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

[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.