Going for 2 costs us Guyton

[Kevinicus]

Yeah, going for two was just plain stupid. If we missed, we would need 8 points to tie instead of just 7. It locks you into having to go for 2 next time. We should have just kicked the extra point, and then we would be down by 7. Then, if you get the next TD that's needed, you decide at that point if you want to kick the point and try to win in overtime or if you want to go for the win right then.

Your idea is a greater chance at losing.

 

[thunderpimp91]

Yeah, going for two was just plain stupid. If we missed, we would need 8 points to tie instead of just 7. It locks you into having to go for 2 next time. We should have just kicked the extra point, and then we would be down by 7. Then, if you get the next TD that's needed, you decide at that point if you want to kick the point and try to win in overtime or if you want to go for the win right then.

I would disagree with you on the last part. If you'd rather just play it safe and kick two XPs I'm good with that argument. If you have any desire to go for the 2 point conversion though I'd rather have two attempts at it than just one.

 

[DCBoysfan]

If, if, if! IF you go for the 1 point after the first TD, then a second TD affords you two options…go for 1 and roll into OT…or then choose your opportunity to win it by going for two.
If, OTOH, you go for two after the first TD, and it fails, then if you score again, you have to go for the two to even tie to send to OT! I like the first option, but that’s just me!

It’s not just you.

 

[blueblood70]

None of us has to agree, but analytics and statistics say go for 2.
Going for 2 is closer to a 50% deal. So down by 14, analytics say go for 2. If you miss it, odds are with you that you will make the second one and still be tied. However, if you make it the first time, you now have higher odds of actually winning the game.

I totally agree with you. Most people do real sports people are not angry and emotional. That was the right time because they know it's coming after the 2nd one. So you go for it on the one you you guarantee you got, you just got a touchdown. You go for two them saying that that's the only reason Guyton got injured, which by the way, I didn't know he got injured. What's wrong with Guitan? Is it AA, long term injury? I mean, I didn't say anything. That said that he was injured where he wouldn't be back for the next game.

 

[blueblood70]

Quit overthinking and kick the extra point and TG is still healthy. What a head scratcher.

WRONG NEXT

 

[cowboyfan4life2]

I’m sure some analyst said to do that. But I thought it was stupid personally.

These Harvard geeks who never stepped foot on a field are ruining sports

 

[Bigrandrn]

how many more years does jerry need to try to find 52 guys to carry dak. I can wait another 10 or 20 years. He might get lucky. go dak.......dak choke attack on three..............*three*

Again, this convo started being about the dumb decision to go for 2 after the first TD instead of the second TD…ur turning it into a Dak complaining post.
Who else u want at QB? U realize there’s only a couple other QB that have been to or won a SB. U want Jalen Hurts over Dak? Allen and Jackson never been to a SB and they have bad games too. Burrow hasn’t sniffed it since he went once. How many Mahomes are there out there? U guys act like QBs that are better than Dak are everywhere out there all the time, every draft, a sure thing if we dumped Dak when in reality, there’s a greater chance we get weaker QB play and end up worse….grass ain’t always greener. It’s HARD to find a QB who can consistently perform near the top of the nfl every year.

But this post was supposed to be about how bad a HC Schotty is, he should have never been hired.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

Having said all of this, I remember one of the Jason Garrett criticisms was he ignored analytics.

I think analytics are a good tool if used by smart coaches. Which inevitably leads us too.......

 

[Captain-Crash]

Again, this convo started being about the dumb decision to go for 2 after the first TD instead of the second TD…ur turning it into a Dak complaining post.
Who else u want at QB? U realize there’s only a couple other QB that have been to or won a SB. U want Jalen Hurts over Dak? Allen and Jackson never been to a SB and they have bad games too. Burrow hasn’t sniffed it since he went once. How many Mahomes are there out there? U guys act like QBs that are better than Dak are everywhere out there all the time, every draft, a sure thing if we dumped Dak when in reality, there’s a greater chance we get weaker QB play and end up worse….grass ain’t always greener. It’s HARD to find a QB who can consistently perform near the top of the nfl every year.

But this post was supposed to be about how bad a HC Schotty is, he should have never been hired.

Yeah, I remember the tards saying the same about Garrett. Who are we going to get to keep us average? LMAO.. You act like I said you couldn't wear your dak jersey to high school. sheesh.

 

[Bigrandrn]

Yea but if you're 50% on 2-point conversions you're going to get one of them so you might as well try get the first.

I know what you're saying but the risk is that you have to get two stops instead of one to actually win the game if you just take the XPs. By kicking, you're voluntarily giving the opponent another possession.

You don't go for 2 the second time because then you're basically just letting the game come to a coin flip after the second TD.

Why would u need two stops for kicking the pat? If you kick the pat, ur behind 7. If u go for 2 and make ur down 6 and if u miss it ur down 8. U wouldn’t need two stops, where are u getting that? Kick the pat, make it a seven point game. Stop them once, go score and NOW u can go for 2 to win.,,,or kick to tie and go to OT if things have turned in your favor momentum or injury wise.

 

[DandyDon52]

None of us has to agree, but analytics and statistics say go for 2.
Going for 2 is closer to a 50% deal. So down by 14, analytics say go for 2. If you miss it, odds are with you that you will make the second one and still be tied. However, if you make it the first time, you now have higher odds of actually winning the game.

yeah but in reality, you have to have plays just for getting the 2, and dallas doesnt have those, they just pick a random play, sometimes a stupid one and usually a pass play.
With dallas right now and some other teams, the odds of getting the 2 points are more like 10%, not 50%.
A team has to be good at it to have that 50% chance .
And any team could fail on both attempts.
with our dallas team, better stick with the kicks and tie game up.

 

[DandyDon52]

Again, this convo started being about the dumb decision to go for 2 after the first TD instead of the second TD…ur turning it into a Dak complaining post.
Who else u want at QB? U realize there’s only a couple other QB that have been to or won a SB. U want Jalen Hurts over Dak? Allen and Jackson never been to a SB and they have bad games too. Burrow hasn’t sniffed it since he went once. How many Mahomes are there out there? U guys act like QBs that are better than Dak are everywhere out there all the time, every draft, a sure thing if we dumped Dak when in reality, there’s a greater chance we get weaker QB play and end up worse….grass ain’t always greener. It’s HARD to find a QB who can consistently perform near the top of the nfl every year.

But this post was supposed to be about how bad a HC Schotty is, he should have never been hired.

Well any QB we get would not cost 60 mil a year !!
That means more players to help team be better.
Dak isnt getting younger and he isnt going to get better,or change his ways, he is all he will ever be.

And your right if you say jones boys might get someone worse. But at least it would be something different.
11 year of dak is enough. let him go to another team and lead them to SB lol. or even a playoff win.

 

[Kwyn]

Why not kick the extra point first and then, IF you scored a second TD, decide if you want to go for 2?

Going for 2 and failing, IMO, is a huge momentum swing cause it puts unnecessary pressure on your team to play perfect going forward.

This strategy is worse than just kicking twice and playing for overtime where you only have a 50% chance of winning.

 

[Kwyn]

It's terrible strategy and stupid. You end up chasing that 2 points you don't make and it compounds the error.

Analytics are flat out wrong on this. You make sure you don't lose first, then you go for the win.

I have no doubt that in the coming years this analytics fad will be shown to have been stupid. It doesn't see the forest for the trees nor does it take into account momentum or the unique situations.

Playing for a tie is a great way to lose.

 

[TheKey]

I think the analytics are that odds of win or tie are better since you could win and still have a chance to tie whereas going for 1 means your best chance is a tie.

People say wait to the second TD to make that decision, but then you are only playing for a win or loss because if you miss you already went for 1 on the first TD.

By going for 2 on TD one you know if you can just kick on TD two or if you need to go 2 again.

You can’t play the game on a calculator. With the way that game was going, you ride the momentum and kick that can down the road

 

[Kingofholland]

Going for 2 when we didn't need 2 points was a head scratcher. Because if we would have scored we would have needed to go for 2 the next time to even tie the game. IDK what we were thinking there. Schotty being Schotty I guess lol

Yeah I could understand going for 2 if they scored another td to avoid ot otherwise it was silly timing

 

[pansophy]

You can’t play the game on a calculator. With the way that game was going, you ride the momentum and kick that can down the road

Yeah I don’t disagree. I don’t know if it is actually the right thing to do or not. There also must be some flawed assumptions in the data because teams haven’t been doing this long enough to show that this works in practice.

For example in 2024 2-pt attempt success was 41% because DCs had to spend more time on its prep. If you really can make 55% of your 2-pt conversions then maybe it does make sense. If you can’t then this likely falls on its face.

I do think that if you kick the extra point the first time you are committed to kicking the second one as well, unless you think you have no chance in OT and you consider that your do or die moment.

 

[TheKey]

Yeah I don’t disagree. I don’t know if it is actually the right thing to do or not. There also must be some flawed assumptions in the data because teams haven’t been doing this long enough to show that this works in practice.

For example in 2024 2-pt attempt success was 41% because DCs had to spend more time on its prep. If you really can make 55% of your 2-pt conversions then maybe it does make sense. If you can’t then this likely falls on its face.

I do think that if you kick the extra point the first time you are committed to kicking the second one as well, unless you think you have no chance in OT and you consider that your do or die moment.

Think about it. If you make it 55% of the time, you’d go for two every time. But we don’t do that. Why? Because there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

[Jarntt]

You can disagree with it all you want. It is mathematically the right decision. That is why every team does it every single time. Do you have to go with the mathematically better percentage based decision, no you do not. But don’t call it a bad decision. It is at worst the better decision.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Quit overthinking and kick the extra point and TG is still healthy. What a head scratcher.

Desperate analytics against a bad, bad team.
Alas, we were the bad, bad team last night.