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.

 

[jaythecowboy]

So you trust an offense that intentionally throws the ball out of bounds in 2 seconds...rather than getting the TD.

mkay.

I trust them more than a historically bad defense.

 

[diamonddelts]

It 100% does.

For number crunchers who never played the game.

 

[Kevinicus]

For number crunchers who never played the game.

No...for people who use their brains. Turn your brain off and you lose 100% of the time.

Why do you think they study film? Because of emotion?

 

[diamonddelts]

No...for people who use their brains. Turn your brain off and you lose 100% of the time.

Why do you think they study film? Because of emotion?

I'm waiting for analytics to win a Super Bowl.

 

[Kevinicus]

I'm waiting for analytics to win a Super Bowl.

Already has.

 

[DandyDon52]

Analytically, it was the correct call. But, situationally it was dumb at the time. The offense wasn’t very good that game and two EP’s was much easier than converting one two-point conversion out of two. It is playing for OT either way, no reason to go for two in that instance.

yES and also it depends on the team that is going for 2 and do they have high % plays to use when going for 2,or are they just calling a play? lol
Also factor in how good that offense has been doing that game and in the time preceding needing to go for 2.

Dallas is not very good at 2 point conversion and they have no special plays or plan to increase odds of success. Many teams are the same way.

Then there is the stupid factor , how smart is your qb?
Tonight in GB dak had a 4th down play and they ran a pass play ,and he throws it way out of the end zone ! lol
Why did he do that ? I guess he didnt want a chance of a int lol , which would have been better than GB taking over at LOS.
On that play dak also had 3 open guys , so I dont know what he was thinking. He just panicked and threw it away forgetting it is 4th down. I have seen other qb's do the same thing on a 2 point play.

analytics are a useful tool but a good hc has to consider all the variables and outcomes and make a decision based on that moment.

 

[pansophy]

Not really. If you kick the XP you have the option of kicking to go to OT or going for the win in regulation. If you fail on the two point conversion you have no option but to convert on the two point attempt to tie. Failing the first two point conversion leaves you one option. Kicking the first XP leaves you two options.


It does come down to the decision to sell out for the regulation win vs going to OT. If you make that all or nothing decision, then it makes sense to go for 2 the first time. Miss that 2 pointer though and it's now down to a coin flip on at least getting to OT. I'd rather preserve that decision and make it a coinflip to win the game rather than go to OT.

Two coinflips vs one.

Dude you can say the words all you want but math 100% disagrees with your logic.

 

[pansophy]

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.

I don’t know why people are debating this like it’s one opinion versus another. It’s literally math and it doesn’t change. You have a higher likelihood of winning going for two on the first TD unless your chance of making 2-pt conversions is less than 37.5%.

So if you are terrible at 2-pt conversions then sure you should just kick the extra points. There are zero scenarios though where you are better off going for 2-pt on the second TD. If you are going to go for 2 at all then you do it on the first TD or you just kick two XP and play for OT.

 

[Cowboys5217]

I don’t know why people are debating this like it’s one opinion versus another. It’s literally math and it doesn’t change. You have a higher likelihood of winning going for two on the first TD unless your chance of making 2-pt conversions is less than 37.5%.

So if you are terrible at 2-pt conversions then sure you should just kick the extra points. There are zero scenarios though where you are better off going for 2-pt on the second TD. If you are going to go for 2 at all then you do it on the first TD or you just kick two XP and play for OT.

You midwits just won't see the forest for the trees will you?

The math isn't right because it doesn't take into account variables that have to be observed and felt by a human in the moment such as team momentum.

The analytics are also fluid which means they change moment to moment based upon each success or failure. They cannot be relied upon because of this.

Sheesh, there is no coach on Earth who would make that call prior to these stupid analytics.

Also, if that was the right call then we need to go for 2 every time, because you theoretically have a higher chance to win. We should have gone for two on the first TD scored against GB for the same justifications that have been pushed by you guys supporting that dumb call.

 

[pansophy]

You midwits just won't see the forest for the trees will you?

The math isn't right because it doesn't take into account variables that have to be observed and felt by a human in the moment such as team momentum.

The analytics are also fluid which means they change moment to moment based upon each success or failure. They cannot be relied upon because of this.

Sheesh, there is no coach on Earth who would make that call prior to these stupid analytics.

Also, if that was the right call then we need to go for 2 every time, because you theoretically have a higher chance to win. We should have gone for two on the first TD scored against GB for the same justifications that have been pushed by you guys supporting that dumb call.

You haven’t thought this argument all the way through. The math does take those variables into account because they are embedded in the likelihood of making a 2-pt conversion in the first place.

So where this could come into effect is say your offense is very bad at 2-pt conversions, for whatever reason, then the math would say you are better off taking 2 extra points. McVay never goes for 2 because for this whatever reason they aren’t good at them.

What never ever makes sense is waiting to go for two on the second TD after kicking the extra point on the first one.

 

[pansophy]

You midwits just won't see the forest for the trees will you?

The math isn't right because it doesn't take into account variables that have to be observed and felt by a human in the moment such as team momentum.

The analytics are also fluid which means they change moment to moment based upon each success or failure. They cannot be relied upon because of this.

Sheesh, there is no coach on Earth who would make that call prior to these stupid analytics.

Also, if that was the right call then we need to go for 2 every time, because you theoretically have a higher chance to win. We should have gone for two on the first TD scored against GB for the same justifications that have been pushed by you guys supporting that dumb call.

Also P.S. all the math is saying is that you evaluate all those human factors a little earlier. If you don’t think the situation is right then sure, play for tie and kick the extra point. If you like your offense and the momentum then you go for the win. If you miss the 2 point conversion then you have another shot to tie and go to OT.

This is the whole point.

If you wait to decide then you win or lose on that play and going to OT is out. That’s why the probabilities work the way they do. Going for 2 on the first TD means OT is still on the table whereas going for it on the second after kicking an XP on the first means win or lose, no OT.

 

[Bigrandrn]

I don’t know why people are debating this like it’s one opinion versus another. It’s literally math and it doesn’t change. You have a higher likelihood of winning going for two on the first TD unless your chance of making 2-pt conversions is less than 37.5%.

So if you are terrible at 2-pt conversions then sure you should just kick the extra points. There are zero scenarios though where you are better off going for 2-pt on the second TD. If you are going to go for 2 at all then you do it on the first TD or you just kick two XP and play for OT.

No sir. U scored, kick to make it a 7 point game. U scored again, now u can still go for that 2 point play just like u wanted for the win.
What happened in the real world? We didn’t get it, so we were forced to need 8 just to tie. U also have the option to kick and go to OT. U took the riskier of the two (kick vs point after the TD)….and they didn’t make it, cuz 2pointers aren’t gimmies.