Should the Cowboys have gone for 2 on the 1st or 2nd TD?

[JD_KaPow]

you keep saying this

1. please show us your statistics that say this

2. clarify how you accounted for the way the opposing team will react/play differently under both scenarios

you are conveniently ignoring these issue and keep giving us your opinion

The math is clear. Mathematically, there's no difference except for the timing of the information.

Given that, if you want to argue the other way, it's on you to show why other factors would predominate. It's entirely possible for that to be the case. For example, I believe it's been shown that it's better to be down 4 than 3 in the final drive because teams down 3 will play for the FG and then lose half the time in OT, while teams down 4 have to go for the TD, which works out better.

But I don't see what the argument is here. I would argue that the Falcons, down 9, played much softer on defense than they would have down 8, allowing the Cowboys to reach scoring range more quickly and easily. Remember, if the next Cowboys drive had stalled out, a FG was a viable option to pull within 6 before the onside kick. I would also argue that they played less aggressively on offense. Up 8, they'll more aggressively go after the first down that ices the game. Up 9, they'll be more risk-averse about a possible turnover: they just want the clock to run. To me, all the human/strategy arguments cut the same way as the math.

 

[Doomsday101]

You need a 2 point conversion regardless so the percentages are the same. The only difference is going early and missing gave you the chance of the onside kick (people are saying 6% conversion rate). If you go for the conversion late and miss you have 0% chance to win because the clock will be run down. You aren't looking for the optimal strategy to get a point. It is the optimal strategy to win the game.

I was referring to Atlanta going to 2 and not getting it not the Cowboys. Final score 39 to 40 that missed 2 point conversion was the difference

 

[JD_KaPow]

Oh ok. I just looked at the game. Not really applicable in the sense that the team didn't have a choice to go for 2, but it does demonstrate what happens when you have a lack of information. Dallas had the ball with 3:21 and all three timeouts at the 25 yard line. They ended up scoring the td with ~40 seconds left and two timeouts. Had they known the 2 point conversion would fail, they could have conserved that third timeout or left more time on the clock to get the ball back. They might not have even needed an onside kick to get another possession.

That's correct.

The real benefit here is not so much about the percentages: you can try the onside kick either way. The real benefit is the information. The optimal strategy when you need 2 scores is completely different than the optimal strategy when you need one score. The problem with being down 8 points is that you have no idea which strategy you should pursue, because you have no idea whether you're down one or two scores.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I was referring to Atlanta going to 2 and not getting it not the Cowboys. Final score 39 to 40 that missed 2 point conversion was the difference

If they had not tried that one, the Cowboys would have been down 16 instead of 15. They'd go for two and nobody would argue. They missed the 2, which leaves them down 10. If the game played out the same way, it would have gone to OT.

 

[visionary]

If you want to learn probability go read. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27969581

More importantly is how did WE react? We knew we had to score a TD quickly and leave enough time on the clock to score again. So we hurried. Do we know what we should do if we hold off making that decision? Do we try to leave as little time on the clock as possible to rely on making the two point conversion to tie? Or do we hurry, and ideally tie the game? If we tie the game with time left, we kick off and try to keep Atlanta from getting into FG position themselves.

Can you post the article ? I can only view the first page

 

[Doomsday101]

If they had not tried that one, the Cowboys would have been down 16 instead of 15. They'd go for two and nobody would argue. They missed the 2, which leaves them down 10. If the game played out the same way, it would have gone to OT.

I don't care if people argue or not, fact they went for 2 which is 50% success rate vs 95% success rate on the extra point and they lost by 1. The difference being that 2 point conversion miss had they taken the vastly higher percentage the most we could do is tie the game. I tend to value points and unless I just have to go for 2 points I would just as soon take the easy points. The discussion of Dallas going for 2 or 1, we knew at some point we had to go for 2, but we also say that assuming the extra point is a given and why? because at 95% we take for granted that is a easy point to get. Again I value points and have seen too often where going for 2 can come back to haunt you.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

I don't care if people argue or not, fact they went for 2 which is 50% success rate vs 95% success rate on the extra point and they lost by 1. The difference being that 2 point conversion miss had they taken the vastly higher percentage the most we could do is tie the game. I tend to value points and unless I just have to go for 2 points I would just as soon take the easy points. The discussion of Dallas going for 2 or 1, we knew at some point we had to go for 2, but we also say that assuming the extra point is a given and why? because at 95% we take for granted that is a easy point to get. Again I value points and have seen too often where going for 2 can come back to haunt you.

You DID have to go for two points, though. This is a type of logical fallacy called a false dilemma.

 

[visionary]

The math is clear. Mathematically, there's no difference except for the timing of the information.

Given that, if you want to argue the other way, it's on you to show why other factors would predominate. It's entirely possible for that to be the case. For example, I believe it's been shown that it's better to be down 4 than 3 in the final drive because teams down 3 will play for the FG and then lose half the time in OT, while teams down 4 have to go for the TD, which works out better.

But I don't see what the argument is here. I would argue that the Falcons, down 9, played much softer on defense than they would have down 8, allowing the Cowboys to reach scoring range more quickly and easily. Remember, if the next Cowboys drive had stalled out, a FG was a viable option to pull within 6 before the onside kick. I would also argue that they played less aggressively on offense. Up 8, they'll more aggressively go after the first down that ices the game. Up 9, they'll be more risk-averse about a possible turnover: they just want the clock to run. To me, all the human/strategy arguments cut the same way as the math.

that’s certainly possible but I want to see the actual math and how the behavior of the opponent was accounted for in that evaluation

 

[JD_KaPow]

I don't care if people argue or not, fact they went for 2 which is 50% success rate vs 95% success rate on the extra point and they lost by 1. The difference being that 2 point conversion miss had they taken the vastly higher percentage the most we could do is tie the game. I tend to value points and unless I just have to go for 2 points I would just as soon take the easy points. The discussion of Dallas going for 2 or 1, we knew at some point we had to go for 2, but we also say that assuming the extra point is a given and why? because at 95% we take for granted that is a easy point to get. Again I value points and have seen too often where going for 2 can come back to haunt you.

Oh, I'm not arguing with you. I was just walking through it. I agree it was too early for the Falcons to go for two there, unless they were really confident in the play they had ready (similar to the fake-punt argument: you only do it if you're sure you've seen something on tape that gives you a huge advantage).

At the end of the game, the Cowboys, as you say, "just had to go for 2 points." So they went ahead and pulled off the band-aid, rather than waiting.

 

[JD_KaPow]

You DID have to go for two points, though. This is a type of logical fallacy called a false dilemma.

He's talking about the Falcons' earlier attempt, not the Cowboys'.

 

[Doomsday101]

You DID have to go for two points, though. This is a type of logical fallacy called a false dilemma.

My conversation was on Atlanta going for 2 earlier in the game. As for Dallas yes there was no doubt we had to have 2 TD and 1 2 point conversion. Going for it after the 1st TD at least gave Dallas a clear picture of what they had to do to win. The next possession we could not mess around we needed to drive the ball down the field quickly and get the TD and at that point 2 point would do us no good so we took the 1 and did the onside kick leaving us around 1:20 when we got the ball back. Now we just needed 3. I would not argue about going for 2 on the 1st drive or the 2nd drive but at the very least going for it on the 1st drive gave us a clear picture of what we needed to do.

 

[JD_KaPow]

that’s certainly possible but I want to see the actual math and how the behavior of the opponent was accounted for in that evaluation

I don't understand. The math is clear. We have no way of knowing how the team factored in the behavior of the opponent--well, except that we do, we know that MM made the decision based on the math/logic argument. You can't control what the opponent does, you can only control what you do. And the more information you have, the better decisions you can make. Going for two early gives you a critical piece of information.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

that’s certainly possible but I want to see the actual math and how the behavior of the opponent was accounted for in that evaluation

The behavior of the opponent is a separate issue. At this point I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Atlanta would have played any differently whether we had kicked the extra point or went for 2, but it's still fun to think about.

Remember the Dallas-Denver game with Romo and Manning, where Denver let us score in the fourth quarter so that they'd have enough time left for a game winning drive? They knew it was better to be down by 4 or whatever it was and go against our prevent defense than for them to try to hold on to their original lead but let us milk the clock.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

My conversation was on Atlanta going for 2 earlier in the game. As for Dallas yes there was no doubt we had to have 2 TD and 1 2 point conversion. Going for it after the 1st TD at least gave Dallas a clear picture of what they had to do to win. The next possession we could not mess around we needed to drive the ball down the field quickly and get the TD and at that point 2 point would do us no good so we took the 1 and did the onside kick leaving us around 1:20 when we got the ball back. Now we just needed 3. I would not argue about going for 2 on the 1st drive or the 2nd drive but at the very least going for it on the 1st drive gave us a clear picture of what we needed to do.

Ohh, sorry. This thread is too long to keep up with now.

 

[Doomsday101]

Ohh, sorry. This is too long to keep up with now.

No problem, easy mistake to make since I added to the original post with Atlanta who also went for a 2.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Like I said.

The team that kicks the XP and goes down by 8 statistically has a 50% chance to tie the game if they score again.

The team that goes down by 9 has literally no chance to win. I would not make the decision at that point to possibly put myself down by 9 even if the odds are the same to make the try at that point versus later.

did we win the game??

 

[aikemirv]

did we win the game??

Yes we won that 1 in 1000 chance - it's great - it worked out!

Under your odds scenario given 1000 scenarios with the exact same setup , I am going to tie to go into overtime 500 times and lose 499 times and win 1 time.

Under mine I am going to tie 500 times and lose 500 times but under those 499 times that I lose my team feels like they have a chance to win.

So be it!

 

[Uncle_Hank]

Yes we won that 1 in 1000 chance - it's great - it worked out!

Under your odds scenario given 1000 scenarios with the exact same setup , I am going to tie to go into overtime 500 times and lose 499 times and win 1 time.

Under mine I am going to tie 500 times and lose 500 times but under those 499 times that I lose my team feels like they have a chance to win.

So be it!

This is where it gets interesting, because now we're weighing tradeoffs, particularly around the psychology of the game.

I remember reading an article once about the high school coach who always goes for it in his own territory. Each year they have to specifically coach the players on how to respond emotionally when they don't convert and the other team gets the ball on the wrong side of the 50.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Yes we won that 1 in 1000 chance - it's great - it worked out!

Under your odds scenario given 1000 scenarios with the exact same setup , I am going to tie to go into overtime 500 times and lose 499 times and win 1 time.

Under mine I am going to tie 500 times and lose 500 times but under those 499 times that I lose my team feels like they have a chance to win.

So be it!

What if you miss the 2 pt conversion on the 2nd td?

 

[OmerV]

You’re guessing at a psychological advantage that you admit doesn’t even necessarily work in your favor over having the information in hand of what you need to do. I get the psychological argument, but it’s a weak one. We made the right call and had a chance to win because of it. If the team plays to tie after making the extra point and fails as we did on the second two pointer then we’re 0-2. Us winning was the perfect example of why you always go for two on the first TD when down 15 and time short.

On the point where you tell me I'm guessing, since I since I specifically said I was guessing on that point, what point do you think you made by repeating back what I already said?

My only point was there are a lot more variables going on than just the ones some are limiting the conversation to.

I tend to think we made the right choice, but I don't think it is at all the easy, no brainer that some are making it to be. There are, in fact, human elements that aren't subject to a concrete mathematic explanation.

And remember, just as we might know what we need, so does the other team, and they were the ones getting the ball back.