SDS

If you want to get into this I would be glad to, because I’m ready to die on this hill after having to read such asinine statements. Your 1 vs 2 possession argument is straight off the short bus. Hey, no ***** ***** it is better to have not missed the two point conversion and have the chance to tie the score later. You just changed the entire argument. If you can’t see this then let me give you an equivalent scenario: Knowing that going for the two point conversion on the second TD is going to fail, it is better to go for it on the first TD. See how that works? See how when I automatically assign failure to your option, it makes the other one the obvious choice? The problem is no one is making these trivial arguments (well you and RF are). There is only one case to be considered here, what situation would you rather be in if you don’t convert your two point conversion. That is the scenario. There is not another one. The charts in that article say there is a small difference favoring the two-point conversion. Maybe too small to be consequential without knowing more detail. I thought this would be larger. So did the author. But do you know what the chart and the supporting article doesn’t say? Do you know what it unequivocally doesn’t say? That going for the extra point on the first TD would produce a better expected outcome.

I'm fairly certain every single sentence you wrote is wrong. lol Congrats??? It's clear you haven't bothered reading the piece. Nate Silver didn't even write it and the prediction engine is from ESPNs NFL analytics staff. I was not the one that said it was a coin flip (although league-wide the success rate is around 50%). The rest has been covered previously. The stats community agrees with the logic that going for two earlier when down by nine is better, but ESPNs win probability engine that was used by 538, shows it more even than expected. Even then, Brian Burke, who wrote that engine, tweeted today:

You’re probably right. I doubt the analytical experts at 538 and ESPN’s statistical department thought about that. They probably just missed it while over thinking it. Good call.

So, I read the 538 chart wrong. I was reading the down by 8 scenario and not the down by 9 scenario. They actually talk about this case specifically, acknowledging the logic behind going for two, but saying the data doesn’t suggest th e effect is big. (However, it definitely does not say you go for one).

Correct, you beat the blitz by making them pay for fewer defenders downfield. I’d force Allen to beat me long all day.

Maybe you would believe 538. Note the chart at the end that tells you whether to go for 1 or 2 points when down by eight points as the game progresses. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/amp/

At some point, it would be nice if you talk about the downside in your scenario. I've asked several times. You say this because you continually assign failure to one scenario, but not the other. Do you know what the downside of missing the 2-point conversation on the second TD? I mean, you literally won't discuss it. Substantially less time to make a FG, if any time at all.

The error in this logic is, as I have unsuccessfully tried to point out, is that you insist on focusing on what happens if they fail in my scenario, but you haven't mentioned a single word about what happens if they fail in your scenario. Until you address failure in option two you are dealing from the bottom of the deck.

Again. If you are arguing this in good faith, then the two point conversion fails for me and it fails for you. Otherwise it is a horseshit argument.

1000x no. Fact: The Bills needed another touchdown. Fact: The Bills needed a 2-point conversion to tie (sticking to the two score scenario). So, to make the two options equivalent - you have to agree that a second TD is going to be scored and the 2-pt conversion is going to be missed. So, which would you rather have? Time on the clock knowing you need a FG or no time on the clock knowing you need a FG? You can't assign failure to my scenario and success to yours and say yours is better. Make them equal. When you do, it is inarguable that more time on the clock is better than less time on the clock.

I’m shocked that you wrote that. It is completely wrong. You have to find out the result of a two point conversion to know what you need to win. You can find that result out with enough time to compensate for a miss or find out with no time left. It was the correct call.

In those 2+ years, have any other teams had such losing streaks? What have their GMs done during those stretches? Did it make a difference?

Lol. Yes, I’m sure the entire team will be revamped in the next 7-14 days. ?

I get the lovable uncle schtick, but a modern day broadcaster with relevant insight he is not.

https://whl.ca/stats/players/270

He has 60% more shots than the leader.

That’s a neat site. Much easier than clicking 25 next year links. Lol

That’s can’t possibly be right - can it?

https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/221002-scenarios-to-win-the-division-and-even-get-the-1-seed-in-the-afc/

Jesus.

I think everyone should go back to last season’s discussion as I tried to desperately talk people off the ledge and fire everyone bandwagon... Last season was not about short term winning. This season was about winning.

Ha. I went by memory. Which is Sobotka level in quality.

That would be against us. Divisional record would be tied but we would have the better conference record.

@Derrico lol. That’s a bad beat brother. I was cringing all day with my impending loss...

Who said it works?