OT: MNF KC vs. LV

[Nehalem]

Because Bill is not nuts. At 30 - 30 youre still in the game headed to OT if nobody scores again in regulation.

You take the PAT, tie it up and put the game on KC's latest Kicker who already missed one.

I think its funny people who get so upset at coaches going for 2 to win vs going for 1 to tie(and OT) at the end of the game.

If we assume that the chances of winning in OT are ~50/50. Then there is basically 0 statistical difference in chances of win in going for 2 vs going for 1+OT.

In this case considering that LV was the underdog they probably increased their chance of winning by going for 2.

At the very least going for 2 decreases injury risk

 

[upstater1]

I think its funny people who get so upset at coaches going for 2 to win vs going for 1 to tie(and OT) at the end of the game.

If we assume that the chances of winning in OT are ~50/50. Then there is basically 0 statistical difference in chances of win in going for 2 vs going for 1+OT.

In this case considering that LV was the underdog they probably increased their chance of winning by going for 2.

At the very least going for 2 decreases injury risk

Your math is off.

You have to tie the game first to get to 50/50.

You don't "win" the game by converting the 2.

 

[upstater1]

There was also enough time on the clock in last night's game to make up for failing the conversion, and they did ultimately get (and squander) that opportunity.

But, they would've had that opportunity if they kicked the extra point as well. And another opportunity in OT

 

[Nehalem]

Your math is off.

You have to tie the game first to get to 50/50.

You don't "win" the game by converting the 2.

For simplicity

Assume TD scored as time expiries so we can neglect anything else that occurs in regulation + or -

Assume 50/50 chance of winning in OT, ~100% of XP, ~50% of 2pt. (In actuality the chances of XP or 2pt are both slightly lower

So

(1) Go for XP resulting in ~50% chance of winning in OT
(2) Go for 2 resulting in ~50% chance of winning in regulation

People are basically making a big deal quibbling over fractions of % in the difference between making an XP/2 vs going for 2pt conversion. Last time I checked the full math slightly favored the 2pt conversion actually.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

The other side to all this is that even in best case scenario you convert the 2 pt conversion. Then everything becomes 4 down territory for kc and they just need a fg with 4 minutes left and Mahomes in need to score mode. It just doesn’t make sense to me either way to take the gamble. If there’s 10 seconds left, maybe.

 

[Jim Beankie]

Didn't realize Belichick was coaching the raiders last night. The fact that you say blame Belichick when people like you were probably whining when they didn't go for it on 4th against the packers is rich.

It was said tongue in cheek (I forget I need to indicate sarcasm almost all the time in this place), although the evidence provided in the article is compelling that BB started the "trend." I'm massively risk averse, though, and would almost always kick for the XP in the LV/KC scenario.

For the Pats/Pack game, are you talking about the OT drive? Then no on 4th and 5. If they got a couple of yards on 3rd down and were at 4th and 2 at the GB43? Tough call. I'd lean yes.

 

[Jim Beankie]

What are the analytics on getting fired at your 2nd NFL head coaching job?

Seems like there are a lot of re-retreads out there, with Pumped and Jacked being the patron saint being a SB winner. This is McD's last shot though unless he comes back to the Pats and wins the "Succession" games.

 

[Froob]

Nearly won means they lost. No such thing as "nearly won".

You can't just go by the result though on whether it was a good call or not. I'm far from an analytics junkie, but it was a decent play call and they very nearly had it. The biggest issue was not getting in range for the field goal. They should have just ran and spiked it on fourth down.

 

[Triumph]

I think its funny people who get so upset at coaches going for 2 to win vs going for 1 to tie(and OT) at the end of the game.

If we assume that the chances of winning in OT are ~50/50. Then there is basically 0 statistical difference in chances of win in going for 2 vs going for 1+OT.

In this case considering that LV was the underdog they probably increased their chance of winning by going for 2.

At the very least going for 2 decreases injury risk

Upset?

I would be if BB ever made such a stupid mistake like Josh Harbaugh. Over the last 22 years can you show us 1 example where BB had the chance to tie the game up in the 4th, but rolled the dice and went for 2? Talk about a 50 - 50 shot and career suicide.

What are the odds of winning in KC up by 1 point with over 4 minutes left? HAHAHA 50 - 50? No, they suck since Mahomes has been the QB. I want to be tied up and to have KCs shaky Kicker with the game on the line.

 

[Triumph]

Something else to consider.

A 2 point conversion fumble or INT can be returned by the defense for a Safety.

 

[varjao]

The Raiders started the game playing very physical and they got a 17-0 lead and allowed the Chiefs to comeback, that's a bigger point in my opinion. Ok you're playing KC, in KC, but still..

After that terrible roughing the passer call on Chris Jones the Chiefs went on a mission, that's a very good team, one thing I notice as someone who likes to bet on overs and QBs passing yards over, their offense has changed, not sure it's because Tyreek Hill left but they are working on short passes and in consequence their drives are getting longer, at some point in the past it was working against them the fact Mahomes was getting TD's with 2 minutes drives. Sometimes you have to control the clock and get the other D out of gas. Eyes on the Chiefs.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Josh McD will be available as an OC sooner than later...again. Colts?

 

[XLIX]

I think its funny people who get so upset at coaches going for 2 to win vs going for 1 to tie(and OT) at the end of the game.

If we assume that the chances of winning in OT are ~50/50. Then there is basically 0 statistical difference in chances of win in going for 2 vs going for 1+OT.

That's why I say if you're the underdog, if you're the worse team and especially if you're the underdog on the road, you should go for 2 - because your chances of winning in OT are not 50/50.

 

[oldrover]

Asked a Raider fan buddy if they should have kicked instead of going for 2. He said, "Hell... yes."

I took liberties in relaying his response to you... his actual language was a little more colorful.

 

[Triumph]

Asked a Raider fan buddy if they should have kicked instead of going for 2. He said, "Hell... yes."

I took liberties in relaying his response to you... his actual language was a little more colorful.

I do not recall BB ever not kicking and tying the game right there. It's one thing if your Kicker is having a bad night or hurt.

The Raiders Kicker is money. The Chiefs are in Kicker hell.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Josh is looking really bad right now. Total implosion. I said it before and I'll say it again, Mark Davis should seriously consider pulling the plug before it gets worse if they have a losing season.