Duke game thoughts

[Alvious]

1. Spotting your opponent 21 points right out of the gate is not a recipe for success. Team wasn't prepared.

2. Can't keep missing field goals from inside 40 yds.

3. Never go for 2 in the 3rd quarter.

4. Duke's 3rd down conversion off the tipped pass was just bad luck. Stuff happens.

5. Evan Hull was great today for sure, but you absolutely cannot fumble the ball there at the end. Great players don't do that.

6. Big picture: We'll be ok. Duke caught a few breaks today and that'll happen. The Cats could've folded like maps (Zoomers, ask your parents) but instead showed some guts and made a game out of it. We have a somewhat less than great opponent next week, a chance to get healthy. Go Cats!

 

[corbi296]

1. Spotting your opponent 21 points right out of the gate is not a recipe for success. Team wasn't prepared.

2. Can't keep missing field goals from inside 40 yds.

3. Never go for 2 in the 3rd quarter.

4. Duke's 3rd down conversion off the tipped pass was just bad luck. Stuff happens.

5. Evan Hull was great today for sure, but you absolutely cannot fumble the ball there at the end. Great players don't do that.

6. Big picture: We'll be ok. Duke caught a few breaks today and that'll happen. The Cats could've folded like maps (Zoomers, ask your parents) but instead showed some guts and made a game out of it. We have a somewhat less than great opponent next week, a chance to get healthy. Go Cats!

The two pony conversion decision was absolutely the correct one. If you make it it’s a 3 point game and a FG ties. If you kick the extra point you still need a TD to take the lead, same as you did by missing the two point conversion. The missed conversion did not factor into the game at all.

 

[curdog]

1. Spotting your opponent 21 points right out of the gate is not a recipe for success. Team wasn't prepared.

2. Can't keep missing field goals from inside 40 yds.

3. Never go for 2 in the 3rd quarter.

4. Duke's 3rd down conversion off the tipped pass was just bad luck. Stuff happens.

5. Evan Hull was great today for sure, but you absolutely cannot fumble the ball there at the end. Great players don't do that.

6. Big picture: We'll be ok. Duke caught a few breaks today and that'll happen. The Cats could've folded like maps (Zoomers, ask your parents) but instead showed some guts and made a game out of it. We have a somewhat less than great opponent next week, a chance to get healthy. Go Cats!

Agree with this. Defense was very shaky to start but settled down. Offense should have put
More points on the board but i think this team ca. be still
Be good

 

[freewillie07]

1. Spotting your opponent 21 points right out of the gate is not a recipe for success. Team wasn't prepared.

2. Can't keep missing field goals from inside 40 yds.

3. Never go for 2 in the 3rd quarter.

4. Duke's 3rd down conversion off the tipped pass was just bad luck. Stuff happens.

5. Evan Hull was great today for sure, but you absolutely cannot fumble the ball there at the end. Great players don't do that.

6. Big picture: We'll be ok. Duke caught a few breaks today and that'll happen. The Cats could've folded like maps (Zoomers, ask your parents) but instead showed some guts and made a game out of it. We have a somewhat less than great opponent next week, a chance to get healthy. Go Cats!

Idiotic comment about Hull.

 

[stpaulcat]

Is Gordon a transfer? Eligibility? He's good.

 

[HawkCat]

Is Gordon a transfer? Eligibility? He's good.

How can you spend so much time on this board on a daily basis and ask this question? Seriously.

 

[phatcat]

The two pony conversion decision was absolutely the correct one. If you make it it’s a 3 point game and a FG ties. If you kick the extra point you still need a TD to take the lead, same as you did by missing the two point conversion. The missed conversion did not factor into the game at all.

But lo and behold, we'd have been down 7, not 8.

2 pt conversions are pretty hard. However, our kicker is hardly automatic

Re Duke catching breaks, we also caught a couple. Our guy was beaten in the end zone them caught a thrice tipped INT.

Hull was amazing. Just made his main mistake at the end. I'm sure he's crushed

 

[mountaindrew]

Idiotic comment about Hull.

Yes Sir. Back in 2003, Jason Wright fumbled THREE times in one game. We lost. As I recall, those were his only fumbles for virtually two YEARS. "Great players don't do that"? Yes they do. Its called being human.

 

[stpaulcat]

How can you spend so much time on this board on a daily basis and ask this question? Seriously.

I stopped paying attention to tight ends when NU stopped using them. Gordon was a wake up call. I graduated Northwestern pre-google, where I learned there's no such thing as a stupid question, although I should have started the conversation with "He's good"....and stopped there, realizing that the underbelly of NU board fandom has been exposed with this loss. Cue GOUNU... GO Cats!

 

[corbi296]

But lo and behold, we'd have been down 7, not 8.

2 pt conversions are pretty hard. However, our kicker is hardly automatic

Re Duke catching breaks, we also caught a couple. Our guy was beaten in the end zone them caught a thrice tipped INT.

Hull was amazing. Just made his main mistake at the end. I'm sure he's crushed

So what? We still needed a TD to tie. Ultimately It didn’t impact the game. The potential benefit of making it a three point game at the time outweighed the risk of having to score a TD and make a two point conversion rather than kicking an extra point. Don’t forget our kicker is not exactly automatic so that was also a factor that went into the decision. The decision gave NU better odds and better options in my opinion.

 

[NUCat320]

The two pony conversion decision was absolutely the correct one. If you make it it’s a 3 point game and a FG ties. If you kick the extra point you still need a TD to take the lead, same as you did by missing the two point conversion. The missed conversion did not factor into the game at all.

Incorrect.
Had NU scored, they still would have needed two. The downside of missing two is far larger than the upside of making it there.

Additionally, NU *never* wants to be playing for three.

Regardless, it wasn’t that strategic goof, it was the inability to play a decent Q1 that cost NU, again.

 

[phatcat]

So what? We still needed a TD to tie. Ultimately It didn’t impact the game. The potential benefit of making it a three point game at the time outweighed the risk of having to score a TD and make a two point conversion rather than kicking an extra point. Don’t forget our kicker is not exactly automatic so that was also a factor that went into the decision. The decision gave NU better odds and better options in my opinion.

Yeah I said the part about not having a good kicker at this stage (pun intended).


Despite the heroics of Hull, Hilinski and Flash Gordon (tm) this was not a unit that inspired confidence in getting either the actual or the hypothetical 2pt conversion. Actually, I don't remember feeling confident out 2 pt conversions since like Coach Walker. I feel like we make them like 20% of the time.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

The two pony conversion decision was absolutely the correct one. If you make it it’s a 3 point game and a FG ties. If you kick the extra point you still need a TD to take the lead, same as you did by missing the two point conversion. The missed conversion did not factor into the game at all.

No way!
Bad decision by Fitz.

You can't base a decision like that in the 3rd quarter on the assumption that you will not allow any more points. And the only way the decision makes sense is if you assume you are going to hold your opponent scoreless the rest of the way.

FAR MORE LIKELY is that Duke scores at least another 3 points.
So if you kick the extra point (90% chance), you are down 21-17. Defense can then be happy holding Duke to a FG. You are down 24-17 and thats workable.

When you go for 2 (35% chance?) you are either down 21-18 or 21-16.
Its about twice as likely that you are "down 5," rather than the optimistic "down 3"
After that, If Duke kicks a FG, you are down 6 or 8, 8 being twice as likely. If they score a TD, you are down 10 or 12, 12 being twice as likely..

With 17 minutes left, the decision to go for 2 made no sense at all.
If there were 5 minutes to go and we controlled the line of scrimmage, then maybe.

 

[FanatiCat]

So what? We still needed a TD to tie. Ultimately It didn’t impact the game. The potential benefit of making it a three point game at the time outweighed the risk of having to score a TD and make a two point conversion rather than kicking an extra point. Don’t forget our kicker is not exactly automatic so that was also a factor that went into the decision. The decision gave NU better odds and better options in my opinion.

It might have impacted the game. If we got the 1 point then Duke probably wouldn’t have gone for the FG, because it would’ve only put them up by 7 and they had a chance to lose if we got a TD and 2 pt. They probably would’ve decided to go for it on 4th, and let’s be honest probably would’ve gotten the TD (it was like 6 inches!) or we’d have to go 99.9 yards if we stop them.

 

[phatcat]

It might have impacted the game. If we got the 1 point then Duke probably wouldn’t have gone for the FG, because it would’ve only put them up by 7 and they had a chance to lose if we got a TD and 2 pt. They probably would’ve decided to go for it on 4th, and let’s be honest probably would’ve gotten the TD (it was like 6 inches!) or we’d have to go 99.9 yards if we stop them.

Interesting analysis. I remember I was relieved when they kicked

 

[corbi296]

Incorrect.
Had NU scored, they still would have needed two. The downside of missing two is far larger than the upside of making it there.

Additionally, NU *never* wants to be playing for three.

Regardless, it wasn’t that strategic goof, it was the inability to play a decent Q1 that cost NU, again.

I couldn’t disagree more. The decision boils down to the following. Is the upside and increased flexibility of making it a one possession, 3 point game worth the risk of having to convert a 2 point play as opposed to an extra point after a TD. I think the decision Fitz made was absolutely the right call and most who are criticizing the call would have called it ballsy if he had made it. He played the odds correctly.

 

[corbi296]

It might have impacted the game. If we got the 1 point then Duke probably wouldn’t have gone for the FG, because it would’ve only put them up by 7 and they had a chance to lose if we got a TD and 2 pt. They probably would’ve decided to go for it on 4th, and let’s be honest probably would’ve gotten the TD (it was like 6 inches!) or we’d have to go 99.9 yards if we stop them.

The Duke coach’s decision was one of the dumbest decisions I’ve seen a coach make. Given the decision he made I think he still kicks the field goal even if it only takes him up 7. He was playing not to lose there rather than to win and it should have bit him in the ass and he knows it. I’ve never seen a coach put his hands over his head like he did while NU was driving deep in his territory. The body language was terrible for his team to see. his players showed more resiliency and character than he did.

 

[phatcat]

I couldn’t disagree more. The decision boils down to the following. Is the upside and increased flexibility of making it a one possession, 3 point game worth the risk of having to convert a 2 point play as opposed to an extra point after a TD. I think the decision Fitz made was absolutely the right call and most who are criticizing the call would have called it ballsy if he had made it. He played the odds correctly.

Ya can't have it both ways, Corb. You say the one point PAT was risky (true at that Stage) but then covet the 3 point deficit.

 

[stpaulcat]

The two pony conversion decision was absolutely the correct one. If you make it it’s a 3 point game and a FG ties. If you kick the extra point you still need a TD to take the lead, same as you did by missing the two point conversion. The missed conversion did not factor into the game at all.

All NU needed was a one trick pony.

 

[corbi296]

Ya can't have it both ways, Corb. You say the one point PAT was risky (true at that Stage) but then covet the 3 point deficit.

You give yourself options. Even if it’s a 3 point game there is no rule that prevents you from trying to score a TD. Making it a 3 point game gives you a chance to tie the game if you are driving and run out of time to go for a TD. It’s all about increased optionality.

 

[HawkCat]

I stopped paying attention to tight ends when NU stopped using them. Gordon was a wake up call. I graduated Northwestern pre-google, where I learned there's no such thing as a stupid question, although I should have started the conversation with "He's good"....and stopped there, realizing that the underbelly of NU board fandom has been exposed with this loss. Cue GOUNU... GO Cats!

Well, Gordon did commit to us in January 2018 and played in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Just saying.

 

[NUCat320]

You give yourself options. Even if it’s a 3 point game there is no rule that prevents you from trying to score a TD. Making it a 3 point game gives you a chance to tie the game if you are driving and run out of time to go for a TD. It’s all about increased optionality.

Except they missed. So they only had a lower-quality option.

Again, whatever Fitz and staff did since getting home from Dublin was worse than what Fitz did when he went for two with 18 minutes left, but the choice hurt his chances of winning.

 

[RevCat]

No way!
Bad decision by Fitz.

You can't base a decision like that in the 3rd quarter on the assumption that you will not allow any more points. And the only way the decision makes sense is if you assume you are going to hold your opponent scoreless the rest of the way.

FAR MORE LIKELY is that Duke scores at least another 3 points.
So if you kick the extra point (90% chance), you are down 21-17. Defense can then be happy holding Duke to a FG. You are down 24-17 and thats workable.

When you go for 2 (35% chance?) you are either down 21-18 or 21-16.
Its about twice as likely that you are "down 5," rather than the optimistic "down 3"
After that, If Duke kicks a FG, you are down 6 or 8, 8 being twice as likely. If they score a TD, you are down 10 or 12, 12 being twice as likely..

With 17 minutes left, the decision to go for 2 made no sense at all.
If there were 5 minutes to go and we controlled the line of scrimmage, then maybe.

^^^^Airtight reasoning.

It was an idiotic decision

 

[corbi296]

Except they missed. So they only had a lower-quality option.

Again, whatever Fitz and staff did since getting home from Dublin was worse than what Fitz did when he went for two with 18 minutes left, but the choice hurt his chances of winning.

LOL, if only FItz had a crystal ball that told him the outcome before making these decisions. Ridiculous logic. There are no certainties in these decisions. Given the game situation, I think going for two gave NU the best chance to win the game.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Interesting analysis. I remember I was relieved when they kicked

I thought Duke was overly cautious to kick that FG.

If you try to score a TD, you have a 75% chance of scoring and winning the game.
25% chance of Northwestern gets the ball on the 1 yard line with no time out, having to go the length of the field to win.

If you attempt the FG, there's a 90% chance you put NU on the 25 yard line, needing to go 75 yards and get the 2 pt conversion to tie. There's also a 10% chance that you miss the FG and give NU the ball with a 5 point deficit.

Duke chose poorly, declining a 75% chance to win the game outright in order to select a scenario that was only somewhat better than what they'd have had if they failed to punch it in for the TD.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I just can't get upset about a 2-point conversion attempt when NU gave up the first 21 points. Duke jumped all over us and I thought, "here we go again," because that seems to be the norm against Duke now.

That's a terrible thought to have when playing freakin' Duke.

 

[stpaulcat]

Well, Gordon did commit to us in January 2018 and played in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Just saying.

That was the "depending not so much on tight ends" part, which has been going on since the departure of Dunsmore and in particular Vitale. There was Dickerson after that who I seem to remember dropped a lot of balls, and in 2020 Mangieri had 53 receiving yards and last year he had 68 receiving yards, Lang 68, Pugh 34 and Gordon 3 yards, which is why Gordon has eluded my (and others) radar. He made some great catches today, and showed he could be a significant contributor this year.

 

[corbi296]

That was the "depending not so much on tight ends" part, which has been going on since the departure of Dunsmore and in particular Vitale. There was Dickerson after that who I seem to remember dropped a lot of balls, and in 2020 Mangieri had 53 receiving yards and last year he had 68 receiving yards, Lang 68, Pugh 34 and Gordon 3 yards, which is why Gordon has eluded my (and others) radar. He made some great catches today, and showed he could be a significant contributor this year.

He was a pretty high profile signing. Houston area kid who passed up a late offer from LSU to come to NU.

 

[Secho99]

3. Never go for 2 in the 3rd quarter.

Unless you’re disastrous at 2-pointers there’s a lot of evidence that you should go for 2 when down by 5 as early as the 2nd quarter, and pretty much always should in the 3rd and 4th. This is assuming making it ~40-45% of the time. Even if you’re worse than that it’s a sound decision to go for 2 anytime after halftime when down 5. If you’re truly like 20% or something then it gets dicey, but the average conversion rate is somewhere in the low 40s. Down 5 with 12 minutes to play, a team only has to convert 21% of the time to make going for 2 a better decision than kicking the PAT. With 18 minutes left that number is going to be higher but not by a large margin.

Maybe the ‘Cats are truly bad at going for 2, but it would have to be really bad to justify not going for it when they did today.

 

[freewillie07]

Unless you’re disastrous at 2-pointers there’s a lot of evidence that you should go for 2 when down by 5 as early as the 2nd quarter, and pretty much always should in the 3rd and 4th. This is assuming making it ~40-45% of the time. Even if you’re worse than that it’s a sound decision to go for 2 anytime after halftime when down 5. If you’re truly like 20% or something then it gets dicey, but the average conversion rate is somewhere in the low 40s. Down 5 with 12 minutes to play, a team only has to convert 21% of the time to make going for 2 a better decision than kicking the PAT. With 18 minutes left that number is going to be higher but not by a large margin.

Maybe the ‘Cats are truly bad at going for 2, but it would have to be really bad to justify not going for it when they did today.

Thanks for this, good to have the numbers to back up the analytics.

That said, I do wonder if the specific circumstances of this game — poor OL play, WRs couldn’t get separation — significantly reduced the odds of a conversion.

I wish Hull held the hall for a half yard longer to see what Bajakian would have dialed up to tie the game. I wasn’t a fan of the “roll right and hope someone gets open” play.

 

[NU Houston]

He was a pretty high profile signing. Houston area kid who passed up a late offer from LSU to come to NU.

Also instrumental in helping recruit Chico Holt, a 4 star class of '23 commit from the same high school in Houston.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Unless you’re disastrous at 2-pointers there’s a lot of evidence that you should go for 2 when down by 5 as early as the 2nd quarter, and pretty much always should in the 3rd and 4th. This is assuming making it ~40-45% of the time. Even if you’re worse than that it’s a sound decision to go for 2 anytime after halftime when down 5. If you’re truly like 20% or something then it gets dicey, but the average conversion rate is somewhere in the low 40s. Down 5 with 12 minutes to play, a team only has to convert 21% of the time to make going for 2 a better decision than kicking the PAT. With 18 minutes left that number is going to be higher but not by a large margin.

Maybe the ‘Cats are truly bad at going for 2, but it would have to be really bad to justify not going for it when they did today.

I have seen no evidence at all to support this claim.
It would be difficult to do such an analysis scientifically because, unlike kicking, the success of every single 2 point conversion attempt is extremely dependent on the quality of the offense and defense.

But if you have evidence, please share a link or two...

Otherwise, for the sake of discussion...

You make about 90% of your extra point kicks. Thats about 0.9 points per opportunity.
You make some percentage of your two point attempts.
It depends on the quality of your offense versus their defense.
It varies game by game.
If your chance of success on a 2 point attempt is 60%, then in a vacuum you should go for 2 every time.
Similarly, if your chance of success on a 2 point attempt is 30%, then in a vacuum you should kick every time.

The main factor that determines your decision is the points that can be scored afterwards and how that affects your chance of winning. If there are 15 seconds left and the score is tied, you kick the extra point (unless you have a really terrible kicker)

If you are down 5 in the 3rd quarter and there is "plenty of football to be played" you should choose the option that offers the higher expected value (in this case kicking the extra point because our chance of converting the 2 point try was probably around 25-35%).

Viewed differently, its a simple question - which of these is better with 17 minutes to go?
a) 90% chance of down by 4 or 10% chance of down by 5
b) 67% chance of down by 5 or 33% chance of down by 3

From my perspective that makes it clear that we should have kicked the extra point.
Obviously, if we had a 50% chance to get the 2 points, you'd do that.

 

[Rebel II]

I have seen no evidence at all to support this claim.
It would be difficult to do such an analysis scientifically because, unlike kicking, the success of every single 2 point conversion attempt is extremely dependent on the quality of the offense and defense.

But if you have evidence, please share a link or two...

Otherwise, for the sake of discussion...

You make about 90% of your extra point kicks. Thats about 0.9 points per opportunity.
You make some percentage of your two point attempts.
It depends on the quality of your offense versus their defense.
It varies game by game.
If your chance of success on a 2 point attempt is 60%, then in a vacuum you should go for 2 every time.
Similarly, if your chance of success on a 2 point attempt is 30%, then in a vacuum you should kick every time.

The main factor that determines your decision is the points that can be scored afterwards and how that affects your chance of winning. If there are 15 seconds left and the score is tied, you kick the extra point (unless you have a really terrible kicker)

If you are down 5 in the 3rd quarter and there is "plenty of football to be played" you should choose the option that offers the higher expected value (in this case kicking the extra point because our chance of converting the 2 point try was probably around 25-35%).

Viewed differently, its a simple question - which of these is better with 17 minutes to go?
a) 90% chance of down by 4 or 10% chance of down by 5
b) 67% chance of down by 5 or 33% chance of down by 3

From my perspective that makes it clear that we should have kicked the extra point.
Obviously, if we had a 50% chance to get the 2 points, you'd do that.

The standard coach's guide sheet most people use has two columns: Up by 0-35 and Down by 0-35. It is the Gospel in the coaching ranks and in the minds of analytics crew. It says down by 5 go for 2. Not a bad decision.

 

[TejasCat]

The standard coach's guide sheet most people use has two columns: Up by 0-35 and Down by 0-35. It is the Gospel in the coaching ranks and in the minds of analytics crew. It says down by 5 go for 2. Not a bad decision.

You shouldnt even consider looking at that sheet until the 4th qtr

 

[Secho99]

I have seen no evidence at all to support this claim.
It would be difficult to do such an analysis scientifically because, unlike kicking, the success of every single 2 point conversion attempt is extremely dependent on the quality of the offense and defense.

But if you have evidence, please share a link or two...

Otherwise, for the sake of discussion...

You make about 90% of your extra point kicks. Thats about 0.9 points per opportunity.
You make some percentage of your two point attempts.
It depends on the quality of your offense versus their defense.
It varies game by game.
If your chance of success on a 2 point attempt is 60%, then in a vacuum you should go for 2 every time.
Similarly, if your chance of success on a 2 point attempt is 30%, then in a vacuum you should kick every time.

The main factor that determines your decision is the points that can be scored afterwards and how that affects your chance of winning. If there are 15 seconds left and the score is tied, you kick the extra point (unless you have a really terrible kicker)

If you are down 5 in the 3rd quarter and there is "plenty of football to be played" you should choose the option that offers the higher expected value (in this case kicking the extra point because our chance of converting the 2 point try was probably around 25-35%).

Viewed differently, its a simple question - which of these is better with 17 minutes to go?
a) 90% chance of down by 4 or 10% chance of down by 5
b) 67% chance of down by 5 or 33% chance of down by 3

From my perspective that makes it clear that we should have kicked the extra point.
Obviously, if we had a 50% chance to get the 2 points, you'd do that.

I'll gather some info and post, but generally speaking the win probability added by going for 2 justifies the risk, even in the 3rd quarter. But you're right that it's tough to evaluate your team's true ability without some sort of sample to work with. All we can go on is the overall conversion rate, which is around 40-45%. The analysis fivethirtyeight did looked at a range of 40-55% and analyzed the better choice within that range. Also, a lot of the research that has been done is in the NFL. But I've seen that the NFL and college conversion percentages are historically pretty similar.

One thing to keep in mind is that the range of outcomes after this decision also includes NU scoring the next TD. If it's 21-18 and NU scores again, kicking a PAT puts them up by 4, forcing Duke to score a TD to retake the lead. I would argue that the advantage to being down 3 is greater than the disadvantage of being down 5. But you're right that the true expected 2-pt % is hard to gauge and is an important part of the equation.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

The standard coach's guide sheet most people use has two columns: Up by 0-35 and Down by 0-35. It is the Gospel in the coaching ranks and in the minds of analytics crew. It says down by 5 go for 2. Not a bad decision.

Sometimes groups of people reject logical arguments because they mistakenly believe somebody else told them to think something different.

This is, after all, a discussion based entirely on probability assessment and identification of the important variables.

I think I have laid the issue out clearly.

Essentially what you are saying is that you thought we were likely to succeed on the two point conversion. I disagree.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I'll gather some info and post, but generally speaking the win probability added by going for 2 justifies the risk, even in the 3rd quarter. But you're right that it's tough to evaluate your team's true ability without some sort of sample to work with. All we can go on is the overall conversion rate, which is around 40-45%. The analysis fivethirtyeight did looked at a range of 40-55% and analyzed the better choice within that range. Also, a lot of the research that has been done is in the NFL. But I've seen that the NFL and college conversion percentages are historically pretty similar.

One thing to keep in mind is that the range of outcomes after this decision also includes NU scoring the next TD. If it's 21-18 and NU scores again, kicking a PAT puts them up by 4, forcing Duke to score a TD to retake the lead. I would argue that the advantage to being down 3 is greater than the disadvantage of being down 5. But you're right that the true expected 2-pt % is hard to gauge and is an important part of the equation.

Okay. Sounds good. Definitely something to discuss up to and probably even during the SIU game.

 

[Rebel II]

Sometimes groups of people reject logical arguments because they mistakenly believe somebody else told them to think something different.

This is, after all, a discussion based entirely on probability assessment and identification of the important variables.

I think I have laid the issue out clearly.

Essentially what you are saying is that you thought we were likely to succeed on the two point conversion. I disagree.

I am saying that analytics say that being down by 5 or 4 doesn't matter. However, if successful being down by only 3 is a huge deal. Think about it.

 

[FeralFelidae]

The 2-point conversion didn't cost us the game. Of all the things from the game to be upset about, why focus on that?

 

[CatManTrue]

The 2-point conversion didn't cost us the game. Of all the things from the game to be upset about, why focus on that?

Because thinking about how far our defense has fallen in 2 years is too depressing.

At least Jake has rejuvenated our offense. Does anyone remember how his claim to fame was to find the most talented players on his roster and get the most our of it?

He’s doing it with Hull. Pretty nice gameplan by Jake aside from a few head scratching calls.