Jump to content

Game Balls and Jockstraps: Atlanta at Dallas


HDsportsfan

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

One massive jock strap for all of the pundits criticizing Dallas for going for 2 instead of kicking the extra point. 

This includes Scott Van Pelt, Chris Sims, Ed Werder, Matt Mosley, and Nick Eatman. You are all fools. Going for 2 in that situation is the clearly correct choice. It is not complicated or ambiguous analytics. It is a very simple concept that only takes basic critical thinking skills and a willingness to challenge your loss aversion bias to understand.

"But the players will play harder if it's a one-score game instead of two scores!"

lol these guys are paid millions of dollars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, matt79511 said:

"But the players will play harder if it's a one-score game instead of two scores!"

lol these guys are paid millions of dollars

Haha, and even if that were true, it is *still* the right choice to go for 2. Having that knowledge early is still an increase in your win probability, even if they don't play as hard.

For this argument to have any sort of logical legitimacy, one of two things would have to be true to change the equation:

  1. Assuming a successful two point conversion, the team is more likely to score the 2nd touchdown being down 8 than down 7 (this make no sense at all); or
  2. You are more likely to convert a 2 point attempt for a tie than you are to pull within a TD. I.e. you might choose a run-of-the-mill play to pull within a TD, but reach deep into your special bag of tricks for a tie? I don't believe this, and since no one is arguing it, I doubt they do either.

But at least those arguments, if true, would actually change the calculation. 

And I think the most mind boggling thing about the dissent is... it worked. The whole point of going for it early is to determine if you need to find a way to get a 3rd score. Probably 99% of the time, it doesn't matter. But that extra 1% is exactly where Mike McCarthy squeezed out victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

Haha, and even if that were true, it is *still* the right choice to go for 2. Having that knowledge early is still an increase in your win probability, even if they don't play as hard.

For this argument to have any sort of logical legitimacy, one of two things would have to be true to change the equation:

  1. Assuming a successful two point conversion, the team is more likely to score the 2nd touchdown being down 8 than down 7 (this make no sense at all); or
  2. You are more likely to convert a 2 point attempt for a tie than you are to pull within a TD. I.e. you might choose a run-of-the-mill play to pull within a TD, but reach deep into your special bag of tricks for a tie? I don't believe this, and since no one is arguing it, I doubt they do either.

But at least those arguments, if true, would actually change the calculation. 

And I think the most mind boggling thing about the dissent is... it worked. The whole point of going for it early is to determine if you need to find a way to get a 3rd score. Probably 99% of the time, it doesn't matter. But that extra 1% is exactly where Mike McCarthy squeezed out victory.

It's just new information they can't process. Just about every team these guys played on/coach they played for would've kicked the XP down 9 to make it 8 (past maybe high school, because high school coaches are much likelier to go yolo/**** it and actually make the right decision as a result). They can't grasp that the 2-pt conversion has the same chance of being converted on the second TD as it does the first, or that being down two possessions makes you play faster. Only that converting the onside kick is highly unlikely.

I think it's because we're wired to want things to come down to the last, most desperate play, so even though they'd never phrase it this way, it's because they somehow think the conversion to tie is somehow likelier to happen, because you "need it more." And then you obviously win in OT because momentum, duh. Narratives over math.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, matt79511 said:

It's just new information they can't process. Just about every team these guys played on/coach they played for would've kicked the XP down 9 to make it 8 (past maybe high school, because high school coaches are much likelier to go yolo/**** it and actually make the right decision as a result). They can't grasp that the 2-pt conversion has the same chance of being converted on the second TD as it does the first, or that being down two possessions makes you play faster. Only that converting the onside kick is highly unlikely.

I think it's because we're wired to want things to come down to the last, most desperate play, so even though they'd never phrase it this way, it's because they somehow think the conversion to tie is somehow likelier to happen, because you "need it more." And then you obviously win in OT because momentum, duh. Narratives over math.

It’s 100% subjective.  There is only a preference and no technical right or wrong.  McCarthy prefers knowing in advance whether the team WILL need an extra possession by going for 2 early.  That is totally legit.

 

The flip side is also totally legit.  Namely, waiting to go for 2 until after the second score to actually tie the game places additional stress on the defense, leaves the defense out on the field longer, and psychologically speaking... the defense is probably down after just giving up 2 TDs.  
 

its a momentum vs time argument.  Neither are technically right or wrong as the offense needs the points regardless of the timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The_Slamman said:

It’s 100% subjective.  There is only a preference and no technical right or wrong.  McCarthy prefers knowing in advance whether the team WILL need an extra possession by going for 2 early.  That is totally legit.

 

The flip side is also totally legit.  Namely, waiting to go for 2 until after the second score to actually tie the game places additional stress on the defense, leaves the defense out on the field longer, and psychologically speaking... the defense is probably down after just giving up 2 TDs.  
 

its a momentum vs time argument.  Neither are technically right or wrong as the offense needs the points regardless of the timing.

I mean, I'm not necessarily trying to die on the "go for 2 early" hill. It's just that the *exact* scenario that explains why you would want to even if you don't get the conversion played out perfectly, and yet like NYFDB said, you still have people flabbergasted.

I will counter your psychology argument by saying that I think the Falcons played a little more lax (offensively and defensively) up 9 than they may have up 8. The real key here was getting to play that snakebit franchise.

Edited by matt79511
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really loose nothing because either way If you fail you need another score and this way you got more time to find that other score 

frankly I was amazed at just how many pundits thought it was a totally stupid move yet hardly commented on how the falcons also earlier went for two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, matt79511 said:

I mean, I'm not necessarily trying to die on the "go for 2 early" hill. It's just that the *exact* scenario that explains why you would want to even if you don't get the conversion played out perfectly, and yet like NYFDB said, you still have people flabbergasted.

I will counter your psychology argument by saying that I think the Falcons played a little more lax (offensively and defensively) up 9 than they may have up 8. The real key here was getting to play that snakebit franchise.

They absolutely played more lax down 9.  That tends to happen when you have a 99.9% chance of winning.  That’s a different philosophy all together... ie the prevent defense.  ATL decided giving up yards and points to run out the clock was worth it.  They wouldn’t have played prevent to that extent whether the cowboys were down 7 or 8.  Down 9, they decided it was worth it.  The odds were still incredibly in their favor.  Let me just put it this way... no coach wants to go down 9 so the other team can play prevent in the hopes of being able to recover an on side kick.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

The flip side is also totally legit.  Namely, waiting to go for 2 until after the second score to actually tie the game places additional stress on the defense, leaves the defense out on the field longer, and psychologically speaking... the defense is probably down after just giving up 2 TDs.  
 

its a momentum vs time argument.  Neither are technically right or wrong as the offense needs the points regardless of the timing.

I can understand this argument. If you want to say your chances of converting the 2-point conversion after the second TD are better, then that’s an argument that makes sense. I would be genuinely curious to see someone pull some data on this.

Most people are not making that argument. They are all hung up on the downside of being down 9 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

I can understand this argument. If you want to say your chances of converting the 2-point conversion after the second TD are better, then that’s an argument that makes sense. I would be genuinely curious to see someone pull some data on this.

Most people are not making that argument. They are all hung up on the downside of being down 9 points.

My guess is that statistically it probably would be about the same conversion rate.  And, being down 15, it’s probably not going to show up in win % either.  But I do remember John Madden talking about whether to go for 2 now or later when a team was down 15 and scored a TD.  Madden said to wait to go for 2 because if you miss now, it’s a momentum killer... if you miss it’s still a 2 possession game after you just cut it to a one possession game.

Edited by The_Slamman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

My guess is that statistically it probably would be about the same conversion rate.  And, being down 15, it’s probably not going to show up in win % either.  But I do remember John Madden talking about whether to go for 2 now or later when a team was down 15 and scored a TD.  Madden said to wait to go for 2 because if you miss now, it’s a momentum killer... if you miss it’s still a 2 possession game after you just cut it to a one possession game.

But that's my point, I guess. Even if it's a momentum killer, it still opens up a path to victory that isn't there if you wait and fail on the 2 point conversion later.

  • Given success of 2 point conversion, it does not matter whether you got it on the first or second touchdown; but
  • Given failure of 2 point conversion, it is better to have failed early, because you are giving yourself the extra avenue for victory (in Sunday's case, this was leaving enough time on the clock to field an onside kick and get into field goal range; even if our momentum was killed)

When you are making the decision to go for it, you don't know whether you will be successful or not. So you have to treat them as probabilities. And if the probability of success on the 2 point conversion doesn't change, then you increase your chance of winning by going for it early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its tough to really express it right and yes in the end its dealers choice...

But do you want to be down 9 with 5:30 and slim chance of not needing a offside kick - or down 2 with 1:30  and needing an offside kick -  I would pick 9 every time... 

IMO... most of the people that hated the move just think going for 2 at the end of the game will be automatic... this mental image DOWN 1 score keeps popping in their head and they forget that in means converting a 2 point conversion.  but in reality going for 2 is not as we saw automatic.. 

Edited by quiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

But that's my point, I guess. Even if it's a momentum killer, it still opens up a path to victory that isn't there if you wait and fail on the 2 point conversion later.

  • Given success of 2 point conversion, it does not matter whether you got it on the first or second touchdown; but
  • Given failure of 2 point conversion, it is better to have failed early, because you are giving yourself the extra avenue for victory (in Sunday's case, this was leaving enough time on the clock to field an onside kick and get into field goal range; even if our momentum was killed)

When you are making the decision to go for it, you don't know whether you will be successful or not. So you have to treat them as probabilities. And if the probability of success on the 2 point conversion doesn't change, then you increase your chance of winning by going for it early.

That's as stupid a rationale as putting perfume on a pig!

By kicking the extra point and making it an 8 point game you just increased your opportunities at the end of the game for a tie or win from one to two.

You score 6, you now have 2 opportunities to:

Tie with the 2 point conversion

Or

Recover the onside kick, drive down and score to win.

As opposed to chancing the 2 pointer first, failing and having ONLY the onside kick for hope.

It was a stupid and careless call that fortunately they didn't have to pay for with a loss.

The only thing dumber than that call was the idiot special teams of Atlanta that just watched the ball spin past them and get recovered by Dallas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

That's as stupid a rationale as putting perfume on a pig!

By kicking the extra point and making it an 8 point game you just increased your opportunities at the end of the game for a tie or win from one to two.

You score 6, you now have 2 opportunities to:

Tie with the 2 point conversion

Or

Recover the onside kick, drive down and score to win.

As opposed to chancing the 2 pointer first, failing and having ONLY the onside kick for hope.

It was a stupid and careless call that fortunately they didn't have to pay for with a loss.

The only thing dumber than that call was the idiot special teams of Atlanta that just watched the ball spin past them and get recovered by Dallas.

 

It’s been explained 100 different ways by 100 different people, so if you can’t understand the very clear logic at this point, I’m sure I can’t convince you.

But I will just point out two things:

1) you focus on the potential downside of being down 9 instead of 8, while ignoring the upside of only being down 7. Being down 8, you still have to convert the 2 point conversion, which is ~50/50 play. You essentially double your win probability over the extra point if you are successful.

2) it’s far more unlikely you will have time to go for the onside kick if you kick the extra point first. Because then your incentive involves preventing Atlanta from having enough time to win the game in regulation if you score the touchdown, and therefor not leaving yourself much time if you miss the 2 point conversion.

“Fortunately they didn’t have to pay for it with a loss” is just so hilarious to me, because literally it was our only path to victory given a failed 2 point conversion. 

Anyway, I don’t believe I’ll convince you. But it’s pretty clear cut.

Edited by Nextyearfordaboyz
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

It’s been explained 100 different ways by 100 different people, so if you can’t understand the very clear logic at this point, I’m sure I can’t convince you.

But I will just point out two things:

1) you focus on the potential downside of being down 9 instead of 8, while ignoring the upside of only being down 7. Being down 8, you still have to convert the 2 point conversion, which is ~50/50 play. You essentially double your win probability over the extra point if you are successful.

2) it’s far more unlikely you will have time to go for the onside kick if you kick the extra point first. Because then your incentive involves preventing Atlanta from having enough time to win the game in regulation if you score the touchdown, and therefor not leaving yourself much time if you miss the 2 point conversion.

“Fortunately they didn’t have to pay for it with a loss” is just so hilarious to me, because literally it was our only path to victory given a failed 2 point conversion. 

Anyway, I don’t believe I’ll convince you. But it’s pretty clear cut.

You have a better chance of seeing God.

Keep playing fast and loose, it will bite us sooner or later.

2 failed fake punts.

Failed 2 point conversion.

I suppose going for it on 4th down only losing by 3 and passing up the chipshot tying FG in game 1 was the "right choice?"

Imbecile!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

You have a better chance of seeing God.

Keep playing fast and loose, it will bite us sooner or later.

2 failed fake punts.

Failed 2 point conversion.

I suppose going for it on 4th down only losing by 3 and passing up the chipshot tying FG in game 1 was the "right choice?"

Imbecile!

Well, it was nice talking to you when you weren’t name calling. 

Goodnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...