Down 9 and going for 2

deanvogs said:
You are the one claiming there is a mathematical advantage to being down 9 vs 8 because you "know you need two scores". So you explain how you come to that math, how a team can just magically score faster if it just knows it needs to scores twice, instead of hoping they only need one score, but playing as if they need 2 scores.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's better to be down 9 than 8. My god what's wrong with you. I'm saying you are better off knowing early whether you are down 9 points or 7 points.
 
PCHawk said:
If a coach would really hurry up as fast as they can, it's ok. But I've seen a lot of 8 point games where there was not near enough urgency. The article I read referenced a packers game where they were down 15, kicked a PAT, took their time, scored at the end, and missed the 2 point conversion. They had false comfort of thinking they were in a one possession game.
Click to expand...

So at least you realize there is no inherent math advantage to being down 9 vs being down 8. Heck, by your reasoning, the best of both worlds is to take the sure XP, then hurry fast as hell to score again, and then trying for 2 pt conversion, and leaving yourself time to try to score again if need be.
 
PCHawk said:
I'm not saying it's better to be down 9 than 8. My god what's wrong with you. I'm saying you are better off knowing early whether you are down 9 points or 7 points.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think boat and Dean feel offended. Maybe that is my fault for piling on, when you were just explaining things over and over again.

They are just trolling now.
 
This is all under the assumption that the conversion rate of a 2 pt attempt is the same no matter when you take it. If it's the same, then you have to assume you will either make it regardless of when you take it, or you will miss it regardless of when you take it. You can't say "I might miss it here but I might make it there".
 
PCHawk said:
If a coach would really hurry up as fast as they can, it's ok. But I've seen a lot of 8 point games where there was not near enough urgency. The article I read referenced a packers game where they were down 15, kicked a PAT, took their time, scored at the end, and missed the 2 point conversion. They had false comfort of thinking they were in a one possession game.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone has ever said 8 points is a guaranteed 1 possession. But 9 points is always a guaranteed 2 possessions. 100% and with 1 minute left that leaves 0% chance of winning.
 
deanvogs said:
So at least you realize there is no inherent math advantage to being down 9 vs being down 8. Heck, by your reasoning, the best of both worlds is to take the sure XP, then hurry fast as hell to score again, and then trying for 2 pt conversion, and leaving yourself time to try to score again if need be.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is the faster you go, the more risky the drive is. If you go for 2 first, 47% of the time you don't need to risk going super fast.
 
PCHawk said:
They have to be. They won't even concede simple things.
Click to expand...

Speaking of conceding. Do you at least concede now that you can try to score just as fast if you are down 8 vs if you are down 9? That was the whole centerpiece to your theory. That if you just know you need 2 scores, you will somehow score faster. Well if you are a down 8 and play like you are down 2 scores (which you will be in about 50% of the time) that this is better?
 
theboat said:
I don’t think anyone has ever said 8 points is a guaranteed 1 possession. But 9 points is always a guaranteed 2 possessions. 100% and with 1 minute left that leaves 0% chance of winning.
Click to expand...

But it's only 100% 9 points after the miss. Before the miss (which is all that matters) it will be a 7 point game 47% of the time.
 
Man. I only have Super Bowl winning coaches on my side, but you have 2 random posters on your side. I must be trolling.
 
PCHawk said:
The problem with that is the faster you go, the more risky the drive is. If you go for 2 first, 47% of the time you don't need to risk going super fast.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, aren't you the one who just said Boat and I wont concede anything? Well I just laid out to you that you can try to score just as fast being down 8 as you can being down 9, and this is your response? Wow.
 
deanvogs said:
Speaking of conceding. Do you at least concede now that you can try to score just as fast if you are down 8 vs if you are down 9? That was the whole centerpiece to your theory. That if you just know you need 2 scores, you will somehow score faster. Well if you are a down 8 and play like you are down 2 scores (which you will be in about 50% of the time) that this is better?
Click to expand...

No because I just said, there is no point in going faster than you have to. If there is 4 minutes left and you're down 7 because you already went for 2 and made it, you can do running plays and things like that.
 
deanvogs said:
Holy crap, aren't you the one who just said Boat and I wont concede anything? Well I just laid out to you that you can try to score just as fast being down 8 as you can being down 9, and this is your response? Wow.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that response?
 
PCHawk said:
But it's only 100% 9 points after the miss. Before the miss (which is all that matters) it will be a 7 point game 47% of the time.
Click to expand...
Yup and the difference between 8 and 9 is exponentially greater than the difference between 7 and 8 in the world of football. The reward of 7 instead of 8 there doesn’t outweigh the risk of being left with no chance.
 
Why would you go faster than you need to? If you are down 7, take your time because almost 100 percent of the time you tie it with a touchdown. If you are down 9, go super fast because you need 2 scores. If you are down 8, you don't know what to do.
 
theboat said:
Yup and the difference between 8 and 9 is exponentially greater than the difference between 7 and 8 in the world of football. The reward of 7 instead of 8 there doesn’t outweigh the risk of being left with no chance.
Click to expand...

You have no chance if you miss the 2 point conversion, reguardless of when you attempt it.
 
PCHawk said:
What's wrong with that response?
Click to expand...

Your whole theory was based around the fact that you have a better chance to score twice if you just knew you had to score twice and MOVED FASTER because of it. Yet when I say you can move just as fast being up 8 as you can being up 9, you say it is MUCH RISKIER TO MOVE FASTER!!!!

You don't see the irony in this? Actually I should know better, of course you don't see the irony in this, and that is why you have been arguing this for so long. I'm gonna hit the hay at this point, you are being impossible on this one.
 
PCHawk said:
Why would you go faster than you need to? If you are down 7, take your time because almost 100 percent of the time you tie it with a touchdown. If you are down 9, go super fast because you need 2 scores. If you are down 8, you don't know what to do.
Click to expand...

One last response, at least I hope. You move fast when you are down 8 (just like Payton did) because about 50% of the time you are still gonna be behind by two after you score because 1/2 the time you are gonna fail a 2 point conversion. Smart people/coaches understand this. Payton had 43 seconds left to score again if he needed to, because he understood this.
 
PCHawk said:
They have to be. They won't even concede simple things.
Click to expand...

They are just throwing garbage ideas out there, expecting you to work to refute each one.

I think a couple pages ago they realized they were boxing out of their weight class. Now they are content just running around the ring.
 
deanvogs said:
Your whole theory was based around the fact that you have a better chance to score twice if you just knew you had to score twice and MOVED FASTER because of it. Yet when I say you can move just as fast being up 8 as you can being up 9, you say it is MUCH RISKIER TO MOVE FASTER!!!!

You don't see the irony in this? Actually I should know better, of course you don't see the irony in this, and that is why you have been arguing this for so long. I'm gonna hit the hay at this point, you are being impossible on this one.
Click to expand...

It's riskier to move faster. But it's better to take that risk than lose the game by 2 at the end 53% of the times you score.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top