The two-point conversion fail

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

A few comments about the 2-point conversion fail:

 

1) McKenzie was taking a lot of grief after the game for going to the corner, as opposed to Scooting upfield and kind of diving in. There is no chance for him to do it on this play. He had no angle other than the corner.

 

2) if you want to blame someone, blame Gilliam. Gilliam blocked the safety, but tried to just blow him up, as opposed to engaging him in a block. The safety just bounced off of him, and made it to the corner to get McKenzie.

 

3) Broader issue. I know the math said to go for 2, but in a game when you aren’t playing your best, you are playing an inferior opponent, and there is a full quarter and a half, why go for two? I would argue that you have to just keep accumulating points. 
 

the 2-point play is at 9-minute mark here:

 

 

 

[Process]

McDermott is aggressive. I love it and wouldn't want it any other way. Players needs to execute. Dorsey needs to call better plays. Plays are there to be made.

[Airseven]

No reason to go for 2 in that spot in the 3rd quarter. Especially a team that can't execute in short yardage.

[atlbillsfan1975]

I like the call, like the play, would like to see Hines get a shot at that play. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by atlbillsfan1975

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

A few comments about the 2-point conversion fail:

 

1) McKenzie was taking a lot of grief after the game for going to the corner, as opposed to Scooting upfield and kind of diving in. There is no chance for him to do it on this play. He had no angle other than the corner.

 

2) if you want to blame someone, blame Gilliam. Gilliam blocked the safety, but tried to just blow him up, as opposed to engaging him in a block. The safety just bounced off of him, and made it to the corner to get McKenzie.

 

3) Broader issue. I know the math said to go for 2, but in a game when you aren’t playing your best, you are playing an inferior opponent, and there is a full quarter and a half, why go for two? I would argue that you have to just keep accumulating points. 
 

the 2-point play is at 9-minute mark here:

 

 

 

You’re wrong. The math is the math for a reason in a situation like that. 
 

Good decision. Decent playcall. Players didn’t execute. Oh well. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

13 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

A few comments about the 2-point conversion fail:

 

1) McKenzie was taking a lot of grief after the game for going to the corner, as opposed to Scooting upfield and kind of diving in. There is no chance for him to do it on this play. He had no angle other than the corner.

 

2) if you want to blame someone, blame Gilliam. Gilliam blocked the safety, but tried to just blow him up, as opposed to engaging him in a block. The safety just bounced off of him, and made it to the corner to get McKenzie.

 

3) Broader issue. I know the math said to go for 2, but in a game when you aren’t playing your best, you are playing an inferior opponent, and there is a full quarter and a half, why go for two? I would argue that you have to just keep accumulating points. 
 

the 2-point play is at 9-minute mark here:

 

 

 

 

Yeah, Gilliam needed to get in his way.  Knox also could have done something to get involved in the play. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Gilliam sucks but sometimes the defense makes plays too. Both things can be true.

Its beyond stupid to carry a FB on a NFL roster. And please don't tell me he can play TE too. That's nonsense. The modern way to play is with two or three TEs and you just line up a #2 or #3 TE as an Hback. 

[poblano]

30 minutes ago, Airseven said:

No reason to go for 2 in that spot in the 3rd quarter. Especially a team that can't execute in short yardage.

They think the game was over and they need practice over and over on short yardage situations, that's why i think they go for it 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 minute ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

Gilliam sucks but sometimes the defense makes plays too. Both things can be true.

Its beyond stupid to carry a FB on a NFL roster. And please don't tell me he can play TE too. That's nonsense. The modern way to play is with two or three TEs and you just line up a #2 or #3 TE as an Hback. 

 

 

Lots of teams carry fullbacks.  Most of the times its a core special teamer as well- but they have packages on offense too especially in the RZ.  

 

Modern teams with extra tight ends - https://www.ourlads.com/nfldepthcharts/depthchartpos/TE.  Which one of these #3 TEs is a noticeable upgrade over gilliam at anything?  

 

As for what we could use that roster spot for?  I dunno, but every team has core special teamers.  If its not a FB its an extra WR, or TE, or LB, or Safety.   And most of them don't play offense or defense.  

[Special K]

14 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

Gilliam sucks but sometimes the defense makes plays too. Both things can be true.

Its beyond stupid to carry a FB on a NFL roster. And please don't tell me he can play TE too. That's nonsense. The modern way to play is with two or three TEs and you just line up a #2 or #3 TE as an Hback. 

 

I think the defender just made a good play....it would be impossible for McK to fall forward or extend the ball in that situation, because the guy hitting him weighed about 50+ pounds more than him

[Ned Flanders]

I'm old school...don't go for two unless you absolutely need to.

[78thealltimegreat]

To me see that wasn’t really needed right there but no one knows how the rest of the game will go so I can see why he went for 2.

The broader question about Mackenzie is they should be running the jet sweep with him 2-3 times a game. 
Maybe then run a wheel route behind him with Hines but I’m a big wheel route guy to begin with. See Dallas and Tony Pollard yesterday. 

[TheBrownBear]

46 minutes ago, FireChans said:

You’re wrong. The math is the math for a reason in a situation like that. 
 

Good decision. Decent playcall. Players didn’t execute. Oh well. 

Yep.  Liked the decision and liked the playcall.  It was more creative than we've seen lately from Dorsey.  It just didn't work out.  Couldn't find much to criticize there.

[BernieBill]

It was the wrong call (a sad refrain for Sean McDermott's game management).  You put the point up on the board.  Notice how the final margin was 8 ... let's say the Browns had miraculously recovered the onside kick, scored and made a 2 pt conversion ... tie game, potential Bills loss.  It's akin to McDermott's wrong decision not to kick the FG against the Vikings.  

[Arkady Renko]

15 minutes ago, Ned Flanders said:

I'm old school...don't go for two unless you absolutely need to.

What do you think about going for it on fourth down?

2 minutes ago, BernieBill said:

It was the wrong call (a sad refrain for Sean McDermott's game management).  You put the point up on the board.  Notice how the final margin was 8 ... let's say the Browns had miraculously recovered the onside kick, scored and made a 2 pt conversion ... tie game, potential Bills loss.  It's akin to McDermott's wrong decision not to kick the FG against the Vikings.  

Hindsight bias.  The math says it gives you the better odds.  It’s not a guarantee. 

[VaMilBill]

Only thing McKenzie could have done there was put the ball in his right hand and dive while reaching for the pylon. Would take an extremely athletic move, but I think he could have done that 

[TheBrownBear]

10 minutes ago, BernieBill said:

It was the wrong call (a sad refrain for Sean McDermott's game management).  You put the point up on the board.  Notice how the final margin was 8 ... let's say the Browns had miraculously recovered the onside kick, scored and made a 2 pt conversion ... tie game, potential Bills loss.  It's akin to McDermott's wrong decision not to kick the FG against the Vikings.  

You can't just look at the final score and say it was a mistake.  Also, consider that the Browns went for 1 and not 2 on that final touchdown.  Let's say we kick that extra point, get to 23 and ultimately 32.  Then the Browns would merely go for 2 on that last touchdown instead of kicking the EP.  And that's to say nothing of all the little decisions between the failed 2 point conversion and the end of the game (including CLE going for their own 2 point conversion and failing) that are changed by the Bills instead opting for the EP following the Singletary touchdown.  It was analytically the correct decision at the time and we ultimately won, so I can't really find anyway to complain too much about it.

Edited November 21, 2022 by TheBrownBear

[BernieBill]

"The math" says 1 point is better than zero, which is what the Bills got, zero ... 

[RiotAct]

10 minutes ago, Arkady Renko said:

What do you think about going for it on fourth down?

Hindsight bias.  The math says it gives you the better odds.  It’s not a guarantee. 

Exactly. You never know how the rest of the game would have gone had we kicked the Xp.

[ColoradoBills]

I'm not a fan of going for 2 early in the 3rd while leading BUT it's more a 50/50 call in today's NFL.

The play call was fine with me, and it just wasn't blocked as well as when it was drawn up.

[pocoboy]

No issue with the conversion try. Big issue with players like Gilliam who offer one real trick and then don't even pull that one off when needed.

[BernieBill]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBear said:

You can't just look at the final score and say it was a mistake.  Also, consider that the Browns went for 1 and not 2 on that final touchdown.  Let's say we kick that extra point, get to 23 and ultimately 32.  Then the Browns would merely go for 2 on that last touchdown instead of kicking the EP.  And that's to say nothing of all the little decisions between the failed 2 point conversion until the end of the game (including CLE going for their own 2 point conversion and failing) that are changed by the Bills instead opting for the EP following the Singletary touchdown.  It was analytically the correct decision at the time and we ultimately won, so I can't really find anyway to complain too much about it.

I like the idea of making the Browns go for two under your scenario ... maybe they don't get the 2 and it works out even better for the Bills (Bills kick 1 point, Browns miss 2pt conversion).  Going for two in the 3rd quarter to go up 14 instead of 13 was simply not necessary ... make the Browns make 2 point conversions.

[Roundybout]

Going for it was fine. Never gonna complain about being aggressive. 

 

I thought there were two major issues in execution: 

 

1) McKenzie is too late to hit the hole. He didn't juke in when he should have. If he heads to the pylon a second earlier, he can stretch it. 

 

2) Gilliam can't hold his block. He should have stayed engaged but instead he tried to completely remove the safety at once and ended up whiffing. 

[Eastport bills]

McKenzie is a soft player and I don’t trust him in a big spot.Thankfully he doesn’t return kicks anymore. The 2pt. conversion was only possible if he attempted to break the goal line by turning into the contact. He probably doesn’t make it but you can’t run out of bounds without trying. He fumbles and drops passes and seems slight. He should be a good slot security blanket for Josh, like Beasley, but he doesn’t want to withstand the punishment Cole sought out. Shakir is a much better option.

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

A few comments about the 2-point conversion fail:

 

1) McKenzie was taking a lot of grief after the game for going to the corner, as opposed to Scooting upfield and kind of diving in. There is no chance for him to do it on this play. He had no angle other than the corner.

 

2) if you want to blame someone, blame Gilliam. Gilliam blocked the safety, but tried to just blow him up, as opposed to engaging him in a block. The safety just bounced off of him, and made it to the corner to get McKenzie.

 

3) Broader issue. I know the math said to go for 2, but in a game when you aren’t playing your best, you are playing an inferior opponent, and there is a full quarter and a half, why go for two? I would argue that you have to just keep accumulating points. 
 

the 2-point play is at 9-minute mark here:

 

 

 

 

 

Gilliam had a brutal day.   

 

He missed a number of blocks in limited opportunity.   He had one good block.........and got rather unfairly flagged for holding on it........which in large part turned what looked like a certain TD drive into a FG.   But when you suck at blocking and finally execute one I suppose it could seem suspicious. 

 

I never blame refs for a result,  you always have chances to make other plays and overcome bad calls.........but this was a particularly lopsidedly called game, IMO.

 

Just a lousy crew of officials that I hope we don't see again.

 

But I actually think the steady supply of adversity helped get them out of their funk and remain focused.    Officiating was part of that.

[CDogg20]

1 hour ago, Airseven said:

No reason to go for 2 in that spot in the 3rd quarter. Especially a team that can't execute in short yardage.

Offense had just got rolling and two puts us up 14 as opposed to 13. Thought it was the right call judging by the flow of the game

[sunshynman]

18 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Gilliam had a brutal day.   

 

He missed a number of blocks in limited opportunity.   He had one good block.........and got rather unfairly flagged for holding on it........which in large part turned what looked like a certain TD drive into a FG.   But when you suck at blocking and finally execute one I suppose it could seem suspicious. 

 

I never blame refs for a result,  you always have chances to make other plays and overcome bad calls.........but this was a particularly lopsidedly called game, IMO.

 

Just a lousy crew of officials that I hope we don't see again.

 

But I actually think the steady supply of adversity helped get them out of their funk and remain focused.    Officiating was part of that.

The announcers were bad. The officiating was horrendous! Phantom holding and PI calls. And not calling the same on the Browns.

[CNYfan]

Agree that Gilliam missed a block he should have made.  His bad.

[Ned Flanders]

50 minutes ago, Arkady Renko said:

What do you think about going for it on fourth down?

Apples and oranges...

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

29 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Gilliam had a brutal day.   

 

He missed a number of blocks in limited opportunity.   He had one good block.........and got rather unfairly flagged for holding on it........which in large part turned what looked like a certain TD drive into a FG.   But when you suck at blocking and finally execute one I suppose it could seem suspicious. 

 

I never blame refs for a result,  you always have chances to make other plays and overcome bad calls.........but this was a particularly lopsidedly called game, IMO.

 

Just a lousy crew of officials that I hope we don't see again.

 

But I actually think the steady supply of adversity helped get them out of their funk and remain focused.    Officiating was part of that.

Agreed. That hold call on Gilliam and the PI on Hamlin are as bad as it gets. The Saffold hold was horrendous too.   Negated a 20-yard run. I knew this crew was shaky from the outset— never recall even seeing those guys out there before. 

[wagon127]

1 hour ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

 

3) Broader issue. I know the math said to go for 2, but in a game when you aren’t playing your best, you are playing an inferior opponent, and there is a full quarter and a half, why go for two? I would argue that you have to just keep accumulating points. 
 

the 2-point play is at 9-minute mark here:

 

 

There is very little difference between being up by 12 vs being up by 13. Being up by 14 is a huge difference. 

 

When the Browns see a 12 point lead or a 13 point lead, they see, 2 Field goals and TD to come back. Either lead doesn't change much for them.

When you see a 14 point lead, they see they can not afford settling for a field goal the rest of the game, and have to only go for TDs.

 

The strategy you are point out works in Basketball, because they have 1 point plays all by themselves. Football only has a 1 point play as a bonus after scoring a TD. So unfortunately, math wins the decision to go for two. 

[Ya Digg?]

50 minutes ago, BernieBill said:

I like the idea of making the Browns go for two under your scenario ... maybe they don't get the 2 and it works out even better for the Bills (Bills kick 1 point, Browns miss 2pt conversion).  Going for two in the 3rd quarter to go up 14 instead of 13 was simply not necessary ... make the Browns make 2 point conversions.

There's not much of a difference being up 12 and being up 13 in that situation.  You go for 2 because if you give up 2 touchdowns you are losing in either scenario.  That's why they went for 2.  They simply didn't execute - the math tells you to go for 2 though

[Bob in STL]

2 hours ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:

I like the call, liked the play, would like to see Hines get a shot at that play. 

If Gilliam makes his block its a score with any running back 

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

12 minutes ago, Ya Digg? said:

There's not much of a difference being up 12 and being up 13 in that situation.  You go for 2 because if you give up 2 touchdowns you are losing in either scenario.  That's why they went for 2.  They simply didn't execute - the math tells you to go for 2 though

they score to make it 22-10. If we go for 1, it is 23-10. If we score a FG on our next possession, it is 26-10– at that point it would require the browns to

score 2 TDs and 2 2-pointers just to tie. Good luck with that. We are then really in the driver’s seat. 
 

what I don’t like about going for 2 early is the coaches hold the variable of your own team scoring constant. Why? There is a ton of game left. How we score on the next possession will dramatically impact the scoring differences down the stretch. 
 

Also, the going for 2 vs 1 rarely considers how your team is performing. We are really struggling lately on goal to go downs. So, if I were to say our chance of 1 is 100% and our chance of getting 2 is like 20%, wouldn’t it be a no-brainer to go for 1? The coaches rarely consider a weighted average in making that call.

 

Maybe I am too risk averse— but against bad opponents, I just want guaranteed points anyway I can get them. 

[nedboy7]

Sometimes the play fails.  No need to immediately declare someone sucks or look for blame on every single ***** play. 

GDT of course immediately wanted the OC and McK cut.

Edited November 21, 2022 by nedboy7

[atlbillsfan1975]

17 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

If Gilliam makes his block its a score with any running back 

And if Hines is running maybe he can makeup for the block being missed.

[BillsFanSD]

Going for two was obviously the right call.  Really, going for two is always fine unless there is a compelling late-game mathematical reason just to settle for the PAT, and in this case there was a compelling reason to make it a 14 point game.  Kicking the PAT would have been a clear error.  

 

I didn't care for the play that was called, but whatever.  

 

 

[Bob Chandler's Hands]

1 hour ago, BernieBill said:

"The math" says 1 point is better than zero, which is what the Bills got, zero ... 

Sure, but you can say that with hindsight of how the play turned out. McD has to make the call BEFORE the play occurs. 
You can see the difference, right?

[PaoloBillsFanFromItaly]

Good play by the defense, that's it

[What a Tuel]

I am pretty sure Gilliam missed a big block earlier in the game too. Can't remember but I think it was a end around run along the right side and remember asking who just let the defender slide off of him and make the tackle and everyone around said it was Gilliam.