MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[JD_KaPow]

It's not that simple really. Of course knowing if you need 1 or 2 scores is great but at the same time you have to look at the whole flow of the game. By going for 2 at that point, with the time left, meant we needed 2 more possessions and we couldn't give ATL 2 possessions, so what you really do with that logic is trade a 50/50 action (the 2pt conversion) for a 1% action (successful onside kick). With the game on the line, I would much rather have my O out there than rely on recovering an on-side kick.

To me the risk (failing the 2 pt at that time and relying on an onside kick to have a chance) was far greater than kicking the xtra point and leaving the game in the hands of your Offense with these weapons.

It worked out and so that's awesome but I still think it was the wrong call at that point in the game.

But the risk is the same. The risk of failing the 2 point at the end of the game and relying on an onside kick is exactly the same risk. You're not removing any risk (or adding any risk by going for it early).

 

[Cowboy4ever]

But you need the onside kick regardless, if you miss the two-pointer. Doesn't matter if you attempt the two-pointer early or late: if it fails, you're out of options except for the onside kick. You either learn that with 4 minutes left, down 9 points, or you learn it with almost no time left, down 2 points.

I get all of that. I just don't agree with it. If I have no confidence in my 2 pt plays then ok, I get it. But I would rather have be at 1:50 seconds with the ball in the O hands to try to get the scores we need than relying on the most difficult play in football to have a chance.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I get all of that. I just don't agree with it. If I have no confidence in my 2 pt plays then ok, I get it. But I would rather have be at 1:50 seconds with the ball in the O hands to try to get the scores we need than relying on the most difficult play in football to have a chance.

But you had the ball in the O's hands. They tried the 2-pointer. They did exactly what you're saying you want them to be doing. They just did it earlier. If it fails, you have to do the onside kick regardless. You're relying on it as the fallback option either way. Trying the two-pointer later doesn't magically avoid the onside kick scenario.

And I would argue that they would not have had 1:50 left if they had kicked the XP. They wouldn't have made an effort to preserve the clock, down 8. In fact, they would have tried to run the clock so the Falcons couldn't come back and win with a FG.

 

[droopdog7]

It's not that simple really. Of course knowing if you need 1 or 2 scores is great but at the same time you have to look at the whole flow of the game. By going for 2 at that point, with the time left, meant we needed 2 more possessions and we couldn't give ATL 2 possessions, so what you really do with that logic is trade a 50/50 action (the 2pt conversion) for a 1% action (successful onside kick). With the game on the line, I would much rather have my O out there than rely on recovering an on-side kick.

To me the risk (failing the 2 pt at that time and relying on an onside kick to have a chance) was far greater than kicking the xtra point and leaving the game in the hands of your Offense with these weapons.

It worked out and so that's awesome but I still think it was the wrong call at that point in the game.

As before, you're completely missing the point and you're not avoiding the need for an onside kick. You're still going to need an onside kick, but you'll probably have less time on the clock.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

But the risk is the same. The risk of failing the 2 point at the end of the game and relying on an onside kick is exactly the same risk. You're not removing any risk (or adding any risk by going for it early).

That's just not true or at least that is now how i see it as true. I get that either way a 2 pt conversion had to be made. So in that sense the risk is the same. But by going for the 2 at that point, it brought the onside kick in as a must have to have a chance. Granted it would have been the same deal had we not gotten the 2 pt later, I get that. but I like the odds of getting the 2 pt later over getting the onside kick at any time.

 

[JD_KaPow]

That's just not true or at least that is now how i see it as true. I get that either way a 2 pt conversion had to be made. So in that sense the risk is the same. But by going for the 2 at that point, it brought the onside kick in as a must have to have a chance. Granted it would have been the same deal had we not gotten the 2 pt later, I get that. but I like the odds of getting the 2 pt later over getting the onside kick at any time.

That's not the comparison. You're saying that you like the odds of getting the 2 pointer later better than the odds of getting the 2 pointer earlier. Because the consequence of failure is the onside kick either way. I'm not sure why you feel that way.

 

[droopdog7]

That's just not true or at least that is now how i see it as true. I get that either way a 2 pt conversion had to be made. So in that sense the risk is the same. But by going for the 2 at that point, it brought the onside kick in as a must have to have a chance. Granted it would have been the same deal had we not gotten the 2 pt later, I get that. but I like the odds of getting the 2 pt later over getting the onside kick at any time.

So you're COMPLETELY changing the argument. I see no basis in it of course.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

As before, you're completely missing the point and you're not avoiding the need for an onside kick. You're still going to need an onside kick, but you'll probably have less time on the clock.

But you are assuming they don't make the 2 pt conversion. My thing is the 2pt conversion is a better odds play than an onside kick. By kicking the extra point, yes they would have had less time to get the ball back if they had scored again and failed on the 2 pt. I get that. But by going for two and failing, it forced an onside kick try to even have a chance - very very low % play. So to me it boils down to, would i rather take my shot with the O on the field at the end of the game to push it in or would i rather have my ST on the field to make the impossible happen. I will take the O every time. But lucky for us the ST did the impossible and we won. But it really no point in discussing it more, I understand your logic (and MM) i just don't agree with it.

 

[droopdog7]

That's just not true or at least that is now how i see it as true. I get that either way a 2 pt conversion had to be made. So in that sense the risk is the same. But by going for the 2 at that point, it brought the onside kick in as a must have to have a chance. Granted it would have been the same deal had we not gotten the 2 pt later, I get that. but I like the odds of getting the 2 pt later over getting the onside kick at any time.

After re-reading this, the logic is even worse than I thought. You don't get a second try at the 2-point conversion because you already know we missed the first one.

 

[droopdog7]

But you are assuming they don't make the 2 pt conversion. My thing is the 2pt conversion is a better odds play than an onside kick. By kicking the extra point, yes they would have had less time to get the ball back if they had scored again and failed on the 2 pt. I get that. But by going for two and failing, it forced an onside kick try to even have a chance - very very low % play. So to me it boils down to, would i rather take my shot with the O on the field at the end of the game to push it in or would i rather have my ST on the field to make the impossible happen. I will take the O every time. But lucky for us the ST did the impossible and we won. But it really no point in discussing it more, I understand your logic (and MM) i just don't agree with it.

NOBODY is arguing that a 2-point conversion doesn't have better odds than an onside kick. What I want to know is how are you avoiding the need for an onside kick by going for two points on the second TD versus the first?

 

[CowboyRoy]

Waiting to try the 2-point conversion until the second TD attempt doesn’t make it any easier to convert.

Sure beats an onsides kick doesnt it?

 

[droopdog7]

But you are assuming they don't make the 2 pt conversion. My thing is the 2pt conversion is a better odds play than an onside kick. By kicking the extra point, yes they would have had less time to get the ball back if they had scored again and failed on the 2 pt. I get that. But by going for two and failing, it forced an onside kick try to even have a chance - very very low % play. So to me it boils down to, would i rather take my shot with the O on the field at the end of the game to push it in or would i rather have my ST on the field to make the impossible happen. I will take the O every time. But lucky for us the ST did the impossible and we won. But it really no point in discussing it more, I understand your logic (and MM) i just don't agree with it.

They DID miss the 2-point conversion, don't you remember?

 

[Uncle_Hank]

This thread is probably why aliens won't talk to us

 

[Keithfansince5]

Kudos to one poster here ( not sure who ) for nailing this 100%

Hi answer is stupid. Knowing if you are in a one score or a two score game doesn't mean a thing. That is the wrong question. The right question is, which is easier to come back from a one score game or a 2 score game with 4 minutes left? Pretty easy. So if he made the 2 pointer that would put them down by 7. A 1 score game. If he missed it, they are down by 9 points, a 2 score game. If he kicked the PAT he is down 8 points still a 1 score game.

What if Atlanta scores a TD? If you are down 8 points, they go up on you 15 points. Still a 2 score game. (1 TD & PAT and 1 TD & 2 point conversion) If you are down 9 points though and they score a TD you are now down 16 points, still a 2 score game but that means you have to convert 2 2 pointers. The odds are not good. It is hard to convert 1 let alone 2.

The smart move is to kick the PAT and tie the game and then see what you can do in OT. Expecting to convert an onside kick is silly. That may never happen again in 20 more years. Both options are doable, but both options are not equal. The highest probability of success is going for the PAT and then getting a TD and trying a 2 pointer for the tie VS trying for the 2 pointer and expecting to convert an onside kick to have any shot at all.

 

[CowboyRoy]

It was the right call, going for 2 was needed no matter what. Only reason fans don't like it is they want to feel like its a one score game when time runs out.

one of the worst calls ever. Is it easier to score once or twice? Simple math.

 

[Future]

knowing early is exactly the right call. There is zero advantage to waiting and missing on the 2 pt with no tine left.

And if you don't get it, you were in the exact same spot anyway. So you take the one, make it a one possession score, and extend the game.

People are forgetting that this game was over the second they didn't convert that 2 pt. We'll live our entire lives and never see another ending like that.

 

[droopdog7]

Hi answer is stupid. Knowing if you are in a one score or a two score game doesn't mean a thing. That is the wrong question. The right question is, which is easier to come back from a one score game or a 2 score game with 4 minutes left? Pretty easy. So if he made the 2 pointer that would put them down by 7. A 1 score game. If he missed it, they are down by 9 points, a 2 score game. If he kicked the PAT he is down 8 points still a 1 score game.

What if Atlanta scores a TD? If you are down 8 points, they go up on you 15 points. Still a 2 score game. (1 TD & PAT and 1 TD & 2 point conversion) If you are down 9 points though and they score a TD you are now down 16 points, still a 2 score game but that means you have to convert 2 2 pointers. The odds are not good. It is hard to convert 1 let alone 2.

The smart move is to kick the PAT and tie the game and then see what you can do in OT. Expecting to convert an onside kick is silly. That may never happen again in 20 more years. Both options are doable, but both options are not equal. The highest probability of success is going for the PAT and then getting a TD and trying a 2 pointer for the tie VS trying for the 2 pointer and expecting to convert an onside kick to have any shot at all.

The American educational system ladies and gentleman. We're clearly in need of help.

 

[CowboyRoy]

And if you don't get it, you were in the exact same spot anyway. So you take the one, make it a one possession score, and extend the game.

People are forgetting that this game was over the second they didn't convert that 2 pt. We'll live our entire lives and never see another ending like that.

 

[droopdog7]

one of the worst calls ever. Is it easier to score once or twice? Simple math.

What IN THE WORLD are you talking about?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Sure beats an onsides kick doesnt it?

You still need the onside kick if you miss the 2-pointer later. It's the exact same situation.