MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[Playmaker247]

 

[Haimerej]

I agree, you shouldn't, but I think most teams do. Regardless, the sense of urgency will be lessened, so while they may not consciously run the clock, they'll probably use more time by virtue of not hurrying.

Missing it definitely affected ATL's sense of urgency. Ryan's got to be so damaged by these collapses he'll be audibling out of victory formations to try and score again, "just in case."

 

[Runwildboys]

Missing it definitely affected ATL's sense of urgency. Ryan's got to be so damaged by these collapses he'll be audibling out of victory formations to try and score again, "just in case."

Maybe that's why Belichick runs the score up so often, because of his days in Cleveland.

 

[conner01]

The onside kick would be an attempt to avoid OT. I think you knew that but just misspoke.

Holding the Falcons to a FG (assuming they got the first possession) still means you have to score at least a FG on your possession. I don't have that much confidence in this team yet.

Yes
But the odds of converting the onside in overtime are worse than being able to keep them from scoring a td or being able to answer with atleast a FG
The onside kick is about the worst odds of conversion there is

 

[pansophy]

maybe post this in the poll thread too.

 

[KMY_Amber]

I would have kicked myself, and put my team down only one possession, thus putting pressure back on the other team...with them knowing that we're only one possession down.

BUT, I have to say, reading MM's perspective, I understand his perspective. And even though I wouldn't have done it myself, I do like his aggressive thinking, because I do think this particular team needs an overall more aggressive mindset, on defense, offense AND special teams. So not a lot has worked out (the early fake punts, missed 2-point conversion, missed 4th down attempt, etc.), I'll take it, with no complaints. I like the fact that he's not afraid to just go for it. I think it helps the overall mindset of the team.

We need more of this mindset from Moore and Nolan early in the game, which is why I think MM needs to talk to Nolan about that early BBDB, and MM needs to take over the offensive play calling.

 

[droopdog7]

Correct. I take issue with the notion that clock management comes into play in either scenario. Make it, miss it, kick the FG- you're still down by another TD and the opposing team has another possession.

Yeah, I think it really becomes a thought experiment at that point. You may be right that the coaches would treat everything the same regardless (though MM himself said he'd rather know sooner than later so he might disagree). I challenge you though on the fans. If we're coming in for the chance to tie, I can virtually guarantee that many would be concerned about scoring too early. On the flip side, if we made the conversion and WERE coming in for the tie, the thought would still be there. So touche.

All that said, I think you realize that your point is not the one that most people are making. Most of those against the decision firmly believe that going for two was a bad decision, what at the very worst it made no difference at all. And they think this because they're stacking the argument incorrectly.

On the one hand, you have two td's and a zero percent chance of making the 2-point conversion (because they already know we missed). On the other hand, you have two td's with a 50% chance of making the conversion. Of course you take the latter in that case but, the discussion has nothing to do with when you go and everything to do with artificially better of making the conversion.

 

[conner01]

But you are arguing exactly for why you go for 2 early. The odds are the same regardless of when you go for two, so you do it first in order to know what you are up against. We needed a miracle to win regardless of when we go for two -- but missing early means we know we need to hurry to score again and try to get a FG somehow. What's the clock management like if we hold off on making that decision?

Not really
By kicking you still need to convert the 2 points
But you only need that one score
By not making it you almost forced yourself to convert an onside kick which is a very low odds of conversion

 

[Haimerej]

Maybe that's why Belichick runs the score up so often, because of his days in Cleveland.

That's almost certainly why he doesn't smile anymore.

 

[droopdog7]

Pretty much the same argument we've all been making. It will continue to fall of deaf ears of course. For those wondering, it also tells you 12 teams have gone for two in the same situation in the past 20 years.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

Correct. I take issue with the notion that clock management comes into play in either scenario. Make it, miss it, kick the FG- you're still down by another TD and the opposing team has another possession.

I missed a few replies here and there, but the only time clock management really matters in this scenario is on the very last possession of the game. Going for two early tells you exactly how to play that last drive rather than leaving it up to chance.

 

[pansophy]

Not really
By kicking you still need to convert the 2 points
But you only need that one score
By not making it you almost forced yourself to convert an onside kick which is a very low odds of conversion

Again, this assumes you make the 2 pt conversion on the 2nd TD. That's exactly the point.

It's not really a 1 possession game until you know if you made the 2 point conversion. If you miss it you have to kick the onside kick.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29944126/why-did-cowboys-go-2-9-points-all-knowing-future


Why did the Cowboys go for 2 down 9 points against the Falcons? It's all about knowing the future
Brian Burke
ESPN Analytics

• 
  
  Brian BurkeESPN Analytics

We can marvel at how unlikely the Dallas Cowboys' 40-39 comeback win over the Atlanta Falcons was in Week 2, but what's really fascinating is how it was even possible. I'm not talking about just the onside-kick recovery. I'm talking about how that sequence of events ever came about.

Down by 15 points with just under five minutes to play, Dak Prescott hit Dalton Schultz for a 10-yard touchdown pass. The Cowboys now trailed by nine points, pending either the extra point or a 2-point attempt. Convention says to stay in the game as long as possible -- kick the extra point to make it a one-possession game. But the smart thing to do is to go for two. It's like peering into the future.

Think of it this way: If a team is down by 15 with time dwindling, the most plausible path to victory -- by far -- is to tie the score with one 7-point score and one 8-point score, while holding the opponent scoreless. Convention says to take the 7-point score early, then hope to convert a 2-point play on the second score. Kicking the extra point first keeps the team's hopes alive and delays virtual elimination from contention for as long as possible

 

[Runwildboys]

Yes
But the odds of converting the onside in overtime are worse than being able to keep them from scoring a td or being able to answer with atleast a FG
The onside kick is about the worst odds of conversion there is

Apparently not when you have a secret weapon helicopter kick! Lol

Seriously though, I agree, but I've never even heard of anyone doing an onside kick in OT...at least I can't remember it.

 

[conner01]

Again, this assumes you make the 2 pt conversion on the 2nd TD. That's exactly the point.

It's not really a 1 possession game until you know if you made the 2 point conversion. If you miss it you have to kick the onside kick.

I get your point
I see it differently but I do get your argument

 

[conner01]

Apparently not when you have a secret weapon helicopter kick! Lol

Seriously though, I agree, but I've never even heard of anyone doing an onside kick in OT...at least I can't remember it.

Watermelon kick though helicopter more accurately describes it

 

[Haimerej]

Yeah, I think it really becomes a thought experiment at that point. You may be right that the coaches would treat everything the same regardless (though MM himself said he'd rather know sooner than later so he might disagree).

That's the point I took issue with. I said earlier in the thread his stance implies he'd run the clock down still being down a TD. Personally, I prioritize tying the game over running the clock.

I challenge you though on the fans.

Fans are fickle. Can't run a team based on fans.

If we're coming in for the chance to tie, I can virtually guarantee that many would be concerned about scoring too early. On the flip side, if we made the conversion and WERE coming in for the tie, the thought would still be there. So touche.

Thanks.

All that said, I think you realize that your point is not the one that most people are making. Most of those against the decision firmly believe that going for two was a bad decision, what at the very worst it made no difference at all. And they think this because they're stacking the argument incorrectly.

Agreed.

On the one hand, you have two td's and a zero percent chance of making the 2-point conversion (because they already know we missed). On the other hand, you have two td's with a 50% chance of making the conversion. Of course you take the latter in that case but, the discussion has nothing to do with when you go and everything to do with artificially better of making the conversion.

I'm not big on probabilities because they're not deterministic. I get the analytics guys POV, but my view is along the lines of Belichick's. It's interesting and all but not necessarily predictive.

 

[Haimerej]

I missed a few replies here and there, but the only time clock management really matters in this scenario is on the very last possession of the game. Going for two early tells you exactly how to play that last drive rather than leaving it up to chance.

Eh... not sure I totally agree. Like I've been saying, I still prioritize points when you're down by more than a FG over chewing clock. I think you're taking a bigger risk by chewing clock when you still need a TD just to tie.

 

[Runwildboys]

Watermelon kick though helicopter more accurately describes it

And I've never heard of a secret weapon watermelon!

 

[Uncle_Hank]

Eh... not sure I totally agree. Like I've been saying, I still prioritize points when your down by more than a FG over chewing clock. I think you're taking a bigger risk by chewing clock when you still need a TD just to tie.

Oh, for sure. You want to score as quickly as possible except for when you get into scoring range on what will become the last drive of the game. The problem with waiting to go for two is that you still don't know whether it's actually the last drive or not. That's when you run the risk of either eating up too much time and being down by 2 (if you miss the conversion) or scoring and converting too quickly and giving the other team another possession that you didn't have to give them.