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

[JD_KaPow]

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.

But you can only think of it as a one-possession game if you assume the 2-pointer at the end is guaranteed to succeed.
And you can only think of it as setting up a gamble on an onside kick if you assume the 2-pointer early is guaranteed to fail.
In reality, you need to try a 2-pointer, and your odds of success are the same in both scenarios.

 

[Alweezy]

I feel like the only statistics that matter in my judgement of this situation is:

What would Garrett do?

And Jason Garrett would have undoubtedly gone for 1 point there, to extend the game, because it is the smart thing to do, and somehow we'd lose this game.

So anything that is the opposite of Jason Garrett style coaching right now, is change. And change may not always be good, or strategically sound, or even mathematically reasonable...but I'm going to roll with it as long as there is a coaching reason behind the moves. I just want the play calling in those situations to be better and actually give us a chance to execute the conversions. We might can get that cleaned up.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The information is irrelevant early if you fail to convert.

You cannot assume you will get the ball back twice and you also cannot rule out that something else may happen in your favor (ex: safety against the other team) that would make that 2 point conversion look even more stupid in hindsight.

The goal is to get within one score and go for 2 only when you have to and they did not have to at that point.

I checked. There has never been a safety in the fourth quarter against a team with an 8- or 9-point lead.

 

[Nav22]

That is the only benefit to going for it then. That the game rest in the 2 point conversion rather than the chance for an onside and if you fail it is over. I like the former rather than the later- 2 pt are a 50-50 proposition, onside kick is less than 1-10 I think. Also, I very much doubt you run the ball for 2 with the game on the line at the end and I would rather pass.

If we converted and cut the lead to 7, then we’d know we’re TRULY down 1 score.

Because we failed, we knew we needed 2 more scores.

That’s the thing with cutting the lead to 8. It “feels” like you’re down by 1 score, but you’re actually either down 1 score or 2 scores. You just don’t know which one yet.

Had we kicked the PAT to cut it to 8, then we’d be treating the rest of the game as if we only need 1 more score. There wouldn’t be the same sense of urgency to score twice.

 

[droopdog7]

If we converted and cut the lead to 7, then we’d know we’re TRULY down 1 score.

Because we failed, we knew we needed 2 more scores.

That’s the thing with cutting the lead to 8. It “feels” like you’re down by 1 score, but you’re actually either down 1 score or 2 scores. You just don’t know which one yet.

Had we kicked the PAT to cut it to 8, then we’d be treating the rest of the game as if we only need 1 more score. There wouldn’t be the same sense of urgency to score twice.

I’m telling you, as much sense as it makes you’re never going to convince people that don’t understand that they’re essentially arguing for a do over.

 

[aikemirv]

If we converted and cut the lead to 7, then we’d know we’re TRULY down 1 score.

Because we failed, we knew we needed 2 more scores.

That’s the thing with cutting the lead to 8. It “feels” like you’re down by 1 score, but you’re actually either down 1 score or 2 scores. You just don’t know which one yet.

Had we kicked the PAT to cut it to 8, then we’d be treating the rest of the game as if we only need 1 more score. There wouldn’t be the same sense of urgency to score twice.

Not really, if you kick the extra point you are down by a TD and a two point conversion. The way we did it, you are down by a TD and a onside kick and then a drive after the onside kick assuming you have enough time left for that.

A 2 point conversion in that situation has probably 60% chance (2018 rate). The other scenario (down by 9) has less than a 6% probability. Granted the 2 pt conversion just gets you to overtime but the other scenario has a 95% chance for a loss

 

[Proof]

I understand the point being made, but it’s flimsy at best.

stat heads have screamed to go for two on the first score when it doesn’t change the possible outcomes. Not when missing means you’re guaranteed to be down two scores.

a team is far more likely to fold after since their odds of winning or tying just went down dramatically than they are to rise up now that they “know what they need to do to win”

 

[8FOR!3]

I do agree that you go for 2 after the first touchdown it was the right call.

 

[droopdog7]

I understand the point being made, but it’s flimsy at best.

stat heads have screamed to go for two on the first score when it doesn’t change the possible outcomes. Not when missing means you’re guaranteed to be down two scores.

a team is far more likely to fold after since their odds of winning or tying just went down dramatically than they are to rise up now that they “know what they need to do to win”

Far more likely to fold based on what? If anything, it gives you more urgency and it makes the other team more relaxed. The idea that missing the two point conversion on the second score is better is make believe.

 

[Nav22]

Not really, if you kick the extra point you are down by a TD and a two point conversion. The way we did it, you are down by a TD and a onside kick and then a drive after the onside kick assuming you have enough time left for that.

A 2 point conversion in that situation has probably 60% chance (2018 rate). The other scenario (down by 9) has less than a 6% probability. Granted the 2 pt conversion just gets you to overtime but the other scenario has a 95% chance for a loss

Okay, let’s assume the Cowboys DON’T recover the onside kick.

So they’re down 39-24 and score a TD to make it 39-30. You’re saying “kick the PAT and cut it to 8.”

But then you’d still need another TD and 2-point conversion. So EITHER WAY, you’d need to convert a 2-point conversion.

Why put that off until later?

If you convert and cut the lead to 39-32, great! You know you’re down 1 TD.

If you don’t convert, then at least you know you’re still down 2 scores.

Putting off the 2-point conversion just makes you THINK you’re down 1 score. You still need to convert the 2 to make that true, otherwise you’re really down 2 scores.

 

[Proof]

Far more likely to fold based on what? If anything, it gives you more urgency and it makes the other team more relaxed. The idea that missing the two point conversion on the second score is better is make believe.

admittedly that’s more intuition than empirical, so I won’t hang my hat on it.

No one ever said missing it on the 2nd one is better tho, that’s a straw man argument. It’s more that being down two scores is better than one. Just foolish in general.
They won tho so I’m not really looking to argue much. Just don’t like smug lectures that have no legs

 

[Floatyworm]

Jerry Jones should send Arthur Blank a few of these......

 

[HungryLion]

Idk. There’s an argument to be made. That the last touchdown was easier because the cowboys were down 9.

Think about this. If the cowboys were down 8. The falcons defense would do everything possible to prevent the TD. Knowing the game was on the line.


With a 9 point lead. The defense is thinking. Ok. Just make them burn as much time as possible. But as long as we make them burn a lot of time and then get the onside kick. We win.

The defense being called is different with a 9 point lead vs an 8 point lead.

 

[droopdog7]

admittedly that’s more intuition than empirical, so I won’t hang my hat on it.

No one ever said missing it on the 2nd one is better tho, that’s a straw man argument. It’s more that being down two scores is better than one. Just foolish in general.
They won tho so I’m not really looking to argue much. Just don’t like smug lectures that have no legs

Um, this is the crux of my argument. What people are REALLY arguing for is a do over in the 2-point conversion. You’re taking the fact that we already missed the first one and trying to turn back the clock. If your arguing the decision to go for two on the first TD is the issue, you don’t get to take the fact that we already missed the first one and leave open the the possibility that we might make the second one.

 

[droopdog7]

Idk. There’s an argument to be made. That the last touchdown was easier because the cowboys were down 9.

Think about this. If the cowboys were down 8. The falcons defense would do everything possible to prevent the TD. Knowing the game was on the line.


With a 9 point lead. The defense is thinking. Ok. Just make them burn as much time as possible. But as long as we make them burn a lot of time and then get the onside kick. We win.

The defense being called is different with a 9 point lead vs an 8 point lead.

Not only that, but the cowboys know they need a score and the ball back. So scoring as quickly as possible, as opposed to trying to balance time and score on the chance that we make the two.

 

[Proof]

Um, this is the crux of my argument. What people are REALLY arguing for is a do over in the 2-point conversion. You’re taking the fact that we already missed the first one and trying to turn back the clock. If your arguing the decision to go for two on the first TD is the issue, you don’t get to take the fact that we already missed the first one and leave open the the possibility that we might make the second one.

again. Not really looking to argue and you’re really getting into the weeds here. You’re not even the OP so I’m not particularly focused on the crux of your argument. Anyway. Enjoy your night

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Sigh. Why is this so hard to understand? By kicking the xp, you're hoping for luck (making the two-pointer) at the end of the game.

There is no benefit to waiting: you have to try a 2-pointer at some point. It's much better to know the outcome early so you know what you have to do to win.

So how do you know you need the two pointer at the END of the game?

 

[jaythecowboy]

If we had kicked the extra point, we still would have had the chance that we did at the end of the game. You can't count on that though. You play the percentages and the percentages are overwhelmingly in favor of making it a one possession game.

I'd like to see these "percentages" lol

 

[droopdog7]

again. Not really looking to argue and you’re really getting into the weeds here. You’re not even the OP so I’m not particularly focused on the crux of your argument. Anyway. Enjoy your night

Well, I actually started this topic first. But apparently it was too nuanced for people to understand. I see the continues here.

And yes, explaining what people are actually saying to them, while tedious, is actually kinda important.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

The only "teachable moment" here is to show that hindsight is 20 20.