I agree.Sure, but 102 rushing attempts from your franchise QB is a bit much precisely because he's developed into such a good passer. Let him be a QB, he can beat you with his arm.
I agree.Sure, but 102 rushing attempts from your franchise QB is a bit much precisely because he's developed into such a good passer. Let him be a QB, he can beat you with his arm.
50.5 or 51 on most books.What was the O/U? I should look that up.
Given one yard to go and score/time left, your win expectancy is higher if you attempt the two. And Indy has a great OL, so it makes contextual sense.Why go for 2 there?
Math on it works out. Main reason is the chance to win in regulation by a point versus a 50/50 in overtime tips the balance.Why go for 2 there?
That’s the thing. It just seems effortless.It really is something else. I feel like it's somehow much more fluid than Mahomes' too. Ball just comes out with insane velocity from the jump.
7. Two FGs, one XP.Colts have taken 4 points off the board themselves....
My shorthand understanding is "more better chance to win vs only slightly less chance of tie." Someone better versed might help.Why go for 2 there?
But why not go for 2 on the next TD for the win? Now they have to get a 2 for a tie.Math on it works out. Main reason is the chance to win in regulation by a point versus a 50/50 in overtime tips the balance.
Ah I was joking that he went for 2 to get closer to the over.
Because by doing it now you have information on whether you'll have to try it again. By going for it in the second time you can't go back in time to erase the XP you kicked and try for 2.But why not go for 2 on the next TD for the win? Now they have to get a 2 for a tie.
He said ‘a little bit’ in his defense"I don't get it. I understand the analytics"
Then you don't get it, moron.
Because now you know whether you made it or not and can plan accordinglyBut why not go for 2 on the next TD for the win? Now they have to get a 2 for a tie.
50% chance you make it. In that case, a near-automatic XP gives you the lead.My shorthand understanding is "more better chance to win vs only slightly less chance of tie." Someone better versed might help.
Assuming a late score, I think because the bad outcome then is you lose, not you need a 2 to tie, like it is now.But why not go for 2 on the next TD for the win? Now they have to get a 2 for a tie.
I guess to some extent it also makes sense because you’re giving yourself two tries for a 2 pt conversion (if you don’t get the first one).Because by doing it now you have information on whether you'll have to try it again. By going for it in the second time you can't go back in time to erase the XP you kicked and try for 2.
Yes, that's the point.I guess to some extent it also makes sense because you’re giving yourself two tries for a 2 pt conversion (if you don’t get the first one).
You're working my side of the street."I don't get it. I understand the analytics"
Then you don't get it, moron.
The yellow line isn't a "side"You're working my side of the street.
I think they may have gone for fourth down or you get an easier FGA.I don’t understand that. An offside doesn’t give you a first down so you used up a time out just for that? Kick and save the time out.
It's coming when he gets the ball back down 5 with 3 minutes to go.A Rivers INT would be a nice touch
First time ever this year.They show football on Nickelodeon now? wtf.