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

[GhostOfPelluer]

But here's the reality of it all. If they kicked the extra point instead of the 2 point try they would have been down by only 8 points. Now if the other 31 head coaches were asked if they would rather be down by only 8 points with 5 minutes left or down by 9 points with only 5 minutes left knowing that it would require trying a play with only a 2% chance of success, just how many real NFL coaches, not wannabe fan head coaches, would chose being down by 9 instead of 8 points? Now don't say they would still need that field goal to win because those coaches wouldn't try that on-side kick if they made the 2 point attempt and in a tie game with under 2 minutes left because the on-side kick only has a 2% chance of working and that means that if they did that there would be a 98% chance that they would be giving the ball to the falcons at the Cowboys 45 yard line and only need 10-12 yards to kick the winning field goal. NFL coaches would have kicked off and taken their chances on holding them and try winning in OT.
.
.

But how many of those coaches would rather be down 7 with 5 minutes to go? That's what the play is attempting to do and had a 50/50 chance of accomplishing. Your strawman NFL coaches would have been wrong to wait and likely lost the game when the conversion was missed. Conventional wisdom is a misnomer in this instance.

 

[gjkoeppen]

good grief...

This is a ridiculous strawman.

How about asking these same coaches would they rather be down 7 points or 9 points going into the last five minutes because THAT’S the real question here which is where the percentages regarding two point conversion successes NOT VARYING DEPENDENT ON THE TIME IN THE GAME THEY ARE ATTEMPTED matters.

If you KNOW you NEED the two point conversion then it doesn’t matter when you attempt it based on pure statistical analysis.

Given that 2 point conversions fail more often than not, your preferred strategy would have a coaching staff put the outcome of the entire game on the line as late as possible on a play that is more likely to fail than not without any game time remaining to make up for the failure. We went for it as soon as we could because we KNEW we needed it AND, given that two point conversion rates in the league fail more often than not (lol and DON’T vary statistically based on when they are attempted in the game. You REALLY need to get this in your head), we could JUSTIFIABLY assume it was plausible and likely we were not going to convert it.

Given these realities about NFL football you go for two as soon as you possibly can if you know you need it so that if you fail, which is likely, you have the game time to make up for it. Waiting to the last play of the game to attempt a two point conversion that is more likely to fail than not ROBS the team of game time to make up for the failure. It’s not good game time management.

You guys arguing against this are completely rooted in psychological nonsense regarding how things “feel” that has no empirical validity to back it up while having no root in actual math. Again, this is classic gamblers fallacy mistaken thinking.

First your BIG percentage differential is all of 3 tenths of ONE percent difference on 2 point attempts.. A 2 point try is for all practical purposes is a 50/50 chance. How someone other than real NFL coaches, has nothing to do with this and yes TIME LEFT IN THE GAME plays a HUGE part in EVERY play run in the 4th quarter especially when at one point the team was down by 15 points. I also find it hilarious that you scoff at waiting to try the 2 point later because if it fails they're in the same situation they were in anyways. The HUGE difference is if the 2 point attempt is good on the last TD then there wouldn't have been any 2% chance on-side kick. NFL coaches would have kicked away and went for holding the falcons to no winning field goal and try to win in OT. Only because the football Gods smiled on the Cowboys on that on-side kick is any of this arguing going on. Most people outside of Dallas think the Cowboys should have lost that game especially needing that 2% on-side kick to do it.
.
.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

First your BIG percentage differential is all of 3 tenths of ONE percent difference on 2 point attempts.. A 2 point try is for all practical purposes is a 50/50 chance. How someone other than real NFL coaches, has nothing to do with this and yes TIME LEFT IN THE GAME plays a HUGE part in EVERY play run in the 4th quarter especially when at one point the team was down by 15 points. I also find it hilarious that you scoff at waiting to try the 2 point later because if it fails they're in the same situation they were in anyways. The HUGE difference is if the 2 point attempt is good on the last TD then there wouldn't have been any 2% chance on-side kick. NFL coaches would have kicked away and went for holding the falcons to no winning field goal and try to win in OT. Only because the football Gods smiled on the Cowboys on that on-side kick is any of this arguing going on. Most people outside of Dallas think the Cowboys should have lost that game especially needing that 2% on-side kick to do it.
.
.

Lmao..

Even IF it’s a straight 50/50 spilt on the success/fail rate, the SUCCESS RATE DOESN’T VARY BECAUSE YOU WAIT TO THE LAST PLAY (or close to it) TO ATTEMPT IT lmao

The ONLY distinction that matters between when MM went for two and when idiots like you think he should have went for two is that in lieu of failing, MM’s strategy gives you a far better chance to STILL win the damn game because of time management.

Your chosen path overwhelmingly would end in a L more often when the damn conversion fails because you’ve waited till the last possible second banking, like an idiot, on the two point conversion succeeding (at best a 50/50 split. It’s actually 48/52 success/fail) and even if an onside kick is recovered, the piss poor time management you displayed leaves your offense on the field in desperation mode because of time constraints to try and drive within FG range.

We recovered the kick and had time to march down the field without feeling like we had to press. ****, if anything Moore was too conservative because we had so much time to play with because of MM’s impressive decision to go for two when he did and we were stuck with a 46 yard FG attempt. I’d have like to have gotten closer. All of the time we had to move within FG range after the recovery was DIRECTLY attributable to MM going for two when he did.

This isn’t even hard math lmao. Yet you can’t see this simple, simple case of obvious strategy because you want to base football decisions on “feels”

 

[gjkoeppen]

I don't think it's some super special play. I think it's the play they called when they went for 2. Based on the fact that they called that play, I have no logical reason to believe they wouldn't have called that play. BECAUSE THEY CALLED THAT PLAY.

Your entire "argument" is based off some fantasy land assumption that if they kicked the XP first, the second 2 point attempt would have somehow been a different play call that would have magically worked and negated the need for an onside kick.

A 2 point attempt is from the 2 yard line. How many plays do you think the Cowboys have or would use for plays from the 2 yard line? You are locked on the idea that because the Cowboys chose one of many many plays they have and could run from the 2 yard line that any time they get there that they would run the same play. There is ZERO logical reason to think that if the Cowboys waited until their last TD to make a 2 point attempt that it would have been that same play. It's not fantasy land to think of all the plays the Cowboys could run from the 2 yard line that there is a belief that the play they did run would be the same play out of all the plays they could run from the 2 yard line was going to be the same play they would run on the last TD 2 point attempt. Now even if you're right it is possible on a 50/50 play that it worked on that 2 point try. All you have is because the football Gods smiled on the Cowboys on that on-side kick and won that you think no other plan would have worked..
.
.

 

[thechosen1n2]

Why?

Because, if you dont make it on first attempt you now put yourself behind the 8 ball. You now need the ball twice because there is no 9 point play. You take your points and go for 2 on the next score. The reasoning that we have to get a 2 point conversion at some point anyway is bad reasoning.

 

[gjkoeppen]

But how many of those coaches would rather be down 7 with 5 minutes to go? That's what the play is attempting to do and had a 50/50 chance of accomplishing. Your strawman NFL coaches would have been wrong to wait and likely lost the game when the conversion was missed. Conventional wisdom is a misnomer in this instance.

Think about what you just said. You're saying that IF the 2 point attempt was good, but it wasn't, that the coaches would want to be down by only 7 and then saying that by kicking the extra point and waiting until the last TD to attempt the 2 point try was missed and the Cowboys would have lost. Now lets look at 2 things. First because the actual 2 point attempt failed you automatically assume that it would fail if they waited and did it after the last TD not knowing for sure if they even would have used the same play. The Cowboys have how many plays that they could run from the 2 yard line and so it's written in stone that they would have tried that same play then? the second thing is since the football Gods smiled on the Cowboys the way it went, who's to say they wouldn't have smiled on them if that 2 point failed on that last TD? But if that 2 point attempt worked then the Cowboys wouldn't have tried that 2% on-side kick and would have kicked away and played defense and went for the win in OT.
.
.

 

[droopdog7]

Think about what you just said. You're saying that IF the 2 point attempt was good, but it wasn't, that the coaches would want to be down by only 7 and then saying that by kicking the extra point and waiting until the last TD to attempt the 2 point try was missed and the Cowboys would have lost. Now lets look at 2 things. First because the actual 2 point attempt failed you automatically assume that it would fail if they waited and did it after the last TD not knowing for sure if they even would have used the same play. The Cowboys have how many plays that they could run from the 2 yard line and so it's written in stone that they would have tried that same play then? the second thing is since the football Gods smiled on the Cowboys the way it went, who's to say they wouldn't have smiled on them if that 2 point failed on that last TD? But if that 2 point attempt worked then the Cowboys wouldn't have tried that 2% on-side kick and would have kicked away and played defense and went for the win in OT.
.
.

I'm sorry but your reasoning skills are complete gibberish.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

A 2 point attempt is from the 2 yard line. How many plays do you think the Cowboys have or would use for plays from the 2 yard line? You are locked on the idea that because the Cowboys chose one of many many plays they have and could run from the 2 yard line that any time they get there that they would run the same play. There is ZERO logical reason to think that if the Cowboys waited until their last TD to make a 2 point attempt that it would have been that same play. It's not fantasy land to think of all the plays the Cowboys could run from the 2 yard line that there is a belief that the play they did run would be the same play out of all the plays they could run from the 2 yard line was going to be the same play they would run on the last TD 2 point attempt. Now even if you're right it is possible on a 50/50 play that it worked on that 2 point try. All you have is because the football Gods smiled on the Cowboys on that on-side kick and won that you think no other plan would have worked..
.
.

I'm sorry but your reasoning skills are complete gibberish.

What’s up droopdog!

 

[JD_KaPow]

Because, if you dont make it on first attempt you now put yourself behind the 8 ball. You now need the ball twice because there is no 9 point play. You take your points and go for 2 on the next score. The reasoning that we have to get a 2 point conversion at some point anyway is bad reasoning.

But if you fail on the later attempt you simply lose. How is that better? I'd rather be behind the 8-ball than completely out of it.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

But if you fail on the later attempt you simply lose. How is that better? I'd rather be behind the 8-ball than completely out of it.

dude, I don’t think this has a snowball’s chance in hell of hitting home with this guy. The percentages are not with us lol

 

[gjkoeppen]

Lmao..

Even IF it’s a straight 50/50 spilt on the success/fail rate, the SUCCESS RATE DOESN’T VARY BECAUSE YOU WAIT TO THE LAST PLAY (or close to it) TO ATTEMPT IT lmao

The ONLY distinction that matters between when MM went for two and when idiots like you think he should have went for two is that in lieu of failing, MM’s strategy gives you a far better chance to STILL win the damn game because of time management.

Your chosen path overwhelmingly would end in a L more often when the damn conversion fails because you’ve waited till the last possible second banking, like an idiot, on the two point conversion succeeding (at best a 50/50 split. It’s actually 48/52 success/fail) and even if an onside kick is recovered, the piss poor time management you displayed leaves your offense on the field in desperation mode because of time constraints to try and drive within FG range.

We recovered the kick and had time to march down the field without feeling like we had to press. ****, if anything Moore was too conservative because we had so much time to play with because of MM’s impressive decision to go for two when he did and we were stuck with a 46 yard FG attempt. I’d have like to have gotten closer. All of the time we had to move within FG range after the recovery was DIRECTLY attributable to MM going for two when he did.

This isn’t even hard math lmao. Yet you can’t see this simple, simple case of obvious strategy because you want to base football decisions on “feels”

You are HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just about EVERY announcer, analyst, sportswriter have said the Cowboys are EXTREMELY lucky to have won that game and you come back with waiting until the last TD would overwhelmingly end in a loss. Waiting until the last TD to try the 2 point attempt and if it was good then the Cowboys wouldn't have to rely on a 2% chance of success on-side kick. Feelings have nothing to do with doing smart strategy. Why is it that the articles on this game say that it was a mistake to try the 2 point attempt when they did? You are hilarious.
.
.

 

[aikemirv]

A 2 point attempt is from the 2 yard line. How many plays do you think the Cowboys have or would use for plays from the 2 yard line? You are locked on the idea that because the Cowboys chose one of many many plays they have and could run from the 2 yard line that any time they get there that they would run the same play. There is ZERO logical reason to think that if the Cowboys waited until their last TD to make a 2 point attempt that it would have been that same play. It's not fantasy land to think of all the plays the Cowboys could run from the 2 yard line that there is a belief that the play they did run would be the same play out of all the plays they could run from the 2 yard line was going to be the same play they would run on the last TD 2 point attempt. Now even if you're right it is possible on a 50/50 play that it worked on that 2 point try. All you have is because the football Gods smiled on the Cowboys on that on-side kick and won that you think no other plan would have worked..
.
.

Yeah, I would like to see the 2pt conversion rate inside 1 minute and compare it to the rate at any other time.

If that rate is lower then I might go with McCarthy's plan. If it's higher I stick with the XP plan to get it to 8 points.

All single plays are in a bubble. Just because they failed with 5 minutes does not mean they would have failed at the end of the game.

I understand all other things being equal you may have 1/1000 chance better of winning if you go for the 2 early.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

You are HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just about EVERY announcer, analyst, sportswriter have said the Cowboys are EXTREMELY lucky to have won that game and you come back with waiting until the last TD would overwhelmingly end in a loss. Waiting until the last TD to try the 2 point attempt and if it was good then the Cowboys wouldn't have to rely on a 2% chance of success on-side kick. Feelings have nothing to do with doing smart strategy. Why is it that the articles on this game say that it was a mistake to try the 2 point attempt when they did? You are hilarious.
.
.

Of course they were ******** lucky!!

And they were put in a position to be lucky by MM’s brilliant time management and decision to go for two when he did.

and who cares what mathematically illiterate pundits think? All that means is that they are as dumb as you when it comes to this.

lmao...

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Yeah, I would like to see the 2pt conversion rate inside 1 minute and compare it to the rate at any other time.

If that rate is lower then I might go with McCarthy's plan. If it's higher I stick with the XP plan to get it to 8 points.

All single plays are in a bubble. Just because they failed with 5 minutes does not mean they would have failed at the end of the game.

I understand all other things being equal you may have 1/1000 chance better of winning if you go for the 2 early.

Yeah, I would like to see the 2pt conversion rate inside 1 minute and compare it to the rate at any other time.

If that rate is lower then I might go with McCarthy's plan. If it's higher I stick with the XP plan to get it to 8 points.

All single plays are in a bubble. Just because they failed with 5 minutes does not mean they would have failed at the end of the game.

I understand all other things being equal you may have 1/1000 chance better of winning if you go for the 2 early.

The rate doesn’t vary given the time the two point conversion is attempted.

This is no different than tossing a coin 20 times in a row and it having it land on tails every time.

Fallaciously, through something called the gambler’s fallacy, many people think the 21st toss is more likely to land in heads.

No.

It’s still a 50/50 probability even though heads hasn’t landed in 20 tosses. It’s irrelevant. It doesn’t affect the individual odds of a single toss.

It’s no different with 2 point conversion rates In the NFL which are basically a 48/52 success/fail ratio (got this off a betting web site) and that’s not going to change because you waited till the last play, or close to it, to attempt the conversion.

 

[aikemirv]

The rate doesn’t vary given the time the two point conversion is attempted.

This is no different than tossing a coin 20 times in a row and it having it land on tails every time.

Fallaciously, through something called the gambler’s fallacy, many people think the 21st toss is more likely to land in heads.

No.

It’s still a 50/50 probability even though heads hasn’t landed in 20 tosses. It’s irrelevant. It doesn’t affect the individual odds of a single toss.

It’s no different with 2 point conversion rates In the NFL which are basically a 48/52 success/fail ratio (got this off a betting web site) and that’s not going to change because you waited till the last play, or close to it, to attempt the conversion.

Where are the stats - don't just tell me that it does not vary - it is not a flip of the coin. Just because the odds over time resemble a coin flip it is not one!

Variables effect a 2 point conversion, they do not effect a coin flip!

 

[Valkyr]

I thought I understood all this but now my head hurts.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Where are the stats - don't just tell me that it does not vary - it is not a flip of the coin. Just because the odds over time resemble a coin flip it is not one!

Variables effect a 2 point conversion, they do not effect a coin flip!

Nonsense. 2 point conversions are converted at a consistent rate and that rate since the NFL adopted them is basically 48% of the time.

it is no different than a coin toss. This is called odds and when you have a significant body of data since the 2 point conversion was instituted in the league in 1994 showing a 48/52 success/fail rate you KNOW what the damn odds are and can make informed strategic decisions based on this. There is no statistically significant variable that exists with less than one minute in the game that does not exist at any other time in the game lmao.

MM played the odds and won.

glad he was smart enough to see it.

Aren’t you?

 

[KingintheNorth]

Where are the stats - don't just tell me that it does not vary - it is not a flip of the coin. Just because the odds over time resemble a coin flip it is not one!

Variables effect a 2 point conversion, they do not effect a coin flip!

Not sure how people don't get this.

A minimum of 24 variables on every single football play:

• Offensive playcall
• Defensive playcall
• 22 individual players knowing and executing their assignments

This doesn't factor weather, field condition, crowd, injuries, pressure (real or imagined), and a bunch of other issues that can present themselves in a football game


But sure, it's no different from a coin toss.

People should be embarrassed.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Not sure how people don't get this.

A minimum of 24 variables on every single football play:

• Offensive playcall
• Defensive playcall
• 22 individual players knowing and executing their assignments

This doesn't factor weather, field condition, crowd, injuries, pressure (real or imagined), and a bunch of other issues that can present themselves in a football game


But sure, it's no different from a coin toss.

People should be embarrassed.

yeah, so if the success rate for two point conversions since the NFL adopted it in 1994 is 48%, what statistically significant variable/s existed at 4:57 when MM went for two that didn’t exist (or vice versa) if he had waited to go for two with say, 10 seconds in the game?

be very specific on your quantifiable methodology lol

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Again, a coin toss landing 20 times in a row on heads doesn’t affect the odds of the 21st toss.

Going for two with 10 seconds left in the game doesn’t increase the odds of success just because you ******* waited over and above going for two with five minutes left in the game

It’s 48% either time just like that 21st toss of a coin is always going to be 50% heads/tails.

This thread truly is embarrassing lmao.
You’re right about that.