Why did Rivera go for two?

[Happy Panther]

I've always wanted to create a better chart based on statistics. I might do it actually.

[MadHatter]

Two reasons.....

1. Work on the Red Zone offense...which has struggled.

2. Being up by 6 vs. 5 is actually a bid benefit. There was about 3 min in the game. If Jax got a quick FG and got the onside kick, a long FG wins the game. The 2 pt would require a TD to beat us.

Not a big advantage, but nothing to really lose.

[Davidson Deac II]

Thinking about it, its even money whether it helps or hurts us. But the coach didn't have 3-4 hours to think about it, he had to make a quick decision on the spot. He chose to be aggressive and go for it. It worked, and I commend him for it, even if it didn't really matter in the end.

[Cat'sGrowl]

Two reasons.....

1. Work on the Red Zone offense...which has struggled.

2. Being up by 6 vs. 5 is actually a bid benefit. There was about 3 min in the game. If Jax got a quick FG and got the onside kick, a long FG wins the game. The 2 pt would require a TD to beat us.

Not a big advantage, but nothing to really lose.

Except that's not a more realistic scenario than Jax scoring a TD on us and going up by 3 instead of 2, meaning a FG wouldn't win the game for us. And to think that Rivera was using this opportunity to "practice" his offense has got to be the most ridiculous assumption I've heard. The game's on the line and he's worried about getting some extra reps for his offense in? No.

[Davidson Deac II]

Except that's not a more realistic scenario than Jax scoring a TD on us and going up by 3 instead of 2, meaning a FG wouldn't win the game for us. And to think that Rivera was using this opportunity to "practice" his offense has got to be the most ridiculous assumption I've heard. The game's on the line and he's worried about getting some extra reps for his offense in? No.

Normally, you would be right.

But I think that in today's game, two fg's was a more realistic scenario. The combination of a very wet field, a rookie qb, and an inept Jacksonville passing attack made it unlikely that they would score a td. But they might be able to use their run game to get two fg's.

[KintnerBoy]

I'm chalking it up to live Red Zone practice, only logical answer.

Haven't thought of that and i like it.

[CRA]

Greg Olsen commented on it in his post game interview (without being directly asked)

Said by going for 2 it meant the Jags had to score a TD and make the extra point to win. Going for 2 meant the Jags had to convert there extra point to win.

I didn't think about that.....but actually it makes a lot of sense (even more considering poor conditions)

[CamYouDigIt]

because I needed Greg Olsen to get me those extra 2 fantasy points...

[Mr. Scot]

Two field goals beat you when you're only up by five. Up by six and the team can only beat you with a touchdown and extra point.

It was the right call.

[ItsNotGonnaBeAlright]

They score a touchdown, game is still win-able with a field goal. Otherwise, with the single point, its a tie going into overtime where your offense has struggled all day. If the conversion fails, you rely on your defense....if you get the FG.

Personally, I like the call.

[thunderraiden]

WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO

This is truly mind blowing

Please read thread before posting.

There is nothing to discuss, all coaches go for two in that scenerio.

There is no thinking involved in the decision.

Why? BECAUSE THERE IS A MOTHER fuging CHART THAT TELLS THEM TO GO FOR 2 WHEN UP BY 4 MOTHER fugIN POINTS GOD fuging DAMMIT READ THE GOD DAMN THREAD BEFORE POSTING.

Excuse me.

I lost my composure.

[Mother Grabber]

Ok, I'm going to chime in one last time on the hope that someone on here will get a deeper appreciation for this situation.

First, 'game theory' does not mean 'football strategy.' Game theory is a field of mathematics that deals with calculating the various chances of different outcomes in a situation based on incomplete information. From Wikipedia: "Within math, game theory reflects calculated circumstances (games) where a person’s success is based upon the choices of others (Myerson, 1991)." Having played and coached football at high levels does not mean you have an understanding of 'game theory.'

Wikipedia Link

Game theory applies to the 'going for two' situation because we have a variety of outcomes, incomplete information and more than one person making decision that effect the final outcome. The correct decision in this situation is not due to football strategy, it's pure math. Game theory will tell us the chances of success based on the different variations.

What we know:

1) the score is currently Carolina +4.

2) There's roughly 4min left in the game.

3) Carolina gets a free play for an attempt at +1 or +2, then Jax gets the ball.

Variables

1) Chance of success at +1 = 95%

2) Chance of success at +2 = 40%

3) Chance of Jax scoring 1TD vs Car scoring 1 FG = x%

4) Chance of Jax scoring 2FG vs Car scoring 0 = y%

5) Chance of Jax scoring 1TD and missing the PAT and Car scoring 0 = z%

etc, etc, etc...

These % vary based on judgements of current conditions and quality of play to this point. They are not exact measurables.

When you run the scenarios, the math tells you that the highest % chance (by far) of Car coming out the top score after 4min is to kick the PAT. Math does not lie, irregardless of what is on someone's chart. There was once a chart that said that the Earth is the center of the universe, too.

We're talking about what play gives team A (Carolina) the best chance of having the high score at the end, not an end all, be all obvious answer to all scenarios. That does not exist.

Take it or leave it. I agree on one thing, there is nothing more to discuss on this matter.