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

Redball Express

All Aboard!!!
Messages
16,253
Reaction score
12,758
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.
Yeah..

My teaching moment is to teach our HC to kick a FG and tie the game and take a chance to can make overtime and win.

Him going for 4th down instead of the points?

Needs his head examined.

We could have been 2-0 right now.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
LIke I said also, I think you get more creative on the 2 pt in a last chance scenario.

So I did not like the decision or the play called and I would not assume that same play call at the end.
I think that's silly, personally. There's no way they didn't think down 9 with four minutes left wasn't a do-or-die situation. They were going to pull out the best play they could for that moment.
 

jaythecowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
2,248

davidariust24

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1,068
We got lucky with that onside kick. Those are almost never converted. You don't factor converting onside kicks in a game. Luckily for Mike Mccarthy we got lucky and won because that decision could have cost us the game. If he would have just kicked an extra point we are down eight which puts (number 1. )The pressure on the falcons to convert a first and not just run the football. (2.) We had to burn all of our time outs because insead of a one possession game, YOUR DECISION created a TWO possession game with around four minutes left . We really hadn't pressured Ryan all night. That onside kick saved Mike's butt tonight.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
53,646
Reaction score
32,023
Teachable moment: that's why you DON'T go for two early. :facepalm:

The only reason this thread exists is because the Cowboys got lucky on an onside kick.
Exactly.
It was a stupid call.
Fortunately, the Falcons inability to recover an onside's kick makes it all moot.
 

visionary

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,432
Reaction score
31,767
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.

LOL :facepalm:

here is another “teachable moment”, make sure you are 100% on your on side kicks if you are going to follow this
 

Lutonio

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
4,571
At that point in the game, I think the best move would have been to make it a one possession game and make Atlanta play a more honest game. If they get the ball back, then Dallas is down by 8 with maybe about 3 minutes left. That gives them the chance to run the offense they want to without an onside kick.

It’s astronomically unlikely for Dallas to win that game. With the way it played out after the failed conversion, they needed two 50-ish yards bombs and an onside kick, which the Falcons played in a way that will be meme’d for the rest of football eternity.
 

coogrfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,666
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.

This is nonsense.

If the Falcs hands team hadn't gone brain dead on the onside kick, we lose.
 

davidariust24

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1,068
So you would prefer to simply lose with no chance at all than have a chance at an onside kick? No thanks.
I know we want to be unpredictable, but not with a chance at going 0-2. Teams that go 0-2 almost never make the playoffs. Its great now in hindsight because of the win. We had to burn our timeouts because we missed the two point conversion. I dont want him to lose his boldness but 0-2 is too deep a hole. Now we have a win and the eagles lost too so he can be more bold now but Mike was about to get tar and feathered if we lost and he'd be blazed tomorrow
 

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,800
Reaction score
16,945
No I am arguing 60% at the end of the game versus 6% being down by 9.

All other things being equal being down by 8 or 9.

I also think, as a staff you would have been more creative on a 2 pt conversion to tie at the end versus the play they called with 4 min left.
The choice wasn’t being down 8 vs being down 9.

The choice was being down 8 vs going for 2... had they converted, they’d only be down by 7.

Think about what it means to be down by 8 points. They’d still need to go for 2 later anyways!

The benefit of going for 2 NOW instead of LATER is information... it’s better to fail NOW and know that I need 2 more scores than it is to fail LATER when it’s too late to score again (because you felt like you were down 1 score being down by 8).
 

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,800
Reaction score
16,945
LIke I said also, I think you get more creative on the 2 pt in a last chance scenario.

So I did not like the decision or the play called and I would not assume that same play call at the end.
That’s a different discussion, but I’d assume they’re going to try their very best to convert the 2 no matter when they attempt it.

There’s no evidence at all that going for 2 later on increases your chances of converting.
 

davidariust24

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1,068
The choice wasn’t being down 8 vs being down 9.

The choice was being down 8 vs going for 2... had they converted, they’d only be down by 7.

Think about what it means to be down by 8 points. They’d still need to go for 2 later anyways!

The benefit of going for 2 NOW instead of LATER is information... it’s better to fail NOW and know that I need 2 more scores than it is to fail LATER when it’s too late to score again (because you felt like you were down 1 score being down by 8).
Thats not true. You take the pressure of the other team by failing early. It changes their play calling. Instead of feeling the need to throw. They can then run every play if they want to. They also make us burn our timeouts. If we kick an extra point we are down by 8 and all we have to do is get them to turnover on downs and we have our timeouts still, but we won so it worked out good.
 

coogrfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,666
The choice wasn’t being down 8 vs being down 9.

The choice was being down 8 vs going for 2... had they converted, they’d only be down by 7.

Think about what it means to be down by 8 points. They’d still need to go for 2 later anyways!

The benefit of going for 2 NOW instead of LATER is information... it’s better to fail NOW and know that I need 2 more scores than it is to fail LATER when it’s too late to score again (because you felt like you were down 1 score being down by 8).

Think about what it means to be down 9 w/4 minutes left - we needed to stop them, then score, then stop them again, and then score again. Only the fact that ATL botched the onside kick allowed us an opportunity to win.
 

dankman

Member
Messages
64
Reaction score
47
I honestly don’t know if those who are saying it was a bad move are arguing in good faith or trolling. It’s not really hard to understand that finding out if your conversion is successful with 5 minutes left is better than finding out with 1:40 left. Think about the Falcons drive after we failed the conversion. Almost five minutes left and we used all of our timeouts on their first series. We almost certainly would not have used them that early if we were in a one possession game and consequently gotten the ball back with less time on the clock. But, because we already knew that the conversion failed we were able to play for a chance at two more scores.
 

mathew1184

Well-Known Member
Messages
693
Reaction score
780
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.

I was angry as heck when we went for two...I thought we blew our chances when we missed it.

I'm a man and I can bc admit when I'm wrong. Im just so happy it played out the way it did.
 

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,800
Reaction score
16,945
Thats not true. You take the pressure of the other team by failing early. It changes their play calling. Instead of feeling the need to throw. They can then run every play if they want to. They also make us burn our timeouts. If we kick an extra point we are down by 8 and all we have to do is get them to turnover on downs and we have our timeouts still, but we won so it worked out good.
But even if we get the ball back, we’re in no rush to score because we don’t know that we need 2 scores to win. So that works both ways.
 
Top