Teachable Moment: That's why you go for two early

davidariust24

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1,068
For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.
I thought it was stupid BECAUSE our defense was not getting ANY pressure. Id rather lose on a two point conversion than an onside kick. That was a crazy call
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
My best guess is this is the proposition- Convert a successful onside kick or score quick last drive THEN convert the 2 points THEN rely on the defense not to let the other team score with a decent amount of time left, let's say 1 min to 1 and a half minute. I can't say which is more difficult honestly before the rule changes I think the onsides option was better.
But this makes no sense. You're taking failing the 2-pointer the first time around as a given. It's not.

If we assume you get the second TD (otherwise it's pointless, the comparison is:

(Convert a successful 2-point conversion) OR (get the onside kick after the second score)
vs.
(Convert a successful 2-point conversion) OR lose
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
I thought it was stupid BECAUSE our defense was not getting ANY pressure. Id rather lose on a two point conversion than an onside kick. That was a crazy call
They tried the two-point conversion and failed on it. But because they did it early instead of at the end, they left themselves the onside kick as an alternative option.
 

Vegas_Cowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,148
Reaction score
7,343
But you're not counting on an onside kick. You're hoping to convert the 2-pointer.

Put it this way. If you wait, and you make the 2-pointer at the end, you tie. If you miss it, you lose, period. You never even gave yourself the onside as a possibility.
If you go early and you make it, you're down 7. Great!. If you miss, well, you know you need two scores, so you know you'll need the onside kick, but now you have the chance to play accordingly.

Or, you can always give your team a chance to win with a two point conversion after the second score, that way they don't feel out of it. If it wasn't for the onside kick, we would've been screwed. We got lucky.

It was not the right call IMO
 

Az Lurker

The Lurker
Messages
456
Reaction score
338
Going for 2 early is the right call according to analytics, the stats guys have been yelling about this for years. One of the things McCarthy talked about early in his hiring was spending his year off understanding and embracing the statistic analysis of football, most of which says to be far more aggressive than NFL coaches usually are. If he has really embraced this mindset expect Dallas to go for it a lot on 4th and 1-3 yards
 

Chuck 54

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,034
Reaction score
12,011
Time also figures into it. With 4 minutes remaining, you kick the extra point because the odds of making a 2 point conversion on your best play to tie the game and go into overtime are astronomically higher than ever recovering an onsides kick. Only the hand of God made that o sides kick turn upfield and go 10 yards.

8 minutes left, maybe your argument makes sense, though I don’t agree with it. With only 4 minutes left, you have to stop Atlanta, get the ball back and score with no timeouts. Getting two possessions required a miracle....it was a stupid call.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
absolutely, utterly wrong and the hindsight of the success of the onside kick (something that is successful about 5% of the time) does not make you right.

Here is the REAL logic:

You are down 15 with under 5 minutes to play
you score and are now down by 9 with the chance to go down by 8
if you get the extra point (very high probability) you are now down by 8.
Being down by 8 is "within one score" (touchdown, with 2 pt conversion) or "one drive"
You miss the 2 point and you are down by 9, so you need two scores or two drives.
If you are down by 8 every player on the Cowboys is thinking that, and every player is now juiced, motivated, psyched (whatever word you prefer) to get that one score that you need.
But being down by 9 and you have all these players thinking, damn we need two drives and I dont see how there is time.
All you need is one player to lose a bit of focus on one play and miss a block or tackle. Just one.

Its psychology and it is simple. 4 1/2 minutes is still enough time that you are not yet forced to think of the onside play yet.
Take the point that keeps you within "one score" or "one drive"
Then you go stop them, get the ball back, and you have time to tie the game, no need to rely on the onside kick.

we got lucky. That is now two weeks with a bad special teams decision and we are 1-1 as we should be when you do these things
This is the silliest argument of them all. Forget the onside kick. Did you see a hint of the psychology you're proposing? I sure didn't. They blazed down the field for that second TD. You're making stuff up that isn't real.

And the whole "no need to rely on the onside kick" is goofy. You still need to rely on the two-point conversion, which we saw didn't work (assuming they'd try the same play later).
 

NorthTexan95

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,456
Reaction score
2,459
The onside kick has nothing to do with the equation. Psychology has nothing to do with the equation.

Whether you get the two point conversion on the first TD or the second doesn't matter. You just need one.

Whether you successfully get the 2 point conversion on the first TD tells you if you need to score quickly to get a second possession of if you only need one drive and can take time to score and not leave time for the other team.

Kicking the extra point on the first TD gives you one path to victory. Going for two on the first TD, whether you make it or not, gives you more options.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,207
Reaction score
15,282
Lets look at the falcons going for 2 at 26 point much earlier in game.
That was a mistake, and it caught up to them in the end had they kicked the xp, the game would have gone to OT 40-40

and yes that onside kick was just incredible stupidity by falcons ST players (IQ's are low on that squad lol) and the ST coaches of ATL
I saw the one guy right by ball waiting for it to go 10 yds, and I was like whats he doing????:huh:
Makes me wonder again if these games are all an act and dallas was scripted to win so ATL had to mess up on the onside kick.
 

aikemirv

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,211
Reaction score
9,713
We wouldn’t have been in the same rush to score if we were down 8 instead of 9.

There’s zero benefit to procrastinating. Go for 2 early to see what else you need to do for the rest of the game to win.
That is the only benefit to going for it then. That the game rest in the 2 point conversion rather than the chance for an onside and if you fail it is over. I like the former rather than the later- 2 pt are a 50-50 proposition, onside kick is less than 1-10 I think. Also, I very much doubt you run the ball for 2 with the game on the line at the end and I would rather pass.
 

texbumthelife

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,610
Reaction score
23,086
For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.

Kicking the PAT would have put us down eight. That's one score and a two-point. You're patently wrong my dude.
 

CyberB0b

Village Idiot
Messages
12,241
Reaction score
13,482
Going for 2 early is the right call according to analytics, the stats guys have been yelling about this for years. One of the things McCarthy talked about early in his hiring was spending his year off understanding and embracing the statistic analysis of football, most of which says to be far more aggressive than NFL coaches usually are. If he has really embraced this mindset expect Dallas to go for it a lot on 4th and 1-3 yards

Have any links? Genuinely curious. I'd suspect in a game with diminishing time, it would be better to take the play that gives you the highest percentage of staying in the game. You're nearly twice as likely to hit the XPA as you are the 2PA. I would guess your chances of winning go down significantly in a 3 score scenario vs a 2 score scenario.
 

Lutonio

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
4,571
I don’t know much about analytics, but I disagree.

The only reason we’re able to even have a discussion about this is because of an immensely brain dead special teams play by Atlanta.

If you kick the extra point, you DO know how many more scores you need — one. And then you don’t have to rely on an onside kick, a play that has been made nearly impossible with rule changes in recent years. The Falcons blew it.
 

blueblood70

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,220
Reaction score
26,816
For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.
the falcons did it and it actually cost them the game.. i say Failed post..
 

SSoup

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
1,194
Teachable moment: that's why you DON'T go for two early. :facepalm:

The only reason this thread exists is because the Cowboys got lucky on an onside kick.
The problem with this "putting off the decisive 2-pointer until as late as possible" strategy is this: the human component (with emotions and fear and dumb logic) dictates that our team will swing the math against themselves by milking all the time off the clock marching to that 2nd TD because they're living in a fantasy where they're assuming they'll make the 2-pointer.

A coach whose mindset is "dear God, we have to put off the decisive play as long as possible so I can stay in my cozy bubble where I can soothe myself by assuming we'll make the 2-pointer since that assumption hasn't been proven wrong yet"? That coach isn't going to hurry up and leave as much time as possible on the clock after the 2nd TD. Because they're already taking the approach that it all comes down to the 2-pointer.

So instead of scoring with 1:49 left for an onside kick and game-winning drive, we'd have likely milked the clock and scored with hardly any time at all left. And after we blew the 2-pointer, we lose instead.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,207
Reaction score
15,282
For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.
This does make sense. for that situation.
 

CarolinaFathead

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
2,334
All those traditions are wrong. The weird thing is how obvious this is. Football statheads have been talking about how stupid this conventional wisdom is for years.
I agree with you.

This is comparable to the gamblers fallacy. If you know you’re going to need a 2 point conversion then the percentages on converting it don’t increase because you waited to make it a one possession game. You make your play as soon as you know you need it and based on the success or failure of the conversion you’ve now given yourself more gametime for potential things to break your way, such as with onside kick in today’s game.

For those struggling with this consider that we needed one two point conversion and let’s say that no matter when we attempted it, it was going to fail. With that in mind it literally doesn’t matter WHEN we go for two as long as we KNOW we need to do so. The percentages of success or failure do not change based on the time a team chooses to attempt the two point conversion.

Contrast that with ATL going for two at the end of the first half. The percentages of conversion are the same as they were with us BUT they didn’t NEED the two points. They should have just kicked the EP.
 
Last edited:

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Time also figures into it. With 4 minutes remaining, you kick the extra point because the odds of making a 2 point conversion on your best play to tie the game and go into overtime are astronomically higher than ever recovering an onsides kick. Only the hand of God made that o sides kick turn upfield and go 10 yards.
But you need to try the 2-point conversion anyway. It does not matter when. We're not comparing a 2-point conversion to an onside kick. We're comparing a two-point conversion attempt with no fallback position to a 2-point conversion attempt with an admittedly bad fallback position.
 
Top