One or two?

[GreenBaySlacker]

I knew McCarthy would take the high road. always safe by nature. I KNEW he would be going for 1 while Pete Caroll and Bill Belicheat take every advantage given to them...

I think the numbers were broken down mathematically to being within 1% of each other on the odds vs reward. with the slight advantage going to 2 pt conversions over 30 yd extra points... That alone should be enough. Then you consider we have Lacy and a kicking team that is very efficient at being BLOCKED! And I wonder if McCarthy has a full sack? GO GET IT MAN!!!@

Now beyond the numbers... You look at the psychology of a winner. Michael Jordan always wanted the shot when the game is on the line... The winner isn't scared to put his own fate into his own hands. Look at the last superbowl... two coaches who are aggressive. And the game was decided on the most aggressive play that day. It cost them the superbowl but got them one last year... all in all!!! I think we are great up front. We have the best RB in the league. Our QB and WRs are unparalled...

GO FOR IT!!! get the 2 points and don't open the door for the more assertive team to take it from you!!! dang it. go get it!

 

[sschind]

Eli's strategy? Go for two every time. Got it.

The numbers were broken down mathematically several ways using slightly different methods and I never saw a concrete one way or another result. Some had the 1 point being slightly higher some had the two point being slightly higher. One stat I saw had 2 point conversions slightly ahead of 32 yard field goals but it didn't provide any breakdowns regarding where the ball was kicked from (right or left hash or straight on,) The EP it will be snapped right down the center of the field. I honestly don't think you will see a huge increase in going for 2 even with the EP moved back.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Eli's strategy? Go for two every time. Got it.

The numbers were broken down mathematically several ways using slightly different methods and I never saw a concrete one way or another result. Some had the 1 point being slightly higher some had the two point being slightly higher. One stat I saw had 2 point conversions slightly ahead of 32 yard field goals but it didn't provide any breakdowns regarding where the ball was kicked from (right or left hash or straight on,) The EP it will be snapped right down the center of the field. I honestly don't think you will see a huge increase in going for 2 even with the EP moved back.

You're probably right about this. It would be exciting if more teams did go for 2, but gotta believe that even from the 15, the probability of success is much higher with the kick. Teams work that hard to get in the end zone, then not converting be it 2 or 1, takes the wind out.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Im going to say the teams with great kickers and bad RBs will kick. But teams with eddie lacy and a 2 time MVP at QB with a stable of Wrs that are awesome... You go for it! Get the points while you can. play hard and dont look back IMO.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You're probably right about this. It would be exciting if more teams did go for 2, but gotta believe that even from the 15, the probability of success is much higher with the kick. Teams work that hard to get in the end zone, then not converting be it 2 or 1, takes the wind out.

pessimistic of you... did you forget we are the chiz and 2 is better than 1???

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

pessimistic of you... did you forget we are the chiz and 2 is better than 1???

Maybe realistic. It's easy to be rah rah now. If they miss one or two most fans will be calling for MM's head. With this team though, yeah I'd rather they went for 2.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The numbers were broken down mathematically several ways using slightly different methods and I never saw a concrete one way or another result. Some had the 1 point being slightly higher some had the two point being slightly higher. One stat I saw had 2 point conversions slightly ahead of 32 yard field goals but it didn't provide any breakdowns regarding where the ball was kicked from (right or left hash or straight on,) The EP it will be snapped right down the center of the field. I honestly don't think you will see a huge increase in going for 2 even with the EP moved back.

The numbers, while being pretty close, indicate it is better to go for two than kick the extra point from the 15-yard line. I haven't seen anyone coming up with a method suggesting differently.

An interesting fact about the Packers on two-point conversions is that since Rodgers became the starter they have tried it 16 times and threw the ball on all (!!!) of them, converting only six.

 

[Dr. Kenneth Noisewater]

With the line, RB, QB and receivers we have, we should really be able to convert more often than not. Hell, why not stick BJ in as a lead blocker!

The problem is that the teams against whom it's likely to make a key difference are usually those with the best defenses. Do I trust us to be able to consistently make that one play from the 2 against those teams? Not really

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hell, why not stick BJ in as a lead blocker!

The only thing every Packers fan should be interested in with Raji is his performance at nose tackle.

 

[Carl]

The numbers for only one attempt support kicking it. It's still over 90% for kicking from the 15.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The numbers for only one attempt support kicking it. It's still over 90% for kicking from the 15.

The average expected points is based on a single attempt. Taking the last five seasons into consideration (to get a meaningful sample size) indicates it is better to go for two.

 

[TJV]

And I wonder if McCarthy has a full sack?

What will your opinion be if no HC goes for 2 every time? Will you wonder if all of them have a “full sack”? Here are a couple of much more thoughtful posts on this subject from the 2015 Packers notes thread. captainWIMM posted, “Over the last five seasons teams made 94.1% of the field goals from the 15-yard line (expected point average of 0.941) while converting exactly 50% of the two-point conversions (EPA of 1.000).

Perhaps you should have taken another five minutes to look up theactual success rate for two-point conversions.
2014 28-59 47.5%
2013 33-69 47.8%
2012 29-58 50.0%
2011 23-50 46.0%
2010 26-53 49.0%

Add in an expected negative point impact of fumble and interception returns on competitive two-point attempts, as well as blocked kick returns (likely close to nil on such short kicks), and I don't know what the real formula shows but I suspect the coach knows what he's talking about regarding their analysis on the new rule.

... If vince's numbers are correct, the difference is 0.02, or a one point differential over 50 TDs.

Regardless, whether it's 1 point or 3 points over 50 TDs, that differential can't be captured unless you go for 2 every time, regardless of the game situation. As for your 6 points when running the ball, if a team went for 2 every time and ran the ball on each occasion, we could expect the small advantage to disappear in a regression to the mean, so I discount it. Whether running or passing, if a team decides to go for 2 every time, opponents will be accumulating tape and will focus more closely on it in game planning.

When you start applying go-for-two to every game situation, there are potential unintended consequences. Down 7...score a TD...kick to tie: momentum is still on your side. But if you fail in going for 2 you give the opponent an emotional lift.

Which brings to mind the established habits of NFL coaches in late game opportunities. When having the choice of kicking an EP and going to overtime vs. going all-or-nothing on a 2 pointer, they nearly always kick. I doubt a tiny improvement in odds differential will change that thinking. Now project that thinking to other game situations.

I doubt this very minor change in the calculus is going to result in noticeable behavioral changes. It took coaches decades, going back to the days before the current golden age of place kicking, to figure out that attempting a FG on 4th. and 1 on the opponents 35 (or worse...punting) is an unfavorable proposition.

I see this very minor change in the calculus resulting in very minor changes in coaching behavior.

There is one prediction I'll make with a high level of consequences. If Crosby has an EP blocked on an opening drive TD and the Packers lose the game by one point, there will be a contingent arguing the Packers (or any other team for that matter) should have gone for 2 while ignoring all of the the other woulda, shoulda, coulda in the intervening 55 minutes of football.

I bolded what I consider the most important point. The slight advantage of going for 2 every time is unlikely to happen because of game situations.

Mods, please delete this post if you decide to bring the ongoing PAT discussion from 2015 Packers notes here. Doing so may be kind of messy though…

 

[HardRightEdge]

I bolded what I consider the most important point. The slight advantage of going for 2 every time is unlikely to happen because of game situations.

The one coach I would expect to use the 2 point option more than others would be Belichick.

He's had a track record in breaking the mold in going for it on 4th. down in unconventional situations which might spill over into EP tactics.

I recall a game a few years back against the Peyton Manning Colts where he went for it on 4th. down deep in his own territory with a small late game lead. It didn't work that time; it did on at least one other subsequent occasion. He was not confident in preventing a game-losing FG if he gave Manning a relatively short field following a punt. I've seen that approach copied on a rare occasion or two.

While I don't watch every game every week, it seems to me he was in the forefront in breaking the mold on those 4th.-and-1-at-the-opponent's-35 type situations by regularly going for the first down. It's pretty common now.

Another strong candidate would be Rex Ryan. The outlook for the Bills is a doubling down on last year's approach...stout defense keeping scores low, anemic quarterbacking resulting in close games, a beefed up run-blocking line, the acquisition of a feature running back...his avowed approach of "ground and pound" is not smoke. Given this is a team that will need every point they can get, while being able to lean on that defense (that plays with seeming indifference to the scoreboard), in the event of a miss, provides a formula that argues for a higher 2-point attempt frequency. Even then, it will bound to be a match-up/situational calculus.

 

[TJV]

The one coach I would expect to use the 2 point option more than others would be Belichick.

I agree and of course there won't be an identical use of this rule throughout the league. But my point was to challenge the idea that McCarthy won't go for 2 every time because he doesn't have a "full sack".

 

[HardRightEdge]

I agree and of course there won't be an identical use of this rule throughout the league. But my point was to challenge the idea that McCarthy won't go for 2 every time because he doesn't have a "full sack".

The Packer football operation is shot through, from top to bottom, with risk/reward calculations, seeking to accumulate a collection of edges. If that's not having a "full sack", then so be it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The more I think about this rule change the more I believe the NFL's intent is not to induce more 2 point attempts.

It's to put some tension into the PAT kick in the hopes that fans will stay by the TV and then watch the ensuing beer commercial.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I didnt say we should go for 2 every time.... But unless there is a strategic reason not to. Then yes! Get some dang gumption to put some points on the board!!!

I will guarantee there will be a few coaches this year to take advantage of this. and true to form GB will start fashionably late AFTER we lose a big game to a team that went and got it...

 

[TJV]

I didnt say we should go for 2 every time.... But unless there is a strategic reason not to. Then yes!

You certainly implied that. What would be a strategic reason not to?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I agree and of course there won't be an identical use of this rule throughout the league. But my point was to challenge the idea that McCarthy won't go for 2 every time because he doesn't have a "full sack".

I forget you guys are old school. And i realize I dont come accross well when you dont see my facial expressions and inflection in my voice. If you can believe it, Im extremely conservative for now days. In a world full of creeps and goofballs, Im normal! lol
I meant no disrespect by the half full sack comment. Its my backwards way of saying he needs to grow some balls... thats all
BUT SERIOUSLY THOUGH! I appreciate the thought that the numbers are skewed unless you go for two every time... A good theory that I believe is false. The numbers are based on 2pt conversion % of recent years. Those werent back to back, so that doesnt relate. The numbers are based simply on the number of times you go for 2 / % of successful attempts.... same for 32 yd FGs...

Now realisticly, 2pt conversions are a rarity. If they were practiced more, and done more often, Im absolutely positive the % of success will go up. the next 5 years will be more success than the previous 5 IMO.

If the goal is to score points... which it is. And we figure in the game or two where we play the top run defenses in the league... Maybe we kick it those days. And visa versa when we play the bears. lol All that will raise our success % of our 2 pt conversions.

What set me off is when McCarthy simply says we will not change... we will still take the 1... That doesnt take any of this into consideration!!! Doesnt take the advantage (IMO) given to us, and leaves it for our competition... I do not like his decision...

 

[sschind]

The more I think about this rule change the more I believe the NFL's intent is not to induce more 2 point attempts.

It's to put some tension into the PAT kick in the hopes that fans will stay by the TV and then watch the ensuing beer commercial.

or its the first step in adding another beer commercial between the TD and the PAT

I didnt say we should go for 2 every time.... But unless there is a strategic reason not to. Then yes! Get some dang gumption to put some points on the board!!!

I will guarantee there will be a few coaches this year to take advantage of this. and true to form GB will start fashionably late AFTER we lose a big game to a team that went and got it...

Sure sounded to me like you were advocating going for it every time. At the very least more often than not.

 

[sschind]

I forget you guys are old school. And i realize I dont come accross well when you dont see my facial expressions and inflection in my voice. If you can believe it, Im extremely conservative for now days. In a world full of creeps and goofballs, Im normal! lol
I meant no disrespect by the half full sack comment. Its my backwards way of saying he needs to grow some balls... thats all
BUT SERIOUSLY THOUGH! I appreciate the thought that the numbers are skewed unless you go for two every time... A good theory that I believe is false. The numbers are based on 2pt conversion % of recent years. Those werent back to back, so that doesnt relate. The numbers are based simply on the number of times you go for 2 / % of successful attempts.... same for 32 yd FGs...

Now realisticly, 2pt conversions are a rarity. If they were practiced more, and done more often, Im absolutely positive the % of success will go up. the next 5 years will be more success than the previous 5 IMO.

If the goal is to score points... which it is. And we figure in the game or two where we play the top run defenses in the league... Maybe we kick it those days. And visa versa when we play the bears. lol All that will raise our success % of our 2 pt conversions.

What set me off is when McCarthy simply says we will not change... we will still take the 1... That doesnt take any of this into consideration!!! Doesnt take the advantage (IMO) given to us, and leaves it for our competition... I do not like his decision...

Would you rather have your coach say "we are not going to change the way we do things" or "you're damn right we will be going for more two point conversions" I kinda like coaches who don't broadcast their true intentions.

Just because he says he is not going to change his approach doesn't mean he won't and if he says he will change it gives him absolutely no advantage.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

This outburst is a learned behavior. from years of watching this empire built on ultra conservative methods... Eventually , when you get good enough, the conservative nature holds you back from reaching their full potential. IMO.

On the other side of the ball... Im very happy to see the beef we will need to stop/slow down the other teams 2pt attempts. Raji, Guion, Daniels are a stout front. Peppers/Mathews duo, and solid beef in depth with Pennel and Ringo, who are solid, big guys. I like our chances against most run attacks... If we had the D-line of two/ three years ago, we'd be in deep trouble.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

As far as I can tell, the "expected results" based on league stats posted above show a slight edge to the 2 pt conversion. Then Captain pointed out that the Packers experience with Rodgers is 6/16 or 37.5%. And all passes which surprised me a little. I guess whether or not to go for 2 will depend largely on the opponent and the game situation. At any rate, the EP will become a bit more interesting now and that's probably what the rulemakers had in mind.

 

[TJV]

IMO it's not a matter of old school vs. new school, it's a matter of well-reasoned posts backed by logic and evidence. For example, how can you be “absolutely positive” the percentage of 2 point conversions will go up? Because more teams will practice going for 2 and then do so? If that’s the case, won’t more teams practice defending against 2 point attempts? Aren’t they also likely to get better defending the 2 point attempts?

And after posting, “GO FOR IT!!! get the 2 points and don't open the door for the more assertive team to take it from you!!!”, you modify that by posting:

If the goal is to score points... which it is. And we figure in the game or two where we play the top run defenses in the league... Maybe we kick it those days. And visa versa when we play the bears. lol All that will raise our success % of our 2 pt conversions.

First, the goal is to score more points and I don't know how an objective fan can argue with McCarthy’s success in that regard. Since he’s been the HC (including his first crappy season), his teams have averaged finishing between #6 and #7 in the league in scoring by averaging about 28 ppg. Second, you seem to be saying McCarthy should go for 2 against teams like the Bears – when it wouldn’t make any difference, but when they play the top run defenses – like the Seahawks in the NFCC game – he should be more conservative.

BTW, doesn’t “I wonder if McCarthy has a full sack” convey the exact same meaning as “he needs to grow some balls”?

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

IMO it's not a matter of old school vs. new school, it's a matter of well-reasoned posts backed by logic and evidence. For example, how can you be “absolutely positive” the percentage of 2 point conversions will go up? Because more teams will practice going for 2 and then do so? If that’s the case, won’t more teams practice defending against 2 point attempts? Aren’t they also likely to get better defending the 2 point attempts?

And after posting, “GO FOR IT!!! get the 2 points and don't open the door for the more assertive team to take it from you!!!”, you modify that by posting: First, the goal is to score more points and I don't know how an objective fan can argue with McCarthy’s success in that regard. Since he’s been the HC (including his first crappy season), his teams have averaged finishing between #6 and #7 in the league in scoring by averaging about 28 ppg. Second, you seem to be saying McCarthy should go for 2 against teams like the Bears – when it wouldn’t make any difference, but when they play the top run defenses – like the Seahawks in the NFCC game – he should be more conservative.

BTW, doesn’t “I wonder if McCarthy has a full sack” convey the exact same meaning as “he needs to grow some balls”?

I agree that "GO FOR IT!!!" shouldn't be the automatic response. And you point out that game prep will now change for every team with more emphasis on the 2 pt conversion. I doubt the percentages would change dramatically. Maybe the underdog would be more likely to try the 2 pt conversion while scoring machines like the Packers would stick with business as usual. Failing on any EP conversion does tend to take the wind out of a successful drive. There's no one right answer. My guess is the Packers will only go for 2 if the game situation dictates it, meaning the differnce in needing 2 possessions v 1 to tie a game. Who knows? We'll find out this season.