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

[Doomsday101]

gotta play the odds. go with the rule not the exception.

all I can say is I take the sure point over the riskier 2 point conversion. Not saying they were wrong or right only saying I take the easy points over the harder points. 2 point conversion is around 50% 1 point 94%

 

[aikemirv]

He would rather lose on a 2pt play at the end of the game rather than try the 2 early to see if you need to pick up the pace on your 2nd td drive to attempt an onside kick. If there is no urgency and playing for a tie with a 2pt conversion to end the game we 100% lose that game yesterday. Since we failed our 2pt conv.

Like I said.

The team that kicks the XP and goes down by 8 statistically has a 50% chance to tie the game if they score again.

The team that goes down by 9 has literally no chance to win. I would not make the decision at that point to possibly put myself down by 9 even if the odds are the same to make the try at that point versus later.

 

[Trajan]

all I can say is I take the sure point over the riskier 2 point conversion. Not saying they were wrong or right only saying I take the easy points over the harder points. 2 point conversion is around 50% 1 point 94%

You will still need the 2 point conversion though. The question is do go for two earlier and gain the understanding of what is required to win, or wait until the very end of the game and reduce your options.

 

[OmerV]

How about the reverse effect, which we also saw come into play in Sunday?

Atlanta had a 2 score lead and played conservatively. Do you think Dallas is getting a stop when Atlanta knows it's only a 1 score game? Yeah, I don't think so

Yep, that too is a factor. I'm not sure Atlanta would have played much differently though because if the Cowboys would have kicked the XP Atlanta would still likely have been very conservative knowing that the only way they could lose in regulation would be if they got careless, and knowing it would still have taken a TD and 2 pt. conversion for Dallas to even tie.

And there are other factors. For example, there is more pressure when the conversion is for the tie than when it is to get within 7 and still needing another TD. Not sure who that favors, but my guess is it favors the offense because the offense will know the play it is running and the defense might start guessing in an effort to stop the conversion and find themselves out of position.

Then there is also the possibility that had we kicked the XP the first time we still may have scored the 2nd time quickly enough to allow for an onside kick, or at least to get to overtime, which provides a better chance of winning than relying on an onside kick, especially under current rules.

All I'm saying is that there aren't easy and simple mathematics because there are a number of factors, some of which can't be easily quantified.

And ultimately, their are arguments for either approach. In this case it worked because the onside kick worked, but the onside kick has a very low odds of working, especially under current rules.

 

[Doomsday101]

You will still need the 2 point conversion though. The question is do go for two earlier and gain the understanding of what is required to win, or wait until the very end of the game and reduce your options.

We were discussing Alt decision to go for 2 points in the game, they failed to get it and that in the end cost them considering they lost by 1.

 

[OmerV]

You will still need the 2 point conversion though. The question is do go for two earlier and gain the understanding of what is required to win, or wait until the very end of the game and reduce your options.

If you kick the XP don't you still know what is required to win? A TD, a 2 pt conversion, and another score, either in regulation or OT.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

It was the wrong decision. I get the math, I understand exactly what the counter argument is but I completely disagree with it, in that situation. If we had the 85 bears type D, it makes a lot more sense, not the crab D we have put out there this year so far. The risk of going for it at the earlier TD was risking 1 possession vs 2 possessions. With 4 minutes to go in the game, and with this D, those are losing odds. Very unlikely to get 2 more possessions. I can score 8 points on 1 possession, I can't score 9.

 

[Trajan]

If you kick the XP don't you still know what is required to win? A TD, a 2 pt conversion, and another score, either in regulation or OT.

Yes, but you won't know the final piece of the puzzle until the very end of the game if you wait, the final critical piece of the puzzle is do you make the final 2 pt conversion. If you fail on the 2 pt conversion on the last play of the game, you lose the game, game over, that's it.

The question is when do you want that final piece of the puzzle, early or late. Both are very low probability success routes to victory, but performing an onside kick with 1:30 left and moving the ball down the field and score is easier then performing an onside kick and moving down the field to score with :13 sec left.

 

[Setackin]

I’m really surprised this isn’t as 50/50 as I thought. Thank god the majority understand probability.

 

[JBS]

Atlanta threw the ball on second down when Dallas was out of timeouts. I don't particularly recall the routes but it looked like a slow developing play because Ryan held the ball forever and got sacked. ATL threw it again on third down...they weren't particularly conservative.

Having said that, you can't make a decision to go for 2 or not based on what you think the other team's approach is going to be, regardless. That will burn you.

I specifically said that. I'm just saying the way it played out happened to work out.

You go for 2 early for all of the reasons already mentioned.

 

[TheDank]

Yep, that too is a factor. I'm not sure Atlanta would have played much differently though because if the Cowboys would have kicked the XP Atlanta would still likely have been very conservative knowing that the only way they could lose in regulation would be if they got careless, and knowing it would still have taken a TD and 2 pt. conversion for Dallas to even tie.

And there are other factors. For example, there is more pressure when the conversion is for the tie than when it is to get within 7 and still needing another TD. Not sure who that favors, but my guess is it favors the offense because the offense will know the play it is running and the defense might start guessing in an effort to stop the conversion and find themselves out of position.

Then there is also the possibility that had we kicked the XP the first time we still may have scored the 2nd time quickly enough to allow for an onside kick, or at least to get to overtime, which provides a better chance of winning than relying on an onside kick, especially under current rules.

All I'm saying is that there aren't easy and simple mathematics because there are a number of factors, some of which can't be easily quantified.

And ultimately, their are arguments for either approach. In this case it worked because the onside kick worked, but the onside kick has a very low odds of working, especially under current rules.

You’re guessing at a psychological advantage that you admit doesn’t even necessarily work in your favor over having the information in hand of what you need to do. I get the psychological argument, but it’s a weak one. We made the right call and had a chance to win because of it. If the team plays to tie after making the extra point and fails as we did on the second two pointer then we’re 0-2. Us winning was the perfect example of why you always go for two on the first TD when down 15 and time short.

 

[TheDank]

I’m really surprised this isn’t as 50/50 as I thought. Thank god the majority understand probability.

If there’s anything I’ve learned over the past few years it’s that you can present an absolute fact and you’ll still have a significant number of people disagree if there’s a psychological or emotional reason for them not to believe it. 60-30-10 is a better split than I expected.

I had to argue while watching the game with my Dad and Sister who have a PhD and Law Degree respectively and explain to them 5 times after we didn’t get it why it was the right call. Heck I think I remember someone saying Tony Dungy and Aikman disagree with the call. Two people respected for their football knowledge. Cognitive dissonance is a strong force indeed.

 

[visionary]

The two point try timing has no effect on success rate, however going for it after the first TD removes a previously unknown variable earlier in the game.

Down 15, you know you need either two or three scores depending on whether the two point try you will attempt at some point is converted. Statistically, your odds of winning go up if resolve that variable earlier as a matter of opportunity. If you fail the two point try, you want to know that information as early as possible.

that only happens if the opponent variables were to be held constant and that absolute would not be true here

you are looking at it only from the point of view of our team

if you miss the first 2 pointer the other team knows with 4 minutes to spare that you have to score twice AND recover an onside kick and it takes a lot of your momentum away whereas they don’t know that in the alternative scenario. Therefore they are under much more pressure in the second scenario than in the first scenario. Football is not just about the mathematics, football is a game of pressure and momentum. Ask anyone who has played the game competitively at a high level. You have to keep the pressure on the opposition to make them commit mistakes that they are much less likely to commit if they are under less pressure

this idiotic idea would have not even been brought up if the Falcons player had just picked up the ball on the onside kick

it is absolutely idiotic to say we should go for 2 on the first TD.

 

[Preoccupied]

Option missing:
O Don't care we wont the game, life moves on.

 

[Trajan]

that only happens if the opponent variables were to be held constant and that absolute would not be true here

you are looking at it only from the point of view of our team

if you miss the first 2 pointer the other team knows with 4 minutes to spare that you have to score twice AND recover an onside kick and it takes a lot of your momentum away whereas they don’t know that in the alternative scenario. Therefore they are under much more pressure in the second scenario than in the first scenario. Football is not just about the mathematics, football is a game of pressure and momentum. Ask anyone who has played the game competitively at a high level. You have to keep the pressure on the opposition to make them commit mistakes that they are much less likely to commit if they are under less pressure

this idiotic idea would have not even been brought up if the Falcons player had just picked up the ball on the onside kick

it is absolutely idiotic to say we should go for 2 on the first TD.

Not idiotic, it is the correct call.

You also put more pressure on your own team if you fail the final 2 pt conversion. You have less time to execute the difficult proposition of an onside and another score. If you have no time left on the final 2 pt conversion, you lose. Would you rather perform an onside kick and score with 1:30 left, or with :13 seconds left ?

Neither are great, high probability options, but one does give you a slightly higher chance of success. One final play, roll the dice and go to overtime if you succeed, or lose. Take the chance earlier and you have more time to find a still difficult path to a win, as the team did.

 

[conner01]

It shouldn’t be an argument at all, there’s a mathematical right and wrong answer. Those claiming it’s better to wait until the second TD to attempt the try are objectively incorrect.

Not everything is a matter of opinion.

Football is not math
I get the mathematics but to me the smart move is make it a one procession game
I get those that follow simply the math but for that to work you had to convert one of the lowest percentage plays in the game
We did but the odds of a known onside kick working are mighty slim

 

[conner01]

Going for it on the first one may have been the better choice (or not), but explain the mathematics you are talking about. Is there some mathematical explanation for why a 2 point conversion would have a greater chance of success the first time than the second?

That’s the thing
It’s the same odds of conversion each time

 

[visionary]

Not idiotic, it is the correct call.

You also put more pressure on your own team if you fail the final 2 pt conversion. You have less time to execute the difficult proposition of an onside and another score. If you have no time left on the final 2 pt conversion, you lose. Would you rather perform an onside kick and score with 1:30 left, or with :13 seconds left ?

Neither are great, high probability options, but one does give you a slightly higher chance of success. One final play, roll the dice and go to overtime if you succeed, or lose. Take the chance earlier and you have more time to find a still difficult path to a win, as the team did.

buddy you are looking at this the wrong way

once you get to an onside kick your chances are bad either way so the objective is to not get an onside kick. Anyway, it is clear we can’t convince each other so, to each their own

 

[conner01]

It was common sense while the game was live. You need 2 regardless, now or later. If anything I give MM much props for trying to win these games. But do think he need to tone down some of his decisions and really think as it will take the game away from us. Ex... Fake punt 4th and 5 with a run up the middle.

The decisions to fake punt and the play called are two different things
My issue on the run was it was 5 yards, not the decision to fake it but the play call
A 5 yard run up the middle required the defense to make a mistake by multiple players

 

[TWOK11]

that only happens if the opponent variables were to be held constant and that absolute would not be true here

you are looking at it only from the point of view of our team

if you miss the first 2 pointer the other team knows with 4 minutes to spare that you have to score twice AND recover an onside kick and it takes a lot of your momentum away whereas they don’t know that in the alternative scenario. Therefore they are under much more pressure in the second scenario than in the first scenario. Football is not just about the mathematics, football is a game of pressure and momentum. Ask anyone who has played the game competitively at a high level. You have to keep the pressure on the opposition to make them commit mistakes that they are much less likely to commit if they are under less pressure

this idiotic idea would have not even been brought up if the Falcons player had just picked up the ball on the onside kick

it is absolutely idiotic to say we should go for 2 on the first TD.

Just so everyone else knows, this is complete nonsense that should be ignored entirely.

Again, this is not a matter of opinion. It’s statistical fact.