MM explains his thought process of going for 2

[Haimerej]

Walk me through this, please. I may have missed something.

MM said it's better to know earlier if you need 1 or 2 possessions. Say they convert, hold them, and get the ball back. The implication of what he's saying is that they would have milked the clock if they only needed 1 possession. I don't like the idea of milking the clock when you're losing a game.

 

[Runwildboys]

MM said it's better to know earlier if you need 1 or 2 possessions. Say they convert, hold them, and get the ball back. The implication of what he's saying is that they would have milked the clock if they only needed 1 possession. I don't like the idea of milking the clock when you're losing a game.

That could be what he was saying, but it's possible he meant there would have been a difference in the sense of urgency. So not necessarily milking the clock, just not going as quickly as possible.

 

[Rockport]

You've never thought an NFL coach made a wrong decision?

I didn’t say that. I think he did with the 2nd fake punt and he even said that during his post game press conference. But something like this, no. He’s given it much thought and had many conversations with others about it. Other NFL people. So, LOL, when a poster says it’s the wrong decision I just got laugh.

 

[HungryLion]

It does if you only get one more possession of the ball which is the most likely outcome. Just because the stars aligned and it all worked out doesn’t make it right.

The point is. The odds of needing to get an onside kick. Is the same whether you go for 2 right away. Or after the next TD. It’s the same odds of needing that onside kick.

 

[Runwildboys]

I didn’t say that. I think he did with the 2nd fake punt and he even said that during his post game press conference. But something like this, no. He’s given it much thought and had many conversations with others about it. Other NFL people. So, LOL, when a poster says it’s the wrong decision I just got laugh.

I agree that it was the right decision, but someone disagreeing with that one decision doesn't necessarily mean they think they know more than the coach.

 

[HungryLion]

Which is why I don't like the logic behind MM's reasoning. He's essentially saying he would run down the clock while losing a game by 1 possession when I think the priority should be to score first.

It’s fair to question him on that aspect of the thought process. Although obviously needing that extra possession after an onside kick is worst case scenario that still involves winning.

 

[droopdog7]

Oh I understand completely I just don't like the idea of requiring 3 scores by our own volition. If you are forced because of a missed 2 point late, that is fine. That said, the only benefit is that we had more time to kick the onside kick. It just makes little sense to do something when the risk of not succeeding guarantees a harder road to victory.

Try again because you still don’t understand.

 

[Rockport]

I agree that it was the right decision, but someone disagreeing with that one decision doesn't necessarily mean they think they know more than the coach.

It certainly does in this particular instance.

 

[Haimerej]

That could be what he was saying, but it's possible he meant there would have been a difference in the sense of urgency. So not necessarily milking the clock, just not going as quickly as possible.

Which would be a mistake, imo, when you're losing a game. Especially when it seems this offense operates better under a high tempo.

 

[Direwolf63]

All this being said, I like that McCarthy is far more aggressive than the idiot he replaced.
I may disagree with the decision at that moment, but I do like my HC being aggressive.

 

[Diehardblues]

Thanks for the explanation MM, but it was still stupid.

For him to try and rationalize it is pathetic.

Yep

 

[Londonboy]

2 or 1?
27 pages of fun.

 

[Diehardblues]

The reason he gave is stupid. Knowing whether it is a one- or two-score game doesn't have to change anything in how you approach the remainder.

Right. If you’re down by 8 when you score next and don’t convert then you can react. You don’t play to be down by 9.

The question is ask him is if we converted it would he go for 2 again to win it instead of going for the tie to extend the game. The very thing he chose not to do last Week on 4th and 3.

This is weird crap. He might have had too much time off smoking some wacky tobacco up in Wisconsin. IDK... this is real bizarre stuff. Maybe why they fired him in Green Bay.

 

[droopdog7]

Right. If you’re down by 8 when you score next and don’t convert then you can react. You don’t play to be down by 9.

The question is ask him is if we converted it would he go for 2 again to win it instead of going for the tie to extend the game. The very thing he chose not to do last Week on 4th and 3.

This is weird crap. He might have had too much time off smoking some wacky tobacco up in Wisconsin. IDK... this is real bizarre stuff. Maybe why they fired him in Green Bay.

Critical thinking skills completely lacking I see.

 

[Diehardblues]

Critical thinking skills completely lacking I see.

I haven’t read any critical analysts who agree with these decisions.

 

[pansophy]

Best excuse I have heard yet for going for two was that if we make the 1 point conversion it gives us lots of time to run our regular offense on the next drive. So we go back to the plodding style of trying to run Zeke as opposed to the hurry up offense featuring Dak and we probably don't even score a TD.

ONLY in that light does going for the 2 points make any real sense.

It’s probability, not psychology. Creating certainty changes the probabilities going forward, and that’s why you go for it immediately rather than leaving that uncertainty until later.

People like Broddus who argue about “extending the game” simply don’t know what they are talking about. Even if the probabilities didnt change by creating certainty, though they do, you don’t extend the game by leaving the the 2 point conversion until later. If you miss it later you still need an onside kick and FG to win.

 

[JD_KaPow]

MM said it's better to know earlier if you need 1 or 2 possessions. Say they convert, hold them, and get the ball back. The implication of what he's saying is that they would have milked the clock if they only needed 1 possession. I don't like the idea of milking the clock when you're losing a game.

It's not really milking the clock, but it is taking a little more time between plays, letting the clock run down a little more. You basically don't care very much about the clock as long as you have the time you need.

 

[TWOK11]

Thanks for the explanation MM, but it was still stupid.

For him to try and rationalize it is pathetic.

I’m consistently amazed at how many people in this world despise and ignore objective reality.

This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s statistical fact. There is nothing to debate and anyone arguing that it was the wrong decision, mathematically speaking, is objectively wrong.

 

[droopdog7]

I haven’t read any critical analysts who agree with these decisions.

You shouldn’t need that. The approach is painfully obvious. I’m not suggesting that it was the reason we won the game. That of course would be foolish. But understanding why it makes more sense to go for the two early rather than later is crystal clear.

If you knew you were going to need three scores, would you want to know that after the first or second TD? Obviously, and without question, you would want to know after the first TD. When that happened, your path to victory was 1000% clear. Get a stop (which you would need either way), score as quickly as humanly possible to give yourself as much time as possible, get the onside kick, and get a TD or FG.

If you wait, you still need a stop and a score, but you don’t know whether you need the onside kick. So are you scoring as fast as possible or in the back of your mind are you also trying to run clock in case you make the two to leave less time for atl? If you run clock, you have less time to get the third score and you possibly sabatoge the odds of scoring the second TD.

Okay, so let’s say you score the second TD with probably less time on the clock. Now you miss the conversion. That’s fair right, your scenario can’t have a made 2-point conversion? Otherwise, you aren’t arguing about when to go for two. You’re arguing that making the two is better, which of course we all know.

So tell me again how waiting for the conversion on the second TD is better? You still need the onside kick but this time you might have less time. I certainly don’t see any logical reason for why you would have more time.

 

[TWOK11]

The reason he gave is stupid. Knowing whether it is a one- or two-score game doesn't have to change anything in how you approach the remainder.

How do some of you successfully dress yourselves every morning?