MM explains his thought process of going for 2

HungryLion · Sep 21, 2020

Haimerej said:
I know, but to say his decision led to them winning is misleading. The failure to convert likely influenced ATL's playcalling on the next possession, but that's the extent of his decision contributing to the win and I would put that on ATL going conservative.

My intent wasn’t to say that his decision led to the win. I was just using it as an example to show that “feel” for the game is subjective and can change due to a lot of other circumstances.

I do believe the choice to go for the 2 early doesn’t change the odds of winning the game one way or another though.

Cowboy4ever · Sep 21, 2020

DakPresgoat said:
I didn’t ignore anything. You’re being obtuse. The math actually says it doesn’t matter whether you kick the XP first or try to kick it second.

now you want to accuse me of using a strawman argument when I’m not.

you also just said “if you fail the 2 pointer”.

McCarthy doesn’t know if that happens or not when he makes the decision. Which makes your point moot.

and the 2 pointer is JUST AS LIKELY TO FAIL if you try it later. And then your odds of winning go to basically zero.

The math says it doesn’t matter what order you kick the do. that’s the facts man. Sorry you don’t want to accept it.

the math doesn’t account for other variables in these situations. That’s why you can’t just follow the math. While it is correct that mathematically the odds are the same whether it’s early or late what is missing is the time variable. Going for the two point play at that point was the wrong call because it forced us to have to get two possessions in 4 minutes. I would guess that the odds of getting 2 possessions there is much lower than getting one. Especially with the way the D has played all year. And I like the odds much better of getting 2 at the end than recovering an onside kick earlier. It worked out, but I just agree with the call.

Haimerej · Sep 21, 2020

Runwildboys said:
You think so? I think I've seen a lot more quick strike, game winning TDs than onside kick recoveries (under the new rules).

Isn't that what I said? Let me rephrase- it's much more common to fail to recover an onside kick than it is to march the length of the field and score.

HungryLion · Sep 21, 2020

Haimerej said:
I give weight to the idea a conversion at that point changes ATL's approach on the next possession.

Ironically, failing that 2 pointer probably increased the odds of winning because ATL got comfortable with a 2 possession lead.

This is one of the factors I think also comes into play.

Just psychologically speaking. Some players on the falcons defense have to be thinking “just don’t give up the quick score, make them use clock, if they score with under 2 minutes to go and no timeouts. We just need to get the onside kick and we win”.

whereas, with a 8 point lead. They’re more likely to feel like they can’t give up a TD period.

CanadianCowboysFan · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
Ah, I missed that about MM. That makes me feel better. Thanks.

Yeah, if you need to make 5 yards, I'd rather depend on my offense, which is built to gain yards, than my punting team, unless you're darn sure there's a very clearly advantageous situation for the latter (like we had in the first fake).

running it up the middle was a delayed playcall to say the least

locked&loaded · Sep 21, 2020

I didnt read all the thread...did cowboyroy apologize or is he still being stubborn?

Rockport · Sep 21, 2020

Cowboy4ever said:
the math doesn’t account for other variables in these situations. That’s why you can’t just follow the math. While it is correct that mathematically the odds are the same whether it’s early or late what is missing is the time variable. Going for the two point play at that point was the wrong call because it forced us to have to get two possessions in 4 minutes. I would guess that the odds of getting 2 possessions there is much lower than getting one. Especially with the way the D has played all year. And I like the odds much better of getting 2 at the end than recovering an onside kick earlier. It worked out, but I just agree with the call.

I get a kick out of CZ posters who think they know more than a SB coach. Priceless entertainment.

HungryLion · Sep 21, 2020

Cowboy4ever said:
the math doesn’t account for other variables in these situations. That’s why you can’t just follow the math. While it is correct that mathematically the odds are the same whether it’s early or late what is missing is the time variable. Going for the two point play at that point was the wrong call because it forced us to have to get two possessions in 4 minutes. I would guess that the odds of getting 2 possessions there is much lower than getting one. Especially with the way the D has played all year. And I like the odds much better of getting 2 at the end than recovering an onside kick earlier. It worked out, but I just agree with the call.

But the time factor comes right back into play if you fail on the 2 point conversion later. You still need time for an onside kick and another possession to get into field goal range.

so I don’t think going for 2 points later, gives you a time advantage.

Runwildboys · Sep 21, 2020

Haimerej said:
Isn't that what I said? Let me rephrase- it's much more common to fail to recover an onside kick than it is to march the length of the field and score.

I'm sure it happens, but like I said earlier, I think the odds of them driving downfield are much lower than the odds of you recovering an onside kick.

I think you meant to write "higher" rather than "lower".

CanadianCowboysFan · Sep 21, 2020

droopdog7 said:
It works equally well the other way! Assume you make it in both scenarios. I still would rather know that earlier.

But based on your response, sorry but it's clear the discussion is over your head.

Oh I understand completely I just don't like the idea of requiring 3 scores by our own volition. If you are forced because of a missed 2 point late, that is fine. That said, the only benefit is that we had more time to kick the onside kick. It just makes little sense to do something when the risk of not succeeding guarantees a harder road to victory.

Haimerej · Sep 21, 2020

DakPresgoat said:
But the time factor comes right back into play if you fail on the 2 point conversion later. You still need time for an onside kick and another possession to get into field goal range.

so I don’t think going for 2 points later, gives you a time advantage.

Which is why I don't like the logic behind MM's reasoning. He's essentially saying he would run down the clock while losing a game by 1 possession when I think the priority should be to score first.

Direwolf63 · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
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?

When you have less than 5 minutes left, assuming 1 remaining possession is not giving up. That's a ludicrous statement. That's the reality of a 60 minute game. Only an idiot would assume they would get 2 possessions. Especially when the opposing offense is moving up and down the field the entire game. Did the Falcons even punt before that first TD?

I get what you are saying. I'm not saying it has no merit. I get it. But when you tell me I make no sense, thats preposterous. My view makes perfect sense, even if you don't agree with it.

Haimerej · Sep 21, 2020

Runwildboys said:
I'm sure it happens, but like I said earlier, I think the odds of them driving downfield are much lower than the odds of you recovering an onside kick.

I think you meant to write "higher" rather than "lower".

I'm not a gambler... thanks for the correction.

Edit- which way is it supposed to go? I'm trying to say their marching down the field is less likely than you recovering an onside kick.

Runwildboys · Sep 21, 2020

CanadianCowboysFan said:
Oh I understand completely I just don't like the idea of requiring 3 scores by our own volition. If you are forced because of a missed 2 point late, that is fine. That said, the only benefit is that we had more time to kick the onside kick. It just makes little sense to do something when the risk of not succeeding guarantees a harder road to victory.

Why is a missed 2 point late better than a missed 2 point earlier? This is what I can't understand. Why would you rather have no opportunity, or a lesser opportunity, to win after missing a 2 pointer?

Cowboy4ever · Sep 21, 2020

Rockport said:
I get a kick out of CZ posters who think they know more than a SB coach. Priceless entertainment.

Just because he has won a SB doesn’t mean he is right 100% of the time. That’s silly talk. And I never claimed to know more I claimed I didn’t agree with that decision. It’s really not a hard concept to understand.

Direwolf63 · Sep 21, 2020

Uncle_Hank said:
No, you don't. It's a one score game if you make the two-point conversion.

Of course it's a one score game if you make the 2 point conversion. But it's a 2 score game if you don't. And that's what happened.

Only the idiocy of the Falcons saved us.

Runwildboys · Sep 21, 2020

Haimerej said:
Which is why I don't like the logic behind MM's reasoning. He's essentially saying he would run down the clock while losing a game by 1 possession when I think the priority should be to score first.

Walk me through this, please. I may have missed something.

Cowboy4ever · Sep 21, 2020

DakPresgoat said:
But the time factor comes right back into play if you fail on the 2 point conversion later. You still need time for an onside kick and another possession to get into field goal range.

so I don’t think going for 2 points later, gives you a time advantage.

It does if you only get one more possession of the ball which is the most likely outcome. Just because the stars aligned and it all worked out doesn’t make it right.

Rockport · Sep 21, 2020

Cowboy4ever said:
Just because he has won a SB doesn’t mean he is right 100% of the time. That’s silly talk. And I never claimed to know more I claimed I didn’t agree with that decision. It’s really not a hard concept to understand.

You said it was the wrong decision so one can infer that you think you know more than a SB coach does. Not a hard concept to understand at all.

Runwildboys · Sep 21, 2020

Rockport said:
You said it was the wrong decision so one can infer that you think you know more than a SB coach does. Not a hard concept to understand at all.

You've never thought an NFL coach made a wrong decision?

MM explains his thought process of going for 2

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Lightning Rod

Well-Known Member

AmberBeer

Well-Known Member

Confused about stuff

Lightning Rod

Well-Known Member

RXP

Well-Known Member

Confused about stuff

Well-Known Member

RXP

Confused about stuff

Well-Known Member

AmberBeer

Confused about stuff