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

[CarolinaFathead]

Can anyone name any coaches in the NFL who have gone for 2 Point conversion down 14 points ever?

If it’s supported by analytics must be mathematically the way to go. But is anyone? Wonder why ?

Because they are ignorant of the probability data and don’t know it’s out there OR, like you, they don’t trust it because they don’t understand it. A lot of these analytical probability charts are counter-intuitive because the game has not historically relied on them, preferring “conventional wisdom”, leading to coaches spending decades playing the game the most risky way in regards to winning or losing the game. A perfect example of this is the amount of times a team would punt decades ago on fourth down with less than a yard to go at the fifty or just over the fifty. One of the first analytical dominoes to fall in regards to how the game should be played was that analysis showed that teams should go for it A LOT more on fourth down with short yardage at that position of the field than they were. As such, you’ve seen a steady increase over the last couple decades of this happening and based on statistical analysis it STILL needs to happen more. Coaches are slow to change what has been instilled in them for decades. That doesn’t mean they are right.

 

[Diehardblues]

Of course. The rest of the football world is wrong and the Analytical’s are right. Glad we’ve resolved that. Lol

I’d be curious to see any fan mention analytics in any post before this dumb decision .

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Of course. The rest of the football world is wrong and the Analytical’s are right. Glad we’ve resolved that. Lol

yeah. It’s not like there are examples in the real world of science and math turning “conventional wisdom” on its head lmao

You definitely are a troll lmao

At least for your sake I HOPE you are lol

 

[Diehardblues]

And this is where you become frustrated and begin insulting attempting to discredit the messenger cause you don’t like the message.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

And this is where become frustrated and begin insulting attempting to discredit the messenger cause you don’t like the message.

You don’t have a message other than you don’t understand this math and think that just because the game has ALWAYS been played this way, it MUST be the right way.

Many things about how coaches have coached in the past, and currently coach the game, contradicts actual objective facts about mathematical probabilities and risk reduction. Some of these scenarios are very counter-intuitive. Others are more intuitive and should be relatively easy to see where the benefit lies. Those are the ones coaches have slowly been embracing. As analytics becomes more engrossed in game theory and strategy, the counter-intuitive scenarios are going to be embraced as well.

I just want to be sitting next to a guy like you watching a game that doesn’t absolutely get the value of analytics when analytics have taken over the league. Watching him react to the coaching decisions in the game is going to be as fun as watching the game.

 

[Diehardblues]

I’d be curious if anyone supporting analytics have ever mentioned it in a post on this forum before our HC used it as his excuse to go for 2 in this situation.

 

[Diehardblues]

If analytics include going for 2 down 14 then we’ll never see it implemented in full force because winning at all cost while risking losing doesn’t apply to competitive team sports.

Denying the use of analytics in sports decisions isn’t denying the mathematics .

 

[Setackin]

I do. Last I saw the poll was showing 65% agreeing with MM, 28% waiting to go for two after the second TD, and 7% unsure.

Thanks!

 

[CarolinaFathead]

If analytics include going for 2 down 14 then we’ll never see it implemented in full force because winning at all cost while risking losing doesn’t apply to competitive team sports.

Denying the use of analytics in sports decisions isn’t denying the mathematics .

I can tell you this that RIGHT NOW based on current data, two point conversions consistently score more points than XPs.

2 point conversions since 1994 convert at a 48% success rate. That means they are worth .96 points in actual game play.

XPs since they were moved back in 2016 convert at 94% which mean they are worth .94 points in actual game play.

Two point plays are more efficient scoring plays than XPs in regards to actual point value.

IF, for any reason, the statistical mean for successful 2 point conversions shifts in a meaningful way towards say 55-60%, then more scenarios will dictate analytically that you go for two because even if XP’s are converted 100% of the time (which will likely never happen especially at the current distance) they will only ever be worth one point at max. A 55% conversion rate for two point conversions is worth 1.10 points. A shift that meaningful in the two point conversion success rate SHOULD have drastic effects on how coaches coach the game but with guys like you resisting the obvious it might not.

 

[Setackin]

I’d be curious if anyone supporting analytics have ever mentioned it in a post on this forum before our HC used it as his excuse to go for 2 in this situation.

I remember it being brought up quite a few times. Mostly the argument for analytics was to argue how ineffective Garrett was at using Zeke or to argue how much more effective Dak was at using play action.

 

[Setackin]

Dang, y’all really going at it in this thread lol

to bad the poll was takin down...

 

[jaythecowboy]

I remember it being brought up quite a few times. Mostly the argument for analytics was to argue how ineffective Garrett was at using Zeke or to argue how much more effective Dak was at using play action.

I was actually just looking where to drop this lol

 

[CarolinaFathead]

I was actually just looking where to drop this lol

That was PERFECTLY timed lol!

 

[JD_KaPow]

Can anyone name any coaches in the NFL who have gone for 2 Point conversion down 14 points ever?

If it’s supported by analytics must be mathematically the way to go. But is anyone? Wonder why ?

Your trolling is getting a little too obvious.

 

[Diehardblues]

We’ve exhausted this argument. Frustrations will only lead to personal insults and attacks now attempting to discredit the messenger cause you don’t like message.

 

[Diehardblues]

I remember it being brought up quite a few times. Mostly the argument for analytics was to argue how ineffective Garrett was at using Zeke or to argue how much more effective Dak was at using play action.

Appreciate the input . I certainly don’t recall it being mentioned before in this forum as far as the extra points discussion. I’m not familiar with it’s implications in other situations you mentioned. But the extra point has been the basis of this discussion.

 

[LovinItAll]

Of course. The rest of the football world is wrong and the Analytical’s are right. Glad we’ve resolved that. Lol

I’d be curious to see any fan mention analytics in any post before this dumb decision .

Your position is ignorant, and it's exactly the same position baseball GMs, managers, and scouts had before Billy Beane brought analytics to baseball.

The reality is that every team should go for 2 points after every TD, as the attempt is worth .98 points, while an EP is worth just .96 points per attempt.

I understand why people can't get their heads around this. They've been watching football played a certain way for so long that they're stuck in the mindset that what they think they know is right, instead of understanding that math is math.

 

[Vegas_Cowboy]

This thread is still alive? I'm pretty sure everyone has stated their opinion on the subject but the bottom line is we won.

On to the Seahawks.

 

[pansophy]

I’d be curious if anyone supporting analytics have ever mentioned it in a post on this forum before our HC used it as his excuse to go for 2 in this situation.

When McCarthy was first hired he said a differentiator would be his use of analytics and more importantly the application of towards actual game decisions. So yeah there were a bunch of threads about it. This decision is most obvious example of what that is going to look like.

 

[Diehardblues]

Your position is ignorant, and it's exactly the same position baseball GMs, managers, and scouts had before Billy Beane brought analytics to baseball.

The reality is that every team should go for 2 points after every TD, as the attempt is worth .98 points, while an EP is worth just .96 points per attempt.

I understand why people can't get their heads around this. They've been watching football played a certain way for so long that they're stuck in the mindset that what they think they know is right, instead of understanding that math is math.

The attempt has no value if it’s not successful. My hunch is if it was attempted more often it would be less successful. Part of its success rate is the element of surprise. If it became more common place probably lower percentage of success. The percentage has already dropped moving the LOS scrimmage back a yard since new rules were implemented.

As it stands now I’m not disputing the math . I just believe there’s many more intangible factors that contribute to the results. The math is simply based on the current results. And it’s based on playing to win not tying or extending the game. It’s a higher risk vs reward scenario which could effect wins and losses.

The Conventional wisdom and math support attempting the 1 point conversion is more reliable . Much more as a matter of fact. And what happens is if you miss a couple 2 point conversions in a game it alters your strategy. Could cost you the game. And why playing it safe or closer to the vest will continue to dominate football decisions.