Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

I'm surprised Reid doesn't go for two more often... it's another chance to throw the ball.

Seriously, whenever I hear the only excuse as "That's just the way they do it", it just sounds like someone is taking either the stubborn or safe way out.

You're completely guessing they've payed tons of researchers to do this. There's no info to go off of about how successful they'd be if they did do it early.

Your argument is just strange though. You said it's b/c of the chart, but they're going against the chart in many instances. That doesn't add up.

Who is using the "that's just the way they do it" excuse other than you, though?

I'm telling you that chart represents the end result of mathematical averages that will win you more games if you follow it over time.

You're suggesting everyone is doing it wrong and they should try some other way instead.

The way they handle the chart is more rational than most other aspects of sports.

In baseball, for instance, why insert a closer in the last inning? I mean, theoretically it doesn't matter when the closer comes in to pitch a scoreless inning or when Alfoneco gives up 5 runs, so why didn't the Phillies just insert Brett Myers in the 4th inning with no outs and 2 on and let Alfonseca give up his 5 runs later in the game?

By the way, I'm of the mind that teams should go for it on 4th down much, much more than they do.

That's a different matter for me.

By the way, I'm of the mind that teams should go for it on 4th down much, much more than they do.

That's a different matter for me.

f-d, you're missing the point. I'm asking why do they throw out the chart, just when it's early? They're the ones going by the chart, then deciding when not to all of a sudden. That's what we find odd. That's why it doesn't make sense.

BTW, I didn't say everyone is doing it wrong. I think what people are asking here, is why precious chart gets thrown out at times.

f-d, you're missing the point. I'm asking why do they throw out the chart, just when it's early? They're the ones going by the chart, then deciding when not to all of a sudden. That's what we find odd. That's why it doesn't make sense.

I think you're misunderstanding how they use the glorious chart.

The deal is basically this:

- Going for 2 points is a statistically losing proposition, so going for one is "always" the right play.

- They simply use the chart later in games because it's worked out the probabilities in advance for them for when it's worth risking a losing proposition because you only stand to gain and not to lose.

I'm honestly confused what doesn't make sense. it seems like your whole argument against the way they are currently doiugn things is based on the fact that you personally believe teams could get their 2 conversion rates over 50% with practice.

Ok, forget it. This is a circular argument in which we are talking past each other.

I don't know if we're talking past each other, but we certainly aren't making progress.

Yeah, I don't think you're getting my main points, and it looks like you're not happy with my responses to yours, so I'll just focus on the important fights, like crab cakes or won tons for appetizers

Crab cakes!

bass, would you say the same thing if you knew that 73% of wedding attendees prefer wontons?

Yes - but I'd be under the mindset of "if they don't like the food, they can go to Wendy's".

Of course, that's why that responsibility was taken from me...

Won tons are the 1 pt conversions of appetizers.

Interesting NY Times article (not necessarily about doing it early, though.

NE Patriots to start going for 2-point conversions in the 1st quarter...

I don't disagree with anything in that article.
Going for 2 at the end of the game when an extra point would send it into overtime is strictly a coach's call and I can understand the logic behind rolling the dice or taking overtime.

I also agree that the reasoning for not using the chart early in games is sound and that's what most teams do.

It's interesting that teams are succeeding on a higher clip now, but these things ebb and flow. I'm sure that if teams started going for them more often Defenses would start spending more time on them and the % would come back own once more.

Interesting article from the traitorous NY Times, though.

Pinko commie rag

I'm sure that if teams started going for them more often Defenses would start spending more time on them and the % would come back own once more.

Maybe, who knows if we'll ever know. A few posts ago you said we'd never know if they could get to 50%.

But, this certainly doesn't prove anything about the validity of going for it early. I just thought it was an interesting article.

The 50% number was historically...the NFL is still well under 50% since they introduced the 2 point conversion.

From the sound of it they were above 50% for the first 2 seasons the NFL allowed 2 point conversions and teams started attempting them "too much", which led to defenses figuring some things out and getting ahead of the offenses. The % dropped below 50 for the next decade as teams barely ever tried them and now that defenses don't have to spend much time working on it, it sounds like the % is going back up.

Sounds like we've already seen this play out once before.

I'm just saying that we need more time to justify that as being the reason. I'm not discounting it, but sometimes associations are made that aren't correct. Maybe bad teams were attempting more and that brought the number down. Things like that. Since these case are such small sample sizes, you can't just look at one reason without any research and say "That's it". We've been down that road before with crime statistics.

It could be an incorrect association, but it's the most logical one...it's football 101.

Teams prepare for what they expect to see. If they don't see it, they don't prepare as much. If they don't prepare as much, they are more susceptible to it.

If offenses start picking up on this trend and going for 2 week in and week out, it'll revolutionize the league for about 2 weeks and get shut down again as the defenses counter.

And other times, teams prepare their asses off, and get their ass handed to them. That happens just as much.

I'm allowing for it to just be a case of defenses. I think it's likely there are a lot of other factors going on, since it changes so much. You seem to be steadfast and now allow for anything else.

But, it could also be a case of horrible teams try it more often, teams with amazing red zone d's have many attempts against them. Things like that. I tend to think there are a lot of reasons for things like this. I mean, we're talking about something where a couple attempts swings the whole percentage either way. I think that makes it hard to pinpoint what one reason is, that's all.

Ok, case in point: conversions went up each year from 2000-2002. By your theory, defenses would see more and more of them, and the % would go down, right? That didn't happen. Each of those years, the % went up.

Ok, case in point: conversions went up each year from 2000-2002. By your theory, defenses would see more and more of them, and the % would go down, right? That didn't happen. Each of those years, the % went up.

Did the number of conversions go up or the conversion %? If the percentage went up, did it eclipse 50%?

I'm just stating the most likely solution that fits all the criteria here. I don't know if it's right, but it's a fairly simple solution that makes sense given the NFL and how it works.

My guess based on the facts we have is if the % stays above 50% for some time, teams will be attempting more 2 point conversions. My second guess is once teams start doing that, defenses will spend more time coming up with specific defenses to stop it, the % will go down, and teams will go back into their shells with 2 point conversions for a while.

Just a guess, but it seems like the best explanation to me...that's all. The alternative explanation seems to be "it could be anything", which is accurate but not very compelling.

1 2  3