MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[Uncle_Hank]

So you are saying recovering an onside kick is doable? Realistic? worth banking on? Because I don't. If this is the difference to you that their is a potential of recovering an onside kick sort of like digging up gold bullion in your backyard is possible too. Just not likely. Other than that, there is nothing else to discuss. I will take the chance at getting 8 on my last possession every time vs taking my chance early. Give me 1 shot at a tie go to OT rather than 2 scores to win with 4 minutes left in the game.

I'm going to keep saying it until it registers: you only kick the onside if you miss the two-point conversion. If you have to kick the onside, then it's better to do it with time left than with no time left, because then you can at least try to get the ball back and score.

 

[HungryLion]

If I “know” what the powerball numbers are going to be on Wednesday. I may as well just play the powerball and retire.


Unfortunately I don’t know. Which changes the odds.

come on folks.

 

[Runwildboys]

Wrong. The OVERALL is different. Making a 2 point conversion is the same. Making a onside kick is unrealistic. It is only used when all else has failed as a last ditch effort. However, this became a thing when you go for it early and fail. Now you are forced to recover an onside kick. I avoid this by taking the 1 point and going for a 2 point last. The chance at that point is the same as yours. You liked your chance early and I like this chance late. The difference is, if it fails, now you have to convert an onside kick. Me, we just have to win on OT. Which seems easier for you?

Well your 2 point conversion failed too, which means you just lost the game because you milked the clock to keep the Falcons from having time to score.

 

[Keithfansince5]

Let me explain this way. The score was 39-30 before we attempted the 2 point conversion. Let's assume you take the XP. Now it's 39-31 with 4:30. Assume you manage to stop the Falcons and burn your timeouts. Now you have just under 3 minutes with the ball. You don't want to give the Falcons the ball back, but you gotta get a TD and the 2 point conversion. Oh, and the defence hasn't stopped them very well all game. If you get the score and the 2 points rather quickly (Making the score 39-39), then the Falcons get the ball and just have to march down the field for the game winning field goal. So, then you are kind of forced to try to burn clock to keep them from having a chance at the ball back. But, if you do that and you miss the 2 point conversion, you are screwed (39-37, same result after the second TD we scored). By taking the 2 point conversion when we did, yes, it remained 39-30, but, you have 4:30 left in the game, so plenty of time to score again if you get the onside kick. If you do succeed and make it 39-32, now you are in great shape if everything proceeds as it does in the previous scenario. If you get the ball back in under 3 minutes, you can drain a lot of clock, get the TD, and only have to kick the XP to equalize and send the game to OT. That's why it's the right call to me.

Now apply that same logic of the Falcons marching down the field to get a FG to if you made the 2 point conversion making it 39-32 and you think the Falcons will play conservative ball and then punt you back the ball for you to score your last TD? haha. Nope they will feel threatened and will move the ball like they did all game. Plus, if they do punt you the ball back, and you only need 8 or 7 points, they will be calling TO's on their end burning up all of theirs too. This means if we score our 8 points and they do have some time left, they will be out of timeouts to do much of anything with it. I still like going for it late.

 

[Haimerej]

You play for the score, but it's common practice to try to score with as little time left as possible (unless you're Jason Garrett). Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

You're getting it. I think the, "don't kick the FG," argument is dependent upon the idea that you would run the clock down and only give yourself 1 more opportunity. Reasonable assumption.

I think the argument that you, "know you need 2 more possessions," should be irrelevant when you're losing the game. It shouldn't necessarily change your approach because you need at least 2 possessions. Running the clock down when you're behind is operating off the assumption that you're going to score. Say they bleed clock, march downfield, and then Zeke is stonewalled at the 1 at the time ticks off. You could then argue they screwed themselves by assuming the second touchdown was inevitable.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

Well your 2 point conversion failed too, which means you just lost the game because you milked the clock to keep the Falcons from having time to score.

Bingo. Going for two early is a situational clock management strategy, and it's the correct one here.

 

[Haimerej]

And yet McCarthy’s decision ultimately still led to a win. That’s a pretty big argument against the “feel” argument.

They won the game based on ATL giving them an onside kick. That was a fluke, period.

 

[Trajan]

I would rather go for two, fail and then execute an onside kick with time, then go for two fail and then execute an onside with no time.

 

[Keithfansince5]

Well your 2 point conversion failed too, which means you just lost the game because you milked the clock to keep the Falcons from having time to score.

OK and I would be OK with that. We lost the game. But we gave ourselves the best opportunity to extend the game in that scenario. Hoping for a miracle like recovering an onside kick is just lame. It may never happen again. But hey, it did so winning the lottery happens too to someone. Too bad for all of those millions of people who didn't win.

Take the 1 point in that scenario, play smart ball. In the long run it is more prudent.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

They won the game based on ATL giving them an onside kick. That was a fluke, period.

Still, the same fluke with 30 seconds left probably would not have won the game.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

OK and I would be OK with that. We lost the game. But we gave ourselves the best opportunity to extend the game in that scenario. Hoping for a miracle like recovering an onside kick is just lame. It may never happen again. But hey, it did so winning the lottery happens too to someone. Too bad for all of those millions of people who didn't win.

Take the 1 point in that scenario, play smart ball. In the long run it is more prudent.

No, you didn't give yourself the best opportunity to extend the game. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. You gave yourself LESS of a chance to win by using poor clock management.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Now apply that same logic of the Falcons marching down the field to get a FG to if you made the 2 point conversion making it 39-32 and you think the Falcons will play conservative ball and then punt you back the ball for you to score your last TD? haha. Nope they will feel threatened and will move the ball like they did all game. Plus, if they do punt you the ball back, and you only need 8 or 7 points, they will be calling TO's on their end burning up all of theirs too. This means if we score our 8 points and they do have some time left, they will be out of timeouts to do much of anything with it. I still like going for it late.

That's fair. They may very well have played more aggressively there on the next possession. I think in that situation, maybe you do get the FG, but you're sort of hedging that you do make the stop there with an easier equalizer to be made once you get possession back if you manage to keep them from scoring.

 

[HungryLion]

They won the game based on ATL giving them an onside kick. That was a fluke, period.

I never said it wasn’t. None of that has to do with whether going for 2 was the right call or not.


that was my response to the other poster making a feel for the game argument. Not an argument based on the odds of winning.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Still, the same fluke with 30 seconds left probably would not have won the game.

Exactly right, and, if this is assuming you miss the 2 point attempt after the second TD, then you're probably looking at about a 55+ yard FG. Much harder than what Z had to attempt.

 

[Keithfansince5]

No, you didn't give yourself the best opportunity to extend the game. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. You gave yourself LESS of a chance to win by using poor clock management.

lol. OK. Bizarro world it is for you.

 

[Barrister]

I rarely post (haven't in years) but feel like I need to chime in, too. The logic MM provides makes complete sense, and I'm not sure why others are arguing against it. Down 15 pts, you need a minimum of (a) 2 possessions, (b) 1XP, and (b) 1-two point conversion. And if you miss the two point conversion (regardless of when you attempt it), you need a 3rd possession. That is without debate. Those are the absolute facts.

MM's logoc is, i'd rather attempt the 2-pt conversion before the 1pt extra point so I know in advance if I need a 3rd possession assuming I miss the 2-pt conversion (i.e., I have a Plan B). If you do the opposite and take the 1pt XP first, you are essentially guaranteeing almost no time to plan for a 3rd possession if you miss the 2pt conversion (i.e., basically no chance for a Plan B).

I understand this is counter-intuitive (heck the announcers were baffled as well) but the logic makes sense.

It seems like the people who are arguing against this feel somehow that doing the 2pt conversion at the end of the 2nd possession somehow makes it easier than doing it at the end of the 1st possession. Maybe there's truth to this? Maybe it could be argued that taking it at the end of the 2nd possession puts more pressure on the defense and they're more likely to be tensed up and make a mistake. Who knows if that's true. But absent something like that I don't think the logic MM uses can be debated. I'd rather a coach use logic like that than relying on "feel".

 

[Runwildboys]

You're getting it. I think the, "don't kick the FG," argument is dependent upon the idea that you would run the clock down and only give yourself 1 more opportunity. Reasonable assumption.

I think the argument that you, "know you need 2 more possessions," should be irrelevant when you're losing the game. It shouldn't necessarily change your approach because you need at least 2 possessions. Running the clock down when you're behind is operating off the assumption that you're going to score. Say they bleed clock, march downfield, and then Zeke is stonewalled at the 1 at the time ticks off. You could then argue they screwed themselves by assuming the second touchdown was inevitable.

I agree, but they do as a rule try not to leave much time on the clock, and with an explosive offense like Atlanta's, that seems like the logical approach. Getting to the red zone a surely as possible should be the first priority, then try to use up clock if possible. How many times did Dallas score quickly and pull ahead, only to have the other team go downfield immediately after and win?........I'm asking, I really don't know...but it seems like a lot. (Possibly selective memory.)

 

[Trajan]

I rarely post (haven't in years) but feel like I need to chime in, too. The logic MM provides makes complete sense, and I'm not sure why others are arguing against it. Down 15 pts, you need a minimum of (a) 2 possessions, (b) 1XP, and (b) 1-two point conversion. And if you miss the two point conversion (regardless of when you attempt it), you need a 3rd possession. That is without debate. Those are the absolute facts.

MM's logoc is, i'd rather attempt the 2-pt conversion before the 1pt extra point so I know in advance if I need a 3rd possession assuming I miss the 2-pt conversion (i.e., I have a Plan B). If you do the opposite and take the 1pt XP first, you are essentially guaranteeing almost no time to plan for a 3rd possession if you miss the 2pt conversion (i.e., basically no chance for a Plan B).

I understand this is counter-intuitive (heck the announcers were baffled as well) but the logic makes sense.

It seems like the people who are arguing against this feel somehow that doing the 2pt conversion at the end of the 2nd possession somehow makes it easier than doing it at the end of the 1st possession. Maybe there's truth to this? Maybe it could be argued that taking it at the end of the 2nd possession puts more pressure on the defense and they're more likely to be tensed up and make a mistake. Who knows if that's true. But absent something like that I don't think the logic MM uses can be debated. I'd rather a coach use logic like that than relying on "feel".

Correct, thank you.

 

[HungryLion]

I rarely post (haven't in years) but feel like I need to chime in, too. The logic MM provides makes complete sense, and I'm not sure why others are arguing against it. Down 15 pts, you need a minimum of (a) 2 possessions, (b) 1XP, and (b) 1-two point conversion. And if you miss the two point conversion (regardless of when you attempt it), you need a 3rd possession. That is without debate. Those are the absolute facts.

MM's logoc is, i'd rather attempt the 2-pt conversion before the 1pt extra point so I know in advance if I need a 3rd possession assuming I miss the 2-pt conversion (i.e., I have a Plan B). If you do the opposite and take the 1pt XP first, you are essentially guaranteeing almost no time to plan for a 3rd possession if you miss the 2pt conversion (i.e., basically no chance for a Plan B).

I understand this is counter-intuitive (heck the announcers were baffled as well) but the logic makes sense.

It seems like the people who are arguing against this feel somehow that doing the 2pt conversion at the end of the 2nd possession somehow makes it easier than doing it at the end of the 1st possession. Maybe there's truth to this? Maybe it could be argued that taking it at the end of the 2nd possession puts more pressure on the defense and they're more likely to be tensed up and make a mistake. Who knows if that's true. But absent something like that I don't think the logic MM uses can be debated. I'd rather a coach use logic like that than relying on "feel".

Good post. Spot on.

 

[Uncle_Hank]

lol. OK. Bizarro world it is for you.

It's called logic. You should try it sometime.