Landry to the Saints

[FruitPunch]

Damn right.

Sporting News says they were converted 49.4% of the time in 2018 and 2019. (I don't know about more recently.)
WTF.

Just speculating, but think a lot comes down to the quality of the Oline on 2 pt conversions. Our 2019 line with a great running game made it near impossible to stop the conversion, but our garbage line last year resulted in instant pressure on the QB, which has even more of an impact in the end zone when the precision of the throw is most important due to limited space.
Would be interesting to see correlation on quality of oline versus 2pt conversions

[NjRavensFan]

Wasn't the one vs squeaks a bad pass to the right to an open TE? Like two feet behind them... Player execution is that more important than on any other play when it comes to the 2p conversion

It was a bad pass because Lamar was under pressure legit instantly and got hit as he threw… Still thought it was catchable but hey.

[NjRavensFan]

That was your backup QB. If your backup QB can regularly make all those throws, they wouldn't be a backup.

Nope, that was still Lamar. He got knocked out the next week vs Cleveland (though he was def already banged up at that point).

[NjRavensFan]

Because to get to long run odds evening out, you have to have a LOT of data points. This is why I think analytics is a relatively poor idea for Football.


If you went for 2 every time, you can easily have a season where you miss the majority of conversion, not because you're bad at it, but because its a small enough sample size for statistical noise.


Analytics is better for sports like baseball where you REALLY get to repeat the same exact actions, multiple times a game, over a 150 game + seasons + postseason.


For football? I think its often better to take the bird in hand rather than the 2 pts in the bush, because you're not guaranteed to see the long run. NFL careers and seasons are too short.

This doesn’t make any sense at all. You’re just as likely to have a season where you make the majority of them. Using SSS to justify conservative decision making is weak af.

[HotInHere]

Because to get to long run odds evening out, you have to have a LOT of data points. This is why I think analytics is a relatively poor idea for Football.


If you went for 2 every time, you can easily have a season where you miss the majority of conversion, not because you're bad at it, but because its a small enough sample size for statistical noise.


Analytics is better for sports like baseball where you REALLY get to repeat the same exact actions, multiple times a game, over a 150 game + seasons + postseason.


For football? I think its often better to take the bird in hand rather than the 2 pts in the bush, because you're not guaranteed to see the long run. NFL careers and seasons are too short.

Not sure I buy the logic.

If we agree to flip a coin, and every time it comes up heads you give me $1, and every time it comes up tails I give you $2, you'd sign up for that, wouldn't you? And if I said we were only going to do it three times, you'd still sign up, because the odds are in your favor.

It's certainly possible I could flip three straight heads, and you'd be paying me my 3 bucks. But that wouldn't mean it's a bad bet. And it wouldn't mean the analytics of whether it's a good bet were any less valid.

[ClericBlackDave]

Not sure I buy the logic.

If we agree to flip a coin, and every time it comes up heads you give me $1, and every time it comes up tails I give you $2, you'd sign up for that, wouldn't you? And if I said we were only going to do it three times, you'd still sign up, because the odds are in your favor.

It's certainly possible I could flip three straight heads, and you'd be paying me my 3 bucks. But that wouldn't mean it's a bad bet. And it wouldn't mean the analytics of whether it's a good bet were any less valid.

Its easy, and this is also why people get snookered by casinos.

Playing the odds requires seeing out the LONG RUN. Football is one of the few sports where the sample size is so small you may not get to see the long run.

Consider - if you flip a coin 10 times, you could/should see 5 heads, 5 tails. But if you understand probabilities, you could easily see 7 tails 3 heads and thats not crazy. In order to guarantee seeing the 50/50 outcome, you're going to need a larger sample size.

End game - in the NFL season you may only see a handful or at best 10's of 2 point conversions. That's not a large sample size. You're gambling that the randomness of the universe won't betray your over a small sample size much like it did going for it on 4th against the Titans in the playoff game in 2018.

The reality is - the conventional football wisdoms on kicking FGs, punting for limited returns in field position, kicking PATs instead of attempting 2 pt conversions - these all understood that you don't get to see the long run in the NFL. Sometimes it IS best to hedge and take a 90 to 95% sure thing rather than a 50/50 proposition that MAY be more profitable over the long run, except you're not likely to be on that team to see the long run as a player or a coach.

As a tangent, Bradon Staley has leaned into Harbs-style following of analytics and easily cost the chargers a few games last year. Andy Reid allowed Patrick Mahommes to run a dumb play before the half instead of taking 3 points and it easily contributed to the Bengals playoff upset of the chiefs.


Its sexy football to have the balls to risk it all, but sometimes the real courage lies in taking the sure thing hedge and moving on.

[NjRavensFan]

Its easy, and this is also why people get snookered by casinos.

Playing the odds requires seeing out the LONG RUN. Football is one of the few sports where the sample size is so small you may not get to see the long run.

Consider - if you flip a coin 10 times, you could/should see 5 heads, 5 tails. But if you understand probabilities, you could easily see 7 tails 3 heads and thats not crazy. In order to guarantee seeing the 50/50 outcome, you're going to need a larger sample size.

End game - in the NFL season you may only see a handful or at best 10's of 2 point conversions. That's not a large sample size. You're gambling that the randomness of the universe won't betray your over a small sample size much like it did going for it on 4th against the Titans in the playoff game in 2018.

The reality is - the conventional football wisdoms on kicking FGs, punting for limited returns in field position, kicking PATs instead of attempting 2 pt conversions - these all understood that you don't get to see the long run in the NFL. Sometimes it IS best to hedge and take a 90 to 95% sure thing rather than a 50/50 proposition that MAY be more profitable over the long run, except you're not likely to be on that team to see the long run as a player or a coach.

As a tangent, Bradon Staley has leaned into Harbs-style following of analytics and easily cost the chargers a few games last year. Andy Reid allowed Patrick Mahommes to run a dumb play before the half instead of taking 3 points and it easily contributed to the Bengals playoff upset of the chiefs.


Its sexy football to have the balls to risk it all, but sometimes the real courage lies in taking the sure thing hedge and moving on.

People get snookered by casinos because the odds are stacked in the casinos’ favor lmao.

This is all nonsense. It’s okay that you’re super conservative but you don’t need to try to couch it as if you’re smarter than everybody. Your logic is flawed af.