The DC Times

A New Way to Look at the Cowboys, NFL, and Fantasy Football

By Jonathan Bales

Jason Garrett’s reasoning for not attempting two-point conversion

Subscribe to The DC Times
Never miss a post again!

According to Jason Garrett, he didn’t go for two points when down 21-19 in the third quarter of Saturday night’s game because “What happens when you start making those decisions is sometimes you get a little hasty and say, ‘OK, if we get two here that will tie us up.’ But typically, what happens when you have another quarter to play, there are a couple more scores and the whole thing kind of plays itself out a little bit.”

Although I’d wager that the majority of NFL coaches agree with Garrett’s assessment, it is the wrong one.  I hate to be so blunt about it (secretly I love it), but he’s just dead wrong.  Garrett points out that there will typically be more points scored after the third quarter, which is correct, but somewhat irrelevant.

First of all, as I’ve already pointed out, two-point conversions may not even yield less expected points than extra points.  If that’s the case (which would be a virtual certainty if teams ran the ball more on two-point attempts), then going for two points should be the status quo, with an extra point only being attempted in specific game situations (such as tied late in the contest).

Even if extra points are generally statistically superior to two-point tries, however, Garrett still made the wrong decision.  While I agree with his notion that more points were likely to be scored, that fact is far from certain.  Actually, for an extra point to be the right decision in that scenario, we would have to assume that the chances of neither team scoring again was small enough that it wouldn’t account for the disparity between the expected points of an extra point (about .98) and a two-point attempt (.96 at worst).

As it turns out, Garrett would have to assume either that the chances of neither team scoring again were below one percent or that the offense’s chances of converting on their two-point try were closer to 25 percent than 50 percent.  Anyone believe either scenario to be the case?

Me neither.

Like this post? Share it with others:
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Netvibes
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

2 Responses to Jason Garrett’s reasoning for not attempting two-point conversion

  1. john coleman says:

    I’m still with you. Go for two all the time, except for the end of games when we go up1,4, or 9. As I posted and we all know but don’t consider, 3×2=6. If I’m correct that’s another TD. Keep swinging away at this one. I really believe you will see a dramatic increase in this as the season rolls next year. With the new emphasis on hits and what is legal, the points are going to pile up more and more. Example, DeSean Jackson, If you can’t lay the wood to him, he is running unabated through your secondary. The only chance you have is a guy fast enough to run with him. Thus 2 for 1 everytime might become the 3 point shot in college basketball.

  2. I didn’t think of it as like a three-point shot, but that’s good. Plus, offenses have yet to REALLY concentrate on mastering their two-point plays. If Garrett (or whoever) provides ample practice time for them and attempts enough that the sample size is large enough to level out irregularities, I think you’ll see them be more productive than extra points. A whole bunch of these little statistically-correct decision=major differences.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>