Jump to content

ESF EDM @ MTL

Zontar

By Zontar
in Blue Bomber Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

SpeedFlex27
SpeedFlex27

Harris can autograph his footballs before he throws them.

Tracker
Tracker

I know this is not the main event, but its a pretty entertaining game.

bustamente
bustamente

TSN major flub, letting him into the booth

Eternal optimist Veteran

Eternal optimist

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, J5V said:

I think it's been shown that the success rate justifies going for two points. Depends how good your offense can execute I suppose.

Absolutely, conventional game theory would dictate that provided your 2-point conversion success rate is above 50%, you should always go for 2. However, mathematical game theory relies upon some principals that simply don't apply in the game of football. For example, law of large numbers, which would state that provided you have sufficient iterations, you'd want to go for 2 all the time (because your expected value is greater than going for 1), doesn't really work, because even in a high-scoring game, you'll get 7, maybe 8 touchdowns? In order for the overall gain from going for two all the time to be realized, you'd need way more iterations than that.

Game theory fails to account for in-game scenarios. At the end of the day, it really depends on the coach's appetite for risk - a coach with a larger appetite for risk (such as Dickenson) is more willing to go for 2, whereas O'Shea (risk-adverse) won't go for 2 unless he absolutely has to.

BBRT Contributor

BBRT

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Tracker said:

I know this is not the main event, but its a pretty entertaining game.

I agree - watched the first half but now have to head out to McMahon to hopefully witness a Bomber victory! I taped the 2nd half and will watch when I get back hopefully enjoying a Bomber Win! Dang it is cold out!

Zontar Newbie

Zontar

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Harris is on fire but that Ti Cat defense will extinguish him & his passing attack next week. 

Give any QB lots of time and open recs and theyll put up points. MTL defense is gawd awful today.

J5V Newbie

J5V

Posted
Posted
Just now, Eternal optimist said:

Absolutely, conventional game theory would dictate that provided your 2-point conversion success rate is above 50%, you should always go for 2. However, mathematical game theory relies upon some principals that simply don't apply in the game of football. For example, law of large numbers, which would state that provided you have sufficient iterations, you'd want to go for 2 all the time (because your expected value is greater than going for 1), doesn't really work, because even in a high-scoring game, you'll get 7, maybe 8 touchdowns? In order for the overall gain from going for two all the time to be realized, you'd need way more iterations than that.

Game theory fails to account for in-game scenarios. At the end of the day, it really depends on the coach's appetite for risk - a coach with a larger appetite for risk (such as Dickenson) is more willing to go for 2, whereas O'Shea (risk-adverse) won't go for 2 unless he absolutely has to.

Very well said. A larger number of iterations for the rule to apply strongly makes sense as well as factors like the weather (kicking conditions) and the consistency of said kicker. In this case, I stand by my suggestion that Khari should maybe be going for two more often.

Eternal optimist Veteran

Eternal optimist

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, J5V said:

Very well said. A larger number of iterations for the rule to apply strongly makes sense as well as factors like the weather (kicking conditions) and the consistency of said kicker. In this case, I stand by my suggestion that Khari should maybe be going for two more often.

Alright, well then agree to disagree. No point in pointlessly bantering.

Tracker Grand Master

Tracker

Posted
Posted

Its probably going to come down to who makes the best half-time adjustments, but the Als gotta put some pressure on Harris. He has enough time back there to look like an all-star.

GOLD MEMBER Collaborator

GOLD MEMBER

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, JCon said:

Montreal is getting chippy. Flags are going to start to fly if they're not careful. They can't really afford that. 

Lots of chippiness pre whistle according to Rod the pin head. Yeah!🙄

Edited by GOLD MEMBER
66 Chevelle Newbie

66 Chevelle

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

Alright, well then agree to disagree. No point in pointlessly bantering.

I'm confused... I though the two of you were in agreement.... it sounded like he agreed with you... maybe I'm missing something...

Eternal optimist Veteran

Eternal optimist

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

I'm confused... I though the two of you were in agreement.... it sounded like he agreed with you... maybe I'm missing something...

No, my stance was that teams shouldn't go for two on the basis that they are riskier. His stance (I think?) was that teams should go for two, on the basis that in poor-weather games, a one-point conversions have lower success, and thus why not gamble for two.

As a rebuttal, I would add that in poor-weather games, points are at an even higher premium, so throwing them away on a two-point conversion attempt is less advisable, unless absolutely necessary.

66 Chevelle Newbie

66 Chevelle

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

No, my stance was that teams shouldn't go for two on the basis that they are riskier. His stance (I think?) was that teams should go for two, on the basis that in poor-weather games, a one-point conversions have lower success, and thus why not gamble for two.

As a rebuttal, I would add that in poor-weather games, points are at an even higher premium, so throwing them away on a two-point conversion attempt is less advisable, unless absolutely necessary.

ok, now I'm following the conversation... he threw me off when he started out complimenting your explanation... never mind me, lol... I'm caught up now, thx!

Tracker Grand Master

Tracker

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

No, my stance was that teams shouldn't go for two on the basis that they are riskier. His stance (I think?) was that teams should go for two, on the basis that in poor-weather games, a one-point conversions have lower success, and thus why not gamble for two.

As a rebuttal, I would add that in poor-weather games, points are at an even higher premium, so throwing them away on a two-point conversion attempt is less advisable, unless absolutely necessary.

From my point of view, one of the biggest pluses about two point conversions is that they demonstrate the confidence of their coaches in their offences. But its all about context.

Eternal optimist Veteran

Eternal optimist

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Tracker said:

From my point of view, one of the biggest pluses about two point conversions is that they demonstrate the confidence of their coaches in their offences. But its all about context.

There is a time and a place for them for sure, but I think going for them 100% of the time is just playing with fire.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

×
×
  • Create New...