Post by Funkytown on Dec 12, 2017 19:44:57 GMT -6
The Vikings Should Start Going For Two Every Game by LBVikings
Plenty more at the link: purpleptsd.com/the-vikings-should-start-going-for-two-every-game/
Also, JoeO responded to this post with:
Thoughts on this?!
NFL teams are missing out. When it comes to extra points and two point conversions, NFL teams default to conventional wisdom without giving it a second thought. There have been plenty of cases made by smart, non-NFL employees for teams to go for two more than they do. But maybe it’s time teams take action, and listen to the wishful thinking of analytics pioneers.
Analytics is in hot water in the NFL right now with the recent firing of Sashi Brown, and his replacement by “football guy” John Dorsey. NFL teams don’t appear to be interested in unorthodox methodology, so this is all probably a pipe dream. But it makes sense to lay out the case anyways, because it’s genuinely the right thing to do. Analytics is a scary word for brick-headed traditional football minds, but all it means is counting. Asking, “What wins more games?” is an appropriate question whether you look at it analytically or with the nebulous subjectivity of traditional “football guys.”
At predictivefootball.com, Kevin Cole made a great argument for teams taking more chances after touchdowns. For simplicity’s sake, we can assume that extra points are made 100% of the time, and two point conversions are made 50% of the time. In Kevin’s example, you’re down 14 with only enough time for two more drives. You score a touchdown, cutting the lead to eight. Teams almost always take the point after and cut the lead to seven, resigning to aspire to a tie. But taking the two-point conversion gives you a chance to win outright, and if you miss, you still get a chance to make it up later. Only missing twice (25%) loses you the game from this decision, while getting the first one (50%) gives you a game-winning advantage. The other 25% is overtime, where you have a 50-50 shot of winning. Split that up and you have a 62.5% chance of winning the game and a 37.5% chance of losing. Better than skipping straight to overtime and leaving it at 50-50.
But I want to take you all a little further. The Vikings should go for two no matter what the situation and in every game. until they’ve gotten a lead off of it.
Analytics is in hot water in the NFL right now with the recent firing of Sashi Brown, and his replacement by “football guy” John Dorsey. NFL teams don’t appear to be interested in unorthodox methodology, so this is all probably a pipe dream. But it makes sense to lay out the case anyways, because it’s genuinely the right thing to do. Analytics is a scary word for brick-headed traditional football minds, but all it means is counting. Asking, “What wins more games?” is an appropriate question whether you look at it analytically or with the nebulous subjectivity of traditional “football guys.”
At predictivefootball.com, Kevin Cole made a great argument for teams taking more chances after touchdowns. For simplicity’s sake, we can assume that extra points are made 100% of the time, and two point conversions are made 50% of the time. In Kevin’s example, you’re down 14 with only enough time for two more drives. You score a touchdown, cutting the lead to eight. Teams almost always take the point after and cut the lead to seven, resigning to aspire to a tie. But taking the two-point conversion gives you a chance to win outright, and if you miss, you still get a chance to make it up later. Only missing twice (25%) loses you the game from this decision, while getting the first one (50%) gives you a game-winning advantage. The other 25% is overtime, where you have a 50-50 shot of winning. Split that up and you have a 62.5% chance of winning the game and a 37.5% chance of losing. Better than skipping straight to overtime and leaving it at 50-50.
But I want to take you all a little further. The Vikings should go for two no matter what the situation and in every game. until they’ve gotten a lead off of it.
Plenty more at the link: purpleptsd.com/the-vikings-should-start-going-for-two-every-game/
Also, JoeO responded to this post with:
Very interesting piece. And as I was reading through it, I was, of course, trying to come with OG reasons or, as you called it "traditional brick-headed wisdom" for arguing against it. And the following was what I came up with, but you seemed to assume it was coming with this passage:
"Taking 2 is a solid proposition, assuming Pat Shurmur doesn’t run out of good goal line ideas. If they truly committed to this strategy, they would probably practice goal line concepts more, leading to an even greater advantage."
I was going to say (and still am) that they would have to practice it more to be successful. And Shurmur would have to have a lot of different "infra-red zone" plays, because as soon as the Vikings make a habit of going for two, the defense starts recognizing what they are doing. The more they run these plays, the more the defenses become familiar with them. In this part of the field, the defense supposedly has the advantage because the play area shrinks and there is less area to maneuver/cover.
I do not know how many red zone (and infra red zone plays) the Vikings practice each week, but they would have do more. And the more they do that, other parts of the weekly game plan get de-emphasized. Do they get so less practice emphasis that the Vikings become less effective at those other parts of the game--and, heaven forbid--rarely get to the red/infrared zone? Hard to say. But what can be said is that while the Vikings offense is working on other things, Forbath and crew can be over on the other field working on PATs.
Bottomline, the CBA is not going to allow the Vikings coaches more time to work on their 2-pt conversions.
So, that's all I got. Not sure how worthwhile my rebuttal is. I'd actually like the team to take some of this piece to heart and go for more 2 pt. conversions (he says, as pieces of brick fall from his shoulders to the floor).
"Taking 2 is a solid proposition, assuming Pat Shurmur doesn’t run out of good goal line ideas. If they truly committed to this strategy, they would probably practice goal line concepts more, leading to an even greater advantage."
I was going to say (and still am) that they would have to practice it more to be successful. And Shurmur would have to have a lot of different "infra-red zone" plays, because as soon as the Vikings make a habit of going for two, the defense starts recognizing what they are doing. The more they run these plays, the more the defenses become familiar with them. In this part of the field, the defense supposedly has the advantage because the play area shrinks and there is less area to maneuver/cover.
I do not know how many red zone (and infra red zone plays) the Vikings practice each week, but they would have do more. And the more they do that, other parts of the weekly game plan get de-emphasized. Do they get so less practice emphasis that the Vikings become less effective at those other parts of the game--and, heaven forbid--rarely get to the red/infrared zone? Hard to say. But what can be said is that while the Vikings offense is working on other things, Forbath and crew can be over on the other field working on PATs.
Bottomline, the CBA is not going to allow the Vikings coaches more time to work on their 2-pt conversions.
So, that's all I got. Not sure how worthwhile my rebuttal is. I'd actually like the team to take some of this piece to heart and go for more 2 pt. conversions (he says, as pieces of brick fall from his shoulders to the floor).
... and neither is this Chris guy.