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

[gjkoeppen]

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

Your whole argument ended up with the Cowboys needing to get an on-side kick to win. Since the rules change on on-side kicks a little less than 2% have been successful. The Gods smiled on the Cowboys yesterday but 98% of the time the falcons would have won that game.
.
.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

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.

If it's an 8-point game you don't strategize differently than if it's a 9-point game? You think it plays out the same way?

 

[JD_KaPow]

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.

Hey, now we're getting somewhere. You're agreeing in the first half of this that it doesn't matter when you try the 2-ponter: the chance of needing an onside is the same.

The issue is, why did the Cowboys have 1:40 left? It's because they scored the second TD really fast, and they did that because they knew they needed two scores.

Consider the possibilities after scoring the first TD:
1. Go for 2 and succeed. You're down 7. Your optimal strategy on the next drive is to drive down the field methodically, let the clock run between plays, don't take timeouts, and ideally tie the game with no time left on the clock.

2. Go for 2, fail. You're down 9. Your optimal strategy on the next drive is to score as fast as possible. Don't let the clock run between plays. You need to leave time on the clock in case you convert the onside kick.

3. Kick the xp. You're down 8. You do not know what your optimal strategy is. You don't know if you're going to need an onside kick or not. In this scenario, teams adopt strategy 1 above. Try to score at the end of the game, and hope you convert the 2-pointer. But if you fail, you haven't left yourself the onside kick as a fallback opportunity.

 

[gjkoeppen]

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

I just don't get how you think that relying on a play with only a 2% chance of success is better than have to get a single TD and a 2 point conversion that is a 50/50 chance of success. Without the Gods smiling on the Cowboys yesterday there's normally a 98% chance that the Cowboys lose that game.
.
.

 

[cffl2323]

I can’t believe there’s 14 pages for this.

We did not convert the 2 point conversion, the decision boils down to when you want to have that piece of information. Crazy that it’s even a debate.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Your whole argument ended up with the Cowboys needing to get an on-side kick to win. Since the rules change on on-side kicks a little less than 2% have been successful. The Gods smiled on the Cowboys yesterday but 98% of the time the falcons would have won that game.
.
.

You need an onside kick EITHER WAY if you don't convert the 2-pointer. Doesn't matter when you try the 2-pointer.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

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.
.
.

I don't like the onside kick as a strategy more than anyone else. It's just better to know you may need it earlier than later. And who knows, down two possessions there's more urgency to score quickly than if you have a chance at it being a one-possession game.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I just don't get how you think that relying on a play with only a 2% chance of success is better than have to get a single TD and a 2 point conversion that is a 50/50 chance of success. Without the Gods smiling on the Cowboys yesterday there's normally a 98% chance that the Cowboys lose that game.
.
.

You're ignoring that the 2-point conversion is 50-50 no matter when you take it. If the Cowboys had converted the 2-pointer, they wouldn't have needed the onside kick. Exactly the same as if they waited to try the two-pointer later.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

I just don't get how you think that relying on a play with only a 2% chance of success is better than have to get a single TD and a 2 point conversion that is a 50/50 chance of success. Without the Gods smiling on the Cowboys yesterday there's normally a 98% chance that the Cowboys lose that game.
.
.

They also had a 50/50 chance to make the two-point conversion when they attempted it. Why are you ignoring that?

 

[Future]

If it's an 8-point game you don't strategize differently than if it's a 9-point game? You think it plays out the same way?

No, it doesn't, which is the point. But down 8 gives you the opportunity to score with basically no time left and force OT. You need, what, 15-20 seconds to get an onside kick and get in positoin for the FG. 8 vs 9 allows you to extend the game. This game was, effectively, over with 3:00 left. Dallas just got lucky on the onsides.

But if the value of going for two early is that you're going to play more aggressive and try to score quicker when down by 9, then play that way anyways.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Your whole argument ended up with the Cowboys needing to get an on-side kick to win. Since the rules change on on-side kicks a little less than 2% have been successful. The Gods smiled on the Cowboys yesterday but 98% of the time the falcons would have won that game.
.
.

But what bearing does that have on when you attempt the 2 point conversion? They're going to have to kick an onside kick of the 2 point fails, regardless of when it's attempted.

 

[Future]

Hey, now we're getting somewhere. You're agreeing in the first half of this that it doesn't matter when you try the 2-ponter: the chance of needing an onside is the same.

The issue is, why did the Cowboys have 1:40 left? It's because they scored the second TD really fast, and they did that because they knew they needed two scores.

Consider the possibilities after scoring the first TD:
1. Go for 2 and succeed. You're down 7. Your optimal strategy on the next drive is to drive down the field methodically, let the clock run between plays, don't take timeouts, and ideally tie the game with no time left on the clock.

2. Go for 2, fail. You're down 9. Your optimal strategy on the next drive is to score as fast as possible. Don't let the clock run between plays. You need to leave time on the clock in case you convert the onside kick.

3. Kick the xp. You're down 8. You do not know what your optimal strategy is. You don't know if you're going to need an onside kick or not. In this scenario, teams adopt strategy 1 above. Try to score at the end of the game, and hope you convert the 2-pointer. But if you fail, you haven't left yourself the onside kick as a fallback opportunity.

The problem with this logic is that in scenario 3, you can still just play as if you're in scenario 2.

 

[MarcusRock]

I haven't read the entire thread but I think the point the opposition is making is that if you kick the PAT and make it an 8-point game, assuming your D makes the stop, you will only need 1 TD drive to potentially tie the game (with a 2 pointer) vs. 1 TD drive (PAT) plus a FG drive when not knowing what the clock situation will be because you turn it over to your D. In this game, that necessitated an onside kick which has a very low recovery rate (and even less so with the rules changes).

So how is only needing 1 TD drive (plus 2 pointer) not as good as needing 1 TD drive (PAT), PLUS needing to get the ball back again to mount a second drive for a FG where a low-probability onside kick is probably necessary to mount that second drive?

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

No, it doesn't, which is the point. But down 8 gives you the opportunity to score with basically no time left and force OT. You need, what, 15-20 seconds to get an onside kick and get in positoin for the FG. 8 vs 9 allows you to extend the game. This game was, effectively, over with 3:00 left. Dallas just got lucky on the onsides.

But if the value of going for two early is that you're going to play more aggressive and try to score quicker when down by 9, then play that way anyways.

You just proved my point. Down 8 you try to score with basically no time left and force OT. But then if you fail you need an onside kick with no time left so you lose. So now you think it's better to try the onside with 15-20 seconds left, then assuming you recover it, you have 1-2 plays to get into FG range (without timeouts possibly). Which is longer odds than the way it worked out.

 

[Trendnet]

?

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

Either you value analytics or your don't.

Analytics say you go for two.

 

[gjkoeppen]

They also had a 50/50 chance to make the two-point conversion when they attempted it. Why are you ignoring that?

BECAUSE if they kicked the extra point they would have been down by only 8 and only needed a TD and that 50/50 2 point conversion to tie. The Cowboys wouldn't then have to rely on a 2% success rate on-side kick with a chance to win. If they failed on that 2 point conversion they would still have to try that 2% on-side kick and normally that would be a 98% chance at failing. The ONLY reason those that were good with trying the 2 point conversion early is because the Gods smiled on the Cowboys but normally they would have lost.
.
.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

BECAUSE if they kicked the extra point they would have been down by only 8 and only needed a TD and that 50/50 2 point conversion to tie. The Cowboys wouldn't then have to rely on a 2% success rate on-side kick with a chance to win. If they failed on that 2 point conversion they would still have to try that 2% on-side kick and normally that would be a 98% chance at failing. The ONLY reason those that were good with trying the 2 point conversion early is because the Gods smiled on the Cowboys but normally they would have lost.
.
.

So you'd rather have false hope that it's a one-possession game when it's actually a two-possession game and just be screwed when you miss the conversion at the end. Got it.

 

[gjkoeppen]

But what bearing does that have on when you attempt the 2 point conversion? They're going to have to kick an onside kick of the 2 point fails, regardless of when it's attempted.

Because if they waited to try the 2 point conversion and they converted on it then they wouldn't have tried the on-side kick because with a 98% fail rate the coaches would do that knowing that it would put the falcons in field goal rang to win the game. If they failed on the last TD then they would have had to try the on-side kick but normally 98% of the time they would have failed and lost the game. The ONLY reason the people that are OK with trying the 2 point conversion earlier is because the Gods smiled on the Cowboys and avoided the 98% failure on it. Because of that you think it was better to need more than one score with less than 5 minutes to play than just a single score that would have given the Cowboys a chance to win in OT.
.
.

 

[Creeper]

That is not correct.

Oops! You are right. In actuality the odds of failing to make the 2 pt conversion then recovering the onside kick is only 3%. I incorrectly used the failure rate for onside kicks in the calculation.

But this is not really the way of looking at it. The fact is there is a 48.2% chance of making the 2 point conversion. Fail and in all likelihood the game is over. But that is true if they kicked the XP then went for 2. Only the latter would have been certain loss.

 

[gjkoeppen]

So you'd rather have false hope that it's a one-possession game when it's actually a two-possession game and just be screwed when you miss the conversion at the end. Got it.

Or you think that because the Cowboys were beyond EXTREMELY lucky to get that on-side kick that your idea of needing more scores with less than 5 minutes to play is better than only needing 1 with a 50/50 shot on a 2 point conversion. I'll say it again if the other 31 NFL coaches, not wannabe fans, were asked if they would rather be down by 1TD and a 2 point conversion or needing 2 or more scores needed to win a game with less than 5 minutes to play how many would chose needing multiple score?
.
.