The Eagles Went For a Really Stupid Two-Point Conversion And My Dumb Brain Does Not Understand The Math Behind The People Defending Them

When I was younger, I was good at math. 

I'm talking middle school. Elementary school. Just crushing. "Your dad was an engineer, that's why you're good at math," my mom would say. But I've killed enough brain cells over the years to confirm those days are LONG gone. My attempts to help my 7th grader with math homework have been embarrassing. 

And I'm here to admit that my very dumb brain can't wrap my head around the math behind what the Eagles did yesterday. 

So Jordie has already covered the Eagles' dreadful effort on Friday against the Bears. But the morning after, I'm still having trouble with the math on Nick Sirianni's 2-point attempt late in the game. 

The Eagles scored a touchdown with 3:10 left in the game, cutting the lead to 24-15. 

Not a math guy, but that's a 9-point deficit. There are no 9-point plays in the NFL… yet. So, by cutting the lead to nine, it's a two-possession game. 

So you kick the extra point, make it in an 8-point game, and kick off to the Bears. Right? Because my dumb brain DOES know an 8-point game is a one-possession game. So kick the extra point, and give yourself a chance to tie the game on the following (1) possession. 

Instead, the Eagles go for two and fail to convert, keeping it a 9-point, two-possession game, with just 3:10 to go. 

Greg Olson tried to explain why the Eagles made the right call. He argues that knowing early how many possessions you'll need is helpful. I'd argue that by NOT converting there, you KNOW you can't tie it on one possession; the next possession, assuming you get a stop. Don't you want to give yourself a chance to tie the game on the next possession?

Reply Guy JJ Watt jumped in and mentioned the human element. 

HOW ABOUT THE ELEMENT THAT BY NOT CONVERTING THERE, YOU'VE GUARANTEED YOU CAN'T TIE THE GAME ON THE NEXT POSSESSION IF YOU GET THE STOP. 

Olson came back at Emmanuel Acho for agreeing with Watt. I have to say, I could actually see being less motivated as a defender KNOWING you need two stops or a stop and an onside kick to tie or win the game. 

Because the Eagles didn't convert, they were forced to go for an onside kick. In 2025, only 1 of 21 onside kicks has been successful (4.7%). Are Olson and the Math Bros factoring that in??? The Eagles, of course, didn't get the onside kick attempt. 

But back to the 2-point attempt. You make the call: 

A. Down 15, you kick the extra point, and now you're down 8. You need a defensive stop, a score, and a successful 2-point attempt to tie the game. 

B. Now, down 15 and go for two and fail, as the Eagles did. You need a stop or an onside recovery. Then you need a score. Then you need another stop or an onside recovery. And then a TD or FG to win. I guess you could go FG then TD, but you get my point. 

Would you choose A or B? I guess the math guys and Olson would pick B? I'm taking A all day. 

But as I said, I'm dumb. Help me out in comments - what am I missing here? I want to learn. I want to understand. Right now, I don't. 

I may suck at math, but even I know that 20% of everything in the Barstool Store through Cyber Monday is a must-play. Seriously. Do some shopping in the store, save 20%, then explain in the comments what I'm missing.