TSN geeked up with Evans and home crowd. But spidey sense says EDM pass rush is going to make Evans throw game killing mistakes.

4 minutes ago, Tracker said:

I know this is not the main event, but its a pretty entertaining game.

Jones, Adams, Harris, Gable...Rod Blacks brain is imploding.

Harris is on fire but that Ti Cat defense will extinguish him & his passing attack next week. 

7 minutes ago, J5V said:

I think it's been shown that the success rate justifies going for two points. Depends how good your offense can execute I suppose.

Absolutely, conventional game theory would dictate that provided your 2-point conversion success rate is above 50%, you should always go for 2. However, mathematical game theory relies upon some principals that simply don't apply in the game of football. For example, law of large numbers, which would state that provided you have sufficient iterations, you'd want to go for 2 all the time (because your expected value is greater than going for 1), doesn't really work, because even in a high-scoring game, you'll get 7, maybe 8 touchdowns? In order for the overall gain from going for two all the time to be realized, you'd need way more iterations than that.

Game theory fails to account for in-game scenarios. At the end of the day, it really depends on the coach's appetite for risk - a coach with a larger appetite for risk (such as Dickenson) is more willing to go for 2, whereas O'Shea (risk-adverse) won't go for 2 unless he absolutely has to.

11 minutes ago, Tracker said:

I know this is not the main event, but its a pretty entertaining game.

I agree - watched the first half but now have to head out to McMahon to hopefully witness a Bomber victory! I taped the 2nd half and will watch when I get back hopefully enjoying a Bomber Win! Dang it is cold out!

5 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Harris is on fire but that Ti Cat defense will extinguish him & his passing attack next week. 

Give any QB lots of time and open recs and theyll put up points. MTL defense is gawd awful today.

Just now, Eternal optimist said:

Absolutely, conventional game theory would dictate that provided your 2-point conversion success rate is above 50%, you should always go for 2. However, mathematical game theory relies upon some principals that simply don't apply in the game of football. For example, law of large numbers, which would state that provided you have sufficient iterations, you'd want to go for 2 all the time (because your expected value is greater than going for 1), doesn't really work, because even in a high-scoring game, you'll get 7, maybe 8 touchdowns? In order for the overall gain from going for two all the time to be realized, you'd need way more iterations than that.

Game theory fails to account for in-game scenarios. At the end of the day, it really depends on the coach's appetite for risk - a coach with a larger appetite for risk (such as Dickenson) is more willing to go for 2, whereas O'Shea (risk-adverse) won't go for 2 unless he absolutely has to.

Very well said. A larger number of iterations for the rule to apply strongly makes sense as well as factors like the weather (kicking conditions) and the consistency of said kicker. In this case, I stand by my suggestion that Khari should maybe be going for two more often.

2 minutes ago, J5V said:

Very well said. A larger number of iterations for the rule to apply strongly makes sense as well as factors like the weather (kicking conditions) and the consistency of said kicker. In this case, I stand by my suggestion that Khari should maybe be going for two more often.

Alright, well then agree to disagree. No point in pointlessly bantering.

Its probably going to come down to who makes the best half-time adjustments, but the Als gotta put some pressure on Harris. He has enough time back there to look like an all-star.

7 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Give any QB lots of time and open recs and theyll put up points. MTL defense is gawd awful today.

Harris can autograph his footballs before he throws them.

Muamba was invisible until that interview.

Those swing passes are killing the Als. 

Montreal is getting chippy. Flags are going to start to fly if they're not careful. They can't really afford that. 

Edmonton o coordinator calling a great game. 

Edm oline dominating the line of scrimmage.

Edited November 10, 20196 yr by HardCoreBlue

1 minute ago, JCon said:

Montreal is getting chippy. Flags are going to start to fly if they're not careful. They can't really afford that. 

Lots of chippiness pre whistle according to Rod the pin head. Yeah!🙄

Edited November 10, 20196 yr by GOLD MEMBER

The  ped expert John Bowman is doing nothing.

11 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

Alright, well then agree to disagree. No point in pointlessly bantering.

I'm confused... I though the two of you were in agreement.... it sounded like he agreed with you... maybe I'm missing something...

got the sound off.

2 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

I'm confused... I though the two of you were in agreement.... it sounded like he agreed with you... maybe I'm missing something...

No, my stance was that teams shouldn't go for two on the basis that they are riskier. His stance (I think?) was that teams should go for two, on the basis that in poor-weather games, a one-point conversions have lower success, and thus why not gamble for two.

As a rebuttal, I would add that in poor-weather games, points are at an even higher premium, so throwing them away on a two-point conversion attempt is less advisable, unless absolutely necessary.

2 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

No, my stance was that teams shouldn't go for two on the basis that they are riskier. His stance (I think?) was that teams should go for two, on the basis that in poor-weather games, a one-point conversions have lower success, and thus why not gamble for two.

As a rebuttal, I would add that in poor-weather games, points are at an even higher premium, so throwing them away on a two-point conversion attempt is less advisable, unless absolutely necessary.

ok, now I'm following the conversation... he threw me off when he started out complimenting your explanation... never mind me, lol... I'm caught up now, thx!

3 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

No, my stance was that teams shouldn't go for two on the basis that they are riskier. His stance (I think?) was that teams should go for two, on the basis that in poor-weather games, a one-point conversions have lower success, and thus why not gamble for two.

As a rebuttal, I would add that in poor-weather games, points are at an even higher premium, so throwing them away on a two-point conversion attempt is less advisable, unless absolutely necessary.

From my point of view, one of the biggest pluses about two point conversions is that they demonstrate the confidence of their coaches in their offences. But its all about context.

7 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

I'm confused... I though the two of you were in agreement.... it sounded like he agreed with you... maybe I'm missing something...

We have an understanding. LOL! It's all good.

1 minute ago, Tracker said:

From my point of view, one of the biggest pluses about two point conversions is that they demonstrate the confidence of their coaches in their offences. But its all about context.

There is a time and a place for them for sure, but I think going for them 100% of the time is just playing with fire.

Are there Super stores in Western canada? 

Guy celebrates a first down when trailing by 2 TD's, drops the next pass....