MM explains his thought process of going for 2

Runwildboys · Sep 21, 2020

Haimerej said:
What's being left out of the equation is the onside kick. Less than 5 minutes left in the game and needing two scores with a defense not stopping anyone. Sure, they made the stop and ultimately recovered the onside kick, but who thought that would actually happen? Atlanta brain-farted and they were given the ball. Not something I'd consider a reasonable expectation.

But how does it help to miss the 2 pointer on the second TD, rather than the first? Your odds of making it haven't improved.

CowboyRoy · Sep 21, 2020

DakPresgoat said:
You’re assuming you don’t get the first two point conversion. When making the decision. You don’t know if you’re going to make the two point conversion or not.

You also don’t know if you’ll make it on the second TD or not.

that’s why your comment is stupid.

Yet given the same scenario most coaches, if not all go for one. And that's why your comment is stupid.

Ill take the history of brilliant coaches all over the NFL then the rambling of a few desperate homers on a Cowboys chat room gullible enough to believe any dumb story a desperate coach would make up.

RustyBourneHorse · Sep 21, 2020

Keithfansince5 said:
Which is Football 101. The goal is to win the game having the last possession. The 1990's football team made that a point. Score on the last drive and drain the clock. Yep, that is what I would do.

Not necessarily. I still would go for 2 when we did. Go for the 2 now, if you make it, then you get a lot of time to make the stop, drain clock, and get the TD only needing the XP. If you miss, you still have time for what happened yesterday.

Cowboy4ever · Sep 21, 2020

droopdog7 said:
Hell friggin' yeah you have to assume you miss the try on the second. Otherwise, what in the world are you arguing?

I guess you're saying that you think we had a better chance of making the 2-point conversion after the second versus the first td. Okay, but that's not what the actual argument is about. Not even close.

First let me say I really despise you guys for making me Agee with CowboyRoy.

second let me try to break this down on my point of view. I understand the logic or reasoning. It’s math. I get it. And if we lived in a vacuum it would be the right call every time. We don’t. And in this situation I don’t believe it was the right call. You kick th extra point and make it a one possession game. There are 4 min left in the game and with the way our D has played this year getting a quick stop and punt is not very likely. Getting off the field has been a big issue. So I play for the 1 possession and hope I get it. Taking the risk to be down two possessions was not the right call in our situation. It may be the correct thing to do mathematically And I am super happy it worked out. I just don’t think it was the smart play. And I will agree to disagree on this and say Go Cowboys.

Uncle_Hank · Sep 21, 2020

Keithfansince5 said:
Only in bizarro world. Sorry, I am not a resident of bizarro world and it doesn't make sense to me.

If we're being honest, I think you're just not very good at math. This is super, super basic stuff.

The odds of making the conversion don't change depending on how much time is left on the clock. The odds of SCORING do. That's why it's better to know earlier how many times you need to score. If you call the game like you only need one score and then you find out that you needed two, ya done F'ed up.

Keithfansince5 · Sep 21, 2020

Runwildboys said:
But you still have to score two TDs and go for one 2 point conversion, so how is there less risk? This is borderline cognitive dissonance.

Yes it is. Sort of like trying to explain what the color red is to a blind person lol.

You are wrong though, we already scored one of the 2 TD's needed. Remember? We didn't need to score 2 more. At that point we only needed 1 score as we just scored leaving 4 minutes left in the game. Kick the PAT down by 8 4minutes left. Go for 2 possibly be down by 7 with 4 minutes left or fail and be down by 9 with 4 minutes left.

Do you honestly see the logic in needing 2 scores with just 4 minutes remaining in the game as being the best choice? If so, I cannot help you. I have tried.

RustyBourneHorse · Sep 21, 2020

Runwildboys said:
But how does it help to miss the 2 pointer on the second TD, rather than the first? Your odds of making it haven't improved.

Exactly, all you've done in that case is given yourself less time to take corrective action.

CowboyRoy · Sep 21, 2020

Runwildboys said:
But how does it help to miss the 2 pointer on the second TD, rather than the first? Your odds of making it haven't improved.

If the Cowboys had another half hour of real time knowing they were going to have to make a 2 pointer to tie it, do you think they come up with that stupid call to run Zeke wide? LOL

Or maybe the coaches put their heads together and dig up that set of plays in the offseason they had been saving for a moment like this?

JD_KaPow · Sep 21, 2020

Direwolf63 said:
This game is not played by robots.

If I'm the Giants, I'm ultra aggressive because I'm usually outmanned and outcoached. So I have to take chances throughout the game and hope enough of those plays go my way to steal a few wins.

If I'm the Chiefs, I don't have to be agressive at all. Why? Because I have Patrick friggin' Mahomes and a field full of playmakers that can get me out of any jam I might find myself in.

So if it's 4th and 6 on my 40 yard line, I go for it pretty much all the time if I'm the Giants. Sure I might lose a bunch of games 52-0, but if I make enough plays, I can win my share too.

If I'm the Chiefs I can do whaterver I want. For poops and giggles I can go for it knowing that if I don't make it, I will be fine because I still outman you. But I have no trouble punting either. I have a reasonably good defense and 10 to 12 plays drives can be tough to put together. I will probably win the game either way.

Those are the 2 extremes. My point is that what's right for one team may not be right for another. You cannot just ignore the human element that football presents.

This isn't a debate about aggression, at all.
If you're down 15 late in the game, you need two TDs. You also need either one successful two-point conversion OR, if that fails, an onside kick and another score.
You have to have those things: there's no more aggressive or more conservative path to take. It's the only path.
The only question is whether to go for 2 after the first TD or after the second TD. You have to do it one (and only one) of those times, regardless of your overall philosophy.

sacase · Sep 21, 2020

CowboyRoy said:
one of the worst calls ever. Is it easier to score once or twice? Simple math.

You still need a 2pt conversion either way. There is not getting around that.

mkindred · Sep 21, 2020

CowboyRoy said:
Probability? Ok Mr probability...………..is it more probable to win down 8 with 4 minutes or down 9?

duh...…….……..9?

I honestly can’t tell if you are serious anymore because you are forgetting something going with that logic. If we converted, we would have been down 7. Therefore, that would have given us the greatest probability of winning. But, we didn’t - and you can’t assume we would have converted if we waited. And then the game would have been over if we didn’t convert and we would have lost.

droopdog7 · Sep 21, 2020

Cowboy4ever said:
First let me say I really despise you guys for making me Agee with CowboyRoy.

second let me try to break this down on my point of view. I understand the logic or reasoning. It’s math. I get it. And if we lived in a vacuum it would be the right call every time. We don’t. And in this situation I don’t believe it was the right call. You kick th extra point and make it a one possession game. There are 4 min left in the game and with the way our D has played this year getting a quick stop and punt is not very likely. Getting off the field has been a big issue. So I play for the 1 possession and hope I get it. Taking the risk to be down two possessions was not the right call in our situation. It may be the correct thing to do mathematically And I am super happy it worked out. I just don’t think it was the smart play. And I will agree to disagree on this and say Go Cowboys.

Yeah, I’m sorry to tell you but you don’t get it at all. For one, this has almost nothing to do with math.

HungryLion · Sep 21, 2020

CowboyRoy said:
Yet given the same scenario most coaches, if not all go for one. And that's why your comment is stupid.

Ill take the history of brilliant coaches all over the NFL then the rambling of a few desperate homers on a Cowboys chat room gullible enough to believe any dumb story a desperate coach would make up.

You’re great at changing the argument when called out on your stupidity.

Uncle_Hank · Sep 21, 2020

Cowboy4ever said:
First let me say I really despise you guys for making me Agee with CowboyRoy.

second let me try to break this down on my point of view. I understand the logic or reasoning. It’s math. I get it. And if we lived in a vacuum it would be the right call every time. We don’t. And in this situation I don’t believe it was the right call. You kick th extra point and make it a one possession game. There are 4 min left in the game and with the way our D has played this year getting a quick stop and punt is not very likely. Getting off the field has been a big issue. So I play for the 1 possession and hope I get it. Taking the risk to be down two possessions was not the right call in our situation. It may be the correct thing to do mathematically And I am super happy it worked out. I just don’t think it was the smart play. And I will agree to disagree on this and say Go Cowboys.

Again, you are changing the subject. You do not know whether it is a one score game or a two score game. You only find that out after you attempt the two-point conversion.

You don't get to magically turn it into a one score game just because you want it to be.

JD_KaPow · Sep 21, 2020

mkindred said:
I honestly can’t tell if you are serious anymore because you are forgetting something going with that logic. If we converted, we would have been down 7. Therefore, that would have given us the greatest probability of winning. But, we didn’t - and you can’t assume we would have converted if we waited. And then the game would have been over if we didn’t convert and we would have lost.

He's trolling. He figured it out a long time ago, he just can't admit he's wrong. That's why he's resorting to arguments like, "they would have come up with a better 2-point play later." That's why he's pretending he doesn't know that coaches are starting to adopt this.

RustyBourneHorse · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
This isn't a debate about aggression, at all.
If you're down 15 late in the game, you need two TDs. You also need either one successful two-point conversion OR, if that fails, an onside kick and another score.
You have to have those things: there's no more aggressive or more conservative path to take. It's the only path.
The only question is whether to go for 2 after the first TD or after the second TD. You have to do it one (and only one) of those times, regardless of your overall philosophy.

Exactly, and, in this case, you have to decide how much time do you think you'll have if the worst possible thing happens. If you miss the 2, you still have 4 minutes and change to put it right.

Runwildboys · Sep 21, 2020

Keithfansince5 said:
Yes it is. Sort of like trying to explain what the color red is to a blind person lol.

You are wrong though, we already scored one of the 2 TD's needed. Remember? We didn't need to score 2 more. At that point we only needed 1 score as we just scored leaving 4 minutes left in the game. Kick the PAT down by 8 4minutes left. Go for 2 possibly be down by 7 with 4 minutes left or fail and be down by 9 with 4 minutes left.

Do you honestly see the logic in needing 2 scores with just 4 minutes remaining in the game as being the best choice? If so, I cannot help you. I have tried.

I was speaking from the point of view before the first TD was scored. At that point, you're expecting to need to score 15 points to tie the game. Score 7, and then you absolutely must score 8 on the next attempt, because you've been playing to tie, so you're running the clock down. Now you miss the 2 pointer, because the odds of making it were no better than the odds of making it after the first TD, which in reality failed, so it's logical to assume it would most likely have failed if attempted after the 2nd TD instead of the first.

Score 8 and you only need seven to tie, or miss, and now you know you need to score quickly and go for the onside kick.

Direwolf63 · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
This isn't a debate about aggression, at all.
If you're down 15 late in the game, you need two TDs. You also need either one successful two-point conversion OR, if that fails, an onside kick and another score.
You have to have those things: there's no more aggressive or more conservative path to take. It's the only path.
The only question is whether to go for 2 after the first TD or after the second TD. You have to do it one (and only one) of those times, regardless of your overall philosophy.

Ok.I'll be specific.

With less than 5 minutes left, you must assume you will only get one more possession in the game. So in that one possession, you have to win or tie the game. Therefore, you have to be only one possession down. You kick the PAT and move forward down 8 points.

The only reason the Cowboys got 2 possessions is because the Falcons are idiots. Which is great. I'm glad we won. But it was pure luck.

The decision may be different if it's in the 3rd quarter or early in the 4th. But not that late in the game.

That's my take.

Runwildboys · Sep 21, 2020

Cowboy4ever said:
First let me say I really despise you guys for making me Agee with CowboyRoy.

second let me try to break this down on my point of view. I understand the logic or reasoning. It’s math. I get it. And if we lived in a vacuum it would be the right call every time. We don’t. And in this situation I don’t believe it was the right call. You kick th extra point and make it a one possession game. There are 4 min left in the game and with the way our D has played this year getting a quick stop and punt is not very likely. Getting off the field has been a big issue. So I play for the 1 possession and hope I get it. Taking the risk to be down two possessions was not the right call in our situation. It may be the correct thing to do mathematically And I am super happy it worked out. I just don’t think it was the smart play. And I will agree to disagree on this and say Go Cowboys.

But then you're depending on our defense to hold them in OT. The way this worked out, our defense was on the field less.

Uncle_Hank · Sep 21, 2020

Direwolf63 said:
Ok.I'll be specific.

With less than 5 minutes left, you must assume you will only get one more possession in the game. So in that one possession, you have to win or tie the game. Therefore, you have to be only one possession down. You kick the PAT and move forward down 8 points.

The only reason the Cowboys got 2 possessions is because the Falcons are idiots. Which is great. I'm glad we won. But it was pure luck.

The decision may be different if it's in the 3rd quarter or early in the 4th. But not that late in the game.

That's my take.

The touchdown where you kick that PAT is irrelevant. All that matters is whether you make the two-point conversion or not. It is better to give yourself time to at least TRY to get the ball back than it is to miss it at the end of regulation and lose the game. That's all this is about.

MM explains his thought process of going for 2

Confused about stuff

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

Confused about stuff

RXP

Confused about stuff

Well-Known Member