Ron just staked his career (and potentially the season) on that playcall

[Paa Langfart]

16 minutes ago, gorillamilitia13 said:

I love Cam but damn thats the second game this year we lost because of a Cam overthrow.

If Gano had made the extra point Can wouldn't have had to !and that throw.

[Pimpdaddy]

22 minutes ago, fjblair said:

I would say it was one of the worst coaching decisions I have ever seen.

it was like...fk what ever if anything i've learn in the last few year...im going to go against allllll ***** odds including a kick for a tie...and go with some bs like this. schitzoid fk...

[Mage]

Ya'll act like the Lions would have just stopped trying to score if we tied it up.  And quite frankly, we wouldn't have been in this position if Gano would have made his 2 kicks.  How is the decision by Rivera bad?  What faith did Gano give him to even think, if XP was the best decision, that he would make it?
 

I mean seriously.  If we kicked the XP and Gano missed his 3rd kick, ya'll honest to God wouldn't be criticizing Rivera?  I doubt that.  This is just confirmation bias.

[Mage]

1 minute ago, PhillyB said:

i would completely agree with you if there was ten seconds left in the game. there wasn't. the lions had loads of time to go no-huddle and play for four downs and a long field goal in a dome with matt fuging prater.

imo the call is absolutely indefensible given the risk/reward analysis and i've yet to see anyone defend ron's analysis of the reward.

But you aren't explaining how kicking a XP changes that!  How does kicking an XP change them from driving down the field and kicking a field goal dude?

[PhillyB]

5 minutes ago, Mage said:

How was it nearly meaningless or the reward small?  Lions had to get into FG range in about 1 minute.  How is going for 2 to win the game in regulation giving us worse odds to win than taking our hopes that the Lions wouldn't have back-to-back chances to win the game (1 min left in regulation then the chances of getting the ball first in overtime)?  Especially in a game where our kicker can't kick.

It made all the sense to go for it.  You win the game if they score in 1 minute.  You don't win the game if they don't score in 1 minute and potentially give them another chance to score first in OT.  Where is the mathematical analysis that says playing for overtime gave us the better chance than scoring from 2 yards out?

a minute plus with stafford and all time outs and four downs and an amazing kicker in a dome.

for a kick that would've been a game winner even if you had just kicked the XP.

its not defensible my dude 

[jopie87]

1 minute ago, Mage said:

But how does that not make going for it a better decision?!  Again, if your argument is that the likelihood on stopping the Lions from getting the FG is at best 50/50, how does that make going for it a bad call?  It makes no sense.  Again:

If we convert the 2pt: Lions get a FG, we lose.

If we kick the XP: Lions get the FG, we lose.

If we convert the 2pt: Lions don't get the FG, we win.

If we kick the XP: Lions don't get the FG, we go to overtime. Lions potentially get the ball first, while we either need to hope our struggling kicker makes it or we score a TD.

So how does kicking the XP give us a better chance?

A team tied 20 to 20 and a team down 21 to 20 play entirely different. You go up 1 it becomes 4 down territory from the second they touch the ball. You not only incentive but force them to be more aggressive than they would be if the score is tied.

[letha]

This team has a road problem 

[1919Eternal]

3 minutes ago, Mage said:

How was it nearly meaningless or the reward small?  Lions had to get into FG range in about 1 minute.  How is going for 2 to win the game in regulation giving us worse odds to win than taking our hopes that the Lions wouldn't have back-to-back chances to win the game (1 min left in regulation then the chances of getting the ball first in overtime)?  Especially in a game where our kicker can't kick.

It made all the sense to go for it.  You win the game if they score in 1 minute.  You don't win the game if they don't score in 1 minute and potentially give them another chance to score first in OT.  Where is the mathematical analysis that says playing for overtime gave us the better chance than scoring from 2 yards out?

You are not very good at math are you?   The first thing you would have to look at is what is the probability that we convert on a 2 point conversion vs an extra point conversion.   I'm pretty sure we decreased the probability to win by at least 50% right there.  Going up by 1 does not decrease the probability that the Lions will be able to kick a field goal in the last 1 minute.   

[PhillyB]

1 minute ago, Mage said:

But you aren't explaining how kicking a XP changes that!  How does kicking an XP change them from driving down the field and kicking a field goal dude?

quoted the wrong post earlier.

see above: NOT kicking the XP doesn't stop them either. they win if they kick a field goal either way. the extra point is nearly meaningless unless you expect your leaky D to make a full stop against a lions team with loads of cards in their hands.

[USDepartmentOfSavagery]

Y’all act like Ron can process this much info in a game. It’s 1986 to him. So a minute left is 10 seconds in his view. That’s the only way to defend it lmao. 

[jopie87]

3 minutes ago, Mage said:

Ya'll act like the Lions would have just stopped trying to score if we tied it up.  And quite frankly, we wouldn't have been in this position if Gano would have made his 2 kicks.  How is the decision by Rivera bad?  What faith did Gano give him to even think, if XP was the best decision, that he would make it?
 

I mean seriously.  If we kicked the XP and Gano missed his 3rd kick, ya'll honest to God wouldn't be criticizing Rivera?  I doubt that.  This is just confirmation bias.

The criticism would be on Gano. You have a top 5 paid kicker in the league, you expect him to make the extra point. 

Baltimore lost earlier this year on a missed extra point. I didnt see a single person blaming the coach.

[Mage]

Just now, PhillyB said:

a minute plus with stafford and all time outs and four downs and an amazing kicker in a dome.

for a kick that would've been a game winner even if you had just kicked the XP.

its not defensible my dude 

Dude, what the heck are you talking about?  You said going for the 2pt was the bad call.  I'm saying it wasn't.  So saying "even if you had just kicked the XP" I don't know what the heck you're even trying to argue anymore.

Please explain to me how going for a 2pt vs kicking the XP makes a difference in your hypothetical.  They would have won the game regardless.  Except if they don't get the field goal, we either win the game (with my preferred route) or we go to OT (with your preferred route).  And considering you don't think we have a chance at stopping them, why would you want to go to OT?

You can't call out people for not defending the 2pt call when you literally haven't made a single sensible argument in defense of the XP.  And I don't mean any disrespect by the way I really like you as a poster, but I'm just not seeing what your argument is.  How is kicking the XP better than going for the 2 point conversion?  

[fjblair]

8 minutes ago, Mage said:

Dude, just stop.  It ain't about being smart.  It's about confirmation bias, which 50% of this site is guilty of doing.  

And lets say your theory was the likely scenario.  How in the hell does that make going for 2 bad then?  Worst case scenario, they kick the FG to win the game as you suggest.  Best case scenario, they don't kick the FG to win the game and we win.  But in your scenario that we don't go for 2, it goes into overtime and they get another chance to get the ball and drive on us.  So please, please tell me how if the Lions were guaranteed to score, how going for 2 was a bad decision?  Your argument makes no sense.

You guys are just being hypocritical.  You want Rivera to be aggressive until it doesn't work, at which point you will bash him.  Then as soon as he's conservative, it's "what happened to Riverboat Ron?"  Hell most of ya'll were criticizing him during the Eagles game for not going for it on 4th and 2 on our side of the field.  But now it's about "being smart"?  Right.

Just admit you guys don't want Rivera as head coach and that it had nothing to do with the play-call.  Because if the Lions were guaranteed to score, I don't know how you could possibly think going for 2 wasn't the smart play-call.  

Relax man, there was no "guarantee" the Lions would score, which renders your rant rather pointless.

[Mage]

7 minutes ago, 1919Eternal said:

You are not very good at math are you?   The first thing you would have to look at is what is the probability that we convert on a 2 point conversion vs an extra point conversion.   I'm pretty sure we decreased the probability to win by at least 50% right there.  Going up by 1 does not decrease the probability that the Lions will be able to kick a field goal in the last 1 minute.   

Gano missed 2 kicks in the game already and has always been shaky as hell on XPs.  What makes you think him kicking the FG > Cam Newton converting from 2 yards?

And show me the math then if I'm so bad.  For us to win with the XP, we'd need to stop them from scoring on a field goal the next drive, hope they don't get the ball first in OT, hope we get more than a field goal in OT, and hope they don't respond with a FG of their own or much less, a TD.

For us to win with a 2pt, we'd just need to stop them from scoring a field goal on the next drive.

How is the first scenario better odds than the second?