Personally, I thought the reason he went for two was because the Lions had so many injuries, he wanted to try to win the game in regulation rather than have an opportunity to force the game into OT.
I think he’s just mathematically challenged.
- We have the best kicker in the league.
- Our red zone offense is trash.
Kick it and play for overtime at home. If the league average for 2PC is around 50%, then for Detroit, it’s probably like 9%. In our case, the percentages would say kick the EP.
Here’s a deeper dive into the explanation of why it made sense:
Sorry, I disagree. That’s flawed logic.
Those percentages are not real. They might be useful for a team that is good in the red zone, but we are not. They are also not taking into consideration that we are on a back up QB and about our 7th option at RB either.
Even if the Lions were 100% healthy, I still don’t think it’s a 50% success rate. Remember, our red zone offense hasn’t been good for a while. Plus our genius OC with the season on the line and 1 play from a couple yards out to keep any hope of postseason alive, literally took Marvin, Kenny G, and Amendola off the field, went Play action with a #5 RB, rolled our QB LEFT and threw to the #3 tight end. It is nowhere near a 50/50 deal with this team.
I want to be sure I fully capture your logic.
Our offense is terrible so going for 2 is stupid. Instead of one play from the 2 yard line vs a defense that we just scored on…you think its easier for our offense to march the ball down the field again and score an additional time. Am I capturing this correctly boomer?
Yeah, guy. If you haven’t noticed, we score a lot of our TDs outside of the red zone. I put way more faith in Prater going 2 for 2 on extra points than I do our offense pulling off a conversion when it matters. I’ve seen what we do when we have to have it. Against Oak, we pull all of our players off the field and poop our pants. And yesterday we ran a play with a 0% chance of succeeding.
Also, we are undefeated in OT. Got that, millennial?
If we simply kick the extra points, you are banking on us marching the football down the field and scoring an additional time. The same offense you just had bad things to say about. Not only that, you are banking on our terrible defense to get a stop in overtime.
Its one shot from the 2 yard line vs marching the ball down field and scoring. There’s no way around it, regardless of how teams have approached it in the past.
You can’t counter hard logic with fuzzy logic, i.e., we don’t know the actual percentage because we don’t know the exact values of all these other variables. Smarter to stick with the flow chart and try and execute.
Remember, whatever you think of Patricia as a HC, he’s passed math exams very few on this board could ever pass.
Wrong. You don’t have to march anything. You can still tie. You can still return a kickoff, block a punt, block a kick, get a turnover. It’s football. You are starting the game over and you are at home with momentum. If you think there is zero chance of winning that game in OT, then why even show up for regulation?
Lol, right. Yet, he still can’t count to 7 and thinks there is a use for pencils in 2019.
Because you have no point. It’s ok. Our idiot coach did it your way and it failed, which was 100% expected. Your way worked at a 0% rate.
I bet you also thought punting a skyscraper from mid field to waste the 2 minute warning was pretty logical too, eh? Our Brainiac coach literally, intentionally punted away the 2 minute warning stoppage and let Dallas run the clock out, because he was afraid to throw the ball deep. He fucking played field position DOWN EIGHT with 2 timeouts and wasted the 2 MW. That’s your math genius.
What are you talking about? The 2 pt was meaningless because they didn’t score the second time.
What is the conversion percentage on, what was it? 4th and 26? That’s putting the game all on one play. Math.
Incorrect. If we throw it deep, perhaps you get a completion. Maybe a pass interference. If not, the game is still not over. You would be in the same exact scenario as you were after the punt. You need a stop. It was for field position only and you gave yourself no chance to win.
At least throwing it deep gives you a chance. Giving the ball to Dallas to run the clock out was dumb.
In fact, if we throw a pass to the marker, and it goes incomplete, there probably at least 2:01 left on the clock (a 3rd timeout). But again, our coach struggles with 1st grade math.
I don’t get it and maybe I’m misunderstanding you but how does kicking an extra point to go down by 7 as opposed to 6 prevent their ability to march down the field and score again?
The Lions have converted about one 4th and 26 in their entire history:
Oh and the right play was to punt in the last 2 minutes. There’s a better chance of stopping Dallas (as shitty as the defense is) and getting the ball back with a little over a minute to go close to midfield than converting a 4th and 26 Hail Mary.
We were taking two shots at the 2 point conversion. We never scored again so we don’t know what would have happened with the second one. You are literally taking winning in regulation off the table, and playing for overtime. The other way, you are playing to win while still preserving the ability to tie and go to overtime.
I think the logic tied back to field position after the stop. However, I see your logic on this one and its probably how I would have approached it. As far fetched as it is to convert 4th and 26, it might have been time for the old “throwing punt.” Worst case they knock it down. Best case we catch it or get a PI. Then you have the possibility of them picking it off, which puts you right back where you would have been with the punt.
If you go the extra point route, you are guaranteeing that you will have to march down and score AN ADDITIONAL time. Not just the next score, but again after that. If you go for 2 now and make it, all you need is an extra point to win the game the next time you score. If you don’t make it, you STILL have the opportunity to tie the game on the next score…the tie is still in play but you introduced the possibility of winning to the equation. To summarize, its win the game with 2 possessions or need 3 possessions to win the game.
[quote=“wesleysh21, post:18, topic:2583, full:true”]
I still don’t get it.
If you kick the extra point you’re down 7, so you still only need one possession to drive down and win the game if you choose to go for 2 (what’s this 3 possession thing?), there is no additional drive needed by going for an extra point. The possibility of winning is still there if you kick the extra point down by 8.
What you do by going for 2 down by 8 (which is a lower percentage play than a Prater extra point) is make it tougher on the final drive by being forced to go for 2 (which is again, a lower percentage play than a Prater extra point) especially with a backup QB running things.
[quote=“NYLion59, post:19, topic:2583, full:true”]
The logic is that you are set up to go for 2 TWICE and hit 1 out of 2 shots at it. If you miss the first one, you hit the second one and go to overtime. If you hit the first one, you kick the extra point on the second one and win the game. The league average is over 50% on 2 point conversions, so the math says that going 1/2 on 2 point conversions has merit.
If you simply kick extra points, you MUST gain an EXTRA possession and go down and score an extra time. You played for the tie with the extra points, so you just used 2 defensive stops and 2 scoring possessions just to catch up with the other team. Now you have to get the ball back a 3rd time and score. With the other way you have a chance to end the game with 2 possessions while also still being able to tie the game and end up right where you were with the extra points.