Teams going for 2 down by 8 (analytics)

[Cowboy-33]

I bring this up cause it relates to the whole analytics discussion. Many teams are going for 2 when they’re down by 14 and then score a TD in the fourth quarter. I guess analytics says it’s the right thing to do.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...y-nfl-teams-keep-doing-why-analytics-backs-up

I don’t think I like it. There are so many other factors involved besides math. So it’s in the same vein as Garrett kicking the FG. All the analytics people say it was wrong and blah blah.

what do you guys think about the going for 2 thing and analytics in general ?

 

[Cowboy-33]

What nobody else seen coaches doing this?
Or maybe nobody cares but me .

 

[HungryLion]

I’ve seen it. It’s one of the time I don’t agree with the analytics. To be honest.

Because I do feel the psychology of just needing a TD and XP is better, than if you miss that first 2 pointer and your offense knows they have to get a TD and 2 pointer just to tie.

 

[Cowboy-33]

Pretty sure eagles did it Sunday and failed in the 2 point attempt.

 

[leeblair]

I bring this up cause it relates to the whole analytics discussion. Many teams are going for 2 when they’re down by 14 and then score a TD in the fourth quarter. I guess analytics says it’s the right thing to do.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...y-nfl-teams-keep-doing-why-analytics-backs-up

I don’t think I like it. There are so many other factors involved besides math. So it’s in the same vein as Garrett kicking the FG. All the analytics people say it was wrong and blah blah.

what do you guys think about the going for 2 thing and analytics in general ?

I think if you try to play the game on paper you get what you deserve.
It's a physical game and those decisions have to be based upon the intangibles present on the field at that moment- not the statistics on a computer screen.
The nerd herd may disagree, but that's just because they want to feel needed.

 

[Playmaker247]

I think if you try to play the game on paper you get what you deserve.
It's a physical game and those decisions have to be based upon the intangibles present on the field at that moment- not the statistics on a computer screen.
The nerd herd may disagree, but that's just because they want to feel needed.

Say what you want now but analytics are taking over and those who aren’t willing to use them to increase their chances of winning will get left behind. I give it 10 years before the whole league finally catches up but until then teams that use them like the pats, ravens, etc will continue to have a massive advantage.

 

[Ranched]

There are so many other factors involved besides math. So it’s in the same vein as Garrett kicking the FG. All the analytics people say it was wrong and blah blah.

what do you guys think about the going for 2 thing and analytics in general ?

For starters, Garrett kicking a fg was definitely wrong and his blah blah blah decision has absolutely nothing to do with analytics, but instead conservative thinking.

Only two teams ever have gone for 2 when down 8 and come back to win the game, according to Elias Sports Bureau data. One of them was the '98 49ers, but that 2 point attempt was unintentional. According to the play by play, a bad snap on a PAT resulted in a failed rush attempt.

The other was a snowstorm game in '13, when the Eagles attempted a 2 point try on every touchdown they scored.

The reasons it hasn't worked. By definition, the team that attempts the 2-pointer is losing by 8 points late in the game, which is already a long shot. Most importantly, there just aren't that many teams that have tried it.

 

[Cowboy-33]

Yeah let’s get to the point where they all play like that high school coach who never punts and always kicks onside kicks. He used analytics (some say wacky) and his teams are hugely successful.

https://fnfcoaches.com/the-coach-who-almost-never-punts-and-always-onside-kicks/

Not for me BTW.

 

[805BoysInBlue]

Isn't that what helped dallas win the game in Pittsburgh? Tomlin went for its numerous times and failed to convert a single 2 point conversion.

 

[romonumberone]

Garrett made the right call kicking the FG.

1. The FG was good.
2. Even if Dallas converts the 4th & 7 that still does not guarantee them a TD on the drive.
3. Even if Dallas ties it up.... they have to not just score a TD but Maher needs to make the Extra Point. Even tied up the law of averages for the road team in overtime is maybe 47%?
4. If Dallas ties it up New England will be more aggressive to score points on the final drive. How often has Brady done that?
5. At some point you need a FG & a TD.... might as well get one out of the way.
6. If you don't convert the 4th & 7.... which against that Defense, weather conditions, obvious passing down which not only does New England know that and not have to worry & play the run, and the conversion rate on 3rd downs that day, plus the distance you have to travel is low percentage anyways.... if you don't convert than you give New England all the momentum.

7. Also even if New England goes down the field and gets a FG.... you still have a chance vs. being 2 possessions behind.
8. The logic did work for Garrett. The Cowboys got the ball back with plenty of time to score a TD & win the game. But the refs had other plans.
9. There was 6 minutes left. By kicking right than Garrett was giving his team a much better chance of playing a 2-1 possession game.
10. Defenses tire out more towards the end of the game. The odds were very good that the Cowboys could drive it down there again.... Especially when you are working in 4 down down territory with that extra down to play with.
11. The Cowboys later could not convert a 4th & long..... so Garrett's point was actually justified with the bad pass from Dak to Amari that Amari almost caught.

 

[Nav22]

I like it. It makes a ton of sense.

The odds of going for 2 once and converting is much greater than the odds of going for 2 twice and not converting either time.

Being down 6 practically doubles your odds of winning vs being down 7, because a TD wins you the game vs simply forcing overtime.

 

[Nav22]

I’ve seen it. It’s one of the time I don’t agree with the analytics. To be honest.

Because I do feel the psychology of just needing a TD and XP is better, than if you miss that first 2 pointer and your offense knows they have to get a TD and 2 pointer just to tie.

But think about what converting the 2-point attempt would do.

Being up 6 isn’t nearly as comforting as being up 7. You’re 1 play away from losing, not 1 play away from going to overtime.

If you go for 2 twice and can’t convert either time, you deserve to lose anyways.

And in today’s NFL, making 2 PATs is no longer a guarantee. Couldn’t you just imagine Maher botching a game-tying PAT late?

The analytics say it helps you win and I agree. Going for 2 once and converting is much more likely than going for 2 twice and not converting either time.

 

[Nav22]

Garrett made the right call kicking the FG.

1. The FG was good.
2. Even if Dallas converts the 4th & 7 that still does not guarantee them a TD on the drive.
3. Even if Dallas ties it up.... they have to not just score a TD but Maher needs to make the Extra Point. Even tied up the law of averages for the road team in overtime is maybe 47%?
4. If Dallas ties it up New England will be more aggressive to score points on the final drive. How often has Brady done that?
5. At some point you need a FG & a TD.... might as well get one out of the way.
6. If you don't convert the 4th & 7.... which against that Defense, weather conditions, obvious passing down which not only does New England know that and not have to worry & play the run, and the conversion rate on 3rd downs that day, plus the distance you have to travel is low percentage anyways.... if you don't convert than you give New England all the momentum.

7. Also even if New England goes down the field and gets a FG.... you still have a chance vs. being 2 possessions behind.
8. The logic did work for Garrett. The Cowboys got the ball back with plenty of time to score a TD & win the game. But the refs had other plans.
9. There was 6 minutes left. By kicking right than Garrett was giving his team a much better chance of playing a 2-1 possession game.
10. Defenses tire out more towards the end of the game. The odds were very good that the Cowboys could drive it down there again.... Especially when you are working in 4 down down territory with that extra down to play with.
11. The Cowboys later could not convert a 4th & long..... so Garrett's point was actually justified with the bad pass from Dak to Amari that Amari almost caught.

Yeah, the more I’ve thought about that decision (which I hated at the time), the more I’ve thought it wasn’t such a terrible decision after all.

I still don’t love the call because it robbed us of a decent shot at tying the game immediately.

But for the reasons you laid out, it wasn’t such a terrible, nonsensical decision that many have labeled it as.

 

[HungryLion]

But think about what converting the 2-point attempt would do.

Being up 6 isn’t nearly as comforting as being up 7. You’re 1 play away from losing, not 1 play away from going to overtime.

If you go for 2 twice and can’t convert either time, you deserve to lose anyways.

And in today’s NFL, making 2 PATs is no longer a guarantee. Couldn’t you just imagine Maher botching a game-tying PAT late?

The analytics say it helps you win and I agree. Going for 2 once and converting is much more likely than going for 2 twice and not converting either time.

I mean it’s definitely a fair argument to be had. You make strong points.


We will see if our next coach ever does it once the red headed genius is gone.

 

[Nav22]

I mean it’s definitely a fair argument to be had. You make strong points.


We will see if our next coach ever does it once the red headed genius is gone.

LOL yeah, Garrett would never do it in a million years.

“We don’t look at those numbers.”

 

[Silverz1972]

Unless you are prolific offense like the chiefs, ravens etc, this is not a good idea.

when Detroit did it, I knew we won the game.

I bring this up cause it relates to the whole analytics discussion. Many teams are going for 2 when they’re down by 14 and then score a TD in the fourth quarter. I guess analytics says it’s the right thing to do.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...y-nfl-teams-keep-doing-why-analytics-backs-up

I don’t think I like it. There are so many other factors involved besides math. So it’s in the same vein as Garrett kicking the FG. All the analytics people say it was wrong and blah blah.

what do you guys think about the going for 2 thing and analytics in general ?

 

[Hennessy_King]

I bring this up cause it relates to the whole analytics discussion. Many teams are going for 2 when they’re down by 14 and then score a TD in the fourth quarter. I guess analytics says it’s the right thing to do.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...y-nfl-teams-keep-doing-why-analytics-backs-up

I don’t think I like it. There are so many other factors involved besides math. So it’s in the same vein as Garrett kicking the FG. All the analytics people say it was wrong and blah blah.

what do you guys think about the going for 2 thing and analytics in general ?

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't. Dinosaurs not using analytics is disgraceful. There's no such thing as having too much information to make an important decision.

 

[CPanther95]

Garrett made the right call kicking the FG.

1. The FG was good.
2. Even if Dallas converts the 4th & 7 that still does not guarantee them a TD on the drive.
3. Even if Dallas ties it up.... they have to not just score a TD but Maher needs to make the Extra Point. Even tied up the law of averages for the road team in overtime is maybe 47%?
4. If Dallas ties it up New England will be more aggressive to score points on the final drive. How often has Brady done that?
5. At some point you need a FG & a TD.... might as well get one out of the way.
6. If you don't convert the 4th & 7.... which against that Defense, weather conditions, obvious passing down which not only does New England know that and not have to worry & play the run, and the conversion rate on 3rd downs that day, plus the distance you have to travel is low percentage anyways.... if you don't convert than you give New England all the momentum.

7. Also even if New England goes down the field and gets a FG.... you still have a chance vs. being 2 possessions behind.
8. The logic did work for Garrett. The Cowboys got the ball back with plenty of time to score a TD & win the game. But the refs had other plans.
9. There was 6 minutes left. By kicking right than Garrett was giving his team a much better chance of playing a 2-1 possession game.
10. Defenses tire out more towards the end of the game. The odds were very good that the Cowboys could drive it down there again.... Especially when you are working in 4 down down territory with that extra down to play with.
11. The Cowboys later could not convert a 4th & long..... so Garrett's point was actually justified with the bad pass from Dak to Amari that Amari almost caught.

1. Wrong

 

[Hennessy_King]

In 2018 2pt plays were converted 60% of the time. So technically if you went for it every time your xtra points would be worth 1.2 points per try. The difference in coaching is some coaches have the stones to go against the grain and are ok dealing with adversity and accountability. Garrett is not that type. He's a privileged kid that never earned anything in his life. Doesn't want to make waves and isn't man enough to stand on his on 2 feet and make decisions. He coaches scared.

 

[AbeBeta]

I bring this up cause it relates to the whole analytics discussion. Many teams are going for 2 when they’re down by 14 and then score a TD in the fourth quarter. I guess analytics says it’s the right thing to do.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...y-nfl-teams-keep-doing-why-analytics-backs-up

I don’t think I like it. There are so many other factors involved besides math. So it’s in the same vein as Garrett kicking the FG. All the analytics people say it was wrong and blah blah.

what do you guys think about the going for 2 thing and analytics in general ?

This is not an analytics story despite it being labeled as such.

Analytics require data. The are too few data points here to make any analytics claims.

The article is dumb.