NFL Week 7

[brian]

All this means is we can now look forward one day to a possible Cooper Rush to Amari Cooper TD.

[The Sybian]

Are we even sure Cooper is still good?

I don't understand how we operate in an NFL where Josh Gordon is a 5th and Amari Cooper is a 1st. I simply don't understand draft pick economy.

4 suspensions for violating controlled substances rules/drunk driving and then whatever he did that pissed off the Browns forcing the trade will greatly reduce your trade value. Gordon has the potential to be the best WR in the league, but it's a big risk to put your faith in the kid.

OTOH, what are the odds of Cooper turning it around this season while learning a new system and working with a new QB on a different team? Is it even possible for him to have an impact this year? Seems like a steal for the Raiders, since they have no chance of making the playoffs now.

[A_B]

I don’t care for booger in game coverage. He’s fine in studio. But live he has to talk too much.

[Pruitt]

Is Schurmur on drugs?

[sancarlos]

[Joe K]

Is Schurmur on drugs?

Are you talking about the 2PC? I like that strategy. Some legendary college football coach, Darrell Royal maybe?, famously won a game by doing that. The theory is that you’re unlikely to fail on two consecutive conversions and that if you convert the first one you can win the game outright. Although when it was first used in college, there was no OT, which adds another wrinkle.

[L-Jam3]

Isn’t that always the play when down 8 late after a TD? Instead of only looking at the downside risk, look also at the upside reward. If successful, a TD and XP puts you ahead late.

[Pruitt]

Is Schurmur on drugs?

Are you talking about the 2PC? I like that strategy. Some legendary college football coach, Darrell Royal maybe?, famously won a game by doing that. The theory is that you’re unlikely to fail on two consecutive conversions and that if you convert the first one you can win the game outright. Although when it was first used in college, there was no OT, which adds another wrinkle.

Yeah I get that, but I can't agree.

Kick the PAT and that option is still on the table for when you score the theoretical next TD.

Miss the 2 pointer and that option is removed. You are now in the position of having to get the 2 points merely to force OT.

Also, the initial comment was written before the Giants did the two straight line plunges from the 2 that effectively burned the remaining time off the clock at the end of the game.

[Rex]

I hoped this was going to be about running the hurry up in the red zone with 1:30 left in the half. Cause like, what's up with that, right?

This guy makes elementary mistakes every week. For someone who supposedly has been in pro football a long time, he doesn't seem to understand how the end of the half works.

[DSafetyGuy]

I don't understand how we operate in an NFL where Josh Gordon is a 5th and Amari Cooper is a 1st. I simply don't understand draft pick economy.

I think part of it is simply that Cleveland is bad at this sort of thing.

It is also possible that Jerry Jones overpaid.

[Brontoburglar]

Is Schurmur on drugs?

Are you talking about the 2PC? I like that strategy. Some legendary college football coach, Darrell Royal maybe?, famously won a game by doing that. The theory is that you’re unlikely to fail on two consecutive conversions and that if you convert the first one you can win the game outright. Although when it was first used in college, there was no OT, which adds another wrinkle.

Yeah I get that, but I can't agree.

Kick the PAT and that option is still on the table for when you score the theoretical next TD.

Miss the 2 pointer and that option is removed. You are now in the position of having to get the 2 points merely to force OT.

Win percentages go up 15 points with the two. The math doesn't agree with you, therefore you are wrong

[Ryan]

What if your players suck?

[Pruitt]

Is Schurmur on drugs?

Are you talking about the 2PC? I like that strategy. Some legendary college football coach, Darrell Royal maybe?, famously won a game by doing that. The theory is that you’re unlikely to fail on two consecutive conversions and that if you convert the first one you can win the game outright. Although when it was first used in college, there was no OT, which adds another wrinkle.

Yeah I get that, but I can't agree.

Kick the PAT and that option is still on the table for when you score the theoretical next TD.

Miss the 2 pointer and that option is removed. You are now in the position of having to get the 2 points merely to force OT.

Win percentages go up 15 points with the two. The math doesn't agree with you, therefore you are wrong

I'm curious about those win percentages that you see all the time now. Are they based on theory, or on actual results?

[sancarlos]

I don't understand how we operate in an NFL where Josh Gordon is a 5th and Amari Cooper is a 1st. I simply don't understand draft pick economy.

I think part of it is simply that Cleveland is bad at this sort of thing.

It is also possible that Jerry Jones overpaid.

Also,supply and demand. Don't know if there were other bidders for Gordon, but supposedly there were multiple bidders for Cooper so it became somewhat of an auction.

[Brontoburglar]

What if your players suck?

then I would make the argument that you should go for two whenever possible

[Brontoburglar]

I'm curious about those win percentages that you see all the time now. Are they based on theory, or on actual results?

both

[mister d]

Eh, is this just raw conversion expectancy or does it take into account team / opponent / weather / etc? Like if the league is running at an 85% clip against Salvador Perez, that doesn't mean everyone should run.

[Brontoburglar]

Eh, is this just raw conversion expectancy or does it take into account team / opponent / weather / etc? Like if the league is running at an 85% clip against Salvador Perez, that doesn't mean everyone should run.

the atlanta defense ain't sal perez

[mister d]

I'd like to see you run some serious numbers here. A simple "this is over 50% so do it" feels like variables are getting ignored.

[Brontoburglar]

I'd like to see you run some serious numbers here. A simple "this is over 50% so do it" feels like variables are getting ignored.

on what? the win percentages of going for two when down 8 or the probability of getting the two?

ETA: Are you referencing Shurmur's 50 percent comment? That's clearly an overstatement (at least in my view)

[mister d]

Probability of success by (factors). My friend was going on about this a week or two ago when some other team either did or didn't go for it.

[Gunpowder]

Is Schurmur on drugs?

Are you talking about the 2PC? I like that strategy. Some legendary college football coach, Darrell Royal maybe?, famously won a game by doing that. The theory is that you’re unlikely to fail on two consecutive conversions and that if you convert the first one you can win the game outright. Although when it was first used in college, there was no OT, which adds another wrinkle.

Yeah I get that, but I can't agree.

Kick the PAT and that option is still on the table for when you score the theoretical next TD.

Miss the 2 pointer and that option is removed. You are now in the position of having to get the 2 points merely to force OT.

Also, the initial comment was written before the Giants did the two straight line plunges from the 2 that effectively burned the remaining time off the clock at the end of the game.

There is no other facet of life where people should act like this. But in football, behavior like this is just unquestioned for some reason.

Let's assume that XPs are 100% and 2pt-ers are 50%. And OT is a 50/50 proposition.

Your odds kicking XPs:

100% to tie and 50% to win in OT, or 50%

Your odds going for two the second time:

All hinges on the 2nd XP, so 50%.

Now, if you kick the XP first, your odds become:

50% to win on the first conversion, then 50% to tie on the 2nd if you miss the first. So you win 50% of the time, go to OT 25% of the time, and win half those OTs. So your new odds are 62.5% win, 37.5% lose. Why procrastinate the 2pt conversion until the end? Essentially, if you're going to go for 2 at the end, you can either give yourself a bit of a mulligan by attempting it on the first one and remaining in the game if you miss, or you can reduce your chances to just the single attempt at the end. It doesn't make any sense at all to kick the xp the first time and go for two the second. I'll argue that if you are just an extremely conservative person, ehhh, ok, kick XPs and hope you win a coin toss. But there is no scenario at all where it makes sense to only go for two after the 2nd TD.

[Gunpowder]

I'd like to see you run some serious numbers here. A simple "this is over 50% so do it" feels like variables are getting ignored.

It NEVER makes sense to go for 2 only after the 2nd TD, under any circumstance.

As for kicking XPs, it would make sense if OT is significantly high or the 2 pt chance you give yourself is significantly low.

ie let's say you think you'll win 75% of overtimes while making 50% of conversion attempts.

You've got a 75% chance kicking XPs, or a 50% + (25% * .75) = 70ish % chance going for two pointers.

[Gunpowder]

Eh, is this just raw conversion expectancy or does it take into account team / opponent / weather / etc? Like if the league is running at an 85% clip against Salvador Perez, that doesn't mean everyone should run.

Unless you've already decided that you are going to run on somebody in this game, and the only decision now is what pitcher to run on. That's more comparable if you are considering going for the winning conversion after the 2nd TD.

And even if you say "this team has an incredible defense", well, you have to face that defense in OT.

Real NFL percentages are about 95% for the XP and 47.5% for the conversions, so the basic math applies. The real negative is that people who don't understand why you did it would make fun of you on Twitter.

[Gunpowder]

What if your players suck?

then I would make the argument that you should go for two whenever possible

Yep - if your team sucks you should create more randomness in the game.

[Gunpowder]

Are we even sure Cooper is still good?

I don't understand how we operate in an NFL where Josh Gordon is a 5th and Amari Cooper is a 1st. I simply don't understand draft pick economy.

If Josh Gordon sleeps through the wrong alarm, he can never play again. It's not right but that's why this is the case. The Browns were going to cut Gordon. The Raiders were never going to cut Cooper.

[Pruitt]

I'd like to see you run some serious numbers here. A simple "this is over 50% so do it" feels like variables are getting ignored.

It NEVER makes sense to go for 2 only after the 2nd TD, under any circumstance.

As for kicking XPs, it would make sense if OT is significantly high or the 2 pt chance you give yourself is significantly low.

ie let's say you think you'll win 75% of overtimes while making 50% of conversion attempts.

You've got a 75% chance kicking XPs, or a 50% + (25% * .75) = 70ish % chance going for two pointers.

A convincing argument.

But I would love to see this shown with numbers based on real game action. Problem with math is that it doesn't always reflect variables like momentum, players involved, time outs remaining, the weather (I know, this was an indoor game, but a full study would take things like that into account).

And you know, if Bellichick had done it, I'd be less inclined to think it was a mistake.

[Pruitt]

Todd Gurley has scored 84 points this season.

The Bills have scored 81.

I'm off to get a drink...

[Brontoburglar]

I'd like to see you run some serious numbers here. A simple "this is over 50% so do it" feels like variables are getting ignored.

It NEVER makes sense to go for 2 only after the 2nd TD, under any circumstance.

As for kicking XPs, it would make sense if OT is significantly high or the 2 pt chance you give yourself is significantly low.

ie let's say you think you'll win 75% of overtimes while making 50% of conversion attempts.

You've got a 75% chance kicking XPs, or a 50% + (25% * .75) = 70ish % chance going for two pointers.

A convincing argument.

But I would love to see this shown with numbers based on real game action. Problem with math is that it doesn't always reflect variables like momentum, players involved, time outs remaining, the weather (I know, this was an indoor game, but a full study would take things like that into account).

And you know, if Bellichick had done it, I'd be less inclined to think it was a mistake.

momentum?

[mister d]

So all that math I get, its the universal application I don't. What I'm saying is, after scoring to go down 8, not all teams should go for two. Maybe the Rams should, but the Cardinals shouldn't, or vice versa. Or neither should because its raining. Or both should because its on turf. Etc ... I get the base math, I don't like the "they're wrong because they didn't / they're right because they did" application of the math. Its individual.

[Pruitt]

So all that math I get, its the universal application I don't. What I'm saying is, after scoring to go down 8, not all teams should go for two. Maybe the Rams should, but the Cardinals shouldn't, or vice versa. Or neither should because its raining. Or both should because its on turf. Etc ... I get the base math, I don't like the "they're wrong because they didn't / they're right because they did" application of the math. Its individual.

Yes, that's what I should have written.

[Gunpowder]

Well, if you're going to go for two after the second score to win, there is no circumstance in which you want to kick the first XP. Either way, you are going for a 2pt conversion. Difference is in one scenario, you lose if you miss it, while in the other scenario you still have a chance. In both scenarios you win if you make the first attempt (assuming, as you have to here, that you score two TDs and the opponent does not score. If they do or you don't, you lose no matter what).

If it's raining during the 2 pt conversion, it's probably raining in overtime and the random effect of weather is spread over an entire quarter instead of just one play. I'll say ok to the "don't universally do this", but really only for rare circumstances like you're a good team with a shitty offense playing another shitty team that has Brock Osweiler playing QB or something like that.

BTW, this theory has been tested on models that use actual previous game information to determine win probability, and they all agree.

I get the base math, I don't like the "they're wrong because they didn't / they're right because they did" application of the math. Its individual.

That's how most NFL teams have thought for years and why people listen to Gruden give answers about how his gut lead him to this decision.

[Gunpowder]

Why would timeouts remaining have any bearing on this?


The only things you need to ask yourself are, 1. what is my chance of making a 2 pt conversion, and 2. what is my chance of winning in OT without knowing how the coin flip is going to go. That's really it. If it's raining, or your players suck, that doesn't change this base reasoning.

And generally, if you're a shitty team, you don't want to stretch the game out. I'd hear an argument for a good team playing it safe than a bad one. But I will not be swayed by any argument suggesting kick first, then go for two, because that is just plain wrong and your players aren't going to change. Most likely the weather won't either, though weather is probably going to affect the XP more than a conversion.

[Gunpowder]

I'm the 2000 Ravens, and I think my chance of winning in OT is 80% if I can get there. Plus, I don't trust Trent Dilfer to spell his own name let alone get a two point conversion (ignoring that he's going to have to drive down the field and score again and also win in OT). Sure, kick XPs.

But in the large majority of situations, you are most likely giving yourself the best chance to win (and also saving a little more wear and tear on your players on a short-week prime time game) by going for two first.

[Brontoburglar]

it's a small factor, but you can also tie the game with two field goals by going for the two (and converting) on the first touchdown

you miss the two, you're still playing for the touchdown like you are when you kick the PAT

[HaulCitgo]

Are we even sure Cooper is still good?

I questioned this as well but the answer is definitely yes.

[HaulCitgo]

And that was BEFORE the 90 yd TD.

[Rex]

This is the best that Dez Bryant has looked in a couple of years

[Joe K]

Are we even sure Cooper is still good?

I questioned this as well but the answer is definitely yes.

IMO, Cooper has probably been the same guy but Derek Carr has been really bad the last couple of years and Dak Prescott is a lot better than he’s perceived to be. I think the idea Dak “regressed” post 2016 is more due to bad coaching and weakening of his supporting cast than anything he was doing worse.