I guess Genius can be lost

[Donn Beach]

for the math crowd i guess its a slam dunk that you always go for two in that situation, I look over the explanation but can't say i understand it. Here, in fact, is an article slamming the Browns for not doing it in 2017.

https://predictivefootball.com/late-and ... touchdown/

[Michael K.]

Sorry, it is dumb. Fine, you want to go for the win? Then go for two at the end....but don't make it harder on yourself. I heard one explanation that maybe Rivera wanted to get to six so that two FGs would tie it. Not sure how he would think they were going to get into range to kick twice, but maybe?

From that article...

For simplicity’s sake, I’ll we’ll make the expected extra point conversion rate at 100% and 2-point conversion rate at 50%. We’ll also assume you score two touchdowns after trailing by 14 and your opponent scores none, and that your chance of winning in overtime is an even 50%.

Seriously? One out of two for two point conversions? I highly doubt that. If that was the case, why not go for two every single time? The worse that can happen is you have 14 points after two TDs!

[Donn Beach]

seems that is about what it is since they moved the PAT back, basically its a wash now, could go for 2 a lot more

It sounds crazy, but the math is actually pretty simple. Since the NFL pushed back the extra point from the 2-yard line to the 15-yard line in 2015, kickers have converted on 94 percent of PAT attempts. Using the 47.7 percent two-point conversion rate since 2001, two-point attempts have a higher point expectancy (.954) than PAT attempts (.94) right from the jump. It's close enough that for some teams -- like the Baltimore Ravens, who employ Justin Tucker -- the conventional wisdom makes more sense. But it's clear that there are some teams that would benefit from going for two most of the time.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/252 ... downs-2018

[D-train]

seems that is about what it is since they moved the PAT back, basically its a wash now, could go for 2 a lot more

It sounds crazy, but the math is actually pretty simple. Since the NFL pushed back the extra point from the 2-yard line to the 15-yard line in 2015, kickers have converted on 94 percent of PAT attempts. Using the 47.7 percent two-point conversion rate since 2001, two-point attempts have a higher point expectancy (.954) than PAT attempts (.94) right from the jump. It's close enough that for some teams -- like the Baltimore Ravens, who employ Justin Tucker -- the conventional wisdom makes more sense. But it's clear that there are some teams that would benefit from going for two most of the time.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/252 ... downs-2018

Problem is using the average for the entire league when your kicker and red zone capabilities likely significantly differ from the average. And probably too small of a sample to just use your own. Seems less stressful and less decision making burden to kick nearly every time.

[Donn Beach]

yeah, that is what he is saying there isn't it...the issue was Riveria doing it, the Analyticals don't even see a grey area, its a slam dunk

[D-train]

yeah, that is what he is saying there isn't it...the issue was Riveria doing it, the Analyticals don't even see a grey area, its a slam dunk

Did Riveria cite the analytics or was he even asked about it?

[Donn Beach]

he is considered an analytical coach, I don't know if he was asked about it, guess he was hammered on social media afterwards, there are a number of articles out there now explaining why it makes sense...

from 538.com

f you’re down 8 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because the difference between being down 7 points (if you make the extra point) and being down 6 points (if you convert the 2) is greater than the difference between being down 7 points and being down 8 points (if you miss the 2-point conversion). Note that this is backed up by the numbers but should also be apparent intuitively. If you’re down 8 points after scoring a touchdown (with 10 minutes left), you should go for 2, because the difference between being down 7 points (if you make the extra point) and being down 6 points (if you convert the 2) is greater than the difference between being down 7 points and being down 8 points (if you miss the 2-point conversion).

[Donn Beach]

here is Rivera explaining it

“Yes, that was purely analytics, 100 percent,” Rivera said, via Jourdan Rodrigue of TheAthletic.com. “The thing is, if you get there and then you score at the end, then you’re kicking to win the game. If you don’t get it there, you get an opportunity to go for two again. We feel pretty good about the play we had called the first time, and we felt good about having the second one up. It’s most certainly something where we went ahead and followed the analytics of it.”

that explanation makes more sense to me now

[Michael K.]

So, if we fail, we have to try it again....or LOSE. Kick both extra points? You go to OT. Sorry, it was stupid. Look at the failure on the first two point attempt and add in the four failed attempts inside the five to score in the end! Yeah, they look like an offense that should put all their eggs in that basket!

[D-train]

here is Rivera explaining it

“Yes, that was purely analytics, 100 percent,” Rivera said, via Jourdan Rodrigue of TheAthletic.com. “The thing is, if you get there and then you score at the end, then you’re kicking to win the game. If you don’t get it there, you get an opportunity to go for two again. We feel pretty good about the play we had called the first time, and we felt good about having the second one up. It’s most certainly something where we went ahead and followed the analytics of it.”

that explanation makes more sense to me now

Yep. I get it.