What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Peter King Gives Us Another Reason To Question His Football Knowlegde (1 Viewer)

Limp Ditka

Limp Ditka

Footballguy
From Monday Morning QB

I don't care if it didn't work. I loved Bill Parcells going for two after the Cowboys' first touchdown. You know why? Tony Romo is a mobile quarterback and showed last week on the same play how dangerous he is with five receivers spreading the field; he completed a two-point-conversion pass to Terrell Owens in Carolina eight days ago. Here, up 6-5, Romo spread the field again, rolled right but threw it incomplete
Click to expand...
That decision probably cost the Cowboys the game yesterday. I don't like to work in hypotheticals, but by going for the extra point, the Cowboys are still up one and only running the clock out at the end of the game. Instead, they are attempting a game winning FG with 6 seconds on the clock and setting themselves up for the unthinkable to happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Limp Ditka said:
From Monday Morning QB

I don't care if it didn't work. I loved Bill Parcells going for two after the Cowboys' first touchdown. You know why? Tony Romo is a mobile quarterback and showed last week on the same play how dangerous he is with five receivers spreading the field; he completed a two-point-conversion pass to Terrell Owens in Carolina eight days ago. Here, up 6-5, Romo spread the field again, rolled right but threw it incomplete
Click to expand...
That decision probably cost the Cowboys the game yesterday. I don't like to work in hypotheticals, but by going for the extra point, the Cowboys are still up one and only running the clock out at the end of the game. Instead, they are attempting a game winning FG with 6 seconds on the clock and setting themselves up for the unthinkable to happen.
Click to expand...
You do make an excellant point though. Everyone knows that you kick the PAT there that early on in the game. They would have won if they did this most likly.
 
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
In a tight game like this, you can argue that any number of things "cost the game." In the end, the Cowboys had the game won with a chip shot FG and the FG team screwed it up, not just by getting the FG blocked, but committing the penalty that allowed the Redskins to kick the game winner.
 
you want to know what cost Dallas that game, its the same crap that has cost them games for 2 years.

1. our corners and safety couldnt cover a 6 year old, im telling every OC in the league just keep airing it out, you will kill Dallas this way. Roy Williams out of position (what else is new) on that pass int. call and the horrible coverage?? on the cooley TD.

2. not being able to make the big play when we need it. this happened twice yesterday, both would have won us the game.. T.O's drop and the idiot kickers miss.

:wall:

 
bumpman said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
In a tight game like this, you can argue that any number of things "cost the game." In the end, the Cowboys had the game won with a chip shot FG and the FG team screwed it up, not just by getting the FG blocked, but committing the penalty that allowed the Redskins to kick the game winner.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the main point - you can make a list of things that can cost any team any game, and going for the 2 pointer early in the game is way down on that list. Easily #1 is allowing the JAIL BREAK on the left side of the line on that easy chip shot, game-winning FG. Then there's crappy tackling on Taylor's return. Then committing a facemask. Then the refs calling it a 15 yard facemask (BS).And let's not forget the amazing Terrell Owens stone-handing a beautifully thrown bomb by Romo that would've been an easy score.
 
JetsWillWin said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
I assume that you're so convinced of your argument, that no amount of logic can convince you otherwise - sorta like you are with Ahman Green.
Click to expand...
I admitted that I'm wrong on Ahman Green and that has nothing to do with the conversation.Thank you for your input, I'm starting to sway.
 
JetsWillWin said:
bumpman said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
In a tight game like this, you can argue that any number of things "cost the game." In the end, the Cowboys had the game won with a chip shot FG and the FG team screwed it up, not just by getting the FG blocked, but committing the penalty that allowed the Redskins to kick the game winner.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the main point - you can make a list of things that can cost any team any game, and going for the 2 pointer early in the game is way down on that list. Easily #1 is allowing the JAIL BREAK on the left side of the line on that easy chip shot, game-winning FG. Then there's crappy tackling on Taylor's return. Then committing a facemask. Then the refs calling it a 15 yard facemask (BS).And let's not forget the amazing Terrell Owens stone-handing a beautifully thrown bomb by Romo that would've been an easy score.
Click to expand...
All of the bolded do not happen if one more point is on the board. Now where could they haven gotten just one more point?
 
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
bumpman said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
In a tight game like this, you can argue that any number of things "cost the game." In the end, the Cowboys had the game won with a chip shot FG and the FG team screwed it up, not just by getting the FG blocked, but committing the penalty that allowed the Redskins to kick the game winner.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the main point - you can make a list of things that can cost any team any game, and going for the 2 pointer early in the game is way down on that list. Easily #1 is allowing the JAIL BREAK on the left side of the line on that easy chip shot, game-winning FG. Then there's crappy tackling on Taylor's return. Then committing a facemask. Then the refs calling it a 15 yard facemask (BS).And let's not forget the amazing Terrell Owens stone-handing a beautifully thrown bomb by Romo that would've been an easy score.
Click to expand...
All of the bolded do not happen if one more point is on the board. Now where could they haven gotten just one more point?
Click to expand...
You are assuming the XP TRY would have been successful. Given what happened later on the chippie FG, you gotta wonder. Also, Redskins might have gone for and gotten two after scoring its last TD so there might not have been any different outcome. That's the problem with speculation about earlier events. The only event that, with certainty lost the game for the Cowboys, was the botched ST play at the end.
 
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
I assume that you're so convinced of your argument, that no amount of logic can convince you otherwise - sorta like you are with Ahman Green.
Click to expand...
I admitted that I'm wrong on Ahman Green and that has nothing to do with the conversation.Thank you for your input, I'm starting to sway.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
 
The Cowboys tried and failed the two point conversion in the 2nd quarter meaning that the Redskins did not have to do so 4th quarter. That was the end result of the failed play. It didn't cost them the game as the Redskins could have tied the game at 20 with that fourth quarter TD anyways.

I disagree with going for two in the first three quarters except for possible extreme situations in the late third. The extra point has a 98% success rate while a 2 pointer is less than 50/50 from what I recall. Take the near certain points early because you have no idea how the scoring will alter what scores you will need in the end.

 
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
bumpman said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
In a tight game like this, you can argue that any number of things "cost the game." In the end, the Cowboys had the game won with a chip shot FG and the FG team screwed it up, not just by getting the FG blocked, but committing the penalty that allowed the Redskins to kick the game winner.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the main point - you can make a list of things that can cost any team any game, and going for the 2 pointer early in the game is way down on that list. Easily #1 is allowing the JAIL BREAK on the left side of the line on that easy chip shot, game-winning FG. Then there's crappy tackling on Taylor's return. Then committing a facemask. Then the refs calling it a 15 yard facemask (BS).And let's not forget the amazing Terrell Owens stone-handing a beautifully thrown bomb by Romo that would've been an easy score.
Click to expand...
All of the bolded do not happen if one more point is on the board. Now where could they haven gotten just one more point?
Click to expand...
It changes the game. You can't just take 1 point from the 2nd quarter and add it into the end of the 4th quarter. A missed FG in the 4th to win the game is much more significant than losing a point in the 2nd quarter - they lost a point at a time when they were still winning the game - they blew a FG that would've WON the game.
 
boubucarow said:
The Cowboys tried and failed the two point conversion in the 2nd quarter meaning that the Redskins did not have to do so 4th quarter. That was the end result of the failed play. It didn't cost them the game as the Redskins could have tied the game at 20 with that fourth quarter TD anyways.I disagree with going for two in the first three quarters except for possible extreme situations in the late third. The extra point has a 98% success rate while a 2 pointer is less than 50/50 from what I recall. Take the near certain points early because you have no idea how the scoring will alter what scores you will need in the end.
Click to expand...
Quoted to add...This is like passing up a uncontested dunk for a three point shot in the first quarter of an NBA game.
 
JetsWillWin said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
bumpman said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
In a tight game like this, you can argue that any number of things "cost the game." In the end, the Cowboys had the game won with a chip shot FG and the FG team screwed it up, not just by getting the FG blocked, but committing the penalty that allowed the Redskins to kick the game winner.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the main point - you can make a list of things that can cost any team any game, and going for the 2 pointer early in the game is way down on that list. Easily #1 is allowing the JAIL BREAK on the left side of the line on that easy chip shot, game-winning FG. Then there's crappy tackling on Taylor's return. Then committing a facemask. Then the refs calling it a 15 yard facemask (BS).And let's not forget the amazing Terrell Owens stone-handing a beautifully thrown bomb by Romo that would've been an easy score.
Click to expand...
All of the bolded do not happen if one more point is on the board. Now where could they haven gotten just one more point?
Click to expand...
It changes the game. You can't just take 1 point from the 2nd quarter and add it into the end of the 4th quarter. A missed FG in the 4th to win the game is much more significant than losing a point in the 2nd quarter - they lost a point at a time when they were still winning the game - they blew a FG that would've WON the game.
Click to expand...
Of course a missed FG in the 4th is more significant. However, you never put yourself in a position to take points off of the board early in the game (2nd quarter) because you never know when/if you're going to need them. Parcells put his team in that position and it cost them dearly.

 
boubucarow said:
boubucarow said:
The Cowboys tried and failed the two point conversion in the 2nd quarter meaning that the Redskins did not have to do so 4th quarter. That was the end result of the failed play. It didn't cost them the game as the Redskins could have tied the game at 20 with that fourth quarter TD anyways.I disagree with going for two in the first three quarters except for possible extreme situations in the late third. The extra point has a 98% success rate while a 2 pointer is less than 50/50 from what I recall. Take the near certain points early because you have no idea how the scoring will alter what scores you will need in the end.
Click to expand...
Quoted to add...This is like passing up a uncontested dunk for a three point shot in the first quarter of an NBA game.
Click to expand...
It is nothing like that.There are probably about 200 points scored in an average NBA game.When the average score of NFL games is around 40 every point has a premium on it that can not be matched by a point in an NBA game.
 
Limp Ditka said:
boubucarow said:
boubucarow said:
The Cowboys tried and failed the two point conversion in the 2nd quarter meaning that the Redskins did not have to do so 4th quarter. That was the end result of the failed play. It didn't cost them the game as the Redskins could have tied the game at 20 with that fourth quarter TD anyways.I disagree with going for two in the first three quarters except for possible extreme situations in the late third. The extra point has a 98% success rate while a 2 pointer is less than 50/50 from what I recall. Take the near certain points early because you have no idea how the scoring will alter what scores you will need in the end.
Click to expand...
Quoted to add...This is like passing up a uncontested dunk for a three point shot in the first quarter of an NBA game.
Click to expand...
It is nothing like that.There are probably about 200 points scored in an average NBA game.When the average score of NFL games is around 40 every point has a premium on it that can not be matched by a point in an NBA game.
Click to expand...
So such a premium on points should mean you take the sure points before the uncertain points, no?
 
boubucarow said:
The Cowboys tried and failed the two point conversion in the 2nd quarter meaning that the Redskins did not have to do so 4th quarter. That was the end result of the failed play. It didn't cost them the game as the Redskins could have tied the game at 20 with that fourth quarter TD anyways.I disagree with going for two in the first three quarters except for possible extreme situations in the late third. The extra point has a 98% success rate while a 2 pointer is less than 50/50 from what I recall. Take the near certain points early because you have no idea how the scoring will alter what scores you will need in the end.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
boubucarow said:
Limp Ditka said:
boubucarow said:
boubucarow said:
The Cowboys tried and failed the two point conversion in the 2nd quarter meaning that the Redskins did not have to do so 4th quarter. That was the end result of the failed play. It didn't cost them the game as the Redskins could have tied the game at 20 with that fourth quarter TD anyways.I disagree with going for two in the first three quarters except for possible extreme situations in the late third. The extra point has a 98% success rate while a 2 pointer is less than 50/50 from what I recall. Take the near certain points early because you have no idea how the scoring will alter what scores you will need in the end.
Click to expand...
Quoted to add...This is like passing up a uncontested dunk for a three point shot in the first quarter of an NBA game.
Click to expand...
It is nothing like that.There are probably about 200 points scored in an average NBA game.When the average score of NFL games is around 40 every point has a premium on it that can not be matched by a point in an NBA game.
Click to expand...
So such a premium on points should mean you take the sure points before the uncertain points, no?
Click to expand...
of course
 
Limp Ditka said:
boubucarow said:
Limp Ditka said:
boubucarow said:
boubucarow said:
The Cowboys tried and failed the two point conversion in the 2nd quarter meaning that the Redskins did not have to do so 4th quarter. That was the end result of the failed play. It didn't cost them the game as the Redskins could have tied the game at 20 with that fourth quarter TD anyways.I disagree with going for two in the first three quarters except for possible extreme situations in the late third. The extra point has a 98% success rate while a 2 pointer is less than 50/50 from what I recall. Take the near certain points early because you have no idea how the scoring will alter what scores you will need in the end.
Click to expand...
Quoted to add...This is like passing up a uncontested dunk for a three point shot in the first quarter of an NBA game.
Click to expand...
It is nothing like that.There are probably about 200 points scored in an average NBA game.When the average score of NFL games is around 40 every point has a premium on it that can not be matched by a point in an NBA game.
Click to expand...
So such a premium on points should mean you take the sure points before the uncertain points, no?
Click to expand...
of course
Click to expand...
I do see your point on the NBA/NFL analogy. The better coorellation is the early to mid 4th quarter of a decently close NBA game.
 
I believe the TV coverage showed the stats for this season between XP and 2-pt. conversions. It was 99% for the kick and ~60-65% for 2-point attempts, IIRC.

So it all comes down to your own personal risk aversion.

Parcells wanted to attempt the maximum number of points in that situation. I respect the chutzpah. I think he realized how close the game could be and wanted to get as many points as he could, as early as possible.

It's not what I would have done, but there's a reason why Parcells does what he does, and I don't.

There are plenty of reasons not to like Peter King. "Siding with Parcells" would not be one of them, IMO.

 
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
bumpman said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
In a tight game like this, you can argue that any number of things "cost the game." In the end, the Cowboys had the game won with a chip shot FG and the FG team screwed it up, not just by getting the FG blocked, but committing the penalty that allowed the Redskins to kick the game winner.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the main point - you can make a list of things that can cost any team any game, and going for the 2 pointer early in the game is way down on that list. Easily #1 is allowing the JAIL BREAK on the left side of the line on that easy chip shot, game-winning FG. Then there's crappy tackling on Taylor's return. Then committing a facemask. Then the refs calling it a 15 yard facemask (BS).And let's not forget the amazing Terrell Owens stone-handing a beautifully thrown bomb by Romo that would've been an easy score.
Click to expand...
All of the bolded do not happen if one more point is on the board. Now where could they haven gotten just one more point?
Click to expand...
It changes the game. You can't just take 1 point from the 2nd quarter and add it into the end of the 4th quarter. A missed FG in the 4th to win the game is much more significant than losing a point in the 2nd quarter - they lost a point at a time when they were still winning the game - they blew a FG that would've WON the game.
Click to expand...
Of course a missed FG in the 4th is more significant. However, you never put yourself in a position to take points off of the board early in the game (2nd quarter) because you never know when/if you're going to need them. Parcells put his team in that position and it cost them dearly.
Click to expand...
The Skins won the game by 3 points on a FG at 0:00IF the Cowboys had kicked the extra point, they would have lost by 2. If they had completed the 2-point conversion, they would have lost by 1.

Doesn't the blocked FG hurt more?!?

ETA: Giants Stadium let out a huge cheer when they showed the Saftey and the Portis TD on the Scoreboard!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They should have kicked the XP, no doubt about it.

If they do:

-Dallas takes a 10-5 lead (not 9-5 lead) a bit later, and most likely, Washington goes for two when they score next (to attempt to make it 13-10, instead of just 12-10) or later (when scoring to make it 20-18). If they fail, then Dallas likely wins the game.

The bottom line is that Dallas should have forced Washington to have to make the two-point conversion one of those times, instead of chasing the points that early in the game.

ThisGuy said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
bumpman said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
In a tight game like this, you can argue that any number of things "cost the game." In the end, the Cowboys had the game won with a chip shot FG and the FG team screwed it up, not just by getting the FG blocked, but committing the penalty that allowed the Redskins to kick the game winner.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the main point - you can make a list of things that can cost any team any game, and going for the 2 pointer early in the game is way down on that list. Easily #1 is allowing the JAIL BREAK on the left side of the line on that easy chip shot, game-winning FG. Then there's crappy tackling on Taylor's return. Then committing a facemask. Then the refs calling it a 15 yard facemask (BS).And let's not forget the amazing Terrell Owens stone-handing a beautifully thrown bomb by Romo that would've been an easy score.
Click to expand...
All of the bolded do not happen if one more point is on the board. Now where could they haven gotten just one more point?
Click to expand...
It changes the game. You can't just take 1 point from the 2nd quarter and add it into the end of the 4th quarter. A missed FG in the 4th to win the game is much more significant than losing a point in the 2nd quarter - they lost a point at a time when they were still winning the game - they blew a FG that would've WON the game.
Click to expand...
Of course a missed FG in the 4th is more significant. However, you never put yourself in a position to take points off of the board early in the game (2nd quarter) because you never know when/if you're going to need them. Parcells put his team in that position and it cost them dearly.
Click to expand...
The Skins won the game by 3 points on a FG at 0:00IF the Cowboys had kicked the extra point, they would have lost by 2. If they had completed the 2-point conversion, they would have lost by 1.
Click to expand...
No, because why would they be attempting a FG on the last play of the game if they were already winning? No FG attempt means no blocked FG, which means Washington isn't in position to win it at the end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ThisGuy said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
bumpman said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
In a tight game like this, you can argue that any number of things "cost the game." In the end, the Cowboys had the game won with a chip shot FG and the FG team screwed it up, not just by getting the FG blocked, but committing the penalty that allowed the Redskins to kick the game winner.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the main point - you can make a list of things that can cost any team any game, and going for the 2 pointer early in the game is way down on that list. Easily #1 is allowing the JAIL BREAK on the left side of the line on that easy chip shot, game-winning FG. Then there's crappy tackling on Taylor's return. Then committing a facemask. Then the refs calling it a 15 yard facemask (BS).And let's not forget the amazing Terrell Owens stone-handing a beautifully thrown bomb by Romo that would've been an easy score.
Click to expand...
All of the bolded do not happen if one more point is on the board. Now where could they haven gotten just one more point?
Click to expand...
It changes the game. You can't just take 1 point from the 2nd quarter and add it into the end of the 4th quarter. A missed FG in the 4th to win the game is much more significant than losing a point in the 2nd quarter - they lost a point at a time when they were still winning the game - they blew a FG that would've WON the game.
Click to expand...
Of course a missed FG in the 4th is more significant. However, you never put yourself in a position to take points off of the board early in the game (2nd quarter) because you never know when/if you're going to need them. Parcells put his team in that position and it cost them dearly.
Click to expand...
The Skins won the game by 3 points on a FG at 0:00IF the Cowboys had kicked the extra point, they would have lost by 2. If they had completed the 2-point conversion, they would have lost by 1.

Doesn't the blocked FG hurt more?!?
Click to expand...
The blocked FG at 0:06 is never attempted if the Cowboys are up by one, they are taking a knee.The missed FG by the Redskins at 0:35 is also no longer taking place. The Redskins are down 4 and facing a must convert 4th and 6 at the Dallas 31.

 
Yes, lots of things cost Dallas the game. Still, I'm in the camp that believes you don't go for 2 early in the game. It was far too soon to worry about whether you're going up by 2 or by 3, and to suggest that being short that extra point was low on the list of important things in this game is ignoring reality.

As for TO dropping the long Romo pass? My guess is TO thought he was in a meeting. :sleep:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MeVsMaradona said:
Limp Ditka said:
From Monday Morning QB

I don't care if it didn't work. I loved Bill Parcells going for two after the Cowboys' first touchdown. You know why? Tony Romo is a mobile quarterback and showed last week on the same play how dangerous he is with five receivers spreading the field; he completed a two-point-conversion pass to Terrell Owens in Carolina eight days ago. Here, up 6-5, Romo spread the field again, rolled right but threw it incomplete
Click to expand...
That decision probably cost the Cowboys the game yesterday. I don't like to work in hypotheticals, but by going for the extra point, the Cowboys are still up one and only running the clock out at the end of the game. Instead, they are attempting a game winning FG with 6 seconds on the clock and setting themselves up for the unthinkable to happen.
Click to expand...
You do make an excellant point though. Everyone knows that you kick the PAT there that early on in the game. They would have won if they did this most likly.
Click to expand...
That's not true. From what I understand, the odds chart says you go for the 2pt-conversion. The pundits were saying to go against the odds.
 
Sidewinder16 said:
I believe the TV coverage showed the stats for this season between XP and 2-pt. conversions. It was 99% for the kick and ~60-65% for 2-point attempts, IIRC.So it all comes down to your own personal risk aversion.Parcells wanted to attempt the maximum number of points in that situation. I respect the chutzpah. I think he realized how close the game could be and wanted to get as many points as he could, as early as possible. It's not what I would have done, but there's a reason why Parcells does what he does, and I don't.There are plenty of reasons not to like Peter King. "Siding with Parcells" would not be one of them, IMO.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but if he realized that this game was going to be close, why in the world would he create the scenario to take a point off of the board early in the 2nd?It goes against logic
 
Did it cost them the game or not? Hard to tell, there are so many things that happen during a game. However I think there is no circumstance where you should go for 2 early in the game other than your kicker being injured.

 
Limp Ditka said:
From Monday Morning QB

I don't care if it didn't work. I loved Bill Parcells going for two after the Cowboys' first touchdown. You know why? Tony Romo is a mobile quarterback and showed last week on the same play how dangerous he is with five receivers spreading the field; he completed a two-point-conversion pass to Terrell Owens in Carolina eight days ago. Here, up 6-5, Romo spread the field again, rolled right but threw it incomplete
Click to expand...
That decision probably cost the Cowboys the game yesterday. I don't like to work in hypotheticals, but by going for the extra point, the Cowboys are still up one and only running the clock out at the end of the game. Instead, they are attempting a game winning FG with 6 seconds on the clock and setting themselves up for the unthinkable to happen.
Click to expand...
I geuss you're going to have to question Parcells' football knowledge too, seeing he was the one who went for two.
 
Limp Ditka said:
Sidewinder16 said:
I believe the TV coverage showed the stats for this season between XP and 2-pt. conversions. It was 99% for the kick and ~60-65% for 2-point attempts, IIRC.So it all comes down to your own personal risk aversion.Parcells wanted to attempt the maximum number of points in that situation. I respect the chutzpah. I think he realized how close the game could be and wanted to get as many points as he could, as early as possible. It's not what I would have done, but there's a reason why Parcells does what he does, and I don't.There are plenty of reasons not to like Peter King. "Siding with Parcells" would not be one of them, IMO.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but if he realized that this game was going to be close, why in the world would he create the scenario to take a point off of the board early in the 2nd?
Click to expand...
:shrug:Why don't you ask him that.I've got nothing against you not liking Peter King. I don't have many reasons to like him, myself.But on any given playcalling decision, I've got lots of reasons to believe Parcells can take care of himself. It may not be what you or I would do, but I think Parcells could care less what you or I would do.
 
Finless said:
Limp Ditka said:
From Monday Morning QB

I don't care if it didn't work. I loved Bill Parcells going for two after the Cowboys' first touchdown. You know why? Tony Romo is a mobile quarterback and showed last week on the same play how dangerous he is with five receivers spreading the field; he completed a two-point-conversion pass to Terrell Owens in Carolina eight days ago. Here, up 6-5, Romo spread the field again, rolled right but threw it incomplete
Click to expand...
That decision probably cost the Cowboys the game yesterday. I don't like to work in hypotheticals, but by going for the extra point, the Cowboys are still up one and only running the clock out at the end of the game. Instead, they are attempting a game winning FG with 6 seconds on the clock and setting themselves up for the unthinkable to happen.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Peter splits 10's in Black jack?
Click to expand...
Only if he has a "mobile" dealer
 
going for two outside of the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter is always a mistake.

It's like hitting on 17 in blackjack.

 
Finless said:
Limp Ditka said:
From Monday Morning QB

I don't care if it didn't work. I loved Bill Parcells going for two after the Cowboys' first touchdown. You know why? Tony Romo is a mobile quarterback and showed last week on the same play how dangerous he is with five receivers spreading the field; he completed a two-point-conversion pass to Terrell Owens in Carolina eight days ago. Here, up 6-5, Romo spread the field again, rolled right but threw it incomplete
Click to expand...
That decision probably cost the Cowboys the game yesterday. I don't like to work in hypotheticals, but by going for the extra point, the Cowboys are still up one and only running the clock out at the end of the game. Instead, they are attempting a game winning FG with 6 seconds on the clock and setting themselves up for the unthinkable to happen.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Peter splits 10's in Black jack?
Click to expand...
i'm sure the dumb### does!!!!
 
Penalties are what killed the cowboys, stupid F ***ing penalties.

Going for 2 puts them up by 3 and was a risk early, but didn't kill us.

I personally think he should have taken points.

As noted earlier, if up by one, Wash plays differently throughout the game and most likely at the end their FG would not have happened.

What about the safety? Can't get a friggin yd out of your own endzone! Oh yes, there was an offside that pushed the play back. Was it really a safety? No challenge by Bill. Replay looked questionable. Talk about a momentum change there. Defense plays outstanding and offense gives up 2 points in one play.

FACEMASK - Bad enough the kicked is blocked, but to let them run it back 30yds and give them 15 more on the penalty and the extra play was insane. Cowboys put themselves in that position with all the earlier penalties and some soso coaching calls.

Owens - If he F***ing smiles one more time after dropping a pass I think Big Bill needs to smack it off his face or Jerry needs to ask for a refund of some of his signing bonus.

 
JetsWillWin said:
Yeah this is the main point - you can make a list of things that can cost any team any game, and going for the 2 pointer early in the game is way down on that list. Easily #1 is allowing the JAIL BREAK on the left side of the line on that easy chip shot, game-winning FG. Then there's crappy tackling on Taylor's return. Then committing a facemask. Then the refs calling it a 15 yard facemask (BS).

And let's not forget the amazing Terrell Owens stone-handing a beautifully thrown bomb by Romo that would've been an easy score.
Click to expand...
:no: We've all seen worse infractions, but that one was definitely in the 15-yard category.

Edit to add - I don't fault the Dallas player for the foul - he's trying to make the play in the open field against a faster, quicker guy and so he reaches out to contain him and gets only facemask when Taylor jukes. It happens.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you boil it down to simple, unemotional mathematics and probability:

In the NFL, the national average for success on a two-point conversion is 43 percent versus 94 percent when kicking the extra point. In the NCAA, the two-point conversion is successful 43.5 percent of the time versus 93.8 percent when kicking the extra point.
Click to expand...
http://www.humankinetics.com/products/show...excerpt_id=3766....you kick the extra point, as you are giving up a fraction of a point every time you go for two. :nerd:

 
The funny thing is Peter King simply said he loved that Parcells went for two. He never said anything about always going for two or going for two under certain conditions. He just loved that call even though it didn't work. Good grief we're desperate to argue anything.

I remember Dungy coaching the Bucs and going very conservative with his play calling. He did a trick play on 3rd and long and and it didn't work but I loved that he tried it. Doesn't mean I want a trick play every time Dungy is looking at 3rd and long.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
The funny thing is Peter King simply said he loved that Parcells went for two. He never said anything about always going for two or going for two under certain conditions. He just loved that call even though it didn't work. Good grief we're desperate to argue anything. I remember Dungy coaching the Bucs and going very conservative with his play calling. He did a trick play on 3rd and long and and it didn't work but I loved that he tried it. Doesn't mean I want a trick play every time Dungy is looking at 3rd and long.
Click to expand...
Not included in my original post, but he does elaborate further on the point.
My theory on going for two: If I have a mobile quarterback and receivers I trust, I'd do it every time -- unless, of course, you need a point to tie or win late in the fourth quarter of a game. If you're going to be able to make the conversion more than 50 percent of the time, you're going to score more points than if you went for one every time. So why not do it?
Click to expand...
 
Limp Ditka said:
My theory on going for two: If I have a mobile quarterback and receivers I trust, I'd do it every time -- unless, of course, you need a point to tie or win late in the fourth quarter of a game. If you're going to be able to make the conversion more than 50 percent of the time, you're going to score more points than if you went for one every time. So why not do it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This of course assumes that you have Danny Wuerffel at QB.
 
Limp Ditka said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
The funny thing is Peter King simply said he loved that Parcells went for two. He never said anything about always going for two or going for two under certain conditions. He just loved that call even though it didn't work. Good grief we're desperate to argue anything. I remember Dungy coaching the Bucs and going very conservative with his play calling. He did a trick play on 3rd and long and and it didn't work but I loved that he tried it. Doesn't mean I want a trick play every time Dungy is looking at 3rd and long.
Click to expand...
Not included in my original post, but he does elaborate further on the point.
My theory on going for two: If I have a mobile quarterback and receivers I trust, I'd do it every time -- unless, of course, you need a point to tie or win late in the fourth quarter of a game. If you're going to be able to make the conversion more than 50 percent of the time, you're going to score more points than if you went for one every time. So why not do it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And this conlcudes the final time NorvilleBarnes even remotely defends Peter King. Thank you.
 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Limp Ditka said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
The funny thing is Peter King simply said he loved that Parcells went for two. He never said anything about always going for two or going for two under certain conditions. He just loved that call even though it didn't work. Good grief we're desperate to argue anything. I remember Dungy coaching the Bucs and going very conservative with his play calling. He did a trick play on 3rd and long and and it didn't work but I loved that he tried it. Doesn't mean I want a trick play every time Dungy is looking at 3rd and long.
Click to expand...
Not included in my original post, but he does elaborate further on the point.
My theory on going for two: If I have a mobile quarterback and receivers I trust, I'd do it every time -- unless, of course, you need a point to tie or win late in the fourth quarter of a game. If you're going to be able to make the conversion more than 50 percent of the time, you're going to score more points than if you went for one every time. So why not do it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And this conlcudes the final time NorvilleBarnes even remotely defends Peter King. Thank you.
Click to expand...
:lmao: Well played.
 
Limp Ditka said:
From Monday Morning QB

I don't care if it didn't work. I loved Bill Parcells going for two after the Cowboys' first touchdown. You know why? Tony Romo is a mobile quarterback and showed last week on the same play how dangerous he is with five receivers spreading the field; he completed a two-point-conversion pass to Terrell Owens in Carolina eight days ago. Here, up 6-5, Romo spread the field again, rolled right but threw it incomplete
Click to expand...
That decision probably cost the Cowboys the game yesterday. I don't like to work in hypotheticals, but by going for the extra point, the Cowboys are still up one and only running the clock out at the end of the game. Instead, they are attempting a game winning FG with 6 seconds on the clock and setting themselves up for the unthinkable to happen.
Click to expand...
wouldn't you have to assume that if they had only gone for 1 and made it that the Redskins would've then gone for 2 on one of their extra point attempts, so the score could've easily still been tied?
 
Assani Fisher said:
Limp Ditka said:
From Monday Morning QB

I don't care if it didn't work. I loved Bill Parcells going for two after the Cowboys' first touchdown. You know why? Tony Romo is a mobile quarterback and showed last week on the same play how dangerous he is with five receivers spreading the field; he completed a two-point-conversion pass to Terrell Owens in Carolina eight days ago. Here, up 6-5, Romo spread the field again, rolled right but threw it incomplete
Click to expand...
That decision probably cost the Cowboys the game yesterday. I don't like to work in hypotheticals, but by going for the extra point, the Cowboys are still up one and only running the clock out at the end of the game. Instead, they are attempting a game winning FG with 6 seconds on the clock and setting themselves up for the unthinkable to happen.
Click to expand...
wouldn't you have to assume that if they had only gone for 1 and made it that the Redskins would've then gone for 2 on one of their extra point attempts, so the score could've easily still been tied?
Click to expand...
Not according to Ditka. According to Ditka everything would've been the same, so you can just add 1 point to Dallas' score in the 4th quarter. :rolleyes:
 
JetsWillWin said:
bumpman said:
Limp Ditka said:
JetsWillWin said:
If you think that that cost them the game, then you are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
And you are very, very vague with your comment, leading me to believe that you know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
In a tight game like this, you can argue that any number of things "cost the game." In the end, the Cowboys had the game won with a chip shot FG and the FG team screwed it up, not just by getting the FG blocked, but committing the penalty that allowed the Redskins to kick the game winner.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the main point - you can make a list of things that can cost any team any game, and going for the 2 pointer early in the game is way down on that list. Easily #1 is allowing the JAIL BREAK on the left side of the line on that easy chip shot, game-winning FG. Then there's crappy tackling on Taylor's return. Then committing a facemask. Then the refs calling it a 15 yard facemask (BS).And let's not forget the amazing Terrell Owens stone-handing a beautifully thrown bomb by Romo that would've been an easy score.
Click to expand...
I don't get how Cowboys fans continue to debate this.The NFL rule is very clear that if the hand yanks the helmet and causes the head to turn that its an AUTOMATIC 15 yarder...and thats exactly what happened...what game were you guys watching???

 
JetsWillWin said:
Assani Fisher said:
Limp Ditka said:
From Monday Morning QB

I don't care if it didn't work. I loved Bill Parcells going for two after the Cowboys' first touchdown. You know why? Tony Romo is a mobile quarterback and showed last week on the same play how dangerous he is with five receivers spreading the field; he completed a two-point-conversion pass to Terrell Owens in Carolina eight days ago. Here, up 6-5, Romo spread the field again, rolled right but threw it incomplete
Click to expand...
That decision probably cost the Cowboys the game yesterday. I don't like to work in hypotheticals, but by going for the extra point, the Cowboys are still up one and only running the clock out at the end of the game. Instead, they are attempting a game winning FG with 6 seconds on the clock and setting themselves up for the unthinkable to happen.
Click to expand...
wouldn't you have to assume that if they had only gone for 1 and made it that the Redskins would've then gone for 2 on one of their extra point attempts, so the score could've easily still been tied?
Click to expand...
Not according to Ditka. According to Ditka everything would've been the same, so you can just add 1 point to Dallas' score in the 4th quarter. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Really, please stop. The amount of relevant infofmation you are adding to this conversation has my head spinning.
 
Assani Fisher said:
Limp Ditka said:
From Monday Morning QB

I don't care if it didn't work. I loved Bill Parcells going for two after the Cowboys' first touchdown. You know why? Tony Romo is a mobile quarterback and showed last week on the same play how dangerous he is with five receivers spreading the field; he completed a two-point-conversion pass to Terrell Owens in Carolina eight days ago. Here, up 6-5, Romo spread the field again, rolled right but threw it incomplete
Click to expand...
That decision probably cost the Cowboys the game yesterday. I don't like to work in hypotheticals, but by going for the extra point, the Cowboys are still up one and only running the clock out at the end of the game. Instead, they are attempting a game winning FG with 6 seconds on the clock and setting themselves up for the unthinkable to happen.
Click to expand...
wouldn't you have to assume that if they had only gone for 1 and made it that the Redskins would've then gone for 2 on one of their extra point attempts, so the score could've easily still been tied?
Click to expand...
I would assume that. And I would also assume that I'd rather force a team to attempt to go for two late in a game than go for two myself early in the game because the so called "book" told me too.
 
the problem with your entire argument, Limp Ditka, is that its totally results oriented thinking. Suppose that they went for one and made it and they ended up losing the game by one point....then would that have been the wrong call to just go for one?

You can say that you wouldn't go for two in that situation- that is fine. But your argument needs to totally ignore the results of this one game because that is the very definition of the fallacy of results oriented thinking.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
Monday Morning-Observations and Questions
Replies
19
Views
1K
LawFitz
LawFitz
T
travdogg's favorite values as of 7/21
Replies
44
Views
3K
Deamon
Deamon
T
My final 2022 mock draft, 3 rounds
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
travdogg
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top