Why dont we go for 2 every time then?

SquirrellyDan said:

---

PooDoo said:

---

No, I'm stupid... please do more.

So missing the 2 point only lowers the win% by 3%

But getting the 2 raises the win% by 4%.

That's what you said right?

So getting the 2pt is only an increase of 1% from kicking the EP? That 1% is worth the risk of making it a 2 possession game?

---

He was making his arguments based on it was given they'd recover the onside kick. Not much more needs to be said.

---

His argument was made to avoid the necessity of an onside kick, the exact opposite of what you're saying. At 2:05 from the 2 his argument doesn't make much sense. The FG is gonna run 3-4 seconds minimum, and then any coach worth a damn is going to tell his return man to return the ball regardless to avoid the 2 minute warning being a factor.

At 2:15 from outside the 10 it makes sense to kick the FG regardless of down and distance, because you kick the FG. Kickoff and get a touch back. Opposing team has the ball 1st and 10 with 2:10 left, run a play and clock stoppage at the 2 minute warning. 2 more run plays runs 1:20 off the clock, punt with a 6 second runoff. You get the ball with 34 seconds left and time to score a TD with no onside recovery. That doesn't bear out with 2:05 on the clock, but it does with more time. As he said in his post.


To PooDoo: Why don't teams go for 2 all the time? The same reason you think you should always make it a one possession game any time you can. Tradition and perception of the viewing audience. It's their job to provide entertainment and keep the fans happy. If you're dealing with an audience that doesn't fully understand statistics or the reasoning of a decision they're going to believe you're making a stupid play. The expected number of points is higher for a 2 pt conversion, but not substantially higher, but the potential hatred from fans would deter you from going after those additional points as it's mostly non-material. It wouldn't increase your win chances that substantially over the course of an entire game or even season. In short, statistically they probably should, but perception wins out.

?itemid=6022541

I recorded the game and just got to the end. The recording stopped just before the onside kick.

Any discussion about going for two has one simple rule. You kick the extra point in the first 55 minutes of the game. Get the easier point until you are running out of time.

You can't apply a slight better average on 2 point plays to an entire season. Most teams practice 3 or 4 two point plays. They know them cold. If any team decided to go for two points every time, their 2 pt conversions would be less successful.

C@LAg said:

---

kyledr04 said:

---

I recorded the game and just got to the end. The recording stopped just before the onside kick.

---

cowboys lost.

---

Jebber said:

---

Lots of choices for worst coaching decision in this game. What's your pick?

---

Two point conversion. Luckily the Falcons stupidity made the onside recovery REALLY easy.

Does anyone think the cowboys would've come back in the second half with Garrett still here?

Not me.

Grapesoda2525 said:

---

Does anyone think the cowboys would've come back in the second half with Garrett still here?

Not me.

---

That was the same game they played 12x last year the only diff was the choke job by Minnesota
Quinn should be fired on the spot

This game reminded me of another Cowboys game some years ago. Similar situation down 10 points with less than 3 minutes to go. Cowboys score TD and recover onside kick and score winning TD

https://www.espn.com/nfl/recap?gameId=241206026

NFL teams now 440-1 when scoring 39 points and having 0 turnovers.

McCarthy ON GOING FOR TWO

"I think it's the wrong call to take the extra point. The decision to go for two there is simple mathematics where you'd rather know if it's a two score game at the earliest time instead of taking it all the way down to the end and playing for two points at the end. I can't tell you how many conversations I've been involved in about this particular situation. To go for two there is just to make it clear with a little over four minutes left if we were going to be in a one score game or a two-score game was the thinking."

Refreshing to actually have a coach that understands the situations rather than goes with "what's always been done".

Proposition Joe said:

---

McCarthy ON GOING FOR TWO

"I think it's the wrong call to take the extra point. The decision to go for two there is simple mathematics where you'd rather know if it's a two score game at the earliest time instead of taking it all the way down to the end and playing for two points at the end. I can't tell you how many conversations I've been involved in about this particular situation. To go for two there is just to make it clear with a little over four minutes left if we were going to be in a one score game or a two-score game was the thinking."

Refreshing to actually have a coach that understands the situations rather than goes with "what's always been done".

---

This has always been my thinking and seems so obvious. I can't believe anybody thinks waiting to go for two is the best choice, and I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why waiting is the better strategy.

It didn't simply become a 2 score game; McCarthy's decision MADE it a two score game. I'm happy with the outcome; but he was bailed out by the Falcons' ineptitude.

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

McCarthy ON GOING FOR TWO

"I think it's the wrong call to take the extra point. The decision to go for two there is simple mathematics where you'd rather know if it's a two score game at the earliest time instead of taking it all the way down to the end and playing for two points at the end. I can't tell you how many conversations I've been involved in about this particular situation. To go for two there is just to make it clear with a little over four minutes left if we were going to be in a one score game or a two-score game was the thinking."

Refreshing to actually have a coach that understands the situations rather than goes with "what's always been done".

---

This has always been my thinking and seems so obvious. I can't believe anybody thinks waiting to go for two is the best choice, and I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why waiting is the better strategy.

---

I still believe making it a one possession game there is the better move. And for all the talk about how this is the obvious analytical move, I've only been shown that it gives the team a 1% better chance for the win.

And, while I think analytics def has a place at the table, there has to be a consideration for the feel of the game and how the flow of the game is going. For example, how much do you lean away from analytics if you have two rookie FA playing OT?

Macarthur said:

---

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

McCarthy ON GOING FOR TWO

"I think it's the wrong call to take the extra point. The decision to go for two there is simple mathematics where you'd rather know if it's a two score game at the earliest time instead of taking it all the way down to the end and playing for two points at the end. I can't tell you how many conversations I've been involved in about this particular situation. To go for two there is just to make it clear with a little over four minutes left if we were going to be in a one score game or a two-score game was the thinking."

Refreshing to actually have a coach that understands the situations rather than goes with "what's always been done".

---

This has always been my thinking and seems so obvious. I can't believe anybody thinks waiting to go for two is the best choice, and I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why waiting is the better strategy.

---

I still believe making it a one possession game there is the better move. And for all the talk about how this is the obvious analytical move, I've only been shown that it gives the team a 1% better chance for the win.

And, while I think analytics def has a place at the table, there has to be a consideration for the feel of the game and how the flow of the game is going. For example, how much do you lean away from analytics if you have two rookie FA playing OT?

---

But why do you still think it's better to make it a one possession game? Because that's the way it's always been thought of?

MavsFan (on the previous page) explained it pretty succinctly, and I don't think I would be able to lay it out any better than that. If you still don't understand it, then I won't be able to change your mind.

Do those two rookie FA offensive tackles suddenly become studs after the second touchdown and give you a better chance to convert the two point conversion? Also, they scored 40 points, clearly getting the ball in the endzone quickly wasn't an issue yesterday.

jjmanzano said:

---

It didn't simply become a 2 score game; McCarthy's decision MADE it a two score game. I'm happy with the outcome; but he was bailed out by the Falcons' ineptitude.

---

Except the goal of the game isn't to "make it a 1 score game", the goal is to win the game.

Saying his decision "made" it a two score game is like saying in an alternate scenario where he goes for 1 to cut it to 8, then Dallas scores a TD with 30 seconds left that he should just kick the EP because it will "make it a closer game"... Yeah, but it doesn't make the team more likely to win.

"You make it a 1 score game" is an antiquated thought process, much like "you never swing on 3-0".

The only real angle you can take is one that can't be quantified -- if not making it a 1 score game somehow deflates the team that is losing or allows the team that is winning some significant mental advantage.

And yesterday we saw that isn't necessarily true.

birdman said:

---

Any discussion about going for two has one simple rule. You kick the extra point in the first 55 minutes of the game. Get the easier point until you are running out of time.

You can't apply a slight better average on 2 point plays to an entire season. Most teams practice 3 or 4 two point plays. They know them cold. If any team decided to go for two points every time, their 2 pt conversions would be less successful.

---

Some team should go for 2 every time...for science!

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-bad-beat-someone-bet-35000-on-the-falcons-ingame-moneyline-to-win-10-and-lost-143604165.html

kyledr04 said:

---

I recorded the game and just got to the end. The recording stopped just before the onside kick.

---

That 5 OT basketball against Baylor back in 2008 taught me a lesson when I ended up watching through 3 OTs and then it ended. That sucked.

From now on, if I tape a game, it gets the longest "extra" recording time I can add (DTV is 3 hrs). Not gonna let that happen again.