MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[Big_D]

In 2 games there were definitely a few stupid decisions. They'd be staring at 0-2 right now if Atlanta actually familiarized themselves with the rule book.

 

[HungryLion]

You kick the EP and it's a 1 score game.

Before you go for two initially, you still need a 2 pointer AND an XP to tie. The odds of both happening don’t change no matter which order you do them in.

 

[Runwildboys]

Sigh, 20 pages on a decision that lead to a WIN. If Dallas kicks the extra point there, we are most likely discussing a LOSS today. This isn’t rocket surgery.........

While I believe (and believed at the time) that he made the right call, there are cases in which making the wrong call can lead to a win, against the odds.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

Again, you are changing the subject. You do not know whether it is a one score game or a two score game. You only find that out after you attempt the two-point conversion.

You don't get to magically turn it into a one score game just because you want it to be.

I know it’s a 1 score game if I kick the extra point. The only way it is a two score game is if I make the stupid decision to go for two and fail.

 

[G2]

Well, my point is simply that they missed the first one, and one would assume they'd use the same play design whether they did it on the first TD or the second TD, so it most likely would've failed then too, in which case the game is probably over on the spot, or at best there are only a few seconds left to try an onside kick and score.

Yep, it's marginal, but knowing you missed the conversion is better having more time to game plan. I'm not really sure how that is debatable. Some are used to the ultra-conservative ways where we ran a similar run play 3 times in a row and left the opposing team with all kinds of time.

 

[Keithfansince5]

Let’s break this down.

if you’re down by 9 and just scored a touchdown, then You need a two point conversion, a touchdown and an extra point.

Let’s assume you score the next TD because if you don’t, this entire argument is moot anyway.

So you need an XP AND 2 point conversion to tie.

probability of an XP is about .98

probability of 2 pointer is about .5

If you do xp first. The probability of BOTH being successful is .98 x .5 = .49


If you do the 2 pointer first. The probability of BOTH being successful is. .5 x .98 = .49


The probability of converting both the xp and 2 pointer is the same. No matter the order in which you do them.

This is an example of how people use FACTS (so called) and come up with propaganda. First scoring a 2 point is not a 50% probability. Nice try though. It is less than that and perhaps a lot less. If it were 50% why would you ever kick a PAT? It would all wash out in the end anyway. Just go for 2 and get the goal line work in.

Second, when you add in other facts not mentioned it absolutely changes the equation. Now let's add in what if you fail at your early 2 point conversion? Now, how does it fall for you? Not good at all. No one thinks 9 points needed in 4 minutes is a good thing. Clearly they wanted 7 points needed with 4 minutes. I agree, that would be superior. BUT, it didn't happen. So now you have consequences to deal with. Those consequences are:

1) Stop the Falcons and force a punt. (Hard to do, but they did.)
2) Mount a TD scoring drive with 3 minutes or less.
3) Convert an onside kick. (This option disqualifies this scenario in my mind because recovering an onside kick is like flipping a coin and it landing on its side. Just not realistic today.)

When all of those options are factored in, the overall probability of this goes way down. Sort of like making the playoffs when you start the season 0-3. Its not so good.

 

[Big_D]

Before you go for two initially, you still need a 2 pointer AND an XP to tie. The odds of both happening don’t change no matter which order you do them in.

But when you miss the conversion you make it a 2 score game. When it would've been a 1 score game with an extra point. It was downright stupid. The team can't shoot themselves in the foot on a regular basis and expect the other team to hand them games.

 

[Haimerej]

But how does it help to miss the 2 pointer on the second TD, rather than the first? Your odds of making it haven't improved.

Missing the 2 pointer means you need a 3rd possession so it doesn't help either way. I get the point about screwing yourself if you run the clock down and miss, so the alternative is to not run the clock down when you're losing the game.

 

[G2]

I know it’s a 1 score game if I kick the extra point. The only way it is a two score game is if I make the stupid decision to go for two and fail.

You still wouldn't know at the time. What if ATL didn't get forced to punt the next drive?

 

[Cowboy4ever]

Before you go for two initially, you still need a 2 pointer AND an XP to tie. The odds of both happening don’t change no matter which order you do them in.

that’s true. But by not kicking the xtra point you now risk missing the two point conversion requiring 2 more possessions. And 4 min to go in a game, the odds are that you only get one more possession.

 

[Runwildboys]

I know it’s a 1 score game if I kick the extra point. The only way it is a two score game is if I make the stupid decision to go for two and fail.

Hey, even a PAT isn't guaranteed.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

You still wouldn't know at the time. What if ATL didn't get forced to punt the next drive?

That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a one score game. At that is the whole point of kicking the extra point there. With four minutes to go in a game you have much better odds to get one possession than 2.

 

[Big_D]

I actually thought McCarthy would be smarter than this.

 

[Keithfansince5]

So weird. Your second scenario has the higher risk. You're gambling everything--everything!!-on making that 2-pointer at the end of the game. By your admission, if you fail, the game is over, for sure. The first scenario is the one where, if you fail, you have a chance to do something about it.

The 2-point attempt isn't a "risk." It's not a choice. You MUST attempt one, and only one, two-pointer. You have to try it, because you're down 15. When you try it doesn't affect the overall risk of the situation at all.

Your second scenario only avoids the onside kick because you resigned yourself to losing if you miss the 2-pointer. That's the only difference. You say, "give me the chance to extend the game into OT every time," but that's what the 2-point conversion is doing, whether you take it early or late. There's no scenario where missing the two-pointer doesn't leave you down another score. And there's no scenario where making the 2-pointer doesn't tie the game.

You're saying, "two-pointer or bust." I (and McCarthy, and the Cowboys) are saying "two-pointer or we'll try our fallback plan, bad as it may be." Your proposal is objectively worse.

Your proposal is ONLY better if they make the early 2 point conversion. Once that fails, your proposal is horrific. The distance between the good and the bad is HUGE. In my scenario it takes longer to win but the odds of winning are higher. It is why it is the smarter choice.

 

[Haimerej]

Exactly, all you've done in that case is given yourself less time to take corrective action.

How? The time hasn't changed.

 

[JD_KaPow]

This is an example of how people use FACTS (so called) and come up with propaganda. First scoring a 2 point is not a 50% probability. Nice try though. It is less than that and perhaps a lot less. If it were 50% why would you ever kick a PAT? It would all wash out in the end anyway. Just go for 2 and get the goal line work in.

Second, when you add in other facts not mentioned it absolutely changes the equation. Now let's add in what if you fail at your early 2 point conversion? Now, how does it fall for you? Not good at all. No one thinks 9 points needed in 4 minutes is a good thing. Clearly they wanted 7 points needed with 4 minutes. I agree, that would be superior. BUT, it didn't happen. So now you have consequences to deal with. Those consequences are:

1) Stop the Falcons and force a punt. (Hard to do, but they did.)
2) Mount a TD scoring drive with 3 minutes or less.
3) Convert an onside kick. (This option disqualifies this scenario in my mind because recovering an onside kick is like flipping a coin and it landing on its side. Just not realistic today.)

When all of those options are factored in, the overall probability of this goes way down. Sort of like making the playoffs when you start the season 0-3. Its not so good.

Of course the odds weren't good. They were down 15 points with 5 minutes left, the odds were terrible!

Yes, if you fail on the two-pointer early, you have a huge mountain to climb. No question. It's an awful scenario. But you have a sliver of a chance.

But if you fail on the two-pointer late, you lose. Period. In what possible way is that better?

 

[HungryLion]

This is an example of how people use FACTS (so called) and come up with propaganda. First scoring a 2 point is not a 50% probability. Nice try though. It is less than that and perhaps a lot less. If it were 50% why would you ever kick a PAT? It would all wash out in the end anyway. Just go for 2 and get the goal line work in.

Second, when you add in other facts not mentioned it absolutely changes the equation. Now let's add in what if you fail at your early 2 point conversion? Now, how does it fall for you? Not good at all. No one thinks 9 points needed in 4 minutes is a good thing. Clearly they wanted 7 points needed with 4 minutes. I agree, that would be superior. BUT, it didn't happen. So now you have consequences to deal with. Those consequences are:

1) Stop the Falcons and force a punt. (Hard to do, but they did.)
2) Mount a TD scoring drive with 3 minutes or less.
3) Convert an onside kick. (This option disqualifies this scenario in my mind because recovering an onside kick is like flipping a coin and it landing on its side. Just not realistic today.)

When all of those options are factored in, the overall probability of this goes way down. Sort of like making the playoffs when you start the season 0-3. Its not so good.

no you’re wrong. Whether it’s .50 or not is irrelevant it Doesn’t change the equation. Because if you change the .50, it changes in both equations. Clearly you don’t know how math works.

second, learn what the word propaganda means. You’re throwing it around and nothing I said is propaganda. It’s not misleading.

Whether you make the two pointer or not, there are still variables that are going to factor in aside from the choice of going for two or not.

like I said. If the cowboys don’t score a second touchdown then the decision is moot anyway. If the falcons score a touchdown in 2 plays on the next drive. The decision to go for 2 is moot anyway.

You’re not telling me something I don’t know.

this conversation is about whether going for two right away or after the second TD makes a difference. Hint: it doesn’t really.

that’s the whole argument. Which is why I isolated the probability of scoring both a 2 pointer and an xp. To show how the order doesn’t matter because the probability of doing both doesn’t change.


Even if you add the variables of getting a stop or scoring a TD are added the probabilities stay the same because the variables are the same for each situation. You aren’t more or less likely to stop the falcons because you kicked an XP. You aren’t more
Or less likely to score another TD because you made the 2 point conversion either.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Your proposal is ONLY better if they make the early 2 point conversion. Once that fails, your proposal is horrific. The distance between the good and the bad is HUGE. In my scenario it takes longer to win but the odds of winning are higher. It is why it is the smarter choice.

Your proposal is the one that says, "if we fail the 2-point conversion, we lose, no ifs ands or buts." How is mine worse than that? I really don't understand what your argument is.

 

[RamziD]

I think it’s obvious there are 2 equally valid schools of thought here and each one is the “clear” decision depending on which philosophy you ascribe to. If you’re into analytics then it makes sense to go for 2 early, that’s what the chart says to do (barely). If you’re thinking about it in the traditional way then you wait for it. Football players have a lot of confidence in themselves. They don’t really care about probabilities. They have a lot of confidence that their K can make the extra point, that their D can make that one critical stop, and that their offense can score and make the 2 pt. conversion with all the chips on the line. That’s the scenario they want.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Missing the 2 pointer means you need a 3rd possession so it doesn't help either way. I get the point about screwing yourself if you run the clock down and miss, so the alternative is to not run the clock down when you're losing the game.

Except that's a really bad strategy if you're going to MAKE the two-pointer and tie the game. Because now you've left time for the other team to get the ball with time left in regulation, needing only a FG to win.

If you're down 8 points, you do not know if it's better to move fast or slow at the end, because you do not know if you'll make the two-pointer or miss it. If you attempted the two-pointer earlier, you know what to do next.