NFL 2021 NFL - Week 2

[LicoriceAllsorts]

I.e. if you fail the 2 pt with 10 minutes left, you have 10 minutes to save the game and make up for it

If you fail it with 30 seconds left, you have lost

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

That being said I disagree with going for 2 down 14. Down 15 yes, on the first TD you go for 2

 

[Exe Gesis]

If your argument today was 17-16 kixk the pat or go for 2, people would be on your side more.

But arguing for the 2 at 17-9 is a lot less logical, especially if the game is still in the 3rd qtr or early 4th.

Theres a time and a place....that saying

 

[AmericanAFL]

I.e. if you fail the 2 pt with 10 minutes left, you have 10 minutes to save the game and make up for it

If you fail it with 30 seconds left, you have lost

Doesn’t really apply to the scenario that occurred yesterday. But absolutely comes up. But let’s not go down that road, lest we have some head explosions in here.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Of course its about avoiding OT...that was a central component to AAFLs debate today with AC

 

[AmericanAFL]

If your argument today was 17-16 kixk the pat or go for 2, people would be on your side more.

But arguing for the 2 at 17-9 is a lot less logical, especially if the game is still in the 3rd qtr or early 4th.

Theres a time and a place....that saying

Well for one, it seems people are mostly on my side. According to the poll results anyway. And I assume it’s not anything spectacular about what I’ve said in here. It’s likely just because they can read the diagram I posted and add the numbers up.

 

[AmericanAFL]

Of course its about avoiding OT...that was a central component to AAFLs debate today with AC

No. Avoiding OT isn’t central to my argument.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Why not debate then going for 2 at 6-0 early 1st qtr?? If youre gonna push the concept of maximizing your winning odds regardless of time or game situation, then wheres the data and debate for absolutely going for 2 at 6-0 early 1st, or 13-7 early 2nd etc.

 

[AmericanAFL]

Why not debate then going for 2 at 6-0 early 1st qtr?? If youre gonna push the concept of maximizing your winning odds regardless of time or game situation, then wheres the data and debate for absolutely going for 2 at 6-0 early 1st, or 13-7 early 2nd etc.

I’m open to that discussion. As I stated earlier, it’s a much more complicated situation, and it’s more difficult to model outcomes. This one is simple and easy to model.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Of course its about avoiding OT...that was a central component to AAFLs debate today with AC

No, only avoiding OT if you are coaching the lesser team. Harder to beat a better team over an entire driver (or multiple) rather than with one killer goal line play that you crafted all offseason for this exact moment

 

[AmericanAFL]

I’d argue that teams with mobile QBs probably should go for 2 more regularly.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

No. Avoiding OT isn’t central to my argument.

Overtime is some magical land where we can’t lose apparently.

 

[AmericanAFL]

It’s actually kind of sad that you think you’ve made some point here.

It’s you that desperately want to get to OT. I just want to win the game, regardless of when it happens.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

No, only avoiding OT if you are coaching the lesser team.

that's crap, if youre the home team and you've kept the opposition to 17 points its actually *ed.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Think of it this way.

No one ever is happy about the opposing team going for 2 at the end of the game. They'd rather they kick the xp and settle for OT

Do what your opponent doesnt want

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

that's crap, if youre the home team and you've kept the opposition to 17 points its actually ******ed.

I'm confused by the 17 point thing, didnt watch many games this week yet. I'm just talking in a general sense

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

I'm confused by the 17 point thing, didnt watch many games this week yet. I'm just talking in a general sense

the likelyhood they score a TD on the first possession of overtime and dont give you a chance with the ball. We aren't talking about an offensive back and forth here where a coin toss is make or break

 

[Exe Gesis]

17-0
2 at 17-6 ?

17-7
2 at 17-13 ?

What are your arguments there?

You have to factor in that all games work in groups of 7 and 3, in 10s and 14s.

So there are reasons for taking the 2 so that you can rely on a FG to tie (getting to only 3 behind) versus relying on a TD to win (at 17-12)

Also, your model is relying on the opponent always working on 3s and 7s and 10s and 14s, but if your opponents are always going for 2, there will be a TON of situations for you where kicking the 1 PAT is your math go to because THEY will often find themselves in 17-6 or 10-6 or 21-12 situations due to missing the 2s, so your whole math is great philosophy would end up turning you into a person insisting that kicking the 1 pat is much better than going for 2

 

[Exe Gesis]

My above latter points are something you probably never considered. That if your opponents are always going for 2, the whole league is, and you are deciding whether to or not, you would find that kicking the 1 is a more math-sound philosophy. That being a proponent for smart math, itd turn you into a 1 pat is smarter than 2 pat person. Irony so thick there. Eye-opening realization. Wow, true, if all 31 teams always went for 2 my team would win more games kicking the 1. Which is why currently the whole league for decades believes in the 1.

 

[GreyCrow]

It’s pretending that math doesn’t exist that is the issue here mate. Not “believing in your defense”. Not being a pussy. It’s just math.

Its not pretending it doesnt exist - it does. Its whether you are a slave to it or adaptable to the situation

 

[Exe Gesis]

Interesting to also look at the XFL system.

No kicks, you go for 1 at the 2, go for 2 at the 5, go for 3 at the 10.

Cant remember exactly, but it was something like 60-70% for 1, 40% going for 2, 10% going for 3

If its simply about maximizing wins, taking the 3 each time, taking the most pts on offer, was actually the worst strategy. And even going for 2 was only used in certain situations to get back to the groups of 6, 12, 7, 14 game situations

In the NFL, the existence of a 2 pointer is an interesting dynamic/philosophy when scoring is almost always going in 7s, 10s, 14s. But as i said above, if the whole league was always going for 2, the nerds would then be champions for the 1 pat as maximizing your wins.

 

[LittleG]

Interesting to also look at the XFL system.

No kicks, you go for 1 at the 2, go for 2 at the 5, go for 3 at the 10.

Cant remember exactly, but it was something like 60-70% for 1, 40% going for 2, 10% going for 3

If its simply about maximizing wins, taking the 3 each time, taking the most pts on offer, was actually the worst strategy. And even going for 2 was only used in certain situations to get back to the groups of 6, 12, 7, 14 game situations

In the NFL, the existence of a 2 pointer is an interesting dynamic/philosophy when scoring is almost always going in 7s, 10s, 14s. But as i said above, if the whole league was always going for 2, the nerds would then be champions for the 1 pat as maximizing your wins.

No the nerds wouldn’t be. It’s all situational. IF my opponent makes the 2 and it’s 8-6, does the math tell me to take the 1 now OR to go for 2 & see IF I make it earlier rather than later.

 

[Exe Gesis]

No the nerds wouldn’t be. It’s all situational. IF my opponent makes the 2 and it’s 8-6, does the math tell me to take the 1 now OR to go for 2 & see IF I make it earlier rather than later.

My debate was always situational too. But i was being told by the others I was wrong. That going for 2 at all times maximizes your wins (if you get them of course). My argument was 17-10 is far better to be in than 17-9. So kick the 1 at 17-9.

 

[Exe Gesis]

No the nerds wouldn’t be. It’s all situational. IF my opponent makes the 2 and it’s 8-6, does the math tell me to take the 1 now OR to go for 2 & see IF I make it earlier rather than later.

If you have 95% of kicking the 1 and only 48% of getting the 2. Or roughly that. It would seem on face value that if you always go for 2 against a team always kicks the 1, that, like heads and tails, eventually, both teams would be tied on the same score after say 4 TDs or 10 TDs each.

But i am sure that the 48-50% isnt pure. Some teams have better weapons, some teams have days when their 3rd and short and 4th and 1 fail more than succeed.

It would make more sense to always kick the 1, and only go for 2 the times your kicker misses the pat, or times and situations in the game, when you need to get the score back to lots of 7, or behind 11, give yourself a chance to kick a FG to tie than to rely on a more difficult to score last second TD, and such

 

[LittleG]

My debate was always situational too. But i was being told by the others I was wrong. That going for 2 at all times maximizes your wins (if you get them of course). My argument was 17-10 is far better to be in than 17-9. So kick the 1 at 17-9.

In the 17-9 argument, you are ~8% better off going for 2.