What IDIOT called for a 2-pt converion?

[primetime441]

CONSPIRACY THEORY:

Shanny is tanking games to give his buddy Jeff Fisher the 1st overall pick.

[ZRagone]

Nothing wrong with going for it. We have no reason to need to play it safe there, and it was still playing to win. Trying to win a game isn't "quitting". Wasn't a great okay call...but the actual call to go for it? No issue in this situation.

[MEANDWARF]

If this game was important, we kick a pat. In other words if it was against the Cowboys, we kick a pat. Otherwise this game doesn't matter.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Given the situation I hated it. Priority should be Kirk's development and trade value, and a good deal of the positive he build on that last drive goes away with one play.

You think scouts or GMs aren't able to separate that one play from the rest of Cousins' game?

[clskinsfan]

At first I was pissed about it. But after thinking about it for a bit. It was the right decision. The game is meaningless. Shanny knows he's gone anyways. So what difference does it make.

[Rufus T Firefly]

You think scouts or GMs aren't able to separate that one play from the rest of Cousins' game?

I think in a results business, having the game end on a bad play for Cousins leaves a bad final impression. That doesn't undo everything good he did, but it certainly doesn't help.

 

And probably worse is the feeling it leaves the QB with.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think in a results business, having the game end on a bad play for Cousins leaves a bad final impression. That doesn't undo everything good he did, but it certainly doesn't help.

 

And probably worse is the feeling it leaves the QB with.

Got it. I see your point. I misunderstood originally and thought you meant his value would be impacted.

[ldysknzfn1]

I predicted that's what we would do...I'm not a fan of going for it there..I understand the philosophy behind it...the playcall was terrible...how about let's not turn the ball over 7 times and not get in to that situation to begin with? Hmmm? Ok...

[ogskinsfan]

you guys are missing the point ....that stuff gets people together ......i bet he asked some people what they thought before they did it or maybe not..........the point had already been proven on offense anyways............i finally enjoyed a game in the last two months

[Rufus T Firefly]

Got it. I see your point. I misunderstood originally and thought you meant his value would be impacted.

I am, but not by a lot. I just think, both in terms of KC's confidence and the trade value, the 2 pt decision lost a chance to end the game on nothing but a high note for him.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I am, but not by a lot. I just think, both in terms of KC's confidence and the trade value, the 2 pt decision lost a chance to end the game on nothing but a high note for him.

That makes sense.

[Wyvern]

Wow! After reading this thread's many opinions -- I guess I'm in the minority here, because I didn't like Shanahan's decision to go for the 2-point conversion. I thought the Falcons spirits had sagged, after letting us get back into the game so close to the end, and I suspect that some defeatism might have lingered over and undercut the Falcons' overtime performance.

In overtime, I thought the newly energized Skins D could be disruptive enough to stall an Atlanta drive, and that the Skins Offense had momentum and was capable of moving the ball on the Falcons' D. Granted, the refs and the Skins STs could probably be negative factors, but overall I liked the Skins chances going into OT. I acknowledge that what I wanted runs counter to the truisms about visiting teams going for the win, while home teams can be more cautious. Still, I liked our chances in overtime, better than gambling all on a 2-point play

During the presser -- Shanahan mentions how it looked from the Falcons personnel on the field, that the Skins actually had a high percentage winning play prepared if it was going up against the defense that the Falcons was setting up. At one point, Shanahan seemed to suggest that something might have happened to to alter that percentage slightly, -- perhaps the Falcons changed their alignment a bit -- but whatever, the Skins failed to call the timeout and conservatively just kick an extra point. Once committed, the Skins didn't execute, and I note that Cousins is shouldering the blame.

I guess I can understand the "let's give the team a chance to win it out, right now" gambling philosophy. But frankly, this episode wasn't a good reflection on Shanahan's ability to run a well-coordinated sideline during crunch time. From what I've seen this team hasn't been able to quickly change their calls/strategies under time-pressure.

All that said, this was a fun game to watch!

[Dirt]

OP clearly doesn't know Mike Shannahan.  He's bound to make that call no matter what our record is.

 

I posted somewhere about a week ago, that in this lost season, I hope we get to see one of these badass, ballsy go-for-the-win calls.  I got it, we didn't get it.  But I'll tell you what:  I had that little tiny fire of excitement in my belly during the whole thing.  Haven't had that feeling all season.

 

And...I'm not on the team, but I think I can promise you that it didn't damage the players psyche or whatever.  They know what's up.  

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

We were 3-10, and people are upset that we went for a two point conversion to win the game?  Give me a freaking break.

[Bacon]

Our percentages on making that play is about the same as our onside kicks.

Picking up 2 yards with Alfred Morris running behind Trent Williams is more likely than our ST recovering an onside kick.

And really, do you want our defense to even potentially be responsible for us winning a game? Ever?

[ogskinsfan]

We were 3-10, and people are upset that we went for a two point conversion to win the game?  Give me a freaking break.

geez i couldnt of said it better.............it was the equivalent of doubling down an 11 in vegas....unless you are using house payment money....then you should be home anyways.........i love doing that

[d10]

I don't mind the call, but this call always gets second guessed when it fails and there's a reason for that.  It's putting all your chips on one roll of the dice.

 

Actually the opposite is true. If you kick the XP, you can only win by beating the Falcons in OT. If you go for two, you can win by converting, or recovering an onside kick and making a FG. The game always ends at some point. Keeping hope alive a while longer might feel good emotionally, but it has no relevance on what the higher % play is.

[goskins10]

Given the situation I hated it. Priority should be Kirk's development and trade value, and a good deal of the positive he build on that last drive goes away with one play.

 

 

Sorry but thats way overly simplistic. So all he did goes away due to one failed conversion attempt at the end of a game? Sorry but that's just absurd. Also, Cousins is not going anywhere unless a new coaching staff comes in and even then, he probably still stays. This obsession with his "trade value" is ludicrous. You need 2 QBs in the NFL, especially when your designated starter still has a lot of development left and is an easy injury target given his style of play. 

 

This was the right decision from every possibly angle. Even all the players supported the decision. They were saying on the radio broadcast that we would go for two before the drive even started. But I guess you know more than Sonny and Cooley.  

[goskins10]

LOL@The "risking injury" excuse. None of the important starters would be playing if Mike Shanahan cared about them getting hurt in meaningless games.

 

 

That's funny, it was the players who said this most. But I guess you know better than the players on the field…  

 

It was not an "excuse" it was part of the decision making process. 

[TheItalianStallion]

It was the wrong call. There are circumstances where going for the win would've been justified, but not here. If we'd managed to punch it in at the end vs Minny several weeks back, going for 2 would've been a good call, as our D was completely unable to stop Minnesota's O in that game, and our O struggled in the 2nd half. Those circumstances were very similar to when Shanny decided to go for 2 vs SD with Denver back in 2008, where Denver's O struggled in the 2nd half, and their D couldn't stop SD.

 

But that was not the case here: aside from their opening drive, ATL had ZERO points which didn't come off turnovers by us. So to those of you who say that you didn't have confidence in our D to make a stop in OT, they actually WERE playing well in this game. Our O was clicking and was rarely stopped by anything other than unforced errors on our part. Under those circumstances it's a no-brainer: you take your chances with OT.

 

To those of you who say that people wouldn't be criticizing the decision had it worked out: BS. Don't presume to tell me what I would be thinking. Even before the 2pt attempt, I was screaming at the TV not to do it. I've criticized what I believed to be bad decisions even after they worked out.

[goskins10]

I agree, that's the way I looked at it. Our percentages on making that play is about the same as our onside kicks. I knew when they lined up for it I felt "oh well, we lost, now 3-11." I know it doesn't matter because of how our season is at this year, but we've already shown this year that we can win in OT.

 

 

Actually you could not be more wrong - On sides kicks are historically 26% successful where 2 pt conversions are successful approximately 48% of the time, almost 2 to 1. 

 

You almost always go for the win on the road and the tie at home. There was zero reason to go into overtime. Better to try and end it right there, and still have a small chance at an on sides kick. With our special teams it's very possible we never see the ball! Also, while our D played a very good game for once, they too have been known to go into comas at critical points of the game. 

 

At this point, I am no MS fan but this was the right call. Oh, BTW, the players, you know the ones on the field that actually play the game, loved the call.  

[Spear]

The players' backing of the decision is irrelevant. If you put up every fourth-down call to a team vote, you'd only see a punt on 4th and 20+. That's why it's not up to them. And that's why it's not up to fan vote, either. Nor the vote of reporters attending an away game and counting the days until vacation. The decision is the head coach's alone and a responsible head coach should never put the outcome of a game on a single play unless he has no other option. There was another option.

[goskins10]

It was the wrong call. There are circumstances where going for the win would've been justified, but not here. If we'd managed to punch it in at the end vs Minny several weeks back, going for 2 would've been a good call, as our D was completely unable to stop Minnesota's O in that game, and our O struggled in the 2nd half. Those circumstances were very similar to when Shanny decided to go for 2 vs SD with Denver back in 2008, where Denver's O struggled in the 2nd half, and their D couldn't stop SD.

 

But that was not the case here: aside from their opening drive, ATL had ZERO points which didn't come off turnovers by us. So to those of you who say that you didn't have confidence in our D to make a stop in OT, they actually WERE playing well in this game. Our O was clicking and was rarely stopped by anything other than unforced errors on our part. Under those circumstances it's a no-brainer: you take your chances with OT.

 

To those of you who say that people wouldn't be criticizing the decision had it worked out: BS. Don't presume to tell me what I would be thinking. Even before the 2pt attempt, I was screaming at the TV not to do it. I've criticized what I believed to be bad decisions even after they worked out.

 

 

You are right the D was playing well but that is only one part of the decision. The Off was playing well right then. Why not seize that momentum for one more play. You still have the on sides kick to try, not as big a potential but still it's a chance. Also, I am more worried about STs giving up a big play than the D. A return TD and it's over, we never see the ball. 

 

More importantly, the players loved the call, the guys in the booth, Sonny and Cooley called it before the drive started and said it was the right call, the %s are in your favor (the 2 pt convs is about 48% successful), and the historical wisdom says go for the win on the road and the tie at home. 

[goskins10]

The players' backing of the decision is irrelevant. If you put up every fourth-down call to a team vote, you'd only see a punt on 4th and 20+. That's why it's not up to them. And that's why it's not up to fan vote, either. Nor the vote of reporters attending an away game and counting the days until vacation. The decision is the head coach's alone and a responsible head coach should never put the outcome of a game on a single play unless he has no other option. There was another option.

 

 

How is it all on one play? We still have the on side kick. Also, how are you so sure we get the ball back? STs has been giving up big plays all year. Also, while the D was playing very well, they have been known to go into a coma at critical times. Saying the players are irrelevant, thats a new one. Last I saw they are the ones getting the paycheck to play the game, but I am sure you are right they are not that important.  

 

Also, those "reporters" are a HOF QB and one of the best TEs in Redskins history. They know a thing or two about the game, much more than you do. Also, the prevailing wisdom has always been go for the win on the road. 

[KokoMike]

If Shanahan made the right call, why didn't the play work? Did somebody run the wrong route, or did Cousins not make the right read?