Should the Cowboys have gone for 2 on the 1st or 2nd TD?

jaythecowboy · Sep 23, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
Down 15, you have to have either a successful two-point conversion OR a successful onside kick. If you go for 2 early and fail, you need an onside kick. If you go for 2 late and fail, guess what? You need an onside kick.

It doesn't make a bit of difference when you try the 2-pointer. Try it early and succeed? Great, no onside kick. Try it late and succeed? Great, no onside kick. Try it early and fail? Bummer, you need an onside kick. Try it late and fail? Bummer, you need an onside kick. There's no difference.

The difference is if you try it sooner you know you need an onside kick and can play accordingly. Go for the conversion late and miss, you will likely have run out the rest of the game clock, decreasing your chances of winning.

Diehardblues · Sep 23, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
Yes, and all those people are wrong. Or rather, the phrase, "one possession game" has no meaning if you use it to describe an 8-point game. It's a stupid expression and people should stop using it.

Eight points down might be a one possession game, but there's only about a 50% chance that it is. It's just as likely to be a two-possession game.

There’s no guarantee you make the 1 point conversion either. The point is you have an opportunity to make it a 1 possession game only down 8. And if you miss then you’d still need the onside kick just like if you were down by 9 . And you’ve remained down 2 possessions.

I think everyone is going to continue using that expression because it’s a reality despite the percentage of conversion. Technically it keeps the 1 possession in play and the basis of my argument.

Diehardblues · Sep 23, 2020

JD_KaPow said:
Down 15, you have to have either a successful two-point conversion OR a successful onside kick. If you go for 2 early and fail, you need an onside kick. If you go for 2 late and fail, guess what? You need an onside kick.

It doesn't make a bit of difference when you try the 2-pointer. Try it early and succeed? Great, no onside kick. Try it late and succeed? Great, no onside kick. Try it early and fail? Bummer, you need an onside kick. Try it late and fail? Bummer, you need an onside kick. There's no difference.

Mathematically speaking it doesn’t matter. The reason you’d wait is because it keeps it in play longer for the 2nd TD.

Personally I like the chances better the 2nd time cause I feel the momentum is more on your side to convert. Mentally you’ve stayed technically within a 1 possession game. And if it fails you still need the onside kick. Nothing lost versus the other scenario.

You still have to manage the game allowing for a little time after an onside kick if needed. But I think remaining 1 score down keeps the momentum going.

Going down 2 scores or 9 points after missing 2 point conversion after 1st TD shifts the momentum back to opponent IMO. Because you were just 15 down and 2 scores and after missing conversion you’re still 2 scores down at 9 points still needing at least 2 possessions. Not as much gained after just scoring a TD.

That’s my view. I think how I’ve seen most teams approach it in that situation . And why I was so taken back my our decision.

reddyuta · Sep 23, 2020

not only was it the right call but others have convinced me that you should go for 2 even if you are down by 14.you go for 2 and you are down by 6 and all you need is a XP to win.The probability of you missing both 2 point conversions is low too.I wonder if MM will go the next step and do this

Diehardblues · Sep 23, 2020

reddyuta said:
not only was it the right call but others have convinced me that you should go for 2 even if you are down by 14.you go for 2 and you are down by 6 and all you need is a XP to win.The probability of you missing both 2 point conversions is low too.I wonder if MM will go the next step and do this

That’s a great question. Riverboat Mike has revealed himself to be quite a gambler after 2 games. I’m not sure we knew of these instincts while at Green Bay?

He appears to be rolling the dice playing for the win instead of playing safe extending the game with the tie. Im not sure this is a proven winning strategy for the long haul?

After watching him surprisingly go for 2 early I wondered if we’d made it if he’d of gone for 2 again to win the game instead of tying it up.

Setackin · Sep 23, 2020

What happened to the poll?!?

CarolinaFathead · Sep 23, 2020

reddyuta said:
not only was it the right call but others have convinced me that you should go for 2 even if you are down by 14.you go for 2 and you are down by 6 and all you need is a XP to win.The probability of you missing both 2 point conversions is low too.I wonder if MM will go the next step and do this

the game will be changed as analytics continue to provide more and more support for doing the exact opposite of what conventional wisdom has dictated you do for decades.

The reason?

Because making the most rational and logical choices regardless of emotions is going to, in the long run, lead to more success and coaches want to win more games than they lose. If conventional wisdom was followed on Sunday and we miss the two point conversion, we lose. I don’t get how those against this can’t see this OBVIOUS distinction between the two strategies. It requires one to believe that going for two with 10 seconds left is more likely to succeed than going for two with 4:57 left. That’s utter nonsense. It’s 50/50 both times but if you wait till you have ten seconds left, you lose the game every time if you fail. Only one of these scenarios allows you to miss the two point conversion and still have a realistic chance of winning. The psychological angle played by those who refuse to acknowledge is so weird to me. These players aren’t daffodils or if they are they aren’t going to be in the league long.

The only really interesting question to me is at what point in the game does a two point conversion go from optional to mandatory. Clearly down 15 with 4:57 left to play it was mandatory. What’s the maximum time relative to score that changes and a two point conversion is still optional? That’s more complicated analytics.

Setackin · Sep 23, 2020

Can anyone see the poll? I can’t see it anymore. Would the admins take a poll down?

CarolinaFathead · Sep 23, 2020

I can’t see it

Diehardblues · Sep 23, 2020

CarolinaFathead said:
the game will be changed as analytics continue to provide more and more support for doing the exact opposite of what conventional wisdom has dictated you do for decades.

The reason?

Because making the most rational and logical choices regardless of emotions is going to, in the long run, lead to more success and coaches want to win more games than they lose. If conventional wisdom was followed on Sunday and we miss the two point conversion, we lose. I don’t get how those against this can’t see this OBVIOUS distinction between the two strategies. It requires one to believe that going for two with 10 seconds left is more likely to succeed than going for two with 4:57 left. That’s utter nonsense. It’s 50/50 both times but if you wait till you have ten seconds left, you lose the game every time if you fail. Only one of these scenarios allows you to miss the two point conversion and still have a realistic chance of winning. The psychological angle played by those who refuse to acknowledge is so weird to me. These players aren’t daffodils or if they are they aren’t going to be in the league long.

The only really interesting question to me is at what point in the game does a two point conversion go from optional to mandatory. Clearly down 15 with 4:57 left to play it was mandatory. What’s the maximum time relative to score that changes and a two point conversion is still optional? That’s more complicated analytics.

That’s not true at all. There was still ample time on the clock after our 2nd TD if we missed the conversion allowing for the onside kick and ensuing possession.

But the bigger point is remaining only 1 possession down with the potential of tying it up. You basically take that scenario out with a failed attempt on the 1st TD and why conventional wisdom has always favored that strategy because analytics don’t measure the emotions and momentum of the game.

Diehardblues · Sep 23, 2020

Setackin said:
Can anyone see the poll? I can’t see it anymore. Would the admins take a poll down?

Yes and they did. I was on it last night when it occurred.

jaythecowboy · Sep 23, 2020

Diehardblues said:
That’s not true at all. There was still ample time on the clock after our 2nd TD if we missed the conversion allowing for the onside kick and ensuing possession.

But the bigger point is remaining only 1 possession down with the potential of tying it up. You basically take that scenario out with a failed attempt on the 1st TD and why conventional wisdom has always favored that strategy because analytics don’t measure the emotions and momentum of the game.

There was ample time on the clock because the Cowboys acted with a sense of urgency, knowing they needed another possession. If they were operating as if it was a one possession game, they would have been burning clock.

GhostOfPelluer · Sep 23, 2020

Diehardblues said:
That’s not true at all. There was still ample time on the clock after our 2nd TD if we missed the conversion allowing for the onside kick and ensuing possession.

But the bigger point is remaining only 1 possession down with the potential of tying it up. You basically take that scenario out with a failed attempt on the 1st TD and why conventional wisdom has always favored that strategy because analytics don’t measure the emotions and momentum of the game.

This guy gets it:
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29944126/why-did-cowboys-go-2-9-points-all-knowing-future

Diehardblues · Sep 23, 2020

jaythecowboy said:
There was ample time on the clock because the Cowboys acted with a sense of urgency, knowing they needed another possession. If they were operating as if it was a one possession game, they would have been burning clock.

The conventional wisdom has always been its better to remain only 1 possession down . If you miss the conversion after the 1st TD down 15 then you’re still down 2 possessions at 9 points. It’s a potentially momentum shift to the opposition as you still need 2 possessions.

Mathematics and analytical percentages don’t always apply to a sport fed by emotions and momentum of he game. And the conventional wisdom has always been the strategy. Riverboat Mike rusk was bailed out by the bizarre ending on the onside kick which isn’t a scenario teams can count on.

MCMetal69 · Sep 23, 2020

From the looks of our defense , they might have to go for 2 after every TD......................

GhostOfPelluer · Sep 23, 2020

Diehardblues said:
The conventional wisdom has always been its better to remain only 1 possession down . If you miss the conversion after the 1st TD down 15 then you’re still down 2 possessions at 9 points. It’s a potentially momentum shift to the opposition as you still need 2 possessions.

Mathematics and analytical percentages don’t always apply to a sport fed by emotions and momentum of he game. And the conventional wisdom has always been the strategy. Riverboat Mike rusk was bailed out by the bizarre ending on the onside kick which isn’t a scenario teams can count on.

It was going to take an insane amount of luck to win regardless of when you attempt the 2. That's pretty clear.

Diehardblues · Sep 23, 2020

GhostOfPelluer said:
This guy gets it:
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29944126/why-did-cowboys-go-2-9-points-all-knowing-future

I fully understand the mathematics . I’m an accounting major . But I don’t agree with its application to the game of football. And why it goes against the normal football wisdom we’ve seen since the 2 point conversion was added.

And in response to the story which they did include the conventional wisdom Im arguing for is I’d argue you can’t look into the future as was suggested. That’s not sound football strategy. It’s risk taking.

Diehardblues · Sep 23, 2020

GhostOfPelluer said:
It was going to take an insane amount of luck to win regardless of when you attempt the 2. That's pretty clear.

If we convert the 2 point conversion in the next possession we wouldn’t need the onside kick. We then play to extend the game to OT.

I can’t get inside Riverboat Mikes head but I’m tending to think after our first two games that his high level of risk is rolling the dice to win not tie and extending the game. The 4th and 3 last week certainly supports this notion.

Which is probably popular with some of our fan base. Fans are always rooting to go for it on 4th down , etc. But there’s a reason most HC’s don’t .

SteveTheCowboy · Sep 23, 2020

Hennessy_King said:
People that aren't brain dead know to go for 2 after the first td.

What "mathematical analysis" fails to account for is the human psyche. A "failure" can effect that. It's sort of why AI (supreme mathematical analysis...at least as best as we have so far) can;t completely replace a human pilot.

It also fails to account for the butterfly effect. All subsequent plays would not necessarily have happened in the same way if you fail the two pointer rather than win the one.

I do appreciate how we put math on a high pedestal.....but there's more to this universe than math.

PS....not sure why I choose your comment to post this Mr. King. Maybe it was the surety of your statement? And the insult?

SteveTheCowboy · Sep 23, 2020

Diehardblues said:
I fully understand the mathematics . I’m an accounting major . But I don’t agree with its application to the game of football. And why it goes against the normal football wisdom we’ve seen since the 2 point conversion was added.

Not sure if we precisely agree on this op premise.....but I believe we agree that math does not take into account many things about human endeavors.

Should the Cowboys have gone for 2 on the 1st or 2nd TD?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

radioactivecowboy88

Well-Known Member

radioactivecowboy88

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