Jump to content

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


slipkid

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Sad 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Rc2catch
  • Like (+1) 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Warcodered
  • Like (+1) 5
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by slipkid
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Warcodered
  • Like (+1) 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 6
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bob in STL
  • Like (+1) 3
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.B-)

  • Like (+1) 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Margarita
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...