MM explains his thought process of going for 2

Cowboy4ever

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,985
Reaction score
4,179
Yeah, I think it really becomes a thought experiment at that point. You may be right that the coaches would treat everything the same regardless (though MM himself said he'd rather know sooner than later so he might disagree). I challenge you though on the fans. If we're coming in for the chance to tie, I can virtually guarantee that many would be concerned about scoring too early. On the flip side, if we made the conversion and WERE coming in for the tie, the thought would still be there. So touche.

All that said, I think you realize that your point is not the one that most people are making. Most of those against the decision firmly believe that going for two was a bad decision, what at the very worst it made no difference at all. And they think this because they're stacking the argument incorrectly.

On the one hand, you have two td's and a zero percent chance of making the 2-point conversion (because they already know we missed). On the other hand, you have two td's with a 50% chance of making the conversion. Of course you take the latter in that case but, the discussion has nothing to do with when you go and everything to do with artificially better of making the conversion.

But when the decision to go for 2 is made, they don't have a zero % chance because they don't know the outcome at the time of the decision. Basically for me, it comes down probability. Either way, which ever decision you make here, you are essentially putting all your eggs in one basket. One basket is an on side kick (if you failed the 2 pt conversion early), the other basket is a 2pt conversion try at the end of the game. I do not accept that because we know it failed the first time, that we automatically accept it would have failed later, lots of things could change in those 4 minutes to draw a straight line conclusion like that. So which as a better chance of success, an onside kick or a 2 pt conversion. That to me is the only decision that matters and why i think this was the wrong call at that time. If the try was not successful, it really made winning virtually impossible. Lucky for us, the onside kick worked but that was a fools bet.
 

droopdog7

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
5,281
That's the point I took issue with. I said earlier in the thread his stance implies he'd run the clock down still being down a TD. Personally, I prioritize tying the game over running the clock.



Fans are fickle. Can't run a team based on fans.



Thanks.



Agreed.



I'm not big on probabilities because they're not deterministic. I get the analytics guys POV, but my view is along the lines of Belichick's. It's interesting and all but not necessarily predictive.
In terms of you first point, I think there are ways the clock can be run down without impacting the team negatively. For instance, had we made the conversion and gotten the ball back, you know you pretty much have all day and the whole field to work with. Clock in not an issue and you could also run clock by waiting longer to snap the ball, etc. Being down nine, the opposite is true. Hurry up, take sidelines if there, and score as quickly as possible.

I don't see how having info on the two isn't an advantage.

If we wait, then I'm sure what approach we take down 8? Are we in hurry up mode? Are we taking our time? I don't really know. But, if we go to hurry and tie the game and give Atl the ball back with more than 2 minutes left, you better believe MM gets blow back.

All that uncertainty is gone by going for two on the first TD.
 

droopdog7

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
5,281
But when the decision to go for 2 is made, they don't have a zero % chance because they don't know the outcome at the time of the decision. Basically for me, it comes down probability. Either way, which ever decision you make here, you are essentially putting all your eggs in one basket. One basket is an on side kick (if you failed the 2 pt conversion early), the other basket is a 2pt conversion try at the end of the game. I do not accept that because we know it failed the first time, that we automatically accept it would have failed later, lots of things could change in those 4 minutes to draw a straight line conclusion like that. So which as a better chance of success, an onside kick or a 2 pt conversion. That to me is the only decision that matters and why i think this was the wrong call at that time. If the try was not successful, it really made winning virtually impossible. Lucky for us, the onside kick worked but that was a fools bet.
You're still showing that you don't understand at all and are basically validating my point.
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
In terms of you first point, I think there are ways the clock can be run down without impacting the team negatively. For instance, had we made the conversion and gotten the ball back, you know you pretty much have all day and the whole field to work with. Clock in not an issue and you could also run clock by waiting longer to snap the ball, etc. Being down nine, the opposite is true. Hurry up, take sidelines if there, and score as quickly as possible.

My only issue is you could put yourself in a bigger hole running the clock and failing to get a TD.

I don't see how having info on the two isn't an advantage.

Just depends on how you want to play it out. If your intention is to run the clock and hope for a tie, then knowing it would be an, "advantage," as you put it. But you still need that TD.

If we wait, then I'm sure what approach we take down 8? Are we in hurry up mode? Are we taking our time? I don't really know. But, if we go to hurry and tie the game and give Atl the ball back with more than 2 minutes left, you better believe MM gets blow back.

Outside of winning by 30 points the DC head coach is getting blowback. Lol

All that is gone by going for two on the first TD.

Yeah. Still crazy they won that game. I'd been telling my wife the whole game they were getting their *** kicked and then I walk into the living room after the onside kick and said, "They're going to win this game!" Lol. Gotta love this team.
 

droopdog7

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
5,281
My only issue is you could put yourself in a bigger hole running the clock and failing to get a TD.



Just depends on how you want to play it out. If your intention is to run the clock and hope for a tie, then knowing it would be an, "advantage," as you put it. But you still need that TD.



Outside of winning by 30 points the DC head coach is getting blowback. Lol



Yeah. Still crazy they won that game. I'd been telling my wife the whole game they were getting their *** kicked and then I walk into the living room after the onside kick and said, "They're going to win this game!" Lol. Gotta love this team.
Probably time to call a second truce here because I'm not getting you and you're not getting me.

Either way, the most miraculous Cowboy win I can remember. Some of the historical stats coming out of this win are astronomical. Now add in the fact that we had four turnovers and an additional two missed fourth down conversions (and they had zero turnovers), the win defies all logic.
 

Cowboy4ever

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,985
Reaction score
4,179
You're still showing that you don't understand at all and are basically validating my point.
So you think making a decision that has the chance to eliminate your team from winning the game is the right decision? That is what doesn't make sense to me. By going for 2 at that point, the risk was great that if it failed, we would lose the game. There are very little roads to victory at that point and none that doesn't include the lowest % play in football. The job of the HC is to put his team in the best position to win games. By making a decision that, if it failed, required an onside to win, that's a bad decision. I get that if the 2pt play failed later we would still need the onside kick or we would lose the game. But I far better like my chances converting 2 yards with the O then recovering an onside kick. Glad it worked. But there is no way that it was the right decision. It worked out but that doesn't make it right. If we hadn't recovered that onside kick, this wouldn't even be a discussion. But once we know the results, it makes it easier to defend.

I like an aggressive coach. So this is not me knocking MM. I don't agree with that call or the 2nd fake punt attempt, or not kicking the FG last week. But I do like the aggressiveness. I just think you have to take more into account that what analytics tell you. And you have to pick your spots to put your team in the best possible position to win and I don't think any of those 3 decisions did that.
 

droopdog7

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
5,281
So you think making a decision that has the chance to eliminate your team from winning the game is the right decision? That is what doesn't make sense to me. By going for 2 at that point, the risk was great that if it failed, we would lose the game. There are very little roads to victory at that point and none that doesn't include the lowest % play in football. The job of the HC is to put his team in the best position to win games. By making a decision that, if it failed, required an onside to win, that's a bad decision. I get that if the 2pt play failed later we would still need the onside kick or we would lose the game. But I far better like my chances converting 2 yards with the O then recovering an onside kick. Glad it worked. But there is no way that it was the right decision. It worked out but that doesn't make it right. If we hadn't recovered that onside kick, this wouldn't even be a discussion. But once we know the results, it makes it easier to defend.

I like an aggressive coach. So this is not me knocking MM. I don't agree with that call or the 2nd fake punt attempt, or not kicking the FG last week. But I do like the aggressiveness. I just think you have to take more into account that what analytics tell you. And you have to pick your spots to put your team in the best possible position to win and I don't think any of those 3 decisions did that.
Let's say I'm the team that says go for two on the first td and you're the team that says go for two on the second attempt.

Okay, so what you're saying is that under my scenario, I score two TD's and have a 0% chance of making the 2-point conversion (since we missed and all). Under your scenario you score two TD's and have a 50% chance of making the 2-point conversion. Do I have that right?

Well guess what, you set up unequal scenarios. OF COURSE people will take yours because there is still a chance to tie the game and avert the need to an onside kick. But that's not what this argument is about AT ALL. You're basically arguing for a do-over on the 2-point attempt.
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
Probably time to call a second truce here because I'm not getting you and you're not getting me.

You underestimate me. I get what you're saying. Just have my own opinion. Nothing wrong with that. We can disagree and not be emotional about it.

Either way, the most miraculous Cowboy win I can remember. Some of the historical stats coming out of this win are astronomical. Now add in the fact that we had four turnovers and an additional two missed fourth down conversions (and they had zero turnovers), the win defies all logic.

Truly a great game. Hopefully it's not inconsequential.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
So you think making a decision that has the chance to eliminate your team from winning the game is the right decision? That is what doesn't make sense to me. By going for 2 at that point, the risk was great that if it failed, we would lose the game.
Here's the thing. By going for 2 at ANY point, the risk was great that if it failed, we would lose the game. But the Cowboys HAD to go for 2 at some point. It was a terrible situation. They were probably going to lose anyway.

If they go for 2 the first time and fail, they almost certainly lose.
If they go for 2 the second time and fail, they almost certainly lose.
There's no difference, because they HAD to go for 2 once (and only once).

The reason to go for it the first time is so you can adopt the best strategy on their next drive. If you're down 7, you let the clock run. If you're down 9, you go like a bat out of hell. If you kick the xp and you're down 8, um, what should you do? You don't really know. Usually, teams let the clock run and have everything hinge on the 2-point attempt. That's bad if the 2-pointer fails, because there's no time left to do what the Cowboys did Sunday.
 

Cowboy4ever

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,985
Reaction score
4,179
Let's say I'm the team that says go for two on the first td and you're the team that says go for two on the second attempt.

Okay, so what you're saying is that under my scenario, I score two TD's and have a 0% chance of making the 2-point conversion (since we missed and all). Under your scenario you score two TD's and have a 50% chance of making the 2-point conversion. Do I have that right?

Well guess what, you set up unequal scenarios. OF COURSE people will take yours because there is still a chance to tie the game and avert the need to an onside kick. But that's not what this argument is about AT ALL. You're basically arguing for a do-over on the 2-point attempt.

no I am saying the fact that the attempt failed on the first try is not relevant at all to the decision making process. If you kick the xpt there you don't know that your 2 pt play will fail. So it is not part of the equation. But by deciding to try the 2 pt play at that point, you risk more than you gain, you risk failing and requiring 2 possessions to have any chance. By kicking, you risk failing later, that's true. But the decision should be about, what has a greater chance of success, an onside kick or a 2 pt conversion.
 

droopdog7

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,504
Reaction score
5,281
no I am saying the fact that the attempt failed on the first try is not relevant at all to the decision making process. If you kick the xpt there you don't know that your 2 pt play will fail. So it is not part of the equation. But by deciding to try the 2 pt play at that point, you risk more than you gain, you risk failing and requiring 2 possessions to have any chance. By kicking, you risk failing later, that's true. But the decision should be about, what has a greater chance of success, an onside kick or a 2 pt conversion.
And I'm saying that not knowing whether it will fails puts you at a disadvantage. At the very worst, going early does not hurt you at all. And whether you make the 2-point conversion is absolutely relevant. I mean, we might have made it, thus avoiding the need for a 2-point conversion.

Either way, you're not saying what you think you're saying.
 

CanadianCowboysFan

Lightning Rod
Messages
24,458
Reaction score
7,525
8 points is only a one possession game if you assume multiple future statistical variables fall a certain way, the totality of which render a far less than 50% probability of it actually being a one score game.

In other words, 8 points being strictly a one possession game is a psychological illusion. It’s best to think of it as a 1.5 possession game, which is not fundamentally altered by when you go for two. By going for two after the first score however, you are controlling for an important variable earlier in the scenario and allowing yourself to plan accordingly going forward. Your are statistically more likely to win by controlling for the most variables as early as possible.

Another way to think of it: Would you rather be down 9 with four minutes left, or down two with 4 seconds left?

Using the same logic, would not a 7 point game also be a 1.5 possession game?
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
Using the same logic, would not a 7 point game also be a 1.5 possession game?
Technically yes. But because the XP is a 95+% proposition, it doesn't drive your strategy: you behave as if it will be successful.

The odds of failure aren't high enough to affect your planning. That's not true of a 2-pointer. It's basically 50-50, so it's really valuable to know which way it's going to go when planning your next moves.
 

CanadianCowboysFan

Lightning Rod
Messages
24,458
Reaction score
7,525
Technically yes. But because the XP is a 95+% proposition, it doesn't drive your strategy: you behave as if it will be successful.

The odds of failure aren't high enough to affect your planning. That's not true of a 2-pointer. It's basically 50-50, so it's really valuable to know which way it's going to go when planning your next moves.

I get your point. I did think though the XPs % had lowered after bringing it out to what is a short FG but I agree it is better to be down 7 than 8, better chance to tie in that scenario.
 

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
50,240
Reaction score
94,112
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
So you think making a decision that has the chance to eliminate your team from winning the game is the right decision? That is what doesn't make sense to me. By going for 2 at that point, the risk was great that if it failed, we would lose the game. There are very little roads to victory at that point and none that doesn't include the lowest % play in football. The job of the HC is to put his team in the best position to win games. By making a decision that, if it failed, required an onside to win, that's a bad decision. I get that if the 2pt play failed later we would still need the onside kick or we would lose the game. But I far better like my chances converting 2 yards with the O then recovering an onside kick. Glad it worked. But there is no way that it was the right decision. It worked out but that doesn't make it right. If we hadn't recovered that onside kick, this wouldn't even be a discussion. But once we know the results, it makes it easier to defend.

I like an aggressive coach. So this is not me knocking MM. I don't agree with that call or the 2nd fake punt attempt, or not kicking the FG last week. But I do like the aggressiveness. I just think you have to take more into account that what analytics tell you. And you have to pick your spots to put your team in the best possible position to win and I don't think any of those 3 decisions did that.
In regards to your first paragraph: You're taking the same risk, regardless of what time it is when you go for two. It only FEELS like less of a risk to get within 8 points earlier. Either way you do it, you need 15 points to tie the game. Going for it earlier most likely gives you a better chance to pursue other options, in the event that you miss, for at least two reasons:

#1) Being down by 8 rather than 9 gives you more feeling of security that you can tie the game, therefore you don't feel the need to hurry, being unaware that you'll definitely need to try an onside kick.

#2) Conversely, the Falcons feel less threatened than they would if you were down by 9, rather than 8, and thus don't have the sense of urgency to stop you at all costs.
 

Jake

Beyond tired of Jerry
Messages
36,067
Reaction score
84,350
The dumbest two point attempt in that game was by Atlanta up 26-7 midway through the second quarter. Absolutely no reason to chase points in that situation. None.

Came back to haunt them, too.
 
Top