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

[bsbellomy]

Anyone going to answer this?

You are wondering why being down 8 is worse than being down 7? Regardless of defense I can tell you which one is better. And if you are only down 7 why would you need an onside recovery?

"So how is only needing 1 TD drive (plus 2 pointer) not as good as needing 1 TD drive (PAT), PLUS needing to get the ball back again to mount a second drive"

Why is the part after (PAT) even there?

 

[JD_KaPow]

For example, the analytics that favor going for it on all 4th downs. Does anyone do that?

This is a perfect example where the analytics are right and the conventional wisdom is wrong...and teams are finally coming around to realizing that and changing the way they approach the game.

Coaches have become much more aggressive about going for it on 4th down than they used to be. Because they have realized the conventional wisdom was wrong. Have they gone as far as the analytics think they should? No, but there's definitely been movement.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I haven't read the entire thread but I think the point the opposition is making is that if you kick the PAT and make it an 8-point game, assuming your D makes the stop, you will only need 1 TD drive to potentially tie the game (with a 2 pointer) vs. 1 TD drive (PAT) plus a FG drive when not knowing what the clock situation will be because you turn it over to your D. In this game, that necessitated an onside kick which has a very low recovery rate (and even less so with the rules changes).

So how is only needing 1 TD drive (plus 2 pointer) not as good as needing 1 TD drive (PAT), PLUS needing to get the ball back again to mount a second drive for a FG where a low-probability onside kick is probably necessary to mount that second drive?

Because you've completely ignored the possibility of success on the early two-pointer. Here are the options when you score the TD and find yourself down 9.

1. Go for 2 and make it. You're now down 7. All you need is a TD and XP. You can strategize accordingly. Specifically, you won't worry so much about clock: you'd prefer to score with no time on the clock so the other guys can't beat you with a FG in regulation.
2. Go for 2 and fail. Okay, you're down 9. You know you need two scores. Bummer, but that's the consequence of failing the two-pointer. Your strategy is clear: score as fast as possible.
3. Kick the XP. You're down 8. You do not know if you need one score or two scores, because you do not know if you'll be successful on the two-pointer. You cannot choose an optimal strategy.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I think a lot of the conventional wisdom on this topic includes some baseline assumptions that attempting the 2-point conversion later increases the probability of success. Not sure how anyone can believe that.

This.

 

[droopdog7]

Man this is exhausting. I don't mind arguing about whether going for two early or late make any difference (I think going for it first is slightly better but whatever).

The problem is that many people here fail to understand the actual argument. They want to argue that under the premise of going for two early the attempt is missed already while going for two late leaves the option that you still might make it.

We ALL know that making or missing the 2-point attempt is the most important part of this equation. So to actually have the argument you have to assume you miss the attempt in BOTH cases. Period.

If you don't make that assumption then you aren't arguing what you think you're arguing.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I'm done with this. You think because the Cowboys converted an on-side kick that normally has a little less than a 2% chance of happening and the Cowboys won that having to need multiple score beyond a TD and a kicked extra point is is better than just needing a TD and a 50/50m chance on a 2 point conversion. If the Cowboys fail on the 2 point they lose and there was a 98% chance they they were going to lose as things went yesterday. The Cowboys got way way way beyond lucky on that on-side kick. Don't bother to reply because I'll just ignore you.
.
.

Your entire argument boils down to this. The two-point conversion early has a 0% chance of success and the two-point conversion late has a 50% chance of success. It's ridiculous.

 

[droopdog7]

Your entire argument boils down to this. The two-point conversion early has a 0% chance of success and the two-point conversion late has a 50% chance of success. It's ridiculous.

A gazillion times ridiculous.

 

[Runwildboys]

There’s a mental block going on early in this thread.


Somehow people think if we had kicked the extra point that there’s no way we’d have needed an onside kick.

Good post @JD_KaPow

We probably would have, yes. But even if we'd gotten a 2 point conversion on the next TD we only would have been tied. So either an inside kick or OT, and I'm no more confident about us winning in OT.

 

[Runwildboys]

Yes it is. They were never going to get 2 possessoins without the onside kick.

Miss the 2-point on the second TD, and you're in the same boat.

But probably with less time, because the Falcons probably don't go into prevent defense, allowing you to score so fast. The fact that they knew we needed 2 more scores made them more comfortable than they would have been if we'd only needed a TD and 2 point conversion, just to tie.

 

[Flamma]

You saw the game, right? That’s not at all what the opponent did.

I didn't see the game because I couldn't get a signal where I was. So I don't know the exact time on the clock.

 

[Clarkson]

Unless one of those options is adding more time onto the clock, then no, not at all.

Going for the 2 and missing it in that stage of the game eliminates the need or option for 2 later. Going for the much more likely XP keeps the game within 1 scoring drive.

By the way Atlanta also screwed up earlier going for 2. When you have a good sized lead, take the 1 point. You shouldn't even be thinking about a team needing 3 scores to tie you.

You should only go for 2:

1. When you have to
2. When you feel you have an overwhelming schematic advantage
3. Your kicker is hurt

I love analytics, love, love love them. But we are overthinking them. Use them for an edge not as a rule. Coaching football is still about feel. Feel where you are at any point in the game and reduce or eliminate opportunities for mistakes.

It's crazy to me that some of you don't get that today's decision was wrong.

Crazier that a highly paid NFL coach doesn't get that either.

why would you not want more info earlier on??? why would you wait??
going for it the 1st time gives you more info right away. waiting leaves you the same chance of converting but you don't know if you'll succeed until it's too late.

 

[JD_KaPow]

But probably with less time, because the Falcons probably don't go into prevent defense, allowing you to score so fast. The fact that they knew we needed 2 more scores made them more comfortable than they would have been if we'd only needed a TD and 2 point conversion, just to tie.

Not only that, the Cowboys would have been more complacent down 8. They would be playing to get the 2-pointer at the end and to leave the Falcons with no time to mount a final drive. So they'd have let the clock run down more between plays because they weren't trying to preserve clock. Down 8, the Cowboys would play it the same way they would down 7.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

The logic is almost like the Monte Hall problem.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

More information is better than less information. If you go for two early, it gives you more information

 

[DogFace]

But probably with less time, because the Falcons probably don't go into prevent defense, allowing you to score so fast. The fact that they knew we needed 2 more scores made them more comfortable than they would have been if we'd only needed a TD and 2 point conversion, just to tie.

First I’ve heard they were in prevent D. Bad move by them.

 

[Playmaker247]

Something I read in a similar discussion elsewhere, probably the easiest way to explain.... hopefully

"You’re either going to make or miss the 2 point conversion. If you’re going to miss it, why the hell would you want to learn that with 6 seconds left in the game instead of 6 minutes? It’s so irrational"

It really blows my mind how many people can read this logic and still be like “nah I’d rather wait to go for 2.” Like this whole debate isn’t even analytics, it’s basic logic.

 

[Playmaker247]

Man this is exhausting. I don't mind arguing about whether going for two early or late make any difference (I think going for it first is slightly better but whatever).

The problem is that many people here fail to understand the actual argument. They want to argue that under the premise of going for two early the attempt is missed already while going for two late leaves the option that you still might make it.

We ALL know that making or missing the 2-point attempt is the most important part of this equation. So to actually have the argument you have to assume you miss the attempt in BOTH cases. Period.

If you don't make that assumption then you aren't arguing what you think you're arguing.

Exactly! Why is this so hard for people to understand. Only way to truly assess what decision is correct you have to assume you miss the 2 point conversion, no matter if you go for it early or late.

 

[FriscoPhantom]

There's 2 scenarios: You go for it early; you go for it later.

So the discussion has 2 outcomes: Either you make the 2 point conversion in both scenarios, or you miss the 2 point conversion in both scenarios.

If you make the 2 point conversion in both scenarios, the outcome is identical - Tie game and no time on the clock.

If you miss the 2 point conversion in both scenarios, the outcomes are different - (1) Down by 2 with 1:49 remaining and a 6% chance of recovering the onside kick; (2) Down by 2 with 0:00 remaining and a 0% chance of winning.

 

[Hook'em#11]

Get a defense that can actually make a stop, or a game changing stop, or any stop. Then, maybe, just maybe a 2 point conversion will not be needed.

 

[MarcusRock]

Because you've completely ignored the possibility of success on the early two-pointer. Here are the options when you score the TD and find yourself down 9.

1. Go for 2 and make it. You're now down 7. All you need is a TD and XP. You can strategize accordingly. Specifically, you won't worry so much about clock: you'd prefer to score with no time on the clock so the other guys can't beat you with a FG in regulation.
2. Go for 2 and fail. Okay, you're down 9. You know you need two scores. Bummer, but that's the consequence of failing the two-pointer. Your strategy is clear: score as fast as possible.
3. Kick the XP. You're down 8. You do not know if you need one score or two scores, because you do not know if you'll be successful on the two-pointer. You cannot choose an optimal strategy.

- I get it. You're taking a 50/50 gamble (if those are the odds) to try to force a situation where you know you will only need 1 drive.

- But if you miss, you then need a much, much less probable 2 drives.

- Say a PAT is 85% probable. Aren't you in better shape taking that better risk to only needing 1 drive before taking your 50/50 shot? If you miss the PAT, you're still in the same boat as missing on your 50/50 shot and needing 2 drives with the same amount of clock left. To me, it seems like a sounder bet to the path to 1 drive.

- So you're taking a 50/50 shot at needing only 1 drive and not needing to take a 50/50 shot later versus taking an 85% shot to needing 1 drive where you'll need a 50/50 shot at extending the game to OT where you basically get another 50/50-ish shot at winning the game or you just tie.

The only benefit I can see to going for 2 earlier is you have a chance to go for a second 2-pointer after the next TD to outright win the game vs. going to OT. So going for the first 2-point attempt is the more aggressive call and does give you better self-deterministic options at the end of the game (theoretically) where you'd have a win/lose or tie/OT option at the end of the game versus tie/OT or just lose. But it is also riskier going for the win because you'd need to execute 2 consecutive 50/50 two-pointer shots.

So I guess the bigger philosophical question is, is overtime such a yucky place that it's worth those upfront riskier tries of going for a win in regulation?