Should the Cowboys have gone for 2 on the 1st or 2nd TD?

[Diehardblues]

If we agree that the 2pt conversion is 50/50 whether they try it early or late, then where does this factor in? There is a ton of social neuroscience literature that shows uncertainty is psychologically threatening whereas certainty alleviates it.

You can't argue the team was deflated after missing the 2pt conversion because they went on to score again and get a miracle onside kick. Players must be resilient in the face of disappointment. Unlike fans who can let their emotions go up and down with every success and failure, coaches and players always talk about moving on to the next play, next game.

No, I’m arguing knowing you’re potentially only 1 possession down rather than 2 could be a psychological advantage. And I believe the emotion and momentum after scoring the 2nd TD could be higher influencing converting the 2 point conversion.

There’s a reason the conventional wisdom has usually been applied. Because analytics can’t measure the emotions and momentum of the moment.

The psyche isn’t a mathematical equation which can be measured. But I’d argue if fans feel better only being down 1 score , players probably do too.

 

[Diehardblues]

It's not the same.

Scenario 1: Lets say we got the 2 point conversion with 5 minutes on the clock. We follow that up with a 3 and out and have 4:30 on the clock needing 7 points.
Scenario 2: Lets say we take the 1 point with 5 minutes on the clock. We follow that up with a 3 and out and have 4:30 on the clock needing 8 points

When you take the two point conversion fundamentally changes things. In scenario 1 you are trying to leave as little time on the clock after your final drive. In scenario 2 you are telling me you are trying to leave as much time on the clock as possible in case you need a second possession. By leaving time on the clock, if you make the two point conversion then you give them time to drive the field and kick a game winning field goal.

Of course . But that’s all part of playing to tie and extend the game. Ultimately you’ll either have to make a stop defensively or attempt an onside kick pending whether you make the 2 point conversion or not.

For the sake of argument let’s assume you convert the 2 point conversion after the first score. How do you play it then? Do you go for 2 again to win or attempt the kick to tie and extend the game?

 

[DanA]

Of course . But that’s all part of playing to tie and extend the game. Ultimately you’ll either have to make a stop defensively or attempt an onside kick pending whether you make the 2 point conversion or not.

No. Ultimately that's not true.

If you make the two point conversion late as you are advocating then you might have to make two stops and that's harder to do than one stop. The first stop wins back possession before scoring the TD, and the second is to stop the field goal attempt that follows because you left time on the clock. If however, you made the two points early, then you can play slower before scoring so they don't have time to drive for the field goal. The probability isn't the same.

 

[Diehardblues]

No. Ultimately that's not true.

If you make the two point conversion late as you are advocating then you might have to make two stops and that's harder to do than one stop. The first stop wins back possession before scoring the TD, and the second is to stop the field goal attempt that follows because you left time on the clock. If however, you made the two points early, then you play slower before scoring so they don't have time to drive for the field goal. The probability isn't the same.

That’s a subjective conclusion I don’t agree with.

Playing slower sound ridiculous if not stupid. Lol

You're arguing just to argue now.

 

[DanA]

That’s a subjective conclusion I don’t agree with.

Which bit is subjective?

You were the one that stated that you have to leave as much time on the clock as possible in case you miss the two point conversion. I simply wouldn't do that because it a bad bet.

 

[Diehardblues]

Which bit is subjective?

You were the one that stated that you have to leave as much time on the clock as possible in case you miss the two point conversion. I simply wouldn't do that because it a bad bet.

No, I said you manage the clock the same knowing you might need another possession if you miss the conversion.

 

[DanA]

No, I said you manage the clock the same knowing you might need another possession if you miss the conversion.

That's not what you said as per below

I’m not sure you are anticipating you’re making the 2 point conversion on 2nd try. You must still plan the time in case you don’t needing an onside kick. The only difference is keeping the 1 possession possibility in play as long as possible.

I’d also argue that despite the mathematical certainty practically the same that the the emotion and momentum on the 2nd try could be greater. Not something we can actually measure but simply a hunch or intangible factor.

But as I was showing above. You don't manage the clock the same because the information is different.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

That’s not true at all. There was still ample time on the clock after our 2nd TD if we missed the conversion allowing for the onside kick and ensuing possession.

But the bigger point is remaining only 1 possession down with the potential of tying it up. You basically take that scenario out with a failed attempt on the 1st TD and why conventional wisdom has always favored that strategy because analytics don’t measure the emotions and momentum of the game.

What you are not acknowledging is that, if you wait to go for two after the second touchdown, the team is going to slow play the clock and milk as much of it as possible. In that situation, IDEALLY you aren’t trying to score as fast as you can because you’re playing for the tie and don’t want to give the ball back to the other team with a lot of game time to drive down and kick FG. If a team playing this strategy had its preferences actually play out perfectly during the game, they’d convert the two point play and goto OT with 0 seconds on the clock.

So no, you can’t use the 1:45 that was left in the game after our second touchdown and apply that to the strategy you’re saying is best. The REASON there was that much time on the clock after we scored the second TD was BECAUSE MM went for two after the first touchdown. Two things - firstly, if we wait to score 2 after the second touchdown we are going to be trying to milk the clock because we don’t want to give the ball back to ATL, if we do manage to tie, with time on clock to kick a FG. Your preferred strategy NECESSARILY entails the team slow play the clock if they get back in the RZ and relegate the outcome of the game to the success or failure of the 2 point conversion. A 50/50 proposition with no chance to recover if we fail. Secondly, if we unexpectedly did score fast on the second TD (which isn’t ideal) possible of a Zeke breakaway etc etc, and actually converted the attempt to tie the game, you’ve now given the ball back to ATL with massive time to methodically drive down the field and kick a FG. Are you ok with that?

Again, the distinction between the two strategies is your path leads to a loss if the conversion fails and MM’s opened up paths to victory if the conversion fails. If we had done what you propose we lose. We did what MM wanted, since he’s the coach, and we won. This makes the argument case closed to me to which strategy is better. One wins and one loses. We’d be 0-2 with one strategy, and we are 1-1 because we followed the other.

quick question, are you saying that Dallas, if they had waited to go for two, shouldn’t slow play the clock if they got back in the RZ and try to burn as much of it as possible before scoring?

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Right.. lol

“which is interesting and a little sad.”

There's nothing interesting about Pelluer. It’s all sad.

Hence, the not everything is black and white comment earlier. Just because you fail to see nuance, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Hence, the not everything is black and white comment earlier. Just because you fail to see nuance, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Those Pelleur teams made me very sad but dude could run and he had a strong arm. I thought he possibly might develop into something. He had some good games on some bad teams. JJ came into town and swept him out quicker than you could blink though. Or did he ask to be traded? Can’t remember. The handwriting was on the wall after drafting Aikman either way.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Sure, that's all well and good, but so what? If you don't have any idea which way the butterfly effect will cut, and you don't have any idea in which way the play would be different, why would you not make your decision on the math?

Again..that isn't what I am saying. Go ahead and use the math if that's what you want. Sure, we need some sort of guideline for decision making, right? okay, that;s fine.

What I am saying is that deciding the outcome of an event that never happened...in surety....isn't sure at all.

We're sitting here saying it would have been better...for sure....to go for the two. "mathematically speaking". Someone even said "stupid"..or
without a brain" or some such. But the universe doesnt; always work that way.
The fact that we did win the game tells you the universe doesn't work that way. Math be darned.

It could be I am being to metaphyscial....obtuse even...for a football conversation.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

The biggest psychological factor at play if you wait until the 2nd TD to try a 2pt conversion is having to plan for 2 contingencies rather than 1. You have to manage the game like it may be a 1 possession game and a 2 possession game at the same time. Under what circumstances is having to plan for two possibilities instead of one going to be better?

Please see my above post.

 

[Diehardblues]

What exactly is the argument for delaying? Other than "momentum" or "psychology" pseudo-arguments, I simply don't see a reason to wait.

And the conventional wisdom is changing. Until 2016, nobody went for two in these situations. Since 2016, about 1/3 of teams have opted to go for two. That's how it goes with so many of these things where analytics and CW conflict. There's a hue and cry and lots of pseudo-arguments for why it should be done the old way...and then in a few years it starts to change. Coaches go for it on 4th down way more now than they used to. Baseball has been completely taken over by it. I fully expect this to be the norm in a decade or two.

That’s all the reason we need. You may not agree but I believe it’s a compelling argument. And one most of the league has agreed with with.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

But how do you value those things? Do you have any evidence that the team would play better (which is basically what you're saying) if they went for one instead of two there? If you're going to overrule the math, you have to have some sound model that leads you to do it. Such a model could certainly exist, but I don't see that anybody has one in this case. The main argument seems to be, "the team will be bummed out and won't play as hard." But I find that one very hard to believe without evidence: these are professional athletes who've been through a ton of adversity and tough games. This is what they do. The Cowboys certainly didn't behave that way Sunday.

The non-math arguments I see cut the other way. With a 9 point lead, the Falcons are far more likely to play a soft prevent-type defense on the next drive, allowing the Cowboys to reach scoring position more easily. Remember, they could have kicked the FG first if that drive had stalled out. The Cowboys need to play with more urgency, because they know they need 2 scores. And they did.

By deferring the 2-pointer, you're basically taking the onside kick option off the table for yourself. You're giving up something with real value--not a ton of value because it will probably fail, but value nonetheless. You need to be sure you're getting something more valuable back to make that trade.

NOT what I am saying at all. Please see the above above post.

I never said "they'd play better". Or suggest it. I am saying events *could* have followed much differently. We won the game anyway....hence the universe worked in an apparently non-math manner. Chaos theory.

 

[Diehardblues]

That's not what you said as per below




But as I was showing above. You don't manage the clock the same because the information is different.

I said you must still plan the clock the same in case you don’t convert. And the situation would be the same still needing another possession and probable onside kick.

Perhaps you’d rather go for only point so you could plan on the onside kick regardless after the2nd TD? Lol

 

[JD_KaPow]

Again..that isn't what I am saying. Go ahead and use the math if that's what you want. Sure, we need some sort of guideline for decision making, right? okay, that;s fine.

What I am saying is that deciding the outcome of an event that never happened...in surety....isn't sure at all.

We're sitting here saying it would have been better...for sure....to go for the two. "mathematically speaking". Someone even said "stupid"..or
without a brain" or some such. But the universe doesnt; always work that way.
The fact that we did win the game tells you the universe doesn't work that way. Math be darned.

It could be I am being to metaphyscial....obtuse even...for a football conversation.

But what we're talking about here is decision-making. You have to make a decision one way or the other. The math (well, not exactly the math, but math-based decision theory) says go for it early. If you're going to make a different decision, you need a reason to think that later is better. The fundamental unknowability of the universe doesn't guide you toward one decision or the other.

You evaluate decisions at the time they are made with the information you have at that time. It's a better decision to go for 2 early, no matter what happens after (unless you have meaningful information that gives you a reason to go the other way). The fact that the universe would have played out differently if they made a different decision isn't particularly relevant or interesting.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

I said you must still plan the clock the same in case you don’t convert. And the situation would be the same still needing another possession and probable onside kick.

Perhaps you’d rather go for only point so you could plan on the onside kick regardless after the2nd TD? Lol

No. You don’t play the clock the same way. That’s bunk. Ideally if you wait to go for two, you want to score a TD and convert the conversion with 0 seconds on the clock.

you..

don’t..

play..

the...

clock...

the....

same...

way...

And the reason is simple. If you convert and tie, you don’t want to give the ball back to the opposing team with a comfortable amount of time to drive and kick a FG. If you fail the two point conversion there will not be 1:45 on the clock, barring an unexpected breakaway TD. There will be far less, if any, time on the clock. If an unexpected quick TD with a successful conversion happens, you’ve now given the opposing team ample time to drive 40-50 yards (or less) to kick a FG and win the game.

you don’t intentionally play the clock the same way if you wait to go for two. You’re proposing a strategy that is conventional wisdom and then saying it should be implemented unconventionally. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth dude.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I said you must still plan the clock the same in case you don’t convert. And the situation would be the same still needing another possession and probable onside kick.

Except that's a terrible strategy and no team does what you're saying you "must" do. None. Down 8 points, every team lets the clock go down and hinges everything on the 2-pointer. And they are correct to do that. Because, when you're down 8 points, here's the comparison:

1. Play to score with no time left. You have a 25% chance of winning (assuming you score).

• The 2-pointer is 50-50. If you don't make it, the game is over.
• If you make the 2-pointer, OT is 50-50.

2. Score with time left, make the 2-pointer, give the other team the ball. You have less than a 25% chance of winning.

• The 2-pointer is 50-50. If you don't make it, you have a tiny (~1-2%?) chance of both recovering the onside kick and scoring again.
• If you make the 2-pointer, the other team has a chance to beat you with a field goal in regulation, because you left them time. That chance may be fairly small, but it's certainly greater than 1-2%. Another way to think about it is, no matter how much time you leave, their chances of receiving a normal kickoff and scoring are greater than your chances of recovering an onside kick and scoring.

Down 8 points, you have to eschew the onside kick possibility and play for only the 2-pointer.

 

[Diehardblues]

Except that's a terrible strategy and no team does what you're saying you "must" do. None. Down 8 points, every team lets the clock go down and hinges everything on the 2-pointer. And they are correct to do that. Because, when you're down 8 points, here's the comparison:

1. Play to score with no time left. You have a 25% chance of winning (assuming you score).

• The 2-pointer is 50-50. If you don't make it, the game is over.
• If you make the 2-pointer, OT is 50-50.

2. Score with time left, make the 2-pointer, give the other team the ball. You have less than a 25% chance of winning.

• The 2-pointer is 50-50. If you don't make it, you have a tiny (~1-2%?) chance of both recovering the onside kick and scoring again.
• If you make the 2-pointer, the other team has a chance to beat you with a field goal in regulation, because you left them time. That chance may be fairly small, but it's certainly greater than 1-2%.

Down 8 points, you have to eschew the onside kick possibility and play for only the 2-pointer.

That’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m saying I’d try to leave some time on the clock in case I didn’t convert.

You have to make stops to keep it one possession anyway in between your possessions . If you can’t make a final stop with leaving some time on the clock. Ok.

Difficult for me to grasp most would rather be 9 down than 8.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

That’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m saying I’d try to leave some time on the clock in case I didn’t convert.

You have to make stops to keep it one possession anyway in between your possessions . If you can’t make a final stop with leaving some time on the clock. Ok.

I still prefer playing for only down one possession . And looks like most teams have.

Except that teams don’t Intentionally play the clock the way you’re suggesting if they wait to go for two.

None of them do because it’s best at that point to have the game come down to whether or not you convert the two point play.

No coaches will do what you’re suggesting.

None.

They are all going to want their team to milk every second they can so that if they tie the game the opposing team will have as little time as possible to score (preferably 0 seconds)

You’re arguing MM was stupid (you’ve literally said this) for going for two at 4:57 because he bucked conventional wisdom, yet here you are bucking conventional wisdom on how the alternative strategy should be played and the only reason you’re doing this is to have an “out” if the 2 point conversion fails.

I see what you’re doing lol