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

[Special K]

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???

[RiotAct]

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.

[Special K]

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 December 9, 2019 by Special K

[Warcodered]

Go into OT if we'd scored we would of been on a roll with some momentum.

[Buftex]

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 December 9, 2019 by Buftex

[Warcodered]

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.

[bills6969]

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.

[Special K]

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.

[GregPersons]

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!

[GoBills808]

100% yes I would have. My logic was that a win helps a LOT more than a loss hurts. 

[Franco_92]

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...

[BillsShredder83]

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 December 9, 2019 by BillsShredder83

[Warcodered]

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.

[fansince88]

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. 

[OZBILLS]

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

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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

 

[Dan Darragh]

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.

[JMF2006]

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.

 

[bmur66]

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

[BreezeMafia]

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".

[Thurman#1]

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 December 9, 2019 by Thurman#1

[sherpa]

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.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

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.

[CLTbills]

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.

[london_bills]

Voted yes as I would want to. 

 

I dont think they would have. 

[DRA3196]

With the way the winds were in the stadium yesterday and watching Hauschka practice, my confidence wasn't inspired. I would have much rather trusted Allen and co. to get the 2yds for the win.

[Greg S]

I think they would have kicked the extra point and taken their chances in OT. It would have been fun to see that scenario play out though.

[Solomon Grundy]

I voted Yes. You go for it and send a message to your team that we came to win. 

[GregPersons]

I do think McDermott could've thought this through more. For example he could've called a time out and polled the crowd. The wifi at the stadium isn't great so getting everyone on TSW at the same time will be tricky. 70,000 little pencils and slips of paper isn't impossible, but a lot of notaries aren't even open on Sundays. Maybe we can just have people raise their hands. One hand per person. Don't count them twice. Get a correct tally the first time and you won't need to review on a recount. 

 

If the crowd says go for it, go for it. If the assembled Mafia and their cousins feel like maybe play it safer here and just take the PAT, then send out the field goal unit. This works on Air Bud rules — there's nothing specifically in the rulebook against it. And of course this is only the beginning. Outsourcing is the future of coaching... certainly it will be cost-effective. Saves on unnecessary coaches. Moneyball to the nth power. Any 50/50 call could be litigated... should be. Poll the audience for the challenge flag. Let majority rule for heads or tails, kick or receive. Download the app, vote on RPO plays for an R or a P in real-time. If it's in the game, it's in the app. 

[Xwnyer]

I think McD would have gone for kick and try to win in OT.

[ILBillsfan]

No way they go for two.  Kick the xp and head to overtime.  

[White Linen]

I believe it's the reason we went for two on the previous TD - so that we could go for the win.  

[buffaloboyinATL]

I voted no. Our defense was playing well enough to stop them, so it would not have been necessary to gamble.

[Jobot]

Couldn't tell from the replay, but was that a drop by Brown on the final play?  Definitely tight coverage, but the ball looked to be perfectly thrown, and not outlandish to expect an NFL caliber receiver to make the catch.

[Buffalo Junction]

14 minutes ago, Jobot said:

Couldn't tell from the replay, but was that a drop by Brown on the final play?  Definitely tight coverage, but the ball looked to be perfectly thrown, and not outlandish to expect an NFL caliber receiver to make the catch.

Peters made an excellent play. 

[badassgixxer05]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Junction said:

Peters made an excellent play. 

He really did. Played the route perfectly. If Brown was bigger he could have boxed him out and prob may a better play on the ball. I would have liked to see him come back to the ball a bit more and cut off Peters, but Allen throws a bullet and he didn't have much time to adjust.

[Jobot]

2 minutes ago, badassgixxer05 said:

He really did. Played the route perfectly. If Brown was bigger he could have boxed him out and prob may a better play on the ball. I would have liked to see him come back to the ball a bit more and cut off Peters, but Allen throws a bullet and he didn't have much time to adjust.

 

No doubt Peters knew the route and did his homework leading up to the game.

[Buftex]

12 hours ago, CLTbills said:

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.

I liked the call, because it worked...but I think had it not, that would have severely decreased our chance of having that chance to win in the waning moments of the game. 

 

I appreciate your explanation, and I get it, and maybe I am just being obstinate... but I still can't get past the idea that if you blow it on the 2 pt conversion, you now have to come up with a TD, and a field goal, and an extra point (which is not a "gimmie" any more), and less clock to work with. 

[Rocket94]

20 hours ago, Warcodered said:

Go into OT if we'd scored we would of been on a roll with some momentum.

The same kind of momentum Allen would have brought if he returned in the first NE game!

[CLTbills]

56 minutes ago, Buftex said:

I liked the call, because it worked...but I think had it not, that would have severely decreased our chance of having that chance to win in the waning moments of the game. 

 

I appreciate your explanation, and I get it, and maybe I am just being obstinate... but I still can't get past the idea that if you blow it on the 2 pt conversion, you now have to come up with a TD, and a field goal, and an extra point (which is not a "gimmie" any more), and less clock to work with. 

Yes but my point is, you actually have WAY more clock to work with if you miss that 2 point conversion now, versus if you miss it with 2 minutes or less left on the game clock.