Teachable Moment: That's why you go for two early

[big dog cowboy]

There is such a little chance of getting a onside kick it isn't normally worth going for 2. The Cowboys got very lucky today.

 

[Playmaker247]

Disagree.

It depends at what time of the game you should go for 2. Made it so much harder on the team going for 2 but failing, suddenly being down 9 points, with so little time left in the game. Had that forced but miraculous onside kick not been recovered, it would have been game over at that point.

But that’s not the point....the point is you HAVE to get a 2 point regardless. So it’s better to go for it early because IF you don’t get it, you know what’s infront if you. The onside kick argument is invalid because you’re assuming going for 2 early means it’s going to be unsuccessful

 

[Fizziksman]

McCarthy Analytics

 

[Playmaker247]

There is such a little chance of getting a onside kick it isn't normally worth going for 2. The Cowboys got very lucky today.

You have to kick a onside regardless if you go for 2 early or late, assuming the 2 point try is unsuccessful. So that doesn’t matter. It’s all about knowing what’s infront if you. The problem is we’ve all been accustomed to this line of thinking because coaches like to “stay in the game” as long as possible. “There is a reason why coaches fail to go for 2 in this situation, and why smart fans also think it’s correct to take the safe points. It’s because they’re focused on keeping their hope alive as long as possible. As my friend Brian Burke once wrote, “coaches do not coach to maximize their team’s chances of winning. My theory is coaches are delaying elimination until the latest point in the game—that is, trying to “stay in the game” for as long as possible.”

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I know there’s been a lot of debate about whether they should’ve gone for 2 when they cut the lead to 9. The truth is Mike McCarthy absolutely made the right call. The thought process is this “down 15, score, go for 2. Better to find out if you're down by 1 score or 2 scores now than later, so you can make decisions accordingly.” Here’s an article detailing why going for 2 early is always the right call:
http://www.footballperspective.com/...are-foolish-to-not-go-for-2-after-touchdowns/

I disagree. he should have gone for 1 and let the 2 point conversion for later drive.....at that point he gauranteed he needed 2 drives to win.

 

[Playmaker247]

I disagree. he should have gone for 1 and let the 2 point conversion for later drive.....at that point he gauranteed he needed 2 drives to win.

That’s because the 2 point try was unsuccessful. But they at least gave themselves time to adjust. What happens when you wait and the 2 point try is unsuccessful is that you basically leave yourself with no time left. Like the jets game last year

 

[America's Cowboy]

But that’s not the point....the point is you HAVE to get a 2 point regardless. So it’s better to go for it early because IF you don’t get it, you know what’s infront if you. The onside kick argument is invalid because you’re assuming going for 2 early means it’s going to be unsuccessful

Disagree. The main goal should always be to score as many points as possible without causing your team stress to score even more points due to failed unnecessary risks at the most inopportune moments in a game with little time left. Doing it earlier in the game is better since you have time to catch up. Doing it late in the 4th quarter with 5 minutes left in the game, failing the 2 point conversion, handing your opponent a 9 point lead AND having to kick off to them after your defense has failed to stop them all game long is simply a losing risk you are taking at the absolute worst time.

 

[Zman5]

I'm not sure about this but what the OP is trying to say has merit. You have to go for 2 either way and make it in both scenarios.

What the OP is saying is that it's better to find out early if you made the 2 or no and have enough time to adjust than late when you don't have time to do anything about it.

 

[fivetwos]

I know there’s been a lot of debate about whether they should’ve gone for 2 when they cut the lead to 9. The truth is Mike McCarthy absolutely made the right call. The thought process is this “down 15, score, go for 2. Better to find out if you're down by 1 score or 2 scores now than later, so you can make decisions accordingly.” Here’s an article detailing why going for 2 early is always the right call:
http://www.footballperspective.com/...are-foolish-to-not-go-for-2-after-touchdowns/

How about just call the right play whenever you decide to do it.

I dont think that happened here.

 

[Carter]

I wasnt mad about the timing, i was mad about the play they ran.

A Shuffle Pass 7 yards behind the LOS against a Defense that has 12 men in the Endzone or infront of it???

 

[Playmaker247]

Disagree. The main goal should always be to score as many points as possible without causing your team stress to score even more points due to failed unnecessary risks at the most inopportune moments in a game with little time left. Doing it earlier in the game is better since you have time to catch up. Doing it late in the 4th quarter with 5 minutes left in the game, failing the 2 point conversion, handing your opponent a 9 point lead AND having to kick off to them after your defense has failed to stop them all game long is simply a losing risk you are taking at the absolute worst time.

Ok but your whole argument is just assuming the 2 point try is unsuccessful. Which in either case greatly hurts your chances of winning. So wouldn’t you want to know that with time to adjust? If you wait until the end of the game then you essentially automatically lose with little to no time to adjust. Your basically saying you’d rather have the failed 2 point play happen with 20 seconds left in the game rather than 5 mins. How does that make sense

 

[Playmaker247]

I wasnt mad about the timing, i was mad about the play they ran.

A Shuffle Pass 7 yards behind the LOS against a Defense that has 2 men in the Endzone or before it???

I agree that’s a whole different argument. I love the decision, hate the play call

 

[Playmaker247]

 

[America's Cowboy]

Ok but your whole argument is just assuming the 2 point try is unsuccessful. Which in either case greatly hurts your chances of winning. So wouldn’t you want to know that with time to adjust? If you wait until the end of the game then you essentially automatically lose with little to no time to adjust. Your basically saying you’d rather have the failed 2 point play happen with 20 seconds left in the game rather than 5 mins. How does that make sense

No, not necessarily since the Cowboys were playing hurry up Offense the whole time since they were having to catch up.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

That’s because the 2 point try was unsuccessful. But they at least gave themselves time to adjust. What happens when you wait and the 2 point try is unsuccessful is that you basically leave yourself with no time left. Like the jets game last year

no, you put the pressure on atlanta....you make it a ONE score game. instead of two. that would force them to pass the ball, go for first downs, etc. not just run, kill the clock. you leave the tough plays for last, not put yourself in a hole and give opportunity tot he other team. that defintley forced you to have to stop them. have to score. have to get the onside kick.....lowering your chances of winning. its about the odds. now in this game worked out because of a mental faart on their part, this game was over if they just kicked the ball out of bounce....that simple.....you don't win too many games if you wait for the other team to have mental lapses.

 

[Playmaker247]

no, you put the pressure on atlanta....you make it a ONE score game. instead of two. that would force them to pass the ball, go for first downs, etc. not just run, kill the clock. you leave the tough plays for last, not put yourself in a hole and give opportunity tot he other team. that defintley forced you to have to stop them. have to score. have to get the onside kick.....lowering your chances of winning. its about the odds. now in this game worked out because of a mental faart on their part, this game was over if they just kicked the ball out of bounce....that simple.....you don't win too many games if you wait for the other team to have mental lapses.

Did you read the article. Waiting to go for 2 literally decreases your odds in winning

 

[Playmaker247]

no, you put the pressure on atlanta....you make it a ONE score game. instead of two. that would force them to pass the ball, go for first downs, etc. not just run, kill the clock. you leave the tough plays for last, not put yourself in a hole and give opportunity tot he other team. that defintley forced you to have to stop them. have to score. have to get the onside kick.....lowering your chances of winning. its about the odds. now in this game worked out because of a mental faart on their part, this game was over if they just kicked the ball out of bounce....that simple.....you don't win too many games if you wait for the other team to have mental lapses.

Again this whole idea is ASSUMING you fail to get the 2 point play. Look, to be able to objectively decide which decision is the right one, let’s just say the 2 point play will be unsuccessful, regardless whether you do it late or early. So in this case the answer is obvious, do the 2 point play early to give yourself a chance. Because if you go for it late and don’t get it then what? Best case scenario in that situation is you kick the onside just like before, recover it, then you have maybe 20 seconds with no timeouts to get into field goal range. Whereas like we saw today, they got the onside with over a minute to go which was huge

 

[Playmaker247]

LOL

here is another “teachable moment”, make sure you are 100% on your on side kicks if you are going to follow this

What don’t people in this thread understand about the fact that everyone keeps assuming the 2 point play will fail when you go for it early. The onside kick argument has nothing to do with it. No matter what if you fail to get the 2 point play your chances of winning are really slim, BUT if you fail with 5 mins left your chances are a lot higher in winning versus if you fail with 20 seconds left. That’s the whole argument as to why going for 2 early is always the right call

 

[Playmaker247]

You aren't arguing 60% chance vs 6% chance though. You are arguing 6% vs 0%. The 2 point conversion failed.

Bingo.

 

[Playmaker247]

No. Conventional wisdom says it's right.
The Cowboys were given a gift today. That call loses you the game 99 out of 100 times.

It’s 2020 and people are still using “conventional wisdom” as a argument? Traditionalist will always be the impeder’s of progress. If people just listened to conventional wisdom we’d all still think the Earth is flat.