Two-point conversion? (Or why do I hate a well-executed bad play-call?)

[slipkid]

Going for two when down by nine with seven minutes left makes no sense to me. Hauschka was fine today. Why take yourself out of the game if you don’t get the two there?

 

Maybe McD had already decided that we would go for two again and the win if we scored another TD. I don’t know.

 

Does anyone have a reasonable reason why they would do that?

[Rc2catch]

1 minute ago, slipkid said:

Going for two when down by nine with seven minutes left makes no sense to me. Hauschka was fine today. Why take yourself out of the game if you don’t get the two there?

 

Maybe McD had already decided that we would go for two again and the win if we scored another TD. I don’t know.

 

Does anyone have a reasonable reason why they would do that?

Momentum was on their side. Offense was in rhythm the first time all game, defense was all fired up after they got it. It wasn’t as bad a call as some are making it out to be 

Edited December 8, 2019 by Rc2catch

[Warcodered]

Right so in your scenario they what just need to get a TD and a FG but if they don't convert...they'd also need a TD and a FG, but if they got the 2pt conversion they'd be down 1 TD.

 

Basically it was a situation where if they get it they're down 1 score they don't they're still down 2.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Warcodered

[YoloinOhio]

It’s the right call. You will need 2 at some point. Better to know what you need as early as possible. 

[slipkid]

6 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right so in your scenario they what just need to get a TD and a FG but if they don't convert...they'd also need a TD and a FG, but if they got the 2pt conversion they'd be down 1 TD.

 

Basically it was a situation where if they get it they're down 1 score they don't they're still down 2.

Ummmm. Actually, almost the exact opposite. If they kick the point, they’re down one TD and a two-point conversion. If they don’t get the two on that touchdown, they’re down two scores. 
 

I’m not sure what “offensive rhythm” we had there—it took three plays, two Ravens penalties, and a time out to punch it from the three.

edit:

You go for two when you absolutely need it—aka, the final TD.

Edited December 8, 2019 by slipkid

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, slipkid said:

Ummmm. Actually, almost the exact opposite. If they kick the point, they’re down one TD and a two-point conversion. If they don’t get the two on that touchdown, they’re down two scores. 
 

I’m not sure what “offensive rhythm” we had there—it took three plays, two Ravens penalties, and a time out to punch it from the three.

It's the same call then only doing it now tells them if they make it or not and helps them decide what to do with the time that is left. Leaving it the next score doesn't help at all.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Warcodered

[Rc2catch]

1 minute ago, slipkid said:

Ummmm. Actually, almost the exact opposite. If they kick the point, they’re down one TD and a two-point conversion. If they don’t get the two on that touchdown, they’re down two scores. 
 

I’m not sure what “offensive rhythm” we had there—it took three plays, two Ravens penalties, and a time out to punch it from the three.

You don’t think the offense was fired up scoring a touchdown? 

[fansince88]

Kick the xp and you still need to get a 2pt. No problem. Seems like if you are looking for something to complain about you could do a better job then this

[Rochesterfan]

15 minutes ago, slipkid said:

Going for two when down by nine with seven minutes left makes no sense to me. Hauschka was fine today. Why take yourself out of the game if you don’t get the two there?

 

Maybe McD had already decided that we would go for two again and the win if we scored another TD. I don’t know.

 

Does anyone have a reasonable reason why they would do that?

 

What is the alternative?  They needed 2 TDs and 1 2pt conversion.  If they kick the extra point - they would still need a 2 pt on the next score, but if you miss the 2 the game is over.

 

By going for 2 first - you know if you need 1 drive and a TD or if the 2 pt failed - you need 2 drives a TD and FG.

 

It was 100% the right move.

11 minutes ago, slipkid said:

Ummmm. Actually, almost the exact opposite. If they kick the point, they’re down one TD and a two-point conversion. If they don’t get the two on that touchdown, they’re down two scores. 
 

I’m not sure what “offensive rhythm” we had there—it took three plays, two Ravens penalties, and a time out to punch it from the three.

edit:

You go for two when you absolutely need it—aka, the final TD.

 

Nope because the only way is to know exactly what you need - sorry you are 100% wrong.

[StHustle]

22 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

It’s the right call. You will need 2 at some point. Better to know what you need as early as possible. 

 

And how about it being a much less stressful situation for your team? Having to get a 2 point conversion with a minute left in the game is definitely not a more ideal situation to be in.

[slipkid]

3 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

What is the alternative?  They needed 2 TDs and 1 2pt conversion.  If they kick the extra point - they would still need a 2 pt on the next score, but if you miss the 2 the game is over.

 

By going for 2 first - you know if you need 1 drive and a TD or if the 2 pt failed - you need 2 drives a TD and FG.

 

It was 100% the right move.

The alternative is to kick the extra point and see if you can get one drive with about 3:30 left and need one drive (exactly what they got against the NFL’s best running offense) and a two-point at the end of the game. If they don’t get the two-point conversion with 7 minutes left, game over. 
 

I’m not complaining as much as I’m curious to see a reasonable explanation. Maybe you see what you got and when you use your timeouts earlier, but it still seems like a bad call.

[Bob in STL]

35 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

It’s the right call. You will need 2 at some point. Better to know what you need as early as possible. 

 

Technically it was the wrong call.  If you miss it you are  9 behind - so  another TD plus 2 points doesn’t get you a tie and requires yet a third possession which there was not enough time for.  

 

If you make it, which they did, you can tie with a TD and PAT,  or win the a TD and another 2 pointer. 

 

Since they made it all is forgiven.  Had they missed it there would have been a bigger debate.  

 

The explanation can can only be momentum, which seems odd since they were pushed backwards from the two yard line and took 4 downs to score.  

Edited December 9, 2019 by Bob in STL

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, slipkid said:

The alternative is to kick the extra point and see if you can get one drive with about 3:30 left and need one drive (exactly what they got against the NFL’s best running offense) and a two-point at the end of the game. If they don’t get the two-point conversion with 7 minutes left, game over. 
 

I’m not complaining as much as I’m curious to see a reasonable explanation. Maybe you see what you got and when you use your timeouts earlier, but it still seems like a bad call.

 

Incorrect - your assumption is they do not get the 2 pt.  If they do not get the 2 pt with 7 minutes left - you know you need 2 possessions- you can speed up- use your timeouts - etc.  You know what you need and still have time adjust.

 

If you wait until the end and miss it you are done.  There is nothing you can do if we had scored with John Brown and needed the 2 with 30 seconds left and that is the point they miss the 2 pts.

 

They knew they needed 2 TDs and one 2 pt conversion- you go as early as you can to adjust what you need - especially with timeouts, momentum and a chance.

[stosh64]

18 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

It’s the right call. You will need 2 at some point. Better to know what you need as early as possible. 

Exactly.

People lost their minds in the GDT, one hyperbolic poster said it was the worst call he has ever seen.

 

They were down by 15pts, 24-9.  playing for the tie, for a shot at OT, the best chance the Bills had to win, you will need to try a 2pt conv on one of your 2 TDs.

What difference does it make if you try it on the first or second TD?

I would prefer trying on the first TD as well for the same reason you stated.  If you miss you know what you have to do while you still have time to try it. 

 

It makes no sense to me why people lost their ***** over this, but maybe I am just ignorant and need to be educated.

[Fixxxer]

41 minutes ago, slipkid said:

Going for two when down by nine with seven minutes left makes no sense to me. Hauschka was fine today. Why take yourself out of the game if you don’t get the two there?

 

Maybe McD had already decided that we would go for two again and the win if we scored another TD. I don’t know.

 

Does anyone have a reasonable reason why they would do that?

 

I have the feeling that had we scored a TD on that last drive , McD goes for the win on another two point convertion.

[muppy]

15 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

 

Technically it was the wrong call.  If you miss it you are  9 behind - so  another TD plus 2 points doesn’t get you a tie and requires yet a third possession which there was not enough time for.  

 

If you make it, which they did, you can tie with a TD and PAT,  or win the a TD and another 2 pointer. 

 

Since they made it all is forgiven.  Had they missed it there would have been a bigger debate.  

 

The explanation can can only be momentum, which seems odd since they were pushed backwards from the two yard line and took 4 downs to score.  

It’s the 9 point differential that makes that call very risky if they KICKED THE PAT the score would have been 24-16 and then they needed a 2 pointer to tie.  They went for 2 which made the score 24-17. If they’d have missed the 2 pointer The score would have been 24-15 a 2 score lead instead of 1 wether it was 7 OR 8 points behind

Edited December 9, 2019 by Margarita

[Rochesterfan]

12 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

 

Technically it was the wrong call.  If you miss it you are  9 behind - so  another TD plus 2 points doesn’t get you a tie and requires yet a third possession which there was not enough time for.  

 

If you make it, which they did, you can tie with a TD and PAT,  or win the a TD and another 2 pointer. 

 

Since they made it all is forgiven.  Had they missed it there would have been a bigger debate.  

 

The explanation can can only be momentum, which seems odd since they were pushed backwards from the two yard line and took 4 downs to score.  

 

Totally disagree - completely the right call whether he makes it or not.  It allows you to focus on what you need as early as possible.  The later in the game makes it a 2 pt to tie or a loss.  With 7 minutes left the Bills still had time to have 2 possessions if needed.

[Bob in STL]

1 minute ago, Margarita said:

It’s the 9 point differential that makes that call very risky if they KICKED THE PAT the score would have been 24-16 and then they needed a 2 pointer to tie.  They went for 2 which made the score 24-17. If they’d have missed the 2 pointer The score would have been 24-15

Yes correct.  Thanks for proving my point. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

43 minutes ago, slipkid said:

Ummmm. Actually, almost the exact opposite. If they kick the point, they’re down one TD and a two-point conversion. If they don’t get the two on that touchdown, they’re down two scores. 
 

I’m not sure what “offensive rhythm” we had there—it took three plays, two Ravens penalties, and a time out to punch it from the three.

edit:

You go for two when you absolutely need it—aka, the final TD.

 

Either way they needed a TD-PAt and a TD with a 2 pt conversion.  If they miss the 2 pt on either TD score, then they'd need another TD and a field goal.  Either way they needed the same scores, only thing for debate is the order.  Could also argue going for two earlier gives them more time to know what they need to do the remainder of the game as far as 1 or 2 scores.

 

It's also possible that if they miss the two and need two scores with was it 7 minutes left, they'd try an on-sides kick.  The odds of on-sides kicks being sucessful is very low, the only ones thta work are when the receiving team isn't expecting it, certainly more likely to happen with 7 minutes to go than say 2 minutes.

[Warcodered]

11 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

 

Technically it was the wrong call.  If you miss it you are  9 behind - so  another TD plus 2 points doesn’t get you a tie and requires yet a third possession which there was not enough time for.  

 

If you make it, which they did, you can tie with a TD and PAT,  or win the a TD and another 2 pointer. 

 

Since they made it all is forgiven.  Had they missed it there would have been a bigger debate.  

 

The explanation can can only be momentum, which seems odd since they were pushed backwards from the two yard line and took 4 downs to score.  

It wasn't the wrong call if you need 2TD and 1 2pt conversion it doesn't matter on which of the TDs you try it you still have to try it. Going for it on the earlier one just gives you more information. I mean if they'd waited and not converted on the second TD they'd need another possession too.

[Rochesterfan]

1 minute ago, Margarita said:

It’s the 9 point differential that makes that call very risky if they KICKED THE PAT the score would have been 24-16 and then they needed a 2 pointer to tie.  They went for 2 which made the score 24-17. If they’d have missed the 2 pointer The score would have been 24-15

 

Yes, but you needed the 2 at some point to tie the game.

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, Margarita said:

But only if they were behind by 8 if they’d have missed the 2 point try they’d have been behind by 9

They were down by 15 - they needed a 2 TDs and one 2 pt conversion.  You are correct if they missed they would have been down by 9, but if the missed on the last TD with under 30 seconds left - they lose by 2 with no time to correct the issue.  The 9 pts is irrelevant because if they had kicked the extra point - it was still 8 and you would still need the 2 pt later.

[buffalobillswin]

I hate when people think this isn't the right call. You go for a two down 9 because you can't assume you'll make it when you're down 8. And if you miss when down 9, you don't have any time to get the ball back.

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Margarita said:

But only if they were behind by 8 if they’d have missed the 2 point try they’d have been behind by 9

Ack I give up lol if they’d have missed the 2 point conversion they’d have been down by 9 not 8 points though and at that point a two pointer wpuldnt have been enough

Right but if they kicked they'd be down by 8 and then if they scored another TD and didn't get the 2pt conversion they'd be down by 2 and still need a FG. It's the same on either end but if you do it on the first one you know from that point on whether you need to also get a FG.

[Bob in STL]

7 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Totally disagree - completely the right call whether he makes it or not.  It allows you to focus on what you need as early as possible.  The later in the game makes it a 2 pt to tie or a loss.  With 7 minutes left the Bills still had time to have 2 possessions if needed.

Disagree. That’s fine.   It’s was ok because it worked.  

 

Of course they did not get that extra possession did they?   Even with 50+ yards of penalties in their favor on their last possession they did not score 

 

Down by 9 with 7 minutes left and you think they were going to stop Baltimore, score another TD, recover an insides kick or somehow get the ball back again, and then score a FG?   Not likely. 

 

McD choose the risky path, it worked.  Good  for him.  I would have done the same but I would also admit it was extremely high  risk if you miss that 2pointer.  

[SDS]

1 hour ago, slipkid said:

Going for two when down by nine with seven minutes left makes no sense to me. Hauschka was fine today. Why take yourself out of the game if you don’t get the two there?

 

Maybe McD had already decided that we would go for two again and the win if we scored another TD. I don’t know.

 

Does anyone have a reasonable reason why they would do that?

correct call. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/amp/

[Bob in STL]

12 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

It wasn't the wrong call if you need 2TD and 1 2pt conversion it doesn't matter on which of the TDs you try it you still have to try it. Going for it on the earlier one just gives you more information. I mean if they'd waited and not converted on the second TD they'd need another possession too.

Haha. More information.   Good one. 

[MDH]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

It’s the right call. You will need 2 at some point. Better to know what you need as early as possible. 

Exactly. 

[muppy]

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right but if they kicked they'd be down by 8 and then if they scored another TD and didn't get the 2pt conversion they'd be down by 2 and still need a FG. It's the same on either end but if you do it on the first one you know from that point on whether you need to also get a FG.

Okay I see what you mean now I thought you were talking about only 1 possession after the TD at 15/16 at that time juncture 2 possessions was very unlikely though IMO

[LSHMEAB]

The whole notion of "you're still down by one score" if you kick is archaic thinking. 

 

From a non analytics standpoint, I HATE when you need that two at the end of a game. There's far more energy on the defensive side of the ball. That's just my perception.

 

From a practical standpoint, you want to know THEN if you're gonna need to score once or twice so you can proceed accordingly. 

[eanyills]

I don’t understand how people don’t get this. The order of going for two is largely irrelevant. By going for two earlier, you’re giving yourself more time on the clock in case you don’t make it.

 

No matter what, you’re at risk of not converting, Going for it earlier gives you more time to make up the lost points if you don’t convert.

 

All this convoluted math to explain why it was a bad decision is illogical.

Edited December 9, 2019 by eanyills

[Rochesterfan]

4 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

Disagree. That’s fine.   It’s was ok because it worked.  

 

Of course they did not get that extra possession did they?   Even with 50+ yards of penalties in their favor on their last possession they did not score 

 

Down by 9 with 7 minutes left and you think they were going to stop Baltimore, score another TD, recover an insides kick or somehow get the ball back again, and then score a FG?   Not likely. 

 

McD choose the risky path, it worked.  Good  for him.  I would have done the same but I would also admit it was extremely high  risk if you miss that 2pointer.  

 

It was the right call.  They were in FG range with 2 minutes left and timeouts.  They could have kicked it then and gone onside.   The point is they knew they needed just a TD - so they ran the ball and clock.  They ran 4:30 off the clock.  If they had needed 9 - don’t you think they run a different drive.  They had plenty of time to turn that into 2 drives.

[row_33]

It can go either way, some teams take the 7 then go for 8

 

some risk the 8 them go for the 7

 

dogmatically dictating it has to be one or the other is a harbinger you’ll wind up in the booby hatch some day..:

 

 

 

[muppy]

2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

It was the right call.  They were in FG range with 2 minutes left and timeouts.  They could have kicked it then and gone onside.   The point is they knew they needed just a TD - so they ran the ball and clock.  They ran 4:30 off the clock.  If they had needed 9 - don’t you think they run a different drive.  They had plenty of time to turn that into 2 drives.

That’s the rub wether or not they had plenty of time to turn into 2 more drives now I get what y’all mean 

[Talley56]

1 hour ago, slipkid said:

Going for two when down by nine with seven minutes left makes no sense to me. Hauschka was fine today. Why take yourself out of the game if you don’t get the two there?

 

Maybe McD had already decided that we would go for two again and the win if we scored another TD. I don’t know.

 

Does anyone have a reasonable reason why they would do that?

I can't really disagree with your point because as they were setting up for two I was thinking they should go for the extra point and worry about two if they score again.  And make no mistake, this board would have been fuming over the decision if it failed.

[Beast]

It’s better to miss a 2 point conversion at that point of the game than to miss it in the last seconds oF the game. Better to know what you are up against.

[SDS]

I miss read the 538 charts. They actually say it is slightly better to go for two but the effect is small and maybe not there at all. 
 

 

[Bob in STL]

4 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

It was the right call.  They were in FG range with 2 minutes left and timeouts.  They could have kicked it then and gone onside.   The point is they knew they needed just a TD - so they ran the ball and clock.  They ran 4:30 off the clock.  If they had needed 9 - don’t you think they run a different drive.  They had plenty of time to turn that into 2 drives.

 

Look, I understand the call, the math, and the logic.  

 

I did not think they were going to get two more possessions if that 2 pointer failed.  Seven minutes is borderline against Baltimore.  I say that because the odds of recovering an onside kick are minuscule in today’s NFL.   Also, Baltimore has a fine offense and strong run game.  In addition our two minute offense has not shown good clock management.  

 

Its great we got the 2.  It was a gamble worth taking.  Percentage wise it was the riskier option but we had the right play and we executed. Great. Ok.  Out now. 

[Warcodered]

10 minutes ago, Margarita said:

That’s the rub wether or not they had plenty of time to turn into 2 more drives now I get what y’all mean 

I mean that's true odds were it would be a serious long shot if they didn't get the 2pt conversion where ever they tried it.

[SDS]

16 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

 

Look, I understand the call, the math, and the logic.  

 

I did not think they were going to get two more possessions if that 2 pointer failed.  Seven minutes is borderline against Baltimore.  I say that because the odds of recovering an onside kick are minuscule in today’s NFL.   Also, Baltimore has a fine offense and strong run game.  In addition our two minute offense has not shown good clock management.  

 

Its great we got the 2.  It was a gamble worth taking.  Percentage wise it was the riskier option but we had the right play and we executed. Great. Ok.  Out now. 

you cannot say you understand the math and then claim it was the riskier option. You literally are not willing to accept the math or having bother to look it up. Either way you’re just defending an incorrect opinion. Which is your prerogative.