Teachable Moment: That's why you go for two early

[Reality]

You guys arguing it was the right move are going against just about every coaching theory in the world. Moose was stunned when they did it.

Exactly! The proper strategy when you are behind late in the game is to get within one score .. ALWAYS.

That is always your first goal and the smart/logical move because you don't know what else is going to happen later.

For example (and this is just one example), let's say the Cowboys got a safety against the Falcons after the kickoff. Now the game is 39-32 and a touchdown now only ties the game. If you had gone for the extra point, you could win the game with a touchdown.

As I said, the first goal when you are behind late in the game is to get within one score.

It worked out and I am glad, but a lot of things went the Cowboys way to make it work out that are unlikely to line up again when it matters.

 

[Parcells4Life]

McCarthy said this is what he’ll always due because of the math. I understand it if it’s more than 8 minutes because then you may not have to rely on an onside kick. But 4:53 is stupid. Any strategy that could take into play having to get an onside kick as a viable option is stupid.

Now if they go next season to that 4th and 15 option instead of an onside kick I’d be all for it.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Unless one of those options is adding more time onto the clock, then no, not at all.

Going for the 2 and missing it in that stage of the game eliminates the need or option for 2 later. Going for the much more likely XP keeps the game within 1 scoring drive.

By the way Atlanta also screwed up earlier going for 2. When you have a good sized lead, take the 1 point. You shouldn't even be thinking about a team needing 3 scores to tie you.

You should only go for 2:

1. When you have to
2. When you feel you have an overwhelming schematic advantage
3. Your kicker is hurt

I love analytics, love, love love them. But we are overthinking them. Use them for an edge not as a rule. Coaching football is still about feel. Feel where you are at any point in the game and reduce or eliminate opportunities for mistakes.

It's crazy to me that some of you don't get that today's decision was wrong.

Crazier that a highly paid NFL coach doesn't get that either.

I love it. Some people are arguing it's "playing the percentages" to wait. Others say it's "feel." Both are garbage. Everything favors going for it early.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Exactly! The proper strategy when you are behind late in the game is to get within one score .. ALWAYS.

That is always your first goal and the smart/logical move because you don't know what else is going to happen later.

For example (and this is just one example), let's say the Cowboys got a safety against the Falcons after the kickoff. Now the game is 39-32 and a touchdown now only ties the game. If you had gone for the extra point, you could win the game with a touchdown now.

As I said, the first goal when you are being late in the game is to get within one score first.

It worked out and I am glad, but a lot of things went the Cowboys way to make it work out that are unlikely to line up again when it matters.

The benefit of the information you get by going early far far outweighs the fringe possibilities of a safety on the kickoff or...I actually can't think of any other situations where it would be better the other way.

 

[pancakeman]

And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.

Unless you can score a safety against the opponent on their next possession.

 

[Pabst]

Honestly I'm more upset at the playcall than the decision. That was a horrible playcall.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Unless you can score a safety against the opponent on their next possession.

And the odds of that are? I'll give you a hint, they're vastly lower than recovering an onside kick.

 

[dreghorn2]

The decision, amongst other reasons, also influences your opponents next drive. It's a dramatic difference protecting a one versus two score game.

The conventional wisdom in this case is correct, you kick the extra point.

In my opinion.

 

[catiii]

The question is: Is it genius, or is it madness?

 

[pancakeman]

And the odds of that are? I'll give you a hint, they're vastly lower than recovering an onside kick.

Oh I totally agree, I was just racking my brain for a case where it'd be better to kick.
Good post.

 

[Runwildboys]

For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.

Thank you.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The decision, amongst other reasons, also influences your opponents next drive. It's a dramatic difference protecting a one versus two score game.

The conventional wisdom in this case is correct, you kick the extra point.

In my opinion.

If you're down by 9, they will play far more conservatively than if you're down by 8. That's better for you, not for them.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Oh I totally agree, I was just racking my brain for a case where it'd be better to kick.
Good post.

Gotcha. I wonder if it's ever happened.

 

[Vegas_Cowboy]

I disagree. Don't count on an onside kick to try and save you. The odds are very low.

 

[Reality]

The benefit of the information you get by going early far far outweighs the fringe possibilities of a safety on the kickoff or...I actually can't think of any other situations where it would be better the other way.

The information is irrelevant early if you fail to convert.

You cannot assume you will get the ball back twice and you also cannot rule out that something else may happen in your favor (ex: safety against the other team) that would make that 2 point conversion look even more stupid in hindsight.

The goal is to get within one score and go for 2 only when you have to and they did not have to at that point.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I disagree. Don't count on an onside kick to try and save you. The odds a very low.

But you're not counting on an onside kick. You're hoping to convert the 2-pointer.

Put it this way. If you wait, and you make the 2-pointer at the end, you tie. If you miss it, you lose, period. You never even gave yourself the onside as a possibility.
If you go early and you make it, you're down 7. Great!. If you miss, well, you know you need two scores, so you know you'll need the onside kick, but now you have the chance to play accordingly.

 

[cern]

i don't agree. i believe you wait until the final chance to get the two. if you fail early, it could psychologically destroy the team. that having been said,, the players didn't quit and went on to win. so what do i know.?????

 

[Established1971]

For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.

absolutely, utterly wrong and the hindsight of the success of the onside kick (something that is successful about 5% of the time) does not make you right.

Here is the REAL logic:

You are down 15 with under 5 minutes to play
you score and are now down by 9 with the chance to go down by 8
if you get the extra point (very high probability) you are now down by 8.
Being down by 8 is "within one score" (touchdown, with 2 pt conversion) or "one drive"
You miss the 2 point and you are down by 9, so you need two scores or two drives.
If you are down by 8 every player on the Cowboys is thinking that, and every player is now juiced, motivated, psyched (whatever word you prefer) to get that one score that you need.
But being down by 9 and you have all these players thinking, damn we need two drives and I dont see how there is time.
All you need is one player to lose a bit of focus on one play and miss a block or tackle. Just one.

Its psychology and it is simple. 4 1/2 minutes is still enough time that you are not yet forced to think of the onside play yet.
Take the point that keeps you within "one score" or "one drive"
Then you go stop them, get the ball back, and you have time to tie the game, no need to rely on the onside kick.

we got lucky. That is now two weeks with a bad special teams decision and we are 1-1 as we should be when you do these things

 

[MonsterD]

I disagree. Don't count on an onside kick to try and save you. The odds a very low.

My best guess is this is the proposition- Convert a successful onside kick or score quick last drive THEN convert the 2 points THEN rely on the defense not to let the other team score with a decent amount of time left, let's say 1 min to 1 and a half minute. I can't say which is more difficult honestly before the rule changes I think the onsides option was better.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The information is irrelevant early if you fail to convert.

You cannot assume you will get the ball back twice and you also cannot rule out that something else may happen in your favor (ex: safety against the other team) that would make that 2 point conversion look even more stupid in hindsight.

The goal is to get within one score and go for 2 only when you have to and they did not have to at that point.

Come on. Has a safety ever happened in that situation? The safety is the ONLY example. What else can happen that would make it a bad choice in retrospect?

Of course the information matters. If you're down 8, you play to run down the clock and try to tie the game. If you're down 9, you play to score as fast as you can and leave time on the clock. The information is crucial.

I mean, yeah, you're probably going to lose anyway. It's bad being down 15 late in the game. But going for 2 early maximizes your chances to win.