Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Captain Ned
defaultluser wrote:This was not a bad decision? You get the 2 points and you effectively win the game right there. No overtime risk. I've seen far worse decisions burn many teams in the past, so I will not now, nor ever, criticize this kind of risk when it means winning outright (also see Houston this week).The NFC East has become a laughing-stock. The 20-19 loss to the Giants just tells you how stupid the Washington coach was - instead of taking the extra point and sending it into overtime.
defaultluser wrote:I didn't watch, but the rumblings coming out of Dallas now seems to be coaching-focused, and I'm inclined to believe that over trying to blame the semi-competent veteran. Dallas have been one of the best stacked teams talent-wise. but they've been crushed by poor management (coaching + Jones' ego). What's worse is McCarthy took time off (purportedly) studying the game, and THIS is what results? Sorry Mike. You are the same old coach that squandered Aaron's career in GB.And Monday's barn burner was even more boring thanks to Andey. If there is any one QB out there who mes Dak loom effective, it's Dalton.
defaultluser wrote:Never. You win your division, you win a playoff spot. New England's long-term success was built around being the best in a mediocre division, giving them constant playoff experience to handle tough moments (seriously, a "bad" NE year was a 4-2 division record). We've seen #6 seeds make it to the Super Bowl, and I actually think it would be neat to see a team turn a losing record into a Super Bowl appearance because they got good when it mattered.Any chance they will revise their "best of the worst gets in" rule to require the team to have a non-losing record?
superjawes wrote:
This was not a bad decision? You get the 2 points and you effectively win the game right there. No overtime risk. I've seen far worse decisions burn many teams in the past, so I will not now, nor ever, criticize this kind of risk when it means winning outright (also see Houston this week).
superjawes wrote:Dude, you're totally missing the point. Yes, kicking the extra point is a higher probability, but you have no idea whether or not overtime will go your way. A coin toss can basically end OT before it starts (again, see what happened Houston). Ron Rivera chose a path that would have won his team the game while he had control of the ball, just like Romeo Crennel did. It doesn't matter that they both failed. It doesn't matter who they were playing. Had both teams succeeded, we would be celebrating how "gutsy" and "smart" those coaches were for winning the game when they had the chance.
Don't criticize the coaches who take smart risks and fail. Criticize the coaches who take zero risks and lose.
defaultluser wrote:But in this case you are criticizing good coaching decisions! Convert the 2 points and WIN. Immediately. While the game is under your control. That is a GOOD decision. Not a bad one.I criticize poor coaching decisions, you seem to be missing this significance.
defaultluser wrote:There actually is a school of thought where teams should always go for two. Heck, your league-wide data supports it. Even a kicker with 100% PAT conversion will, at best, return 1 point per try. Anything >50% success on 2-point conversions (1.002 for the league) results in more points than kicking. (Oh, and if you plan for 2-point conversions, your chances to convert are better.)By your logic, we should ALWAYS go for two points.
defaultluser wrote:THIS DOESN'T MATTER. Even a good play can go TU on a miscue or coverage mismatch. Even a good team can fail its 2-point try. But we aren't really talking about how good the playbook or team is. We're talking about shifting your win chance to 100% versus 50%. We're talking about kicking away the ball and your control of the game versus winning outright. It's not just about probabilities, but the potential outcomes.THAT ASSUMES YOUR COACHING STAFF HAS A GOOD PLAYBOOK TO RELY ON (not true with either the Giants or Washington)
defaultluser wrote:See, you're missing the impact of that 30% success rate in this situation. It's a 30% chance to win versus a 95% chance to postpone the outcome of the game.So blindly pretending that 2-point conversion success-rate have nothing to do with the team you are playing for is just ignoring the truth. If you have a 30% 2PT success rate then you'd have to be nuts to go with that over taking your chances with overtime.
That was the opposite of "getting it together" against Baltimore... My biggest fear about Rivers was that he was too expensive for what we were getting, and surprise! That's exactly what's up. If he's stuck in the starting position, Jacoby needs a demotion so that Eason can start preparing. 2020 is mostly a bust if we keep playing offense like that, so we might as well get a head start on 2021.My Colts are in an important game against the Ravens. We've lost against worse teams this year, so getting it together against Baltimore is important.