Should The Cowboys Go For Two Every time?

[NeonDeion21]

Best kicker in the game ......... lets never kick ........ genius.

This is not madden.

Again, in terms of XPs, there's no difference between Dan Bailey and the worst kicker in the NFL. When the games on the line from 49 yards out, then we are talking. But not on XPs.

 

[jrumann59]

Two points and then the onside kick even time!!! Lol let's just take our beatings like men.

Shorter field means less yards given up so the defense looks better on paper.

 

[Setackin]

Shorter field means less yards given up so the defense looks better on paper.

Lol true!!! Then ppl will be talkin about how the defense really isn't the problem

 

[Derinyar]

When talking about NCAA football just throw out almost any direct comparison to the NFL. There's such a massive talent disparities between teams as to make things out of balance. Why shouldn't Oregon go for two almost every time, they were frequently a much better team then the one they were playing and had more talent across the board.

Conservative thought in situations like a pat is pretty normal across sports. To me the argument comes down to this. We will usually average 2 points after 2 touchdowns either way. We have no chance for more then 2 points if the pat is kicked, but we pretty much have a guaranteed 1 point and a pretty close to guaranteed 2 points. Going the other way there's a chance of 4 points, 2 points and zero points. The issue is the gamblers fallacy, if the first one fails what's the odds on the next one? 45%, its not higher. Using the numbers you provided there's a greater then 50% chance of zero points and a very small % chance for 4 points. So the most common outcome should be zero points instead of two points, this seems like a bad outcome to me.

 

[Szczepanik]

We should of asked this question when we had Cortez as our FG kicker. Not Bailey...

 

[nalam]

And go for it on every 4th down

If the ball is close or beyond mid field , they should go for it most of the times (situation should dictate of course) with a suspect defense ,keeping it in the bench as long as possible is going to help us winning more games .

 

[Beast_from_East]

You don't leave points on the field, especially if your defense is total trash.

Getting 6 points instead of 7 in the first quarter leads to losing 35-31 in the 4th quarter. Its the difference between needing a TD instead of a FG.

 

[Idgit]

You don't leave points on the field, especially if your defense is total trash.

His argument, though, is that going for one left an approximate 17 points on the table last year alone. Some of those points might have come in handy.
For my part, I'd love to see us to be the first team to regularly go for it in most situations if it were backed up statistically.

 

[Doomsday101]

which team out there goes for 2 points every time they score? What top HC does that? I'm interested in knowing. Garrett is being called a non risk taker for not doing what no one else is doing. Reason others do not do it? Because it is stupid.

 

[Angus12]

I think that the very first play from the line of scrimmage this season...should be a trick play, that sucks the secondary into the box...and sends a tight end out as a blocker. The old Parcells play, where he rolls up to the defender, who avoids the blocker. The tight end then gets up quickly and has a sideline pattern for a huge gain/touchdown.

That was Bruce Coslet's play, during the Campo years.

 

[CCBoy]

That was Bruce Coslet's play, during the Campo years.

You can credit Adam and Eve if you wish, but Bill Parcells used that very play the first year he was Head Coach...with the Cowboys.

 

[Angus12]

You can credit Adam and Eve if you wish, but Bill Parcells used that very play the first year he was Head Coach...with the Cowboys.

Oh. Well, in that case I think I'll attribute the forward pass to Dave Campo.

Yes, I realize that he did not came up with it. But apparently, that's no big deal because he did in fact use it.

 

[Smith22]

One issue with this theory is that every team playing us would prep for the 2 pt conversion attempts, making it even harder to convert. I can see the argument for maybe surprising teams with an attempt here and there, but doing it every time would make it very predictable.

And while our OL has improved, our success in short yardage situations over the last few seasons has been poor.

 

[Phoenix]

With less than a week until the Dallas Cowboys kick off their 2014 season, we here at Cover32 Dallas have covered every single story of the off-season. From player breakdowns to mailbags to the final 53 man roster cut down, we have you covered. But with only a few days until the kickoff of the NFL season, I want to talk a little bit about a philosophy that I personally believe in and would like to see the Dallas Cowboys implement. What am I exactly talking about? The two point conversion. If I was in charge of the Dallas Cowboys offense, I would attempt the two-point conversion on every single touchdown, regardless of the score (unless you need one point to win the game, otherwise we are going for two.)

But before I dive too far into this, I want it to be known that I do not know or expect Dallas to follow through in this plan. It’s a personal belief. We are going to get into some math in a little bit, but here’s my reasoning as to why I think Dallas should go for it on every score. The Cowboy’s defense is likely going to be very poor. They are going to get into a ton of shootouts. And in shootouts, every point is going to matter. Picture it like a high school basketball team that is way undersized and has no chance of scoring in the paint. In order to combat their lack of height, they will just start chucking up shots beyond the three point line and eventually, the percentages will actually play out in their favor. Let me show how it would work for the Cowboys.

Last year, the Dallas Cowboys scored 51 touchdowns total. On those 51 touchdowns, they kicked the extra point 47 times (and converted all 47 times.) They went for two the other four times and converted only once. In total, Dallas scored 49 points on extra points plus two-point conversions. Remember that number, we will be using it again soon.

So in 2013, Dallas converted 25% of their two point conversions. Not too good. But to be fair, it’s a pretty small sample size. Over the last 20 years, the two point conversion rate is a little over 45%. And coaches tend to call the wrong types of plays according to Jonathan Bales:

“Two-point conversions are only statistically inferior to extra points because coaches tend to call the wrong plays down by the goal line. Over the last 20 seasons, rushing the ball has yielded a successful two-point conversion over 60 percent of the time. Even if a team went for two points after nearly every score and rushed the ball each time, I doubt the success rate would jump below 50 percent (the break-even level at which two-point tries are statistically equivalent to extra points, assuming a 100 percent success rate on the latter). Thus, extra points should actually only be attempted in very specific situations, such as a tied game in the fourth quarter.”

Read the rest at: http://cover32.com/cowboys/2014/09/0...om-chip-kelly/

no

 

[Idgit]

One issue with this theory is that every team playing us would prep for the 2 pt conversion attempts, making it even harder to convert. I can see the argument for maybe surprising teams with an attempt here and there, but doing it every time would make it very predictable.

And while our OL has improved, our success in short yardage situations over the last few seasons has been poor.

Thing is....with that back shoulder fade to Dez, there's not even all that much they can do to prep for it. Doubling on that makes the run a lot easier. If we have a similar threat (even remotely similar) with, say, Escobar's size on the other side....I can see us keeping that conversion % up over the 50% we'd need to to clear in order to make it an upside proposition for us. Can't you?

 

[Smith22]

Thing is....with that back shoulder fade to Dez, there's not even all that much they can do to prep for it. Doubling on that makes the run a lot easier. If we have a similar threat (even remotely similar) with, say, Escobar's size on the other side....I can see us keeping that conversion % up over the 50% we'd need to to clear in order to make it an upside proposition for us. Can't you?

60% success, which I don't see happening, would put them at 56 points instead of 47. I think teams would adapt and our % would drop. If the play was that money, we would run it more than we currently do.

 

[CyberB0b]

His argument, though, is that going for one left an approximate 17 points on the table last year alone. Some of those points might have come in handy.
For my part, I'd love to see us to be the first team to regularly go for it in most situations if it were backed up statistically.

The problem is that the point earned by going for two is not equivalent to the risk of losing the XP. This situation comes up in poker quite a bit, @BigStar will know what I am talking about. In a cash game, assuming you have a proper bankroll, you want to push every edge you can get, because you can always rebuy.

In a tournament, however, you sometimes take routes with less expected value in order to manage the risk of busting out of the tournament, because the potential chips you earn are not as valuable as the risk of busting out of the tournament.

With the NFL regular season only being 16 games, you can't afford to gamble on small edges.

 

[Idgit]

60% success, which I don't see happening, would put them at 56 points instead of 47. I think teams would adapt and our % would drop. If the play was that money, we would run it more than we currently do.

That play is money every time we run it, and we run it all the time. It's the main reason our RZ scoring percentage spiked up last season.

And what adjustments do you make to it? You double Dez on that short pass and take your S out of the picture on the goal line? With Witten and Murray both on the field? You cover Escobar on the other side with a S or a linebacker and don't think we'll take that matchup? It's a tough problem for most NFL defenses to solve if you can't handle Dez onene on that play. And I can't see a team other than SEA doing that very effectively more than half the time. Can you?

 

[Idgit]

The problem is that the point earned by going for two is not equivalent to the risk of losing the XP. This situation comes up in poker quite a bit, @BigStar will know what I am talking about. In a cash game, assuming you have a proper bankroll, you want to push every edge you can get, because you can always rebuy.

In a tournament, however, you sometimes take routes with less expected value in order to manage the risk of busting out of the tournament, because the potential chips you earn are not as valuable as the risk of busting out of the tournament.

With the NFL regular season only being 16 games, you can't afford to gamble on small edges.

Really cool post. I'm not sure I understand the analogy completely....how is missing the 1pt the equivalent of busting out in tournament play? Assuming your return is likely to be more than that one point, and you're never risking more than that one point. I assume you're saying that the risk for the total number of XP attempts for the game would be higher than whatever the expected margin of victory would be for an NFL game, and so the risk of going for two each time could effectively break you and should be avoided.

I believe you that that can be calculated statistically and that it's relevant. I just have a hard time keeping it straight in my head when the expected points per attempt are (theoretically, at least) higher than they would be kicking the ball each time.

 

[CyberB0b]

Really cool post. I'm not sure I understand the analogy completely....how is missing the 1pt the equivalent of busting out in tournament play? Assuming your return is likely to be more than that one point, and you're never risking more than that one point. I assume you're saying that the risk for the total number of XP attempts for the game would be higher than whatever the expected margin of victory would be for an NFL game, and so the risk of going for two each time could effectively break you and should be avoided.

I believe you that that can be calculated statistically and that it's relevant. I just have a hard time keeping it straight in my head when the expected points per attempt are (theoretically, at least) higher than they would be kicking the ball each time.

The busting out of the tournament part would come into play if you going for two and failing costs you the game. Even if you are 60% likely to have success (which I don't necessarily agree with), that 40% failure rate is quite high, especially compared to something that is nearly 100% guaranteed. Statistically speaking, there will be runs where you go 10, 20, or 30+ attempts without successfully completing a two point conversion. This is called variance, and it only evens out over very large sample sizes, which is why I don't even trust the 60% number from the past 20 years, it is a very small sample. The Cowboys can't afford to push a small edge, if it even exists. According to the article, once teams start preparing for the two point conversion, the success rate could drop to 50%, which is breakeven. At that point, you are just gambling with variance.

Go here and set the number of flips to 51 and change it to Session, and run it about 10 times and see how out of whack the numbers can get.
http://www.btwaters.com/probab/flip/coinmainD.html