News: PFT: Doug Pederson defends decision to kick PAT

[NewsBot]

The Eagles scored a touchdown with 1:39 remaining in regulation to get within one point of the Cowboys in a game they never led. They faced a decision: They could attempt to tie it with an extra point — Jake Elliott missed one earlier in the game — or they could try to take their [more]

Continue reading...

 

[JustChip]

Interesting. I expected them to go for 2 given Pederson's persona and history, but he lines out a very good analysis of the decision process they/he went through. Not all decisions work and basing the "correct" decision after the fact on the results is what is wrong. The correct decision, whether it works or not, is one which is well thought out and considering all the factors, situation, risks and potential rewards. I respect the heck out of him now for standing by the decision.

 

[LandryFan]

Interesting. I expected them to go for 2 given Pederson's persona and history, but he lines out a very good analysis of the decision process they/he went through. Not all decisions work and basing the "correct" decision after the fact on the results is what is wrong. The correct decision, whether it works or not, is one which is well thought out and considering all the factors, situation, risks and potential rewards. I respect the heck out of him now for standing by the decision.

I agree. He did make the logically correct decision, IMO. Just glad it didn't work out for him...

 

[JustChip]

I agree. He did make the logically correct decision, IMO. Just glad it didn't work out for him...

Me, too.

By the way, thank you for your service to our country.

 

[LandryFan]

Me, too.

By the way, thank you for your service to our country.

Thanks, Chip!

 

[jrumann59]

I will disagree. If worst case scenario is you stay tied best case is you are up by two, either way opposing FG gets the lead, you go for two there.

 

[JustChip]

I will disagree. If worst case scenario is you stay tied best case is you are up by two, either way opposing FG gets the lead, you go for two there.

Wrong.

Worst-case is you go for 2, don't get it and are now behind by 1 (or try the PAT and miss). They were only tied because they kicked the PAT. His point was that even if they went for 2 and got it, Dallas still had time and timeouts to be able to move into FG position and kick the winning FG. But if the 2-point conversion failed, Dallas wins the game because of the time left and their own lack of full complement of time-outs (unless, of course, they recovered the on-side kick which they would had to have done). Essentially, he was making the decision not to rest the outcome of the game on 1 single play, but to live to play on.

 

[jrumann59]

Wrong.

Worst-case is you go for 2, don't get it and are now behind by 1 (or try the PAT and miss). They were only tied because they kicked the PAT. His point was that even if they went for 2 and got it, Dallas still had time and timeouts to be able to move into FG position and kick the winning FG. But if the 2-point conversion failed, Dallas wins the game because of the time left and their own lack of full complement of time-outs (unless, of course, they recovered the on-side kick which they would had to have done). Essentially, he was making the decision not to rest the outcome of the game on 1 single play, but to live to play on.

Yeah you are right I got the XP attempts mixed up, for some reason thought it was the missed PAT.

 

[JustChip]

Yeah you are right I got the XP attempts mixed up, for some reason thought it was the missed PAT.

It was still surprising he went for the kick vs. the 2-point considering they had already missed 1 kick and, according to this article, were perfect this year on 2-point tries. But the coach gets paid to assess the situation which is not the same for every game and make the discussion based on that moment in time. Far too many people view these decisions through the video game lens or after the fact hindsight.