Jump to content
slipkid

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

Recommended Posts

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/

  • Like (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by eanyills
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Skeptical 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..:

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 
 

 

BC86FFE4-1CA6-4104-A169-277B136E71EB.png

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Skeptical 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by london_bills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...