Quote:Yea they went for it too early. Hopefully he'll take it as a learning moment.
Didn't he do the same thing in another close game not too long ago? This is my issue with Gus. The same bad management of timeouts, reviews/challenges, and decisions to go for it keeps coming back.
Quote:He's not very bright. He needs a game manager coach next to him on the sidelines.
So, there is no function for Bradley to perform. Problem solved.
Quote:I can recall reading once that according to analytics its always the correct choice to go for 2. If he's going by analytics I'm not sure why they'd ever trying kicking the PAT.
Long also tweeted that Gus said they make a new chart on 2 point conversion analytics for every opponent.
I personally, like the idea of being "within a FG" as opposed to "within a TD." It makes sense to me.
Obviously - they did it a little sooner than usual, but if they've taken the time to produce the analytics on the risk - I can deal with that.
<a class="" href='https://twitter.com/APMarkLong'>
@APMarkLong </a> <a class="" href='https://twitter.com/APMarkLong/status/539492355989315585' title="1:52 PM - 1 Dec 2014">4h</a>
<a class="" href='https://twitter.com/APMarkLong/status/539492355989315585' title="1:52 PM - 1 Dec 2014">4 hours ago</a>
<p class="" style="color:rgb(41,47,51);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Jaguars coach Gus Bradley showed us the 2-point chart, which changes weekly based on opponent
Quote:Long also tweeted that Gus said they make a new chart on 2 point conversion analytics for every opponent.
I personally, like the idea of being "within a FG" as opposed to "within a TD." It makes sense to me.
Obviously - they did it a little sooner than usual, but if they've taken the time to produce the analytics on the risk - I can deal with that.
I was fine with the call because of the score and the offense's production, but Gus saying it was about analytics makes me wonder what other things the team is doing because of "analytics."
It got on my nerves yesterday but don't care now.
I wasn't against it at the time considering how the first half went. We needed to keep it to a FG score, then we needed the second 2 pt attempt to make up for the first failed attempt. What's more suspect is the play execution. It did not look like we were ready for that scenario.
My general rule is to always take points when you can, and only go for extra when you really need it. Not sure we really needed to risk it then, and it almost blew up in our face. I'll give him a pass though considering the lopsided first half, and the fact that we won
Analytics and an ever changing two point chart?
What kind of mickey mouse operation is this?
Quote:Analytics and an ever changing two point chart?
What kind of mickey mouse operation is this?
One that attempts to use proven data and statistical analysis to inform their decisions? Belichick and the Patriots have been doing it for years, although
Ernie Adams is probably better than Tony Khan and crew.
Quote:Terrible call. Why take points off the board in the middle of the third quarter? With this goal line offense? Doesn't make any sense
It wasn't the middle of the 3rd, maybe 3 minutes at most. I agree that it was still too early, but I also can't criticize Gus much when the team is 1-10 and losing 21-3 at half time.
Despite disagreeing with the call at that point in the game, I've been waiting for the jags to be more aggressive as a team and play faster. What we saw was progress, some areas more than others, but this team will not quit; I like that mentality.
Seems like analytics hasn't been working too swell for them the past two years. Go for two then fail so you have to go for another two and fail. Only thing that makes it ok to some is the win. Try that against a competent team.
Quote:Seems like analytics hasn't been working too swell for them the past two years. Go for two then fail so you have to go for another two and fail. Only thing that makes it ok to some is the win. Try that against a competent team.
The problem with analytics when dealing with real life is that it's very easy to arbitrarily assign numbers to everything - that's the logical side of it. Unfortunately the weighting of those averages and derived numbers and the prediction of future events based on a convergence appears to be much more an art than a science. Gut reactions can very well get you further than incorrectly applied analysis. I've been approaching this analytics-driven mentality on our team with narrowed eyes because I'm not entirely sold we're applying data in a manner that will improve our chances of winning.
Its very simple. You go for two because quite frankley Gus is not stoopid. There was a good chance that we would not score another TD and being behind 3 made the most since at that time because the Defense was playing lights out and most likely they would not score another TD. So it was going to be a FG battle, Gus knowing our offense probably would not score another TD this was the time to go for two. And since the Offense did not score another TD Gus was right. Although The Defense scored a TD it was also the right call to go for two there to make us up by 3 same princible standing neither team was probably going to score another TD (which was also true) it would be a FG battle.
Quote:The problem with analytics when dealing with real life….
Football isn't real life. It's a game….with scoring…. which entails numbers….. which means analytics aren't
arbitrary, they are logical to apply.
Still… I like your statement about "gut" vs. incorrectly applied analysis.
You'll also be happy to know that Caldwell and Bradley both seem to look at this analytics thing with narrowed eyes.
They might just be squinting though. Not sure.
Quote:Football isn't real life. It's a game….with scoring…. which entails numbers….. which means analytics aren't arbitrary, they are logical to apply.
Still… I like your statement about "gut" vs. incorrectly applied analysis.
You'll also be happy to know that Caldwell and Bradley both seem to look at this analytics thing with narrowed eyes. They might just be squinting though. Not sure.
You're right. It's a game with constraints and well defined rules. I just can't help but think that it's really difficult to determine what data is relevant, to model consequences, to simulate an opponent, all with a fairly limited data set by nature of the small sample size of regular season games and relatively high player turnover.
It's pretty fascinating though and I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall for some of these conversations between the analytics group and Gus....
Quote:how?
Individually both were the right calls
We were down by 5 which means a td to win
If we kick the pat we are down by 4 which is still a td to win
Going for 2 means a fg to win much easier especially when your d is pinning them in their own half but your offense can't reliably move the ball
second one up by 1 same deal being 1 or 2 points up is the same thing really where as going for 2 means a fg ties things up
Even if we had kicked both pats we still need a field goal to win so ultimately nothing would have changed
The poor execution bothers me but the calls dont
I was totally against it at the time. However, in formulating this post, I looked it up, and according to this link, the average success rate over the years in the NFL on a 2 point conversion is 50%.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/...tics/2014/
So that means the expected return on a 2 pointer is about the same as on a 1 point kick: 1 point. (Of course, that is assuming you are an average team.)
So I can't criticize it.
OK, so looking at this objectively is kinda hard. But I'm gonna do my best...
My initial though on the first 2 point conversion was "sure, go for it". Let's face it,it's not like our offense is capable of scoring touchdowns. So looking at it from a situational stand point it was the right move.
I think a better offense would not have gone for it in that situation. I really don't.
A better offense would not chase points that early in the game. But we really don't have a very good offense. So I can't fault the gamble in that situation.
But to say that there are analytics involved is not something I buy. I would assume that the analytics they are talking about is the analytic of the lack of offense we have. So I guess in that sense the analytics was on thier side.