Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

MHS831

We should not be kicking extra points.

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

All I can figure is the hook.  I notice he kicks extra points from the right hash--he does not have that option on FGs.  Does he line up as he would on a 50 yarder and kick the same way at 35?  If so, the ball does not have the time to come back around.  I kinda relate it to golf--some people are better with their five iron than their nine iron?  I dunno.

This what I was thinking, the curve or hook, has not finished/started on shorter/longer kicks. It is kinda like using a Flick in disc golf, some disc turn over at certain distances, and some don't.

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Just now, TN05 said:

Take a look at super bowl 38 and see how going for two went.

There is a reason most coaches don’t go for two. It works until it doesn’t and then you have to answer why you made a mistake. Pure math doesn’t account for circumstance or consequence. 

 Here is why coached kick:  

1. The percentage of getting one point is higher than getting 2. at any  given moment-- over the course of a season, however, getting stuffed on 52% of your 2-pt conversions with Gano as the kicker still brings in more points than having Gano kick them.  They are in the moment and want the safest option, even if the long term says "go for 2"--with the Panthers, we would score more going for 2 over the course of a season. 

  This thread clearly states that the reasons are mathematical and there are situations when kicking is smarter---something you repeated as your point.  

Here is your argument:

 "There is a reason"..(and that reason is) "it works until it doesn't. "  (I guess we can just throw the statistical software out of the window now that we have this pearl),  Aside from not using an example to illustrate your perspective from a team that actually had  Gano on the roster--and the point was about Gano and the Panthers--there is really no argument here.  It is just words, I guess.

The argument being made was not to challenge what we know is happening.  Fully aware that most coaches do not.  However, they make calculations based on probability all the time.  Math is a huge part of the game.  Coaches take calculated risks all the time, and you are right, there are examples when the risk does not work out.  Good point.  Should I mention some of Gano's extra points that were missed to defend my point?  No, I used statistics to demonstrate my point. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Not even the youngest, analytically leaning coaches are doing this....much less our version of Mike Ditka.

I get that, but this was about Gano and his numbers making kicking not as smart or safe as it may be for other coaches.  Regardless of what others are doing--there are 31 coaches each year that do not win a super bowl.  Math really does not lie.   Other teams have kickers that are automatic at 35.  Gano is like using your seven iron to chip because you lost your wedge.  He is a long--baller, and 35 does not fit into his strength column.  Know the personnel and the probability for success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coaching staffs (especially ours) would rather blame execution (missing an PAT) than a "dumb" coaching decision.

How many times have you heard Ron talk about players not executing vs. "my staff didn't put these guys in a position to win, and we made some pretty bad calls throughout the game and the week leading up to it"?

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I get that, but this was about Gano and his numbers making kicking not as smart or safe as it may be for other coaches.  Regardless of what others are doing--there are 31 coaches each year that do not win a super bowl.  Math really does not lie.   Other teams have kickers that are automatic at 35.  Gano is like using your seven iron to chip because you lost your wedge.  He is a long--baller, and 35 does not fit into his strength column.  Know the personnel and the probability for success.

But he can kick touchbacks............

  • Beer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

 Here is why coached kick:  

1. The percentage of getting one point is higher than getting 2. at any  given moment-- over the course of a season, however, getting stuffed on 52% of your 2-pt conversions with Gano as the kicker still brings in more points than having Gano kick them.  They are in the moment and want the safest option, even if the long term says "go for 2"--with the Panthers, we would score more going for 2 over the course of a season. 

Except it probably doesn’t. If it was obviously the right move, everyone would do it. But this strategy has not caught on at any level of football - even college and high school, where kickers miss more extra points. There’s a reason for that. Coaches aren’t idiots.

Quote

 This thread clearly states that the reasons are mathematical and there are situations when kicking is smarter---something you repeated as your point.  

Here is your argument:

 "There is a reason"..(and that reason is) "it works until it doesn't. "  (I guess we can just throw the statistical software out of the window now that we have this pearl),  Aside from not using an example to illustrate your perspective from a team that actually had  Gano on the roster--and the point was about Gano and the Panthers--there is really no argument here.  It is just words, I guess.

The argument being made was not to challenge what we know is happening.  Fully aware that most coaches do not.  However, they make calculations based on probability all the time.  Math is a huge part of the game.  Coaches take calculated risks all the time, and you are right, there are examples when the risk does not work out.  Good point.  Should I mention some of Gano's extra points that were missed to defend my point?  No, I used statistics to demonstrate my point. 

Football is more than math. If a team knows you are only going to go for two every time then they can plan for it. There are a limited number of plays you can run from there. And what happens if you miss? Statistically it’s more likely you miss two than that you make two, and so on. If you miss three and your opponent scores three touchdowns and makes all three extra points, you’re down a field goal instead of being tied.

Coaches don’t like to leave points wasted, and making a mistake can cost you. That’s what happened in Super Bowl 38: we went aggressive early and it cost us. We missed 2 two-point conversions (that’s two points gone) and the Patriots made one (because we missed ours). That’s a difference in three points, or the outcome of the game. If we don’t attempt those two-point conversions, Vinatieri is likely kicking for overtime, not a win. That’s huge.

In football you have to consider the consequences of the actions. You have to look ahead 20 plays and think what happens if you fail. That’s why coaches don’t take risks off of pure math, which cannot account for that.

Edited by TN05
  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take is that while yes, the math might work out a bit in favor of going for two over the course of the year, it is neither smart nor wise. You would net a handful more points over the course of the year than you would have done so otherwise. If you look through a lens smudged by Fantasy Football, that would seem all and good, but the reality is that the game of football doesn't work that way. This isn't Formula 1 racing where season accumulated point totals get you into the championship or even golf tournaments with aggregate scores over a number of rounds.

NFL football is 16 games, all microcosms unto themselves living under the idea of "any given Sunday". It is, in a way, like the lottery in that each week is a different outcome (score, set of numbers) that is completely independent on the circumstances of the previous week. Just like you can't plan out an increasing chance of success by playing the same numbers each week for a year (as if each of the previous sets of numbers were kicked out of the running), you can't say that each time you run a 2-point conversion you are going from increasing your likelihood of making this or the next one. That 46% success rate remains 46% every time you do it. And the extra point kick remains that roughly 90% chance of making it, every time. That's why a kicker can miss multiple XPs in a game or a team could fail three times at 2-point conversions. 

It is a roll of the dice on either one and just as random when couched within a single game. In that case, a smart coach goes with the kick unless it is vitally important to score that extra point right then and there (to even up a score or scoot ahead one point in the fourth quarter or if your kicker is injured). If it was otherwise, the Patriots and their overnuanced and analytic team would being going for two on every down.

There's more to it, but while there is some truth to the overall idea that you'd score more points over the course of the season just by mathematics alone, it might make no difference and might actually hurt your team in the long run. There have been numerous teams over the history of the NFL that have scored more total points than their opposition by season end, but still missed the playoffs or even had a losing season. 

In the game, you go with the higher percentage scoring playing until you desperately need something more. This makes even a shaky kicker a better idea than going for two.

Edited by Khyber53
  • Beer 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Do we want to expose Cam to that many more hits? I mean, he's probably still going to be our primary goal line weapon. I think I'd rather just kick the XP most of the time.

No we will hand it off to Poe every time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advocating revamping our entire gameplan and going for every two-point conversion based off of 3 missed XPs a year is so incredibly hyper-sensational and classic Huddle.

If the statistics showed that teams convert 46% of three straight running plays into first downs and Cam’s completion percentage is 3% below the league average or whatever, would you advocate abandoning the pass entirely and just running it 60 times a game? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicker misses an EP- We need a new kicker

Team misses on a 2 point try- We need a new coach

Guess which one the coach is going to choose

  • Pie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MHS831 said:

Since the extra point was pushed back to become a 35-yard attempt, the percentage of two point conversions needed to "break even" is 47.6%.  Gano sucks at extra points.  Contrarily, the percentage of converted 2-point conversions (on a study from 2017) was 48.8%. 

The percentage of extra points made is approximately 95% (2015 study), down over 4% from when they used to kick 20-yard extra points.  Gano, however, over the past 3 seasons has been BELOW 92% in each season.   Since the extra point is the equivalent of a 35-yard FG, it is important to note that Gano's career percentage from 30-39 yards is only 82.2%--his exact same career percentage from 40-49 yards.  However, in the last 4 years, Gano's average from 40-49 yards is actually higher than his average from 30-39 yards.  Gano struggles to execute kicks in the 30-39 range more than most kickers in the NFL.

So why are we kicking extra points?  It is stupid, mathematically. 

https://www.boydsbets.com/nfl-two-point-conversion-success-rate/

https://rileykolstefootball.com/2018/07/08/two-point-study/

http://www.nfl.com/player/grahamgano/71309/careerstats

It seems to me that if we spent more time working on the two-point conversion, not only would it help us in goal line situations, we would score more points going for 2 than kicking for 1 over the course of a season.  I realize there are other factors--like game situations where 2 points does not help you in the fourth quarter--in that case,  you kick. 

image.png.66f5f59f27d1a4f0d21fcd76d432cee4.png

 

 

 

Thank you for two quality topics in one week. This place has needed it <3

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 1 team in the NFL relies on 2 point conversion all game long because it cannot be done. Teams will expect it every time and we will get nowhere fast. Kicking the extra point will never go away anytime soon and we aren't going down that road doing away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure if people did more 2 point conversations that percentage would drop. It’s something that isn’t done near as often as an extra point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TN05 said:

Except it probably doesn’t. If it was obviously the right move, everyone would do it. But this strategy has not caught on at any level of football - even college and high school, where kickers miss more extra points. There’s a reason for that. Coaches aren’t idiots.

Football is more than math. If a team knows you are only going to go for two every time then they can plan for it. There are a limited number of plays you can run from there. And what happens if you miss? Statistically it’s more likely you miss two than that you make two, and so on. If you miss three and your opponent scores three touchdowns and makes all three extra points, you’re down a field goal instead of being tied.

Coaches don’t like to leave points wasted, and making a mistake can cost you. That’s what happened in Super Bowl 38: we went aggressive early and it cost us. We missed 2 two-point conversions (that’s two points gone) and the Patriots made one (because we missed ours). That’s a difference in three points, or the outcome of the game. If we don’t attempt those two-point conversions, Vinatieri is likely kicking for overtime, not a win. That’s huge.

In football you have to consider the consequences of the actions. You have to look ahead 20 plays and think what happens if you fail. That’s why coaches don’t take risks off of pure math, which cannot account for that.

Even though my points were focused on Gano and the  Panthers and you want to reference the league without much support, Are you suggesting that we should go with the option that causes us to score less?  Teams are already starting to go for 2 more often--why is that?

Since you believe in your insights more than data, argue against this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-nfl-teams-are-going-for-two-just-as-they-should-be/

 

Edited by MHS831

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      20,147
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    beo
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      146,333
    • Total Posts
      4,822,839
  • Posts

    • What voters hate is being pandered to by disingenuous politicians.  Beto had his time in the establishment spotlight and he soon fizzled when the public realized he was an empty suit with nothing to offer.  Kamala Harris was the black Hillary Clinton or the female Obama a few months ago. She was the up and coming darling of the democratic party.   In Kamala's words "She was an elite candidate". Just like Hillary, the more she talked the less people liked her, she is as phony as a three dollar bill and people figured her out. Now the establishment media's darling is Pete Buttigieg. Pete's backers are billionaires and his policies are poll tested.  Pete was a big supporter of Bernie's M4A until at least February of 2019, then big money got control of him.  Now Buttigieg is opposed to M4A.  The only thing Pete has been consistent about is wanting to become president.   It sure looks like he'll do or say whatever it takes to make that dream come true.  Pete  is the sort of candidate (no core beliefs/easily manipulated) that the corporate media can get behind (and they have in spades).  If the media ever gets around to revealing the truth about Pete he will quickly become yesterday's news. Biden is as spineless as Buttigieg and routinely sells himself to the highest bidder.  But Joe was Obama's VP don't cha know?  Biden is losing his mind right in front of the American people, but the establishment media acts if nothing is wrong.  Corporate media likes Biden brainless or not.  He isn't a threat to their power and "won't fundamentally change anything".  Assurances that nothing will fundamentally change is music to the people that really run this nation, plutocrats.  Hell, there isn't even a need for Biden to have a functioning brain, in fact, no brain is a plus, see Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump if you doubt me.
    • I turn my head when the old guys walk around nude in the gym locker room.  If you are checking out genitalia in locker rooms you are the offender. 
    • Is this a open locker room or a bathroom? Also im wondering what happens if a Trans person tried out for like the volleyball team or something how does that work?
  • Masters of PIE !

×
×
  • Create New...