Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by JD_KaPow, Sep 20, 2020.
Mike and those damn analytics, lol!
The Falcons were never down 15, so no they didn't.
If you kick it first, the game is still a one score game you just need the 2pt after the next TD.
Missing it early can deflate your players.
Even with how it worked out, there still was no benefit to going for it early.
The only possible benefit is catching the other team off guard a little and how you manage the clock on the next drive knowing you need two scores still.
So I was all over the insane people complaining about going for two early and even started my own post after the game that didn’t make cut here.
As much as it makes sense to go for two early, you’re not going to convince the people against it for one simple reason.
They’re implicitly giving the cowboys two chances to make one 2-point conversion. In other words, they already know we missed the 2-point try the first time. So they want to turn back time, kick the extra point and get a SECOND try on the last touchdown.
Knowing what you need to do early is much better than knowing late.
No, you don't know how many scores you need if you kick the XP. You need either a TD and a 2-pointer, or a TD (with a failed 2-pointer) and a FG. You do not know what it will take to win.
The only thing you accomplish by waiting is taking the onside kick option entirely off the table. I'm not saying it's a great option, but you don't even have that if you wait.
My thought is always keep it a 1 score game. Otherwise, you're going to rely on a kicker and luck to save you. That's what happened today and we got lucky.
Found this chart. Down 9 with 5:00 to go it is slightly higher EV to for 2 in this scenario, as noted by the orange, but it extremely close.
"When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all)."
So it looks like EVERYONE is right. This specific scenario is heavily based on psychology and not the data, since the data is very close.
The "only possible benefit" you describe is exactly the benefit. You know what you need to do on the next drive.
If your players are so soft that they won't play hard after missing the 2-pointer, then I don't want those guys. The Cowboys sure didn't fold today.
im saying early in the game they tried a 2 and failed and it cost them the game
Sounds good except if you dont get it like they didmt, it makes it STILL a 2 POSSESSION game, you make the field goal it's a ONE POSSESSION GAME, what's hard about that!?. Hettimgthe ball is tough to come bu in the NFL my friend it's not guaranteed
That's got nothing to do with what we're discussing here.
Good lord. It's only a one-possession game if you end up making the 2-pointer later. Why are you assuming they'll make that? I mean, we know they failed on the 2-pointer when they did try it.
An 8-point deficit isn't really a "one-possession game." It might be, but you simply don't know.
This is what arguing over a false viewpoint looks like. Going for 2 before you need to is a losing strategy.
It isn't though.
In the long run, you will win more games going for it early than late.
That is a COMPLETELY different issue. That was dumb.
In our case, we knew we needed to go for two at some point.
It makes more sense in my head thinking it as possession instead of scores. I like the game being guaranteed one possession instead of setting up to gamble on an onside kick.
Have you played football before...?
What are you talking about? If we miss the 2-point on the second try we still need an onside kick. But we might have less time in the clock because we don’t have the same urgency.
You don’t get two tries at the 2-point conversion.