This solidifies it that you have no idea what you are talking about. Belichik just recently faced a 15 point deficit last season and went TD and extra point first and then TD and 2 point conversion second. If you think coaches should opt to do it the other way you're a fool.
if he did it that way, he did it wrong. obviously you go for two first because if you don't make it, then you need tow more scores and you need to know that earlier rather than later so you have more time to get those two scores. i can't imagine there's any debate about this.
This solidifies it that you have no idea what you are talking about. Belichik just recently faced a 15 point deficit last season and went TD and extra point first and then TD and 2 point conversion second. If you think coaches should opt to do it the other way you're a fool.
if he did it that way, he did it wrong. obviously you go for two first because if you don't make it, then you need tow more scores and you need to know that earlier rather than later so you have more time to get those two scores. i can't imagine there's any debate about this.
You are 100% right. The math is obvious - more often than not you need 2 TDs - that's statistically true. Likewise the 11 point scenario loses 50% in OT, etc.
And a 3 yard TD completion has to be magnitudes (say 40% vs 4-5% vs a hail mary TD). Any simple decision tree will show E(V) of TD first is MUCH better win probability.
You have made your point - if people don't understand math, oh well.
kvs, as you clearly understand, it's a statistical fact, based on the nfl 2 point conversion historical success rate, that more likely than not any given team down by 11 will need two TD's to win.
one of the reasons i post these threads in here (i post my picks in a different part of the website) is to gauge how people see and understand the game. it's interesting, if a little disheartening. as you said, the math is not that complicated, but math is not a strong point here in the main forums.
now, i don't want to get anyone upset about that or think i'm insulting them. math is important. a lot of people aren't strong in math. don't get angry, get better at it.
You are 100% right. The math is obvious - more often than not you need 2 TDs - that's statistically true. Likewise the 11 point scenario loses 50% in OT, etc.
And a 3 yard TD completion has to be magnitudes (say 40% vs 4-5% vs a hail mary TD). Any simple decision tree will show E(V) of TD first is MUCH better win probability.
You have made your point - if people don't understand math, oh well.
kvs, as you clearly understand, it's a statistical fact, based on the nfl 2 point conversion historical success rate, that more likely than not any given team down by 11 will need two TD's to win.
one of the reasons i post these threads in here (i post my picks in a different part of the website) is to gauge how people see and understand the game. it's interesting, if a little disheartening. as you said, the math is not that complicated, but math is not a strong point here in the main forums.
now, i don't want to get anyone upset about that or think i'm insulting them. math is important. a lot of people aren't strong in math. don't get angry, get better at it.
Anytime someone says this I think back to when Belichick went for it on 4th down on his own 35 vs. Colts. They failed and Peyton made them pay by scoring the game winning TD. He went for it believing it would end the game but because he foolishly called a timeout just prior to the 2 min warning, they would've needed another 1st down.
Also not using his timeouts at end of SB XLXI to leave enough time for Brady. Dumb luck that Pete didn't give the ball to Beast Mode.
Just like in basketball when you're down by 5 near the end, what are you always told to do? Make a layup to extend the game cause bricking a 3 effectively ends the game. Same principle in football.
i vaguely remember that. i know he's made some mistakes over the years. he isn't perfect. rodgers might be perfect. that dude is very smart on the field. in any case, i use belichik as an example because he seems to understand the game better than just about any coach.
Anytime someone says this I think back to when Belichick went for it on 4th down on his own 35 vs. Colts. They failed and Peyton made them pay by scoring the game winning TD. He went for it believing it would end the game but because he foolishly called a timeout just prior to the 2 min warning, they would've needed another 1st down.
Also not using his timeouts at end of SB XLXI to leave enough time for Brady. Dumb luck that Pete didn't give the ball to Beast Mode.
Just like in basketball when you're down by 5 near the end, what are you always told to do? Make a layup to extend the game cause bricking a 3 effectively ends the game. Same principle in football.
i vaguely remember that. i know he's made some mistakes over the years. he isn't perfect. rodgers might be perfect. that dude is very smart on the field. in any case, i use belichik as an example because he seems to understand the game better than just about any coach.
kvs, as you clearly understand, it's a statistical fact, based on the nfl 2 point conversion historical success rate, that more likely than not any given team down by 11 will need two TD's to win.
one of the reasons i post these threads in here (i post my picks in a different part of the website) is to gauge how people see and understand the game. it's interesting, if a little disheartening. as you said, the math is not that complicated, but math is not a strong point here in the main forums.
now, i don't want to get anyone upset about that or think i'm insulting them. math is important. a lot of people aren't strong in math. don't get angry, get better at it.
From the 23 yard line you kick the FG, if you can't understand then I'm pulling your Hall of Fame status. Once they reached the 10 yard line their WP increased so you go for the TD. Still the correct matmetical decision is to kick the FG from the 23 yard line.
kvs, as you clearly understand, it's a statistical fact, based on the nfl 2 point conversion historical success rate, that more likely than not any given team down by 11 will need two TD's to win.
one of the reasons i post these threads in here (i post my picks in a different part of the website) is to gauge how people see and understand the game. it's interesting, if a little disheartening. as you said, the math is not that complicated, but math is not a strong point here in the main forums.
now, i don't want to get anyone upset about that or think i'm insulting them. math is important. a lot of people aren't strong in math. don't get angry, get better at it.
From the 23 yard line you kick the FG, if you can't understand then I'm pulling your Hall of Fame status. Once they reached the 10 yard line their WP increased so you go for the TD. Still the correct matmetical decision is to kick the FG from the 23 yard line.
Its funny how anybody who disagrees with you needs to be insulted or knows nothing....
Anyways, still mind-boggling how this is an argument.
There is only ONE fact...ZONA needed 2 score to tie the game...FACT...
Failing to score the TD, ended the game...FACT
Kicking a FG would have continued the game...FACT
Who cares about what-ifs, should have could have, what is easier to do, what gives you the best chance....
The ONLY FACT is they needed to get 2 scores atleast...when they didnt get the first score...GAME OVER....how anybody says the was the correct decision is obviously clueless...
Its funny how anybody who disagrees with you needs to be insulted or knows nothing....
Anyways, still mind-boggling how this is an argument.
There is only ONE fact...ZONA needed 2 score to tie the game...FACT...
Failing to score the TD, ended the game...FACT
Kicking a FG would have continued the game...FACT
Who cares about what-ifs, should have could have, what is easier to do, what gives you the best chance....
The ONLY FACT is they needed to get 2 scores atleast...when they didnt get the first score...GAME OVER....how anybody says the was the correct decision is obviously clueless...
letsgopack, for the record, i'm really trying not to be insulting. but for f*ck's sake, people really need to have a basic understanding of math and statistics to bet responsibly. i mean, how else does gambling even work.
anyways . . .
There is only ONE fact...ZONA needed 2 score to tie the game...FACT...
Failing to score the TD, ended the game...FACT
Kicking a FG would have continued the game...FACT
you said there is one fact. and then you list three alleged facts. but only two of those statements are actually factual. one is not factual more than half of the time.
and the two facts you listed completely miss the point of a proper analysis. the issue is not continuing the game (although time on the clock is, of course, relevant). the issue is making the real time decisions that give the team the most information and the best chance to win, from a mathematical standpoint.
letsgopack, for the record, i'm really trying not to be insulting. but for f*ck's sake, people really need to have a basic understanding of math and statistics to bet responsibly. i mean, how else does gambling even work.
anyways . . .
There is only ONE fact...ZONA needed 2 score to tie the game...FACT...
Failing to score the TD, ended the game...FACT
Kicking a FG would have continued the game...FACT
you said there is one fact. and then you list three alleged facts. but only two of those statements are actually factual. one is not factual more than half of the time.
and the two facts you listed completely miss the point of a proper analysis. the issue is not continuing the game (although time on the clock is, of course, relevant). the issue is making the real time decisions that give the team the most information and the best chance to win, from a mathematical standpoint.
I believe as soon as you are in field goal position take a couple shots toward the end zone. If you miss on both very little time is lost. Then kick the FG
I believe as soon as you are in field goal position take a couple shots toward the end zone. If you miss on both very little time is lost. Then kick the FG
You are 100% right. The math is obvious - more often than not you need 2 TDs - that's statistically true. Likewise the 11 point scenario loses 50% in OT, etc.
And a 3 yard TD completion has to be magnitudes (say 40% vs 4-5% vs a hail mary TD). Any simple decision tree will show E(V) of TD first is MUCH better win probability.
You have made your point - if people don't understand math, oh well.
You encapsulated my thoughts perfectly. I side with you, ClubDirt and Arians. With so little time remaining, you have to take advantage of that prime field position. You may never get that close again.
You are 100% right. The math is obvious - more often than not you need 2 TDs - that's statistically true. Likewise the 11 point scenario loses 50% in OT, etc.
And a 3 yard TD completion has to be magnitudes (say 40% vs 4-5% vs a hail mary TD). Any simple decision tree will show E(V) of TD first is MUCH better win probability.
You have made your point - if people don't understand math, oh well.
You encapsulated my thoughts perfectly. I side with you, ClubDirt and Arians. With so little time remaining, you have to take advantage of that prime field position. You may never get that close again.
You encapsulated my thoughts perfectly. I side with you, ClubDirt and Arians. With so little time remaining, you have to take advantage of that prime field position. You may never get that close again.
A long FG is a LOT easier than a Hail Mary.
So what's most important to you is field position and failing to score vs getting three points and stretching the game out. That's what you are siding with.
You encapsulated my thoughts perfectly. I side with you, ClubDirt and Arians. With so little time remaining, you have to take advantage of that prime field position. You may never get that close again.
A long FG is a LOT easier than a Hail Mary.
So what's most important to you is field position and failing to score vs getting three points and stretching the game out. That's what you are siding with.
letsgopack, for the record, i'm really trying not to be insulting. but for f*ck's sake, people really need to have a basic understanding of math and statistics to bet responsibly. i mean, how else does gambling even work.
anyways . . .
There is only ONE fact...ZONA needed 2 score to tie the game...FACT...
Failing to score the TD, ended the game...FACT
Kicking a FG would have continued the game...FACT
you said there is one fact. and then you list three alleged facts. but only two of those statements are actually factual. one is not factual more than half of the time.
and the two facts you listed completely miss the point of a proper analysis. the issue is not continuing the game (although time on the clock is, of course, relevant). the issue is making the real time decisions that give the team the most information and the best chance to win, from a mathematical standpoint.
Who cares what the best "mathematical standpoint" is....
The purpose is to tie and win the game...no?
The BEST chance of doing this is to score correct?
If you argue against that, then please stop "betting or watching or playing" sports...or whatever nonsense you say....
It doesnt matter how close they were or how many scores the needed....the NEEDED TWO SCORES....FACT
Whatever the stats show or best chance or whatever nonsense...they didnt even get one score...end of story...so all those stats mean garbage...
You have to kick the field goal to extend the chance to tie the game...
What are the "stats" on scoring from the 4 yd line on 4th down?? 40% at best?? Probably lower
WHat are the "stats" on a 20 yd field goal....98%???
letsgopack, for the record, i'm really trying not to be insulting. but for f*ck's sake, people really need to have a basic understanding of math and statistics to bet responsibly. i mean, how else does gambling even work.
anyways . . .
There is only ONE fact...ZONA needed 2 score to tie the game...FACT...
Failing to score the TD, ended the game...FACT
Kicking a FG would have continued the game...FACT
you said there is one fact. and then you list three alleged facts. but only two of those statements are actually factual. one is not factual more than half of the time.
and the two facts you listed completely miss the point of a proper analysis. the issue is not continuing the game (although time on the clock is, of course, relevant). the issue is making the real time decisions that give the team the most information and the best chance to win, from a mathematical standpoint.
Who cares what the best "mathematical standpoint" is....
The purpose is to tie and win the game...no?
The BEST chance of doing this is to score correct?
If you argue against that, then please stop "betting or watching or playing" sports...or whatever nonsense you say....
It doesnt matter how close they were or how many scores the needed....the NEEDED TWO SCORES....FACT
Whatever the stats show or best chance or whatever nonsense...they didnt even get one score...end of story...so all those stats mean garbage...
You have to kick the field goal to extend the chance to tie the game...
What are the "stats" on scoring from the 4 yd line on 4th down?? 40% at best?? Probably lower
WHat are the "stats" on a 20 yd field goal....98%???
letsgopack, for the record, i'm really trying not to be insulting. but for f*ck's sake, people really need to have a basic understanding of math and statistics to bet responsibly. i mean, how else does gambling even work.
anyways . . .
There is only ONE fact...ZONA needed 2 score to tie the game...FACT...
Failing to score the TD, ended the game...FACT
Kicking a FG would have continued the game...FACT
you said there is one fact. and then you list three alleged facts. but only two of those statements are actually factual. one is not factual more than half of the time.
and the two facts you listed completely miss the point of a proper analysis. the issue is not continuing the game (although time on the clock is, of course, relevant). the issue is making the real time decisions that give the team the most information and the best chance to win, from a mathematical standpoint.
Most importantly...what gives Zona the best chance to win? Failing on 4th down or making a field goal? Love to here this reply
letsgopack, for the record, i'm really trying not to be insulting. but for f*ck's sake, people really need to have a basic understanding of math and statistics to bet responsibly. i mean, how else does gambling even work.
anyways . . .
There is only ONE fact...ZONA needed 2 score to tie the game...FACT...
Failing to score the TD, ended the game...FACT
Kicking a FG would have continued the game...FACT
you said there is one fact. and then you list three alleged facts. but only two of those statements are actually factual. one is not factual more than half of the time.
and the two facts you listed completely miss the point of a proper analysis. the issue is not continuing the game (although time on the clock is, of course, relevant). the issue is making the real time decisions that give the team the most information and the best chance to win, from a mathematical standpoint.
Most importantly...what gives Zona the best chance to win? Failing on 4th down or making a field goal? Love to here this reply
Most importantly...what gives Zona the best chance to win? Failing on 4th down or making a field goal? Love to here this reply
I'll reply as you request. After that, I'm done with this thread. Call me stupid if you need to, but this is not a close call.
Your question is what we call a "loaded question." You give 2 options, one of which is failing on 4th down and the other is kicking the field goal. The option you don't present is the one that gave the Arizona team the best chance to win: Punch it in from a very manageable distance, get the onside kick ( which you needed no matter what ) and then you can kick it for the tie almost from where you would recover the onside kick .
It doesn't matter to me how much you disagree with this analysis. You are clearly and indisputably wrong.
Most importantly...what gives Zona the best chance to win? Failing on 4th down or making a field goal? Love to here this reply
I'll reply as you request. After that, I'm done with this thread. Call me stupid if you need to, but this is not a close call.
Your question is what we call a "loaded question." You give 2 options, one of which is failing on 4th down and the other is kicking the field goal. The option you don't present is the one that gave the Arizona team the best chance to win: Punch it in from a very manageable distance, get the onside kick ( which you needed no matter what ) and then you can kick it for the tie almost from where you would recover the onside kick .
It doesn't matter to me how much you disagree with this analysis. You are clearly and indisputably wrong.
I’m the context of the game and when Gruden said what I actually agree with Gruden. 1:46 left kick the fg and try the onside.
The onside is the key point here. Td or fg doesn’t matter if you fail to get the onside. So I would take the points with more time on the clock in the case you make the onside.
The onside kick is going to get you momentum to tie the game and get the td at home.
I actually would say there is no right answer it’s a coaches preference at that point. Gruden would have and Arians obviously didn’t. So two guys who know more than us have differing opinions. Go figure.
I’m the context of the game and when Gruden said what I actually agree with Gruden. 1:46 left kick the fg and try the onside.
The onside is the key point here. Td or fg doesn’t matter if you fail to get the onside. So I would take the points with more time on the clock in the case you make the onside.
The onside kick is going to get you momentum to tie the game and get the td at home.
I actually would say there is no right answer it’s a coaches preference at that point. Gruden would have and Arians obviously didn’t. So two guys who know more than us have differing opinions. Go figure.
I’m the context of the game and when Gruden said what I actually agree with Gruden. 1:46 left kick the fg and try the onside.
The onside is the key point here. Td or fg doesn’t matter if you fail to get the onside. So I would take the points with more time on the clock in the case you make the onside.
The onside kick is going to get you momentum to tie the game and get the td at home.
I actually would say there is no right answer it’s a coaches preference at that point. Gruden would have and Arians obviously didn’t. So two guys who know more than us have differing opinions. Go figure.
Thats the thing...either way you atleast need 2 scores and an onside...take the score that allows the most time for the 2nd score...
What good is it if they score a TD with 20 seconds left and dont even have time after the onside to score again?
I’m the context of the game and when Gruden said what I actually agree with Gruden. 1:46 left kick the fg and try the onside.
The onside is the key point here. Td or fg doesn’t matter if you fail to get the onside. So I would take the points with more time on the clock in the case you make the onside.
The onside kick is going to get you momentum to tie the game and get the td at home.
I actually would say there is no right answer it’s a coaches preference at that point. Gruden would have and Arians obviously didn’t. So two guys who know more than us have differing opinions. Go figure.
Thats the thing...either way you atleast need 2 scores and an onside...take the score that allows the most time for the 2nd score...
What good is it if they score a TD with 20 seconds left and dont even have time after the onside to score again?
Would love to see your insights on games/lines - thanks.
Good luck!!!
i'm going to refrain from further comment because we are repeating ourselves unless: 1) someone (i.e. letsgopack) really wants me to respond to a specific question(s) or 2) we get a new argument in here and someone wants to keep this going.
i usually post one thread a week in the nfl forum about shitty coaches, refs, announcers or similar issues. sometimes i post that i think they did something right. sometimes, i don't always 100% believe what i'm saying and am just trying to gauge reactions or start a discussion. i do believe what i wrote here, though. anyway, there's nothing wrong with a good discussion. some sarcasm and light insults are fine too here and there as long as no one gets too angry or too aggressive.
dogbitewilliams
ken , also i friggin hate this week. help me pick some winners.
kvs, years ago, i posted in the nfl forum but quit doing that because it's just too crowded and crazy and it's hard to keep a good discussion going. over the last several years, i've posted in the penalty box. it 's referred to as the ClubDirtSports NFL Newsletter (it used to be a parody of a tout, and i just keep the title because people know it). you can search on the site for past seasons. it's done well. i've had one losing season and no seasons under .500. but, as you know, that is far from a guarantee of success in the future. the primary attraction is there is always analysis of games from various sources and picks from various sources that anyone will support with reasoning. feel free to check it out, post comments, tell me how wrong i am about a particular matchup, post picks or whatever else strikes you.
anyone else can do that as well. just no stupid sh*t.
Would love to see your insights on games/lines - thanks.
Good luck!!!
i'm going to refrain from further comment because we are repeating ourselves unless: 1) someone (i.e. letsgopack) really wants me to respond to a specific question(s) or 2) we get a new argument in here and someone wants to keep this going.
i usually post one thread a week in the nfl forum about shitty coaches, refs, announcers or similar issues. sometimes i post that i think they did something right. sometimes, i don't always 100% believe what i'm saying and am just trying to gauge reactions or start a discussion. i do believe what i wrote here, though. anyway, there's nothing wrong with a good discussion. some sarcasm and light insults are fine too here and there as long as no one gets too angry or too aggressive.
dogbitewilliams
ken , also i friggin hate this week. help me pick some winners.
kvs, years ago, i posted in the nfl forum but quit doing that because it's just too crowded and crazy and it's hard to keep a good discussion going. over the last several years, i've posted in the penalty box. it 's referred to as the ClubDirtSports NFL Newsletter (it used to be a parody of a tout, and i just keep the title because people know it). you can search on the site for past seasons. it's done well. i've had one losing season and no seasons under .500. but, as you know, that is far from a guarantee of success in the future. the primary attraction is there is always analysis of games from various sources and picks from various sources that anyone will support with reasoning. feel free to check it out, post comments, tell me how wrong i am about a particular matchup, post picks or whatever else strikes you.
anyone else can do that as well. just no stupid sh*t.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.