JD_KaPow
jimnabby
- Messages
- 11,049
- Reaction score
- 10,811
Both require the onside kick if you fail the two-pointer. There's no difference.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.NOPE. One requires you to recover an onside kick the other doesn't. HUGE difference.
It’s not smoking anything. It’s called math chief. I suggest you learn the basics.
NOPE. One requires you to recover an onside kick the other doesn't. HUGE difference.
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.
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?
NOPE. One requires you to recover an onside kick the other doesn't. HUGE difference.
OMG!!!!….………..LOL
Is it better to be down 8 with 4 minutes left or 9 with 4 minutes left?
Cmon guy.…………..think about it!!!!
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.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.
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.NOPE. One requires you to recover an onside kick the other doesn't. HUGE difference.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Probability? Ok Mr probability...………..is it more probable to win down 8 with 4 minutes or down 9?
duh...…….……..9?
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.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.
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.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.
Only in bizarro world. Sorry, I am not a resident of bizarro world and it doesn't make sense to me.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.
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.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.