MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[Haimerej]

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.

I get your point, but it's built upon the same logic you're arguing against. You're saying that you screw yourself if you run the clock down and miss the 2 pointer. I'm saying you screw yourself if you run the clock and don't score a 2nd TD. I'm essentially arguing that it should be irrelevant to, "know you need 2 more possessions instead of 1," when you're losing a game.

 

[Runwildboys]

They won the game based on ATL giving them an onside kick. That was a fluke, period.

True, but a fluke they probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to get otherwise.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

I get your point, but it's built upon the same logic you're arguing against. You're saying that you screw yourself if you run the clock down and miss the 2 pointer. I'm saying you screw yourself if you run the clock and don't score a 2nd TD. I'm essentially arguing that it should be irrelevant to, "know you need 2 more possessions instead of 1," when you're losing a game.

Oh, no doubt. and that's why it's a balancing act. Score as quickly as you can, while not giving the Falcons enough time to launch a counterattack. So, part of the comeback is a strategy for not just how to equalize, but how to stop a counterattack. That's one of the big reasons I like the 2 point when we took it.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

I rarely post (haven't in years) but feel like I need to chime in, too. The logic MM provides makes complete sense, and I'm not sure why others are arguing against it. Down 15 pts, you need a minimum of (a) 2 possessions, (b) 1XP, and (b) 1-two point conversion. And if you miss the two point conversion (regardless of when you attempt it), you need a 3rd possession. That is without debate. Those are the absolute facts.

MM's logoc is, i'd rather attempt the 2-pt conversion before the 1pt extra point so I know in advance if I need a 3rd possession assuming I miss the 2-pt conversion (i.e., I have a Plan B). If you do the opposite and take the 1pt XP first, you are essentially guaranteeing almost no time to plan for a 3rd possession if you miss the 2pt conversion (i.e., basically no chance for a Plan B).

I understand this is counter-intuitive (heck the announcers were baffled as well) but the logic makes sense.

It seems like the people who are arguing against this feel somehow that doing the 2pt conversion at the end of the 2nd possession somehow makes it easier than doing it at the end of the 1st possession. Maybe there's truth to this? Maybe it could be argued that taking it at the end of the 2nd possession puts more pressure on the defense and they're more likely to be tensed up and make a mistake. Who knows if that's true. But absent something like that I don't think the logic MM uses can be debated. I'd rather a coach use logic like that than relying on "feel".

PERFECTLY STATED!!! This is why it was smart what MM did. It didn't work, but the decision was right.

 

[JD_KaPow]

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're saying, "give me one shot at a tie...or I lose."
We're saying, "give me a shot at a tie (the two-pointer) AND give me an EXTRA shot JUST IN CASE the 2-pointer doesn't work."
We're not depending on the onside kick. We're just leaving it as a fallback option. You're doing the same thing we are, except you're not leaving the onside kick as a fallback option.

 

[Haimerej]

Still, the same fluke with 30 seconds left probably would not have won the game.

That's why I'm arguing against the idea that you milk the clock in either scenario when you're losing a game.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

You're saying, "give me one shot at a tie...or I lose."
We're saying, "give me a shot at a tie (the two-pointer) AND give me an EXTRA shot JUST IN CASE the 2-pointer doesn't work."
We're not depending on the onside kick. We're just leaving it as a fallback option. You're doing the same thing we are, except you're not leaving the onside kick as a fallback option.

Exactly, and there's nothing wrong with having a fallback option if things go pear shape. You're essentially saying, yes I'm aware this may not work, but I have time to exercise this other option if it doesn't work.

 

[Runwildboys]

OK and I would be OK with that. We lost the game. But we gave ourselves the best opportunity to extend the game in that scenario. Hoping for a miracle like recovering an onside kick is just lame. It may never happen again. But hey, it did so winning the lottery happens too to someone. Too bad for all of those millions of people who didn't win.

Take the 1 point in that scenario, play smart ball. In the long run it is more prudent.

I still don't understand how your odds increase by trying for 2 after the second TD. It might make you feel better to be down by 8 instead of 9, but 8 points is only "potentially" a one score game. Conversely, MM's decision was to "potentially" make it a 7 point game.

 

[Haimerej]

I never said it wasn’t. None of that has to do with whether going for 2 was the right call or not.


that was my response to the other poster making a feel for the game argument. Not an argument based on the odds of winning.

I know, but to say his decision led to them winning is misleading. The failure to convert likely influenced ATL's playcalling on the next possession, but that's the extent of his decision contributing to the win and I would put that on ATL going conservative.

 

[Haimerej]

I agree, but they do as a rule try not to leave much time on the clock, and with an explosive offense like Atlanta's, that seems like the logical approach. Getting to the red zone a surely as possible should be the first priority, then try to use up clock if possible. How many times did Dallas score quickly and pull ahead, only to have the other team go downfield immediately after and win?........I'm asking, I really don't know...but it seems like a lot. (Possibly selective memory.)

I'm sure it happens, but like I said earlier, I think the odds of them driving downfield are much lower than the odds of you recovering an onside kick.

 

[CowboyRoy]

It’s based in Bayesian statistics and is a bit counter intuitive, but similar to the Monty Hall problem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Even if you consider everything entirely independent, at worst one should consider it a wash. If you don’t make the 2 point conversion you will need two scores whether you do it early or after a second TD. Does going for 2 after the second TD give you an advantage?? I don’t see how.

But getting certainty about whether you need one or two scores allows McCarthy to manage the game as such. I don’t see why so many think it was a mistake.

Best excuse I have heard yet for going for two was that if we make the 1 point conversion it gives us lots of time to run our regular offense on the next drive. So we go back to the plodding style of trying to run Zeke as opposed to the hurry up offense featuring Dak and we probably don't even score a TD.

ONLY in that light does going for the 2 points make any real sense.

 

[Haimerej]

True, but a fluke they probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to get otherwise.

Most likely because converting the 2 pointer earlier changes ATL's approach on the following possession.

 

[Haimerej]

Oh, no doubt. and that's why it's a balancing act. Score as quickly as you can, while not giving the Falcons enough time to launch a counterattack. So, part of the comeback is a strategy for not just how to equalize, but how to stop a counterattack. That's one of the big reasons I like the 2 point when we took it.

I give weight to the idea a conversion at that point changes ATL's approach on the next possession.

Ironically, failing that 2 pointer probably increased the odds of winning because ATL got comfortable with a 2 possession lead.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

How many points can you get in one score? 8 or 9?

When you figure that out, then ask yourself...……...with limited time left would you rather be down 8 or 9?

Why does it matter? None of this matters. Literally none of it. It might make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to only be down 8 instead of 9, but the reality of the situation is that it doesn't change the fact that you still need to convert that 2-point conversion. Only being down 8 instead of 9 doesn't make that conversion any easier.

 

[Runwildboys]

Most likely because converting the 2 pointer earlier changes ATL's approach on the following possession.

I mean if they'd gone for just one after the first TD, then missed the 2 pointer after the second....but yeah, I think Atlanta would've played differently in either scenario.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Because likely there is no time left on the clock. A big part of this discussion is that Dallas had 4 minutes left in the game. If we had 8 minutes OK it is not critical yet. Scoring, then stopping ATL then scoring again all in under 4 minutes is a very tall order. Catching this lightning in a bottle is the odd anomaly that will always be the exception not the rule.

The time left is irrelevant. You still have to convert the 2 point conversion. That's the key here. The 2 point conversion attempt needs to be successful, and when you attempt it really has no bearing on anything. You have just as good a chance of success on the second attempt as you do on the first.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

I give weight to the idea a conversion at that point changes ATL's approach on the next possession.

Ironically, failing that 2 pointer probably increased the odds of winning because ATL got comfortable with a 2 possession lead.

That's actually probably true. It caused them to play much more relaxed thinking the lead was likely safe, as it was. Except the Falcons love to lose when they're up big haha

 

[Runwildboys]

I give weight to the idea a conversion at that point changes ATL's approach on the next possession.

Ironically, failing that 2 pointer probably increased the odds of winning because ATL got comfortable with a 2 possession lead.

Exactly what I was saying earlier...or yesterday, I don't remember...maybe both. Anyway, I agree, this is probably the only way we could've won, whether it was the right decision or not.

 

[Trajan]

The time left is irrelevant. You still have to convert the 2 point conversion. That's the key here. The 2 point conversion attempt needs to be successful, and when you attempt it really has no bearing on anything. You have just as good a chance of success on the second attempt as you do on the first.

The time left is relevant if you fail on the conversion. You fail, have to kick off and will do an onside for the very slim chance of getting the ball back and then marching down the field to score. I would rather have 1:30 then :12 when attempting this. Both are very low chances of success, but one is a bit higher.

 

[Runwildboys]

I'm sure it happens, but like I said earlier, I think the odds of them driving downfield are much lower than the odds of you recovering an onside kick.

You think so? I think I've seen a lot more quick strike, game winning TDs than onside kick recoveries (under the new rules).