CubColtPacer

That's not really the point of the math though. It's not because the 2 point play is a higher percentage play in isolation. It's more that you have 3 opportunities to basically flip a coin. You can go for 2 after the first TD. You can go for 2 after the second TD. Or you can flip the OT coin. You have to flip one of those three coins to win the gmae If you lose the OT coin flip, you lose, If you lose the second TD coin flip, you almost certainly lose. If you lose the first coin flip, you have options. That's why it's so much better to do it then. And expanding it to these situations isn't going to change the percentages that much. It makes sense for a normal team to go for 2 maybe 5-6 times during an entire season. It doesn't need to be 55 percent, if it's more like 47-50 percent the math still makes sense to go for it.

The Bears had 6 drives in this game. 6 is ridiculous. To illustrate that, the average team runs 5.87 plays per drive this season. The Bears ran 7.67 plays per drive today. And that means they ran the 9th fewest number of plays in the NFL this season. I can't find anywhere that will give me # drive stats for a single game, but it's quite possible 6 is the lowest in the league all season.

There are 22 drives on average for both teams in an NFL game this year. We are on drive number #10 at the end of 3 quarters.

The Packers are averaging 68.5 yards per drive and haven't turned it over. That's not exactly ordinary defense.

From an outsider who's watching Fields carefully: I feel like the first two sacks were plays he didn't have much of a chance whatsoever. The last one he could have gotten rid of but was still a pretty standard sack that QB's around the league take regularly.

It's the same concept. If you get the 2, a field goal wins the game. If you don't make it, you know you need a TD to win. If you believe that your chances of making the 2 and your chances of winning in OT if you make it there are roughly equivalent, then you should go for 2. Because if you lose in OT you just lose. While if you miss the 2 you can adjust your strategy and potentially still win. That's why the math favors going for 2 in that scenario.

Those were replays from last week.

This could be 2000 all over again. Florida State finished #2 with 1 loss to #3 Miami, and Miami finished #3 with 1 loss to #4 Washington who had 1 loss.

People have mentioned others, but the TD pass to Hockenson was another play that make this stat wrong.

Unless they ruled that he was giving himself up, which they are more likely to do for a QB dive, but it's not an automatic call either.

The Cardinals are expected to get Kyler back next week. Who knows what he will look like coming off the torn ACL, but that should help them win a game or two. Early indications are that Stafford will be back after the bye.

I think that was more legit, but I think there are two main reasons that it was a bad call. 1) Cooper puts his hands on him arguably first which usually increases the amount of contact allowed. 2) Even though it appears like the defender was trying to commit a foul as he was falling down, he doesn't make nearly as much contact as he wants to. Cooper stiff arming the defender caused more impediment of the route than the actual contact by the defender,

Cleveland had no timeouts. If they had called a run play earlier it would have taken so much time that they would likely have lost at least one of their chances to score. And gifted was absolutely right, 2 bad calls in a row. And I'm one who usually defends referees, but both of those were highly questionable at best.

Yup. When I saw the original post, I looked back to see if Eagles/Rams was always at 4:05, and it was. 4:05 games are never the national game, it's always the late game for the channel that doesn't get the national game.

The 4th down play where Michigan returns it for a TD. It appears on the replay to my eyes to be pass interference, but I would like another look to be sure. Do the announcers explain why it wasn't? No, they don't even mention it whatsoever. That's a pet peeve of mine. You know lots of people are thinking about it, so why not discuss it?

ESPN is reporting that the ACC has voted yes to adding Stanford, Cal, and SMU.

Technically the Cowboys with Dak Prescott would fit too. 4-12 in 2015, 13-3 in 2016. I initially passed them over because they had Romo, but he only played 4 games in 2015 and 0 starts in 2016.

If you don't count Mac, looks like it may have been the triumvirate in 2012. In 2011, the Seahawks were 7-9, the Commanders were 5-11, and the Colts were 2-14. In 2012, The Seahawks were 11-5 with Russell Wilson, the Commanders were 10-6 with RGIII, and the Colts were 11-5 with Andrew Luck. Edit: I looked specifically for rookie QB's who had made the playoffs, there may have been a couple winning season/not making the playoffs that I missed.

They haven't pushed the draft later. The draft has been in the second half of April (and occasionally in early May) since the 70's. And since the Super Bowl has moved back by a couple of weeks, it's actually closer to the Super Bowl than it was before.

It's one extra day. And it actually takes less time because the first round used to have 15 minutes between picks. It used to be that Saturday was 10-12 straight hours of picks and then several more hours on Sunday.

I'm struggling with some of the style changes. The white is very bright. I plan to try dark mode soon even though I don't really use dark mode on anything else, but no other site seems so bright to me that it hurts my eyes to stare at it for very long. Part of that might be the size of everything. I feel like this site is incredibly zoomed in compared to most sites I frequent. It becomes hard for me to focus. I'm used to reading smaller font. And then of course some of the bugs (trying to go from one page to another, trying to find your place when re-opening a page you already started). Right now everything just seems like an effort to do rather than something I can pop in and out of. It's early so I'm trying to give it a chance though, and hope that I get used to it around the same time that things become more fluid.

I would be very opposed to it. Either it's a rule or it's not a rule. At the end of the game, the team leading by a point does not get a do-over on a shot clock violation. Since you brought up basketball, in the NBA they do get a warning the first time they are assessed a delay of game (the second time is a technical foul). That's probably the closer analogy to the pitch clock.

There are 3 tiers of 2nd contracts for RBs. The elite tier is 15-16M/year = McCaffery, Elliott, Kamara The 2nd tier is 12-12.6M/year = Aaron Jones, Henry, Mixon, Chubb Then the 3rd tier is all the way down at 7-8M/year = Conner, Fournette, Ekeler Now there's a guy in each tier that probably shouldn't be their (Elliott down 1, Henry and Ekeler up 1), but I think Montgomery would rightly value himself in that 2nd tier. Maybe he's not on Derrick Henry's level, but he's clearly better than Fournette and James Conner. And Barkley obviously belongs in that elite tier. So, you're talking about 12M for Montgomery vs. 15M for Barkley. Barkley is worth that difference. Now to be fair, Montgomery may not get 12M on the open market as all those guys re-signed to avoid hitting the market, so there may not be an open market to pay a guy that much. But that's besides the point for the Bears who would be paying for him NOT to hit the market. I guess there's a scenario where he hits the market, realizes he's not valued in that 2nd tier and signs back with the Bears for like 7-8M/year, but that's risky for the Bears to let him hit the market. And still, if the Bears miss out on Barkley, they could go much cheaper than 7-8M for a backup RB and give the reins to Herbert. I was surprised when you got to the part of Montgomery being in the second tier. I do not think the broader public views it that way. I just looked at a few different lists for the top FA RB's for example, and Montgomery is usually 5th on those lists. That would be a stunning contract for me if he got 12 million a year.

The Dodgers have an $100 million per year head start on every other team in the league via their tv deal, the Cubs are far from poor but they don’t have a structural advantage that approaches it. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/ How many concerts happen at Wrigley a year that they don't have to split the profits with any other team? Looks like about 10 per year. How much do you think that adds to the bottom line? BTW, the Dodgers who were only averaging 3-4 concerts in the years before the pandemic had 9 last year. If that continues, that's not even a revenue booster for the Cubs over a team like the Dodgers.

Transactions is a hard one. It is really only needed as its own forum for certain periods of the year, but when it's needed it's really needed. In November and December when rumors are flying and teams are actively signing players, it is really helpful in having that in one place rather than having the rest of baseball in one forum and the Cubs in another. Same thing for July before the trade deadline. It was even more helpful before mega threads were common, but even now it's very nice to be able to go to the forum and see threads for all the players who have been signed with a glance and then go into the rumors threads after that.