SinceThe70s Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slipkid Posted December 10, 2019 Author Share Posted December 10, 2019 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. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 How is this thread five pages? Any person who can do math and knows football will tell you that's the right call. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay_Fixit Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slipkid Posted December 10, 2019 Author Share Posted December 10, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts