Cardiac Cats at Cowboys, a winning GDT

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, Rtnldave said:

Time will tell.

Math and analytics have already told us though. They have monte carlo simulations showing you the probabilities. Its like the dealer saying "You have 19, but I guarantee the next card is an ace (1).",

 

Using analytics doesnt guarantee a win (black jack), but it does put you in the best position consistently. And analytics is telling us McCarthy is doing well - - no matter how fans "feel" about it. 

[resilient part 2]

38 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Math and analytics have already told us though. They have monte carlo simulations showing you the probabilities. Its like the dealer saying "You have 19, but I guarantee the next card is an ace (1).",

 

Using analytics doesnt guarantee a win (black jack), but it does put you in the best position consistently. And analytics is telling us McCarthy is doing well - - no matter how fans "feel" about it. 

all MM has to do is drive the Bus and get out of the way.. trust in our OC and DC.

Edited October 6, 2021 by resilient part 2

[Rtnldave]

36 minutes ago, resilient part 2 said:

all MM has to do is drive the Bus and get out of the way.. trust in our OC and DC.

Well, you're all clearly sold on this. But we still haven't sniffed an NFC title game let alone a SB in a quarter century. Meanwhile teams like TB, Philly, Balt, St. Louis, Ariz, NO, Sea, etc have been to or won at least one or more SBs.

I guess the analytics work better for them than us.

But you are all forgetting one thing. In the 25 years we have been in exile, we have twice had 13 or 12 win teams, home field advantage throughout at least once and managed to screw it up.

I simply don't trust it. But hey, at least we all know where we stand.

[Texas_OutLaw7]

3 minutes ago, Rtnldave said:

Well, you're all clearly sold on this. But we still haven't sniffed an NFC title game let alone a SB in a quarter century. Meanwhile teams like TB, Philly, Balt, St. Louis, Ariz, NO, Sea, etc have been to or won at least one or more SBs.

I guess the analytics work better for them than us.

But you are all forgetting one thing. In the 25 years we have been in exile, we have twice had 13 or 12 win teams, home field advantage throughout at least once and managed to screw it up.

I simply don't trust it. But hey, at least we all know where we stand.

Honestly Dave. What are you even saying here?

We have NOT been a team that has used analytics in the past. This is an insanely recent thing with this coaching staff. And you went on to name drop several teams who DO use analytics. 

I - honest to God or whatever higher power you believe in - have no idea what your arguing here. 

[Matts4313]

6 minutes ago, Rtnldave said:

Well, you're all clearly sold on this. But we still haven't sniffed an NFC title game let alone a SB in a quarter century. Meanwhile teams like TB, Philly, Balt, St. Louis, Ariz, NO, Sea, etc have been to or won at least one or more SBs.

I guess the analytics work better for them than us.

But you are all forgetting one thing. In the 25 years we have been in exile, we have twice had 13 or 12 win teams, home field advantage throughout at least once and managed to screw it up.

I simply don't trust it. But hey, at least we all know where we stand.

We didnt adopt analytics until last year. Which is why those other teams went to superbowls and we didnt. 

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said:

I - honest to God or whatever higher power you believe in - have no idea what your arguing here. 

 

2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

🤪

This conversation makes my head spin, tbh. 

 

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

1 hour ago, Rtnldave said:

Well, using your analogy, if you stayed at 19 and won, I guess you wouldn't kick yourself. If you lost and found out the next card was a 2 and you could have won by a point, I guess you would.

No. That’s my whole point. In the short run, a good choice can work out poorly, and a bad choice can work out well. That’s why you can’t get worked up over idiosyncratic outcomes. When I say “process over outcomes”, I mean that literally. Maximizing your win probability is all you can do.

1 hour ago, Rtnldave said:

And I know this forum. If we go up 13 to 7 in a tight game against a quality opponent, better than Car, and go for 2 and blow it, like the 2 times we didn't convert this week, and the other team goes down and scores and wins 14 to 13 and now we go from hosting a Div game to a WC game, many on here will be calling for McCarthy's or Moore's head.

That's when I am calling BS and saying, nope it's all about the process.

Won’t be me, unless they start making strategically unsound decisions.

1 hour ago, Rtnldave said:

In short, you like being aggressive, I like playing it safe. As to which one is smarter? Time will tell.

That is not an accurate summation of my opinion, at all. I want to make the decision that maximizes my chances of winning. Those decisions tend to be more aggressive than the ones “old school” football would make, because “old school” football is sub-optimal. But I am not in favor of aggression for aggression’s sake.

On the other hand, you seem to prefer a more conservative approach, for conservatism’s sake. You choose the more predictable route, even at the detriment of your win probabilities. 

[Matts4313]

6 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

On the other hand, you seem to prefer a more conservative approach, for conservatism’s sake. You choose the more predictable route, even at the detriment of your win probabilities. 

Right. Its not that you like aggressive or conservative, you just want to win. So you take the odds. 

Which compounds my confusion on what @Rtnldave is saying. In gambling, the house wins and all those casinos are built because the house has the best odds. We are simply increasing our odds of winning by using analytics and not "old school, ground and pound, take the points".

 

BTW - when was the last time an 'old school' coach won a superbowl? Belichick, Homlgren and Arians are old people, but they are not strict old-school. 

[Rtnldave]

7 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Right. Its not that you like aggressive or conservative, you just want to win. So you take the odds. 

Which compounds my confusion on what @Rtnldave is saying. In gambling, the house wins and all those casinos are built because the house has the best odds. We are simply increasing our odds of winning by using analytics and not "old school, ground and pound, take the points".

 

BTW - when was the last time an 'old school' coach won a superbowl? Belichick, Homlgren and Arians are old people, but they are not strict old-school. 

Okay, let's keep it simple. Let's just see if this analytics thing works for us.

Believe me, I would LOVE to be wrong on this one. That would mean a championship for us or at least an appearance. 

[Matts4313]

I meant Reid, but said Holmgren. Thats a funny mistake when you consider their body shape. 

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

On 10/6/2021 at 5:34 AM, Rtnldave said:

Okay, let's keep it simple. Let's just see if this analytics thing works for us.

Believe me, I would LOVE to be wrong on this one. That would mean a championship for us or at least an appearance. 

Again, no one says it’s definitely going to work. We’re saying it maximizes the possibility of success. You are still competing with 31 other teams with the same goal you have. In the NFL, the odds are against you no matter what you do. That’s why you need to maximize your odds. A failure to win the 2022 Super Bowl is not evidence that the decision making wasn’t smart.

[Rtnldave]

1 hour ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

Again, no one says it’s definitely going to work. We’re saying it maximizes the possibility of success. You are still competing with 31 other teams with the same goal you have. In the NFL, the odds are against you no matter what you do. That’s why you need to maximize your odds. A failure to win the 2022 Super Bowl is not evidence that the decision making wasn’t smart.

I understand everything you all are saying. And right now, because Dallas is winning, it looks great.

The scenario I am presenting is this, if they continue this aggressive approach, when it isn't necessary, and by necessary I mean, you are down 8 points with under a minute to go, You need a 2 point conversion to tie and get into OT, so you have no choice but to go for 2. Back to incomplete sentence and first point, you continue this aggressive approach and come up short on the 2 point conversion, like against Car, and it ends up costing you the game by a point or 2.

I want to see how many on here are STILL going to back this aggressive approach and be forgiving and say, "Well, we could have taken the kick both times and we would have ended regulation with a tie or even a W, but we went for 2 because the analytics told us it was the better percentage, but didn't convert.

That's what I'm waiting to see. I hope it doesn't ever happen and I'm proven wrong. I would gladly accept that.

But the X Factor is this, I have seen this team dominate early before and screw things up in the end. They didn't get beat so much as they beat themselves or where in a position to let a bad call and their season.

So, again, we shall see.

[Texas_OutLaw7]

I’ll say this. If we are down two scores - I advise you immediately go for two points the first time you score. 
 

If you fail to convert, you are down 8 and have good odds (statistically) of converting next time. 
 

If you succeed the first time, you are in position to win the game outright with the next score. 
 

While statistically this is sound based on conversion percentages of 2pt plays, a chance exists where doing this loses you the game. You have to be okay with that outcome. 

[Matts4313]

2 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

when it isn't necessary

If they use analytics properly this should never happen. Ever. 

They should always go with the choice that has the greatest probability of winning. Whether they win or lose is an entirely different matter.

[Rtnldave]

7 hours ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said:

I’ll say this. If we are down two scores - I advise you immediately go for two points the first time you score. 
 

If you fail to convert, you are down 8 and have good odds (statistically) of converting next time. 
 

If you succeed the first time, you are in position to win the game outright with the next score. 
 

While statistically this is sound based on conversion percentages of 2pt plays, a chance exists where doing this loses you the game. You have to be okay with that outcome. 

Okay, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT IN WRITING. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Because if they should begin to lose games based on what you just wrote, I want to see how many who advocate it now are going to truly be okay with that. 

I predict, if they should lose games based on this, the defendents will emerge in the form of: the play calling sucks, the player sucks, the HC is an idiot, etc. 

NOT, maybe we should have punted and trusted our defense, we do lead the league in takeaways. Or, maybe we should have settled for the 1 point kick and kept the score even.

I'm sorry folks, I just disagree. I feel as though it takes away from an experienced coach that knows what's best for his team.