Yep
Shitload of other variables, hundreds at least
A successful extra point does not lose momentum after a TD
Failing on a 2 point conversion does lose momentum after a TD
That is only one variable that I am sure isn't factored into the statistics
Sports NFL 2024-25 Official Thread
- Thread starter NotBanjaxo
- Start date
Shitload of other variables, hundreds at least
A successful extra point does not lose momentum after a TD
Failing on a 2 point conversion does lose momentum after a TD
That is only one variable that I am sure isn't factored into the statistics
You are already down 2 scores to start with. It's about putting yourself in the best chance to win.
Above was just about the logic on why to do it this way. If you look back at past games the teams that elect to go for it win more often then those who elect to not go for it.
I get that, fully understood.
A decision like that would have to do with how much time is left...
and if you feel you have the better team and strategy at that point of the game, then you can get two scores and then win on a third score
Three parts to the game and this strategy assumes you can only only win with D stops and only have chance for two scores before game is over, a lot of other variables in that strategy
I'm just saying it isn't nearly as cut and dry as that guy tries to make it in that 55 second clip
Also how accurate is analytics with the rules constantly changing, the data set is smaller with every rule change.
IS analytics factoring in weather? Windspeed? Turf conditions?
I just don't think anybody advocating for using the percentages alone is accurately assessing the gametime decision.
Last edited:
Let me put it this way.
Yes.
"IS analytics factoring in weather? Windspeed? Turf conditions?"
Yes.
I would like to see that part of the equation, not convinced that is is factored in on the basic game situational percentages that are often referred to.
Maybe some models do and some don't, or maybe all do(I doubt it)?
Tons of variables and feel of the game is pretty important, some coaches have it and some don't and that isn't easily quantifiable.
The stats have a place no doubt, just not the end all be all like in that short clip. IMO.
Didn't realize this was still going on
Gruden shouldn't be making weird videos I think.
www.nbcsports.com
"The former Raiders coach has secured an order from the Nevada Supreme Court setting his case against the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell for a rehearing before the entire panel. This opens the door to a decision by the seven justices to overturn the decision made by three of them that Gruden’s case should go to arbitration.
It’s possibly a good sign for Gruden’s cause. If the court wanted to uphold the ruling for the NFL and Goodell, all it had to do was do nothing. That said, and as explained in the one-page ruling, the applicable rules allow any two members of the court to order a rehearing. With seven justices, the two who wanted it (if it was only two) would need two more in order to overturn the ruling for the NFL.
The ruling comes three years to the day since Gruden’s last game as coach of the Raiders. He resigned under pressure the next day.
While the league office won’t appreciate this opinion, the three judges got it wrong. Gruden’s case ended up in arbitration based on a flawed reading of the NFL’s Constitution & Bylaws. Looking at it more broadly, any arbitration resolved by the Commissioner or his hand-picked designee is tainted by a clear conflict of interest."
Gruden shouldn't be making weird videos I think.
Jon Gruden secures key win in case against NFL, Roger Goodell
Nevada Supreme Court decides to grant rehearing of decision to compel arbitration.
www.nbcsports.com
"The former Raiders coach has secured an order from the Nevada Supreme Court setting his case against the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell for a rehearing before the entire panel. This opens the door to a decision by the seven justices to overturn the decision made by three of them that Gruden’s case should go to arbitration.
It’s possibly a good sign for Gruden’s cause. If the court wanted to uphold the ruling for the NFL and Goodell, all it had to do was do nothing. That said, and as explained in the one-page ruling, the applicable rules allow any two members of the court to order a rehearing. With seven justices, the two who wanted it (if it was only two) would need two more in order to overturn the ruling for the NFL.
The ruling comes three years to the day since Gruden’s last game as coach of the Raiders. He resigned under pressure the next day.
While the league office won’t appreciate this opinion, the three judges got it wrong. Gruden’s case ended up in arbitration based on a flawed reading of the NFL’s Constitution & Bylaws. Looking at it more broadly, any arbitration resolved by the Commissioner or his hand-picked designee is tainted by a clear conflict of interest."
To give a "blunt force" answer I'll put it like this. When a model uses historical data to come to an probability of something happening ask your self this: Has it ever rained, snowed, bad Turf, etc etc or is this the very first game ever to have such weather conditions? I would say confidently that unless you have an extreme weather game where records of cold or heat are present then weather/turf is being factored because those same conditions today were present in past games you are using as data. Extreme weather games however are rare. Thats why we give those games names like Snow Bowl as they are rememberable as such.
At the end of the day I'll put it like this. If we look at the historical data of every game played and teams that were down 14pts elect to go for it on the 1st score win more than teams who elect to do like you said and just kick the extra point; why is it smarter to do what the teams that lost more than those who won did?
^ Again, with that question, weather/etc are factored in.
I get it in that context and agree. Appreciate the explanation.
I do think analytics are great and useful, just think a coach has to only take them as part of the equation.
Personally I think playing for two 7s being down 14 can be a wise decision depending on all the other variables. If your defense is total shit then I guess you gamble on getting a stop and roll the dice. I also don't like the momentum switch that occurs when you fail on a 2.
There are certain models that may agree with this given the right situations for sure.
Like models with PFR use vegas odd to help make better predictions on what would happen. Take for example your team is far better than the other team on paper and Vegas odds reflect that by having you be the heavy favorite. If your team was just unlucky and were down 14 because of fumbles/tipped INTs/Bad reffing it does not mean that your team still is not the far better team. More do if you are only down by 14 and the other team only scored on those unlucky plays by you.
If you think that is the case as a coach then going by the conventional knowledge and just take those extra points its assumed that your team also will find a way to win because well you are the better team.
Flip that in reverse where Vegas thinks you are the heavy underdog and you are down because you are the worst team and those 14pts were put up on you in a clean way then it makes sense to try and go for the 2pt conversion and because you think in conventional situations your team would be the one losing.
FYI - The lowest odds for exact score is 49ers winning 20-17.I like the 49ers tonight.
21-17
FD has that at +23,000 odds.
Fucking dipshits. Money in the bank.
+6000
That makes total sense, it so damn complicated.
I'm not trying to bust balls as you know, I just love me some football
dummy class but kinda fun panel and speaker
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIeWvgwY48k&t=261s
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIeWvgwY48k&t=261s
I was thinking the other day on just how smart the saying "We don't practice fucked" is really. Well how good Sam Darnold/Joe Flacco/etc have looked and how bad Miami looks without Tua it just seems really fucking dumb to not have a very solid backup QB or to not invest in developing a backup QB behind your franchise guy.
Philly won a title because they had a good backup option behind Wentz in Nick Foles and KC would have 1 less SB now if they didnt have a useful backup behind Mahomes. It feels like just because a coach said something really cool that one time coaches are not questioning it as much as they should be.
I understand the argument of not wanting to waste man hours/practice time on getting a backup QB ready but when it comes time for them to play....it seems like those man hours you thought were gonna be a waste would feel like a small price to pay now.
Philly won a title because they had a good backup option behind Wentz in Nick Foles and KC would have 1 less SB now if they didnt have a useful backup behind Mahomes. It feels like just because a coach said something really cool that one time coaches are not questioning it as much as they should be.
I understand the argument of not wanting to waste man hours/practice time on getting a backup QB ready but when it comes time for them to play....it seems like those man hours you thought were gonna be a waste would feel like a small price to pay now.
I’ve seen the YouTube shorts, but I wonder. Is the nfl really rigged?
View: https://twitter.com/FarabaughFB/status/1844406092970983895?t=pRbSD24hnoTBHLpCzaBDQw&s=19
Wow....And Arthur Smith really thinks that's a good thing.
Trash.
I dont know about rigged like scores are predetermined but I 100% believe the NFL favors certain teams by refs giving them breaks.
Deebo was +750 to score a TD and put a ten spot on it, he must be pretty dinged up despite that play
Seahawks are fuckin this up
