Hats off to the defense again.

[deanpet21]

If you have a 7 point lead, it is the same as an 8 point lead. They will tie if you are up 7 because they will kick the XP. If you go up 8, they will will tie because you wouldn't stop them.

I didn't watch the Pitt game...no idea. My question for you is...why is it bad coaching when Gruden goes with convention, and it is bad coaching when PC and MT go against convention? Oh...both of those guys have coached winning SBs.

But it is harder to get the 2 point conversion than the XP. cmon gk. Are you serious? Gruden played it safe convention or not. PC and MT coached carelessly. I don't care what their resumes are. You do not do that in those situations. Too much risk. Worst case scenario for PC was overtime if he kicked the XP. MT not taking the points early changes the flow and play calling of the game.

My school of thought with the 2 point conversation is: 1) only use it in the 4th qtr. 2) Use it to tie a game. 3) Use it to go up by 3 or 7 points in the game in the 4th.

 

[gkekoa]

Then you are contradicting gk and your own theories. You guys are saying the Pats would have gone for two if they scored.

No...he is saying exactly what I have been saying. You read what you want to read.

If the Seahawks are up by 7, NE would go for the XP.

If the Seahawks are up by 8, NE would go for 2 and get it.

Trying to up by 9, is the only thing that changes the outcome.

If NE had scored, going up 9 guaranteed the victory, rather than going into OT.

 

[deanpet21]

No...he is saying exactly what I have been saying. You read what you want to read.

If the Seahawks are up by 7, NE would go for the XP.

If the Seahawks are up by 8, NE would go for 2 and get it.

Trying to up by 9, is the only thing that changes the outcome.

If NE had scored, going up 9 guaranteed the victory, rather than going into OT.

You cant guarantee NE goes for the XP when down 7. So you play it safe and go up by 8.

 

[gkekoa]

But it is harder to get the 2 point conversion than the XP. cmon gk. Are you serious? Gruden played it safe convention or not. PC and MT coached carelessly. I don't care what their resumes are. You do not do that in those situations. Too much risk. Worst case scenario for PC was overtime if he kicked the XP. MT not taking the points early changes the flow and play calling of the game.

My school of thought with the 2 point conversation is: 1) only use it in the 4th qtr. 2) Use it to tie a game. 3) Use it to go up by 3 or 7 points in the game in the 4th.

You are looking at incorrectly. You are looking at a straight comparison. You are not taking into consideration you are laying the Patriots.

Let's look at it this way...2 point conversions are 50% odds.
Winning in OT is 50% odds.

If NE scores, they have a 50% chance of getting the 2 and then a 50% chance of winning. So they win 25% of the time.

If Seattle goes for 2, they have a 50% chance of success. If they fail, they have a 50% chance of winning in OT. If they make it, they have a 100% chance of winning. That means they win 75% of the time. It is a push on odds.

So the real question becomes...
Does Pete Carroll think Seattle has a better chance at 2 point conversion success against NE, or does his defense have a better chance at stopping NE?

 

[gkekoa]

You cant guarantee NE goes for the XP when down 7. So you play it safe and go up by 8.

Really? Then you are calling BB a bad coach. Think about it. You said Seattle should play for OT and NE should play for the win...and BB wouldn't gamble like that.

 

[deanpet21]

You are looking at incorrectly. You are looking at a straight comparison. You are not taking into consideration you are laying the Patriots.

Let's look at it this way...2 point conversions are 50% odds.
Winning in OT is 50% odds.

If NE scores, they have a 50% chance of getting the 2 and then a 50% chance of winning. So they win 25% of the time.

If Seattle goes for 2, they have a 50% chance of success. If they fail, they have a 50% chance of winning in OT. If they make it, they have a 100% chance of winning. That means they win 75% of the time. It is a push on odds.

So the real question becomes...
Does Pete Carroll think Seattle has a better chance at 2 point conversion success against NE, or does his defense have a better chance at stopping NE?

I say go with the defense b/c there is no risk to lose the game in regulation. Does the 2 point try have a 50% success rate on the year? I don't think so. Forget your percentages. There is a hiegher % to go with the Xp vs the 2 point try. There is no way in hell I would stop my team for taking an 8 point lead. Especially against the Pats.

 

[deanpet21]

Really? Then you are calling BB a bad coach. Think about it. You said Seattle should play for OT and NE should play for the win...and BB wouldn't gamble like that.

BB always gambles. Who is to say NE scores a TD plus two point conversion. You are saying that is a given vs an XP.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

Raiders vs. Saints - Game Recap - September 11, 2016 - ESPN

The Raiders won by 1 pt in the opener against the Saints when Del Rio went for 2 with less than a minute on the clock. Was that a bad coaching decision?

You can't make blanket statements about these calls & you can't reference some imaginary guide that tells you what to do in each situation. This is part of what makes football fun.

 

[gkekoa]

BB always gambles. Who is to say NE scores a TD plus two point conversion. You are saying that is a given vs an XP.

He does gamble; but not in this manner. He sees OT as an 80% chance of winning...he still sees a 2 point conversion as a 50% proposition. He is a great gambler and great gamblers play percentages.

 

[gkekoa]

I say go with the defense b/c there is no risk to lose the game in regulation. Does the 2 point try have a 50% success rate on the year? I don't think so. Forget your percentages. There is a hiegher % to go with the Xp vs the 2 point try. There is no way in hell I would stop my team for taking an 8 point lead. Especially against the Pats.

You say it...but you are a nobody.

The rate is 50% year in, year out. With the XP moved back, it really does make the 2 point conversion more attractive. That is why Mike Tomlin goes for 2 a lot more.

 

[deanpet21]

You say it...but you are a nobody.

The rate is 50% year in, year out. With the XP moved back, it really does make the 2 point conversion more attractive. That is why Mike Tomlin goes for 2 a lot more.

If that was the case then more teams would go for 2 early in the game and that is not happening.

 

[gkekoa]

If that was the case then more teams would go for 2 early in the game and that is not happening.

Do a little math Dean.

 

[deanpet21]

Do a little math Dean.

FWIW. I just visited the Seahawks board under the pats game thread. No one like the idea going for 2 points. All of them were blasting Carroll.

 

[gkekoa]

FWIW. I just visited the Seahawks board under the pats game thread. No one like the idea going for 2 points. All of them were blasting Carroll.

Who cares what the fans liked? Had it worked, they would drop to their knees.

Learn to make an unbiased opinion based on fact. The math is obvious. It wasn't a bad call...it was a call. Earlier in the year when Del Rio went for 2 people were sucking his nuts...if he failed they would blast him.

 

[deanpet21]

Who cares what the fans liked? Had it worked, they would drop to their knees.

Learn to make an unbiased opinion based on fact. The math is obvious. It wasn't a bad call...it was a call. Earlier in the year when Del Rio went for 2 people were sucking his nuts...if he failed they would blast him.

But you are saying the 2 point conversion is just as risky as the XP. Its not. The Xp is the safer play.

 

[gkekoa]

But you are saying the 2 point conversion is just as risky as the XP. Its not. The Xp is the safer play.

When did I say that? Please understand what is written and stop making things up.

I have stated numerous times the 2 point conversion is successful 50% of the time. The XP is successful 94% of the time.

If you are successful with the 2 point conversion 50% of the time, it averages out to being worth one point. If you are successful with the XP 94% of the time, then the XP is only worth .94 points on average. So, it is actually a better value to go after the 2 point conversion after a TD.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

But you are saying the 2 point conversion is just as risky as the XP. Its not. The Xp is the safer play.

Tell that to Vikings fans!

 

[skinsdad62]

seatle took a chance to put the game away right there it was worth the shot and guess who won dean ? strategy proven right

 

[deanpet21]

When did I say that? Please understand what is written and stop making things up.

I have stated numerous times the 2 point conversion is successful 50% of the time. The XP is successful 94% of the time.

If you are successful with the 2 point conversion 50% of the time, it averages out to being worth one point. If you are successful with the XP 94% of the time, then the XP is only worth .94 points on average. So, it is actually a better value to go after the 2 point conversion after a TD.

If it is the better value why aren't teams doing it more often?

 

[deanpet21]

seatle took a chance to put the game away right there it was worth the shot and guess who won dean ? strategy proven right

Go poll Seattle fans at that time of the game when they went for 2. See what they tell you.