I saw that as well. It was hard to miss. It would be funny if that was part of the equation. It would be fitting. The NFL has been moving toward WWE territory for a while now.
Week 4 Game Thread
- Thread starter Ale Xander
- Start date
Pardon My Take had Warren Sharp on last week and he was saying that based on the data he looks at, Pederson is the most aggressive coach in making calls like this. I am not defending the call but I suspect Pederson & staff have determined that going for two is generally better than one there. I mean, if you make it 60% of the time, its clearly defensible in many contexts.
60% success rate stealing bases in baseball sounds good initially, but it isn’t considered good. Probably the same in 2 pointers.
Its math. Assume that kickers make 100% of extra points - this is being generous because as we've seen of late, even elite kickers aren't nailing extra points at that rate and leaguewide its more like 93-94%. But for sake of argument, let's call it 100%
100% x one point = an expected value of one point.
Good teams in the NFL easily have at least a 60% red zone conversion percentage (e.g. the champion Patriots converted just under 63% in the red zone in 2018)
~60% x two points = an expected value of 1.2 points
I know its not quite that simple but even being generous to the kickers and conservative to the good teams, the expected value of going for two is clearly higher. This is essentially why threes are now the coin of the realm in the NBA.
I'm starting to think this rule change was instituted with the sole purpose of getting coaches to use more timeouts, lengthen games, and sell more commercial time. There was never the slightest chance that they would call a a penalty on a play when a flag wasn't thrown. The rule change was a hoax from the start.
But, that's only part of the equation. By kicking the extra point there, the Packers are down by 8, so now, the Packers have to go for 2 (a 60% success rate) just to tie. You took a 3:2 chance that you could go up by 9, but in turn, you gave the Packers a 100% chance of getting the tie with an extra point, instead of giving them a 3:2 chance to tie by forcing them to for 2.
And none of that takes into account that there was 23+ minutes of football left. The idea that the Packers wouldn't score again shouldn't even be a consideration given the flow of the game. It makes no sense, unless you come at it from the mindset that you should always go for 2, which IMO, would be more defensible than picking and choosing your opportunities and picking wrong, like the Eagles did there.
They have no idea what they are doing. One bad call in a very big game has led to 1,000 cases of just making shit up as they go along.
I agree with this. This is a dumb rule.
Get rid of this rule and bring back normal extra points.
I think the rule change just means that if the NO Rams play happens again they will reverse it and in the meantime it’s just going to be two or three stupid and inconsistent extra time outs per game.
Reminded me of this play by Kamara:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000886978/Can-t-Miss-Play-Kamara-trucks-Thompson-for-TD-on-fourth-down
You’re right if conversion rate is 60%. Googling says it has been running about that. Big question is why don’t coaches go for 2 more often then? Still too risky, they want that near automatic point. Belichick never goes for 2 unless the situation absolutely calls for it, like in SB 51.
I agree its more complicated than my example.
I was simply pointing out that Pederson and his staff appear to have data that suggests that was their best call there. I am not saying it is but the Sharp interview (which you amongst many others should listen to when you have time - Sharp is great) pointed out that Pederson does this more than any other NFL HC.
Per DoTB, my example was simplistic. I suspect that more may begin going for it over time but as DoTB points out, there are other factors that contribute to the greater game plan. Warren Sharp also points out that many less secure NFL head coaches go with decisions that are defensible versus ones that might offer better expected outcomes.
People playing it safe happens in just about every walk of life as you know so maybe that's why it isn't more prevalent. Or someone else notes the simple math of my example but also adjusts it using some of DoTB's assumptions etc.
What we don’t know is what the conversion rate would be if teams went for it every time. I think it might drop if teams are just forced to run regular offensive plays 50 times a year instead of pulling out special plays.
Also, the value of a point is relative. Situation makes a difference. The obvious example is that a point to go from a three point lead to a four point lead is dramatically more valuable than the fifth point is if late in the game.
We need the linear weights for the difference between an 8 and a 7 point lead!!
I don’t know if they’d be called linear weights or not though. But I bet the teams could hire people to calculate them if they want to. Or just ask Ernie Adams.
Aikman made a nice point that the Eagles’ secondary suckitude is less of a problem in the red zone where the field is compressed. The Packers have not been great in the red zone tonight. Or not nearly as good as they have been everywhere else on the field all night.
I mean, I know the running game is struggling, but to throw 4 straight times from the 1 is stupid. Rodgers faked two handoffs to the RB and the Eagles barely flinched.