Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 179
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    No, it's not inevitable. TD+2P ties the game, and then you don't need a 3-and-out, because there's always overtime.

    Also people act like FGs are automatic; they are not. So if you opt for the FG there's like a 4% chance you lose right there.
    What the BA and another poster was arguing (and then forgot he was doing it, 'cause that's the attention span of a 10-year-old) is that the higher reward in going for it should justify the big risk-taking. Well if we're taking the 3-and-out off the table, the highest possible reward in making the TD and the 2-point is maybe not losing the game in regular time, while the highest possible reward in taking the FG and trying for the 3-and-out is winning the game.

    Sure, FGs aren't automatic. Crosby has missed 2 times in his career from the 20-29 range, so that's roughly a 98% chance right there, and made 100% of his FGs for the season. Those are still pretty good odds.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    20,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrei00 View Post
    What the BA and another poster was arguing (and then forgot he was doing it, 'cause that's the attention span of a 10-year-old) is that the higher reward in going for it should justify the big risk-taking. Well if we're taking the 3-and-out off the table, the highest possible reward in making the TD and the 2-point is maybe not losing the game in regular time, while the highest possible reward in taking the FG and trying for the 3-and-out is winning the game.

    Sure, FGs aren't automatic. Crosby has missed 2 times in his career from the 20-29 range, so that's roughly a 98% chance right there, and made 100% of his FGs for the season. Those are still pretty good odds.
    There is no high or low risk, high or low reward. The only reward is to win the game. Going for it in this situation under these circumstances would have given the better likelihood to win.

    Maybe you shouldn't make fun of someone's BA when you seemingly have little to no knowledge of probability theory.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    There is no high or low risk, high or low reward. The only reward is to win the game. Going for it in this situation under these circumstances would have given the better likelihood to win.

    Maybe you shouldn't make fun of someone's BA when you seemingly have little to no knowledge of probability theory.
    Which is what I disagreed with, in the first place. The model is clearly not perfectly built in this case, which is what I've tried over and over to argue. But at this point I'm tired, I have no knowledge of probability theory nor a BA to fall back on, so I must concede.

    Good day!

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrei00 View Post
    Which is what I disagreed with, in the first place. The model is clearly not perfectly built in this case, which is what I've tried over and over to argue. But at this point I'm tired, I have no knowledge of probability theory nor a BA to fall back on, so I must concede.

    Good day!
    No, you said that there was no difference between needing a 3 and out vs. stopping a field goal. THAT was the basis of everything which eventually led to talking about rewards and MOST OPTIMAL (yeah, I said it) paths.

    Because your idiotic take was getting shredded, you tried to push the idea that both scenarios required a 3 and out for a chance to win (wrong) while also shifting gears to correcting language and grammar.

    Now we’re all several pages more stupid because of it. Concede away.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    No, you said that there was no difference between needing a 3 and out vs. stopping a field goal. THAT was the basis of everything which eventually led to talking about rewards and MOST OPTIMAL (yeah, I said it) paths.

    Because your idiotic take was getting shredded, you tried to push the idea that both scenarios required a 3 and out for a chance to win (wrong) while also shifting gears to correcting language and grammar.

    Now we’re all several pages more stupid because of it. Concede away.
    I did. After you claimed that having to defend the FG instead of a 3-and-out as the deciding factor and advantage to going for it. And, no, they are not comparable. Defending a slant on 3rd & 2 vs defending a hitch route on 3rd & 10 is not easier or harder, they are both different degrees of difficult. But we can stop trying, your little brain will never get to grasp the concept, and there really is no need to anymore.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bethlehem
    Posts
    42,494
    The only thing I learned from that banter was that Epstein didn’t kill himself.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Blades View Post
    I don't consider Brand New indie. I consider them ****ing awesome and don't belong to a genre.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    10,145
    Quote Originally Posted by koldjerky View Post
    The only thing I learned from that banter was that Epstein didn’t kill himself.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I used to love Welcome Back, Kotter.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrei00 View Post
    I did. After you claimed that having to defend the FG instead of a 3-and-out as the deciding factor and advantage to going for it. And, no, they are not comparable. Defending a slant on 3rd & 2 vs defending a hitch route on 3rd & 10 is not easier or harder, they are both different degrees of difficult. But we can stop trying, your little brain will never get to grasp the concept, and there really is no need to anymore.
    I said it was a major difference - a big factor. Not the deciding factor. Reading comprehension.

    The only reason we got into the back and forth is because you were trying to dismiss it as a non-factor or not that big of a difference. That's why we got into the 10 yards vs. 60. Then later, you said you can't compare them because of situation.

    The exact thing QB_Eagles said is what I was saying, except for the whole 'reward' thing, but I think what both I and crewfan were saying is that one gives you a better chance to win, hence, the 'higher reward' so to speak. Rather than counter the actual point, you zeroed in on terminology, because that's typically what imbeciles do when they can't deal with being wrong. And then, repeatedly said, "A 3-and-out is required for both scenarios."

    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  9. #114
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    I said it was a major difference - a big factor. Not the deciding factor. Reading comprehension.

    The only reason we got into the back and forth is because you were trying to dismiss it as a non-factor or not that big of a difference. That's why we got into the 10 yards vs. 60. Then later, you said you can't compare them because of situation.

    The exact thing QB_Eagles said is what I was saying, except for the whole 'reward' thing, but I think what both I and crewfan were saying is that one gives you a better chance to win, hence, the 'higher reward' so to speak. Rather than counter the actual point, you zeroed in on terminology, because that's typically what imbeciles do when they can't deal with being wrong. And then, repeatedly said, "A 3-and-out is required for both scenarios."

    Did you even read my post? I said the most OPTIMAL path for winning is a 3 and out for both scenarios, but that completing the 4th and 2pt conversion DOES NOT REQUIRE a 3 and out to win the game.
    That's your quote. If the most optimal path for both would involve a 3-and-out, but a 3-and-out is not required for one of the cases, that makes it the deciding factor, mr. BA.

    Don't bring up stuff like imbecility and reading comprehension when you can't even keep up your train of thought for more than 10 minutes. I know you're confused by the whole thing, but the solution is not to insult.

    And no, reward =/= chance to win. The highest possible reward for both cases is the same. Which is the win. But go ahead and say 'rEaDiNg CoMpReHeNsIoN' once again.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    11,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    This is the point of contention.

    • If you miss the field goal, you need a 3 and out.
    • If you fail the 4th and goal, you need a 3 and out.


    So worst possible scenario is that you still need a 3 and out.

    Whereas best possible scenario:

    • If you make the field goal, you STILL NEED A 3 AND OUT.
    • If you convert the 4th and goal and 2pt conversion, you don't need a 3 and out.


    At the end of the day, the only way to avoid needing a 3 and out is to convert the 4th and goal + 2pt try. It's not like the Packers have an elite HOF defense either.

    Calling it a terrible decision is not the same as calling it illogical. I get the reasoning - I just think that it is low risk low reward vs low risk high reward. Even if the Packers convert the 4th and goal and fail on the 2pt try, they're within a field goal to win the game if they get the 3-and-out. So even a 4th and goal conversion + failed 2pt is better than just a made field goal.
    The only way this works is if kicking a chip shot field goal is equally as difficult versus scoring a TD against the 5th best D in the league. A defense that held Rodgers to 16/35 for 160 and 0 TDs 2 INTs earlier in the season.

    The likelihood of Rodgers converting on 4th down was sub 10%.


    Ranked from most likely to least likely:

    1. Kick the field goal, don't get the ball back, lose
    2. Kick the field goal, get the ball back, win
    3. Kick the field goal, Brady throws a pick 6 on the next play, but then gets the ball back and scores again
    4. Fake the field goal and have Favre catch the pass
    5. Kick the field goal, Tampa muffs the kickoff return, safety
    6. Rodgers converts to score the TD and whiffs on the 2pc
    7. Rodgers converts to score the TD and makes the 2pc
    Last edited by Bullseyed; 01-27-2021 at 05:43 PM.
    Dak: 17,634 @ 66.0%, 7.7 per att, 106+24 TD, 40 INT+34 FMB, 97.3 Rate
    Wentz: 16,811 @ 62.7%, 6.7 per att, 113+8 TD, 50 INT+58 FMB, 89.2 Rate

    Quote Originally Posted by manbearchef View Post
    I'll eat a shoe if BB is still coaching in 5 years.
    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    Sticking to traditions:

    IF Wentz is a Philadelphia Eagle in 2021, he will be the starter. If not, bye bye PSD, I'll leave.
    "Hater" is a term used by weak minded people in the face of legitimate criticism.
    -Scott van Pelt

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrei00 View Post
    That's your quote. If the most optimal path for both would involve a 3-and-out, but a 3-and-out is not required for one of the cases, that makes it the deciding factor, mr. BA.
    There is no single deciding factor for going for the 4th and goal. There are multiple factors. Not needing a 3-and-out is just a big one. We've already been over them.

    I don't know if it's your reading comprehension or if you're just severely on tilt, but you create a strawmen with every point and here we are.

    Don't bring up stuff like imbecility and reading comprehension when you can't even keep up your train of thought for more than 10 minutes. I know you're confused by the whole thing, but the solution is not to insult.
    Says the guy who kept saying both scenarios required a 3-and-out to have a chance to win.

    And no, reward =/= chance to win. The highest possible reward for both cases is the same. Which is the win. But go ahead and say 'rEaDiNg CoMpReHeNsIoN' once again.
    Again, crewfan and I were saying that it provided the best chance to win. We called it a "higher reward". If you want to be dense and scream about terminology then do you. Pretty sure others understood our point, which you conveniently ignore.

    I accept your concession. You've conceded to me once, and then QB (who illustrated my same point), so I think this entire thing has run its course. I'll let you have the last word, my dude. GG
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  12. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullseyed View Post
    The only way this works is if kicking a chip shot field goal is equally as difficult versus scoring a TD against the 5th best D in the league. A defense that held Rodgers to 16/35 for 160 and 0 TDs 2 INTs earlier in the season.

    The likelihood of Rodgers converting on 4th down was sub 10%.


    Ranked from most likely to least likely:

    1. Kick the field goal, don't get the ball back, lose
    2. Kick the field goal, get the ball back, win
    3. Kick the field goal, Brady throws a pick 6 on the next play, but then gets the ball back and scores again
    4. Fake the field goal and have Favre catch the pass
    5. Kick the field goal, Tampa muffs the kickoff return, safety
    6. Rodgers converts to score the TD and whiffs on the 2pc
    7. Rodgers converts to score the TD and makes the 2pc
    I understand the likelihood of making the field goal is far better than converting the 4th and goal and 2pt conversion. No doubt about it.

    I think people believe that stopping the Bucs and Tom Brady on a 3-and-out or lose situation would be nearly impossible (teams nowadays don't run>run>run anymore, they are far more aggressive when needing that 1st down on a final possession to run out the clock). So even if it's less than 10% chance for Rodgers to convert the 4th and goal, at least it is the choice that, overall, offers the best chance to win.
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  13. #118
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    There is no single deciding factor for going for the 4th and goal. There are multiple factors. Not needing a 3-and-out is just a big one. We've already been over them.

    I don't know if it's your reading comprehension or if you're just severely on tilt, but you create a strawmen with every point and here we are.



    Says the guy who kept saying both scenarios required a 3-and-out to have a chance to win.



    Again, crewfan and I were saying that it provided the best chance to win. We called it a "higher reward". If you want to be dense and scream about terminology then do you. Pretty sure others understood our point, which you conveniently ignore.

    I accept your concession. You've conceded to me once, and then QB (who illustrated my same point), so I think this entire thing has run its course. I'll let you have the last word, my dude. GG


    So it's not just that I have a reading comprehension issue, but apparently misusing words and then act like we haven't been going through all of this not only because you can't grasp a simple logical course of actions, but also because you can't even put your argument in the right words, is not a big deal? Got it.

    Also, there could be a sum of factors, which there is. One of them could be the deciding factor. Which is what you implied. Again, I don't like that I have to apologize for you misusing terms or not being able to hold a train of thought, but here we are again.

    Anyway, good day! I'll try not to flex my BA from now on, especially when it implies analytical thinking or making use of multiple terms you don't seem to fully understand, though.

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrei00 View Post
    If that's the case, a FG, a 3-and-out and a TD wins then the game, so I'd say that's the real best case scenario. I know it sounds like a low-probability event, which it is, but if we're weighing upside and downside, I'd go with the ball in my elite QB's hands, ~1:30 left to play, 1 TO and a chance to drive down the field and win it, instead of having the ball in the opponent's elite QB's hands, with 2 minutes left to play and all his timeouts, needed to drive them into FG range to win.

    Upside to kicking the FG is you win the game. Upside to trying for the TD is you go to overtime.
    But we're talking realistic upside. Brady also threw 3 picks in the 2nd half. So it's possible you still win anyways. But realistically, you have about a 27% chance of the GG, stop, TD win scenario. The question is whether or not you think you can get a successful try on 4th down at a higher clip than 27%. I think the answer is yes. But the flip side is there's also a scenario where you pick up most of the yards bit don't get a TD. Turning it over on downs inside the 10 puts some added pressure on fielding a kick and downing it at around the 15. The closer you get to your own end zone, especially I'm a situation where 2 pts is huge, makes a difference in offensive strategy too.

    That being said, there's no guarantee that they don't score, get the 2 pt and hold to another 3 and out and only need a FG. There's alot of possibilities. But at the end of the day, the upside of going for it was tying the game. Even if that means playing for OT, thats a massive upside. In today's NFL, getting a 3 and out, regardless of team is tough. Every single week you see teams punt or kick and never get the ball back. Its an offensive driven league. To take the ball out of your offenses hands to rely on your defense, and still need a TD from your offense, is a bad choice if there's any chance to tie. 4th and 8 is not an unmanageable down anymore by any stretch of the imagination.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullseyed View Post
    The only way this works is if kicking a chip shot field goal is equally as difficult versus scoring a TD against the 5th best D in the league. A defense that held Rodgers to 16/35 for 160 and 0 TDs 2 INTs earlier in the season.

    The likelihood of Rodgers converting on 4th down was sub 10%.


    Ranked from most likely to least likely:

    1. Kick the field goal, don't get the ball back, lose
    2. Kick the field goal, get the ball back, win
    3. Kick the field goal, Brady throws a pick 6 on the next play, but then gets the ball back and scores again
    4. Fake the field goal and have Favre catch the pass
    5. Kick the field goal, Tampa muffs the kickoff return, safety
    6. Rodgers converts to score the TD and whiffs on the 2pc
    7. Rodgers converts to score the TD and makes the 2pc
    How do you figure 10% because there's virtually nothing that I'm aware of to support that? If you want to look at how they performed against Tampa in week 6, then you also need to bring up the fact the Packers had a historically great red zone offense, which absolutely should factor in.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •