MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[HungryLion]

This D couldn't make a stop all game and Atlanta milking the clock looked like much better odds than the Cowboys getting multiple possessions.

This is a “feel of the game” argument. Which is fine. Feel Of the game is a fair argument to make. But that is subjective. So it’s fair for McCarthy to “feel” a different way about how the game is going too

 

[HungryLion]

I see you avoided what I said. I understand, your logic has holes so it is best to avoid things.

BTW, when you use selective facts to persuade someone it is propaganda. I understand math very well, I understand it enough to include all available factors as those factors are necessary to determine the best probability of success.

The strawman argument you are using is that I am saying the chance of converting the 2 pointer changes. I never said that nor implied that anywhere. But if you fail on your early 2 point attempt the probability to do something about it just dropped almost to zero. Not quite zero but close enough. I would be willing to bet that if we gamed these 2 scenarios over and over and over my scenario would win more than yours would. Also in your scenario, you have to consider if you converted your 2 point conversion and pulled within 7 points, Atlanta would not just run 3 run plays and punt the ball back to us. They would see, oh crap, we better do something here and make a first down or two to end this game. As I have stated, one first down conversion pretty much ices this game. 2 for certain. Since Atlanta was up by 9 they played it super conservative thinking there is no way in heck these guys can win. Up by 8 they may try a little harder but not as hard as if up by 7. Little nuances that have to be considered also.

I didn’t ignore anything. You’re being obtuse. The math actually says it doesn’t matter whether you kick the XP first or try to kick it second.

now you want to accuse me of using a strawman argument when I’m not.

you also just said “if you fail the 2 pointer”.

McCarthy doesn’t know if that happens or not when he makes the decision. Which makes your point moot.

and the 2 pointer is JUST AS LIKELY TO FAIL if you try it later. And then your odds of winning go to basically zero.

The math says it doesn’t matter what order you kick the do. that’s the facts man. Sorry you don’t want to accept it.

 

[Haimerej]

I'm talking about after the TD. If you kick the XP, you have to score and burn clock to get the next score so you don't give the Falcons the ball back and make the 2 point conversion on the next TD to equalize.

Define, "burn clock." You're burning clock when you possess the ball. There's no reason to burn clock down to nothing if you're behind by a TD. You need to score first and foremost.

 

[Runwildboys]

True. Either way a 2 point conversion is needed. Missing the first or the second doesn't change anything. I just think it would be foolish to run the clock down when you're behind and needing a TD. You play for the score.

You play for the score, but it's common practice to try to score with as little time left as possible (unless you're Jason Garrett). Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

 

[Big_D]

This is a “feel of the game” argument. Which is fine. Feel Of the game is a fair argument to make. But that is subjective. So it’s fair for McCarthy to “feel” a different way about how the game is going too

It was pretty clear how the game was going. The D couldn't make a stop and the odds of an onside kick are not good. Luckily the Falcons were clueless on that play or the game is over.

 

[HungryLion]

I see you avoided what I said. I understand, your logic has holes so it is best to avoid things.

BTW, when you use selective facts to persuade someone it is propaganda. I understand math very well, I understand it enough to include all available factors as those factors are necessary to determine the best probability of success.

The strawman argument you are using is that I am saying the chance of converting the 2 pointer changes. I never said that nor implied that anywhere. But if you fail on your early 2 point attempt the probability to do something about it just dropped almost to zero. Not quite zero but close enough. I would be willing to bet that if we gamed these 2 scenarios over and over and over my scenario would win more than yours would. Also in your scenario, you have to consider if you converted your 2 point conversion and pulled within 7 points, Atlanta would not just run 3 run plays and punt the ball back to us. They would see, oh crap, we better do something here and make a first down or two to end this game. As I have stated, one first down conversion pretty much ices this game. 2 for certain. Since Atlanta was up by 9 they played it super conservative thinking there is no way in heck these guys can win. Up by 8 they may try a little harder but not as hard as if up by 7. Little nuances that have to be considered also.

Before you accuse others of using “propaganda” to mislead. Perhaps you should make sure you have the math right. You don’t.

 

[HungryLion]

It was pretty clear how the game was going. The D couldn't make a stop and the odds of an onside kick are not good. Luckily the Falcons were clueless on that play or the game is over.

And yet McCarthy’s decision ultimately still led to a win. That’s a pretty big argument against the “feel” argument.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

But if you fail on your early 2 point attempt the probability to do something about it just dropped almost to zero.

No, that is what happens if you fail on your late 2 point attempt. You have the odds backwards.

 

[Keithfansince5]

The overall chances are not better. They’re the same.

Wrong. The OVERALL is different. Making a 2 point conversion is the same. Making a onside kick is unrealistic. It is only used when all else has failed as a last ditch effort. However, this became a thing when you go for it early and fail. Now you are forced to recover an onside kick. I avoid this by taking the 1 point and going for a 2 point last. The chance at that point is the same as yours. You liked your chance early and I like this chance late. The difference is, if it fails, now you have to convert an onside kick. Me, we just have to win on OT. Which seems easier for you?

 

[bsbellomy]

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.

Being down 16 isnt remotely close to 15 from a decision making process.

And you dont just have to score once in 4 minutes.

 

[Big_D]

And yet McCarthy’s decision ultimately still led to a win. That’s a pretty big argument against the “feel” argument.

Again if the Falcons dive on the ball the Cowboys are 0-2. The Falcons decision led to a win much more than McCarthy's did. And if Atlanta was smart, everyone here would be ripping the call. Cowboys got a gift.

 

[HungryLion]

Wrong. The OVERALL is different. Making a 2 point conversion is the same. Making a onside kick is unrealistic. It is only used when all else has failed as a last ditch effort. However, this became a thing when you go for it early and fail. Now you are forced to recover an onside kick. I avoid this by taking the 1 point and going for a 2 point last. The chance at that point is the same as yours. You liked your chance early and I like this chance late. The difference is, if it fails, now you have to convert an onside kick. Me, we just have to win on OT. Which seems easier for you?

no when McCarthy actually makes the decision. Which is before the 2 point play happens, the overall odds are the same. They’re not different. Not at all.


An onside kick is needed if you fail on the 2 point conversion. Whether it comes first or second. Why can’t you comprehend that.

 

[HungryLion]

Again if the Falcons dive on the ball the Cowboys are 0-2. The Falcons decision led to a win much more than McCarthy's did. And if Atlanta was smart, everyone here would be ripping the call. Cowboys got a gift.

Dude you can make the same arguments whether he kicks the XP or not. If the falcons return the ensuing kickoff for a TD on the next play. Whether he kicked the XP or went for two doesn’t matter anymore.

 

[Runwildboys]

I see you avoided what I said. I understand, your logic has holes so it is best to avoid things.

BTW, when you use selective facts to persuade someone it is propaganda. I understand math very well, I understand it enough to include all available factors as those factors are necessary to determine the best probability of success.

The strawman argument you are using is that I am saying the chance of converting the 2 pointer changes. I never said that nor implied that anywhere. But if you fail on your early 2 point attempt the probability to do something about it just dropped almost to zero. Not quite zero but close enough. I would be willing to bet that if we gamed these 2 scenarios over and over and over my scenario would win more than yours would. Also in your scenario, you have to consider if you converted your 2 point conversion and pulled within 7 points, Atlanta would not just run 3 run plays and punt the ball back to us. They would see, oh crap, we better do something here and make a first down or two to end this game. As I have stated, one first down conversion pretty much ices this game. 2 for certain. Since Atlanta was up by 9 they played it super conservative thinking there is no way in heck these guys can win. Up by 8 they may try a little harder but not as hard as if up by 7. Little nuances that have to be considered also.

I'll give you the highlighted part, but I don't know that there'd be a difference in the way they played whether up by 8 or up by 7. So the reasoning works for both our scenarios, IMO.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

Wrong. The OVERALL is different. Making a 2 point conversion is the same. Making a onside kick is unrealistic. It is only used when all else has failed as a last ditch effort. However, this became a thing when you go for it early and fail. Now you are forced to recover an onside kick. I avoid this by taking the 1 point and going for a 2 point last. The chance at that point is the same as yours. You liked your chance early and I like this chance late. The difference is, if it fails, now you have to convert an onside kick. Me, we just have to win on OT. Which seems easier for you?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Everything depends on whether you make the two point conversion. You have go for the onside kick if you miss the conversion, whether there are 4 minutes left or 40 seconds. It makes no difference.

 

[bsbellomy]

Wrong. The OVERALL is different. Making a 2 point conversion is the same. Making a onside kick is unrealistic. It is only used when all else has failed as a last ditch effort. However, this became a thing when you go for it early and fail. Now you are forced to recover an onside kick. I avoid this by taking the 1 point and going for a 2 point last. The chance at that point is the same as yours. You liked your chance early and I like this chance late. The difference is, if it fails, now you have to convert an onside kick. Me, we just have to win on OT. Which seems easier for you?

Thats just dumb logic. You are relying on an onside either way if you fail the 2 now or later. Only if you fail later you dont have as much time after the onside. You have to rely on the extreme low onside % in BOTH cases or NEITHER case to compare the 2 options.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Define, "burn clock." You're bur-ning clock when you possess the ball. There's no reason to burn clock down to nothing if you're behind by a TD. You need to score first and foremost.

Let me explain this way. The score was 39-30 before we attempted the 2 point conversion. Let's assume you take the XP. Now it's 39-31 with 4:30. Assume you manage to stop the Falcons and burn your timeouts. Now you have just under 3 minutes with the ball. You don't want to give the Falcons the ball back, but you gotta get a TD and the 2 point conversion. Oh, and the defence hasn't stopped them very well all game. If you get the score and the 2 points rather quickly (Making the score 39-39), then the Falcons get the ball and just have to march down the field for the game winning field goal. So, then you are kind of forced to try to burn clock to keep them from having a chance at the ball back. But, if you do that and you miss the 2 point conversion, you are screwed (39-37, same result after the second TD we scored). By taking the 2 point conversion when we did, yes, it remained 39-30, but, you have 4:30 left in the game, so plenty of time to score again if you get the onside kick. If you do succeed and make it 39-32, now you are in great shape if everything proceeds as it does in the previous scenario. If you get the ball back in under 3 minutes, you can drain a lot of clock, get the TD, and only have to kick the XP to equalize and send the game to OT. That's why it's the right call to me.

 

[HungryLion]

Thats just dumb logic. You are relying on an onside either way if you fail the 2 now or later. Only if you fail later you dont have as much time after the onside. You have to rely on the extreme low % in BOTH cases.

Yes exactly.

 

[Keithfansince5]

No, that is what happens if you fail on your late 2 point attempt. You have the odds backwards.

So you are saying recovering an onside kick is doable? Realistic? worth banking on? Because I don't. If this is the difference to you that their is a potential of recovering an onside kick sort of like digging up gold bullion in your backyard is possible too. Just not likely. Other than that, there is nothing else to discuss. I will take the chance at getting 8 on my last possession every time vs taking my chance early. Give me 1 shot at a tie go to OT rather than 2 scores to win with 4 minutes left in the game.

 

[HungryLion]

So you are saying recovering an onside kick is doable? Realistic? worth banking on? Because I don't. If this is the difference to you that their is a potential of recovering an onside kick sort of like digging up gold bullion in your backyard is possible too. Just not likely. Other than that, there is nothing else to discuss. I will take the chance at getting 8 on my last possession every time vs taking my chance early. Give me 1 shot at a tie go to OT rather than 2 scores to win with 4 minutes left in the game.

You don’t “know” you’ll need two scores when you go for the initial 2 pointer. If McCarthy knew for a fact they weren’t going to get the 2. He obviously wouldn’t have gone for it. But it’s impossible to know that without seeing the future.

it’s why he has to play the odds.