MM explains his thought process of going for 2

the_h0wey · Sep 22, 2020

CowboyRoy said:
Thanks for the explanation MM, but it was still stupid.

For him to try and rationalize it is pathetic.

Lol really? I was against it when he did it, but his explanation makes sense...

droopdog7 · Sep 22, 2020

Uncle_Hank said:
It really just comes down to clock management. It's not a one score game unless you make the conversion. If you wait until the end, you either burn all the time on the clock and risk it all on the last play, only to find out it was actually a two score game the entire time and you just didn't know it, or you keep enough time "just in case" which means risking giving the ball back to Atlanta with enough time for themselves to score. If you go for two early, it's easier to work the clock in your favor.

Exactly. Your path to victory, narrow as it might be, is crystal clear by going for two early.

Diehardblues · Sep 22, 2020

droopdog7 said:
I suspect that stat would be hard to come by. But for gods sake people just need to use their thinking skills. No stats needed.

Can anyone even provide another teams scenario in which their coach made a similar decision?

Diehardblues · Sep 22, 2020

droopdog7 said:
Exactly. Your path to victory, narrow as it might be, is crystal clear by going for two early.

Of course but you make it tougher needing 2 scores instead of potentially just 1.

droopdog7 · Sep 22, 2020

Diehardblues said:
Of course but you make it tougher needing 2 scores instead of potentially just 1.

Oh my goodness gracious. OMGG.

Uncle_Hank · Sep 22, 2020

Diehardblues said:
Of course but you make it tougher needing 2 scores instead of potentially just 1.

Yes, that's why it's better to have more time on the clock instead of less.

Trajan · Sep 22, 2020

Uncle_Hank said:
Yes, that's why it's better to have more time on the clock instead of less.

Exactly. Those claiming they want everything to rest on the final 2 pt conversion at the end of the game provide no option if you fail the conversion. Yes, the chances of recovering the onside is slim, and even slimmer to then move down the field to score. BUT, it is easier to accomplish this with more time on the clock then no / little time on the clock.

Neither are great options, but one produces a slightly higher probability of success.

Haimerej · Sep 22, 2020

Trajan said:
Exactly. Those claiming they want everything to rest on the final 2 pt conversion at the end of the game provide no option if you fail the conversion. Yes, the chances of recovering the onside is slim, and even slimmer to then move down the field to score. BUT, it is easier to accomplish this with more time on the clock then no / little time on the clock.

Neither are great options, but one produces a slightly higher probability of success.

The clock argument is a red herring. It's foolish to run the clock down in either scenario. The priority is to score, even if you make the 2 pointer.

Diehardblues · Sep 22, 2020

Trajan said:
Exactly. Those claiming they want everything to rest on the final 2 pt conversion at the end of the game provide no option if you fail the conversion. Yes, the chances of recovering the onside is slim, and even slimmer to then move down the field to score. BUT, it is easier to accomplish this with more time on the clock then no / little time on the clock.

Neither are great options, but one produces a slightly higher probability of success.

It doesn’t have to be the end of the game. We didn’t know exactly when our next possession would have came. There could have still been ample time for another possession if our 2 pointer failed to tie the game.

Uncle_Hank · Sep 22, 2020

Haimerej said:
The clock argument is a red herring. It's foolish to run the clock down in either scenario. The priority is to score, even if you make the 2 pointer.

If that were the case, teams would kick the game-winning field goal with 30 seconds left instead of 3. There's a reason they don't do that. I assumed this was obvious to anyone who has watched football before.

Haimerej · Sep 22, 2020

Uncle_Hank said:
If that were the case, teams would kick the game-winning field goal with 30 seconds left instead of 3. There's a reason they don't do that. I assumed this was obvious to anyone who has watched football before.

I've seen enough to know kicking a FG is different than scoring a TD.

LACowboysFan1 · Sep 22, 2020

Uncle_Hank said:
It really just comes down to clock management. It's not a one score game unless you make the conversion. If you wait until the end, you either burn all the time on the clock and risk it all on the last play, only to find out it was actually a two score game the entire time and you just didn't know it, or you keep enough time "just in case" which means risking giving the ball back to Atlanta with enough time for themselves to score. If you go for two early, it's easier to work the clock in your favor.

Problem is it's not an obvious, no-doubt-at-all, this way is right and the other is wrong decision. Either way you go it can result in a win, or not, depending on what happens after the two pt attempt.

Just part of what makes football interesting....

Uncle_Hank · Sep 22, 2020

This is what some of you sound like right now

Haimerej · Sep 22, 2020

Uncle_Hank said:
Not when it comes down to giving the ball back to the other team on the last possession of the game, it doesn't. Not even a little bit.

Any team running the clock down while trailing by 7 or 8 points is taking a bigger gamble than the team down 3 or less running out the clock while in FG range. This is football 101.

Uncle_Hank · Sep 22, 2020

Haimerej said:
Any team running the clock down while trailing by 7 or 8 points is taking a bigger gamble than the team down 3 or less running out the clock while in FG range. This is football 101.

The point isn't to stay down by 7 or 8 either, is it?

Haimerej · Sep 22, 2020

Uncle_Hank said:
The point isn't to stay down by 7 or 8 either, is it?

No, the point is to score, first and foremost.

Uncle_Hank · Sep 22, 2020

Haimerej said:
No, the point is to score, first and foremost.

No, the point is to score without giving the other team a chance to come back.

droopdog7 · Sep 22, 2020

Haimerej said:
The clock argument is a red herring. It's foolish to run the clock down in either scenario. The priority is to score, even if you make the 2 pointer.

If you believe that, and it's a fine argument to make, then there is no difference to go for two on the first or second td right? Right?

Haimerej · Sep 22, 2020

Uncle_Hank said:
No, the point is to score without giving the other team a chance to come back.

That's what your defense is for. So you'd handicap your offense by slowing their tempo when that's arguably what got them back in the game.

Uncle_Hank · Sep 22, 2020

droopdog7 said:
If you believe that, and it's a fine argument to make, then there is no difference to go for two on the first or second td right? Right?

But these go to 11

MM explains his thought process of going for 2

Well-Known 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

Well-Known 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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member