Going for 2 costs us Guyton

[jaythecowboy]

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

he was looking like a potential all pro this season before the injury

 

[jaythecowboy]

Of course you set yourself up to win the game if you kick the PAT on the first TD. You can go for 2 on the second TD.

Analytics does not take into account every variable. Most important variable: Tampa Bay had Shottenheiner and Dak confused throughout the game.

Who do you trust more Boyles to dial up a smart defensive concept or Shottenheiner to dial up a smart offensive concept?
After watching Dak and Shottenheiner throughout the game, I think Boyles has the better chance of coming up with a smart defensive play, by far!!!

Analytics does not take into account how a specific game is playing out!!!!

I trust Schotty on offense more than I trust the Cowboys defense to make a stop in overtime

 

[pansophy]

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.

This is 100% wrong. I can see an argument that you take the two extra points and not hinge the whole game on two 50/50 2 point conversions. You are playing for overtime, but there would be more margin for error.

If you are going to try to win the game with a 2 point conversion then you absolutely do it on the first TD to give yourself a buffer to still tie. Doing it on the second TD means you either win or lose. Doing it on the first TD means you win, tie, and only lose if you miss both 2 point conversions instead of losing if you miss one. This is why the analytics are they way they are.

 

[LouBrown]

Why would u need two stops for kicking the pat?

Because you need a stop in regulation to tie and a stop to win

 

[MajesticRey]

This strategy is worse than just kicking twice and playing for overtime where you only have a 50% chance of winning.

This is easy to say when it doesn’t matter. But if you lose in regulation doing that your fanbase will roast you.

 

[MajesticRey]

I'm just telling you the probabilities. If you go for 2 on the second TD and you miss you lose the game. So you can only win or lose. If you go for 2 on the first TD and miss, you can still tie because you get a second try at the 2 point conversion. that's basically the difference.

From that perspective it makes a little more sense.

 

[MajesticRey]

dak doesn't get stats letting the RB run. Shatty doesn't want to hurt his feelings or confidence anymore.

I get that’s how you feel but it aint reality. Unless you’re being sarcastic lol.

 

[AbeBeta]

So, tell me this. The actuarial life expectancy of a male born to today in the US is something like 76.4 years. That's based on a very large sample size of past male births. Does that mean every male born today will live to be 76.4 years old? Of course not. The individual circumstances determine how long one lives.

A male born today that is diagnosed with end-stage renal cancer on his 65th birthday does not still have the same 76.4 year life expectancy at that moment in time. The original assumptions at birth have changed for this specific individual. Not for the entire population, but for this specific individual at that moment in time.

Analytics can be useful, but the coach has to be able to "read the room" if you will and make a reasonably educated decision what is the correct course of action based on what has transpired in a game up to that point.

Good Lord, Chip.

Did you miss the classes about variability?

You are just embarrassing yourself here.

Read the room? We just scored a TD. We should have been able to make the two but it didn't work out. If we had scored again, we would have had a chance to make that up.

This was not a controversial or dumb decision. This is just your combination of hindsight and poor statistical understanding that you are relying on.

This ain't some sports bar with loudmouths opining -- Folks here need to express informed decisions. I wish we had a minor league formum, because you are not ready to post with the adults.

 

[Bigrandrn]

Because you need a stop in regulation to tie and a stop to win

Not if you go for 2 on the second td (needed two to td begin with). After that first score, u only need one more stop. Kick the pat, down 7, get the one stop, drive down and score again to make it 24-23, THEN u can go for 2 for the win, instead of going for 2 the first td and making it a 6 point game instead of 7. U would have to go for 2 one out of the two td, but if you wait until the second one to try, u aren’t down 8 if you fail and are forced to go for 2 the next time just to tie. Its not going for two that’s the issue, its going for it on the first td when u don’t need to, put yourself at a disadvantage if you miss it for the next td. It’s just unnecessary risk to do it on the first try…..chances of failing a 2 are greater than a pat, so do the more sure thing the first td and then go for 2 on the second td to close out the game.

 

[Kevinicus]

Yeah I could understand going for 2 if they scored another td to avoid ot otherwise it was silly timing

THAT is silly timing.

This isn't rocket science. I don't know why so many of you make it this hard.

The ONLY thing that matters is what offers the best chance to win.

 

[Flamma]

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

It was stupid. But just prior to that the Bucs went for it on 4th down when they could have iced the game by talking a 17 point lead. They actually kept the Cowboys in the game.

 

[Flamma]

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.

I don't know why we need analytics to tell us if you roll the dice twice, your chances at getting an even number is 50% on both tries. This is the most basic math. The question is always, do you want to risk losing?

It's a trade off. The chances are better that you win or tie than lose. But you do risk losing as opposed to the almost guaranteed tie. Me personally, I kick the extra points.

 

[jaythecowboy]

So, tell me this. The actuarial life expectancy of a male born to today in the US is something like 76.4 years. That's based on a very large sample size of past male births. Does that mean every male born today will live to be 76.4 years old? Of course not. The individual circumstances determine how long one lives.

A male born today that is diagnosed with end-stage renal cancer on his 65th birthday does not still have the same 76.4 year life expectancy at that moment in time. The original assumptions at birth have changed for this specific individual. Not for the entire population, but for this specific individual at that moment in time.

Analytics can be useful, but the coach has to be able to "read the room" if you will and make a reasonably educated decision what is the correct course of action based on what has transpired in a game up to that point.

Reading the room is more of an argument for ending it in regulation cause the Cowboys defense is trash. Any opportunity they have to avoid putting that defense back on the field they should take it.

 

[kskboys]

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.

That is not how it works. It's 50% every time. The odds do not increase on the 2nd one just because you missed the 1st one.

 

[RogerDodger12]

I believe in momentum in sports and creating stress for your opponent. Don't take unnecessary risks. The Cowboys were rolling, they had all the momentum, the crowd was into it, and Tampa was shook. By taking the risk to go for 2 and not converting, it swung some of the momentum back to Tampa's side. You could even sense it in the crowd because they were confused and it was like a buzzkill.

Then that allowed Tampa to have a little more confidence on their final drive to seal the game. Less pressure and stress when you know your opponent has to get a stop, get the ball back, score a TD, AND convert a 2-point conversion just to tie

Bingo and you don’t lose your left tackle

 

[blueblood70]

Yeah I could understand going for 2 if they scored another td to avoid ot otherwise it was silly timing

No it wasn't 75% of feedback from other coaches people who are former coaches and players said this is what most of them would do this is not just analytics he was thinking ahead this might have been the last time I got they don't know if they're gonna score again but it gives you a chance even with a failure that you get another shot at another two would make up for that loss the analytics that's the right call you trying to bash Brian Schottnamer for something that most coaches were done in that situation.

We're talking about this when we know this to be true you all are being emotional overreactive in the moment but let's talk about the chassis that were bounced off players turned into turnovers turbines turnover the like a blocking you know they couldn't pick the blitz there was no win game there were one dimensional and then the defense was absolutely horrible and don't say in between they gave the offense opportunity it doesn't matter what happened in between it was the other ugly big easy scores in the chunk place that lost the game And you go back to this one thing and nitpick.

No the reason you do go for it is all that crap that can happen turnovers and bad blocking and you may have not got back in the end zone so you won't guarantee you said 1 shot to pick up that extra point that you might need later it is in most people's opinions over 75% feedback said it was the right call that we could move on now..

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

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.

100% agree. Not sure the "analytics" are showing the truth of things. Like did the analyst encode "we suck" along with the numbers? We hardly EVER "force our will" when it's most needed.

Always take the easiest points until you're forced to do otherwise. At least if you're us.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

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.

No...you're right.

And I like to say "I may be dumb but I'm not STUPID". It makes my chuckle every time.

 

[jmnichols75]

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.

If that is what the analytics actually say (I've not personally checked), then I say this as someone who is usually an advocate for following their advice...I'd have ignored them this time. Keep your options as open as you can, as long as you can. If you fail to convert--and that's exactly what happened--then you're forced to go for two next time (if you get a next time). There are mental/emotional/psychological advantages to not hemming yourself in. They aren't huge, but they're there. I don't think it was the end of the world to go for two when they did, but it is one of the rare situations that I wish they'd ignored the stats.

I remember when I used to watch baseball as a kid and teenager. There were always these crazy-sounding stat lines for seemingly every situation, context, or circumstance. I'm making this up for purposes of example, but 2-3 times per game you'd hear something from the announcers like, "You know, Bob, this batter doesn't do very well against left-handed pitchers away from home when the wind is blowing toward the plate after the seventh inning. I can see why, with the game on the line here in the 9th, [a team's manager] is making a change to [journeyman left-handed middle reliever] instead of going with [all-star superstar closer who leads the majors in saves but happens to be right-handed]." They didn't have the computing power back then as we do now, so I'm amazed that they either came up with that stuff so quickly OR intuitively made those calls that aligned so well with the statistics. But I never understood why they didn't just put in their best friggin' weapon at those times instead of what seemed like overthinking things. As I got older, I tried to account for things like injuries that fans might not be aware of, the possibility that I wasn't aware that a reliever had pitched way more than I was aware of in the previous week or two, etc. But it STILL always felt like baseball teams/managers went with statistics that seemed increasingly contrived.

I'm actually glad that some of that has made it to the NFL. I'm also old enough to remember when teams would punt on 4th-and-one from their opponent's 37-yard line and turning the ball over on downs was something that only happened in the final two minutes of a game because a team was trailing and HAD to go for it. The analytics have broken some of those overly conservative habits (although I do think the dam was starting to break a little bit a few years before all the statistical analysis REALLY took hold...or at least before I was aware it had). Even when the two-point conversion was readded to the NFL rule book it took a couple/few years before it really started being consistently used. At least that's what I remember...maybe, ironically, the stats say otherwise? LOL But, overall, I (mostly) like that things have loosened up in the NFL over the past 15-20 years compared to how things were for the same amount of time before that.

Still, I probably wouldn't have gone for two when they did on Thursday. The decision didn't cost them the game, but I think there were better options...even if only ever so slightly better.

 

[jmnichols75]

Quit overthinking and kick the extra point and TG is still healthy. What a head scratcher.

I disagreed with the choice to go for two, but it's hard to say what may have happened OR not have happened had they decided to just kick the extra point. We know NOW, but there was no way to know it would have happened and no guarantee that it wouldn't have if they'd gone for one instead. Butterfly effect and all that...