Going for 2 costs us Guyton

I think the analytics are that odds of win or tie are better since you could win and still have a chance to tie whereas going for 1 means your best chance is a tie.

People say wait to the second TD to make that decision, but then you are only playing for a win or loss because if you miss you already went for 1 on the first TD.

By going for 2 on TD one you know if you can just kick on TD two or if you need to go 2 again.
 
jblaze2004 said:
Going for 2 when we didn't need 2 points was a head scratcher. Because if we would have scored we would have needed to go for 2 the next time to even tie the game. IDK what we were thinking there. Schotty being Schotty I guess lol
Click to expand...
None of us has to agree, but analytics and statistics say go for 2.
Going for 2 is closer to a 50% deal. So down by 14, analytics say go for 2. If you miss it, odds are with you that you will make the second one and still be tied. However, if you make it the first time, you now have higher odds of actually winning the game.
 
It's terrible strategy and stupid. You end up chasing that 2 points you don't make and it compounds the error.

Analytics are flat out wrong on this. You make sure you don't lose first, then you go for the win.

I have no doubt that in the coming years this analytics fad will be shown to have been stupid. It doesn't see the forest for the trees nor does it take into account momentum or the unique situations.
 
Chuck 54 said:
None of us has to agree, but analytics and statistics say go for 2.
Going for 2 is closer to a 50% deal. So down by 14, analytics say go for 2. If you miss it, odds are with you that you will make the second one and still be tied. However, if you make it the first time, you now have higher odds of actually winning the game.
Click to expand...
Those are blind odds. They don't take into account any other variables of the game. It's patently stupid, and football worked just fine before them with far less stupid gambles and decisions like this.
 
Cowboys5217 said:
It's terrible strategy and stupid. You end up chasing that 2 points you don't make and it compounds the error.

Analytics are flat out wrong on this. You make sure you don't lose first, then you go for the win.

I have no doubt that in the coming years this analytics fad will be shown to have been stupid. It doesn't see the forest for the trees nor does it take into account momentum or the unique situations.
Click to expand...
Umm, the analytics are based on statistical results from years of previous games.

It is stupid to think they are stupid.

These are facts. As clear as day.

I know some grownups are telling you differently, but facts do actually matter.
 
If I were Shoddy, I'd count on my defense to not make a stop in OT. So if try and win the game with the offense . This why I tell Dak to throw the ball to Pickens against Baltimore.
 
jblaze2004 said:
Going for 2 when we didn't need 2 points was a head scratcher. Because if we would have scored we would have needed to go for 2 the next time to even tie the game. IDK what we were thinking there. Schotty being Schotty I guess lol
Click to expand...
NO. Going for 2 is what the metrics say is the right thing to do.

If we had got the two point conversion, then scored again we kick the extra point to win. YOu can't set yourself up for winning if you kick the extra point on the first TD.
 
Cowboys5217 said:
It's terrible strategy and stupid. You end up chasing that 2 points you don't make and it compounds the error.
Click to expand...
Through the first four weeks of the 2026 NFL regular season, two-point conversions have been successful 9 out of 17 attempts — a 52.9% success rate.
 
AbeBeta said:
Umm, the analytics are based on statistical results from years of previous games.

It is stupid to think they are stupid.

These are facts. As clear as day.

I know some grownups are telling you differently, but facts do actually matter.
Click to expand...
Your problem with this comment is that nothing this franchise has done in 30 years is similar to what other successful ones have done, so why even pretend a 2 pt conversion was the right call when you don't have the brain power on hand to succeed with it?
 
big dog cowboy said:
NO. Going for 2 is what the metrics say is the right thing to do.

If we had got the two point conversion, then scored again we kick the extra point to win. YOu can't set yourself up for winning if you kick the extra point on the first TD.
Click to expand...
If, if, if! IF you go for the 1 point after the first TD, then a second TD affords you two options…go for 1 and roll into OT…or then choose your opportunity to win it by going for two.
If, OTOH, you go for two after the first TD, and it fails, then if you score again, you have to go for the two to even tie to send to OT! I like the first option, but that’s just me!
 
I'm his biggest critic on this board.

He's looked like prime Tyron Smith this year compared to his bottom of the league barrel previous 2 years. But more honestly, he's not at some astonishing All Pro level but he's improved to at least starter level ability.

BUT again, where I have pause in projecting a good evaluation going forward lies in the fact that he has had past injury issues and that's a part of his whole skillset assessment.
Cuz if he misses multiple games "again due to injury" I wouldn't risk the 5th year option. I'd draft another one.
And no, Shelton ain't it either.

But hopefully he can get healthy during these 10 days and the back thing is okay.

jmo
 
Cowboys5217 said:
Those are blind odds. They don't take into account any other variables of the game. It's patently stupid, and football worked just fine before them with far less stupid gambles and decisions like this.
Click to expand...
I remember a guy on this board calling me stupid (I am but not for that reason) because I disagreed with going for 2 down 9 with a minute to go in a game. He claimed it was 100% right because the information you get is invaluable. I said we were never getting the ball back 2x in a minute so take the point and hope to get it back to be down 8.

Analytic statheads do not, as set out above, consider momentum, time of game etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 50 more.
Total: 7,784 (members: 150, guests: 7,634)
Robots: 1,309

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
476,535
Messages
14,699,023
Members
24,234
Latest member
Justdatruth
Back
Top