Why go for 2?

[tecolote]

This ultimately did not have any effect on the game but it was a puzzling decision by Garrett. He looks absolutely lost at times. Why would you go for two at that time? All it did was force the Cowboys two go for two on their next TD.

That could've lost such a close game. I swear I sometimes feel we have to overcome our coaching to win games. That was dumb.

 

[The Natural]

I thought it was the right call, not good execution, but the right call

 

[tyke1doe]

We're playing against Denver and Peyton Manning. I can't fault the decision.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

This ultimately did not have any effect on the game but it was a puzzling decision by Garrett. He looks absolutely lost at times. Why would you go for two at that time? All it did was force the Cowboys two go for two on their next TD.

That could've lost such a close game. I swear I sometimes feel we have to overcome our coaching to win games. That was dumb.

because Garrett is dumb

 

[Boyzmamacita]

I had no problem with the call. They just didn't execute it.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

the problem is if you miss, you are chasing the point, I thought it was too early

 

[JoeyBoy718]

You realize we missed one attempt but made the other. So we had the same amount of points had we not ever went for two. So irrelevant. I guess it's a good opportunity to hate on Garrett.

 

[Idgit]

This one is simple math. Of course you go for two in both of those situations today.

 

[tecolote]

You realize we missed one attempt but made the other. So we had the same amount of points had we not ever went for two. So irrelevant. I guess it's a good opportunity to hate on Garrett.

Read my post, I said it ultimately had no effect, but the fact that we had to go for two to cover for the failed attempt made it a bad decision in my opinion.

 

[tecolote]

This one is simple math. Of course you go for two in both of those situations today.

The second one you had to because you missed the first. I just think the first one was way to early.

 

[Idgit]

The second one you had to because you missed the first. I just think the first one was way to early.

The commentators made that comment in the game, and I didn't understand it then, either. If the math says 'go for two' why would you only do it if it was in the 4th quarter? At the end of the game, if you needed the points to tie or win with a 4th quarter fg, what difference does it make when in the game you got the two-point conversion?

 

[MagicMan]

I am hardly a Garrett apologist, i think the guy is in over his head.....but I had no problem with them going for 2 the first time. Just didn't get it done. Even "the book" said to go for it.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Read my post, I said it ultimately had no effect, but the fact that we had to go for two to cover for the failed attempt made it a bad decision in my opinion.

They kept referring to a book based on mathematical odds and it was considred a smart move both times they went for it.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I think Garrett got burned by bad luck in 50/50 situations today, making him look clueless when they were coin flips that just didn't work out. The 2 point conversions, accepting the penalty to make it 2nd and long, and the let them score/stop them on 3rd down decisions were all defensible both ways, IMO.

 

[tecolote]

I think Garrett got burned by bad luck in 50/50 situations today, making him look clueless when they were coin flips that just didn't work out. The 2 point conversions, accepting the penalty to make it 2nd and long, and the let them score/stop them on 3rd down decisions were all defensible both ways, IMO.

I agree, but he always seems to get the short end of the stick in those situations.

 

[Deep_South]

I agree, but he always seems to get the short end of the stick in those situations.

Garrett's biggest problem is the Jones 4-3.