Jump to content
Special K

If the Bills scored on the final posession......

If the Bills scored on the final possession.......  

196 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you have gone for two?

    • Yes
      65
    • No
      131


Recommended Posts

The fact that they went for two on the first TD leads me to think the Bills would have gone for two if they scored on the final possession...personally, I would love the decision to go for two in that situation given the flow of the game at that point.

 

What say you???

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Go into overtime and either use that momentum to score more points, or if you lose the coin toss, trust your (very good) defense to get you the ball back.

 

 

2-pt conversions are kind of a crapshoot.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

 

2-pt conversions are kind of a crapshoot.

I see your point and agree, but going into OT with the Ravens is kind of a crapshoot as well.

 

Hauschka kicking that extra point under pressure isn't a given as well.

Edited by Special K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the reason why you would go for 2, but I think you have to go for the kick. Your defense just played too damn good to gamble their effort on one play, by an offense that was not exactly lighting it up.

 

Not to change the subject:

 

Forgive me if it is being discussed elsewhere, but did anyone else think it was a bit risky to go for 2, after the Beasley touchdown?  They got it, so it looks like a great decision, but the ramifications of not converting, would have likely ended the game right there...

 

I tuned in to the post-game show on GR (they are twice as bad as Schop and Bulldog, which is saying something). Nate Geary (I think that is the one who made the point) said that going for 1 pt there is just conservative "old thinking" football, and anyone who thinks otherwise just "doesn't understand football". He actually said "if you don't get it, you are down by 9 and you know what you have to do, you have it all in front of you".  It was one of the more idiotic things I have heard in a while, and reminded me why I just can't do the GR post-game stuff any more.  I am para-phrasing a little.  

 

In my opinion anyone who holds his opinion just doesn't understand math.  Again, because they converted the 2 pt play, the point is moot...but if they didn't convert, they would be down by 2 scores, with time running out...they would need to score another td, get the ball back somehow, and then kick a field goal, or get another TD to win.  Is this just "old-guy" thinking on my part?

Edited by Buftex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buftex said:

I understand the reason why you would go for 2, but I think you have to go for the kick. Your defense just played too damn good to gamble their effort on one play, by an offense that was not exactly lighting it up.

 

Not to change the subject:

 

Forgive me if it is being discussed elsewhere, but did anyone else think it was a bit risky to go for 2, after the Beasley touchdown?  They got it, so it looks like a great decision, but the ramifications of not converting, would have likely ended the game right there...

 

I tuned in to the post-game show on GR (they are twice as bad as Schop and Bulldog, which is saying something). Nate Geary (I think that is the one who made the point) said that going for 1 pt there is just conservative "old thinking" football, and anyone who thinks otherwise just "doesn't understand football". He actually said "if you don't get it, you are down by 9 and you know what you have to do, you have it all in front of you".  It was one of the more idiotic things I have heard in a while, and reminded me why I just can't do the GR post-game stuff any more.  I am para-phrasing a little.  

 

In my opinion anyone who holds his opinion just doesn't understand math.  Again, because they converted the 2 pt play, the point is moot...but if they didn't convert, they would be down by 2 scores, with time running out...they would need to score another td, get the ball back somehow, and then kick a field goal, or get another TD to win.  Is this just "old-guy" thinking on my part?

There is an entire thread on this

But it was entirely the right call we needed a 2pt conversion on either that TD or the next. If we get it golden if not we know we need to score on two more possessions.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Buftex said:

I understand the reason why you would go for 2, but I think you have to go for the kick. Your defense just played too damn good to gamble their effort on one play, by an offense that was not exactly lighting it up.

 

Not to change the subject:

 

Forgive me if it is being discussed elsewhere, but did anyone else think it was a bit risky to go for 2, after the Beasley touchdown?  They got it, so it looks like a great decision, but the ramifications of not converting, would have likely ended the game right there...

 

I tuned in to the post-game show on GR (they are twice as bad as Schop and Bulldog, which is saying something). Nate Geary (I think that is the one who made the point) said that going for 1 pt there is just conservative "old thinking" football, and anyone who thinks otherwise just "doesn't understand football". He actually said "if you don't get it, you are down by 9 and you know what you have to do, you have it all in front of you".  It was one of the more idiotic things I have heard in a while, and reminded me why I just can't do the GR post-game stuff any more.  I am para-phrasing a little.  

 

In my opinion anyone who holds his opinion just doesn't understand math.  Again, because they converted the 2 pt play, the point is moot...but if they didn't convert, they would be down by 2 scores, with time running out...they would need to score another td, get the ball back somehow, and then kick a field goal, or get another TD to win.  Is this just "old-guy" thinking on my part?

They were down 15 pts before that TD so they had to go for 2 at some point.  If they didn’t go for 2 there then on the next TD they would be forced to go for 2 to tie it up.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Buftex said:

 

 

Forgive me if it is being discussed elsewhere, but did anyone else think it was a bit risky to go for 2, after the Beasley touchdown?  They got it, so it looks like a great decision, but the ramifications of not converting, would have likely ended the game right there...

 

 

I didn't understand that either, that decision is what gave me the thought that they were planning to go for two on the second touchdown....there really wasn't any other reason to do that IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Buftex said:

I understand the reason why you would go for 2, but I think you have to go for the kick. Your defense just played too damn good to gamble their effort on one play, by an offense that was not exactly lighting it up.

 

Not to change the subject:

 

Forgive me if it is being discussed elsewhere, but did anyone else think it was a bit risky to go for 2, after the Beasley touchdown?  They got it, so it looks like a great decision, but the ramifications of not converting, would have likely ended the game right there...

 

I tuned in to the post-game show on GR (they are twice as bad as Schop and Bulldog, which is saying something). Nate Geary (I think that is the one who made the point) said that going for 1 pt there is just conservative "old thinking" football, and anyone who thinks otherwise just "doesn't understand football". He actually said "if you don't get it, you are down by 9 and you know what you have to do, you have it all in front of you".  It was one of the more idiotic things I have heard in a while, and reminded me why I just can't do the GR post-game stuff any more.  I am para-phrasing a little.  

 

In my opinion anyone who holds his opinion just doesn't understand math.  Again, because they converted the 2 pt play, the point is moot...but if they didn't convert, they would be down by 2 scores, with time running out...they would need to score another td, get the ball back somehow, and then kick a field goal, or get another TD to win.  Is this just "old-guy" thinking on my part?

 

I don't think either choice in that situation is absolutely right or wrong, mathematically... it only looks that way if it works or doesn't work, like you say. I think going for 2 when they did was a way to keep the most amount of options/choices on the table for them, and to help the Defense know what they needed to do. 

 

If you get the 2, as they did, then you are within 7. You're golden. You didn't put the decision off. You just need one TD, one possession. This is the ideal outcome. The defense's job is to simply prevent Baltimore from scoring any more points and get the ball back as soon as possible. If they score again, you have the choice to potentially win the game if you go for 2 again, or go to OT with a PAT. This gives the most opportunity to "win" on your terms.

 

If you miss the 2, then obviously you now need two possessions. But if you face 4th down in the red zone again, you can take the 3, which now puts you in a position to win on your next possession, rather than tie. The Defense needs to force an immediate 3 and out, or take more chances for a turnover. 

 

If you take the PAT and you get it, you need to go score a TD and then go for 2 -- just to tie. It puts all the pressure on that final play, where the best possible outcome is a tie and going to OT... it's potentially a more devastating loss today if the Bills took a PAT on the TD, then were able to score on the John Brown TD, only to then come up short on the 2 point attempt to get to OT. 

 

There's more potential for frustration on the "PAT first, go for 2 later" path — it keeps "the hope" alive a little longer potentially, but you're less "in control" of the outcome. 

 

That's my guess!

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

There is an entire thread on this

But it was entirely the right call we needed a 2pt conversion on either that TD or the next. If we get it golden if not we know we need to score on two more possessions.

Knowing you need to score on two possessions doesn't do any good when that means you not only have to stop the ravens twice, but craft two straight scoring drives with about 5 minutes left by the time you can start the first one IF you stop the ravens in 3 plays the first time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd already thought this out and yes, and I cant believe I'm saying it. We were playing with house money, and I dont doubt MCD would have either. Predators bite at the jugular 

 

Also I dont think anyone disagreeing is stupid, and any day other than today I'd disagree with what I'm saying. Today felt like a day to bite at the division win more than just win a game if you look at the schedule. Easy to say coaches take it one day at a time but today was our chance to close ground on the AFCE with Pats playing KC. 

Edited by BillsShredder83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, arcane said:

Knowing you need to score on two possessions doesn't do any good when that means you not only have to stop the ravens twice, but craft two straight scoring drives with about 5 minutes left by the time you can start the first one IF you stop the ravens in 3 plays the first time...

Okay this is real simple we needed 15 points we scored and got 6. So now we're in a situation where we're down 9. The only way to get 9 is to get a 2pt conversion and a TD with an extra point. If we don't get the 2pt conversion we need to get a FG. So we can either find out if we need the FG now with what 5 minutes or on next TD with less time. 

 

It doesn't matter where you fail to get the 2pt conversion once that happens you need a FG. All putting it off till the next TD does is let you play pretend that your not in the ***** situation that you are. Doing it on the first TD tells you whether you need to fit 1 or 2 scoring drives in the time you have left.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GregPersons said:

 

I don't think either choice in that situation is absolutely right or wrong, mathematically... it only looks that way if it works or doesn't work, like you say. I think going for 2 when they did was a way to keep the most amount of options/choices on the table for them, and to help the Defense know what they needed to do. 

 

If you get the 2, as they did, then you are within 7. You're golden. You didn't put the decision off. You just need one TD, one possession. This is the ideal outcome. The defense's job is to simply prevent Baltimore from scoring any more points and get the ball back as soon as possible. If they score again, you have the choice to potentially win the game if you go for 2 again, or go to OT with a PAT. This gives the most opportunity to "win" on your terms.

 

If you miss the 2, then obviously you now need two possessions. But if you face 4th down in the red zone again, you can take the 3, which now puts you in a position to win on your next possession, rather than tie. The Defense needs to force an immediate 3 and out, or take more chances for a turnover. 

 

If you take the PAT and you get it, you need to go score a TD and then go for 2 -- just to tie. It puts all the pressure on that final play, where the best possible outcome is a tie and going to OT... it's potentially a more devastating loss today if the Bills took a PAT on the TD, then were able to score on the John Brown TD, only to then come up short on the 2 point attempt to get to OT. 

 

There's more potential for frustration on the "PAT first, go for 2 later" path — it keeps "the hope" alive a little longer potentially, but you're less "in control" of the outcome. 

 

That's my guess!

You are down 15. 7+7=14 6+8=14 8+7=15. You need 15 so you need to hit on 2 somewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easiest yes.

 

Take the 1 and you gotta get to that position again and take that throw again. That's if you even get a chance if you lose the coin flip.

 

100% yes. Easy call

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Special K said:

The fact that they went for two on the first TD leads me to think the Bills would have gone for two if they scored on the final possession...personally, I would love the decision to go for two in that situation given the flow of the game at that point.

 

What say you???

 

Take OT and trust your D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter what all of us think, I'm convinced Sean planned to go for the 2 and he would have stolen the win if it worked.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Special K said:

The fact that they went for two on the first TD leads me to think the Bills would have gone for two if they scored on the final possession...personally, I would love the decision to go for two in that situation given the flow of the game at that point.

 

What say you???

 

I was thinking the same  thing.

 

Why go for 2 and put the game on the line?

 

House Money was right down the middle all day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it to OT. Coach would never hear the end of it if they went for 2 and didn't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Special K said:

The fact that they went for two on the first TD leads me to think the Bills would have gone for two if they scored on the final possession...personally, I would love the decision to go for two in that situation given the flow of the game at that point.

 

What say you???

From my lens, I would have gone for 2, saying hey "We are going for the win now".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Buftex said:

I understand the reason why you would go for 2, but I think you have to go for the kick. Your defense just played too damn good to gamble their effort on one play, by an offense that was not exactly lighting it up.

 

Not to change the subject:

 

Forgive me if it is being discussed elsewhere, but did anyone else think it was a bit risky to go for 2, after the Beasley touchdown?  They got it, so it looks like a great decision, but the ramifications of not converting, would have likely ended the game right there...

 

I tuned in to the post-game show on GR (they are twice as bad as Schop and Bulldog, which is saying something). Nate Geary (I think that is the one who made the point) said that going for 1 pt there is just conservative "old thinking" football, and anyone who thinks otherwise just "doesn't understand football". He actually said "if you don't get it, you are down by 9 and you know what you have to do, you have it all in front of you".  It was one of the more idiotic things I have heard in a while, and reminded me why I just can't do the GR post-game stuff any more.  I am para-phrasing a little.  

 

In my opinion anyone who holds his opinion just doesn't understand math.  Again, because they converted the 2 pt play, the point is moot...but if they didn't convert, they would be down by 2 scores, with time running out...they would need to score another td, get the ball back somehow, and then kick a field goal, or get another TD to win.  Is this just "old-guy" thinking on my part?

 

 

 

Yeah, missing the 2 pointer would have put us an extra possession away. Same with missing the two-pointer later in the game, though. We had to make a two-pointer sometime either way. The odds on making a two-ponter don't change depending on how much time there is left in the game.

 

Make it earlier or later and it's no problem, so that doesn't matter.

 

Miss it earlier and you now know that you need two possessions with seven minutes left in the game during which to work the clock and guide your strategy. Miss it later and you now know that you need two possessions when you have ... what? ... 30 seconds left? A minute if you're lucky? Your fate has already been decided at that point.

Edited by Thurman#1
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about this that entire drive.

They had just been successful on two similar plays.

One, a touchdown to Beasley, and then the two pointer. Both similar patterns.

 

They had the Ravens set up.

 

I would have lined up for two, and if the liked the play they had against the Ravens defensive set, run it.

If not, run motion to see what see if you can change the matchups and get into another play.

If you really like what you've got after the motion, run it.

 

If not, take the delay and penalty or time out if you think its worth it and you have one, and let Hauschka kick the point.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, but as for going for two with almost no time left in the game and down by one?

 

No, that's crazy. The odds on making a two-pointer are ever so slightly below 50%.

 

https://rileykolstefootball.com/2018/07/08/two-point-study/

 

Gonna bet the game when you don't quite get coin-flip odds? That would be crazy. You don't buck the odds like that, not if you've got sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Buftex said:

Forgive me if it is being discussed elsewhere, but did anyone else think it was a bit risky to go for 2, after the Beasley touchdown?  They got it, so it looks like a great decision, but the ramifications of not converting, would have likely ended the game right there...

 

I tuned in to the post-game show on GR (they are twice as bad as Schop and Bulldog, which is saying something). Nate Geary (I think that is the one who made the point) said that going for 1 pt there is just conservative "old thinking" football, and anyone who thinks otherwise just "doesn't understand football". He actually said "if you don't get it, you are down by 9 and you know what you have to do, you have it all in front of you".  It was one of the more idiotic things I have heard in a while, and reminded me why I just can't do the GR post-game stuff any more.  I am para-phrasing a little.  

 

In my opinion anyone who holds his opinion just doesn't understand math.  Again, because they converted the 2 pt play, the point is moot...but if they didn't convert, they would be down by 2 scores, with time running out...they would need to score another td, get the ball back somehow, and then kick a field goal, or get another TD to win.  Is this just "old-guy" thinking on my part?

Honestly, I liked the call... I posted in another thread about it, but it's as simple as this.

 

I'd rather know now, at this very second, with seven minutes or whatever it was left on the clock, how many more times i need to score. At least if we miss the 2pt conversion (which we're going to have to have one either way, whether it's now or later) now, at 7 minutes, It changes our gameplan a bit, knowing you still need two possessions. Maybe you get the ball back and get a big play, and just kick the FG instead of wasting time trying to score a TD, putting the game back in your defense's hands to get the ball back again.

 

If you go for one (granted Hauschka makes the PAT) and then get the ball back and score again, and miss the 2pt conversion, the game is over, because most likely at that point, there won't be enough time left to get another possession. The CBS broadcast made it sound like an outrageous call to go for 2 when they did... I thought it was pretty simple and straightforward.

  • 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...