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

[pansophy]

You're 100% certain that an 8 point game is a one-possession game?

That is the point that seems to be eluding people.

 

[KingintheNorth]

You're 100% certain that an 8 point game is a one-possession game?

I am 100% sure that a 9 point game is not a one-possession game.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I am 100% sure that a 9 point game is not a one-possession game.

Well sure. We're 100% sure a 9-point deficit is two possessions and we're 100% sure a 7-point deficit is one possession. Those were the possibilities when they went for 2: a 50% chance of a two-possession game (9) and a 50% chance of a one-possession game (7).

What about down 8? There's a 50% chance it's a two-possession game and a 50% chance it's a one-possession game. It's exactly the same.

(Yes, I'm ignoring the possibility of missing an XP and I'm calling the 2-pointer a straight 50-50 proposition, but none of that changes the logic).

 

[aikemirv]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29944126/why-did-cowboys-go-2-9-points-all-knowing-future

ESPN article confirming we made the correct decision.

Are people still arguing against math and logic here?

What if that team could look into the future and know whether the conversion attempt succeeds, and then play the rest of the game with that knowledge in hand? That's exactly what the Cowboys did on Sunday.

They did not peer into the future - they created the scenario that they then had to deal with.

They could have created a scenario the other way that they had to deal with.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

I am 100% sure that a 9 point game is not a one-possession game.

Yep and if we fail the 2 point attempt at, say, 15-30 seconds left in the game versus 4:57, we’ve just screwed ourselves out of valuable time to recover from not making the 2 point conversion. That’s why when you absolutely KNOW you need two points you go for it at the first and earliest opportunity to give yourself a chance to recover from not making it.

 

[Trajan]

Yep and if we fail the 2 point attempt at, say, 15-30 seconds left in the game versus 4:57, we’ve just screwed ourselves out of valuable time to recover from not making the 2 point conversion. That’s why when you absolutely KNOW you need two points you go for it at the first and earliest opportunity to give yourself a chance to recover from not making it.

Exactly. Not sure why some want to wait with little to no time to decide. Know early and play to maximize your chances.

 

[Lutonio]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29944126/why-did-cowboys-go-2-9-points-all-knowing-future

ESPN article confirming we made the correct decision.

Are people still arguing against math and logic here?

Since when do we care about what ESPN says? The consistent view around here is that they’re a joke. We literally have an emoji of a dog peeing on their logo.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/09/21/going-for-two-when-down-nine-doesnt-make-sense/

And here’s one for the other side. I thought it had some interesting points.

“However, as noted last night by Hall of Fame head coach Tony Dungy, going for two and failing takes significant pressure off the team that’s leading, since it knows it has a two-score lead. Going for one makes it a one-score game, giving the team that’s leading a different mindset when it gets the ball.”

“Psychology is and always will be the water’s edge of analytics. Numbers and formulas and percentages have their place. They can’t, won’t, and never will factor intangible realities like the mindset of a team up by one score versus the mindset of a team up by two scores.”

I understand the math and reasoning behind going for the conversion earlier, but I personally disagree with it. Maybe it’s because psychology is what I do every day for work, but the intangible factors mentioned here resonate for me.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Since when do we care about what ESPN says? The consistent view around here is that they’re a joke. We literally have an emoji of a dog peeing on their logo.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/09/21/going-for-two-when-down-nine-doesnt-make-sense/

And here’s one for the other side. I thought it had some interesting points.

“However, as noted last night by Hall of Fame head coach Tony Dungy, going for two and failing takes significant pressure off the team that’s leading, since it knows it has a two-score lead. Going for one makes it a one-score game, giving the team that’s leading a different mindset when it gets the ball.”

“Psychology is and always will be the water’s edge of analytics. Numbers and formulas and percentages have their place. They can’t, won’t, and never will factor intangible realities like the mindset of a team up by one score versus the mindset of a team up by two scores.”

I understand the math and reasoning behind going for the conversion earlier, but I personally disagree with it. Maybe it’s because psychology is what I do every day for work, but the intangible factors mentioned here resonate for me.

What would ATL’s mindset have been if we kicked the XP versus going for two and how does it affect the analytics?

I get what you’re saying and I get what Dungy’s trying to say but it’s hard for me to put any real stock in this. If we converted the 2 point conversion or kicked the XP and ATL focuses more accordingly because it’s a one possession game and scores because of it when they get the ball back, we still lose the game. If anything this just enhances the argument for going for two when MM did.

 

[austin88]

No. Here are the options:

1. Go for 2 early, succeed. You're down 7. Great. Your best strategy is to slow things down on your next drive (or at least not rush). Ideally, you leave very little time on the clock for the Falcons to have a last-second FG drive in regulation.
2. Go for 2 early, fail. You're down 9. Bummer. You have to go fast fast fast to have any chance.
3. Kick XP early. You're down 8. You don't know what your best strategy is. Every team I've ever seen in this situation plays it slow and tries to score with little time left, thereby pinning everything on the 2-pointer. It's a good strategy if you end up making the 2-pointer. It's a bad strategy if you end up missing it. But you simply don't know what your best approach is, because you don't know how the 2-pointer is going to turn out. Much better to know in advance.

Your argument boils down to "it makes no difference when you try the two-pointer." And that's possible. But trying it early definitely isn't a worse option.

Just to restate this slightly:

Right after you score the first touchdown, there are four possibilities:
1. Try 2 point conversion after first touchdown, succeed
2. Wait and try 2 point conversion after the 2nd touchdown, succeed
3. Try 2 point conversion after the first touchdown, fail
4. Wait and try 2 point conversion after the 2nd touchdown, fail

So far as I can see, the expected utility of (1) and (2) are the same -- same benefit, same odds of success -- so they aren't a factor in the analysis. All that matters is (3) and (4), the case where the conversion fails. And (3) is preferable to (4), because in that case you find out sooner that you'll need two more possessions and can approach your time-outs, next drive, etc., accordingly.

Since (3) and (4) -- the case where the 2 point conversion fails -- are the only cases that matter for the decision, then saying kicking the XP first makes it a "one-possession" game just fundamentally misunderstands the problem. The only cases that are relevant to the decision are the ones in which you need two more possessions. Same for the claim that it is a mistake to rely on an onside kick, since it is so low-probability of success. Again, the only relevant cases are ones in which you have to try an onside klck.

 

[gongjr]

Over the last 5 years, it's actually around 2/3.

It's not about how many possessions you're going to get: you have no control over that. It's about how many possessions you're going to need. And you don't know the answer to that until you know how the 2-pointer worked out. Why wait to get that critical piece of information? Why not get that information now?

Calling an 8-point game a one-possession game doesn't magically make it one. It's only a one-possession game 50% of the time.

If you have no control over this then that should tell you something about your defense. Not even arguing about this game, but players and how/who you're playing matters. If I've shut a team down 5/6 drive, and I have the opportunity to avoid an onside kick. I'm taking it.

 

[KingintheNorth]

Yep and if we fail the 2 point attempt at, say, 15-30 seconds left in the game versus 4:57, we’ve just screwed ourselves out of valuable time to recover from not making the 2 point conversion. That’s why when you absolutely KNOW you need two points you go for it at the first and earliest opportunity to give yourself a chance to recover from not making it.

So the question becomes what is the likelihood of getting two possessions and a stop in 4:57, also considering the immediate possession is your opponents, who should be able to take close to 2 minutes off the clock in that subsequent possession. So at best, you are looking at only 3 minutes to work with. What was our timeout situation? How was our defense performing/matching up to that point? None of those factors were in our favor.

It worked out and thank the maker that it did, but at that point in the game, I'm looking at the fact that things would have to go beyond perfect for me to get the ball back twice.

 

[JD_KaPow]

If you have no control over this then that should tell you something about your defense. Not even arguing about this game, but players and how/who you're playing matters. If I've shut a team down 5/6 drive, and I have the opportunity to avoid an onside kick. I'm taking it.

The only way to avoid the onside kick is to make the two-point conversion. That's true no matter when you attempt the two-pointer. If you attempt it the first time and miss, you need the onside kick. If you attempt it the second time and miss, you need the onside kick. Make it either time and you don't need the onside kick. There's no difference. The onside kick is the inevitable consequence of missing the two-pointer.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

So the question becomes what is the likelihood of getting two possessions and a stop in 4:57, also considering the immediate possession is your opponents, who should be able to take close to 2 minutes off the clock in that subsequent possession. So at best, you are looking at only 3 minutes to work with. What was our timeout situation? How was our defense performing/matching up to that point? None of those factors were in our favor.

It worked out and thank the maker that it did, but at that point in the game, I'm looking at the fact that things would have to go beyond perfect for me to get the ball back twice.

MM didn’t approach the 2 point conversion from the perspective he was going to need to get the ball back twice. He went with a 50% chance at the earliest possible time to cut the lead to a TD and an XP which is a one possession game. We failed but he left himself 4:57 to recover from this failure versus what would have been far less time if he had waited to go for two after the second TD.

 

[JD_KaPow]

So the question becomes what is the likelihood of getting two possessions and a stop in 4:57, also considering the immediate possession is your opponents, who should be able to take close to 2 minutes off the clock in that subsequent possession. So at best, you are looking at only 3 minutes to work with. What was our timeout situation? How was our defense performing/matching up to that point? None of those factors were in our favor.

It worked out and thank the maker that it did, but at that point in the game, I'm looking at the fact that things would have to go beyond perfect for me to get the ball back twice.

Not sure what your point is. Yes, it was extremely unlikely that we were going to win. But none of the things you're talking about--the likelihood of the second possession, the likelihood of the stop, etc.--have any bearing on the decision about WHEN to try the two-pointer.

If you wait to take the two-pointer later, you STILL need two possessions if you miss it.

 

[gongjr]

The only way to avoid the onside kick is to make the two-point conversion. That's true no matter when you attempt the two-pointer. If you attempt it the first time and miss, you need the onside kick. If you attempt it the second time and miss, you need the onside kick. Make it either time and you don't need the onside kick. There's no difference. The onside kick is the inevitable consequence of missing the two-pointer.

That's not a foregone conclusion with a 1 possession when you have the ball in your hands. You can control the clock and can choose force a win or go home scenario. My main point here is that it's not a black/white decision.

 

[KingintheNorth]

Yep and if we fail the 2 point attempt at, say, 15-30 seconds left in the game versus 4:57, we’ve just screwed ourselves out of valuable time to recover from not making the 2 point conversion. That’s why when you absolutely KNOW you need two points you go for it at the first and earliest opportunity to give yourself a chance to recover from not making it.

This assumes you have control of the 4:57 remaining. Even the most inept coach (Dan Quinn, Jason Garrett) should be able to accidentally take 2 minutes off that since we had no timeouts left.

 

[JD_KaPow]

That's not a foregone conclusion with a 1 possession when you have the ball in your hands. You can control the clock and can choose force a win or go home scenario. My main point here is that it's not a black/white decision.

The problem is, you don't know what to do with the clock you control. If you're going to make the two-pointer, you want the clock to be at 0. If you're going to miss the two-pointer, you want there to be time on the clock because you need the onside kick.
It wasn't a foregone conclusion when they tried the 2-pointer early, either. Make it and no need for an onside kick. Miss it and you need an onside kick. The only difference was when you decide to find out if you make the 2-pointer or not.

 

[CowboyFrog]

You absolutely go for 2 as early as you can when you know your going to need it, why wouldn't you? your chances are the same with 4 minutes left as they are with 4 seconds...better to know what your up against than not.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

This assumes you have control of the 4:57 remaining. Even the most inept coach (Dan Quinn, Jason Garrett) should be able to accidentally take 2 minutes off that since we had no timeouts left.

Yeah but even if you choose to cut the lead to 8 instead of trying to cut it to 7 you still might not get the ball back. MM has no control over how the defense plays when they have to go on the field and perform and that’s true no matter what we chose to do at 4:57.

This decision is all about knowing what you need to know as soon as you can know it.

 

[JD_KaPow]

This assumes you have control of the 4:57 remaining. Even the most inept coach (Dan Quinn, Jason Garrett) should be able to accidentally take 2 minutes off that since we had no timeouts left.

Sure, they should have lost either way. But the way they did it gave them the possibility of controlling the clock and knowing what to do with it. Waiting means that you don't know what you want to do with the clock if you do happen to get the opportunity.