MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[JD_KaPow]

NOPE. One requires you to recover an onside kick the other doesn't. HUGE difference.

Both require the onside kick if you fail the two-pointer. There's no difference.

 

[CowboyRoy]

It’s not smoking anything. It’s called math chief. I suggest you learn the basics.

basics like 8 is less than 9?

Basics as in 9-1=8?

That kinda math?

And then compound the math problem with the fact that you only have 4 minutes to go and the most you can score in one drive is 8.

So knowing that, which one you going for? Duh...…….the 9?

 

[HungryLion]

NOPE. One requires you to recover an onside kick the other doesn't. HUGE difference.

Wrong. Missing either one requires you to need an onside kick.

 

[CowboyRoy]

The debate is not about whether it's better to be down by 8 or 9 with 4 minutes left. The debate is about whether it's better to be down by 9 with 4 minutes left or down by 2 with 4 seconds left.

OMG!!!!….………..LOL

Is it better to be down 8 with 4 minutes left or 9 with 4 minutes left?

Cmon guy.…………..think about it!!!!

 

[HungryLion]

basics like 8 is less than 9?

Basics as in 9-1=8?

That kinda math?

And then compound the math problem with the fact that you only have 4 minutes to go and the most you can score in one drive is 8.

So knowing that, which one you going for? Duh...…….the 9?

No. It’s not arithmetic. It’s called probability. Therefore your simple stupid equation is wrong for the circumstance.

this math requires some knowledge beyond What you learned in 3rd grade. Sorry if that leaves you out.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

NOPE. One requires you to recover an onside kick the other doesn't. HUGE difference.

What are you talking about? Nobody is debating whether it's better to make a two point conversion or to miss it.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

OMG!!!!….………..LOL

Is it better to be down 8 with 4 minutes left or 9 with 4 minutes left?

Cmon guy.…………..think about it!!!!

Once again, that has nothing to do with the conversation. Apples to oranges.

 

[Keithfansince5]

Why are you okay with missing the two-point conversion with no time left instead of missing it with enough time to try to get the ball back? That makes no logical sense whatsoever. You are playing to lose, not to win.

Sort of like buying a stock. Do you want to buy the stock that has a chance of going up 100% because it is super volatile and could also drop costing you half of your investment? Or do you prefer the one that could only go up maybe 20% either way? One has higher upside but at considerable risk while the other has lower upside but at less risk. I prefer the less risk as it makes more sense.

 

[Runwildboys]

NOPE. One requires you to recover an onside kick the other doesn't. HUGE difference.

That's right the other way requires you to go home with a loss, because the odds of making the 2 pt, conversion don't increase by waiting, and now you're out of time and have no opportunity to try an onside kick.

 

[Haimerej]

Now suppose the scenario was that they go for 1 on the first TD, now they need to score 8. Why do the odds of getting the 2 point conversion increase on the second one? They don't, and now you've run the clock down and it's game over.
Now suppose they actually do tie it up and send it to OT. With all the complaining about our defense yesterday, who had any faith that we win in OT?

He made the right call.

What's being left out of the equation is the onside kick. Less than 5 minutes left in the game and needing two scores with a defense not stopping anyone. Sure, they made the stop and ultimately recovered the onside kick, but who thought that would actually happen? Atlanta brain-farted and they were given the ball. Not something I'd consider a reasonable expectation.

 

[CowboyRoy]

No. It’s not arithmetic. It’s called probability. Therefore your simple stupid equation is wrong for the circumstance.

this math requires some knowledge beyond What you learned in 3rd grade. Sorry if that leaves you out.

Probability? Ok Mr probability...………..is it more probable to win down 8 with 4 minutes or down 9?

duh...…….……..9?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Sort of like buying a stock. Do you want to buy the stock that has a chance of going up 100% because it is super volatile and could also drop costing you half of your investment? Or do you prefer the one that could only go up maybe 20% either way? One has higher upside but at considerable risk while the other has lower upside but at less risk. I prefer the less risk as it makes more sense.

In this case, the downside risk is exactly the same: you need an onside kick if you miss the two-pointer. The upside risk is exactly the same too: if you make the two-pointer, you don't need an onside kick. There's no difference.

It's funny, because in the stock market, information is king. The earlier you can get information, the better. The stock market is a good analogy for why you want to go for 2 earlier rather than later.

 

[HungryLion]

Sort of like buying a stock. Do you want to buy the stock that has a chance of going up 100% because it is super volatile and could also drop costing you half of your investment? Or do you prefer the one that could only go up maybe 20% either way? One has higher upside but at considerable risk while the other has lower upside but at less risk. I prefer the less risk as it makes more sense.

No. The probability of making the 2 pointer is the same for both TD’s. Therefore there is no difference.

except if you do it earlier. You’re aware of it sooner.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

Sort of like buying a stock. Do you want to buy the stock that has a chance of going up 100% because it is super volatile and could also drop costing you half of your investment? Or do you prefer the one that could only go up maybe 20% either way? One has higher upside but at considerable risk while the other has lower upside but at less risk. I prefer the less risk as it makes more sense.

Then you'd prefer to go for two earlier. That is the scenario with the least amount of risk. You're better off missing it with several minutes on the clock than you are at the end of the game with no time left to get the ball back. The less time left in the game, the less likely you are to score.

 

[HungryLion]

Probability? Ok Mr probability...………..is it more probable to win down 8 with 4 minutes or down 9?

duh...…….……..9?

You’re assuming you don’t get the first two point conversion. When making the decision. You don’t know if you’re going to make the two point conversion or not.

You also don’t know if you’ll make it on the second TD or not.

that’s why your comment is stupid.

 

[Keithfansince5]

This is correct. Yes, you may end up being down 9 when the play is over, but you still have about 4:30 left, give or take, to take corrective action which we did. If you take the XP, you have to drain clock and then pray you make the 2 point conversion to tie.

Which is Football 101. The goal is to win the game having the last possession. The 1990's football team made that a point. Score on the last drive and drain the clock. Yep, that is what I would do.

 

[Runwildboys]

Sort of like buying a stock. Do you want to buy the stock that has a chance of going up 100% because it is super volatile and could also drop costing you half of your investment? Or do you prefer the one that could only go up maybe 20% either way? One has higher upside but at considerable risk while the other has lower upside but at less risk. I prefer the less risk as it makes more sense.

But you still have to score two TDs and go for one 2 point conversion, so how is there less risk? This is borderline cognitive dissonance.

 

[Keithfansince5]

Then you'd prefer to go for two earlier. That is the scenario with the least amount of risk. You're better off missing it with several minutes on the clock than you are at the end of the game with no time left to get the ball back. The less time left in the game, the less likely you are to score.

Only in bizarro world. Sorry, I am not a resident of bizarro world and it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Which is Football 101. The goal is to win the game having the last possession. The 1990's football team made that a point. Score on the last drive and drain the clock. Yep, that is what I would do.

And that's exactly why you would lose more often. Because if you fail the two-pointer at that point, you no longer have the onside kick as a fallback plan.

 

[Direwolf63]

This game is not played by robots.

If I'm the Giants, I'm ultra aggressive because I'm usually outmanned and outcoached. So I have to take chances throughout the game and hope enough of those plays go my way to steal a few wins.

If I'm the Chiefs, I don't have to be agressive at all. Why? Because I have Patrick friggin' Mahomes and a field full of playmakers that can get me out of any jam I might find myself in.

So if it's 4th and 6 on my 40 yard line, I go for it pretty much all the time if I'm the Giants. Sure I might lose a bunch of games 52-0, but if I make enough plays, I can win my share too.

If I'm the Chiefs I can do whaterver I want. For poops and giggles I can go for it knowing that if I don't make it, I will be fine because I still outman you. But I have no trouble punting either. I have a reasonably good defense and 10 to 12 plays drives can be tough to put together. I will probably win the game either way.

Those are the 2 extremes. My point is that what's right for one team may not be right for another. You cannot just ignore the human element that football presents.