MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[G2]

Is this why we brought in a proven Super Bowl winning HC to be a riverboat gambler? This is absurd.

Jerry could have done this himself from the booth. Oh wait..

**Breaking News**: We won the game.

 

[Diehardblues]

**Breaking News**: We won the game.

But not because of these dumb decisions.

We won despite them which doesn’t wash away the fact they were dumb.

 

[G2]

But not because of these dumb decisions.

You must miss Garrett a bunch.

 

[Diehardblues]

You must miss Garrett a bunch.

Are you going to argue the content or make this personal ?

 

[G2]

Are you going to argue the content or make this personal ?

How is that personal? You seem to side with a HC that you KNOW what they'll do. Problem is, so did our opponents.
Please stop with the personal nonsense. If you're that sensitive in a discussion just ignore me, it may do you some good through these hard times.

 

[droopdog7]

I get it but don’t believe it’s a proven strategy. Only down 8 is a 1 score game. It provides the opportunity to tie the game that being down 9 doesn’t .

AND if you miss it you can still kick the onside kick like if you were down 9. In other words if you’re down 8 you still have to manage the time in case you need it if you miss the conversion

So what you’re saying is it makes no difference (whether you know it or not). I can roll with that more than people thinking that going for two on the first TD was somehow a bad thing.

 

[HungryLion]

I can’t agree with that . Leaving yourself down 2 scores instead of 1 can’t increase your chance of winning.

If it does I’d like to see that statistical proof where teams down 9 points instead of 8 have a greater chance of extending the game.

Id argue it comes down to playing to win instead of the tie. Arguably what he did last week going for it in 4th and 3.

Which goes against the odds . It’s not sound football. Fans might enjoy the risk factor as they always want to go for it but it’s not smart football.

It’s riverboat gambling. You’re welcome to enjoy that but it’s fundamentally dumb and will ultimately cost us more games.

You’re not choosing to willfully be down 2 scores. You don’t know if you’ll make the 2 or not when you choose to go for it.

you’re assuming you don’t get the 2. But you don’t know that when you make the decision.

you have to get rid of that assumption when determining the win probability at the time the decision is made.

this discussion is about the decision made BEFORE the 2 point play happens. And the win probabilities at the time you make that decision.

 

[CowboyRoy]

It’s probability, not psychology. Creating certainty changes the probabilities going forward, and that’s why you go for it immediately rather than leaving that uncertainty until later.

People like Broddus who argue about “extending the game” simply don’t know what they are talking about. Even if the probabilities didnt change by creating certainty, though they do, you don’t extend the game by leaving the the 2 point conversion until later. If you miss it later you still need an onside kick and FG to win.

Arent you tired yet? There is nothing you can do to convince me and nothing I can do to convince you. You guys have done a good job explaining your side, but that is definitely NEVER the way that I go. Maybe we will see more coaches doing it, but I doubt it.

 

[droopdog7]

Arent you tired yet? There is nothing you can do to convince me and nothing I can do to convince you. You guys have done a good job explaining your side, but that is definitely NEVER the way that I go. Maybe we will see more coaches doing it, but I doubt it.

The truth is, you guys could not be more wrong. Could not understand the issue any less. But yes, this is tiring.

 

[Runwildboys]

Well the call for the fake punt with Jones passing was a very good play. But a terrible pass, however, if Jones had missed the throw every time in practice, I seriously doubt they'd have tried it.

However, in Dallas' SB win over Denver, the halfback pass by Newhouse was a perfect pass. But he said they had tried it in practice several times, and never completed it. But they still tried it.

Wasn't a difficult pass, I think Jones got so excited seeing the play was working that he just overthrew to ball into the ground. I saw the same type of throw many times when my sons played youth football, there were few passes thrown by quarterbacks, when they got the opportunity to make a throw it was very often a throw into the ground, didn't let go of the ball soon enough, hence the downward trajectory. So I have no problem with the call, in fact I'm glad to see it, Landry did "trick" plays on occasion, it keeps defenses guessing...

Dak did the same thing last week, when he threw at Pollard's feet.

 

[Diehardblues]

You’re not choosing to willfully be down 2 scores. You don’t know if you’ll make the 2 or not when you choose to go for it.

you’re assuming you don’t get the 2. But you don’t know that when you make the decision.

you have to get rid of that assumption when determining the win probability at the time the decision is made.

this discussion is about the decision made BEFORE the 2 point play happens. And the win probabilities at the time you make that decision.

You have to figure in you won’t make the conversion and what that means. That’s part of the risk factor. The consequences if you fail.

 

[CowboyRoy]

The truth is, you guys could not be more wrong. Could not understand the issue any less. But yes, this is tiring.

Gotta have the last word I see eh? I will let you have it.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Dak did the same thing last week, when he threw at Pollard's feet.

That's just Dak, everybody knows he's inconsistent...

 

[HungryLion]

You have to figure in you won’t make the conversion and what that means. That’s part of the risk factor. The consequences if you fail.

Yes. The chance of missing is calculated into the probability of win/loss when you make the decision.

You have to factor in the chance of not getting two on the next attempt when you choose to kick the XP and go down by 8. The chance of missing the 2 remains the same. Comprehend that

the chance of needing the onside kick eventually is the same.

 

[uvaballa]

That does make some sense. But I think it puts more pressure on the winning team knowing they're up 8 versus 9. But in the end if you miss the 2 point conversion you're still going to have to get an onside kick so it comes down to the same end result.

 

[droopdog7]

Gotta have the last word I see eh? I will let you have it.

Hey, when you’re telling me black is white when I know white is white, I gotta call it out.

 

[droopdog7]

That does make some sense. But I think it puts more pressure on the winning team knowing they're up 8 versus 9. But in the end if you miss the 2 point conversion you're still going to have to get an onside kick so it comes down to the same end result.

Here is a question, though I know you didn’t mean it this way. Do you WANT more pressure on Atl? Or would you prefer for them to be more relaxed knowing that they’re up two scores, thus making it easier for you to score that second TD?

 

[LACowboysFan1]

I thought there was a chart that teams go by, to see if they want to go for 2?

Or McCarthy doesn't use it....

 

[Diehardblues]

Yes. The chance of missing is calculated into the probability of win/loss when you make the decision.

You have to factor in the chance of not getting two on the next attempt when you choose to kick the XP and go down by 8. The chance of missing the 2 remains the same. Comprehend that

the chance of needing the onside kick eventually is the same.

Of course. But why not leave yourself the opportunity on the second try to extend the game instead of taking that away after a failed try on the first one?

I believe by waiting you keep the momentum going leaving the 1 score needed in play .

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Found this:

So by the chart, going for 2 was the "right" call...