[Goose]

Yes, I was at the game and wasn't happy with going for one at 24-6. The only reason I can think of Shaw gave up was that we'd burned two timeouts and probably needed to recover two onside kicks to have any chance.

It was a question of having to recover two onside kicks vs. having to recover three, so it still didn't make sense.  The only thing that might have made sense is total capitulation, i.e., not even trying the onside kick after the score.

I wondered if Shaw just didn't want to reveal our best 2-point conversion play in such a meaningless situation, but then why not just call another play?  

It's mostly symbolic.  We are probably making too much of Shaw's decisions down 24 points in the final two minutes.  I'd like to think he would have gotten it right if it had mattered.  But why even invite questions among fans and, more importantly, players?

Back to the original post - it’s slightly delusional, but not entirely. I’m all for it! It’s too soon to know a team’s potential after one game.

 Is recovering 3 onside kicks,  scoring 2 more touchdowns kicking 3 extra points and making a field goal less probable than recovering 2 onside kicks, scoring 2 more touchdowns and converting 3 two point conversions? When you are dealing with vanishingly small probabilities, it may be very hard to evaluate. I submit that both numbers are so close to zero it is hard to argue one way or the other.

[Goose]

Yes, I was at the game and wasn't happy with going for one at 24-6. The only reason I can think of Shaw gave up was that we'd burned two timeouts and probably needed to recover two onside kicks to have any chance.

It was a question of having to recover two onside kicks vs. having to recover three, so it still didn't make sense.  The only thing that might have made sense is total capitulation, i.e., not even trying the onside kick after the score.

I wondered if Shaw just didn't want to reveal our best 2-point conversion play in such a meaningless situation, but then why not just call another play?  

It's mostly symbolic.  We are probably making too much of Shaw's decisions down 24 points in the final two minutes.  I'd like to think he would have gotten it right if it had mattered.  But why even invite questions among fans and, more importantly, players?

Back to the original post - it’s slightly delusional, but not entirely. I’m all for it! It’s too soon to know a team’s potential after one game.

 Is recovering 3 onside kicks,  scoring 2 more touchdowns kicking 3 extra points and making a field goal less probable than recovering 2 onside kicks, scoring 2 more touchdowns and converting 3 two point conversions? When you are dealing with vanishingly small probabilities, it may be very hard to evaluate. I submit that both numbers are so close to zero it is hard to argue one way or the other.