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

[TWOK11]

Statistically, it doesn’t matter when you go for two in that scenario.

You can make the argument that making sure it’s still a one possession game keeps your team in it mentally more so, but that isn’t born out in the stats.

 

[HungryLion]

Argument aside. We now know what McCarthy thinks about the situation.

we also know that the cowboys won today, with him making that choice.

therefore, if/when the scenario happens again. Be ready for him to make the same decision.

 

[cityochamps]

here it is, I got it finally:

 

[thechosen1n2]

For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.

We won...but I totally disagree with this.

 

[Kingofholland]

They would have needed a 2 pointer anyway so out of all the decisions made today this is one I have the least concern with. It was the 4th quarter and it's not like they went for a random 2 pointer in the 2nd quarter that got them behind further.

Once the last 8 minutes hit and the Falcons were up by 15 there weren't many options left. The fake punts should be much hotter topics.

 

[jaythecowboy]

If its irrelevant, as you say, then it should be easy to answer.

And the debate at hand is not about a failed two point conversion, it's about when should you go for two (while being down by 15). After the first TD or the second TD. So the question I posed earlier in this thread is indeed relevant.

Do you want to be down needing two scores or be down needing one score?

A reply of one or two would easily answer the question.

Obviously I'd rather be down one score. But still don't see the point.

 

[Proof]

You are reading it wrong. After the td the Cowboys were down 9. People are advocating kicking the extra point to go down 8. The 2nd link recommends going for 2.

Oops. I looks at trail by 15. Not 9. My mistake.

a chart from the 1970s is not advanced analytics tho lol.

 

[uvaballa]

Sigh. No. As I said, there's no benefit whatsoever to waiting.

You wait because if you get it you don’t need onside. If you don’t get it then you kick onside. Either way you have to kick onside if you don’t get it but it’s better to wait imo.

 

[TheGoat73]

For some reason, people think you should kick the xp when you score a TD to put you down 9 late in the game. Today was the perfect demonstration of why this is wrong.

Down 15, you either need two scores or three scores, depending on whether you convert a 2-pointer or not.

But you don't know how many scores you need until you attempt the 2-pointer. That's why you do it after the first TD.

If the Cowboys had kicked the XP after the first TD, they would have been down 8 and they wouldn't know how many more scores they needed. They likely would have been more methodical on the second TD drive, playing to tie (and not leave the Falcons enough time to win it). Then, if they failed the 2-point conversion, the game is over.

This way, they KNEW they needed two more scores, and they were much more aggressive on the second TD drive, leaving themselves enough time for the third score.

When down 15 late, ALWAYS go for 2 after the FIRST score. Information matters. And there's no benefit--none--to waiting.

I was sitting there thinking “I hope they go for two for the same reason.”

 

[jay94]

I like going for the two, it tells you what is the necessary step, especially with a defense that could only stop itself.

 

[JD_KaPow]

it’s a very simple chart. I’m not sure how it could be read wrong. “Trail by 15:Go for 1”

perhaps you’re looking at the lead by side? Because my reading is fine

Sure, you go for 1 if the TD puts you down 15. But we're talking about a situation where the TD put you down by 9. The chart is for the score AFTER the TD but BEFORE the conversion attempt.

 

[JD_KaPow]

We won...but I totally disagree with this.

Why?

 

[Proof]

Sure, you go for 1 if the TD puts you down 15. But we're talking about a situation where the TD put you down by 9. The chart is for the score AFTER the TD but BEFORE the conversion attempt.

yesh I edited my post right after but not quickly enough. I had a brain fart.

 

[HungryLion]

After reading this thread and all the responses and the articles posted.

I agree with the OP. It makes sense.



And I guarantee Garret kicks the XP. So there’s that.

 

[JD_KaPow]

If its irrelevant, as you say, then it should be easy to answer.

And the debate at hand is not about a failed two point conversion, it's about when should you go for two (while being down by 15). After the first TD or the second TD. So the question I posed earlier in this thread is indeed relevant.

Do you want to be down needing two scores or be down needing one score?

A reply of one or two would easily answer the question.

I want to be down 7 after making the two-point conversion after the first TD. Why do you ignore that possibility?

If I kick the XP, I don't "need one score." I need either one score or two scores, but I don't know which.

 

[JD_KaPow]

You wait because if you get it you don’t need onside. If you don’t get it then you kick onside. Either way you have to kick onside if you don’t get it but it’s better to wait imo.

But why? If you're down 8 and get the ball with 3 minutes, what's your plan? Clearly, you want to run the clock down, score as late as possible and hope you convert the 2-pointer. Because you don't want to leave the Falcons time to win it at the end.

But if you're going to miss the 2-pointer, that's a terrible strategy, because you need to preserve time so you at least have the chance of the onside kick (as lousy as that chance is).

The problem is, you don't know which strategy to pursue, because you don't know if you'll make the 2-pointer. If you try the 2-pointer early, you have your answer BEFORE you start that final drive. If you converted it, you're only down 7 and everything's fine. If you didn't, you need to score fast to have any chance. Yeah, you're probably going to lose, but at least you give yourself a chance.

 

[HungryLion]

But why? If you're down 8 and get the ball with 3 minutes, what's your plan? Clearly, you want to run the clock down, score as late as possible and hope you convert the 2-pointer. Because you don't want to leave the Falcons time to win it at the end.

But if you're going to miss the 2-pointer, that's a terrible strategy, because you need to preserve time so you at least have the chance of the onside kick (as lousy as that chance is).

The problem is, you don't know which strategy to pursue, because you don't know if you'll make the 2-pointer. If you try the 2-pointer early, you have your answer BEFORE you start that final drive. If you converted it, you're only down 7 and everything's fine. If you didn't, you need to score fast to have any chance. Yeah, you're probably going to lose, but at least you give yourself a chance.

And also, while you have no control over what the other team does, I really do think getting that second TD is easier against a defense that knows they’re 2 scores up, vs one that is holding onto an 8 point lead.

I just think psychologically some defenders are thinking “we just need to get them to burn time and get under 2 minutes. Then we get the onside kick and win the game.”

How many times have we seen d coordinators call prevent defense in 2 score situations like that. Because their primary focus is stopping the quick score. Not necessarily preventing the touchdown all together.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Oops. I looks at trail by 15. Not 9. My mistake.

a chart from the 1970s is not advanced analytics tho lol.

I liked posting that one because it shows that people knew it was the right strategy way back then. It doesn't really require advanced analytics.

 

[Playmaker247]

I know there’s been a lot of debate about whether they should’ve gone for 2 when they cut the lead to 9. The truth is Mike McCarthy absolutely made the right call. The thought process is this “down 15, score, go for 2. Better to find out if you're down by 1 score or 2 scores now than later, so you can make decisions accordingly.” Here’s an article detailing why going for 2 early is always the right call:
http://www.footballperspective.com/...are-foolish-to-not-go-for-2-after-touchdowns/

 

[America's Cowboy]

Disagree.

It depends at what time of the game you should go for 2. Made it so much harder on the team going for 2 but failing, suddenly being down 9 points, with so little time left in the game. Had that forced but miraculous onside kick not been recovered, it would have been game over at that point.