No More Xtra Pts...Go For 2!!!

[fridge]

I would love to go for two more often, but some people are overlooking the difficulty of achieving it at a high success rate.

 

Another note: I don't think coaches spend enough time practicing the two-point conversion or the onside kick, so I have little faith in those situations. I think those are situations that are treated as rarities that come down to chance, and are often misunderstood for their ability to be well rehearsed. For example, when a coach calls a jump ball to their top receiver on a 2 point conversion I can't help but feel they weren't prepared enough for the situation.

[Dorkington]

League wide:

 

Teams averaged 0.957 points per attempt when attempting 2 pt conversions.

 

Teams averaged 0.942 points per attempt when attempting extra points.

I'll just quote myself, because its the last post of the first page, and I think it's an important data point.

[BringBackFergy]

 

The Jags game was lost for reasons other than not going for 2. Again, if only 50% of 2 point conversions are successful, the outcome would be the same in a 2 or 3 point loss.

 

 

 

I hear ya...but taking EJ's vision impairment out of the equation for a minute and other factors, the overall point is that consistently attempting 2 pt conversions, in the long run...over 4 quarters of football, will result in a higher point total.

 

When looking at our offense, we are built to score fast and score often (Tyrod, Shady, Sammy, Clay, etc). Our defense needs to be upgraded. But if it's a race to see who has more points when the clock strikes 0:00 at the end of the 4th, we can score more points if we simply upgrade, master and execute a series of well thought out 2 pt conversions. Those games that we lost by 2, 3, 4 or even 5 pts could become "Wins"

I'll just quote myself, because its the last post of the first page, and I think it's an important data point.

I hear ya

[GaryPinC]

Current XP rules except that:

 

Teams have to go for two in the first half, their choice in the second half.

 

Bonus just for poops and giggles: drop kick is worth 2 points all game and must be kicked 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage instead of 7.

[mannc]

League wide:

 

Teams averaged 0.957 points per attempt when attempting 2 pt conversions.

 

Teams averaged 0.942 points per attempt when attempting extra points.

This is the critical data and should be enough to convince teams to at least consider going for two more regularly, if not all the time. And it seems possible that a team could improve its success rate by coming up with, and practicing, a well-conceived two-point conversion package. And of course teams with kickers like Carp would benefit even more. I'm not optimistic though; this is a "play-not-to-lose" league and most coaches would be afraid of the mindless criticism from fans and announcers if the scheme doesn't work once or twice.

I'll just quote myself, because its the last post of the first page, and I think it's an important data point.

Another data point I would like to see is the success rate when the two-point play is a run, instead of a pass. I believe the success rate is significantly higher with running plays. And you don't have to look only at this year. Two point conversions have been available from the same location for many years, so there is plenty more data available. I'm just too lazy to track it down.

[Mr. WEO]

I hear ya...but taking EJ's vision impairment out of the equation for a minute and other factors, the overall point is that consistently attempting 2 pt conversions, in the long run...over 4 quarters of football, will result in a higher point total.

 

When looking at our offense, we are built to score fast and score often (Tyrod, Shady, Sammy, Clay, etc). Our defense needs to be upgraded. But if it's a race to see who has more points when the clock strikes 0:00 at the end of the 4th, we can score more points if we simply upgrade, master and execute a series of well thought out 2 pt conversions. Those games that we lost by 2, 3, 4 or even 5 pts could become "Wins"

I hear ya

 

 

No. The math says it won't. If it was as easy as you think, every team would do this.

 

If we were built to score fast and often, we wouldn't be counting on 2 point conversions to win games.

[mannc]

 

 

No. The math says it won't. If it was as easy as you think, every team would do this.

 

 

Yes, the math says it will. Read the posts above, esp. by Dorkington. As to your second point, that is just plain wrong. Coaches (foolishly) ignore solid analytics all the time.

[Alphadawg7]

 

 

Unfortunately, they don't give you credit for "overall points" in the NFL--only overall points per game.

 

If you fail 50% (or more) of the time at a 2 pointer while your opponent is getting a PAT 95% of the time, you will not win trading touchdowns.

 

Its math though...if you average 4 TDs a game and average 85% conversion rate (someone said we missed 15% of our XP attempts above, I have no idea if thats accurate or not, but using it since someone said it) then you will average 6.85 points per TD or 27.4 points per 4 TDs.

 

50% conversion rate on 2 pt conversion means you will average 7 points per TD, or 28 points per those 4 TDs. So mathmatically, you would average more points per game going for 2 assuming you had a less than 100% XP conversion rate and a near, at or above 50% 2pt conversion rate.

 

In the example I used of 85% xp and 48% 2 pt conversion rates, the math still works in favor of averaging more points per TD and more points per game going for 2. Im only using averages people posted in the thread, so I didnt confirm those are accurate.

 

And you are mathematically incorrect in your last statement. You said if you fail 50% of the time on a 2 point conversion, which is an average of 7 points per TD in that scenario. Then you said your opponents averages 95% XP accuracy, which equates to an average of 6.95 points per touchdown. So mathematically they can't beat us, not the other way around. Of course not all situations are as black and white as math makes it, but statistical averages indicate going for 2 is better overall in the scenario you said we would not win with.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Alphadawg7

[reddogblitz]

I'd be interested to see if we would have won 1 or 2 more games if we had attempted 3 or 4 two pt conversions with 50% success rate in a few games (Eagles, Jags, Giants??)

 

We would have lost 24-12.

 

If we did decide to go for 2 a lot, then of course our opponents would notice this as well. They would prepare for it specifically like they probably don't now. They would study our conversion plays fastidiously. Even though the league success rate has been 48%, with us doing it more and team's preparing, our success rate may not be that high?

[BuffaloMatt]

Is that you Norwood?

[Mr. WEO]

Yes, the math says it will. Read the posts above, esp. by Dorkington. As to your second point, that is just plain wrong. Coaches (foolishly) ignore solid analytics all the time.

 

Dorkington's post confirms that there will be no statistical difference. See his post. Also note that the sample size for 2 point conversions is tiny compared to PATs. There is no reason to believe that conversions, if done on every TD instead of PATs would increase in rate of success. I bet it is as likely that defenses would get better than offenses in this regard and the rate would therefore go down.

 

Coaches want to win. If you were right, this one simple change would be easy for them to adapt. They all disagree with you...and not because they are stubborn.

 

 

Its math though...if you average 4 TDs a game and average 85% conversion rate (someone said we missed 15% of our XP attempts above, I have no idea if thats accurate or not, but using it since someone said it) then you will average 6.85 points per TD or 27.4 points per 4 TDs.

 

50% conversion rate on 2 pt conversion means you will average 7 points per TD, or 28 points per those 4 TDs. So mathmatically, you would average more points per game going for 2 assuming you had a less than 100% XP conversion rate and a near, at or above 50% 2pt conversion rate.

 

In the example I used of 85% xp and 48% 2 pt conversion rates, the math still works in favor of averaging more points per TD and more points per game going for 2. Im only using averages people posted in the thread, so I didnt confirm those are accurate.

And you are mathematically incorrect in your last statement. You said if you fail 50% of the time on a 2 point conversion, which is an average of 7 points per TD in that scenario. Then you said your opponents averages 95% XP accuracy, which equates to an average of 6.95 points per touchdown. So mathematically they can't beat us, not the other way around. Of course not all situations are as black and white as math makes it, but statistical averages indicate going for 2 is better overall in the scenario you said we would not win with.

 

 

You can make up any success rate you like and the math will always work out the way you want it to. But if you are going to use this year's Bills PAT rate of "85%" (it's 89%), you should also use their 2 point conv rate. It's 40%.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[BringBackFergy]

 

We would have lost 24-12.

 

If we did decide to go for 2 a lot, then of course our opponents would notice this as well. They would prepare for it specifically like they probably don't now. They would study our conversion plays fastidiously. Even though the league success rate has been 48%, with us doing it more and team's preparing, our success rate may not be that high?

Yeah, the Giants game is a bad example.

 

If anything, Roman would be the kind of guy I would have faith in to create a nice 10 package series of 2 pt conversion plays. Tyrod can check out of any of them. Carpenter made 88% of his extra pts last year (I said 85% above so I was off). I think I'd rather put my trust in Roman for 2 pts than Carpenter for 1 pt.

[Mr. WEO]

Yeah, the Giants game is a bad example.

 

If anything, Roman would be the kind of guy I would have faith in to create a nice 10 package series of 2 pt conversion plays. Tyrod can check out of any of them. Carpenter made 88% of his extra pts last year (I said 85% above so I was off). I think I'd rather put my trust in Roman for 2 pts than Carpenter for 1 pt.

 

 

Roman was 40%. Math says go with Carpenter and it's not even close.

 

Of note, Hackett was 100% over 2 years (4 for 4). Roman attempted 1 over 4 seasons in SF. He is probably the least likely OC who will successfully take advantage of more attempts...

[BringBackFergy]

 

 

Roman was 40%. Math says go with Carpenter and it's not even close.

 

Of note, Hackett was 100% over 2 years (4 for 4). Roman attempted 1 over 4 seasons in SF. He is probably the least likely OC who will successfully take advantage of more attempts...

I'm not sure you limit it to just Roman...league wide the 2 pt conversion percentage was 53%. That would be a number that could be improved upon (dramatically) if Roman spent a good amount of time on it this spring and summer. The offense is already in (mostly)...this Summer we should spend more time of becoming the league leader in 2 pt conversions.

[Beerball]

 

 

If it was as easy as you think, every team would do this.

Not really. Football coaches show themselves time and again to not make the right move. The points per try stat (that you're ignoring) lends fuel to this fire.

[Mr. WEO]

I'm not sure you limit it to just Roman...league wide the 2 pt conversion percentage was 53%. That would be a number that could be improved upon (dramatically) if Roman spent a good amount of time on it this spring and summer. The offense is already in (mostly)...this Summer we should spend more time of becoming the league leader in 2 pt conversions.

 

 

No reason to believe this is true.

Not really. Football coaches show themselves time and again to not make the right move. The points per try stat (that you're ignoring) lends fuel to this fire.

 

 

Individual HC's at various times make the wrong choices. We are talking about every HC (ever) choosing not to make a simple change that will supposedly yield more points than they currently get after a TD.

 

Haven't ignored the points per try.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[NoSaint]

Tomlin put extra training camp practices on 2 pointers in and was probably the most aggressive caller in "non obvious" situations. I am all for going for extra 2 pointers early in games. When games get tight second half play percentages but in the first half be as aggressive as you like.

makes sense. in the end its just good goal line practice anyway, as you need to convert TDs inside the 5 --- id imagine practice wouldnt sway the percentages THAT much though, as id hope that is something getting a fair amount of practice already.

[Mr. WEO]

makes sense. in the end its just good goal line practice anyway, as you need to convert TDs inside the 5 --- id imagine practice wouldnt sway the percentages THAT much though, as id hope that is something getting a fair amount of practice already.

 

Exactly. It's a 4th and goal (short). How many teams go for it in that scenario?

[BringBackFergy]

 

Exactly. It's a 4th and goal (short). How many teams go for it in that scenario?

The scenario (in our case) is a kicker who is generally "money" from 40 yds out but, for some unknown reason, has choked 12-15% of the time at the 30 for an extra point. This entire thread has to do with our scenario which is why I added that I want to keep Carpenter for field goals but use the 2 pt conversion more often (or always).

 

Also, does anyone think we can convert Schmidt to a kickoff specialist like Pat McAfee? Not sure if the Bills have tried it but it certainly could free up a roster spot.

[Mr. WEO]

The scenario (in our case) is a kicker who is generally "money" from 40 yds out but, for some unknown reason, has choked 12-15% of the time at the 30 for an extra point. This entire thread has to do with our scenario which is why I added that I want to keep Carpenter for field goals but use the 2 pt conversion more often (or always).

 

Also, does anyone think we can convert Schmidt to a kickoff specialist like Pat McAfee? Not sure if the Bills have tried it but it certainly could free up a roster spot.

 

Our scenario is that we have a HC who doesn't believe in your premise even a little tiny bit. Nor is he any good at what you are suggesting. Worse than Carpenter.

 

You want to score more points? Score more TDs.