|
|
Post by sdcjohnny on Sept 2, 2012 10:29:44 GMT -8
Can you base your decisions this year from statistical information from last several years considering you have a different quarterback and a different kicker?
Don't you have to analyze the current roster statistical data?
Billy beane thinks Rocky is crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Sept 2, 2012 10:50:06 GMT -8
What I was thinking. The mathematical formula is not straight across the board at all. Bama trying a 2 point conversion last night as they are having their way with a team is a lot different than us trying it after our first touchdown last night. Did anyone have a great feel that the offense was in sync enough to try it last night in that situation? I was giving it a 25% chance max for success as I watched (and screamed at my TV).
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcjohnny on Sept 2, 2012 10:54:20 GMT -8
Plus our O-line has three new lineman. How can you figure they are anything like our line from last year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 10:58:27 GMT -8
Rocky suggested we should be able to make it half the time. Really? Against an inferior opponent, sure. But against probably the fifth best team in the Pac-12?
|
|
|
|
Post by montyismyhomie on Sept 2, 2012 11:15:19 GMT -8
wah!
|
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Sept 2, 2012 11:33:22 GMT -8
Yes - when you know that your FG kicker is not as good as the one you had previously and we would have scored more points a year ago had we gone for two every PAT.
|
|
|
|
Post by namssa on Sept 2, 2012 11:38:42 GMT -8
Oregon went for 2 after they scored yesterday. I know our offense isn't as good but I have no problem with the aggressive play.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcjohnny on Sept 2, 2012 11:40:42 GMT -8
Yes - when you know that your FG kicker is not as good as the one you had previously and we would have scored more points a year ago had we gone for two every PAT. Our kicker hasn't missed a kick this year. |
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Sept 2, 2012 11:46:12 GMT -8
^^^ In practice they sure must have missed a bunch or else mathematically it wouldn't make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 11:48:08 GMT -8
I'd like to know which professor Rocky has been consulting with.
Maybe outing the guy will be Zeigler's next big breaking story.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Sept 2, 2012 11:57:32 GMT -8
If you assume you can make a 2-point conversion 50% of the time, you should never, ever kick a PAT. So any assumptions over 50% should preclude you from kicking a PAT.......ever. If there are any ancillary benefits from going for a 2-point conversion (and I agree with Rocky that there are) that makes the logic of going for it even stronger.
|
|
jrock
New Recruit
Posts: 5
|
Post by jrock on Sept 2, 2012 11:57:53 GMT -8
Rocky's "stats" are completely nonsensical. The avg successful PAT is around 95% each year in Div 1. Even Perez, who was a bad kicker, still made 95%.
The avg successful 2pt conv. each year in Div 1 is always in the LOW 40%'s. You can look it up. So right there, it's mathematically the wrong decision.
Also, not kicking a chip shot field goal to get within one possession late in the game is nonsensical as well. When the defense came back out on the field still down 2 possessions when it should have been a 1 possession game, they looked demoralized.
If Rocky is truly saying he can't recruit and coach a kicker to perform PAT's and chip shot FG's at a D1 level, than that is Rocky not doing his job as a head coach.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Sept 2, 2012 12:02:43 GMT -8
If you're a good offensive team with a good OL you should be able to make a 2-point conversion 50% of the time or better. Oregon seems to think so. Boise goes for it a lot more than other teams also. And everything over 50% becomes "gravy" points which you would never get unless you go for it. For example, assume you score 4 TD's with 4 PAT = 4 points while 3 of 4 two-point conversions would be 6 points.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsu1975 on Sept 2, 2012 12:04:16 GMT -8
I sure wish Rocky was our DC and NOT our HC.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Sept 2, 2012 12:17:42 GMT -8
If Rocky is truly saying he can't recruit and coach a kicker to perform PAT's and chip shot FG's at a D1 level, than that is Rocky not doing his job as a head coach. I don't want to knock on Long after a the first game against an opponent that was obviously better, but I have to agree with this statement. He's not even really putting it on the players, but is instead relying on a chart for in-game calls. The thing about the type of empirical data is that Rocky is using, is that you need large samples to get to that "50% of the time" he is talking about when going for the 2 point conversion. With that in mind, we would need large samples in the game as well, and two shots at the endzone is not enough "data". Not considering the variables he is totally ignoring like QB performance, O-Line production, environment, etc, which no mathematical formula will ever account for. In his defense, though he did say that it was a week-to-week strategy. Something tells me he will kick a field goal or two next week; at least give the effing kicker a shot. |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Sept 2, 2012 12:22:56 GMT -8
If you're a good offensive team with a good OL you should be able to make a 2-point conversion 50% of the time or better. Oregon seems to think so. Boise goes for it a lot more than other teams also. And everything over 50% becomes "gravy" points which you would never get unless you go for it. For example, assume you score 4 TD's with 4 PAT = 4 points while 3 of 4 two-point conversions would be 6 points. This. Even if you make it 50% of the time you'll get the same amount of points. |
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Sept 2, 2012 13:59:08 GMT -8
If you're a good offensive team with a good OL you should be able to make a 2-point conversion 50% of the time or better. Oregon seems to think so. Boise goes for it a lot more than other teams also. And everything over 50% becomes "gravy" points which you would never get unless you go for it. For example, assume you score 4 TD's with 4 PAT = 4 points while 3 of 4 two-point conversions would be 6 points. You arbitrarily decide that a good O will make a 2 pointer half the time, but show nothing to support it. Great, a college basketball player ought to make at least 80% of their FTs. They ought to, because no body is guarding them and they always shoot from the same spot. But, they don't If Rocky and his math Prof ran the numbers over the last 3-4 years and came up with 50%, great. I wonder what that percentage would be if they looked at every play run from the 3 yd line or closer. I bet is wasn't close to 50% and it is really about the same. Going forward may be even tougher, because the element of surprise probably accounts for some of the 50%, and if opposing coaches know we are going for 2 most of the time, they will certainly spend more time D'ing it. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Sept 2, 2012 14:25:43 GMT -8
The 50% figure is subject to a lot of variables including the weather, field conditions, strength of opponent, crowd noise and who knows what else. It's very subjective to say the least. But you can also argue that the figure should be 60% or 70%. Who really knows? And with ever-changing personnel, venues, opponents, etc. I'm not sure you can prove anything that can't be challenged easily. But there is a joy to going for it and right now I'm in Rocky's camp on going for it. If we lose the next three games, I'll probably change my tune.
|
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Sept 2, 2012 14:34:43 GMT -8
The 50% figure is subject to a lot of variables including the weather, field conditions, strength of opponent, crowd noise and who knows what else. It's very subjective to say the least. But you can also argue that the figure should be 60% or 70%. Who really knows? And with ever-changing personnel, venues, opponents, etc. I'm not sure you can prove anything that can't be challenged easily. But there is a joy to going for it and right now I'm in Rocky's camp on going for it. If we lose the next three games, I'll probably change my tune. Not on the extra point deal, but if we loose any of our next 3 games, Rocky can probably start looking for a DC job somewhere. The next three, Army, Dakota and SJSU are our easiest games. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Sept 2, 2012 15:21:36 GMT -8
The 50% figure is subject to a lot of variables including the weather, field conditions, strength of opponent, crowd noise and who knows what else. It's very subjective to say the least. But you can also argue that the figure should be 60% or 70%. Who really knows? And with ever-changing personnel, venues, opponents, etc. I'm not sure you can prove anything that can't be challenged easily. But there is a joy to going for it and right now I'm in Rocky's camp on going for it. If we lose the next three games, I'll probably change my tune. Not on the extra point deal, but if we loose any of our next 3 games, Rocky can probably start looking for a DC job somewhere. The next three, Army, Dakota and SJSU are our easiest games. Not really confident anymore that SJSU is going to be so easy. |
|
