MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[JD_KaPow]

The reason he gave is stupid. Knowing whether it is a one- or two-score game doesn't have to change anything in how you approach the remainder.

Really? You think you'd approach the last 4 minutes in the same way down 7 vs. down 9? Down 7, you let the clock run and don't worry about leaving time at the end. In fact, you'd rather not leave time at the end. Down 9, you score as fast as you can to try to get that extra scoring drive.

Down 8, you don't know what your best approach is. You don't know if you need one more drive or two more drives.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Except, I think McCarthy is right. I think you have to go for 2 when he did. If you make it, great, it's a 7 point game. If not, you still have time to try to get that extra score. We got lucky indeed, but you have to go for 2 at some point. So, going for 2 a bit earlier is right imo. I just would've called a different play. Try and get the ball to CD on that play.

The danger of the call unfolded right before you. if you miss the 2 point conversion game is over. At least by kicking the FG you assure that you have a chance to tie the game. Banking on making 2 2 point conversions to win the game is just dumb.

Not to mention we were having problems down by the GL all day long. Dak had to basically run everything in himself.

 

[CowboyRoy]

That was me, thanks.

I hate when people say an 8-point deficit is a "one-score game." It's not. There's about a 50% chance it's a one-score game and a 50% chance it's a two-score game: you just don't know which.
Relatedly, a 7-point deficit is about 98% one-score game and 2% two-score game. We all treat that as 100/0, but there's a game or two a year where we remember that it isn't.

Only you didn't nail anything. LOL

MM gave that excuse right after the game and an article was up shortly after. To act like you thought up that ridiculous excuse in your head all by yourself is beyond laughable and pathetic. And then to try to take credit for something so wrong shows a disconnect.

You heard the excuse and tried to act like it was your idea all along. But hey, look...…….your ruse worked.

Smart people aren't buying it.

 

[Future]

Really? You think you'd approach the last 4 minutes in the same way down 7 vs. down 9? Down 7, you let the clock run and don't worry about leaving time at the end. In fact, you'd rather not leave time at the end. Down 9, you score as fast as you can to try to get that extra scoring drive.

Down 8, you don't know what your best approach is. You don't know if you need one more drive or two more drives.

Down 7 it depends on if you're planning on going for the win or for OT. Which, like I said before, the only reason it makes sense to go for 2 early is if you want to avoid OT.

If you don't know if you need one or two more drives, then you play it as if you need two more drives. I don't really think it's that mysterious lol

 

[JD_KaPow]

The danger of the call unfolded right before you. if you miss the 2 point conversion game is over. At least by kicking the FG you assure that you have a chance to tie the game. Banking on making 2 2 point conversions to win the game is just dumb.

Huh? Two 2-point conversions? They only needed one, exactly one.

If they miss the 2-point conversion later, the game is truly over. As you saw yesterday, by taking it early they gave themselves another chance to win.

 

[CowboyRoy]

That was me, thanks.

I hate when people say an 8-point deficit is a "one-score game." It's not. There's about a 50% chance it's a one-score game and a 50% chance it's a two-score game: you just don't know which.
Relatedly, a 7-point deficit is about 98% one-score game and 2% two-score game. We all treat that as 100/0, but there's a game or two a year where we remember that it isn't.

"Hey, that was me"!!!!! WEEEEEEIIIIII THANKS!!!!!!!

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

The danger of the call unfolded right before you. if you miss the 2 point conversion game is over. At least by kicking the FG you assure that you have a chance to tie the game. Banking on making 2 2 point conversions to win the game is just dumb.

Not to mention we were having problems down by the GL all day long. Dak had to basically run everything in himself.

Yes, I know you have the danger of missing the 2 point conversion. But what's to say that 2 pointer on the second go around would score too? If you miss that, then guess what, you're still trailing, just with less time to go. If you get the XP, it's still an 8 point game. You still have to score a TD and get the 2 point conversion. IT was a 15 point deficit. So, I'd rather take the 2 point conversion attempt earlier. That way, if you score the next go around, you only need an XP to tie it.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Only you didn't nail anything. LOL

MM gave that excuse right after the game and an article was up shortly after. To act like you thought up that ridiculous excuse in your head all by yourself is beyond laughable and pathetic. And then to try to take credit for something so wrong shows a disconnect.

You heard the excuse and tried to act like it was your idea all along. But hey, look...…….your ruse worked.

Smart people aren't buying it.

What in the world are you talking about? This topic has been discussed many many times over the years. It didn't just suddenly come up. Dick Vermeil knew about this in the '70s. MM's reasoning is exactly the reasoning behind it. I never claimed I came up with it.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I would disagree. I think this is a classic case of "analytics" clashing with traditional football thinking. The traditional thinking is you wait. Charlie Weiss was on the radio this morning talking about this very thing and how "everyone knows you wait to go for 2!!" McCarthy is listening to the analytics people on this decision.

I didn't mind that decision at all. Doing the fake punt with a run up the middle was a strange one...

So analytics is going to tell you that making 2 2 point conversions is more likely than making one? I don't think so.

 

[Aviano90]

I initially thought it was the wrong call. Sometimes you have to reevaluate with an open mind and challenge the conventional wisdom. In this case, it makes a lot of sense and I think it is a pretty smart strategy.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

I still do. It is the same thinking that Campo did on US Thanksgiving in 2001 I believe it was when he was down 16 and kicked a XP instead of going for two claiming it was easier to score 3 times than 2 TDs and 2 2pt conversions. I get his thinking but it seems to me it is easier to have to score once in 4 minutes than 2x. We won and that is all that matters, but that does not make the decision any less puzzling.

I still remember that game! We lost that game because Campo coached like a wuss against the Broncos that game.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Down 7 it depends on if you're planning on going for the win or for OT. Which, like I said before, the only reason it makes sense to go for 2 early is if you want to avoid OT.

If you don't know if you need one or two more drives, then you play it as if you need two more drives. I don't really think it's that mysterious lol

Except nobody ever does. You'll find that teams in this situation, down 8, ALWAYS play for overtime. And it's stupid not to. If you rush down the field and score quickly, you leave the other team time to mount a FG drive in regulation.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

I initially thought it was the wrong call. Sometimes you have to reevaluate with an open mind and challenge the conventional wisdom. In this case, it makes a lot of sense and I think it is a pretty smart strategy.

Exactly, and, like I said, it was a 15 point deficit. We needed to score the 2 point conversion at some point, assuming we got 2 TDs. So, it makes more sense to try it earlier with more time to spare. Right decision, wrong play call.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Huh? Two 2-point conversions? They only needed one, exactly one.

If they miss the 2-point conversion later, the game is truly over. As you saw yesterday, by taking it early they gave themselves another chance to win.

How is going down by 9 giving yourself another chance to win when all you can score on one more drive is 8? Im going to assume math wasn't your strong point?

 

[DCBoysfan]

The Campo move is really dumb. But this one wasn't.

What you have to take into account is that you still have to score twice, down 8, if you miss that 2-pointer at the end. You can't assume you'll make that attempt, any more than you can assume you'll miss the earlier one. You need to attempt one two-pointer: doesn't matter when.

I will admit that your rationale makes sense.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

I would disagree. I think this is a classic case of "analytics" clashing with traditional football thinking. The traditional thinking is you wait. Charlie Weiss was on the radio this morning talking about this very thing and how "everyone knows you wait to go for 2!!" McCarthy is listening to the analytics people on this decision.

I didn't mind that decision at all. Doing the fake punt with a run up the middle was a strange one...

TBF, I hate the fake punts, but Fassel has done that for years. I don't know why he thought that was the right call, but Fassel seems to have mistaken Chris Jones for Johnny Hekker (his punter in LA).

 

[Future]

Except nobody ever does. You'll find that teams in this situation, down 8, ALWAYS play for overtime. And it's stupid not to. If you rush down the field and score quickly, you leave the other team time to mount a FG drive in regulation.

Down 8 you have to assume you're not going to get the 2 point.

Besides, I like my odds of tying it up too quickly and getting a stop with less than a minute on the clock an awful lot more than I do getting an onside kick.

 

[TheSkaven]

Kudos to one poster here ( not sure who ) for nailing this 100%

It was me. And yes, this is exactly it.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

How is going down by 9 giving yourself another chance to win when all you can score on one more drive is 8? Im going to assume math wasn't your strong point?

Because if you make the XP, it's an 8 point game, if you make the 2 at that spot, it's a 7 point game.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I initially thought it was the wrong call. Sometimes you have to reevaluate with an open mind and challenge the conventional wisdom. In this case, it makes a lot of sense and I think it is a pretty smart strategy.

ONLY way that strategy makes any sense at all is if MM said that he didn't care about tying the game and that he was going for the win or nothing.

That's the ONLY way that his makes any sense. And even with that strategy, there is no way I do it. Especially with the way we were playing down by the GL.