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

Trajan · Sep 21, 2020

MarcusRock said:
- I get it. You're taking a 50/50 gamble (if those are the odds) to try to force a situation where you know you will only need 1 drive.

- But if you miss, you then need a much, much less probable 2 drives.

- Say a PAT is 85% probable. Aren't you in better shape taking that better risk to only needing 1 drive before taking your 50/50 shot? If you miss the PAT, you're still in the same boat as missing on your 50/50 shot and needing 2 drives with the same amount of clock left. To me, it seems like a sounder bet to the path to 1 drive.

- So you're taking a 50/50 shot at needing only 1 drive and not needing to take a 50/50 shot later versus taking an 85% shot to needing 1 drive where you'll need a 50/50 shot at extending the game to OT where you basically get another 50/50-ish shot at winning the game or you just tie.

The only benefit I can see to going for 2 earlier is you have a chance to go for a second 2-pointer after the next TD to outright win the game vs. going to OT. So going for the first 2-point attempt is the more aggressive call and does give you better self-deterministic options at the end of the game (theoretically) where you'd have a win/lose or tie/OT option at the end of the game versus tie/OT or just lose. But it is also riskier going for the win because you'd need to execute 2 consecutive 50/50 two-pointer shots.

So I guess the bigger philosophical question is, is overtime such a yucky place that it's worth those upfront riskier tries of going for a win in regulation?

All good, but The one point you missed is failing to convert the 2nd two point conversion. If you kick first, but drive down and then miss the last 2 point conversion, you are back to square one, and will have to do the onside kick anyway. I would rather know and game plan early that an onside is needed and play accordingly.

FriscoPhantom · Sep 21, 2020

MarcusRock said:
- If you miss the PAT, you're still in the same boat as missing on your 50/50 shot and needing 2 drives with the same amount of clock left.

This is where you're wrong. You won't have the same amount of clock left. If you miss the PAT the first time, you have 1:49 left. If you miss the PAT the 2nd time, you have 0:00 left.

MarcusRock · Sep 21, 2020

FriscoPhantom said:
This is where you're wrong. You won't have the same amount of clock left. If you miss the PAT the first time, you have 1:49 left. If you miss the PAT the 2nd time, you have 0:00 left.

No. I'm just saying that if you don't go for 2 the first time and take the PAT try instead, missing that PAT is the same as going for 2 and not making it, i.e. you only come away with 6 points for your TD and will need 2 drives more.

FriscoPhantom · Sep 21, 2020

MarcusRock said:
No. I'm just saying that if you don't go for 2 the first time and take the PAT try instead, missing that PAT is the same as going for 2 and not making it, i.e. you only come away with 6 points for your TD and will need 2 drives more.

And if you're going to assume you miss the PAT the first time, you must assume you're going to miss the PAT the second time.

MarcusRock · Sep 21, 2020

FriscoPhantom said:
And if you're going to assume you miss the PAT the first time, you must assume you're going to miss the PAT the second time.

I wouldn't though. I'm saying if PATs are 85% probability, they're a safer bet to guaranteeing you'll only need 1 drive towards the end of the game. Less self-deterministic options for getting a win, sure, but a better chance of getting you to that 1 drive position.

MarcusRock · Sep 21, 2020

Trajan said:
All good, but The one point you missed is failing to convert the 2nd two point conversion. If you kick first, but drive down and then miss the last 2 point conversion, you are back to square one, and will have to do the onside kick anyway. I would rather know and game plan early that an onside is needed and play accordingly.

Right, that's the decision you'd need to make. Make that 1 drive your all or nothing at the end of the game, or try to preserve clock as a fail-safe for an onside kick in case you miss the second 2-pointer. Honestly, I think you want to stave off that onside 6% success rate chance as long as you possibly can or avoid it altogether. Again, I think it's just philosophical difference here. Go for 2 early to know you'd only need 1 drive (but risk needing 2 if you fail) or kick the PAT to need 1 drive and get you to a point where you'll tie or need 2 drives at that point. In scenario 1 if successful, you can milk all the clock on that 1 drive then decide to try for the tie or go for the win. In scenario 2, with your 1 drive you can work clock down to like :25 to try to score your TD in case you miss the 2-pointer. Harder to do, yes, but again I'd rather stave off the onside kick unless absolutely necessary. You never know what can happen before then that might help you to where you actually won't need it so I'd rather leave it as a last resort. That's just me though. Maybe others see the 6% chance as better than the other team making a bonehead play like a fumbled punt snap, fumble or INT.

DOUBLE WING · Sep 21, 2020

gjkoeppen said:
Because if they waited to try the 2 point conversion and they converted on it then they wouldn't have tried the on-side kick because with a 98% fail rate the coaches would do that knowing that it would put the falcons in field goal rang to win the game. If they failed on the last TD then they would have had to try the on-side kick but normally 98% of the time they would have failed and lost the game. The ONLY reason the people that are OK with trying the 2 point conversion earlier is because the Gods smiled on the Cowboys and avoided the 98% failure on it. Because of that you think it was better to need more than one score with less than 5 minutes to play than just a single score that would have given the Cowboys a chance to win in OT.
.
.

But why are you assuming they would have converted the 2 point conversion if they waited? The play call would have been the same. Waiting to do the 2 point conversion on the second score doesn’t give you any better chance of having it succeed.

droopdog7 · Sep 21, 2020

MarcusRock said:
Right, that's the decision you'd need to make. Make that 1 drive your all or nothing at the end of the game, or try to preserve clock as a fail-safe for an onside kick in case you miss the second 2-pointer. Honestly, I think you want to stave off that onside 6% success rate chance as long as you possibly can or avoid it altogether. Again, I think it's just philosophical difference here. Go for 2 early to know you'd only need 1 drive (but risk needing 2 if you fail) or kick the PAT to need 1 drive and get you to a point where you'll tie or need 2 drives at that point. In scenario 1 if successful, you can milk all the clock on that 1 drive then decide to try for the tie or go for the win. In scenario 2, with your 1 drive you can work clock down to like :25 to try to score your TD in case you miss the 2-pointer. Harder to do, yes, but again I'd rather stave off the onside kick unless absolutely necessary. You never know what can happen before then that might help you to where you actually won't need it so I'd rather leave it as a last resort. That's just me though. Maybe others see the 6% chance as better than the other team making a bonehead play like a fumbled punt snap, fumble or INT.

Sigh. I have no idea where to start. None this makes any sense whatsoever. For instance, you say make that one drive all or nothing. Well, it's already nothing. You already lost because you have to assume you missed the 2-point conversion. If you assume otherwise then your argument has ZERO to do with going for it on the first or second TD and everything to do with making the 2-point conversion. So it's never a one score game; you're not staving off the onside kick. Missing the conversion needs to be part of the equation.

All you did in your scenario is run the clock down to 25 seconds as opposed to over 2 minutes. How does that help?

Nav22 · Sep 21, 2020

Pretty funny how people are trying to argue against math and logic.

It was the right decision.

There’s ZERO benefit to waiting until later to find out if your 2-point attempt will be successful or not.

Cebrin · Sep 21, 2020

Jake said:
Teachable moment: that's why you DON'T go for two early.

The only reason this thread exists is because the Cowboys got lucky on an onside kick.

Lucky?

Jake said:
Teachable moment: that's why you DON'T go for two early.

The only reason this thread exists is because the Cowboys got lucky on an onside kick.

Lucky?

What a kick. So glad to see our special teams play well. :clap:

gjkoeppen · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
Your entire argument boils down to this. The two-point conversion early has a 0% chance of success and the two-point conversion late has a 50% chance of success. It's ridiculous.

You need to work on your reading and comprehension skills. I said that the 2 point conversion is a 50/50 chance but to made decisions that include having to try an on-side kick to win which normally has only a 2% chance of being successful is foolish.
.
.

gjkoeppen · Sep 21, 2020

DOUBLE WING said:
But why are you assuming they would have converted the 2 point conversion if they waited? The play call would have been the same. Waiting to do the 2 point conversion on the second score doesn’t give you any better chance of having it succeed.

Just what you think makes it a fact that out of all the plays that could be called for a 2 point conversion that if the Cowboys waited until the last TD to try that on that try they would have run the play that they did run when they did try it? Nobody knows that they would have.
.
.

JD_KaPow · Sep 21, 2020

gjkoeppen said:
You need to work on your reading and comprehension skills. I said that the 2 point conversion is a 50/50 chance but to made decisions that include having to try an on-side kick to win which normally has only a 2% chance of being successful is foolish.
.
.

But there's no alternative when you're down 15 or down 8 that late. You have to try a two-point conversion, and if you fail on it, you have to try an onside kick. There's no other option. When you're down 8, you have to do it right then and there. When you're down 15, you get to choose to do it now or later. But either way, whenever you attempt it, you have to do the onside kick if it fails.

JD_KaPow · Sep 21, 2020

gjkoeppen said:
Just what you think makes it a fact that out of all the plays that could be called for a 2 point conversion that if the Cowboys waited until the last TD to try that on that try they would have run the play that they did run when they did try it? Nobody knows that they would have.
.
.

Presumably, in both cases they would run the play that they believed gave them the greatest chance of conversion. Don't know why that would be different later than earlier. Clearly, McCarthy didn't think they had a better chance at converting a two-pointer later than earlier. Why should we assume that they would?

DOUBLE WING · Sep 21, 2020

gjkoeppen said:
Just what you think makes it a fact that out of all the plays that could be called for a 2 point conversion that if the Cowboys waited until the last TD to try that on that try they would have run the play that they did run when they did try it? Nobody knows that they would have.
.
.

Because... when they had the opportunity to go for 2, that’s the play they called.

Why would it be any different if they tried the 2 point later? That is pure fantasy land wishful thinking.

Maxmadden · Sep 21, 2020

I read every post in this thread. I didn't jump into the middle of it with some preconceived notion that what I believed was right.

I actually watched it happen for real.

There is no doubt in my mind no matter how lucky we got, no matter how the Falcons gave us this free game. We were able to play the slim odds and it paid off.
If we had waited to try the failed 2 point conversion on the second TD we would have lost this game sure as ****. The fact that we tried the 2 pt on the first TD, enabled us TIME to play the smallest of odds and snatch a game we should have lost regardless of when we when for 2.

It was the right call.

Established1971 · Sep 21, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
I love it. Some people are arguing it's "playing the percentages" to wait. Others say it's "feel." Both are garbage. Everything favors going for it early.

I have listened to several arguments about why to go for 2 first, they are all paper thin and frankly dumb, you didnt even try to make a point with this post

Established1971 · Sep 21, 2020

Maxmadden said:
I read every post in this thread. I didn't jump into the middle of it with some preconceived notion that what I believed was right.

I actually watched it happen for real.

There is no doubt in my mind no matter how lucky we got, no matter how the Falcons gave us this free game. We were able to play the slim odds and it paid off.
If we had waited to try the failed 2 point conversion on the second TD we would have lost this game sure as ****. The fact that we tried the 2 pt on the first TD, enabled us TIME to play the smallest of odds and snatch a game we should have lost regardless of when we when for 2.

It was the right call.

If they were within 8 and scored 6 and missed the two point, you know what happens next? They try an onside kick. You people arguing for going for 2 first are the most illogical people.

Established1971 · Sep 21, 2020

BoysfaninVegas said:
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

100% right, exactly Vegas, its so simple.

Trajan · Sep 21, 2020

Established1971 said:
I have listened to several arguments about why to go for 2 first, they are all paper thin and frankly dumb, you didnt even try to make a point with this post

Going for two early gives you the best chance to win, not sure how to say it any other way.

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

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

jimnabby

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

fiveandcounting

fiveandcounting

fiveandcounting

Well-Known Member