For those still confused about the 2-pt call

[Bigrandrn]

You are literally saying the opposite of what is true. Your plan is the risky plan.

If you make an XP and then miss a 2-pt conversion on the second TD you just lose. If go for 2 on the first TD and miss, you have a second opportunity to a 2-pt conversion to tie. So by going for 2 on the first TD you have a backup plan if you miss and if you wait your don't.

Not really because what can happen, is what happened to us….we missed the two, and painted ourselves into a corner needing to go for 2 just to TIE.

If they kick the extra point, which is statistically more probable than getting a 2 which is safer…..then the difference is only 7. Now, if we score again, which is needed, we have a CHOICE…..tie and go for overtime if the game shifted and we feel comfortable going into OT, or, we can go for 2 and win. Things can change between that first and second TD….maybe we don’t NEED to go for 2 to win if say their QB got injured and we have all the momentum. It’s better to have that choice at the end vs no choice if they miss going for 2 the first TD.

 

[Bigrandrn]

Kicking the XP leaves options open.

Failing the 2 point conversion reduces options.

The thousands of plays the analytics used to come up with the math driven conclusion really have nothing to do with the circumstances of this particular situation.

If analytics were the end all be all then theoretically teams that played entirely based on the analytics would dominate.

And it’s important to know kicking the pat is statistically more probable, safer than going for 2….so not only do u end up with options on the second TD, but it’s safer too than going for two and missing and forced to get 8 next score just to stay alive. I’d rather have the choice after the second TD to tie (if we have all momentum or they have injuries) OR go for two vs no option except get the 2 or lose.

 

[Vtwin]

The exact opposite is true



“Scenario three” gives you two different paths to win.

The other two choices only give you a single path

I assume by "scenario three" you mean converting on the first two point try?

Scenario three has an approx. 50% chance of success. If you fail your only chance to win depends on another play with a 50% probability to get you to OT.

Scenario one leaves you with the option to try and win the game right there at the end with a two point attempt or try to win the game in OT with a one point attempt.

I guarantee you, had the Cowboys got another TD and lost because they failed on the 50% probability of converting the two point conversion this thread would not exist.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

The more I thought about it, the less issue I had with Dallas going for two against the Bucs.

This defense is so bad I don't think anyone on the staff wanted a scenario where they had to go out there for a ten minute OT session (essentially a 5th quarter). That might have led to a situation where the Dallas offense never got a chance to go out there at all if the Bucs went on a sustained drive.

 

[Flamma]

To simplifying it a bit more, anyone that has ever played games using dice to hit, everyone knows you're chances at getting a 1-3 once with two dice is what is likely to happen. 10 year olds know this. Roll 4 dice, hit twice, 8, hit four times, on and on. It doesn't mean you'll get a hit.

I don't know how OT factors into that, just going by the simplest of logic.