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

[Diehardblues]

The math is the same before or after the fact. But you still seem to be arguing the math, even though you previously said your argument was based on subjective factors.

The math is the same assuming we miss the conversion . No argument.

My argument is based on 8 point deficit ( a potential 1 possession ) game is a more favorable position than 9 point ( 2 possession ) game.

If you’d rather be down 9 points than 8. Knock yourself out. Lol

 

[CarolinaFathead]

The math is the same assuming we miss the conversion .

My argument is based on 8 point deficit ( a potential 1 possession ) game is a more favorable position than 9 point ( 2 possession ) game.

If you’d rather be down 9 points than 8. Knock yourself out. Lol

ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

If you’d rather be down 2 points with little to no time to win knock yourself out!!

ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

 

[Diehardblues]

Do you want to be down 8 or 9 points?

That’s the risk you take going for 2 early hoping to be within 7.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Do you want to be down 8 or 9 points?

That’s the risk you take going for 2 early hoping to be within 7.

do you want to be down two points with little to no time to recover?

that’s the risk you take going for two at the last possible moment hoping to be tied.

this isn’t hard.

again, we lose if we do what you suggest on Sunday and wait as long as possible to attempt a two point conversion and fail.

MM failed the conversion and won.

Case closed as to which strategy is better.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

There’s going to be a day that analytics will render debates like this moot because little to no one will be holding to positions that waiting till the last possible moment in a football game to attempt a two point conversion and riding the entire outcome of the game on its success or failure is the best path to victory.

Hell, mandatory two point attempts aside, there are strong mathematical arguments right now that going for optional two point attempts should be done a hell of a lot more. With a 48% conversion rate, two point conversions yield .96 points.

Since the XP distance has been moved, they are converting at a 94% rate yielding .94 points.

Two point conversions, on average, consistently produce more points than XPs.

This is extremely useful statistical data regarding game theory. Imo it’s undeniable as time progresses that teams are going to move towards attempting optional two point conversions far more often as coaches become comfortable with the analytics.

lmao and it’s going to drive fans like Diehard nuts.

 

[Diehardblues]

Do you want to be down 8 or risk being down 9 points?

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Do you want to be down 8 or 9 points?

Do you want to be down 2 points with little to no time on the clock?

That’s the equivalent question for your preferred scenario.

Apparently you prefer this to being down 9 points with 4:57 left in the game.

and you think MM’s decision was dumb lol

 

[Diehardblues]

The decision to be down 8 or 9 points comes first.

 

[G2]

Jason Garrett would have punted.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

The decision to be down 8 or 9 points comes first.

And I’d rather we be down nine points with 4:57 on the clock than down two points with little to no time on the clock.

You apparently prefer the latter lol

And again, you think MM’s decision was dumb lol

 

[JD_KaPow]

The decision to be down 8 or 9 points comes first.

You know better than this. You don't decide to be down 8 or 9 points.

You decide to be down 8 or (7 or 9) points. Which directly translates to being down (0 or 2) points after the second TD.

If you decide to kick the xp, you are deciding to be down (0 or 2) points at the end. And you're making that decision at the exact same moment.

There's no decision that comes first and decision that comes later. You only have one decision, and you have to make it after the first TD. If you kick the XP, you've already made the decision about what you will do the second time.

 

[Diehardblues]

I’ll take being down 8 points rather than risking down 9 points. Thank you very much!

 

[CarolinaFathead]

I’ll take being down 8 points rather than risking down 9 points. Thank you very much!

In favor of risking being down 2 points with little to no time on the clock!

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Don’t call MM dumb dude lmao

 

[Diehardblues]

“There have been posts about why you should go for 2 if you were down 15 points before scoring a touchdown, with the theory being that you want additional information (i.e. if you convert or not) earlier rather than later. This thinking hasn’t become conventional wisdom, but there has been some adoption from NFL coaches.

What’s interesting is that the case for going for 2 after being down 14 points is even more compelling, yet there was not a single instance of a team doing so in 27 fourth-quarter opportunities in 2015 and 2016.”

Analytics are even supporting going for 2 only being 14 down. Which supports this system is all about winning not playing for the tie and or extending the game. What a crock of crap. No wonder Riverboat Mike is buying into it. Dumb Lol

https://predictivefootball.com/late-and-trailing-by-14-points-always-go-for-2-after-a-touchdown/

 

[pansophy]

The decision to be down 8 or 9 points comes first.

You seem committed to the idea that being down 9 points early is worse than being down 2 points late. Being down 9 points early means you can manage the game like you need two scores -- being down 2 points late means there may not be enough time left to try to generate another score.

Obviously making the two point conversion makes it a 1 score game whenever you take it, but if you miss it then McCarthy wants to know they missed it with as much time left on the clock as possible. Why would you want to find out with less time on the clock? How does less time help you?

 

[Colombiacowboy]

I love the call to go for 2 on the first TD because if you don't get it, you know what the worse case scenario is. In theory, if you wait until the second TD, you wouldn't have the same sense of urgency.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

“There have been posts about why you should go for 2 if you were down 15 points before scoring a touchdown, with the theory being that you want additional information (i.e. if you convert or not) earlier rather than later. This thinking hasn’t become conventional wisdom, but there has been some adoption from NFL coaches.

What’s interesting is that the case for going for 2 after being down 14 points is even more compelling, yet there was not a single instance of a team doing so in 27 fourth-quarter opportunities in 2015 and 2016.”

Analytics are even supporting going for 2 only being 14 down. Which supports this system is all about winning not playing for the tie and or extending the game. What a crock of crap. No wonder Riverboat Mike is buying into it. Dumb Lol

https://predictivefootball.com/late-and-trailing-by-14-points-always-go-for-2-after-a-touchdown/

OMG!!! Maximizing your potential for WINNING the game??!!!

THE HORROR!!

Again, you’d rather risk being down 2 with little to no time on the clock versus being down 9 with 4:57.

One of these risks objectively dumber than the other one!

guess which one is Diehard!!

Lmao...

 

[Diehardblues]

You seem committed to the idea that being down 9 points early is worse than being down 2 points late. Being down 9 points early means you can manage the game like you need two scores -- being down 2 points late means there may not be enough time left to try to generate another score.

Obviously making the two point conversion makes it a 1 score game whenever you take it, but if you miss it then McCarthy wants to know they missed it with as much time left on the clock as possible. Why would you want to find out with less time on the clock? How does less time help you?

Not my issue at all. I think you still manage the clock the same knowing you might not make the 2 point conversion leaving some time if needed.

I don’t like taking out potentially extending the game with only 1 possession.

 

[Diehardblues]

The above link and description of analytics as it applies in this case is all about winning the game as applied to when your down 14 as it recommend going for 2 then. Can you even imagine going for 2 down 14. No NFL coaches can .

Analytics isn’t about the best odds of extending the game with a tie which conventional wisdom always is about extending the game Rather than risking the loss.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Not my issue at all. I think you still manage the clock the same knowing you might not make the 2 point conversion leaving some time if needed.

I just don’t like taking out the possibility of extending the game with only 1 possession.

And managing the clock the same way is moronic.

once you’ve committed to go for two after the second TD it is OBVIOUSLY the preferred path to victory, at that point, to have the game decided by the two point conversion, preferably and ideally with 0 seconds on the clock.

IF you continued to try scoring as quick as you possibly can after committing to be down 8 points instead of attempting to being down 7 JUST so can have a chance to TIE the game, and the conversion is successful and you DO tie the game, this means you are giving the back to the opponent with ample time to kick a FG.

If you were the coach and lost the game because you did something so insanely stupid as to PURPOSELY give the other team an unnecessary extra possession with a comfortable amount of time to methodically drive down the field and kick the game winning FG, I would want you fired Monday morning.