NFL Week 10

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by sabotai

They're certainly making a case for themselves tonight.

Well, maybe not...

[EagleFan]

If the NFL average for two point success is 49%, is it better returns to always go for two?

[Thomkal]

Boy talk about a tale of two halves. The Iupati injury has certainly had its effect, but Carson needs to hold on to the damned ball.

[Radii]

Very nice recovery by Arizona to take control of the game again.

[Solecismic]

This season, the NFL 2-point average is 51%. Over the last eight years, it has been 47%. Range is 40%-51% over that time. Five-year average is 48%.

This season, the extra-point average is 95.0%. Seattle has not missed one.

Pure theory suggests there's a tiny advantage to always going for two. However... teams have only a small number of plays they like to use in these situations, so there might be diminishing returns.

At this point - a shade past half-way through the season, teams have gone 55 times, which is a little below the recent average for the entire season. So teams are going for it more often. Pittsburgh, Chicago and Cleveland seem to be doing this when they don't have to. Most teams aren't.

I don't think it's a good strategy. Just like with college overtime, or baseball extra innings, there's an advantage to forcing your opponent's hand. If they take a risk and fail, you benefit from not having to take that risk.

Let's say your universe is limited to two scores. Team A scores and kicks the extra point. Then you score. Here's what happens.

A: 95% 7 points, 5% 6 points. You score. You choose to kick the extra point and your W-L-T matrix is 5-5-91, more or less.

Instead your opponent scores and goes for 2.

A: 48% 8 points, 52% 6 points. You score. Your strategy is already dictated. You go for 2 if A made it, you kick if A missed.

Now your W-L-T matrix is approximately 49-25-26.

Game theory indicates that you always delay risk as long as possible, when risk is 50/50 or worse.

If you feel your 2pc percentage is much higher than 50%, then you go for it later more frequently. But unless you're around 66-67% on 2pc, you don't go for it early.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

If the NFL average for two point success is 49%, is it better returns to always go for two?

Yes. Everyone should be going for two nearly every time if you have a great offense.

[Thomkal]

whew! Looked like the Seahawks had all the momentum and were on the way to a much needed win last night-thank god Palmer was able to right the ship and put a lock on the division. Big game next Sunday night against CIN-very likely an undefeated Bengals team. Palmer and Grisham no doubt would like to win this one against their old team.

[albionmoonlight]

That's the game the Cards needed to win. Good job by them coming out strong and holding on.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

This season, the NFL 2-point average is 51%. Over the last eight years, it has been 47%. Range is 40%-51% over that time. Five-year average is 48%.

This season, the extra-point average is 95.0%. Seattle has not missed one.

Pure theory suggests there's a tiny advantage to always going for two. However... teams have only a small number of plays they like to use in these situations, so there might be diminishing returns.

At this point - a shade past half-way through the season, teams have gone 55 times, which is a little below the recent average for the entire season. So teams are going for it more often. Pittsburgh, Chicago and Cleveland seem to be doing this when they don't have to. Most teams aren't.

I don't think it's a good strategy. Just like with college overtime, or baseball extra innings, there's an advantage to forcing your opponent's hand. If they take a risk and fail, you benefit from not having to take that risk.

Let's say your universe is limited to two scores. Team A scores and kicks the extra point. Then you score. Here's what happens.

A: 95% 7 points, 5% 6 points. You score. You choose to kick the extra point and your W-L-T matrix is 5-5-91, more or less.

Instead your opponent scores and goes for 2.

A: 48% 8 points, 52% 6 points. You score. Your strategy is already dictated. You go for 2 if A made it, you kick if A missed.

Now your W-L-T matrix is approximately 49-25-26.

Game theory indicates that you always delay risk as long as possible, when risk is 50/50 or worse.

If you feel your 2pc percentage is much higher than 50%, then you go for it later more frequently. But unless you're around 66-67% on 2pc, you don't go for it early.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for gaming it out. I've been wondering about this.

[miami_fan]

Peyton Manning of Denver Broncos has torn plantar fascia in right foot

I am torn in deciding whether this is a excuse or explanation for his bad performance.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

whew! Looked like the Seahawks had all the momentum and were on the way to a much needed win last night-thank god Palmer was able to right the ship and put a lock on the division. Big game next Sunday night against CIN-very likely an undefeated Bengals team. Palmer and Grisham no doubt would like to win this one against their old team.

Palmer refused to play for Cincinnati and then retired instead of playing for them. I was the world's biggest Palmer fan 10 years ago and don't exactly hate him now but it was his choice and not Cincinnati's to not play for them anymore. He did get us Bernard out of the ridiculous Raider trade.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Peyton Manning of Denver Broncos has torn plantar fascia in right foot

I am torn in deciding whether this is a excuse or explanation for his bad performance.

When the body goes, it goes. He'd be wise to walk away after this year.

[jeff061]

Yeah, I'm sure it's probably legit, but he's at the point where it's always going to be something.

[Kodos]

Much as I hate it, it's pretty clear that this is Manning's last season.

[Galaril]

Yes he is done it looks. Kubiak and Elway are no longer hiding the info so they can put Oswelier in there going forward and run the Kubiak offense as they wanted to in the first place. The thoughts around here are that with Oswelier's mobility he is a good fit for this offense. The O line should be improved at least in the run blocking now with two or three TE sets as well as a QB under center more. It better because without a run game the Broncos have zero chance.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Yes he is done it looks. Kubiak and Elway are no longer hiding the info so they can put Oswelier in there going forward and run the Kubiak offense as they wanted to in the first place. The thoughts around here are that with Oswelier's mobility he is a good fit for this offense. The O line should be improved at least in the run blocking now with two or three TE sets as well as a QB under center more. It better because without a run game the Broncos have zero chance.

Maybe my stupid CJ Anderson 2nd round fantasy pick will pan out down the stretch?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

(putting this in the proper thread)

Big week for my beloved Cardinals with first of two Sunday night games in a row. Win and they pretty much control the West. Lose and the floodgates might open with games against Min, Sea again, Cin, GB, Phi, and StL coming up in the weeks ahead.

Landry Jones out with injury in Pittsburgh-Big Ben in and looking good. Pitt better hope he stays healthy-Heath Miller is the emergency QB.

How does the NO defensive coordinator still have a job? Kirk Cousins the latest to look like an elite QB against it-nearly 300 yards passing.

And he no longer has a job

Saints are firing defensive coordinator Rob Ryan | FOX Sports

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Let's say your universe is limited to two scores. Team A scores and kicks the extra point. Then you score. Here's what happens.

A: 95% 7 points, 5% 6 points. You score. You choose to kick the extra point and your W-L-T matrix is 5-5-91, more or less.

Instead your opponent scores and goes for 2.

A: 48% 8 points, 52% 6 points. You score. Your strategy is already dictated. You go for 2 if A made it, you kick if A missed.

Now your W-L-T matrix is approximately 49-25-26.

Game theory indicates that you always delay risk as long as possible, when risk is 50/50 or worse.

If you feel your 2pc percentage is much higher than 50%, then you go for it later more frequently. But unless you're around 66-67% on 2pc, you don't go for it early.

Huh? Game theory says nothing about delaying risk in a true 50/50 scenario, although it does say a lot about not providing your opponent more information than you have (or had when you made a 50/50 decision). Of course you don't go for two when you score late to break up a tie unless you're playing in a Big 12 game, but it's not due to delaying risk it's because the other team can (and will) change how they play. Your scenario is only worth considering if both teams have to declare whether they'll go for two at the time the initial TD is scored - otherwise the advantage goes to the 2nd team not because of any risk factor but because of the additional information they gain before they have to make their decision. There are also undoubtedly other situations where you don't go for 2 because it would make the other team play differently (scoring a TD to go up 7 is the obvious example - kick the XP to go up 8 and the opponent will treat it like a 1-score game when it's really not, but make a 2-pt conversion to go up 9 and they'd hurry up much more and treat it like a 2-score game.) On the flip side the classic example that many weak coaches mess up is scoring a TD when down 15 and opting to kick the XP to "make it a one-score game" when in fact you want to know the answer of whether you make that 50% risk with as much time left as possible.

The real question that you could map out is whether you go for 2 when down 14 late - I argue that you do if your 2-pt rate anywhere close to half of the rate you make XP's*. I'd also argue that going for 2 after scoring an opening TD is worth it, but that's impossible to quantify because there are so many future variables and ripple effects.

And of course, the other argument is that there are certain teams (Oregon under Chip Kelly, Baylor/TCU/etc, maybe the Carolina Panthers, or Patriots/Steelers especially before injuries - although in the Patriots case the chance of a made XP is also higher than 95%) where the 2-pt success rate is well above 50%. I don't disagree with the idea that teams have limited plays for that situation so you don't want to do it all the time, but it's well more than 2-3 plays available. It's not a 4th & 17 where you need to get fancy or exploit one hole, it's effectively a 4th & 2, albeit in a limited area that makes it more difficult than a 4th & 2 at midfield.

As far as last night specifically, the 2-pt conversions had absolutely zero to do with Seattle losing the game. It just would have been a 38-28 or 40-34 loss instead of 39-32. Given the game context going for 2 down 25-23 was absolutely the right decision, regardless how much Cris Collinsworth wants to criticize it after the risk failed. If Seattle had kicked both XP's and been trailing 32-31 from 8:41-the 2:00 warning they would have been getting mercilessly and deservedly mocked (and Andre Ellington very well may have just gone down in bounds instead of scoring the TD to make it 39-31.) You're also supposing that Seattle would have made their first hypothetical 2-pt attempt of the night at a 39-37 scoreline when we already saw them miss their first attempt (and then their 2nd) in the actual scenario that played out.

* - Let's give it a try. Down 14, score a TD with under 2 min left, then score a 2nd TD at time expiry. Scenario A will have a 2-pt attempt on the first TD (50% success rate), Scenario B the standard expected XP/XP response (I'll even up this to a 100% success rate). And I'll toss in a Scenario C where we kick the XP after TD1, but "go for the win" after TD2.

Scenario A1 - made 2-pt after TD1, giving our team a 100% chance to win with a made XP after TD2. 50%W/0%L/0%OT

Scenario A2 - missed 2-pt after TD1, giving our team a 50% chance to tie, and a 50% chance to lose after TD2. 0%W/25%L/25%OT, thus giving the team that went for 2 a W/L/T matrix of 50/25/25, or a 62.5% chance of winning.

Scenario B - made XP after both TD's, giving our team a 0/0/100 matrix and exactly a 50% chance to win.

Scenario C - made XP after TD1, went for 2 TD2, giving our team a 50/50/0 matrix and again exactly a 50% chance to win.

So in this example, clearly "taking a risk" and going for 2 early is the best play. If you factor in a less than 100% XP conversion rate, it only becomes more so (and it also makes Scenario C more valuable than B).

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

What the hell happened to the Packers? I'm trying to remember a team that has gone from favorite to playing this bad over the span of a few weeks

PING: Denver

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Saints are firing defensive coordinator Rob Ryan | FOX Sports

Looks like I have to correct myself here. Ryan somehow still has a job at this hour. Someone who does not however is:

Rams name Case Keenum starting QB vs. Ravens - NFL.com

I think we can say that Bradford for Foles trade was pretty much a bust. And unless Keenum shines, I think we can add Fisher to the unemployment block.

Oh meant to say this when I saw Edelman was injured...Wes Welker came back one week too soon (to STL), Wonder if he asks for his release now given that injury.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

What the hell happened to the Packers?

Jinx? Packers 0-3 since Mike Ditka wore Green Bay sweater - Chicago Bears Blog - ESPN

[Solecismic]

Bishop, once you know your opponent's total, you can use 2pc to your advantage in catching up in this type of situation. What I'm talking about is using 2pc to establish the lead. We're both showing essentially the same analysis.

Late in the game, there are nuances in the 2pc chart. In the case of Seattle's second 2pc, was staying at +4 due to the missed 2pc worth the advantage they would have received by getting to +5 with the XP rather than +6?

I thought about this, and I think no. But it's not the worst decision ever made because +6 + FG is a two-score game while +5 + FG isn't. And if you think you have a significantly better than 50% chance on a 2pc, you can use that to your advantage specifically in late-game situations.

[Thomkal]

hey guess what? The Saints really have fired Rob Ryan:

Saints fire Rob Ryan following defensive meltdown - NFL.com

[EagleFan]

Game over regardless, either incomplete or fumble.

[rowech]

Really crappy game plan by the Bengals and Eifert couldn't catch or block tonight.

[rowech]

AJ Green fumbles way too much.

[Radii]

And then there were two. 2003 Super Bowl rematch please.

[PilotMan]

Bengals lost. Today was a good day.

[Butter]

For whatever reason, they refuse to line up in an I-formation and let Jeremy Hill run the ball. Really has been going on all year, but could have helped quite a bit last night.

That was truly the Primetime Bengals showing up last night. The same effort they had against the Browns when they were blown out last year at home. That will continue to be the difference between the Bengals and the truly elite teams. Even when it looked like Dalton might be able to lead the comeback, Green has a key fumble. As someone else said, for an elite playmaker he sure does fumble a lot.

[PilotMan]

[JPhillips]

I find the Bengals nationally televised collapses inexplicable. How does the whole offense fall apart game after game, year after year? It isn't as simple as Dalton stinking, the whole offense collapses. I've never seen a team so consistently good in non-natioanlly televised games be so bad when the spotlight falls on them.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

If this was last season, Stanton would have injured himself on that.

[Thomkal]

Update on Rae Carruth's son:

Ex-NFL player Rae Carruth hired hit man to be sure this baby was - WBTV 3 News, Weather, Sports, and Traffic for Charlotte, NC

[Thomkal]

Cowboys release Weeden, make room for Romo | ProFootballTalk

Guessing this will be the last we see of Weeden unless Romo gets hurt again.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I find the Bengals nationally televised collapses inexplicable. How does the whole offense fall apart game after game, year after year? It isn't as simple as Dalton stinking, the whole offense collapses. I've never seen a team so consistently good in non-natioanlly televised games be so bad when the spotlight falls on them.

Dalton wasn't even really that bad in this one. He had one bad throw deep, but the Texans were all over the receivers. I think it was a bad game plan though, because there is no excuse for the Bengals to not be able to make hay against that defense. The Eifert drops and the penalties were killer. The one dropped at the 12 yard line on 3rd down early in the game was a huge, huge one. Defense looked ok, but letting Yates throw that TD pass was just bad. Really no excuses for the receivers not to be open against that secondary.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

this will be the last we see of Weeden

edited for brevity, clarity

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Bishop, once you know your opponent's total, you can use 2pc to your advantage in catching up in this type of situation. What I'm talking about is using 2pc to establish the lead. We're both showing essentially the same analysis.

For late leads, yes, but I do think that going for 2 at 6-0 in the first quarter is an open question (and one that can't be answered with pure math). It's some combination of time left, plus the probable number of scores, not just simply (is chance of 2-pt > .5 chance of XP).

I still don't understand why they moved the 2-pt conversion line up a yard, but the numbers still appear so close that I really do think it's just personal preference about risk taking. I'd certainly be going for 2 almost any time in a Baylor/TCU game, and if the Patriots had a worse kicker I wonder if Belichick might be more aggressive since he's shown a willingness to pursue unconventional, "riskier" strategies like going for 4th & short deepcin our territory despite the PR backlash if it fails.

[Logan]

One year suspension for Aldon Smith for an August 28th "incident".

Who could have guessed?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Update on Rae Carruth's son:

Ex-NFL player Rae Carruth hired hit man to be sure this baby was - WBTV 3 News, Weather, Sports, and Traffic for Charlotte, NC

Can't believe this piece of garbage is getting out soon-the father, not the son obv.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by stevew

Can't believe this piece of garbage is getting out soon-the father, not the son obv.

Yeah I was surprised he was getting out at all.

[Thomkal]

The Manziel "era" has begun in Cleveland:

Browns to start Johnny Manziel at QB for rest of season - NFL.com

[stevew]

Sad that it took them 10+ weeks to figure this out. Not saying he's going to be a star, but you gotta give him a look. They also missed out on a chance to trade McCown for a late round pick probably.

[sabotai]

Victor Cruz placed on IR, he's going to have calf surgery that will keep him out the rest of the year, so no comeback this year. The football gods give the Giants Cruz and Beckham Jr, only to give us Giants fans all of 90 minutes in 2 years of them being on the field at the same time.

[BillJasper]

Charlie Batch’s 186-yard, two-pick game has ESPN’s best QBR ever | ProFootballTalk

[Julio Riddols]

The pickings couldn't get any riper for a no nonsense sports channel that covers events objectively and analyzes things with as little hyperbole as possible. Give me 50% highlight shows with 90% highlights, bring back the odd, obscure sports from all over the globe and make 25% of your programming in off peak hours this kind of stuff. Give me hosts with personalities that aren't built around controversy and stirring up shit. The other 25% of the programming can be stuff like 30 for 30 and special interest stories about sports history. If there was a network out there that just brought back what made ESPN great in its heyday, then I think the audience would certainly be there.

I kind of feel like 99% of the reason anyone loses passion for a sport is the way the media sensationalizes everything now looking for a story or some kind of divisive or controversial opinion to air. Its grating, and it eats into the fabric of what makes sports sports. It is a competition, not a beauty contest. Let the sports govern themselves and let the people decide what they think without you putting words in their mouth. Let the news papers and news channels handle the news and you just tell us what happened today on the field.

And that will mark the end of my strange rant.

[stevew]

Eh, it's the "why don't they show vids on MTV" argument. If they cover games and events like that without packaging them, I'm sure people will tune out unless their particular team is on.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Charlie Batch’s 186-yard, two-pick game has ESPN’s best QBR ever | ProFootballTalk

Maybe that's why Batch was so great in FOF 2.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

The pickings couldn't get any riper for a no nonsense sports channel that covers events objectively and analyzes things with as little hyperbole as possible. Give me 50% highlight shows with 90% highlights, bring back the odd, obscure sports from all over the globe and make 25% of your programming in off peak hours this kind of stuff. Give me hosts with personalities that aren't built around controversy and stirring up shit. The other 25% of the programming can be stuff like 30 for 30 and special interest stories about sports history. If there was a network out there that just brought back what made ESPN great in its heyday, then I think the audience would certainly be there.

I kind of feel like 99% of the reason anyone loses passion for a sport is the way the media sensationalizes everything now looking for a story or some kind of divisive or controversial opinion to air. Its grating, and it eats into the fabric of what makes sports sports. It is a competition, not a beauty contest. Let the sports govern themselves and let the people decide what they think without you putting words in their mouth. Let the news papers and news channels handle the news and you just tell us what happened today on the field.

And that will mark the end of my strange rant.

Without the hype you end up with ratings that look like PBS rather the FXNC.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

The pickings couldn't get any riper for a no nonsense sports channel that covers events objectively and analyzes things with as little hyperbole as possible. Give me 50% highlight shows with 90% highlights, bring back the odd, obscure sports from all over the globe and make 25% of your programming in off peak hours this kind of stuff. Give me hosts with personalities that aren't built around controversy and stirring up shit. The other 25% of the programming can be stuff like 30 for 30 and special interest stories about sports history. If there was a network out there that just brought back what made ESPN great in its heyday, then I think the audience would certainly be there.

I kind of feel like 99% of the reason anyone loses passion for a sport is the way the media sensationalizes everything now looking for a story or some kind of divisive or controversial opinion to air. Its grating, and it eats into the fabric of what makes sports sports. It is a competition, not a beauty contest. Let the sports govern themselves and let the people decide what they think without you putting words in their mouth. Let the news papers and news channels handle the news and you just tell us what happened today on the field.

And that will mark the end of my strange rant.

I don't just direct this to you but to everyone. When exactly was the ESPN heyday? I can remember the days of George Grande and Tom Mees and people have been bitching about ESPN for most of that time.

[EagleFan]

lol, I think they edited that last bit with the quarterback selections. Sounded like Mariota's name was pronounced correctly in that one.