MM explains his thought process of going for 2

Trendnet · Sep 21, 2020

CowboyRoy said:
Pretty simple...……….what is easier? If he used analytics at all, it should have clued him in on that.

The analytics say to go for 2 in the exact situation he was in.

fivetwos · Sep 21, 2020

A better question is...and sorry of posted (not reading all of these)...is why did Atlanta go for 2 earlier in the game?

I get the whole chart BS but my opinion is you dont EVER go for two unless its needed.

If Atlanta kicks the point things change, and they should have.

JD_KaPow · Sep 21, 2020

fivetwos said:
A better question is...and sorry of posted (not reading all of these)...is why did Atlanta go for 2 earlier in the game?

I get the whole chart BS but my opinion is you dont EVER go for two unless its needed.

If Atlanta kicks the point things change, and they should have.

If they kick the extra point, then we come out of that score down 10 instead of 9. We have no reason to go for 2, so we kick the XP and end up down 9. Exactly the same situation we ended up in.

But yes, if they had taken the XP, it would have taken the the 2-pointer off the table as an option for us and left us in a much worse spot.

CowboyRoy · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
No! My plan is to EITHER make a 2-point conversion OR, if the attempt fails, attempt the onside kick. Your plan is to make a 2-point conversion or lose.

Actually, I reread his explanation and it makes perfect sense now.

Meat-O-Rama · Sep 21, 2020

CowboyRoy said:
It was stupid call for EXACTLY the reasons he gave. His reasons were dumb. Made no sense. Or maybe they make sense to you. Which is baffling.

Something tells me that you would believe any silly explanation he gave. If he told you he had a dream about going for it, you would say it was a great idea. LOL

Likewise, there is no explanation he could give that you would accept and agree with. It's called cognitive dissonance, enjoy it.

CowboyRoy · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
No! My plan is to EITHER make a 2-point conversion OR, if the attempt fails, attempt the onside kick. Your plan is to make a 2-point conversion or lose.

Trendnet said:
The analytics say to go for 2 in the exact situation he was in.

Oh yah.....….you got that book handy do you?

CowboyRoy · Sep 21, 2020

Meat-O-Rama said:
Likewise, there is no explanation he could give that you would accept and agree with. It's called cognitive dissonance, enjoy it.

Im still wondering why every other coach including guys like Belli always kick the extra point there. None of you guys can answer that.

Its like you really think MM invented this idea himself and no one else thought of it.

stiletto · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
An 8-point game is not a one-possession game.

LOL ok....

JD_KaPow · Sep 21, 2020

CowboyRoy said:
Im still wondering why every other coach including guys like Belli always kick the extra point there. None of you guys can answer that.

Its like you really think MM invented this idea himself and no one else thought of it.

As I've said, Vermeil knew this in the '70s. It's not at all new.

The reason coaches don't do it is that coaches have other motivations beyond winning the most games they can, one of which is not getting fired. You saw how the media reacted to that call. You see how the media and fans react when coaches make unconventional calls (like going for it on 4th down) that don't work out. They go nuts. And that has an effect on the coach's job security.

If McCarthy kicks the xp there and then misses the 2-pointer at the end, the Cowboys lose, but nobody in the media or the fandom (except for a small number of us) points to that decision as a problem. He doesn't get raked over the coals for it.

McCarthy took a risk there. If he's not on a honeymoon period, or if he's on the hot seat as a coach, he may make a different, less controversial decision.

aikemirv · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
That was me, thanks.

I hate when people say an 8-point deficit is a "one-score game." It's not. There's about a 50% chance it's a one-score game and a 50% chance it's a two-score game: you just don't know which.
Relatedly, a 7-point deficit is about 98% one-score game and 2% two-score game. We all treat that as 100/0, but there's a game or two a year where we remember that it isn't.

I don't think there is a right or wrong- there are just preferences.

94% of the time you are going to lose if it ends up to be an onside situation - period -end of story.

Mentality, psychology of both teams are factors in both decisions. There are pros and cons of both.

You can't say his approach was right because you don't know the outcome of the other choice and you were the lucky beneficiary of beating overwhelming odds!

jsb357 · Sep 21, 2020

so the falcons going for two (and failing ) way early in the game cost them the win or a chance for a tie.

analytics should be a guide not a bible...

adamknite · Sep 21, 2020

fivetwos said:
A better question is...and sorry of posted (not reading all of these)...is why did Atlanta go for 2 earlier in the game?

I get the whole chart BS but my opinion is you dont EVER go for two unless its needed.

If Atlanta kicks the point things change, and they should have.

Because getting the two points there makes it where we are down 21 makes it where getting 3 TD's only ties (with 3 XPs) where the alternatives of missing the 2 points and getting only the 1 point still makes it where getting 3 TD's and 3 XPs still gives us the lead. I get WHY they did it, but to me that's a call you make in the second half, not before halftime. When you have a big lead like that, just keep getting your points and playing, don't play scoring strategy at that point.

CowboyRoy · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
As I've said, Vermeil knew this in the '70s. It's not at all new.

The reason coaches don't do it is that coaches have other motivations beyond winning the most games they can, one of which is not getting fired. You saw how the media reacted to that call. You see how the media and fans react when coaches make unconventional calls (like going for it on 4th down) that don't work out. They go nuts. And that has an effect on the coach's job security.

If McCarthy kicks the xp there and then misses the 2-pointer at the end, the Cowboys lose, but nobody in the media or the fandom (except for a small number of us) points to that decision as a problem. He doesn't get raked over the coals for it.

McCarthy took a risk there. If he's not on a honeymoon period, or if he's on the hot seat as a coach, he may make a different, less controversial decision.

Whats harder scoring once and making the two or scoring twice with one score having to come after an onsides kick?

Cmon buddy, this isn't rocket science. And the fact that nobody ever does what MM did more than verifies that.

gimmesix · Sep 21, 2020

Future said:
Doesn't have to be. If the value of going for it early is "to know whether it's a two-score game or not," then you simply approach it as if it is regardless.

But you wouldn't want to necessarily do that.

Let's say you need eight points to tie. You could possibly get that on your next possession if you hold Atlanta, but the predicament is if you do get the eight points and the game is tied, you don't want to leave Atlanta with enough time to drive for a game-winning FG and if you don't get the two-point conversion, you want to leave yourself enough time to recover the onside kick and drive for the game-winning FG.

What you are not going to do is score the TD and get the two-point conversion and then try an onside kick because if Atlanta recovers it has a short field to work with for the game-winner. So you're either playing for the tie/OT or playing for the win.

Knowing ahead of time which scenario you'll be facing helps with time management. Because we went for two on the first TD, we knew we had to score a TD fairly quickly in order to get the ball back with enough time to kick a FG. If we had pulled within a TD by making the conversion, our last TD drive would have likely featured some runs to try to take the clock down some.

Not knowing what we needed would have forced us to score our second TD as fast as we did. Then if we got the conversion to tie, we likely would have kicked off to Atlanta and left the Falcons with enough time to drive for the winning FG. And frankly, the way our defense has been playing, I think there's a high probability the Falcons would have been able to do it.

fivetwos · Sep 21, 2020

adamknite said:
Because getting the two points there makes it where we are down 21 makes it where getting 3 TD's only ties (with 3 XPs) where the alternatives of missing the 2 points and getting only the 1 point still makes it where getting 3 TD's and 3 XPs still gives us the lead. I get WHY they did it, but to me that's a call you make in the second half, not before halftime. When you have a big lead like that, just keep getting your points and playing, don't play scoring strategy at that point.

I understand that logic.

The problem with it is that things change repeatedly during the game.

They left a point on the board and lost by one.

MarcusRock · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
Here are the possibilities after you score the first TD and find yourself down 9.

1. Go for two, make it. You're down 7. Great! Your optimal strategy on the next drive is to let the clock run down and hopefully score the TD with very little time remaining for the other team to mount a FG drive at the end of regulation.
2. Go for two, miss it. You're down 9. Bummer. Your optimal strategy on the next drive is to score as fast as possible, because you know you need the onside kick and a third drive.
3. Kick the xp. You're down 8. You do not know what your optimal strategy is on the next drive, because you do not know if you need one score or two scores. Most teams (actually all teams), down 8, will play it as if they were down 7 and play for overtime, letting the clock run. The problem is, if you let the clock run and miss the 2-pointer, you don't have as much time for the last ditch onside kick and drive.

It's better to know which situation you're dealing with early so you can adopt the best strategy for the situation.

Didn't know this new thread had popped up so I was in the other one. If it were me, I'd want to stave off the onside kick try until I absolutely HAD to because it's a desperate last ditch effort. Any number of things can happen to make you not actually need it like a bonehead play from the opponent like a muffed kickoff return (you can kick short on purpose), fumbled punt snap, INT, fumble, etc. In your scenarios, I'd probably choose 3 but try to score with like :30 left to give time for the onside kick. That's harder to do but I think your chances are better. Going to 2 early gives you better self-deterministic options at the end of the game but I think is riskier.

Vintage · Sep 21, 2020

A lot of us pointed it out in the game thread.

adamknite · Sep 21, 2020

fivetwos said:
I understand that logic.

The problem with it is that things change repeatedly during the game.

They left a point on the board and lost by one.

I agree with you 100%. Sometimes coaches get too caught up in "what the chart says" i'm sure their chart says they should always go for 2 in that scoring position. Me in that position? I take the points. It was way too early to play that game.

Future · Sep 21, 2020

gimmesix said:
But you wouldn't want to necessarily do that.

Let's say you need eight points to tie. You could possibly get that on your next possession if you hold Atlanta, but the predicament is if you do get the eight points and the game is tied, you don't want to leave Atlanta with enough time to drive for a game-winning FG and if you don't get the two-point conversion, you want to leave yourself enough time to recover the onside kick and drive for the game-winning FG.

What you are not going to do is score the TD and get the two-point conversion and then try an onside kick because if Atlanta recovers it has a short field to work with for the game-winner. So you're either playing for the tie/OT or playing for the win.

Knowing ahead of time which scenario you'll be facing helps with time management. Because we went for two on the first TD, we knew we had to score a TD fairly quickly in order to get the ball back with enough time to kick a FG. If we had pulled within a TD by making the conversion, our last TD drive would have likely featured some runs to try to take the clock down some.

Not knowing what we needed would have forced us to score our second TD as fast as we did. Then if we got the conversion to tie, we likely would have kicked off to Atlanta and left the Falcons with enough time to drive for the winning FG. And frankly, the way our defense has been playing, I think there's a high probability the Falcons would have been able to do it.

I like how people keep saying "not knowing what you need" as if the scoreboard is just going to change. You know you need 7, 8 or 9.

I don't need an explanation on the logic. I get it. You know you need two scores early. I understand I swear. I know you need to get a 2-pt either way. I just think it is very stupid to choose a two-possession game with a weak defense, against a potent offense, with only 3 minutes left. That's ESPECIALLY true if you're not going to go for 2 the next time, which MM hasn't cited as his reason. It just makes no sense to close the window like that - you forced yourself into an onside kick with 3:00 left, when you didn't have to.

conner01 · Sep 21, 2020

DCBoysfan said:
I think the point he is making is, either way, we would have needed to score twice, and he wanted to know early in the game how soon we needed to try and score twice.

I was yelling at the TV just kick the #$%^# XP, and make it an 8 point game.

I get his point
But I just don’t agree with it
I kick and make it a one procession game
You still have to score another td and convert 2
But by trying there and failing you kept it a two procession game
With the time left the odds of two processions were slim
It worked out but I still think it was wrong

MM explains his thought process of going for 2

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

Vegetarians are so stupid.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Cult of Jib

Well-Known Member

Intramural Legend

Well-Known Member