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

Established1971 said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's unlikely they'd have time to try an inside kick in that scenario, since teams try to drain the clock as much as possible when going for the tie.

Established1971 said:

100% right, exactly Vegas, its so simple.

Click to expand...

No it's not. What makes it any more likely you'd convert the 2 points after the second TD, when you couldn't do it on the first one? There's absolutely zero reason to believe they would, and then you're probably out of time after you miss.

Established1971 said:

100% right, exactly Vegas, its so simple.

Click to expand...

I don't get why some people don't understand this. We needed a small miracle after that and got lucky to get it. Keep it a 1 score game and keep the team believing there's a chance.

BoysfaninVegas said:

I don't get why some people don't understand this. We needed a small miracle after that and got lucky to get it. Keep it a 1 score game and keep the team believing there's a chance.

Click to expand...

I find this the strangest argument of all, that the team will fold if the 2-pointer fails. We just watched a team in that exact situation, and they didn’t fold. They clearly still believed there was a chance.

JD_KaPow said:

We just watched a team in that exact situation, and they didn’t fold.

Click to expand...

But the odds are very low and players know it. It was a long shot and we were bailed out by our kicker and a Falcons special teams that didn't just fall on the ball with the onside kick and a last second field goal. Simple as that. JMO

JD_KaPow said:

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.

Click to expand...

Here's what's wrong with your thinking. If they waited until the last TD to go for the 2 point conversion, those that see no difference between when they go for it take the assumption they they fail so the on-side kick would still have to be done. There's just as good of a chance that they are successful on that 2 point conversion and the game is tied. I'm willing to bet that NFL coaches, not fans that are wannabe head coaches, would not try an on-side kick with a 2% chance of getting it and a 98% chance that it will give the falcons the ball within game winning field goal range. Again I'll bet that NFL coaches would instead kick off and try to keep the falcons out of field goal range and take their chances in OT.
.
.

JD_KaPow said:

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?

Click to expand...

Teams don't go into games saying if we need a 2 point conversion that this is the play we will run. Some teams script their first 10 or 15 plays and after that they run plays that were successful. Between the 2nd from the last TD and the last TD saw more plays that were successful so they very well could have decided to run a different play for the 2 point conversion. Now since you and others are so hung up on that 2% on-side kick but say that running the same play would automatically fail and would have had no chance of working if run on the last TD 2 point conversion. Your acceptance of one highly probable failure of the on-side kick but not think a play that wouldn't have been run until then would be an automatic failure.
.
.

DOUBLE WING said:

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.

Click to expand...

No pure fantasy is people here thinking they know as fact that had the Cowboys waited until their last TD to go for 2 that they would have run that same exact play and at the actual moment of deciding they wouldn't have decided on any number of different plays to run. Now even if they did call that same play, just like the Gods smiled on the Cowboys on that on-side kick they might have done the same thing and that 2 point play might have worked.
.
.

gjkoeppen said:

Teams don't go into games saying if we need a 2 point conversion that this is the play we will run. Some teams script their first 10 or 15 plays and after that they run plays that were successful. Between the 2nd from the last TD and the last TD saw more plays that were successful so they very well could have decided to run a different play for the 2 point conversion. Now since you and others are so hung up on that 2% on-side kick but say that running the same play would automatically fail and would have had no chance of working if run on the last TD 2 point conversion. Your acceptance of one highly probable failure of the on-side kick but not think a play that wouldn't have been run until then would be an automatic failure.
.
.

Click to expand...

Your entire idiotic take is that going for two late is more likely to be successful than going for two early. That’s it. With no evidence to support it

GhostOfPelluer said:

Your entire idiotic take is that going for two late is more likely to be successful than going for two early. That’s it. With no evidence to support it

Click to expand...

yep. The NFL has a 2 point conversion success rate or more specifically varying teams have two point conversion rates. This rate doesn’t vary depending on when the conversion is attempted.

I don’t know what the league’s or specifically Dallas’ conversion rate is but let’s just say it’s 42%. That means it’s 42% whenever you attempt it. It was 42% when ATL attempted it in the first half and it was 42% when we attempted it in the fourth quarter and it would STILL have been 42% if we waited until the last play to attempt it which highlights the problem with this line of thinking. If you wait till as late as possible to attempt the conversion because you’re trying to keep it a “one score game” (a very bad phrase since 7 or 8 points are NOT one score games) then you limit the time remaining if you don’t convert the damn thing to rectify the failure. You’re shooting yourself in the foot gambling that you’re going to make the conversion by waiting so damn long IF you fail to convert.

it shouldn’t be surprising people are struggling with this though. The gambler’s fallacy has put millions of idiots in the poor house. These are the people that think if a coin toss lands on heads 20 times in a row that the 21st toss will more likely land on tails. Lol no, the 21st toss has a 50% chance of landing on tails.

just like every other toss before it.

gjkoeppen said:

No pure fantasy is people here thinking they know as fact that had the Cowboys waited until their last TD to go for 2 that they would have run that same exact play and at the actual moment of deciding they wouldn't have decided on any number of different plays to run. Now even if they did call that same play, just like the Gods smiled on the Cowboys on that on-side kick they might have done the same thing and that 2 point play might have worked.
.
.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's possible they could have called a different play. It's also possible an asteroid could have struck the stadium before the second TD was ever scored. These are all what if's. I deal in reality, and reality is they called the play they called when they had a chance to go for 2. This play probably wasn't called on a whim. Teams will usually enter a game with a specific play or plays they want to run if that scenario presents itself.

GhostOfPelluer said:

Your entire idiotic take is that going for two late is more likely to be successful than going for two early. That’s it. With no evidence to support it

Click to expand...

No I didn't say that or even imply that. What I've said all along is that by kicking an extra point when they went for the 2 point conversion they would have only been down by ONE TD and a 2 point conversion instead of needing both a TD, a kicked extra point AND field goal all with less than 5 minutes left to play. I've also said all along that if the waited until the last TD to try the 2 point conversion and if it fail then they would have still needed the field goal. I've read 3 articles about this game and all three when discussing the Cowboys TD where they went for 2, ALL THREE said that was the wrong time to try that making it that they would then need to get that TD, kicked extra point AND a field goal with the amount of time left in the game. The football Gods smiled on the Cowboys and they won.
.
.

gjkoeppen said:

No I didn't say that or even imply that. What I've said all along is that by kicking an extra point when they went for the 2 point conversion they would have only been down by ONE TD and a 2 point conversion instead of needing both a TD, a kicked extra point AND field goal all with less than 5 minutes left to play. I've also said all along that if the waited until the last TD to try the 2 point conversion and if it fail then they would have still needed the field goal. I've read 3 articles about this game and all three when discussing the Cowboys TD where they went for 2, ALL THREE said that was the wrong time to try that making it that they would then need to get that TD, kicked extra point AND a field goal with the amount of time left in the game. The football Gods smiled on the Cowboys and they won.
.
.

Click to expand...

The order of the points being scored doesn't change the total amount of points needed. With a missed 2-point conversion there was always a need for 3 total scores.

DOUBLE WING said:

Yes, it's possible they could have called a different play. It's also possible an asteroid could have struck the stadium before the second TD was ever scored. These are all what if's. I deal in reality, and reality is they called the play they called when they had a chance to go for 2. This play probably wasn't called on a whim. Teams will usually enter a game with a specific play or plays they want to run if that scenario presents itself.

Click to expand...

Lets be honest here all teams have a butt load of plays to run from the 2 yard line. The 2 point attempt is no different than going for it on 4th down from the 2 yard line. They don't plan out a single play if they need it for a 4th and goal from the 2 yard line. You're trying to make that 2 yard play for a 2 point attempt as some kind a super special play. Most teams have to do run plays from the 2 yard line in just about every game.
.
.

GhostOfPelluer said:

The order of the points being scored doesn't change the total amount of points needed. With a missed 2-point conversion there was always a need for 3 total scores.

Click to expand...

But here's the reality of it all. If they kicked the extra point instead of the 2 point try they would have been down by only 8 points. Now if the other 31 head coaches were asked if they would rather be down by only 8 points with 5 minutes left or down by 9 points with only 5 minutes left knowing that it would require trying a play with only a 2% chance of success, just how many real NFL coaches, not wannabe fan head coaches, would chose being down by 9 instead of 8 points? Now don't say they would still need that field goal to win because those coaches wouldn't try that on-side kick if they made the 2 point attempt and in a tie game with under 2 minutes left because the on-side kick only has a 2% chance of working and that means that if they did that there would be a 98% chance that they would be giving the ball to the falcons at the Cowboys 45 yard line and only need 10-12 yards to kick the winning field goal. NFL coaches would have kicked off and taken their chances on holding them and try winning in OT.
.
.

JD_KaPow said:

This is a perfect example where the analytics are right and the conventional wisdom is wrong...and teams are finally coming around to realizing that and changing the way they approach the game.

Coaches have become much more aggressive about going for it on 4th down than they used to be. Because they have realized the conventional wisdom was wrong. Have they gone as far as the analytics think they should? No, but there's definitely been movement.

Click to expand...

There's been movement but I'd be hard-pressed to believe they'll ever get to where analytics suggests they should be. It's not an either/or situation. Both have value.

Not when playing against Atlanta!

gjkoeppen said:

But here's the reality of it all. If they kicked the extra point instead of the 2 point try they would have been down by only 8 points. Now if the other 31 head coaches were asked if they would rather be down by only 8 points with 5 minutes left or down by 9 points with only 5 minutes left knowing that it would require trying a play with only a 2% chance of success, just how many real NFL coaches, not wannabe fan head coaches, would chose being down by 9 instead of 8 points? Now don't say they would still need that field goal to win because those coaches wouldn't try that on-side kick if they made the 2 point attempt and in a tie game with under 2 minutes left because the on-side kick only has a 2% chance of working and that means that if they did that there would be a 98% chance that they would be giving the ball to the falcons at the Cowboys 45 yard line and only need 10-12 yards to kick the winning field goal. NFL coaches would have kicked off and taken their chances on holding them and try winning in OT.
.
.

Click to expand...

good grief...

This is a ridiculous strawman.

How about asking these same coaches would they rather be down 7 points or 9 points going into the last five minutes because THAT’S the real question here which is where the percentages regarding two point conversion successes NOT VARYING DEPENDENT ON THE TIME IN THE GAME THEY ARE ATTEMPTED matters.

If you KNOW you NEED the two point conversion then it doesn’t matter when you attempt it based on pure statistical analysis.

Given that 2 point conversions fail more often than not, your preferred strategy would have a coaching staff put the outcome of the entire game on the line as late as possible on a play that is more likely to fail than not without any game time remaining to make up for the failure. We went for it as soon as we could because we KNEW we needed it AND, given that two point conversion rates in the league fail more often than not (lol and DON’T vary statistically based on when they are attempted in the game. You REALLY need to get this in your head), we could JUSTIFIABLY assume it was plausible and likely we were not going to convert it.

Given these realities about NFL football you go for two as soon as you possibly can if you know you need it so that if you fail, which is likely, you have the game time to make up for it. Waiting to the last play of the game to attempt a two point conversion that is more likely to fail than not ROBS the team of game time to make up for the failure. It’s not good game time management.

You guys arguing against this are completely rooted in psychological nonsense regarding how things “feel” that has no empirical validity to back it up while having no root in actual math. Again, this is classic gamblers fallacy mistaken thinking.

The most interesting thing about this topic to me is not whether MM made the right decision. He clearly did, not even legitimately debatable.

The interesting question to me from a stats geek perspective, and the math gets too complicated for me at this point which is why the probability charts are so valuable, is statistically at what point in the game do you KNOW you NEED the two point conversion. If we are down 15 points in the first half, does the math say go for two at that point given there is still SO much game time left?

If not, where is the breaking point? Fourth quarter for sure. Entire second half?

gjkoeppen said:

Lets be honest here all teams have a butt load of plays to run from the 2 yard line. The 2 point attempt is no different than going for it on 4th down from the 2 yard line. They don't plan out a single play if they need it for a 4th and goal from the 2 yard line. You're trying to make that 2 yard play for a 2 point attempt as some kind a super special play. Most teams have to do run plays from the 2 yard line in just about every game.
.
.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's some super special play. I think it's the play they called when they went for 2. Based on the fact that they called that play, I have no logical reason to believe they wouldn't have called that play. BECAUSE THEY CALLED THAT PLAY.

Your entire "argument" is based off some fantasy land assumption that if they kicked the XP first, the second 2 point attempt would have somehow been a different play call that would have magically worked and negated the need for an onside kick.