Math 101--Why are the Bills still kicking extra points?

[mannc]

At the beginning of last season, one-point conversion kicks essentially became 33-yard FG attempts. Presumably, one of the reasons for this change was to encourage more teams to go for two, but most teams have not been paying attention and the number of two-point attempts has not gone up nearly as much as the rule change would support.

 

This is especially true of the Bills. Since the new rule went into effect, Carpenter is 42 for 49 on the longer one-point conversions, for an 85.7 percent success rate. (In 2015, the success rate for the league as a whole was 94%.) Meanwhile, the league-wide success rate for two point conversions since the beginning of the 2015 season is 51.4 percent (55 out of 107). (The Bills don't have enough two-point attempts for it to be statistically meaningful.) It is my supposition that with the best running QB in the league and above average running game, the Bills should be able to easily exceed the league average at two-point conversions, especially if they worked hard to install effective two-point conversion packages. But even if they were only average, the result would be a few more points over the course of the season, and possibly another win or two. Do I expect the Bills to start going for two-point conversions? Of course not, just like I don't expect Rex to go for touchdowns on fourth and goal from the one, but I think they should.

[BuffaloHokie13]

We are awful at short yardage situations when it only counts for a 1st down. I'd hate to start staking points on our short yardage game.

[plenzmd1]

Cause no one else does...and not doing so will not get your fired. Lose a game by a point after failing to convert..coaches fault.

 

Winning by 1 cause a two pointer worked???Players good...see raiders week one

Edited September 27, 2016 by plenzmd1

[BigPappy]

The missed extra points would not be an issue for carpenter if he started kicking from the center of the field vs the left or right hash mark, IMO anyway. I am pretty sure someone else has made this remark in other threads as well.

[BillsFan130]

You raise an interesting point. The steelers did it a lot last year because they had a terrible kicker and it seemed to workout for them. In saying that, we don't have big ben on offence

[Boatdrinks]

The missed extra points would not be an issue for carpenter if he started kicking from the center of the field vs the left or right hash mark, IMO anyway. I am pretty sure someone else has made this remark in other threads as well.

 

Left hash make most sense for R footed kicker.

[DC Tom]

Math 201: Extra points/two point conversions are not independent events. Prior events and expected future events impact the risk/reward balance.

[HeHateMe]

This team has been epically bad in short yardage for what seems like forever. That and they just suck in the red zone.

[mannc]

Math 201: Extra points/two point conversions are not independent events. Prior events and expected future events impact the risk/reward balance.

I'm not sure what your point is. I never suggested the Bills should go for two every time. For example, if a one-point conversion would break a tie or create a two possession lead late in a game, then you kick. But going for two should be the default option. Do you have any evidence that would refute that idea?

This team has been epically bad in short yardage for what seems like forever. That and they just suck in the red zone.

Several people have made that point, but I have not seen any evidence that it is true. With Tyrod at QB and a better than average run game, it certainly shouldn't be true. And I don't know how relevant "Red Zone" performance is to the team's ability to convert from the two-yard line.

Edited September 27, 2016 by mannc

[quinnearlysghost88]

Tell that to the Bucs.

[r00tabaga]

We are awful at short yardage situations when it only counts for a 1st down. I'd hate to start staking points on our short yardage game.

Might kick start our short yardage problems by converting some 2 pt conv's. Conversely it would make Carp less sharp by getting less kicks in.

[nucci]

I'm not sure what your point is. I never suggested the Bills should go for two every time. For example, if a one-point conversion would break a tie or create a two possession lead late in a game, then you kick. But going for two should be the default option. Do you have any evidence that would refute that idea?

Several people have made that point, but I have not seen any evidence that it is true. With Tyrod at QB and a better than average run game, it certainly shouldn't be true. And I don't know how relevant "Red Zone" performance is to the team's ability to convert from the two-yard line.

isn't this a contradiction?

[mannc]

isn't this a contradiction?

No.

Might kick start our short yardage problems by converting some 2 pt conv's. Conversely it would make Carp less sharp by getting less kicks in.

Well, Carp's not particularly sharp to begin with.

[Never NEVER Give-up]

We are awful at short yardage situations when it only counts for a 1st down. I'd hate to start staking points on our short yardage game.

This and the fact Tyrod, when throwing, isn't using the middle of the field. And frankly, I wonder if he can throw a fade to the corners of the end zone (I don't ever remember him doing so). Bottom-line, we are not a threat to use the whole field and when the field is only 12 yds deep, it's even more difficult to succeed.