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

[Future]

But the fact that it's a one score game doesn't make the 2 point conversion easier or anymore attainable, so what bearing does it have on the outcome of the game?

The play needs to be converted, regardless of when it's attempted. That's really all that matters.

15-7=8. One possession game.

Yes, you still need to convert one. By kicking the XP, you give yourself a chance to not need an onsides kick.

 

[JD_KaPow]

15-7=8. One possession game.

Yes, you still need to convert one. By kicking the XP, you give yourself a chance to not need an onsides kick.

The 2-pointer is what gives you the chance to not need an onside kick. Doesn’t make any difference WHEN you try it: you have to convert it or you will need the onside.

 

[Future]

I don’t get what’s so hard to understand. You need to convert a 2-pointer OR try an onside. This is true no matter when you attempt the 2-pointer.

Convert the 2-pointer early and it’s a 7-point game. No need to kick an onside.

Kick the xp early and you still have to convert a 2-pointer OR you’ll still need an onside kick. Only the timing is different.

The timing of when you kick the onside kick is exactly the same.

The bolded only matters if you're going to go for two to win.

The only advantage of going for two early is knowing whether or not it's going to be a two-score game. If you make it one score, just play the same way anyway. Knowing you have to kick an onsides earlier in the game is stupid, relative to minimizing the chance that you need to get one in the first place.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

15-7=8. One possession game.

Yes, you still need to convert one. By kicking the XP, you give yourself a chance to not need an onsides kick.

Huh?

The 2 point conversion is the very act that makes it so you don't have to try an onside kick.

So again, I ask, because you still haven't answered - what difference does it make when you attempt it? Kicking an XP after the first TD doesn't make your chances of success any greater to convert the 2 point conversion the next time.

 

[Future]

The 2-pointer is what gives you the chance to not need an onside kick. Doesn’t make any difference WHEN you try it: you have to convert it or you will need the onside.

I know, you don't need to say that 20 times.

By trying it early and not converting, you've shortened the game for yourself because 94 times out of 100, the game is over with 4 minutes left.

 

[gjkoeppen]

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.

Here's the HUGE flaw in your logic. You seem to think it's better to be down by more points than less. Now the Gods were smiling on the Cowboys yesterday but but you seem to think that needing more scores to win is better than needing less scores to win. Now if you ask all 31 of the other NFL head coaches if better than half way through the 4th quarter if they could chose to be down by 2 or 3 scores to win the game or one score that would tie the game how many would chose being down 2 or 3 scores?
.
.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The timing of when you kick the onside kick is exactly the same.

The bolded only matters if you're going to go for two to win.

The only advantage of going for two early is knowing whether or not it's going to be a two-score game. If you make it one score, just play the same way anyway. Knowing you have to kick an onsides earlier in the game is stupid, relative to minimizing the chance that you need to get one in the first place.

The chances of needing one are exactly the same either way: you’re not minimizing anything.

And no, you don’t want to play the same way. You manage the clock very differently depending on whether you need to score once or twice.

 

[Future]

The chances of needing one are exactly the same either way: you’re not minimizing anything.

And no, you don’t want to play the same way. You manage the clock very differently depending on whether you need to score once or twice.

If you're going to take 1 point on one of your scores, there's even LESS reason to go for 2 early.

You don't have to.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

If you're going to take 1 point on one of your scores, there's even LESS reason to go for 2 early.

You don't have to.

You don't have to, but it doesn't make a difference one way or another. The 2-point conversion isn't made any easier by saving it for later.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Here's the HUGE flaw in your logic. You seem to think it's better to be down by more points than less. Now the Gods were smiling on the Cowboys yesterday but but you seem to think that needing more scores to win is better than needing less scores to win. Now if you ask all 31 of the other NFL head coaches if better than half way through the 4th quarter if they could chose to be down by 2 or 3 scores to win the game or one score that would tie the game how many would chose being down 2 or 3 scores?
.
.

The one score won’t tie the game unless you convert a 2-pointer.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Kicking the XP puts you down 8. You can tie the game with one possession and not need the onsides kick.

This is a false assumption.

From 2015-2019 in the NFL the 2-Pt conversion was good 50% of the time (253 made of 505 attempts). That means there's a 50% chance that being down 8 is a two-possession game still. Believing that 8 points is a one-possession game gives coaches a false sense of security when in reality it's a crapshoot that it's actually a two-possession game. People are getting hung up on the one possession game fallacy.

 

[Future]

This is a false assumption.

From 2015-2019 in the NFL the 2-Pt conversion was good 50% of the time (253 made of 505 attempts). That means there's a 50% chance that being down 8 is a two-possession game still. Believing that 8 points is a one-possession game gives coaches a false sense of security when in reality it's a crapshoot that it's actually a two-possession game. People are getting hung up on the one possession game fallacy.

Right, I understand that.

Which is why I don't take a 50/50 shot at losing the game that early. If it's going to come down to a coin flip, I'm doing that in the last minute of the game, not when I know I'm going to get the ball back anyway.

 

[gjkoeppen]

The one score won’t tie the game unless you convert a 2-pointer.

This is true but failing early made the Cowboys have to score more than just another TD with a 2 point conversion. Again the Gods smiled on the Cowboys with than onside kick. Again knowing that only ONE score and a 2 point conversion with little time is 99% of the time better than needing 2 or more scores.
.
.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Right, I understand that.

Which is why I don't take a 50/50 shot at losing the game that early. If it's going to come down to a coin flip, I'm doing that in the last minute of the game, not when I know I'm going to get the ball back anyway.

I'd rather find out if that 50/50 shot worked with time to try something, even if it comes down to something with as low a probability as an onside kick. If you wait and end up trying that conversion with less than a minute to go - because your urgency changes if you think you need one score and not two - then you get stuck with the same situation, needing the kick, but less time to do anything afterwards.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

This is true but failing early made the Cowboys have to score more than just another TD with a 2 point conversion. Again the Gods smiled on the Cowboys with than onside kick. Again knowing that only ONE score and a 2 point conversion with little time is 99% of the time better than needing 2 or more scores.
.
.

How do you figure that? I don't see what difference it makes.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

This is true but failing early made the Cowboys have to score more than just another TD with a 2 point conversion. Again the Gods smiled on the Cowboys with than onside kick. Again knowing that only ONE score and a 2 point conversion with little time is 99% of the time better than needing 2 or more scores.
.
.

It's not better. It may seem better, but that's a false sense of security.

 

[Future]

I'd rather find out if that 50/50 shot worked with time to try something, even if it comes down to something with as low a probability as an onside kick. If you wait and end up trying that conversion with less than a minute to go - because your urgency changes if you think you need one score and not two - then you get stuck with the same situation, needing the kick, but less time to do anything afterwards.

Try what? The only thing you try is score a touchdown and get an onsides kick late. That doesn't change if you miss the 2-pt later.

They scored with 3:00 left, and got the ball back with 1:49. It's not like there's enough time to really do anything different, either way.

 

[Trendnet]

Right, I understand that.

Which is why I don't take a 50/50 shot at losing the game that early. If it's going to come down to a coin flip, I'm doing that in the last minute of the game, not when I know I'm going to get the ball back anyway.

@Future on analytics

Undervaluing them is how you get a coach like Jason Garrett.

pick one dude.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I'd rather find out if that 50/50 shot worked with time to try something, even if it comes down to something with as low a probability as an onside kick. If you wait and end up trying that conversion with less than a minute to go - because your urgency changes if you think you need one score and not two - then you get stuck with the same situation, needing the kick, but less time to do anything afterwards.

I see going on that 50/50 play early and failing is OK because they still have the on-side kick which since the rule changes has about a 2% success rate. Again the Gods smiled on the Cowboys and their on-side kick but to decide to that 50/50 shot early thinking you have that 2% play in your back pocket is foolishness. Since you like that 2% play so well the Cowboys could have after scoring their last TD with a 2 point conversion could have done your 2% anyways but smart coaches wouldn't do that because that 98% chance of failure would put the other team in position at worst to kick a long game winning field goal.
.
.

 

[Future]

@Future on analytics




pick one dude.

?

There's a difference between undervaluing them, and treating them as gospel.