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

[Boca BIlls]

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.

[Watkins101]

For all we know, it might not have been set that they were going to go for 2. They could have been seeing the defense,  if they had a look they liked they would go for it, otherwise they could take a delay of game penalty and then kick the extra point. As it happened, Cole Beasley was wide open pre-snap, an obvious go situation.

[Matt_In_NH]

It makes perfect sense to me, is this Dan Fouts?  LOL  In both cases you need an XP and 2 point conversion, the order matters, 2pt first is the only correct answer.

 

The mos efficient way to get back in the game down by 15 is two TD's.  In order to tie down by 15 you need two TD;s, one with a 2 point and one with an extra point.  If you wait til the second TD to go for 2 and it is at the very end you have very little you can do if you don't get it.  On the flip side, if you go for it on a TD with 6 minutes left and you get it  you know you need a TD/XP to tie.  But if you don't get the two point conversion then you know you need two more scores, which affects how you call the final minutes of the game.  You must attempt a 2pointer and the earlier you do it the better because it gives you information on what is needed the rest of the way.  Time with information is better than no time with information.

 

 

 

 

[Heitz]

18 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.

 

Perfect explanation in simple terms!  

 

The bold is key!  I feel like the "go for the two later" crowd is ignoring the fact that, you don't have a better chance of getting two later in the game.  You just have less time should you NOT convert...

 

 

 

 

 

[cba fan]

20 hours ago, Warcodered said:

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.

you are correct.

 

However, conventional wisdom and practices in NFL up to now has been late in game virtually all coaches go for one in that situation. Going for two and not making it opens you up to criticism.

 

It was not textbook late, there was 7 min to go. So almost outside that go for two only at end thinking. But close enough for us to debate the merits. For example if this was a score in middle of third or so I would expect no surprise if a coach went for 2 to get within 7.

 

either way has merits. Find out earlier what you need or wait to the end. Maybe McDermott is going to be a new trend setter with this now.

[YoloinOhio]

 

[slipkid]

41 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Fair enough. I’ll defer to McD. 
 

if they had the right play with the defensive “look” they expected, go for the two. (And they got it—I’m glad they did.)

 

But “analytics” is an excuse—you coach the game you’re playing. The argument that “you know what you need” if you don’t get the two doesn’t hold water. Anyone who thought the Bills would get the ball twice and score twice was not watching the same game I was watching. 

[JESSEFEFFER]

I would wonder if there is any value to playing the final 7 minutes with the knowledge that your team is down just one score vs. two.  Would the defense play with a different level of intensity down 8 vs. 9?  Would they feel more invested in getting the ball back to the offense knowing they could potentially get them to tied with just one score?

 

Failing at the 2 point conversion with 7 minutes to play could have a deflating psychological effect...........maybe.  Just a thought.  

[SDS]

7 minutes ago, slipkid said:

Fair enough. I’ll defer to McD. 
 

if they had the right play with the defensive “look” they expected, go for the two. (And they got it—I’m glad they did.)

 

But “analytics” is an excuse—you coach the game you’re playing. The argument that “you know what you need” if you don’t get the two doesn’t hold water. Anyone who thought the Bills would get the ball twice and score twice was not watching the same game I was watching. 

peter, Joseph and Mary....

 

for the love of God please get this straight… It does not matter when you do not convert the two-point conversion. If you don’t make it you have to go for a field goal at some point. Is that understood? Do you understand that once you missed the two point conversion that you have to get the ball back and score again? Do you understand that has to happen regardless of when you missed the two point conversion? Is this in someway not clear to you?

[slipkid]

12 minutes ago, SDS said:

peter, Joseph and Mary....

 

for the love of God please get this straight… It does not matter when you do not convert the two-point conversion. If you don’t make it you have to go for a field goal at some point. Is that understood? Do you understand that once you missed the two point conversion that you have to get the ball back and score again? Do you understand that has to happen regardless of when you missed the two point conversion? Is this in someway not clear to you?

You seem really invested in this.

 

Let’s be clear—if you do not convert, you need both a field goal and a TD. If you make the PAT, you need a TD. Then, you worry about the two-point conversion.

 

What isn’t clear to me is the notion that the Bills were somehow gonna get the ball back twice and score both times—at the very least, they get it back the second time via onside kick (good luck with that) or, in the best case, with less than a minute, on their thirty or so, and no timeouts. Did you watch the game? Do you really think the Bills would have two more possessions and score on both?

 

FWIW, they held the Ravens to a three-and-out and still only had the ball once. But I understand the play-calling might have been different. Perhaps it would have been so brilliant that they wouldn’t need the 50+ yards in penalties on the final drive.
 

In short, if they miss the two with seven minutes left, the game is essentially over. If they take the PAT (the 90% option over the 50% option) at least the game comes down to their final possession, assuming the Ravens don’t score. They went for two because the coaches decided that they saw something that made that 50% option a higher percentage. Seems fair, and I’ll trust coach on that. But you don’t always go for two in that situation—it depends on the game and the team you’re playing. That’s why we have coaches, not computers, calling plays.

 

IMHO, the best argument in favor of going for two there is the opportunity to go for two if Brown cuts his route tighter and they score at the end.

[Warcodered]

7 minutes ago, slipkid said:

You seem really invested in this.

 

Let’s be clear—if you do not convert, you need both a field goal and a TD. If you make the PAT, you need a TD. Then, you worry about the two-point conversion.

 

What isn’t clear to me is the notion that the Bills were somehow gonna get the ball back twice and score both times—at the very least, they get it back the second time via onside kick (good luck with that) or, in the best case, with less than a minute, on their thirty or so, and no timeouts. Did you watch the game? Do you really think the Bills would have two more possessions and score on both?

 

FWIW, they held the Ravens to a three-and-out and still only had the ball once. But I understand the play-calling might have been different. Perhaps it would have been so brilliant that they wouldn’t need the 50+ yards in penalties on the final drive.
 

In short, if they miss the two with seven minutes left, the game is essentially over. If they take the PAT (the 90% option over the 50% option) at least the game comes down to their final possession, assuming the Ravens don’t score. They went for two because the coaches decided that they saw something that made that 50% option a higher percentage. Seems fair, and I’ll trust coach on that. But you don’t always go for two in that situation—it depends on the game and the team you’re playing. That’s why we have coaches, not computers, calling plays.

 

IMHO, the best argument in favor of going for two there is the opportunity to go for two if Brown cuts his route tighter and they score at the end.

 

You need that FG whether you fail to get the 2pt conversion on the first TD or the second. The only way you don't need a FG is if you get the ***** 2pt conversion.

[Max Fischer]

It WAS the right call or at worse, a wash.  

 

If the Bills kick the XP they have to get a touchdown AND the 2XP anyway. If they miss the 2XP they KNOW they need nine points and allows the Bills to work under that scenario.  

[slipkid]

12 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

You need that FG whether you fail to get the 2pt conversion on the first TD or the second. The only way you don't need a FG is if you get the ***** 2pt conversion.

Yes. But I need to clarify.

 

The Bills were not gonna have two meaningful possessions after that TD. And even the “analytics” bear out that the call for going for two is a situational decision. There was nothing from that game—the Ravens D, the fact they ran the clock out in the 49ers, the OL play, Allen’s play, the  Ravens running game, etc. that indicated the Bills  had two possessions and two scores in them.

 

The decision was whether you wanted the game to be essentially over at the seven minute mark or after the second TD. Hey, I’m glad they converted and trust McD’s judgment that they had the right play called.

[Warcodered]

3 minutes ago, slipkid said:

Yes. But I need to clarify.

 

The Bills were not gonna have two meaningful possessions after that TD. And even the “analytics” bear out that the call for going for two is a situational decision. There was nothing from that game—the Ravens D, the fact they ran the clock out in the 49ers, the OL play, Allen’s play, the  Ravens running game, etc. that indicated the Bills  had two possessions and two scores in them.

 

The decision was whether you wanted the game to be essentially over at the seven minute mark or after the second TD. Hey, I’m glad they converted and trust McD’s judgment that they had the right play called.

Sure if they didn't get the 2pt conversion it's a long shot to get two more scoring drives but I sure as hell don't want our team/coaching staff conceding to that and making decisions based on it.

[SDS]

16 minutes ago, slipkid said:

Yes. But I need to clarify.

 

The Bills were not gonna have two meaningful possessions after that TD. And even the “analytics” bear out that the call for going for two is a situational decision. There was nothing from that game—the Ravens D, the fact they ran the clock out in the 49ers, the OL play, Allen’s play, the  Ravens running game, etc. that indicated the Bills  had two possessions and two scores in them.

 

The decision was whether you wanted the game to be essentially over at the seven minute mark or after the second TD. Hey, I’m glad they converted and trust McD’s judgment that they had the right play called.

 

To use your argument against you...

 

If the Bills weren't going to be able to drive three times against them, then going for the 2-pt conversion TWICE is the clearest path to victory. Because, according to you, they weren't going to be able to do it a third time.

[slipkid]

13 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Sure if they didn't get the 2pt conversion it's a long shot to get two more scoring drives but I sure as hell don't want our team/coaching staff conceding to that and making decisions based on it.

I want coaches to put the team in the best position to win. McD said that they “saw something” to make the two-point more possible. I’m good with that.

 

A lot of posters here are claiming that you always go for two there. You don’t—it’s situational and dependent on the game. Unless they had a play in mind—and they did, according to McD—you don’t try it during this particular game.

[BillsCuse]

On 12/8/2019 at 6:34 PM, YoloinOhio said:

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

This all the way.  If you miss your 2 point conversion on the 2nd TD and there's 10 seconds left, you are screwed.  Miss it on the 1st and you manage clock accordingly

[slipkid]

6 minutes ago, SDS said:

 

To use your argument against you...

 

If the Bills weren't going to be able to drive three times against them, then going for the 2-pt conversion TWICE is the clearest path to victory. Because, according to you, they weren't going to be able to do it a third time.

Agreed. That’s why the best argument to go for two with seven minutes left is that you planned to go for two after the second TD, make both, and win in regulation. 
 

I think that’s in my first post.

[Warcodered]

4 minutes ago, slipkid said:

I want coaches to put the team in the best position to win. McD said that they “saw something” to make the two-point more possible. I’m good with that.

 

A lot of posters here are claiming that you always go for two there. You don’t—it’s situational and dependent on the game. Unless they had a play in mind—and they did, according to McD—you don’t try it during this particular game.

Which is why you'd go for it on the first one so you know what situation you're in. If you're saying they couldn't get a 3rd drive that's not going to magically change on the second TD. Going for it on the first TD tells them whether they have to try and have another scoring drive so they can manage their time and timeouts accordingly. If you're saying that they couldn't get a 3rd drive no matter what then the entire question is pointless it wouldn't matter which TD you tried the 2pt conversion on. On the off chance you're wrong though you should still go for it on the first TD.

[SDS]

19 minutes ago, slipkid said:

Agreed. That’s why the best argument to go for two with seven minutes left is that you planned to go for two after the second TD, make both, and win in regulation. 
 

I think that’s in my first post.

Everything else is hot garbage though. Lol

[SinceThe70s]

1 hour ago, slipkid said:

Yes. But I need to clarify.

 

The Bills were not gonna have two meaningful possessions after that TD. And even the “analytics” bear out that the call for going for two is a situational decision. There was nothing from that game—the Ravens D, the fact they ran the clock out in the 49ers, the OL play, Allen’s play, the  Ravens running game, etc. that indicated the Bills  had two possessions and two scores in them.

 

The decision was whether you wanted the game to be essentially over at the seven minute mark or after the second TD. Hey, I’m glad they converted and trust McD’s judgment that they had the right play called.

 

The history of the NFL is for teams to try to stay in the game for as long as possible. Good optics for the fans.

 

That's changed in recent years with teams sometimes willing to risk winning/losing on an end of game 2 point conversion instead of kicking the extra point and hoping for the best in OT.  

 

I get that you wanted to keep the dream of winning alive by deferring the two point conversion, but whether it was with seven minutes or seven seconds left in the game they had to make it. Waiting for seven seconds left would not have increased the Bills chance of winning. 

 

 

[slipkid]

40 minutes ago, SDS said:

Everything else is hot garbage though. Lol

Interestingly (or not), my fantasy team beat a team called “Hot Garbage” this week, so maybe it’s in my head. ?

 

[Doc Brown]

How is this thread five pages?  Any person who can do math and knows football will tell you that's the right call.

[Rochesterfan]

2 hours ago, slipkid said:

You seem really invested in this.

 

Let’s be clear—if you do not convert, you need both a field goal and a TD. If you make the PAT, you need a TD. Then, you worry about the two-point conversion.

 

What isn’t clear to me is the notion that the Bills were somehow gonna get the ball back twice and score both times—at the very least, they get it back the second time via onside kick (good luck with that) or, in the best case, with less than a minute, on their thirty or so, and no timeouts. Did you watch the game? Do you really think the Bills would have two more possessions and score on both?

 

FWIW, they held the Ravens to a three-and-out and still only had the ball once. But I understand the play-calling might have been different. Perhaps it would have been so brilliant that they wouldn’t need the 50+ yards in penalties on the final drive.
 

In short, if they miss the two with seven minutes left, the game is essentially over. If they take the PAT (the 90% option over the 50% option) at least the game comes down to their final possession, assuming the Ravens don’t score. They went for two because the coaches decided that they saw something that made that 50% option a higher percentage. Seems fair, and I’ll trust coach on that. But you don’t always go for two in that situation—it depends on the game and the team you’re playing. That’s why we have coaches, not computers, calling plays.

 

IMHO, the best argument in favor of going for two there is the opportunity to go for two if Brown cuts his route tighter and they score at the end.

 

Holy god - you can not be this far gone can you.  All of the analytics say it is right to go for two at that point.  The Bills analytics say go for 2 at that point.  You seem to be stuck on something that makes no sense.  
 

Why could they not have gotten the ball back 2 times - this is your first incorrect statement.  The Bills scored with 7 minutes left in the game and immediately stopped the Ravens and forced a punt after 90 seconds.  They got the ball back with 5:30 minutes and moved to field goal range with over 2:30 minutes left and they were running clock.  Even at that point if the needed 9 points - they kick that field goal and have 2 timeouts and the 2 minute warning - they should get the ball back with just under 2 minutes.

 

They easily could get 2 possessions plus they would have run more hurry up - so they might get the ball back with over 2 minutes left.  In the end the point was moot because they made it and then ran clock to try for the final score.

 

The issue I have with your take is 2 fold - first by kicking the PAT and leaving the 2 point conversion for last you are playing with the only option being a tie or a loss - it is not the correct mentality.  If the Bills has scored and had to go for two - everything is coming down to one play and that to me favors emotion and the defense.  There are no other options because you were not leaving any time because you do not want Baltimore to drive - so you are basing everything on 1 play and the defense has advantage and timeouts - whereas the offense is out of timeouts - another advantage for the defense.  
 

The second issue is that earlier you go for the two you can dictate choices and have options.  The Bills might have needed 2 possessions at 9 points, but by converting as they did - they had options of kicking and sending to overtime or lining up and going for the win.  They could even have used that option if they scored to force Baltimore into using a timeout.  The options open up if you score and go for 2 and you know what you need to do to win.  Perhaps on the TD there is a penalty to the 1 and the Bills chose to go for two and the win.  We will not know, but all of those options go away if you kick the PAT after the first TD.  The only option is going for two to tie and or missing it and losing - there is no play for a win.
 

 

[Jay_Fixit]

On 12/8/2019 at 3:34 PM, YoloinOhio said:

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

Yeah. The overreactions are ridiculous.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 12/8/2019 at 6:28 PM, 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?

 

Coach fearlessly 

[Thurman#1]

11 hours ago, slipkid said:

You seem really invested in this.

 

Let’s be clear—if you do not convert, you need both a field goal and a TD. If you make the PAT, you need a TD. Then, you worry about the two-point conversion.

 

What isn’t clear to me is the notion that the Bills were somehow gonna get the ball back twice and score both times—at the very least, they get it back the second time via onside kick (good luck with that) or, in the best case, with less than a minute, on their thirty or so, and no timeouts. Did you watch the game? Do you really think the Bills would have two more possessions and score on both?

 

FWIW, they held the Ravens to a three-and-out and still only had the ball once. But I understand the play-calling might have been different. Perhaps it would have been so brilliant that they wouldn’t need the 50+ yards in penalties on the final drive.
 

In short, if they miss the two with seven minutes left, the game is essentially over. If they take the PAT (the 90% option over the 50% option) at least the game comes down to their final possession, assuming the Ravens don’t score. They went for two because the coaches decided that they saw something that made that 50% option a higher percentage. Seems fair, and I’ll trust coach on that. But you don’t always go for two in that situation—it depends on the game and the team you’re playing. That’s why we have coaches, not computers, calling plays.

 

IMHO, the best argument in favor of going for two there is the opportunity to go for two if Brown cuts his route tighter and they score at the end.

 

 

He's mildly irritated because your argument is dumb.

 

If you do not convert, you need an extra possession. However, this is true whenever you miss the conversion, early or late. Same deal. It's like knowing you're going to have to flip a coin at some point and worrying whether you should do it earlier or later. Doesn't matter. Either way you win the flip and you're golden, you lose the flip and you need an extra possession. 

 

Knowing earlier the details of your situation allows you to call plays and use strategy better and more specifically. More so when they thought they knew what look they were going to get.

 

And yeah you don't always go with analytics if the human factor in that moment calls for something else. But going with the analytics most of the time is simply smart. The best organizations do it.

[Thurman#1]

11 hours ago, slipkid said:

 

FWIW, they held the Ravens to a three-and-out and still only had the ball once. But I understand the play-calling might have been different. Perhaps it would have been so brilliant that they wouldn’t need the 50+ yards in penalties on the final drive.
 

In short, if they miss the two with seven minutes left, the game is essentially over. 

 

 

You know, you said in the first paragraph there that you understood that the play-calling might have been different. And yet you make it clear in the second that you didn't understand it at all.

 

The Bills got the ball back with 5:27 left. The drive ended with 1:07 on the clock. That's because they ran it a bunch. Not one guy ran out of bounds that drive. They weren't hurrying, as if they did score that TD and tie it up, the last thing they wanted was to leave the Ravens a bunch of time to get down the field. They didn't need to hurry, hell, they didn't want to hurry.

 

But of course, if they'd missed that conversion, they would have hurried it up an awful lot, they'd have run a two-minute drill. If they'd scored, the Ravens might easily have gotten the ball back with three and a half or four minutes left. The Bills could very easily have had a third possession if they had known early that they needed one.

 

They got a tactical advantage knowing how many points they needed.

 

It wasn't enough, unfortunately, but it was the smart play.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Doc Brown]

12 hours ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

I would wonder if there is any value to playing the final 7 minutes with the knowledge that your team is down just one score vs. two.  Would the defense play with a different level of intensity down 8 vs. 9?  Would they feel more invested in getting the ball back to the offense knowing they could potentially get them to tied with just one score?

 

Failing at the 2 point conversion with 7 minutes to play could have a deflating psychological effect...........maybe.  Just a thought.  

That's one of the two counterpoints for them not going for the two.  The other is the Ravens offense would be more conservative knowing they're up two scores meaning they rush the ball to keep that clock winding.  I would hope the defense is strong enough mentally to fight to the very end regardless of the score.  McDermott made the right decision though as the positives for going for two at that point outweighed the negatives.

[Doc Brown]

9 hours ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

The history of the NFL is for teams to try to stay in the game for as long as possible. Good optics for the fans.

 

That's changed in recent years with teams sometimes willing to risk winning/losing on an end of game 2 point conversion instead of kicking the extra point and hoping for the best in OT.  

 

I get that you wanted to keep the dream of winning alive by deferring the two point conversion, but whether it was with seven minutes or seven seconds left in the game they had to make it. Waiting for seven seconds left would not have increased the Bills chance of winning. 

 

 

I agree with this for the most part but moving the extra point back 13 yards also has something to do with it.  Especially if you have a struggling kicker.

[Tenhigh]

9 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

How is this thread five pages?  Any person who can do math and knows football will tell you that's the right call.

I can't believe it either. Where the hell is DC Tom?

[slipkid]

21 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

How is this thread five pages?  Any person who can do math and knows football will tell you that's the right call.

Yeah right. It’s the longest thread that I’ve started since “Who is the hairiest Bill in history?” back 2001 or 2002. I think Doug Flutie, Fred Smerlas, and Art Still were the finalists.

 

I’m just pointing out—as Burke’s analytic breakdown implies—that it’s more situational than some are saying here.