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

Runwildboys · Sep 22, 2020

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.
.
.

I'm sure McCarthy would also rather be down by 8 points than 9, but he also knows that you need 15 to tie, regardless of the order in which you try the 1 point and 2 point conversions.

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
Now you're assuming they make the 2 points after the second TD, but at best, the odds are 50/50, and considering they most likely would've run the same play as they did in reality, the results would most likely have been the same. Now you're still behind, and since you were playing for a tie, you weren't as concerned about the clock, so you have less, if any time to attempt the onside kick and subsequent FG.

Runwildboys · Sep 22, 2020

CarolinaFathead said:
Lmao..

Even IF it’s a straight 50/50 spilt on the success/fail rate, the SUCCESS RATE DOESN’T VARY BECAUSE YOU WAIT TO THE LAST PLAY (or close to it) TO ATTEMPT IT lmao

The ONLY distinction that matters between when MM went for two and when idiots like you think he should have went for two is that in lieu of failing, MM’s strategy gives you a far better chance to STILL win the damn game because of time management.

Your chosen path overwhelmingly would end in a L more often when the damn conversion fails because you’ve waited till the last possible second banking, like an idiot, on the two point conversion succeeding (at best a 50/50 split. It’s actually 48/52 success/fail) and even if an onside kick is recovered, the piss poor time management you displayed leaves your offense on the field in desperation mode because of time constraints to try and drive within FG range.

We recovered the kick and had time to march down the field without feeling like we had to press. ****, if anything Moore was too conservative because we had so much time to play with because of MM’s impressive decision to go for two when he did and we were stuck with a 46 yard FG attempt. I’d have like to have gotten closer. All of the time we had to move within FG range after the recovery was DIRECTLY attributable to MM going for two when he did.

This isn’t even hard math lmao. Yet you can’t see this simple, simple case of obvious strategy because you want to base football decisions on “feels”

No need for name calling. I agree that MM made the right call, but just because someone else thinks differently doesn't mean insults are required.

CarolinaFathead · Sep 22, 2020

Runwildboys said:
No need for name calling. I agree that MM made the right call, but just because someone else thinks differently doesn't mean insults are required.

Word

gongjr · Sep 22, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
The problem is, you don't know what to do with the clock you control. If you're going to make the two-pointer, you want the clock to be at 0. If you're going to miss the two-pointer, you want there to be time on the clock because you need the onside kick.
It wasn't a foregone conclusion when they tried the 2-pointer early, either. Make it and no need for an onside kick. Miss it and you need an onside kick. The only difference was when you decide to find out if you make the 2-pointer or not.

If you fail early, the option to stop & force the clock is gone. So you're trading knowledge for control, nothing in this world is free. You're right you need the two either way, but how you want the opportunity to present itself does matter. Again, I'm not against what you're saying, but there are other ways to play the game. The people involved in the game matter.

Runwildboys · Sep 22, 2020

GhostOfPelluer said:
The only way it makes sense to kick first and go for two later is if there is data supporting an increased rate of success on game-tying 2-point conversion attempts late in games.

And evidence that the time remaining is somehow causal to the rate of success, rather than it being due to coincidental injuries, the majority of successful conversions being performed by more prolific offenses, or against weaker defenses, etc.

Runwildboys · Sep 22, 2020

gongjr said:
If you fail early, the option to stop & force the clock is gone. So you're trading knowledge for control, nothing in this world is free. You're right you need the two either way, but how you want the opportunity to present itself does matter. Again, I'm not against what you're saying, but there are other ways to play the game. The people involved in the game matter.

That's true. Participants make a difference, and the right call is probably going to vary accordingly. In this case it was the right call.

JD_KaPow · Sep 22, 2020

gongjr said:
If you fail early, the option to stop & force the clock is gone. So you're trading knowledge for control, nothing in this world is free. You're right you need the two either way, but how you want the opportunity to present itself does matter. Again, I'm not against what you're saying, but there are other ways to play the game. The people involved in the game matter.

That doesn't make any sense. Sure, you can control the clock when you're up 8 points, but you don't know what to do with it. You can run it down...but oops, you missed the two-pointer and now you have no time left. Or you can go fast...but oops, you made the two-pointer but left time on the clock for the other team. Control is useless if you don't know what to do.

Taking the two-pointer early gives you perfect control. You know exactly what you need to do and you know the best way to go about doing it.

In this situation, it really is free. By taking the two-pointer early, you gain knowledge and give up nothing.

Nav22 · Sep 22, 2020

aikemirv said:
What if that team could look into the future and know whether the conversion attempt succeeds, and then play the rest of the game with that knowledge in hand? That's exactly what the Cowboys did on Sunday.

They did not peer into the future - they created the scenario that they then had to deal with.

They could have created a scenario the other way that they had to deal with.

Willful ignorance.
:laugh:

Your “wait until later to try the 2-point conversion” doesn’t increase the odds of converting.

If you’re going to fail on a 2-point conversion, is it better to do so with 5 minutes left down 9?

Or with 15 seconds left down 2?

gongjr · Sep 22, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
That doesn't make any sense. Sure, you can control the clock when you're up 8 points, but you don't know what to do with it. You can run it down...but oops, you missed the two-pointer and now you have no time left. Or you can go fast...but oops, you made the two-pointer but left time on the clock for the other team. Control is useless if you don't know what to do.

Taking the two-pointer early gives you perfect control. You know exactly what you need to do and you know the best way to go about doing it.

In this situation, it really is free. By taking the two-pointer early, you gain knowledge and give up nothing.

You do know what to do with it. You run the clock into 0 and try to take momentum into OT. There are reasons a coach may think this is the best strategy for their team.

For the bold bits: This also includes knowing you've lost the game already with 5 minutes on the clock depending on your team. 9 points to Dallas may mean something very different than 9 points to the Giants. It's subjective, some teams need that, some teams don't imho. I'm with McCarthy in our situation, especially a few days and beers removed from the game, but coaches have to know what their teams needs and flip those switches accordingly.

Maxmadden · Sep 22, 2020

Lutonio said:
Since when do we care about what ESPN says? The consistent view around here is that they’re a joke. We literally have an emoji of a dog peeing on their logo.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/09/21/going-for-two-when-down-nine-doesnt-make-sense/

And here’s one for the other side. I thought it had some interesting points.

“However, as noted last night by Hall of Fame head coach Tony Dungy, going for two and failing takes significant pressure off the team that’s leading, since it knows it has a two-score lead. Going for one makes it a one-score game, giving the team that’s leading a different mindset when it gets the ball.”

“Psychology is and always will be the water’s edge of analytics. Numbers and formulas and percentages have their place. They can’t, won’t, and never will factor intangible realities like the mindset of a team up by one score versus the mindset of a team up by two scores.”

I understand the math and reasoning behind going for the conversion earlier, but I personally disagree with it. Maybe it’s because psychology is what I do every day for work, but the intangible factors mentioned here resonate for me.

Atlanta was so received of the enormous pressure knowing we had to score 2 times, they just let us march down the field for a touchdown and sat around and watched a brilliantly bizarre onside kick roll ten yards. Then when the pressure was on they let us march down the field for the game winning field goal.

I know I was psyched.

JD_KaPow · Sep 22, 2020

gongjr said:
You do know what to do with it. You run the clock into 0 and try to take momentum into OT. There are reasons a coach may think this is the best strategy for their team.

But again, that's a terrible strategy if you're going to miss the 2-pointer. You've taken the onside kick off the table as an option. The only difference between your approach and the go-for-it-early approach is that you've simply resigned yourself to losing if you miss the 2-pointer. Why would you do that if you don't have to? You're not gaining anything, you're only throwing away a possible (albeit very unlikely) path to victory.

gongjr said:
For the bold bits: This also includes knowing you've lost the game already with 5 minutes on the clock depending on your team. 9 points to Dallas may mean something very different than 9 points to the Giants. It's subjective, some teams need that, some teams don't imho. I'm with McCarthy in our situation, especially a few days and beers removed from the game, but coaches have to know what their teams needs and flip those switches accordingly.

I really don't know what you're talking about here. I think you might be saying that your players might be so weak psychologically that a 9-point deficit makes them fold their tents. I have no sympathy for that. But even if that's the case, so what? You lose if you miss the two-pointer anyway, it makes no difference if you find that out with 5 minutes left or 1 minute left.

gongjr · Sep 22, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
But again, that's a terrible strategy if you're going to miss the 2-pointer. You've taken the onside kick off the table as an option. The only difference between your approach and the go-for-it-early approach is that you've simply resigned yourself to losing if you miss the 2-pointer. Why would you do that if you don't have to? You're not gaining anything, you're only throwing away a possible (albeit very unlikely) path to victory.

I really don't know what you're talking about here. I think you might be saying that your players might be so weak psychologically that a 9-point deficit makes them fold their tents. I have no sympathy for that. But even if that's the case, so what? You lose if you miss the two-pointer anyway, it makes no difference if you find that out with 5 minutes left or 1 minute left.

I see your point and I'm fine to disagree here. Simply put, I think those other things matter more than you do and I believe a coach has to manage to those things to some degree. My sympathy towards those things makes me say its more of a personal judgement and less of an if/then. I appreciate the discussion though.

JD_KaPow · Sep 22, 2020

Lutonio said:
Since when do we care about what ESPN says? The consistent view around here is that they’re a joke. We literally have an emoji of a dog peeing on their logo.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/09/21/going-for-two-when-down-nine-doesnt-make-sense/

And here’s one for the other side. I thought it had some interesting points.

“However, as noted last night by Hall of Fame head coach Tony Dungy, going for two and failing takes significant pressure off the team that’s leading, since it knows it has a two-score lead. Going for one makes it a one-score game, giving the team that’s leading a different mindset when it gets the ball.”

“Psychology is and always will be the water’s edge of analytics. Numbers and formulas and percentages have their place. They can’t, won’t, and never will factor intangible realities like the mindset of a team up by one score versus the mindset of a team up by two scores.”

I understand the math and reasoning behind going for the conversion earlier, but I personally disagree with it. Maybe it’s because psychology is what I do every day for work, but the intangible factors mentioned here resonate for me.

Wow, that Florio article is garbage. It entirely boils down to some goofy assumptions about psychology. I have no idea why people think professional grown-up football players are such hothouse flowers that even the slightest adversity makes them cry for mommy.

What I do know is this: when analytics goes against conventional wisdom, there's always a counterargument that says, "there's more than just numbers! It's about feel, it's about humans, it's about psychology!" And then, a few years later, the analytics start to win out. It's happening with fourth downs, it happened with everything in baseball, and it's starting to happen with this (about 1/3 of coaches have gone for 2 in these situations in the last 5 years, vs. nobody doing it in the previous 10 or so years).

CarolinaFathead · Sep 22, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
Wow, that Florio article is garbage. It entirely boils down to some goofy assumptions about psychology. I have no idea why people think professional grown-up football players are such hothouse flowers that even the slightest adversity makes them cry for mommy.

What I do know is this: when analytics goes against conventional wisdom, there's always a counterargument that says, "there's more than just numbers! It's about feel, it's about humans, it's about psychology!" And then, a few years later, the analytics start to win out. It's happening with fourth downs, it happened with everything in baseball, and it's starting to happen with this (about 1/3 of coaches have gone for 2 in these situations in the last 5 years, vs. nobody doing it in the previous 10 or so years).

This explains why things like psychology are never going to be so empirically grounded that it move out of the “soft science” category while all the sciences based in mathematical calculation will always remain “hard sciences”.

It’s not that psychology doesn’t have scientific value but where it and other soft science disciplines will never measure with hard science disciplines based on math is predictive ability. Psychology, as an example, will never have the predictive ability of physics or chemistry. Analytics, another math-based discipline, uses mathematical probability to gauge predictive power which can only enhance strategic decision making, specifically in regards to professional sports. “Feels” are not going to stay relevant in the long run next to that. The trend towards relying on analytical analysis will only continue to expand because it improves the chances of success. Coaches are not going to ignore this. Lol why would they?

JD_KaPow · Sep 22, 2020

CarolinaFathead said:
This explains why things like psychology are never going to be so empirically grounded that it move out of the “soft science” category while all the sciences based in mathematical calculation will always remain “hard sciences”.

It’s not that psychology doesn’t have scientific value but where it and other soft science disciplines will never measure with hard science disciplines based on math is predictive ability. Psychology, as an example, will never have the predictive ability of physics or chemistry. Analytics, another math-based discipline, uses mathematical probability to gauge predictive power which can only enhance strategic decision making, specifically in regards to professional sports. “Feels” are not going to stay relevant in the long run next to that. The trend towards relying on analytical analysis will only continue to expand because it improves the chances of success. Coaches are not going to ignore this. Lol why would they?

I don't necessarily agree with this. Psychology is a serious discipline and I have no doubt it can be used to provide useful strategic insight and information. But Florio and Dungy aren't psychologists. They're just using "feel" and "psychology" because they want to find some way to defend the conventional wisdom. None of these arguments are based on serious analysis of the psychological effects of various game conditions.

My prior is that these guys have been playing football all their lives and fighting for their jobs along the way, and that's way more pressure than anything that a game score can do to them. They're in the NFL in part because they don't react badly when things go pear-shaped on the field.

CarolinaFathead · Sep 22, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
I don't necessarily agree with this. Psychology is a serious discipline and I have no doubt it can be used to provide useful strategic insight and information. But Florio and Dungy aren't psychologists. They're just using "feel" and "psychology" because they want to find some way to defend the conventional wisdom. None of these arguments are based on serious analysis of the psychological effects of various game conditions.

My prior is that these guys have been playing football all their lives and fighting for their jobs along the way, and that's way more pressure than anything that a game score can do to them. They're in the NFL in part because they don't react badly when things go pear-shaped on the field.

it is a serious discipline but it will never be as empirically sound as hard science disciplines that are completely grounded in math.

Jake · Sep 22, 2020

If the Cowboys don't succeed on a crazy onside kick - which fail over 90% of the time - the game ends with Dallas never having a chance to even tie the game.

Why? Because they went for two too early.

"Teachable moment". :muttley:

If you're going to title a thread that way you better nail it. Better luck next time, K-Pow.

JD_KaPow said:
For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.

If the Cowboys don't succeed on a crazy onside kick - which fail over 90% of the time - the game ends with Dallas never having a chance to even tie the game.

Why? Because they went for two too early.

The only good thing about this thread is I learned who here can think and who cannot. "Teachable moment." :muttley:

If you're going to title a thread that way you better nail it. Class dismissed.

JD_KaPow · Sep 22, 2020

Jake said:
If the Cowboys don't succeed on a crazy onside kick - which fail over 90% of the time - the game ends with Dallas never having a chance to even tie the game.

Why? Because they went for two too early.

The only good thing about this thread is I learned who here can think and who cannot. "Teachable moment."

If you're going to title a thread that way you better nail it. Class dismissed.

Wow, people still don't get it. If the Cowboys fail the 2-pointer, they need an onside kick anyway, even if they wait on the 2-pointer. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Nothing like people who (a) have no idea what they're talking about and (b) are condescending about it.

DOUBLE WING · Sep 23, 2020

gjkoeppen said:
A 2 point attempt is from the 2 yard line. How many plays do you think the Cowboys have or would use for plays from the 2 yard line? You are locked on the idea that because the Cowboys chose one of many many plays they have and could run from the 2 yard line that any time they get there that they would run the same play. There is ZERO logical reason to think that if the Cowboys waited until their last TD to make a 2 point attempt that it would have been that same play. It's not fantasy land to think of all the plays the Cowboys could run from the 2 yard line that there is a belief that the play they did run would be the same play out of all the plays they could run from the 2 yard line was going to be the same play they would run on the last TD 2 point attempt. Now even if you're right it is possible on a 50/50 play that it worked on that 2 point try. All you have is because the football Gods smiled on the Cowboys on that on-side kick and won that you think no other plan would have worked..
.
.

I'm not locked on any idea, I'm just dealing with reality. The reality is that was the play we called in the situation. Yes, it's possible that if they tried at a different time, they might have called a different play. But while it's possible, there's no reason to really believe that would be true, because the down and distance of a 2 point conversion never changes. So logic would dictate that the play they called is the one they would have called regardless.

Your entire argument is based off some hope and faith that if they tried the 2 point conversion later, they MIGHT have magically called a different play and that different play MIGHT have magically worked better than the one they actually really called in real life.

gjkoeppen · Sep 23, 2020

DOUBLE WING said:
I'm not locked on any idea, I'm just dealing with reality. The reality is that was the play we called in the situation. Yes, it's possible that if they tried at a different time, they might have called a different play. But while it's possible, there's no reason to really believe that would be true, because the down and distance of a 2 point conversion never changes. So logic would dictate that the play they called is the one they would have called regardless.

Your entire argument is based off some hope and faith that if they tried the 2 point conversion later, they MIGHT have magically called a different play and that different play MIGHT have magically worked better than the one they actually really called in real life.

I'll use you logic against you. So every time the Cowboys plays the same team they run the same exact play as their 1st offensive play in each game or do they decide from their entire playbook what play they run 1st.

What you're calling reality is nothing more than what you have locked in your head and staring at you crystal ball that tells you that of all the plays in their playbook to run from the 2 yard line that if the Cowboys waited and ran their 2 point attempt later that at that exact moment that crystal ball tells you that the same play would have been run. Why don't you just say that you really have the ability to read McCarthy's mind and that's how you know as a fact what play he would have run later.

Lastly to quote you "The reality is that was the play we called in the situation" Just when did you become one of the Cowboys? Don't bother to reply because I'll just ignore it.
.
.

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

Confused about stuff

Confused about stuff

Well-Known Member

Member

Confused about stuff

Confused about stuff

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

jimnabby

Member

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

Beyond tired of Jerry

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member