2 point conversion

12 minutes is an eternity in the NFL. I understand going for it then but if I was making the decisions I wouldn't. Too many things could go wrong.

Again, I had no problem going for it but I wouldn't have. it's not about simple math, there is much more to it in a game. You have to have a feel for your team. Our O and D were both playing well, it was reasonable to expect if our D gave up 2 TDs that our O could get a FG and that is how it played out. I'd rather have the FG to win than the FG to tie.

we also could have gotten it and been tied w/ the ball in our hands on that last drive but is the sense of urgency the same as being down in that situation? do we play it safe and go to OT risking a loss in OT?

 

fuck me a bad call ,if u told me this team would be 3 n 2 start of season and Im actually looking forward to the stealers and pats coming our way ,I would say you needed a visit from the men in white coats ,Rex is
performing miracles .Fuck the 2 points ..

I suggest bumping every other thread on forum NOW :grin:

 

you are stretching to defend - it is simple math. When you are up 12 in the 4th quarter, you go for 2. It's not complicated what-so-ever.

I seriously doubt Rex was thinking "okay if we give up 2 TDs... I want us to be losing so we will be more urgent with the football" If he was then he is an even worse moron, because that makes no sense at all.

It was just an oversight, Rex just had his team line up for the extra point because that what they always do - but its an oversight that he shouldn't have made. Luckily the kid pulled it out

 

How the hell do you know what the chart says?

You don't so your entire argument is based not on a chart but your bias.

 

What?

Of course we don't know what HIS chart says, but considering every chart known to man says GO FOR 2 in that situation, then either his chart is fucked up or he is fucked up..

either way it's a mistake.... it's not bias to criticize this, it's common sense.

 

Setting up the permutations and calculating the math on that is pretty complex and I don't feel like working it out empirically but the benefit of kicking the extra point for that reason is diluted by the necessity of the rebuttal FG at the end. Since the Jets need to drive down the field at the end and kick that FG to tie or win depending on the previous actions it follows that they would do the same thing after a successful 2 point conversion and win the game in regulation rather than going to OT. That's where it starts to get complex because the Jets would be slightly disincentivized to make that final game winning drive if the game were tied for fear of a turnover that would cause a loss in regulation. Then you have to consider all of the wins and losses in OT for each scenario but intuitively that stuff all breaks in favor of the Jets more when they go for 2 by maintaining the strategic initiative by aggressive action.

Yes, you found the only meaningful scenario which I'm confident most people including Rex didn't really consider at the time but no it's not nearly as likely to result in a win. Jetfanmack came up with something like a 99-1 scenario, this one is probably more like 4-1 or 5-1. That would still make it an overwhelmingly bad decision, but not as bad as it seems on the surface you're right.

 

I am not stretching anything I am giving MY personal views on the situation.

12 minutes is an eternity, too many coaches go for it too early. It worked out perfectly.

I have no issues w/ going for it but it is not my preference in that situation.

the funny thing is if we went and missed it and lost b/c of it fans would be complaining about that too.

actually I posted multiple scenarios and we cannot assume we would kick the FG if the game was tied at that point. things change sense of urgency changes, this is not a mathematical equation, it is a game being played and coached by human beings.

 

right we go for it we dont get the 2, falcons then go for it succeeed ,folks kick puts us into overtime ,what happened next please ?

 

we won, right? you are making a BIG assumption that we convert the 2 pt conversion.

we are 3 for 8 since Rex took over so it's less than a 50/50 chance.

Last 10 years(2003-2012):

7-27, 26%

since 1994 when they brought it back(1994-current):

16-55, 29%

it's not a slam dunk.

 

You quoted my post with your first scenario and I was responding to that after thinking about it for a while. The other scenarios which you posted later I had considered them all and incorporated them abstractly into my post because it would take all day to type them all out in words including every implication and it wouldn't be much shorter to create my own chart from scratch making sure everything is logically correct.

And you're wrong, it is a mathematical equation and that is Rex's problem too. When I said slightly disincentivized that means that you can reduce the probability of scoring in a tie scenario to something like .7-.9 compared to the do or die scenario which we actually ended up facing. The coefficient depends on all of those human factors and this is something that Rex and apparently you don't understand. I consider it very likely mathematically that Rex would have reacted suboptimally in the tie game scenario by being too conservative when trying to go for the win in regulation, but that's still a mathematical factor. The point is that he either needs to learn to stick to the mathematical charts that have been created by the painstaking work that I'm talking about here or he needs to employ somebody that can interpret those things for him in game situations. Because what he has been doing for years as our HC is listening to his stupid gut in these situations and as fat as that gut used to be it never swallowed any math because he tends to pick the wrong answer way too much. Every game in the world operates on game theory at a fundamental level and game theory is all math. Assuming that personalities and emotions and whatever else can't be described by math in a game is entirely incorrect.

 

Of course it's not a slam dunk, but the prudent and correct decision was to go for 2 there.

 

This is all true, but unfortunately, isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. The fact that it worked out is irrelevant to the principle of the matter. The correct decision was to go for 2, simply to avoid the possibility of allowing two scores to potentially beat us. It's simple and unavoidable logic.

 

A sample size of 8 is entirely meaningless statistically and stats going back 20 years is almost as meaningless not that a sample of 55 is nearly close enough to get a true gauge. The question is what is the league average over the past few years then you have to figure out how much worse our offense is at that moment than the average offense during the sample size then you have to figure out how much worse than average that Falcons defense is than the average and weigh all of those things out to come up with any kind of reasonable rough guess.

You also fail to realize that whatever the real number is means less because the Falcons are victims of a similar conversion percentage even though their offense is better than ours because our defense is better than theirs. The more significant figure in these scenarios winds up being how many scenarios work out to Jet wins versus Falcon wins in both overtime and regulation rather than the conversion percentages, whatever they may be.

 

Precisely. There is nothing wrong with offering informed criticism on a coaching decision from Rex, in a game we won.

Likewise, if The Falcons had stopped the Jets on the final drive of the game (and thus, had held on for a 28-27 win), it wouldn't change the fact that Mike Smith's decision to bypass the field goal on 4th and goal, at the end of the 1st half, was an unequivocal mistake. The overall result of the game has no bearing on the principle of a given coaching decision, within that game.

 

the point is a 2 pt conversion is anything but a lock. Everyone is assuming if we go for it we get it, it doesn't work that way.

at no point did I say you guys aren't allowed to disagree w/ the move. I see both sides but I don't believe we should have gone for it in that situation.

a chart doesn't know the feel of a game. Maybe another game w/ 12 mins left I'll say we should go for 2 but not last night.

 

Uhm, everyone with a brain knows what the "chart" says, because the "chart" is based on the tenets of logic. The idea is to increase (or decrease) the number of possessions needed in order to tie or take the lead (depending on whether you are winning for losing). In other words, being up 13 has no practical advantage over being up 12, however, being up 14 does. It's common sense. The "chart" is merely an allegorical reference to this simple reasoning. Coaches may or may not have an actual, physical chart summarizing the aforementioned logic, but either way, we should all be capable of applying this basic logic to an analysis of any game in question.

Regarding Rex's decision, the only question is whether or not 12:00 left in the 4th quarter is too early to begin taking this "Possessionalist" approach.

 

I wasn't referring to you with the bolded (Hence, I didn't quote you in that particular post).