Big Ben wants Steelers to go for 2 after every TD

[birdog1960]

And if the team fails and goes up by only 2 instead of 3, would that likely change the decision making as well?

 

GO BILLS!!!

yes, but if the overall point differential is positive for attempting more 2 point conversions the converse will more frequently result. my argument was that 1 point is not limited in importance by the final score alone. but you knew that.

 

over the course of a season, more points for are better. agreed?

Edited June 16, 2016 by birdog1960

[K-9]

yes, but if the overall point differential is positive for attempting more 2 point conversions the converse will more frequently result. my argument was that 1 point is not limited in importance by the final score alone. but you knew that.

 

over the course of a season, more points for are better. agreed?

Generally, more points for than points against at the end of the year, is indicative of more wins than losses. That is not the argument here, though. Please conduct an analysis of every successful/unsuccessful Steeler 2 point conversion and tell me how each impacted their strategy or the strategy of the opposing teams. In another thread, I pointed out how a couple of their 2 point conversions came in games where they blew out their opponents and they had no tangible impact vs. a standard 1 point PAT.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[birdog1960]

Generally, more points for than points against at the end of the year, is indicative of more wins than losses. That is not the argument here, though. Please conduct an analysis of every successful/unsuccessful Steeler 2 point conversion and tell me how each impacted their strategy or the strategy of the opposing teams. In another thread, I pointed out how a couple of their 2 point conversions came in games where they blew out their opponents and they had no tangible impact vs. a standard 1 point PAT.

 

GO BILLS!!!

why would I do that? there are dudes employed and highly educated to do just those analyses. the steelers have probably already done them. yet the specific instances and their outcomes are not predicted by the statistics. the long term results are. but you knew that...

 

in my field, there is the same reticence among many to utilize algorithms. sometimes they don't make sense as the problem is too complex for a one size fits all approach. but often they do make sense and outcomes are substantially improved, reproducibly by their use.

 

still there are those that claim they or their specific populations are different and don't apply. they believe are special. I believe this all comes from the same part of human nature. we pretend to refuse to believe that we can be replaced by equations, computers etc. the fact is that many times we can be. the bias will almost always be on looking at anecdotes that supposedly disprove this.

[K-9]

why would I do that? there are dudes employed and highly educated to do just those analyses. the steelers have probably already done them. yet the specific instances and their outcomes are not predicted by the statistics. the long term results are. but you knew that...

 

in my field, there is the same reticence among many to utilize algorithms. sometimes they don't make sense as the problem is too complex for a one size fits all approach. but often they do make sense and outcomes are substantially improved, reproducibly by their use.

 

still there are those that claim they or their specific populations are different and don't apply. they believe are special. I believe this all comes from the same part of human nature. we pretend to refuse to believe that we can be replaced by equations, computers etc. the fact is that many times we can be. the bias will almost always be on looking at anecdotes that supposedly disprove this.

You'd do that because it would add the proper required context to the argument which is a lot more nuanced than simply saying, "more points are better, right." Especially when going for 2 has the potential to result in less points.

 

When it can be shown to coaches that going for 2 has a direct impact in the win column, they will climb aboard. Not before. Until then, the "When to go for 2" chart suffices just fine.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited June 16, 2016 by K-9

[mannc]

When it can be shown to coaches that going for 2 has a direct impact in the win column, they will climb aboard. Not before. Until then, the "When to go for 2" chart suffices just fine.

 

GO BILLS!!!

That should be the case, but I don't think it is. Otherwise we would not see so many teams punting on fourth and short near or inside mid-field. NFL coaches are a hide-bound group who are afraid of anything different. I agree, however, that there is insufficient data right now to support going for two every time, although coaches should do it more often, for example, when they score a TD at the end of the game and a 1point conversion would send the game to OT, but a two pointer would win.

[K-9]

That should be the case, but I don't think it is. Otherwise we would not see so many teams punting on fourth and short near or inside mid-field. NFL coaches are a hide-bound group who are afraid of anything different. I agree, however, that there is insufficient data right now to support going for two every time, although coaches should do it more often, for example, when they score a TD at the end of the game and a 1point conversion would send the game to OT, but a two pointer would win.

How often does this situation arise? And are you going to be the first to forgive your coach for losing a game on an unsuccessful two-point conversion try? Let me guess, you will laud his courage in the face of conventional wisdom; for not bowing to a conformity that says he must. How many times will you cut him that slack? Every time?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[birdog1960]

You'd do that because it would add the proper required context to the argument which is a lot more nuanced than simply saying, "more points are better, right." Especially when going for 2 has the potential to result in less points.

 

When it can be shown to coaches that going for 2 has a direct impact in the win column, they will climb aboard. Not before. Until then, the "When to go for 2" chart suffices just fine.

 

GO BILLS!!!

is it any wonder the dumb jock mantra rolls on?

[K-9]

is it any wonder the dumb jock mantra rolls on?

Being cautious does not equate to dumb. But since you brought it up, how smart is it to fix something that isn't broken? At present, there are reasons to go for two at judicious times but no compelling reason to do so every time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

Being cautious does not equate to dumb. But since you brought it up, how smart is it to fix something that isn't broken? At present, there are reasons to go for two at judicious times but no compelling reason to do so every time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I'll flip that take a little and ask if it's more or less even, but traditional wisdom had teams always going for two, would you be arguing they start kicking?

[mannc]

How often does this situation arise? And are you going to be the first to forgive your coach for losing a game on an unsuccessful two-point conversion try? Let me guess, you will laud his courage in the face of conventional wisdom; for not bowing to a conformity that says he must. How many times will you cut him that slack? Every time?

 

GO BILLS!!!

It happens maybe 10 times per season, I would guess, and almost invariably, the coach makes the easy call to play for OT and no one thinks twice about it. Whether a team should go for two in that situation will depend on a lot of factors. How good is your kicker? Is he automatic on PATs? Are you playing on the road? Do you have a lot of injuries? How much confidence do you have in your offense or the other team's defense? Do you have a two-point conversion package that you like? What is the weather like? It's not always a good idea to go for two in that situation, but it at least deserves serious consideration, coaches almost never do it, and TV announcers never even discuss the possibility.

 

And to answer your last question, I would never be unhappy with my team's coach if he makes a bold decision to try to win a game and it does not work out, as long as there was strong logic behind the decision. I would be far more upset if my coach just fell back on the conventional wisdom, without thinking things through.

Edited June 17, 2016 by mannc

[birdog1960]

Being cautious does not equate to dumb. But since you brought it up, how smart is it to fix something that isn't broken? At present, there are reasons to go for two at judicious times but no compelling reason to do so every time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

being "cautious" does not often equate to statistical probabilities. if it did, every cautious person would be driving a subaru with the robotic safety features. as it is most don't. there are plenty of $hitty, dangerous cars sold every day.

 

people, businesses and gov't often don't follow what is , in retrospect, the most efficient course. those that dare to predict those courses are generally the most successful.

 

how do you know it isn't broken until somebody moves the goal posts and shows that it is? it's better to move the goal posts than try to adjust to the move.

 

watch them move.

[K-9]

being "cautious" does not often equate to statistical probabilities. if it did, every cautious person would be driving a subaru with the robotic safety features. as it is most don't. there are plenty of $hitty, dangerous cars sold every day.

 

people, businesses and gov't often don't follow what is , in retrospect, the most efficient course. those that dare to predict those courses are generally the most successful.

 

how do you know it isn't broken until somebody moves the goal posts and shows that it is? it's better to move the goal posts than try to adjust to the move.

 

watch them move.

Enough. We are talking 1 point vs. 2 points after a TD. This is not a commentary on the reluctance of coaches to adopt a new trend. As it stands, there is no compelling evidence, statistical or otherwise, to sway them. It just isn't that impactful on the game on an infrequent basis, let alone often.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[birdog1960]

Enough. We are talking 1 point vs. 2 points after a TD. This is not a commentary on the reluctance of coaches to adopt a new trend. As it stands, there is no compelling evidence, statistical or otherwise, to sway them. It just isn't that impactful on the game on an infrequent basis, let alone often.

 

GO BILLS!!!

actually, i think it is exactly that.

 

there will be an outlier coach. and if he's right, he's the next walsh. if he's wrong he's the next....? mediocre wanna be?

Edited June 17, 2016 by birdog1960

[K-9]

actually, i think it is exactly that.

I stand corrected.

 

Good luck with your in depth study of the ramifications of going for 2.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[birdog1960]

I stand corrected.

 

Good luck with your in depth study of the ramifications of going for 2.

 

GO BILLS!!!

no, good luck on roethllsberger. never pinned him for a sharp tool. everything is relative. it's encouraging.

Edited June 17, 2016 by birdog1960

[K-9]

I'll flip that take a little and ask if it's more or less even, but traditional wisdom had teams always going for two, would you be arguing they start kicking?

That's an interesting question. If the take was flipped and we had the same decades worth of data showing the same success rate for 2 point conversions as we do now for 1 point kicks, then yeah, it would be hard to argue against settling for less than that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kirby Jackson]

That's an interesting question. If the take was flipped and we had the same decades worth of data showing the same success rate for 2 point conversions as we do now for 1 point kicks, then yeah, it would be hard to argue against settling for less than that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

That right there is the interesting part to me. The sample size is small but will almost certainly grow. I would be willing to bet anyone on this board, any amount of money, that more than 94 attempts are made this year. That was the number of 2 pt attempts in 2015. The data that we have now absolutely supports going for 2 especially as teams went 94.2% on extra points. The debate is certainly more valid now with the longer extra points. The 1 point percentage is lowering and widening the gap.

 

This is not going to happen overnight though. Someone is going to have to raise the sample size. Not everyone is in position to buck the traditional line of thinking. In 3-5 years either every team will be going for 2 or nobody will be. They will play the percentages.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Kirby Jackson

[K-9]

That right there is the interesting part to me. The sample size is small but will almost certainly grow. I would be willing to bet anyone on this board, any amount of money, that they wish that more than 94 attempts are made this year. That was the number of 2 pt attempts in 2015. The data that we have now absolutely supports going for 2 especially as teams went 94.2% on extra points. The debate is certainly more valid now with the longer extra points. The 1 point percentage is lowering and widening the gap.

 

This is not going to happen overnight though. Someone is going to have to raise the sample size. Not everyone is in position to buck the traditional line of thinking. In 3-5 years either every team will be going for 2 or nobody will be. They will play the percentages.

My main argument is that I don't agree with the idea that coaches are "afraid" to attempt more two-point conversions as some have put forth. There simply has to be more compelling evidence of its positive impact for them to invest in it; more than "more points good, less points bad". There are real commitments to preparation and practice, etc. They may seem insignificant and perhaps they are, but you know coaches.

 

The master of playing the percentages is Belichick and when I see him adopt it as his norm, I'll be fully on board.

 

I agree that making the PAT kick more challenging and seeing the corresponding drop in success rate may be a catalyst for more attempts and that body of data will grow to a point of real value.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Just in Atlanta]

Every TD is extreme, but I would relish any team, ours included, with the guts to be substantially more aggressive on 4th downs, and 2 pt conversions. The problem would be us, the fans. The first game we lose by 1 point, we'd be calling the strategy reckless.

[Mr. WEO]

That right there is the interesting part to me. The sample size is small but will almost certainly grow. I would be willing to bet anyone on this board, any amount of money, that more than 94 attempts are made this year. That was the number of 2 pt attempts in 2015. The data that we have now absolutely supports going for 2 especially as teams went 94.2% on extra points. The debate is certainly more valid now with the longer extra points. The 1 point percentage is lowering and widening the gap.

 

This is not going to happen overnight though. Someone is going to have to raise the sample size. Not everyone is in position to buck the traditional line of thinking. In 3-5 years either every team will be going for 2 or nobody will be. They will play the percentages.

 

 

It really doesn't. The range of success is 0-100%. Only 13 teams were above 50%. The data is so lacking, it's impossible to draw any conclusions from it.

 

The range of success for kicking a PAT is 91-100% for all but the worst 5 kicking teams.