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

[BringBackFergy]

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-two-point-conversion-statistics/2015/

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/kicking/position/defense/seasontype/2

 

The stats are somewhat limited as far as 2 pt conversions go (Pitt was 5 for 5 and other teams showed great success) but why not forget about extra points next year?? Is a 30 yd field goal for 1 point really all that important?? Yes, I know, the Pats lost the AFC Championship game because they missed an extra point. But we missed approx 15% of our extra points this past season. 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??)

 

Dan Carpenter may be a head case but he was clutch last year. I don't think we need to take up another roster spot With a kickoff specialist. Keep Carp for field goals and train Schultz to kick off like the kid in Indy (McAfee). In the off season, come up with 10 solid 2 pt conversion plays and forget about the extra points.

 

Just my opinion.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Well, in certain situations it would be ludicrous not to go for the extra point.

 

But in general I agree. Score the first TD of the game? Why not be aggressive and try to grab an 8 point lead?

[mannc]

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-two-point-conversion-statistics/2015/

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/kicking/position/defense/seasontype/2

 

The stats are somewhat limited as far as 2 pt conversions go (Pitt was 5 for 5 and other teams showed great success) but why not forget about extra points next year?? Is a 30 yd field goal for 1 point really all that important?? Yes, I know, the Pats lost the AFC Championship game because they missed an extra point. But we missed approx 15% of our extra points this past season. 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??)

 

Dan Carpenter may be a head case but he was clutch last year. I don't think we need to take up another roster spot With a kickoff specialist. Keep Carp for field goals and train Schultz to kick off like the kid in Indy (McAfee). In the off season, come up with 10 solid 2 pt conversion plays and forget about the extra points.

 

Just my opinion.

It's an idea that both deserves serious consideration and will never happen. The stats I have seen are that the 1point conversion rate this year was 95% and two point try rate for last 3 years is about 48%, so statistically it's close to a push, but this is a "play not to lose" league so don't expect any bold moves in this area by NFL head coaches.

[FloridaSnow]

It's an idea that both deserves serious consideration and will never happen. The stats I have seen are that the 1point conversion rate this year was 95% and two point try rate for last 3 years is about 48%, so statistically it's close to a push, but this is a "play not to lose" league so don't expect any bold moves in this area by NFL head coaches.

Don't you have to figure that the numbers would be altered for a team that regularly goes for two (and theoretically becomes better than average at doing so?)

[mannc]

Don't you have to figure that the numbers would be altered for a team that regularly goes for two (and theoretically becomes better than average at doing so?)

I would think so. I'm not sure, but I think the stats also show that running plays are far more successful than passes when going for 2, which should help a team like Buffalo.

[Alphadawg7]

I would think so. I'm not sure, but I think the stats also show that running plays are far more successful than passes when going for 2, which should help a team like Buffalo.

 

Theoretically, if you can average 50% on 2 point conversions then you will score more points overall because you wont likely average 100% on XP with the new XP rules. So, if a team like Buffalo can average 48% or higher after seeing 15% miss on single XP tries, then its a no brainer mathematically. But no brainers never seem to happen in the NFL.

 

I think it would be wise to always be the aggressor and go for 2 unless there are game on the situations where the 1 point is mandatory and it makes more sense to take the higher probability play in that situation. And like you said, running from the 2 probably is a higher percentage play further helping a team like Buffalo. But again, if it makes sense people in the NFL don't do it.

[GunnerBill]

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.

[ChevyVanMiller]

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-two-point-conversion-statistics/2015/

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/kicking/position/defense/seasontype/2

The stats are somewhat limited as far as 2 pt conversions go (Pitt was 5 for 5 and other teams showed great success) but why not forget about extra points next year?? Is a 30 yd field goal for 1 point really all that important?? Yes, I know, the Pats lost the AFC Championship game because they missed an extra point. But we missed approx 15% of our extra points this past season. 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??)

Dan Carpenter may be a head case but he was clutch last year. I don't think we need to take up another roster spot With a kickoff specialist. Keep Carp for field goals and train Schultz to kick off like the kid in Indy (McAfee). In the off season, come up with 10 solid 2 pt conversion plays and forget about the extra points.

Just my opinion.

I think you mean Schmidt, not Schultz (he's the guy that sees, hears and knows nothing). As for the point of the post, I agree that the Bills should work on 2 pt conversions, they were awful this year, and employ them more often.

[TPS]

Draft a kicker this year who can do both and free up some cap space.

[BringBackFergy]

Draft a kicker this year who can do both and free up some cap space.

I seriously think Schmidt could do kickoffs. The kid has a leg and a kickoff is really just a 90 degree turn of the ball with no oncoming rushers. Save Carp for field goals and onside kicks.

 

I think you guys see where I'm going with this thread. If you look at the stats from last year vs the year before or back to 2010....more and more teams are doing it. I believe we would have won one more game if we went for 2 pt conversions 50% of the time. Playoffs maybe.

I think you mean Schmidt, not Schultz (he's the guy that sees, hears and knows nothing). As for the point of the post, I agree that the Bills should work on 2 pt conversions, they were awful this year, and employ them more often.

Oops, yes. Schmidt

[Beerball]

I seriously think Schmidt could do kickoffs. The kid has a leg and a kickoff is really just a 90 degree turn of the ball with no oncoming rushers. Save Carp for field goals and onside kicks.

I think you guys see where I'm going with this thread. If you look at the stats from last year vs the year before or back to 2010....more and more teams are doing it. I believe we would have won one more game if we went for 2 pt conversions 50% of the time. Playoffs maybe. Oops, yes. Schmidt

Are you trying to make Sanborn obsolete?

[BringBackFergy]

Are you trying to make Sanborn obsolete?

Noooooo, we still have to punt and kick field goals. I would never do that to Gugmeister.

[Mr. WEO]

 

Theoretically, if you can average 50% on 2 point conversions then you will score more points overall because you wont likely average 100% on XP with the new XP rules. So, if a team like Buffalo can average 48% or higher after seeing 15% miss on single XP tries, then its a no brainer mathematically. But no brainers never seem to happen in the NFL.

 

I think it would be wise to always be the aggressor and go for 2 unless there are game on the situations where the 1 point is mandatory and it makes more sense to take the higher probability play in that situation. And like you said, running from the 2 probably is a higher percentage play further helping a team like Buffalo. But again, if it makes sense people in the NFL don't do it.

 

 

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.

[BringBackFergy]

 

 

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.

I think his point is: If we score 3 TD's (18 pts) and are successful on 2 of our 3 attempts at two pt conversions (4 pts) we would have 22 pts rather than 21 pts (if we make all three kicked extra pts...if we miss one of those kicks we have 20 pts). There are some games where we score 4 TD's so the score would increase as we get better at 2 pt conversions vs those teams who insist on kicking extra pts with the end result (as we have witnessed with our own eyes) of more kickers missing extra pts and losing games.

[Mr. WEO]

I think his point is: If we score 3 TD's (18 pts) and are successful on 2 of our 3 attempts at two pt conversions (4 pts) we would have 22 pts rather than 21 pts (if we make all three kicked extra pts...if we miss one of those kicks we have 20 pts). There are some games where we score 4 TD's so the score would increase as we get better at 2 pt conversions vs those teams who insist on kicking extra pts with the end result (as we have witnessed with our own eyes) of more kickers missing extra pts and losing games.

 

 

You are assuming both of the success rates for PAT and 2 point are 66%. They aren't close.

 

Other than Sunday, how many games have your eyes seen that were lost because of missed PATs this year?

[BringBackFergy]

 

 

You are assuming both of the success rates for PAT and 2 point are 66%. They aren't close.

 

Other than Sunday, how many games have your eyes seen that were lost because of missed PATs this year?

Not many...but how many games have you seen where we lost by 2 pts or even 3? 2 pt conversions would seem to get us closer to closing that 2 or 3 pt gap. (See Jags game)

[mannc]

 

Other than Sunday, how many games have your eyes seen that were lost because of missed PATs this year?

Not the point. The question is, "How many games could have been won by going for 2 instead of kicking?" Answer is, "a lot." Just ask Green Bay fans.

[Mr. WEO]

Not many...but how many games have you seen where we lost by 2 pts or even 3? 2 pt conversions would seem to get us closer to closing that 2 or 3 pt gap. (See Jags game)

 

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.

 

Not the point. The question is, "How many games could have been won by going for 2 instead of kicking?" Answer is, "a lot." Just ask Green Bay fans.

 

Well, how many is a lot? We are talking about changing the way the game is played here. You can't convince anyone with a single anecdote that there are "a lot".

[KDIGGZ]

I'd be ok with getting rid of all kicking

[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.

[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.