Garrett: we don’t use those numbers during a game

OmerV said:
The absolute norm is for the coach to go for the tie in that situation. It happens in games every week. That's a lot of why OT's happen at all. The low odds of a 2 point conversion are why teams don't go for it frequently.

And the odds were dramatically worse in this game. Keep in mind that the 2 teams combined were 5-27 on 3rd down, and 0-2 on 4th down. That's 17%. That's an 83% chance the opponent will stop you. It puts the odds dramatically in favor of the opposing team.

But that's not all … not only would the Cowboys have needed to make that conversion, and end up scoring the TD, they then would have to rely on yet another conversion to get the 2 points. What do you think the odds of getting both those conversions were? Maybe 7-8%? That's really taking that odds away from the Cowboys and putting them overwhelmingly with the Patriots.

Now, let's look at kicking the FG. The FG had a dramatically higher chance of success, then when they got the ball back, if they score the TD the game wouldn't have to hinge on that incredible low likelihood of a 2 point conversion.
Click to expand...
So then the odds of them driving 90 yards for a TD was 0% because they didn't do it once all game. I'll take 17% over 0%. Plus the odds of making 2 yards is better than OT chances.
 
Mike Lombardi had an absolutely spot on article articulating the Cowboys issues today in The Athletic. Nailed it to the core.
 
:lmao2:
3hiqn3.gif
https://imgflip.com/gif-maker
 
DakPresgoat said:
On 105.3 the fan. Jason Garret was asked about the odds of winning a game, based on analytics, between kicking the last FG or going for it on 4th.

Garret said “we don’t use those numbers during the game”.


I am not the type of person that believes analytics are everything and they are the end all be all. I don’t think you always go with the analytics numbers, because opponent and flow of the game are just as important.

That being said, they don’t use them at all during the game? They don’t at least factor those things in when making the decisions?


That is asinine.
Click to expand...
Beat your man and 90's style gameplan
 
Hennessy_King said:
So then the odds of them driving 90 yards for a TD was 0% because they didn't do it once all game. I'll take 17% over 0%. Plus the odds of making 2 yards is better than OT chances.
Click to expand...

First, why 90 yards? Because that has more effect than 70 yards?

Second, why is a 2 point conversion better odds than OT chances? I would have to see some support for that assertion, because the way the game was going it didn't seem either team would have an advantage in OT, other than whoever won the coin toss.

And third, I have not indicated we had good odds of scoring the TD with the last possession - I've said all along that the odds weren't great either way. There was no choice to get excited over. I just liked the odds better if a TD would win it rather than leaving us a point short and having to decide on a conversion.
 
DakPresgoat said:
On 105.3 the fan. Jason Garret was asked about the odds of winning a game, based on analytics, between kicking the last FG or going for it on 4th.

Garret said “we don’t use those numbers during the game”.


I am not the type of person that believes analytics are everything and they are the end all be all. I don’t think you always go with the analytics numbers, because opponent and flow of the game are just as important.

That being said, they don’t use them at all during the game? They don’t at least factor those things in when making the decisions?


That is asinine.
Click to expand...

He’s contradicting himself because in the past he used to talk about “High Percentage plays.” He’s clearly losing it...
 
Haimerej said:
Run along. Didn't mean to harsh your vibe.



As if you checking a handbook to do your thinking is better.



Perhaps your factual data is merely an aggregation of what has happened with no actual predictive value.
Click to expand...


You’re right Garret’s gut instincts have proven far better at offering predictive value......


Nevermind the fact that I have never once said you always follow the analytics.

A smart person at least factors in the probabilities when making a decision though. But I guess you and Garret aren’t in that category.
 
DakPresgoat said:
You’re right Garret’s gut instincts have proven far better at offering predictive value......
Click to expand...

You're putting words in my mouth. Typical.

DakPresgoat said:
Nevermind the fact that I have never once said you always follow the analytics.

A smart person at least factors in the probabilities when making a decision though. But I guess you and Garret aren’t in that category.
Click to expand...

It's cute that you think he didn't base his decision off of probabilities. He just didn't follow your ascribed set.
 
OmerV said:
First, why 90 yards? Because that has more effect than 70 yards?

Second, why is a 2 point conversion better odds than OT chances? I would have to see some support for that assertion, because the way the game was going it didn't seem either team would have an advantage in OT, other than whoever won the coin toss.

And third, I have not indicated we had good odds of scoring the TD with the last possession - I've said all along that the odds weren't great either way. There was no choice to get excited over. I just liked the odds better if a TD would win it rather than leaving us a point short and having to decide on a conversion.
Click to expand...

90 Yards or 70 yards we didn't get close lol

In 2018 2 pt conversions were 60%. Which analytically were effective and were worth 1.2 points on average. Here's a good link for you.

https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-...ersion-when-possible-at-the-end-of-regulation
 
Hennessy_King said:
In 2018 2 pt conversions were 60%. Which analytically were effective and were worth 1.2 points on average. Here's a good link for you.

https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-...ersion-when-possible-at-the-end-of-regulation
Click to expand...

This was clearly not a normal, indoor/good weather game? If so, you watched an entirely different game than I did. Even Tom Brady was having hell trying to convert a short yardage play, and the Cowboys are the league's best on 3rd down and they were struggling just as bad.
 
OmerV said:
This was clearly not a normal, indoor/good weather game? If so, you watched an entirely different game than I did. Even Tom Brady was having hell trying to convert a short yardage play, and the Cowboys are the league's best on 3rd down and they were struggling just as bad.
Click to expand...
Yeh exactly they had a better chance at 7 yards then driving 70 yards if you watched the same game lol.
 
I almost always think that it's better to take the three than to go for it on 4th, but in this case I would have gone for it. Troy was right, that at some point you're going to need a TD, and to be honest I thought if we kick the field goal then we might not even get the ball back.
 
DakPresgoat said:
On 105.3 the fan. Jason Garret was asked about the odds of winning a game, based on analytics, between kicking the last FG or going for it on 4th.

Garret said “we don’t use those numbers during the game”.


I am not the type of person that believes analytics are everything and they are the end all be all. I don’t think you always go with the analytics numbers, because opponent and flow of the game are just as important.

That being said, they don’t use them at all during the game? They don’t at least factor those things in when making the decisions?


That is asinine.
Click to expand...
This explains a lot actually. They don't use analytics for game planning or what to do in certain situations. He relies on his gut instinct and how the game is flowing, which he is terrible at (see last 3 plays vs. Minnesota). Good coaches use a blend of these things to make decisions.

So there you have it, Garrett is a Texas Hold 'Em player that can't count or read tells.
 
Next week we win & everything will be honky dory again in the front office/sidelines.
 
Haimerej said:
I think this whole, "should have gone for the TD," thing is a perfect example of lemmings jumping on a narrative.

It was 4th and 7. The WRs and QB had multiple issues with handling the ball. There was nearly 7 minutes left in the game and but for good field position from turnovers and a blocked punt NE hadn't done much offensively all game. They in fact got points and the ball back with an opportunity for the lead. That situation was played fine.
Click to expand...
you go for it, don't get it, NE has to drive the field in those conditions then likely get the ball back still needing a touchdown. You get it and its a tie ballgame. You kick it, get 3 and still need a touchdown.

Only a moron (see picture left) would think kicking a field goal was the best option in that situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 126 more.
Total: 7,967 (members: 226, guests: 7,741)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,054
Messages
13,786,152
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top