MM explains his thought process of going for 2

Messages
18,213
Reaction score
28,520
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.
You know it's a one score game if you kick the extra point
 

G2

Taco Engineer
Messages
24,426
Reaction score
26,192
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.
Easy to say they were idiots, but it was also very well executed. They even had Dallas players gunning past the ball to add confusion.

Part of football is luck. Case and point - if Jones doesn't drop a sure TD pass that bounced off his hands we probably lose. Instead they punted and we scored a TD on the next drive.
It's more than luck because that drop was on 3rd and two, then a penalty. That's just football.
 

mkindred

Well-Known Member
Messages
236
Reaction score
299
You know it's a one score game if you kick the extra point

And the outcome is lose or tie because you waited till the last second to try and tie it and burned any possible time off the clock to prevent the Falcons from having a final drive to kick a FG.

OR

You tempt fate early. If you fail, you know that every second is precious and you must adjust accordingly. If you succeed, you are now down a TD and PAT vice a TD and 2 pt conversion.

But I’m done with this conversation. I feel like the end of Billy Madison at this point feeling dumber for having to listen to some of these explanations..
 

G2

Taco Engineer
Messages
24,426
Reaction score
26,192
But then you still have to make a 2 pointer after getting a second TD. Why would the odds of making that one increase?
Around 50%. Not good. You pretty much need things to happen they way they did, having two possessions.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
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.
But it doesn't make any sense. Let's say you're right and you can't possibly get more than one more possession. In that case, it matters not one whit when you go for 2. You have to make one and only one two-pointer. If you miss it--now or later--you lose. If you make it, you tie. All of that is true no matter when you attempt it. Yeah, if you attempt it now and you fail, you feel bad for 4 more minutes than you do if you attempt it later and fail. But that's the only difference, as long as you believe that your conversion odds are the same now as they will be later.

But if you have even the slightest chance of getting a third possession, you're better off trying the two-pointer now and learning whether you need that third possession or not. If you wait til the end, it's almost certainly too late, because you almost certainly let the clock run down playing for the tie.

Your assumption (that you can't get more than one more possession) is giving up. McCarthy didn't give up. The Cowboys didn't give up. They gave themselves that (very small) chance, IN ADDITION TO the chance to convert the 2-pointer (which they blew). And that very small chance came through. Why would you deny them that chance?
 

RustyBourneHorse

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,527
Reaction score
42,320
And the outcome is lose or tie because you waited till the last second to try and tie it and burned any possible time off the clock to prevent the Falcons from having a final drive to kick a FG.

OR

You tempt fate early. If you fail, you know that every second is precious and you must adjust accordingly. If you succeed, you are now down a TD and PAT vice a TD and 2 pt conversion.

But I’m done with this conversation. I feel like the end of Billy Madison at this point feeling dumber for having to listen to some of these explanations..

tenor.gif


I'm done with this conversation as well. We've made our point as to why it's the right call. No amount of bashing it further will change minds I'd imagine.
 

Keithfansince5

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,534
Reaction score
5,644
Wrong. Missing either one requires you to need an onside kick.
Unreal. You guys are missing the biggest element here. IF they converted on that first 2 point try call, yes, that would have been great and there would not need to be an onside kick attempt. (Unless ATL scored on their drive) anyway, the thing for me that makes this a no brainer is the reality of IF you do not convert. That is a big deal because the chance of not converting is high. SO, if you follow that logic this will all make sense.

Miss the 2 point conversion means you are now down by 9 points. That decision has forced your hand into now having to score 2 times to win the game. With 4 minutes left, this is very difficult. It happens but I am sure level headed people will agree that it is pretty hard. For one you have to stop the other team from scoring or even making a couple first downs on you. If all they do is make 1 first down I think it is game over. But certainly 2. With our defense that is a real tall order. Then we have to still score a TD with whatever time is left. Since we are now down by 9, we cannot attempt to tie the game here. We are forced to kick the PAT and now attempt the hardest thing to do in all of football, recover an onside kick. Do that and yeah, you are in the catbird seat. I would love for a statistician to show just how difficult this scenario is. It is why this will be one of the most improbably wins in Cowboys history.

Now, let me walk you though the sane logic. After scoring the TD and we instead try for the PAT and are down by 8. 4 minutes remaining, we kick off. We stop ATL on 3 and out just like above. Now we have several minutes to more comfortably drive down for the TD. Since we did in the above scenario, we are here too. Now the game has come down to converting the 2 point conversion. If we miss this, the game is over in my scenario. We could attempt the onside kick but by then there would be hardly any time remaining. This is not proof that the above scenario is better. Going for 2 is hard and is why it should never be attempted until you absolutely need it. If you miss, than you congratulate your opponent on the win and move on. If you convert it, you are tied and go to OT. Now you have a chance to win the game here. The odds of this happening in this scenario are better than the odds in the above scenario. This is why it is better to do the right thing and give yourself better odds. It is all about giving yourself better odds. None of this is guaranteed. You guys talk as if it is a guarantee.

The first scenario has the highest risk. It is riverboat gambling at its best. Roll that dice and if it comes up your way, you look like a genius. If it doesn't you look like an idiot. Sprinkle in a miracle and bam, now you are a genius again. The first scenario however does allow you to win the game in regulation which the 2nd scenario does not. But it has such a high risk that it is pure gambling. Sometimes you will win but more often you will lose. That is how gambling works.

The second scenario has a lower risk but does require you to win in OT. However, the odds are much more in your favor overall. Yes the 2 point conversion is the same chance in either scenario. However if you are happy with that risk, than going for it with a few seconds left in the game should be fine and dandy too. To me it is. This scenario avoids an onside kick. There is no onside kick. You either tie and go to OT or you lose. Give me the chance to extend the game into OT every time. I like those odds better than asking my team to potentially have to convert an onside kick. That is why folks what McCarthy did is pure riverboat gambling and is not the wisest thing to do. It worked this time. So congrats.
 

RustyBourneHorse

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,527
Reaction score
42,320
But it doesn't make any sense. Let's say you're right and you can't possibly get more than one more possession. In that case, it matters not one whit when you go for 2. You have to make one and only one two-pointer. If you miss it--now or later--you lose. If you make it, you tie. All of that is true no matter when you attempt it. Yeah, if you attempt it now and you fail, you feel bad for 4 more minutes than you do if you attempt it later and fail. But that's the only difference, as long as you believe that your conversion odds are the same now as they will be later.

But if you have even the slightest chance of getting a third possession, you're better off trying the two-pointer now and learning whether you need that third possession or not. If you wait til the end, it's almost certainly too late, because you almost certainly let the clock run down playing for the tie.

Your assumption (that you can't get more than one more possession) is giving up. McCarthy didn't give up. The Cowboys didn't give up. They gave themselves that (very small) chance, IN ADDITION TO the chance to convert the 2-pointer (which they blew). And that very small chance came through. Why would you deny them that chance?

tenor.gif


I think we've made our points.
 

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
50,239
Reaction score
94,112
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
Around 50%. Not good. You pretty much need things to happen they way they did, having two possessions.
Well, my point is simply that they missed the first one, and one would assume they'd use the same play design whether they did it on the first TD or the second TD, so it most likely would've failed then too, in which case the game is probably over on the spot, or at best there are only a few seconds left to try an onside kick and score.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
You know it's a one score game if you kick the extra point
No, you don't. You know it's an 8-point game. That could be a one-score game, or it could be a two-score game. You don't know, because you don't know whether you'll convert the two-pointer or not. Better to find out earlier if you'll convert the two-pointer or not.
 

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,533
Reaction score
60,409
Let’s break this down.

if you’re down by 9 and just scored a touchdown, then You need a two point conversion, a touchdown and an extra point.

Let’s assume you score the next TD because if you don’t, this entire argument is moot anyway.

So you need an XP AND 2 point conversion to tie.

probability of an XP is about .98

probability of 2 pointer is about .5

If you do xp first. The probability of BOTH being successful is .98 x .5 = .49


If you do the 2 pointer first. The probability of BOTH being successful is. .5 x .98 = .49


The probability of converting both the xp and 2 pointer is the same at about .49 No matter the order in which you do them.

we can isolate the two events because the needed events between the two (getting a stop and scoring a TD) are the same under both scenarios.
 
Last edited:

Kingofholland

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,862
Reaction score
6,287
He can rationalize it all he wants but it was crazy. You absolutely kick the PAT there, get within one score and if they stop the 2 point conversion at the end then props to the other team. What he did pretty much made a total football miracle have to occur to win. It happened so he just got lucky this time. I am fast seeing why GB fans panned MM. That was just stupid.

To me the 2pt decision timing wasn't as much of an issue as the 4th down fake punts. I guess the 1st one would have worked if not for a bad pass by Jones. But those were brutal that added to the hole.
 

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
50,239
Reaction score
94,112
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
Unreal. You guys are missing the biggest element here. IF they converted on that first 2 point try call, yes, that would have been great and there would not need to be an onside kick attempt. (Unless ATL scored on their drive) anyway, the thing for me that makes this a no brainer is the reality of IF you do not convert. That is a big deal because the chance of not converting is high. SO, if you follow that logic this will all make sense.

Miss the 2 point conversion means you are now down by 9 points. That decision has forced your hand into now having to score 2 times to win the game. With 4 minutes left, this is very difficult. It happens but I am sure level headed people will agree that it is pretty hard. For one you have to stop the other team from scoring or even making a couple first downs on you. If all they do is make 1 first down I think it is game over. But certainly 2. With our defense that is a real tall order. Then we have to still score a TD with whatever time is left. Since we are now down by 9, we cannot attempt to tie the game here. We are forced to kick the PAT and now attempt the hardest thing to do in all of football, recover an onside kick. Do that and yeah, you are in the catbird seat. I would love for a statistician to show just how difficult this scenario is. It is why this will be one of the most improbably wins in Cowboys history.

Now, let me walk you though the sane logic. After scoring the TD and we instead try for the PAT and are down by 8. 4 minutes remaining, we kick off. We stop ATL on 3 and out just like above. Now we have several minutes to more comfortably drive down for the TD. Since we did in the above scenario, we are here too. Now the game has come down to converting the 2 point conversion. If we miss this, the game is over in my scenario. We could attempt the onside kick but by then there would be hardly any time remaining. This is not proof that the above scenario is better. Going for 2 is hard and is why it should never be attempted until you absolutely need it. If you miss, than you congratulate your opponent on the win and move on. If you convert it, you are tied and go to OT. Now you have a chance to win the game here. The odds of this happening in this scenario are better than the odds in the above scenario. This is why it is better to do the right thing and give yourself better odds. It is all about giving yourself better odds. None of this is guaranteed. You guys talk as if it is a guarantee.

The first scenario has the highest risk. It is riverboat gambling at its best. Roll that dice and if it comes up your way, you look like a genius. If it doesn't you look like an idiot. Sprinkle in a miracle and bam, now you are a genius again. The first scenario however does allow you to win the game in regulation which the 2nd scenario does not. But it has such a high risk that it is pure gambling. Sometimes you will win but more often you will lose. That is how gambling works.

The second scenario has a lower risk but does require you to win in OT. However, the odds are much more in your favor overall. Yes the 2 point conversion is the same chance in either scenario. However if you are happy with that risk, than going for it with a few seconds left in the game should be fine and dandy too. To me it is. This scenario avoids an onside kick. There is no onside kick. You either tie and go to OT or you lose. Give me the chance to extend the game into OT every time. I like those odds better than asking my team to potentially have to convert an onside kick. That is why folks what McCarthy did is pure riverboat gambling and is not the wisest thing to do. It worked this time. So congrats.
In order for your scenario to make more sense than what happened in reality, you have to assume that your chances of scoring a 2 point conversion on the second TD are better than your chances of scoring a 2 point conversion on your first TD.....There's absolutely no reason to believe that.
 

Nav22

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,800
Reaction score
16,945
Unreal. You guys are missing the biggest element here. IF they converted on that first 2 point try call, yes, that would have been great and there would not need to be an onside kick attempt. (Unless ATL scored on their drive) anyway, the thing for me that makes this a no brainer is the reality of IF you do not convert. That is a big deal because the chance of not converting is high. SO, if you follow that logic this will all make sense.

Miss the 2 point conversion means you are now down by 9 points. That decision has forced your hand into now having to score 2 times to win the game. With 4 minutes left, this is very difficult. It happens but I am sure level headed people will agree that it is pretty hard. For one you have to stop the other team from scoring or even making a couple first downs on you. If all they do is make 1 first down I think it is game over. But certainly 2. With our defense that is a real tall order. Then we have to still score a TD with whatever time is left. Since we are now down by 9, we cannot attempt to tie the game here. We are forced to kick the PAT and now attempt the hardest thing to do in all of football, recover an onside kick. Do that and yeah, you are in the catbird seat. I would love for a statistician to show just how difficult this scenario is. It is why this will be one of the most improbably wins in Cowboys history.

Now, let me walk you though the sane logic. After scoring the TD and we instead try for the PAT and are down by 8. 4 minutes remaining, we kick off. We stop ATL on 3 and out just like above. Now we have several minutes to more comfortably drive down for the TD. Since we did in the above scenario, we are here too. Now the game has come down to converting the 2 point conversion. If we miss this, the game is over in my scenario. We could attempt the onside kick but by then there would be hardly any time remaining. This is not proof that the above scenario is better. Going for 2 is hard and is why it should never be attempted until you absolutely need it. If you miss, than you congratulate your opponent on the win and move on. If you convert it, you are tied and go to OT. Now you have a chance to win the game here. The odds of this happening in this scenario are better than the odds in the above scenario. This is why it is better to do the right thing and give yourself better odds. It is all about giving yourself better odds. None of this is guaranteed. You guys talk as if it is a guarantee.

The first scenario has the highest risk. It is riverboat gambling at its best. Roll that dice and if it comes up your way, you look like a genius. If it doesn't you look like an idiot. Sprinkle in a miracle and bam, now you are a genius again. The first scenario however does allow you to win the game in regulation which the 2nd scenario does not. But it has such a high risk that it is pure gambling. Sometimes you will win but more often you will lose. That is how gambling works.

The second scenario has a lower risk but does require you to win in OT. However, the odds are much more in your favor overall. Yes the 2 point conversion is the same chance in either scenario. However if you are happy with that risk, than going for it with a few seconds left in the game should be fine and dandy too. To me it is. This scenario avoids an onside kick. There is no onside kick. You either tie and go to OT or you lose. Give me the chance to extend the game into OT every time. I like those odds better than asking my team to potentially have to convert an onside kick. That is why folks what McCarthy did is pure riverboat gambling and is not the wisest thing to do. It worked this time. So congrats.
That’s a whole lot of text. You’re still wrong.

Going for 2... now or later... is playing for OT.

If you convert the 2, then you need 1 more score. If you don’t convert the 2, then you need 2 more scores. That’s true no matter when you attempt the 2.

You’re only going for 2 once. The odds of converting on the 1st TD or the 2nd TD is the same.

Your strategy is to stay in the dark for as long as possible. The smart strategy is to figure out if you need 1 more score or 2 more scores early, so that you can plan the rest of the game accordingly.
 

pansophy

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,002
Reaction score
4,112
Thanks for the explanation MM, but it was still stupid.

For him to try and rationalize it is pathetic.
It’s based in Bayesian statistics and is a bit counter intuitive, but similar to the Monty Hall problem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Even if you consider everything entirely independent, at worst one should consider it a wash. If you don’t make the 2 point conversion you will need two scores whether you do it early or after a second TD. Does going for 2 after the second TD give you an advantage?? I don’t see how.

But getting certainty about whether you need one or two scores allows McCarthy to manage the game as such. I don’t see why so many think it was a mistake.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Unreal. You guys are missing the biggest element here. IF they converted on that first 2 point try call, yes, that would have been great and there would not need to be an onside kick attempt. (Unless ATL scored on their drive) anyway, the thing for me that makes this a no brainer is the reality of IF you do not convert. That is a big deal because the chance of not converting is high. SO, if you follow that logic this will all make sense.

Miss the 2 point conversion means you are now down by 9 points. That decision has forced your hand into now having to score 2 times to win the game. With 4 minutes left, this is very difficult. It happens but I am sure level headed people will agree that it is pretty hard. For one you have to stop the other team from scoring or even making a couple first downs on you. If all they do is make 1 first down I think it is game over. But certainly 2. With our defense that is a real tall order. Then we have to still score a TD with whatever time is left. Since we are now down by 9, we cannot attempt to tie the game here. We are forced to kick the PAT and now attempt the hardest thing to do in all of football, recover an onside kick. Do that and yeah, you are in the catbird seat. I would love for a statistician to show just how difficult this scenario is. It is why this will be one of the most improbably wins in Cowboys history.

Now, let me walk you though the sane logic. After scoring the TD and we instead try for the PAT and are down by 8. 4 minutes remaining, we kick off. We stop ATL on 3 and out just like above. Now we have several minutes to more comfortably drive down for the TD. Since we did in the above scenario, we are here too. Now the game has come down to converting the 2 point conversion. If we miss this, the game is over in my scenario. We could attempt the onside kick but by then there would be hardly any time remaining. This is not proof that the above scenario is better. Going for 2 is hard and is why it should never be attempted until you absolutely need it. If you miss, than you congratulate your opponent on the win and move on. If you convert it, you are tied and go to OT. Now you have a chance to win the game here. The odds of this happening in this scenario are better than the odds in the above scenario. This is why it is better to do the right thing and give yourself better odds. It is all about giving yourself better odds. None of this is guaranteed. You guys talk as if it is a guarantee.

The first scenario has the highest risk. It is riverboat gambling at its best. Roll that dice and if it comes up your way, you look like a genius. If it doesn't you look like an idiot. Sprinkle in a miracle and bam, now you are a genius again. The first scenario however does allow you to win the game in regulation which the 2nd scenario does not. But it has such a high risk that it is pure gambling. Sometimes you will win but more often you will lose. That is how gambling works.

The second scenario has a lower risk but does require you to win in OT. However, the odds are much more in your favor overall. Yes the 2 point conversion is the same chance in either scenario. However if you are happy with that risk, than going for it with a few seconds left in the game should be fine and dandy too. To me it is. This scenario avoids an onside kick. There is no onside kick. You either tie and go to OT or you lose. Give me the chance to extend the game into OT every time. I like those odds better than asking my team to potentially have to convert an onside kick. That is why folks what McCarthy did is pure riverboat gambling and is not the wisest thing to do. It worked this time. So congrats.
So weird. Your second scenario has the higher risk. You're gambling everything--everything!!-on making that 2-pointer at the end of the game. By your admission, if you fail, the game is over, for sure. The first scenario is the one where, if you fail, you have a chance to do something about it.

The 2-point attempt isn't a "risk." It's not a choice. You MUST attempt one, and only one, two-pointer. You have to try it, because you're down 15. When you try it doesn't affect the overall risk of the situation at all.

Your second scenario only avoids the onside kick because you resigned yourself to losing if you miss the 2-pointer. That's the only difference. You say, "give me the chance to extend the game into OT every time," but that's what the 2-point conversion is doing, whether you take it early or late. There's no scenario where missing the two-pointer doesn't leave you down another score. And there's no scenario where making the 2-pointer doesn't tie the game.

You're saying, "two-pointer or bust." I (and McCarthy, and the Cowboys) are saying "two-pointer or we'll try our fallback plan, bad as it may be." Your proposal is objectively worse.
 
Top