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

[london_bills]

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 think as others have said he did this because the offence hadn't clicked all day and wanted to spark something in them. We all know this offence and Allen are quite bi polar in their play. 

 

Personally I loved it. 

Beasley was a non factor in the game. These two plays got him Involved. The.PI play at the end that got the bills closer was drawn by beasley. 

 

People say josh needs to get in rythmn, so do the recievers. These plays to Beasley started to slice the Ravens a bit. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by london_bills

[RiotAct]

59 minutes ago, Fixxxer said:

 

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

I really don’t think so

[Rochesterfan]

5 minutes ago, SDS said:

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

 

Well said.  Especially since after our TD and 2 point at 7 minutes - we stopped the Ravens with over 5:30 left and got the ball back.  We were then in FG range at 3:30 even without hurry up.  We still had timeouts and the 2 minute warning.  There was time to kick a FG and kickoff deep and still have nearly 2 minutes left if needed to score the TD had we missed the 2 pt.

 

The percentages change very little because being down by 15 late - either call has little chance of changing the outcome, but going for 2 early opens up more options and allows you to adjust you thoughts sooner.

 

 

[london_bills]

1 hour ago, Fixxxer said:

 

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

I thought about that. Maybe and I would love it if he did. If I was to guess I think he would kick the field goal. 

[MAJBobby]

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?

because you get the points when you can.  So smart to do it then after just marching down the field. It was the right time to do it. 

[Bob in STL]

7 minutes ago, SDS said:

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

I understand the math and the risk assessment in detail and I can say it with confidence.  

 

I looked at your reference.  Still comes down to a judgement call.  The key to assessment of the risk is to predict the likelihood of getting the ball back, with adequate time, two times if the conversation fails.  

 

We do risk assessment all the time in my work.  I am considered by my peers to be a subject matter expert on risk assessment for product development program.  There is not an exact science here. Even with your referenced document as guidance.  

 

I conceded (multiple times)  it was worth the gamble.   Since McD succeeded he would have been faced with another big decision if we scored.  That is, play for the tie or go for two again.  

[Rochesterfan]

21 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. 

 

They had already stopped them once and you do realize that strong run game barely cracked 100 yards and was 27% on 3rd down.  We easily - even with the Bills running clock.  Could have kicked a FG with 3:30 left - kicked off deep - and forced a punt with over 2 minutes left if needed.  We had timeouts and the 2 minute warning left.

 

There was plenty of time to get the ball 2 times if that was what w needed.  As it was - we only needed 1 score so we ran clock and used 4:30 minutes on the final drive rather than doing any hurry-up.

 

That was because we knew we only needed 1 TD - it effects the outcome.

[Warcodered]

15 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

I understand the math and the risk assessment in detail and I can say it with confidence.  

 

I looked at your reference.  Still comes down to a judgement call.  The key to assessment of the risk is to predict the likelihood of getting the ball back, with adequate time, two times if the conversation fails.  

 

We do risk assessment all the time in my work.  I am considered by my peers to be a subject matter expert on risk assessment for product development program.  There is not an exact science here. Even with your referenced document as guidance.  

 

I conceded (multiple times)  it was worth the gamble.   Since McD succeeded he would have been faced with another big decision if we scored.  That is, play for the tie or go for two again.  

Right but if they didn't get it at the end they'd also need to get the ball back again the only way for them to only need it two times is to get a 2pt conversion(even then that just gets them to overtime) So it basically comes down to when do you want to know how many more times you need the ball back and to score.

[Do The Reich Thing]

2 hours 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. 

100% agreed

[peterpan]

2 hours 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?

You go for two earlier.  Always.  That way, if you fail, you know that you need two possessions to win.  This changes your whole strategy with playcalling.  

[JoshAllin]

In simple terms, 2 scores if miss or 1 score (if you make it) vs 1 score (+2pt conversion), I think you always take the 1 score guarantee

 

Also after that call I think he goes for 2pt if they score in the end if hes playing the momentum of the offense again

Edited December 9, 2019 by motorj

[row_33]

52 minutes ago, peterpan said:

You go for two earlier.  Always.  That way, if you fail, you know that you need two possessions to win.  This changes your whole strategy with playcalling.  

not at all, teams take the safe 7 often in pro and college

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by row_33

[CLTbills]

3 hours 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?

Why not? I'd rather know right now, with 7 minutes left or whatever, how many more times I need to score. 

If you go for the PAT and get it, and get the ball back and score another TD, and miss the 2pt conversion, the game is over. 

At least if you miss the 2pt conversion with 7 minutes left, you know that you have to score two more times. I'd rather know with 7 minutes left than with 1 minute left when there's nothing you can do about it.

It was pretty simple to me, and the CBS crew made it sound like an outrageous decision.

[Real McClappy]

3 hours ago, fansince88 said:

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

RIght? I'd get the complaint if it went unsuccessful I guess.

[CLTbills]

1 minute ago, Real McCoy said:

RIght? I'd get the complaint if it went unsuccessful I guess.

I'd still totally agree with going for two when they did. If they didn't get it, it changes the game plan going forward. At least you could change it before it's too late.

[JoshAllin]

25 minutes ago, CLTbills said:

Why not? I'd rather know right now, with 7 minutes left or whatever, how many more times I need to score. 

If you go for the PAT and get it, and get the ball back and score another TD, and miss the 2pt conversion, the game is over. 

At least if you miss the 2pt conversion with 7 minutes left, you know that you have to score two more times. I'd rather know with 7 minutes left than with 1 minute left when there's nothing you can do about it.

It was pretty simple to me, and the CBS crew made it sound like an outrageous decision.

 

Well if you kick the pat with 7 mins the team should be prepared either way to have extra time on the board incase of a missed 2pt, also being down by 9 just seems like a momemtum killer compared to 1 score

Edited December 9, 2019 by motorj

[CLTbills]

2 minutes ago, motorj said:

 

Well if you kick the pat with 7 mins the team should be prepared either way to have extra time on the board incase of a missed 2pt, also being down by 9 just seems like a momemtum killer compared to 1 score

Not necessarily. Think about the Bills' last drive. I literally said to my buddy that I was watching the game with, "If we score here, I want to leave no time left for Baltimore to get in FG range because Tucker is automatic." 

 

You wouldn't have that luxury if you were prepared to have "extra time on the board."

 

The fact that we were down seven gave us the luxury of using all the time we needed to score the final TD, which unfortunately, we weren't able to do.

[Big Turk]

4 hours 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?

 

Actually it makes perfect sense because if they don't make it, they know what they need to do. If they kick it and wait til the end to.go for 2 and don't make it they have no chance to make it up.

 

Why would you back yourself into a corner where the game is over if you miss a 2 point conversion?

[Ethan in Cleveland]

It doesn't matter.  You have to go for 2 at some point.  They had a little momentum.  I have no issue with the decision to go for two there - even if they had not made it.  

[SDS]

 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

 

 Brian Burke did a lot of work on this question, much of it cited here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

Bottom line on the "just scored a TD, now down by 9, less than 10 minutes left" scenario: going for 2 is perfectly rational, although the effect either way on win probability is likely very small:

When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all).

So the coach's decision will depend on seat of the pants and game theory type notions: "if we fail to convert, they'll know we need to get the ball back twice and that may cause them to avoid pass plays" vs. "if we convert, they'll likely be more aggressive on offense and prone to making mistakes" -- all of that kind of stuff that isn't reflected in the aggregate statistics from past games.

The only thing we can say for sure is this: either decision is perfectly defensible.

[dma0034]

I think McDermott wanted to know if he was down one score (7) or two (9). I also wonder if the Bills scored the TD late if they would have gone for two

[Warcodered]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

 Brian Burke did a lot of work on this question, much of it cited here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

Bottom line on the "just scored a TD, now down by 9, less than 10 minutes left" scenario: going for 2 is perfectly rational, although the effect either way on win probability is likely very small:

When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all).

So the coach's decision will depend on seat of the pants and game theory type notions: "if we fail to convert, they'll know we need to get the ball back twice and that may cause them to avoid pass plays" vs. "if we convert, they'll likely be more aggressive on offense and prone to making mistakes" -- all of that kind of stuff that isn't reflected in the aggregate statistics from past games.

The only thing we can say for sure is this: either decision is perfectly defensible.

I mean it is interesting honestly I think where the difference becomes negligible is that if you fail to get the 2pt conversion on either end you're pretty much boned.

[Bakin]

It’s situational. 
What few are failing to acknowledge is the fact that an extra point is no longer automatic. 
miss the XP and you are down 2 scores still...

[Luka]

So you'd have rather needed the two points with :57 left in the game if they scored on the pass to Brown? I think the only reason anyone questions it is because Dan Fouts is a moron.

[badassgixxer05]

It was the wrong call, but it worked out. I was thinking the same thing though if we scored in the end, would we have gone for 2 and the win? I was texting my Dad about it while we were driving. We never scored, so will never know. I was all for showing some balls and going for the win instead of tie and OT. Would have been fun to think about, unfortunately the Offense stalled. Great play by the DB on Brown.

[SDS]

8 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The only thing we can say for sure is this: either decision is perfectly defensible.

 

I was the one citing 538 and Brian Burke's win probability algorithm.

 

This quoted statement is incorrect however. Making what is most likely an inconsequential decision with faulty logic, doesn't make it defensible. The only defense for going for 1 is that current win probability algorithms (well, at least one) says the effect is small (in favor of going for 2) and may be within the margin of error of the algorithm. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

15 hours 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'd rather know i need 2 scores with 7 minutes left than... knowing i need a FG with like a minute left.

[Mrbojanglezs]

Don't listen to Dan Fouts, he is the worst.

[MAJBobby]

11 minutes ago, Mrbojanglezs said:

Don't listen to Dan Fouts, he is the worst.

listen to him. But whatever he says the opposite is true. So If he said it was wrong going for 2 when they did then everyone should know it was the right call. 

[plenzmd1]

1 hour ago, Luka said:

So you'd have rather needed the two points with :57 left in the game if they scored on the pass to Brown? I think the only reason anyone questions it is because Dan Fouts is a moron.

I said the EXACT same thing to my wife during the game!

[Watkins90]

What we should really be pissed about is McDermott taking a timeout with 30 seconds left in the first half when you are about to kick a field goal, instead of letting it run down to three seconds and kicking the field goal. That was poor clock management and gave the Ravens an extra play, which they then preceded to make a terrible offensive call themselves running a fake QB kneel. I swear, Harbaugh is going to get Jackson hurt. 

[The Jokeman]

14 hours ago, eanyills said:

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.

I understand with the thought that going for 2 later than sooner gives us a better chance to tie (cuz as Fouts mentioned you miss it you can't tie it with just a TD) yet in sometimes you need to play to the atmosphere and that's what McDermott did and it worked. The only issue was our offense fell apart at the 18 yard line on the following drive. 

[mannc]

15 hours 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?

Your (low) football IQ is showing.  They needed a two-point conversión at some point.  Why not go for it there, when the defense is tired and you still have time to try something else if you don’t make it?  It also keeps alive the opportunity to go for two again and win the game in regulation.

Edited December 9, 2019 by mannc

[DrDawkinstein]

Chiming in late to reinforce the agreement that going for 2 with 7min left was definitely the correct decision.

 

Even if you dont make it, at least then you know you have to manage the clock to get the ball back twice. Waiting until the last score with no time left is bad game amangement and unnecessarily setting yourself up for a loss.

[YattaOkasan]

Go for the 2 point early.  Unless you think its easier to convert the two point at the end of the game there is no reason to do it at the end.

 

If you kick the xp then you need to leave enough time for 2 possessions in case your 2 point conversion fails.  This leaves ample time for the opponent to score if you do convert your 2 point conversion.  If you assume conversion of the 2 pointer is an unrealized risk (to the FMEA SME above) then you would like to have detection of that event (failed 2 point conversion) as early as possible so you can mitigate if needed.  If you take preemptive action you allow the opponent an window.  The only answer and again its only marginally better is to go for 2 early.  The only logical answer for the 2 pointer at the end of the game is that you think itll be easier at that time.  

Edited December 9, 2019 by YattaOkasan

[MJS]

I disagree. I also disagreed with the announcers at the time. I think they made the right decision to go for it there. They knew they had to get a two point conversion eventually. If they miss it there they still have time to try and get the points later. If they miss the two point conversion later, they have no shot at making up the points.

 

To me it's good to do it sooner rather than later because you have more knowledge and time to know what it will take to win it later.

[T master]

18 hours 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?

 

Maybe to give the offense  bit of confidence . They sucked the first half & at least showed up in the second & according to what i have read if not for a couple of bad calls (which seems to becoming the norm in the NFL) they may have had a real good chance to win it .

 

I didn't watch the game so i don't know anything other than what i have seen in the high light film but the Bills have been a second half team & if by the way they were moving the ball McD saw something to give them a bit of confidence then i would be more apt to give it to him for making the decision .

 

Not o mention by making it alls they needed was one TD instead of trying for the 2 points later if they didn't have the chance to score again which they didn't unfortunately ! 

[Dablitzkrieg]

19 hours 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?

You are wrong.  Boomer?

[MJS]

18 hours ago, 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.

Actually the game is NOT over if you miss the two point conversion there because you still have time on the clock to make up for it. If you miss the two point conversion later, THEN the game is over because you have no more time left to make up for it.

 

Pretty simple.