factor in momentum or MMs lack of OT success in the playoffs, and still falls short of the leaguewide average of 48.4% on 2s.

I'd be willing to say there were so many factors involved that determining the true probability for each decision was near impossible. But I'd rather be questioning right now if we would have won in overtime the questioning whether or not we would have failed to gain 2 yards.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
I'm ok with people choosing the XP, I just disagree. My issue is with people saying it's ridiculous to even question it...no, it absolutely isn't .
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
599
Don't remember how long the review took, but I would think that was sufficient time to figure it out.

Plus, the coaching staff, which has been taking hits from many all year, should have been thinking specifically about the conversion. If the desperation plays doesn't work, they for the locker room. If it does, the conversion becomes a choice. Arizona almost certainly wasn't thinking that way, already mentally on the way to their locker room, smiling.
 

KTH

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
20
Reaction score
7
I don’t go for 2. If I was a big underdog sure. But Palmer was off and I felt their souls were crushed.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
599
I don’t go for 2. If I was a big underdog sure. But Palmer was off and I felt their souls were crushed.

Understand part, not all. Agree with the latter, but the Pack WAS a big (subjective) underdog.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
And what calculations are they using for this? Historical data of what? Or just a lump some of all games with these type of scenarios.

My guess knowing ESPN. Is they took 3 percent off for the xp... And gave 50/50 odds of winning in OT.

If this was after the xp but before overtime they took 3 percent off for the Packers being away team and nothing more.

Let's be honest here... ESPN probability tracker is likely not worthy of the name. Just a fun thing they use based off of previous games with very little variability for the actual teams playing.

I guess there's no reason to actually put any stock in the information from a professional company analyzing stats when there's a guy on a forum telling me he has it all figured out. :rolleyes:

Like it or not, but it's pretty close and dependant on what data being used to either support to go for one or two in that situation.
 

Un4GivN

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
811
Reaction score
82
Location
Green Bay
I guess there's no reason to actually put any stock in the information from a professional company analyzing stats when there's a guy on a forum telling me he has it all figured out. :rolleyes:

Like it or not, but it's pretty close and dependant on what data being used to either support to go for one or two in that situation.

Who is the professional stats analyzing company? Or are you talking about Disney company? The ones that are in it for views and clicks?

You want to take personal digs on me that is your prerogative, but I would bet money the odds were in favor of 2pt conversion in comparison to overtime.

And I believe one day soon, some coach will step out of line and challenge this way of thinking.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Who is the professional stats analyzing company? Or are you talking about Disney company? The ones that are in it for views and clicks?

You want to take personal digs on me that is your prerogative, but I would bet money the odds were in favor of 2pt conversion in comparison to overtime.

And I believe one day soon, some coach will step out of line and challenge this way of thinking.

ESPN Stats & Information is a 150 person department responsible for all analytical models used by the company but I get your point to trust your opinion more because you tell me to. :laugh:
 

Un4GivN

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
811
Reaction score
82
Location
Green Bay
ESPN Stats & Information is a 150 person department responsible for all analytical models used by the company but I get your point to trust your opinion more because you tell me to. :laugh:

That department that you speak of is ESPN's SIG.... Is responsible for UPDATING stats. Another portion is responsible for quality insurance of those number. Basically did you add that correctly. Such as pass attempts for players, yardage, and things like that. Yes, they create their own models. But lets not make it sound like these guys work at NASA. Most of these guys add numbers together to put on the site. Lol. This has nothing to do with their qualification or what they are using in this particular model. They also are responsible for multiple sports. How many people do you think were dedicated to updating a projection model real time for that game?

Where in that have you given me any data... Besides trust ESPN's formula? Is that really how you live? To be honest I still believe the formula to be simple. Based off of score, time left in the game, and historical data of ANY two teams in those positions.

Find the data that goes into that, and Ill be happy to admit I am wrong if they are looking at specific variables. Prove me wrong not "I trust ESPN over you". I have shown you multiple articles that show going for 2 is better. Given you the numbers and truths behind that. Your only course of action is to point out ESPN calculation that you have no idea how it works. Even if it was good data, I read that article and it says NOTHING about the Packers being better favorites if they went into OT.

Here is the thing even if we say they were taking into account all of the variable factors on the fly. Including hail mary change of momentum. The offensive and defensive ranks, the coin toss, all of the percentages along with that. All of it. You would still have a better chance going for 2. There is no way that you win this conversation statistically speaking.

If you want to argue that going for two is the more accepted way... I am with you all the way.

If not give me the actually numbers... 2 point conversion rates, vs overtime success rate. Add in the teams playing with lower average defense and offense. PROVE with actual stats and numbers where you are at a greater advantage.

Another article

"Mason Crosby kicked the extra point, and it went to OT where the Packers had a shot had they gotten the ball first, but McCarthy could have taken the opportunity to steal one right there. Don't let it come down to chance. Going for two is roughly a 50-50 shot (the Packers were 5 for 9 on two-point tries the past two seasons, which is 55 percent), and it's better to have a coin-flip proposition — see what we did there — with the ball in your hands than without. They controlled the action at that moment, gave the ball away and opted to keep playing. Bad move."

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...-the-packers-cardinals-classic-071409392.html

And another

"I just did some quick stats on overtime results pulling games from the last 3 seasons and the results surprised me quite a bit.

Out of the 47 OT games two ended in ties. Out of the remaining 45:
-The coin toss winner won the game: 51%
-First possession TD: 18.2%
-First possession score: 34.1%
-TD for the win: 22.7%
-Home team wins: 61.4%

As the numbers clearly show the coin toss has no statistical impact and less than 20% of games end w/o both team getting possession. The only clear trend is that the home winning percentage is about 17% higher than regulation games.

Which brings us to the question of whether GB should have gone for one or two. Based on the home/away winning percentages above and 94% average conversion on PATs and 50% when going for two, GB had the following win percentages:

Going for 1 - 36%
Going for 2 - 50%

The numbers aren't even close and that's without even factoring in how anemic GB's offense looked and the fact that Cobb was injured."

And Another....

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

That is a good explanation of why 2 points are statistically better...

You can do this all day, because in math... There is NO WAY that it is better to go for 1. It is basic math.
 
Last edited:

gbpack

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
2
Fire Thompson and every clown on down, unless you enjoy living with mediocrity.
 

gbpack

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
2
That department that you speak of is ESPN's SIG.... Is responsible for UPDATING stats. Another portion is responsible for quality insurance of those number. Basically did you add that correctly. Such as pass attempts for players, yardage, and things like that. Yes, they create their own models. But lets not make it sound like these guys work at NASA. Most of these guys add numbers together to put on the site. Lol. This has nothing to do with their qualification or what they are using in this particular model. They also are responsible for multiple sports. How many people do you think were dedicated to updating a projection model real time for that game?

Where in that have you given me any data... Besides trust ESPN's formula? Is that really how you live? To be honest I still believe the formula to be simple. Based off of score, time left in the game, and historical data of ANY two teams in those positions.

Find the data that goes into that, and Ill be happy to admit I am wrong if they are looking at specific variables. Prove me wrong not "I trust ESPN over you". I have shown you multiple articles that show going for 2 is better. Given you the numbers and truths behind that. Your only course of action is to point out ESPN calculation that you have no idea how it works. Even if it was good data, I read that article and it says NOTHING about the Packers being better favorites if they went into OT.

Here is the thing even if we say they were taking into account all of the variable factors on the fly. Including hail mary change of momentum. The offensive and defensive ranks, the coin toss, all of the percentages along with that. All of it. You would still have a better chance going for 2. There is no way that you win this conversation statistically speaking.

If you want to argue that going for two is the more accepted way... I am with you all the way.

If not give me the actually numbers... 2 point conversion rates, vs overtime success rate. Add in the teams playing with lower average defense and offense. PROVE with actual stats and numbers where you are at a greater advantage.

Another article

"Mason Crosby kicked the extra point, and it went to OT where the Packers had a shot had they gotten the ball first, but McCarthy could have taken the opportunity to steal one right there. Don't let it come down to chance. Going for two is roughly a 50-50 shot (the Packers were 5 for 9 on two-point tries the past two seasons, which is 55 percent), and it's better to have a coin-flip proposition — see what we did there — with the ball in your hands than without. They controlled the action at that moment, gave the ball away and opted to keep playing. Bad move."

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...-the-packers-cardinals-classic-071409392.html

And another

"I just did some quick stats on overtime results pulling games from the last 3 seasons and the results surprised me quite a bit.

Out of the 47 OT games two ended in ties. Out of the remaining 45:
-The coin toss winner won the game: 51%
-First possession TD: 18.2%
-First possession score: 34.1%
-TD for the win: 22.7%
-Home team wins: 61.4%

As the numbers clearly show the coin toss has no statistical impact and less than 20% of games end w/o both team getting possession. The only clear trend is that the home winning percentage is about 17% higher than regulation games.

Which brings us to the question of whether GB should have gone for one or two. Based on the home/away winning percentages above and 94% average conversion on PATs and 50% when going for two, GB had the following win percentages:

Going for 1 - 36%
Going for 2 - 50%

The numbers aren't even close and that's without even factoring in how anemic GB's offense looked and the fact that Cobb was injured."

And Another....

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

That is a good explanation of why 2 points are statistically better...

You can do this all day, because in math... There is NO WAY that it is better to go for 1. It is basic math.
 

Daryl Muellenberg

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
207
Reaction score
7
Speculation, I highly doubt this is true, and to me that just goes back to making a call because it is 'conventional wisdom.'

The Steelers made a living this year off defying conventional wisdom and going for 2.

But did Pittsburgh ever go for 2 in the same situation this year? It's entirely different going for 2 during most of the game versus at the end of the game to win or go into OT.
 

Daryl Muellenberg

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
207
Reaction score
7
You're also putting the entire game on the line by kicking the extra point. No guarantee that it will be made, plus it forces you into an overtime scenario where there is no guarantee that you will have a chance to score. Not going for the win when they had the opportunity was idiotic, especially with the history of this defense late in games.

No, there is never any guarantee that a kick will be made, but I can guarantee you this, the chances of a successful PAT are a heck of a lot more than a successful 2 point conversion. There are arguments for both sides, but neither one of them would be considered idiotic as you suggest.
 

Un4GivN

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
811
Reaction score
82
Location
Green Bay
But did Pittsburgh ever go for 2 in the same situation this year? It's entirely different going for 2 during most of the game versus at the end of the game to win or go into OT.

Yeah, it takes more balls to do it... And has no bearing on which is more effective.
 

Un4GivN

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
811
Reaction score
82
Location
Green Bay
No, there is never any guarantee that a kick will be made, but I can guarantee you this, the chances of a successful PAT are a heck of a lot more than a successful 2 point conversion. There are arguments for both sides, but neither one of them would be considered idiotic as you suggest.

The difference is making the kick only give you an "opportunity" to win. Making the 2pt the game is over.

You are comparing apples to oranges. You have to take into account the fact that even after making a kick that isn't guaranteed... You still need to beat them in OT which lowers your odds even more.
 

Daryl Muellenberg

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
207
Reaction score
7
I know the conventional wisdom is to take the safe route and kick the extra point to go into OT, but I think it's time to challenge that conventional wisdom.

At some point in a tie game, you HAVE to make a play to win. Why not take the chance to make the play right then and there? Especially with the OT rules being the way they are. Yes the recent changes make them a bit more fair, but not completely. There's still a good chance that the team who loses the coin flip never gets to field their offence.

That's not true. Since the new OT rules were put in, both teams have gotten the ball in over 80% of the games.
 

Daryl Muellenberg

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
207
Reaction score
7
The difference is making the kick only give you an "opportunity" to win. Making the 2pt the game is over.

You are comparing apples to oranges. You have to take into account the fact that even after making a kick that isn't guaranteed... You still need to beat them in OT which lowers your odds even more.

I was only replying to his comment that making the extra point was no guarantee as compared to making a 2 point conversion, so yes, it is apples to apples. I never mentioned anything about the odds of winning in OT versus going for 2.
 

Un4GivN

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
811
Reaction score
82
Location
Green Bay
I was only replying to his comment that making the extra point was no guarantee as compared to making a 2 point conversion, so yes, it is apples to apples. I never mentioned anything about the odds of winning in OT versus going for 2.

His scenario stated....

You're also putting the entire game on the line by kicking the extra point. No guarantee that it will be made, plus it forces you into an overtime scenario where there is no guarantee that you will have a chance to score. Not going for the win when they had the opportunity was idiotic, especially with the history of this defense late in games.

He states exactly what I said... That making it and forcing overtime is no guarantee of anything. Just that the game will be longer. That's all.

Apples to oranges... You have a much better chance to make the game longer. But no better chance of winning the game.
 

Daryl Muellenberg

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
207
Reaction score
7
His scenario stated....



He states exactly what I said... That making it and forcing overtime is no guarantee of anything. Just that the game will be longer. That's all.

Apples to oranges... You have a much better chance to make the game longer. But no better chance of winning the game.

Again, I only said there was a much better chance of making the extra point versus making a 2 point conversion - period. I wasn't discussing the odds of winning in OT versus regulation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Latest posts

Top