MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[HungryLion]

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.

You have the risk of missing the 2 point conversion after the next TD. So the risk ultimately is the same.

in order to tie and not need an onside kick. You HAVE to make a 2 point conversion and an XP.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

How? The time hasn't changed.

But, you have to burn clock and hope you make the 2 point conversion to send the game to OT. To me, I'm more comfortable going for 2 earlier in case you miss. And I think that's why MM did that.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

In order for your scenario to make more sense than what happened in reality, you have to assume that your chances of scoring a 2 point conversion on the second TD are better than your chances of scoring a 2 point conversion on your first TD.....There's absolutely no reason to believe that.

No this is where we differ on the logic. The odds of converting are the same. The difference is in the probability to get that chance. You get the x point and you only need the ball one more time. If you go for two and fail, you need it two more times and with 4 min to go getting two possessions is not a high probability. It worked out but that doesn’t make it the right decision.

 

[HungryLion]

No this is where we differ on the logic. The odds of converting are the same. The difference is in the probability to get that chance. You get the x point and you only need the ball one more time. If you go for two and fail, you need it two more times and with 4 min to go getting two possessions is not a high probability. It worked out but that doesn’t make it the right decision.

But you don’t know you’re not going to get the 2 when you make the decision.

you can’t criticize the head coach for not having a crystal ball. He has to play the odds.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

You know it's a one score game if you kick the extra point

No, you don't. It's a one score game if you make the two-point conversion.

 

[Keithfansince5]

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?

I answered that in another reply. It is better because overall the chances are better. As I stated neither are good scenarios. One however, provides a better chance and it is not going for 2 early. That just opens up too many cans of problems if you fail. Yes, in that scenario there remains a sliver of hope. That sliver is very tiny but there is one. Some could say that percentage is so small it is inconsequential. Is a .1% chance a chance? How about a .5% chance? OK maybe a 1% chance? In my scenario it comes down to a 2 point try with a 25%-30% chance. Not good either but that is at least doable. Then you go to OT and see what happens. That is why I stand with why the PAT is the better call. When they first introduced the 2 point conversion every NFL team applied this logic. They went for it only when they needed it to win or tie. Now they go for it early in games because a piece of paper tells them too. It is idiotic.

 

[Runwildboys]

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.

In which case you allow more time for Atlanta to come back with a score of their own.

I realize everyone has their own view on this, but to think that trying for 2 on the second TD would have a better chance of success than going for it on the first TD just doesn't make sense to me. Someone needs to explain that concept to me before I can even consider the possibility of MM's decision being the wrong one. All this "keeping it a one score game" talk is just rhetoric, when in reality they would have most likely failed to convert on the second TD, thus needing to score again.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

This is taking on a life of its own......lol

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/09/21/going-for-two-when-down-nine-doesnt-make-sense/

Going for two when down nine doesn’t make sense
Posted by Mike Florio on September 21, 2020, 6:17 PM EDT

Getty Images

Not long ago, NFL coaches resisted doing the unconventional thing because doing the unconventional thing and failing resulted in the kind of criticism that can get a guy fired. At some point in the past few years, NFL coaches have embraced doing the unconventional when analytics supports the unconventional selection, either ignoring the criticism that comes from doing the unconventional thing or trusting that someone from the analytics crowd will praise him loud enough to shout down the critics.

There’s a balance to strike in this regard, and that’s what the best coaches do. Analytics definitely have their place as to certain in-game decisions. When down 14 and scoring a touchdown, for example, going for two and converting gives the team that’s trailing a chance to avoid overtime by scoring another touchdown and converting a one-point kick. Failing to convert the two-pointer still keeps the trailing team within one score: A touchdown and a two-pointer.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

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.

I don't think we're even talking about the same game at this point.

You have to go for two regardless. That's not an option. It's only a one score game if you make the two point conversion.

 

[Runwildboys]

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.

But 8 points isn't a one score game if you fail to convert the 2 pointer (which they probably would have, since they failed when they actually did try). At best, you can say it would be a "potential one score game".

 

[HungryLion]

I answered that in another reply. It is better because overall the chances are better. As I stated neither are good scenarios. One however, provides a better chance and it is not going for 2 early. That just opens up too many cans of problems if you fail. Yes, in that scenario there remains a sliver of hope. That sliver is very tiny but there is one. Some could say that percentage is so small it is inconsequential. Is a .1% chance a chance? How about a .5% chance? OK maybe a 1% chance? In my scenario it comes down to a 2 point try with a 25%-30% chance. Not good either but that is at least doable. Then you go to OT and see what happens. That is why I stand with why the PAT is the better call. When they first introduced the 2 point conversion every NFL team applied this logic. They went for it only when they needed it to win or tie. Now they go for it early in games because a piece of paper tells them too. It is idiotic.

The overall chances are not better. They’re the same.

 

[Big_D]

But you don’t know you’re not going to get the 2 when you make the decision.

you can’t criticize the head coach for not having a crystal ball. He has to play the odds.

This D couldn't make a stop all game and Atlanta milking the clock looked like much better odds than the Cowboys getting multiple possessions.

 

[Haimerej]

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.

That can go both ways. Say you make the 2 pointer, run the clock down, score a TD, and then miss the FG. My point is that you shouldn't be running the clock down when you're losing a game.

I also think the odds of a team marching the length of the field to score are worse than your odds of recovering an onside kick.

 

[Screw The Hall]

I don’t like the call. I hear his reasoning, Ive heard it before, I still don’t like it. The reasoning is too linear.

You not only give your team the knowledge of whether it’s going to be a one or two score game, you provide the opposing club that same insight as well. So, if you miss, you give the opposition a two score lead AND the strategic advantage of knowing it. A strategic advantage that can be used to prioritize working the clock, a strategic advantage that doesn’t exist if you wait.

Secondly, it changes the momentum for a team that feels you applying the noose around their necks. You want them to feel the margin of error slipping away from them. A margin of error you instantly gift them with a miss. Let the enemy feel maximum pressure for a minute, the pressure that only comes with a one possession game to see if they fold. Intangibles are real. Math can’t account for everything.

This doesn’t even address the possibility of another quick score by Atlanta that changes the dynamic completely. What if they kick a quick FG and now you are down 12 instead of 11 with around 4 minutes left. Big difference.

Reasonable minds can disagree, but I’m staying old school on this one.

 

[Haimerej]

But, you have to burn clock and hope you make the 2 point conversion to send the game to OT. To me, I'm more comfortable going for 2 earlier in case you miss. And I think that's why MM did that.

No, you don't. You have to score.

 

[Big_D]

Even his reasoning is stupid with the amount of time they had left and the Falcons moving the ball at will.

 

[Haimerej]

In which case you allow more time for Atlanta to come back with a score of their own.

I realize everyone has their own view on this, but to think that trying for 2 on the second TD would have a better chance of success than going for it on the first TD just doesn't make sense to me. Someone needs to explain that concept to me before I can even consider the possibility of MM's decision being the wrong one. All this "keeping it a one score game" talk is just rhetoric, when in reality they would have most likely failed to convert on the second TD, thus needing to score again.

True. Either way a 2 point conversion is needed. Missing the first or the second doesn't change anything. I just think it would be foolish to run the clock down when you're behind and needing a TD. You play for the score.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

No, you don't. You have to score.

I'm talking about after the TD. If you kick the XP, you have to score and burn clock to get the next score so you don't give the Falcons the ball back and make the 2 point conversion on the next TD to equalize.

 

[Runwildboys]

No this is where we differ on the logic. The odds of converting are the same. The difference is in the probability to get that chance. You get the x point and you only need the ball one more time. If you go for two and fail, you need it two more times and with 4 min to go getting two possessions is not a high probability. It worked out but that doesn’t make it the right decision.

You're down by 15, so you need to go for 2 on one of those 2 TDs. If you fail after the first one, you still have an opportunity (albeit a slim one) to kick and recover an onside kick. (Obviously, since it happened.) If you fail after the second TD (and assuming they would've tried the same play that failed in the original timeline, they would have failed) you're probably out of time, because thinking you were going to try for OT, you let the clock run down.

 

[Keithfansince5]

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.

I see you avoided what I said. I understand, your logic has holes so it is best to avoid things.

BTW, when you use selective facts to persuade someone it is propaganda. I understand math very well, I understand it enough to include all available factors as those factors are necessary to determine the best probability of success.

The strawman argument you are using is that I am saying the chance of converting the 2 pointer changes. I never said that nor implied that anywhere. But if you fail on your early 2 point attempt the probability to do something about it just dropped almost to zero. Not quite zero but close enough. I would be willing to bet that if we gamed these 2 scenarios over and over and over my scenario would win more than yours would. Also in your scenario, you have to consider if you converted your 2 point conversion and pulled within 7 points, Atlanta would not just run 3 run plays and punt the ball back to us. They would see, oh crap, we better do something here and make a first down or two to end this game. As I have stated, one first down conversion pretty much ices this game. 2 for certain. Since Atlanta was up by 9 they played it super conservative thinking there is no way in heck these guys can win. Up by 8 they may try a little harder but not as hard as if up by 7. Little nuances that have to be considered also.