NFL 2014 Off-Season Thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Alex

Alex

Still a Music Elitist
14,670
7,488
The Bengals and Seahawks were in a lot of nail biters last year.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Kirun

Kirun

Buzzfeed Editor
19,242
15,631
Disp_sl said:
You are hands down the stupidest poster on this board.
Click to expand...
I like the part where non-divisional opponents played each other twice in the regular season the best. Quoting it, just so his idiot ass can't edit it..

Ambiturner_sl said:
Sorry you guys don't understand statistics and simple math. Maybe stick to crying about people not loving Kaep enough?

After looking up your example of large comebacks last year I found:

Week 4 Seattle made a 20 point comeback to beat the Bucs
Week 6 the Bills made a 14 point fourth quarter comeback to lose to the Bengals
Week 9 the Bengals made 14 point comeback to lose to Dolphins
Week 9 also had Seattle make 21 point comeback and then beat the Bucs
Week 10 had the Bengals make a 17 point comeback to lose to Baltimore
Week 12 had Patriots make 24 point comeback to beat Denver
Week 13 Falcons had 14 point comeback to beat Buffalo
Week 15 Titans made 17 comeback to lose to Arizona

So last year teams making a 14+ point comeback were 4-4 in OT. Pretty close to the 50% figure I gave.

Teams making a 24 point comeback were an astonishing 1-0, though.

If you take 2012 to help increase the small sample size we get:

Week 3 the Lions make 14 point comeback to lose to Titans
Week 3 also has Chiefs make 18 point comeback to defeat the Saints
Week 7 Oakland made 14 point comeback to defeat the Jags
Week 11 Texans made 14 point comeback to defeat Jags
Week 16 Dallas made 14 point comeback to lose to Saints

so for 2012 teams making 14+ comeback were 3-2 in OT. for a total of 7-6 in the last two years.

Unfortunately, there weren't any 24 point comebacks that went to OT.
Click to expand...
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Week 4 was a 17 point comeback against the Texans. Must have got that mixed up with week 9 and merged them together. I have specifics so stupid people could look them up and verify. But keep on talking about how I'm retarded for understanding basic math and how things didn't really happen when they clearly did.

You guys have reached Fox news level retarded
 
D

Disp_sl

shitlord
1,544
1
Broncos and Jags go to overtime (somehow). Broncos average 2.98 points per drive, Jacksonville averages 1.19. It's 50/50 who wins.

-Ambiturner
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
You guys were already proven wrong, just face reality that I'm smarter than you. The fact that you can look for yourself and see that teams that were down by 14 and took it to OT won exactly half the time yet still argue against it makes you functionally retarded. I'm done with this thread until some quality posters come back who have more to contribute than a war on math and proven statistics.

And for Disp because I think you really are too dumb to realize why that analogy is retarded: if the Broncos and Jags are in OT then clearly the Broncos haven't been scoring 3 points a possession and the Jags haven't been scoring 1 for the first 60 minutes. Either the Jags offense is lighting it up somehow or Denver's offense has been shitting it up. So please stick to crying that everybody doesn't love Kaepernick
 
D

Disp_sl

shitlord
1,544
1
Going for 2 makes sense for every team when down by 2 scores because every offense has exact same goal line and redzone conversion rate. There's a flat 66% chance for every team to make both conversion. You guys are Fox news retarded.

-Ambiturner

Ambiturner_sl said:
I'm done with this thread until some quality posters come back who have more to contribute than a war on math and proven statistics.
Click to expand...
Fanfuckingtastic. This thread just got 10X better.
 
Gravy

Gravy

Bronze Squire
4,918
454
I've still got trivia. But this is more entertaining for now.

Disp, I heard Ambiturner called yo momma bad at math. AND history.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Sterling_sl said:
ambiturner is a lumie alt account?!?!
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm also qwerty, gaige, and mippo

Disp_sl said:
Going for 2 makes sense for every team when down by 2 scores because every offense has exact same goal line and redzone conversion rate. There's a flat 66% chance for every team to make both conversion. You guys are Fox news retarded.

-Ambiturner
Click to expand...
It's been explained to you twice, and even the link explained it in more detail and gave multiple sources including former coaches, yet you still don't grasp any of it. There being a 66% chance to make both conversions was never ever mentioned at any point by anyone. Your chance to win is 66%, maybe have someone read it to you since you're apparently complete fail at reading as well. You only need a 38% conversion rate for your success rate to be <50%. B

But yeah if somehow your peewee football team (somehow) make it to OT against the 85 Bears, then they might have a less than 50% chance of winning. Keep clinging to that retarded analogy and never admit to defeat.Also never ever actually answer why this has been proven to be true and why teams down by 14 have won/lost 50% of the time if it's such a retarded concept.

Now I'm done. I mean it. For reals this time. Honest
 
Slaythe

Slaythe

<Bronze Donator>
3,389
141
Ambi, did you even read that article? That dude is taking two hypothetical teams and calling them equal then developing those percentages. The 50% mark in OT assumes the two teams are equal. So does the 60% mark assuming a team down by two touchdowns actually scores those two touchdowns and goes for two both times (if necessary). He uses league average 2 pt conversion % here. Not once is that dude saying that 60% of the time this scenario plays out or that overtime is a 50% coin flip.

That dudes point is just that given equal competition (and league average conversion rates), it makes sense to go for the two pointer when down two touchdowns. That makes sense to me. Now if Tampa is playing Seattle in Seattle and they're down two scores, you'd contend theobviousanswer is to go for two both times. But i'm promising you that Tampa's 2 pt conversion % isn't 48%. I'm also promising you that their 2 pt conversion % is probably far lower in this situation given the team they're playing or playing away. Their likelihood of winning in OT is also going to be far below 50%.

The backlash you got here is simply because there are probably 90 thousand variables that go into this decision. And it's far more complicated than 'any team down 2 touchdowns should go for 2'.

The general idea that you're more likely to win the game when down by 14 by going for two (assuming you actually score two touchdowns) in a situation where your 2 pt conversion rate is 48% and you're playing an equal team without any home/away advantage (so equal chance at winning in OT) makes sense. Total sense. That, however, is not at all a real world scenario.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Great rational response with actual basis in reality. I knew there were smart people around here somewhere.

The thing about calling them equal is that both teams have been playing equally for 60 minutes. The idea of best team playing great vs worst team playing horribly is a faulty premise. In that situation there's no chance it would go to OT in the first place. Also, run plays have over a 60% success rate vs just under 40% for passes and for the odds to be in favor of going for 2 you only need to have a 38% success rate.

Also, your example saying Tampa Bay is less likely to beat Seattle in OT means actually makes it even smarter to go for 2. They should do everything they can to prevent it from going into overtime. Home teams also win 51% of overtime games so that's not as big of a factor as people would like to believe. I haven't been able to find any situations that have shown a significant difference between who wins or loses. That includes the team who was down vs up, favorite vs underdog, and home vs away. They've all been in the 50% ballpark.

Now, if there's some sort of scenario where the other team's qb went down and their backup has been playing terribly and can't mount any offense or something along those lines then you're better off taking the sure thing. I'd also say situations where one team is clearly playing much better but finds itself down due to terrible calls/silly turnovers/whatever. Outside of situations like that, though, the conversion will get you more wins than the extra points.
 
Slaythe

Slaythe

<Bronze Donator>
3,389
141
Just realize that the contention that the 50/50 overtime chance is because "the teams have been playing equally that game" is yours not the authors. His figures come from the assumption that the OT win probability is 50%.

Going for two when you're down by two touchdowns is less obvious but no less logical. Let's stipulate that our hypothetical team-we'll call them the Cowboys-does score the required touchdowns in the waning minutes while keeping the opposition off the scoreboard, because otherwise this exercise is pointless. In that case, the touchdown + extra point + touchdown + extra point approach will lead to a victory 50 percent of the time-the game will be tied at the end of regulation, and we'll assume the Cowboys and their opponent have an equal chance of winning in overtime (and we'll ignore the possibility of a rare-for-the-NFL tie game).
Click to expand...
When it most certainly isn't.

Advanced NFL Stats: NFL Overtime Modeled as a Markov Chain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.