The two-point conversion fail

[RiotAct]

McKenzie did better than I could have done on that play.

[FireChans]

6 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Being up 8 > being up 7. You could use this logic to always go for 2 point conversions and 4th down attempts. Practically the game doesn't work that way. Stack points and worry about being aggressive when it becomes necessary.

This is anti-math and flat out wrong.

 

Also that data DOES suggest more 4th down attempts than what coaches normally do.  Because it's math lol.

[BADOLBILZ]

8 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I honestly thought that was a blatant hold because while he started off well, he did what Dawkins did: got his arm around the defender's waist while taking him down. Easy call. Stupid on his part because he didn't need to. Same with Dawkins vs the Jets. Keep your damn hands in when you know you're taking a guy down! It's not that hard if you know the rules. And it's the sort of thing that's SO clearly visible to refs.

 

 

I didn't feel it was actually a hold.   But I agree about not putting your hands in position where you appear to be committing a penalty.   The defender flopped to his left after Gilliam struck him square and took him out of any chance of making the play.   And the defender didn't even do a particularly good job at selling it........but he got the call.  That handsy stuff got Hamlin too on the PI.   Also had little impact on the play result and could have easily been left in the pocket of the official.  

 

There were numerous cases where the Browns committed egregious fouls that impacted play results......which were not penalized.   I think Oliver got blatantly grabbed numerous times on plays where he was poised to make a TFL.   It was a particularly poorly called game, IMO.   Not just a few notably bad calls in an otherwise well called game(like the Minnesota game).   I'm not a ref blamer and would never have blamed a loss on that if the Bills didn't win.........but it was not a good performance. 

 

Again though.........I think that adversity actually helped spark them a bit.   They've been jumping out to big leads and coming out of the locker room comatose in the other games since the bye.   They were on point until the last third of the 4th quarter when they took their late game snooze.  That was an improvement! 

[wagon127]

14 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Being up 8 > being up 7. You could use this logic to always go for 2 point conversions and 4th down attempts. Practically the game doesn't work that way. Stack points and worry about being aggressive when it becomes necessary.

This Bills had a 15 point lead at the 2 minute warning. The Bills defense played in such a way that by the time the browns scored a TD, there was 19 seconds left on the clock. Even if the browns recovered the onside kick, they still needed to march down the field about 60 yards. With no time outs, with Jacoby Brissett as QB, and get a 2 point conversion just to tie the game and send it to overtime. 

 

The Bills won the game, and they won it alot more comfortably then the score suggests. 

[dave mcbride]

11 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

I didn't feel it was actually a hold.   But I agree about not putting your hands in position where you appear to be committing a penalty.   The defender flopped to his left after Gilliam struck him square and took him out of any chance of making the play.   And the defender didn't even do a particularly good job at selling it........but he got the call.  That handsy stuff got Hamlin too on the PI.   Also had little impact on the play result and could have easily been left in the pocket of the official.  

 

There were numerous cases where the Browns committed egregious fouls that impacted play results......which were not penalized.   I think Oliver got blatantly grabbed numerous times on plays where he was poised to make a TFL.   It was a particularly poorly called game, IMO.   Not just a few notably bad calls in an otherwise well called game(like the Minnesota game).   I'm not a ref blamer and would never have blamed a loss on that if the Bills didn't win.........but it was not a good performance. 

 

Again though.........I think that adversity actually helped spark them a bit.   They've been jumping out to big leads and coming out of the locker room comatose in the other games since the bye.   They were on point until the last third of the 4th quarter when they took their late game snooze.  That was an improvement! 

Agree with all of this. But still, know what the rules are about hands! Christ. Regarding the Hamlin call, I said this elsewhere, but man, he didn't need to do that. So why did he do it? I chalk it up to fear. He doesn't know at first if that ball is going over his head or not, and he's thinking that if I don't grab him and it gets over my head, that's a touchdown. Hence he grabs around the waist and the ref makes the fairly easy call. It only looks like a bad call because he did everything else right and the throw was short enough for him to make the play on the ball. Fear got him in the end.  

 

Overall, I completely agree about the reffing. There was a blatant push off by Amari Cooper on his last TD that was certainly equal to Diggs' push-off, but he got away with it. The Bills definitely got screwed on calls overall. Regarding the non-calls on holds against Oliver, they may well have been called if the blocker took him down with his arm around him. Those refs have a lot to watch and I think they miss a ton mid-play in the scrum due to information overload. But they DO see linemen fall to the ground, and if an arm's around the defender when he goes down, they're going to call it even if the material effect on the play is negligible. I chalk this up to a mix of coaching and players deciding not to learn.

 

Apropos of nothing, my favorite comment from an announcer in a LONG time came from Lofton. They were talking near the end of the first half about calling two plays in the huddle to preserve a few seconds between plays, and Lofton asked an excellent question: do you have players you can trust to remember two plays in a row? Because if you don't, you really can't do it. For a lot of guys, I have to think the answer is "no." I had never thought about that! 

Edited November 22, 2022 by dave mcbride

[HappyDays]

25 minutes ago, FireChans said:

This is anti-math and flat out wrong.

 

Also that data DOES suggest more 4th down attempts than what coaches normally do.  Because it's math lol.

 

Just feels like every time I see a coach do the hyper-aggressive thing it ends up hurting them more than it helps them. I know what all of the charts say but no one seems to be able to explain how those things are calculated, it just looks smart so people trust it. The thing about the math is that you don't know if your play call will be successful so the algorithms they use are assigning a probability to the success rate. But if you fail to convert you've lowered your win probability, whereas if you take the easy points you've increased it. I would rather just take the points and worry about the rest later.

[plenzmd1]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

This thread is interesting because there are so many different issues going on at the same time.  I'll comment on a few. 

 

First, the bolded.   Yes, Bills controlled the game, but the two garbage time TDs bother me.   The Bills have shown over and over that they let teams back into the game late.   

hmm, this year the Vikings game is the only game i can think of...if you want to consider this, then i guess its two games. Last year, cant remember one..but i sure could be missing something. Ever consider McD wanted this game at 8 so his "1 score" ratio gets better😜? See how stupid that metric is? If Bills stop them late, continues the narrative that he stinks in one score games.

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Lots of good points, but I want to focus on this one.

 

It's a much bigger problem than 3rd and 2. In the Vikings game we had 3 2nd half possessions in a row stall on 2nd and 2 because we couldnt pick up 6 effing feet on 2 tries. We get into short yardage situations and Dorsey calls plays that sends everyone 10-20 yards downfield. This continued all through the Browns game too.

 

For as complicated as modern NFL Xs and Os can be, football is still a simple game. Line up and move the frickin ball.

 

It blows my mind

I agree with tis to a point, see below

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

When they went for it on fourth down instead of kicking the field goal in the Vikings, I was screaming at them.   What possibly made them think they would convert on fourth and two from the seven when they had just failed on second and two and third and two?   If they had a play that would have worked on fourth and two, why didn't they run it on second down.  And they had already failed FOUR times on second or third and two or 1 in the second half!    

 

That's a huge failure.  

I totally agree with taking shots on almost every single 2nd and 2 or less, from anywhere on field outside your own 15. You have to have confidence you can pick up 2 yards on third, so the shot plays are worth it in my mind.

 

I think anywhere inside the opponents 45 taking a shot on 3rd and 2 or less is warranted too, as you know you will go for it on 4th down.

 

I get your point about the Bills short yardage struggles this year, and would have liked to see a play designed where a  3 yard gain was 1st read and not a play designed for the TD,  and that frustrates me as well. But the philosophy of taking the shots on 2nd and 3rd i agree with.

[zow2]

On 11/21/2022 at 12:48 PM, 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. 
 

 

 

I know I'm in the minority in this modern age of risk takers.  But your point is how I feel about every conversion situation.  I take every "easy" point i can get,,,and go for 2 only when it's necessary to go for two.  At that point in the game, it was not necessary.  

[SWATeam]

32 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

There were numerous cases where the Browns committed egregious fouls that impacted play results......which were not penalized.   I think Oliver got blatantly grabbed numerous times on plays where he was poised to make a TFL.   It was a particularly poorly called game, IMO.   Not just a few notably bad calls in an otherwise well called game(like the Minnesota game).   I'm not a ref blamer and would never have blamed a loss on that if the Bills didn't win.........but it was not a good performance. 

 

Oliver seems to be the DT version of Hughes when he was here.  Wins incredibly often at the snap and flies full speed at the QB only to miss when the QB moves laterally.  Very disruptive but I think he needs to be more under control or something to be able to finish plays.

[FireChans]

24 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Just feels like every time I see a coach do the hyper-aggressive thing it ends up hurting them more than it helps them. I know what all of the charts say but no one seems to be able to explain how those things are calculated, it just looks smart so people trust it. The thing about the math is that you don't know if your play call will be successful so the algorithms they use are assigning a probability to the success rate. But if you fail to convert you've lowered your win probability, whereas if you take the easy points you've increased it. I would rather just take the points and worry about the rest later.

My man, it's not hyperagressive to go for two when it's the difference between a 14 point game and a 13 point game. It's an easy decision.

 

Allow 2 scores and you're tied vs losing. It's that simple.

[GunnerBill]

On 11/21/2022 at 5:48 PM, 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 poor game. Whiffed on multiple blocks.

[WotAGuy]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

My man, it's not hyperagressive to go for two when it's the difference between a 14 point game and a 13 point game. It's an easy decision.

 

Allow 2 scores and you're tied vs losing. It's that simple.

What if they get three scores?  

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

What if they get three scores?  

You're losing regardless lmao

[WotAGuy]

7 minutes ago, FireChans said:

You're losing regardless lmao

Friggin math. 

[plenzmd1]

41 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Just feels like every time I see a coach do the hyper-aggressive thing it ends up hurting them more than it helps them. I know what all of the charts say but no one seems to be able to explain how those things are calculated, it just looks smart so people trust it. The thing about the math is that you don't know if your play call will be successful so the algorithms they use are assigning a probability to the success rate. But if you fail to convert you've lowered your win probability, whereas if you take the easy points you've increased it. I would rather just take the points and worry about the rest later.

so, lets go back to the last two Patriot games last year. My memory may be wrong, and its kinda funny now considering his performance so far...but the opening drive in each of those games has the Bills going for it on 4th and goal. They were successful on each with a pass to McKenzie,  and some would say set the tone for each game and the Bills went on to victories. Do you remember thinking then "McD being hyper aggressive, wish he would kick the FG"? I sure don't. 

 

The funny thing withthis new thinking is everyone thinks " the analytics say do this" means the analytics say its guarnteed to work, but really  it's only  in your best interest to do "this". No play is 100%. But if a particular "this" increase your chances on winning the game, even it fails,  it was the right decision. 

 

Best way to describe it is think of it like blackjack, if your a blackjack player. You have a big bet, have 16, dealer shows a 9. You increase your win probability by hitting every single stinking time. Inevitably, your wife will say great call when you get a 4, and call you a lunkhead when you take a face and dealer turn over a 6, and would have busted had ya just stayed put. But over time, that strategy will end up losing you money.

[DCofNC]

The defender made a great play, Gilliam missed for about the 5th opportunity of the game to make a black to spring a bigger play.  He looked awesome game 1 and I can’t understand what happened from there.

[HappyDays]

51 minutes ago, FireChans said:

My man, it's not hyperagressive to go for two when it's the difference between a 14 point game and a 13 point game. It's an easy decision.

 

Allow 2 scores and you're tied vs losing. It's that simple.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread going up by 13 means that you need a FG to go up by 16 points which puts a lot of pressure on the opposing offense. That isn't nothing. The only reason that final onside kick mattered is that the Browns were within 8 points. That was because we didn't take the XP earlier. I get the thought that going up by 14 looks better than going up by 13, but there are other possessions in the future that will change the math.

[HappyDays]

30 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

so, lets go back to the last two Patriot games last year. My memory may be wrong, and its kinda funny now considering his performance so far...but the opening drive in each of those games has the Bills going for it on 4th and goal. They were successful on each with a pass to McKenzie,  and some would say set the tone for each game and the Bills went on to victories. Do you remember thinking then "McD being hyper aggressive, wish he would kick the FG"? I sure don't. 

 

I remember that happening in the away Pats game and I remember thinking we should kick the FG. Going for it on 4th down always looks good when you convert but over the course of a season I would still take the points every time until it becomes obvious that you have to be aggressive. Instead of trying to predict that I'll need more points later and possibly lose points now in the process, I will just take my points now. There are always going to be examples in both directions of the decision winning a team the game or losing a team the game. So instead of trying to guess what will happen I personally would play it safe. I think if you stretch your logic far enough you could make an argument to always go for 2 point conversions.

 

35 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Best way to describe it is think of it like blackjack, if your a blackjack player. You have a big bet, have 16, dealer shows a 9. You increase your win probability by hitting every single stinking time. Inevitably, your wife will say great call when you get a 4, and call you a lunkhead when you take a face and dealer turn over a 6, and would have busted had ya just stayed put. But over time, that strategy will end up losing you money.

 

This isn't a good analogy because in blackjack it's 2 options - win or lose. We're talking about 3 options - 0 points, some points, or extra points. We're talking about risking some points to possibly get extra points or come away with 0 points. Give me the middleground every time until it's no longer viable.

 

And I'll say in general you have to feel out the game. If you're playing against a great offensive team and you drive to 4th and goal from the 1 on your opening drive I understand going for it. There was a point in the Chiefs/Chargers game where Staley decided to punt on 4th and 1 from around his own 40 yard line. At that point the Chiefs had swung the momentum back to them and their offense was starting to look unstoppable. That's a situation where I understand the argument that he should have gone for it. But the 2 point conversion against the Browns or the 4th and 2 attempt against the Vikings were NOT that situation. We were already winning by multiple scores and there was no big momentum swing going on. In that case I always take the points.

[FireChans]

42 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread going up by 13 means that you need a FG to go up by 16 points which puts a lot of pressure on the opposing offense. That isn't nothing. The only reason that final onside kick mattered is that the Browns were within 8 points. That was because we didn't take the XP earlier. I get the thought that going up by 14 looks better than going up by 13, but there are other possessions in the future that will change the math.

You can’t predict the future. If the Browns scored quick, you’d say “we should have went for 2, if they score again they will have the lead!”

 

That’s why the math is the math lol

[Xwnyer]

On 11/21/2022 at 12:48 PM, 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:

 

 

I think Hines or Cook would have been a better choice 

 

[cba fan]

On 11/21/2022 at 3:36 PM, PromoTheRobot said:

 

This is the second onside kick with 19 seconds left. Watch carefully how close the Cleveland player came to not only coming up with the ball but running it in for a TD. The Bills nearly blew another game.

kicking teams cannot advance an onsides kick. By rule it is down where he recovers it.

 

That would have then setup a Hail Murray, then two point conversion, then OT, then Bills loss.

Edited November 23, 2022 by cba fan

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

hmm, this year the Vikings game is the only game i can think of...if you want to consider this, then i guess its two games. Last year, cant remember one..but i sure could be missing something. Ever consider McD wanted this game at 8 so his "1 score" ratio gets better😜? See how stupid that metric is? If Bills stop them late, continues the narrative that he stinks in one score games.

I agree with tis to a point, see below

I totally agree with taking shots on almost every single 2nd and 2 or less, from anywhere on field outside your own 15. You have to have confidence you can pick up 2 yards on third, so the shot plays are worth it in my mind.

 

I think anywhere inside the opponents 45 taking a shot on 3rd and 2 or less is warranted too, as you know you will go for it on 4th down.

 

I get your point about the Bills short yardage struggles this year, and would have liked to see a play designed where a  3 yard gain was 1st read and not a play designed for the TD,  and that frustrates me as well. But the philosophy of taking the shots on 2nd and 3rd i agree with.

I think this misses the point.  I don't even know what plays they ran on all those second or third and two or one to go.  Certainly when they went for it on fourth and two from the seven, they weren't "taking shots."   They only had seven yards to get to the goal line.   

 

So, fine, you like taking the shot on second and two.  If you're going to take that shot, then you should be pretty comfortable that you can make it the two yards on third down.  What I'm talking about is that Dorsey doesn't seem to have any plays he can rely on to make two yards, because on third down, and on fourth down from the seven, and on the two point conversions, they couldn't gain two yards.   

 

Third down is money down, and the Bills are going bust on the money down.  

[Turk71]

I dont know what the analytics say and I dont doubt the folks saying going for 2 was the right move there, but watching the game I felt it wasnt the right move just like I wanted them to kick the fg the week before. Both situations they were in a 2 score lead with plenty of time left in the game and it was impossible to know what would be needed in the end. Why chase points when you are in the lead with plenty of time left?

  Take what is given until the situation dictates otherwise imo.

[LABILLBACKER]

On 11/21/2022 at 9:55 AM, atlbillsfan1975 said:

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

Finally saw the whole play. Gilliam could've blocked better but why doesn't Isaiah dive for the cone at the 2 yard line, rather than plant his foot inside the 1 and engage the db?  McKenzie is 165 pounds dripping wet. Dude you're not a power back.  Dumb on his part not to dive for the cone.

Edited November 23, 2022 by LABILLBACKER

[KellyToTasker]

2 hours ago, cba fan said:

kicking teams cannot advance an onsides kick. By rule it is down where he recovers it.

 

That would have then setup a Hail Murray, then two point conversion, then OT, then Bills loss.

No way. At this point, even the fan in the 30th row knows to just knock the ball

down. Just knock it down (says our late round drafted DBs that would’ve been on the field). Bills win, no matter what. Lots of lessons learned and growth so far this season…..All building for a Super Bowl run. 

[cba fan]

2 hours ago, Turk71 said:

I dont know what the analytics say and I dont doubt the folks saying going for 2 was the right move there, but watching the game I felt it wasnt the right move just like I wanted them to kick the fg the week before. Both situations they were in a 2 score lead with plenty of time left in the game and it was impossible to know what would be needed in the end. Why chase points when you are in the lead with plenty of time left?

  Take what is given until the situation dictates otherwise imo.

yes ty. Situational game awareness comes into play. That requires not just blindly following the book. Book only uses math for 2 pt ties. Game awareness calls for much more thinking......math don't know Bills suck at short yardage in red zone for example. Or that Brown O had sucked in 2nd half while Bills scored on nearly every possession.

[BufBills83]

I always like being aggressive, as I think overall, as long as you are well coached and execute, its going to give you more opportunities to score during the game.  Really at the beginning of the game through maybe 2nd quarter or so, if its a close game, I like going for all 4th and shorts at around midfield or beyond.  Especially if its something we can QB sneak to convert or a designed QB run.  When we've played KC the last few times, I always like that the Bills go for it on fourth and short it they are at midfield or plus territory.  They've done it the last couple times and sets the tone for the beginning of the game.

 

As for going for 2, at this point its late 3rd and you may not score another TD, which in actuality we didn't, so we wouldn't really be able to make up that point.  To me, the difference between being up 12 (not converting the 2 point try) and being up 13 (kicking the PAT) doesn't make much of a difference.  They need 2 touchdowns whether they are down 12 or 13 (TD, 2 point conversion and FG is only 11).  After that Bills drive, Cleveland opted to go for a FG that would have only got them to within 9 (still 2 score game) and the kick was blocked.

[plenzmd1]

13 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I think this misses the point.  I don't even know what plays they ran on all those second or third and two or one to go.  Certainly when they went for it on fourth and two from the seven, they weren't "taking shots."   They only had seven yards to get to the goal line.   

 

So, fine, you like taking the shot on second and two.  If you're going to take that shot, then you should be pretty comfortable that you can make it the two yards on third down.  What I'm talking about is that Dorsey doesn't seem to have any plays he can rely on to make two yards, because on third down, and on fourth down from the seven, and on the two point conversions, they couldn't gain two yards.   

 

Third down is money down, and the Bills are going bust on the money down.  

well, throwing it into the endzone there was "taking a shot". I agree, they need to be better on 3rd and 4th and short/goal, as @DrDawkinstein pointed out they seem to continually look for 10 and 20 yard gains when they need 2 yards...that is what is frustrating. Maybe it's the absence of a true slot that really understands zone and how to sit in open space..and right now they don't trust Shakir cause he a rookie(or just not good enough at it) and seems like McKenzie is just flat out better against man and does not understand zone concepts as well.

 

One thing they started to use more to slow the rush down this game was the delayed handoff, with great success. With our tendencies, one would think a delayed handoff on 3rd and even longer would work like a champ, unless D is playing a spy on 17 which could  complicate things.

 

Think we both agree short yardage has to be better. 

 

 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, throwing it into the endzone there was "taking a shot". I agree, they need to be better on 3rd and 4th and short/goal, as @DrDawkinstein pointed out they seem to continually look for 10 and 20 yard gains when they need 2 yards...that is what is frustrating. Maybe it's the absence of a true slot that really understands zone and how to sit in open space..and right now they don't trust Shakir cause he a rookie(or just not good enough at it) and seems like McKenzie is just flat out better against man and does not understand zone concepts as well.

 

One thing they started to use more to slow the rush down this game was the delayed handoff, with great success. With our tendencies, one would think a delayed handoff on 3rd and even longer would work like a champ, unless D is playing a spy on 17 which could  complicate things.

 

Think we both agree short yardage has to be better. 

 

 

Thanks. Good discussion.

[DrDawkinstein]

7 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, throwing it into the endzone there was "taking a shot". I agree, they need to be better on 3rd and 4th and short/goal, as @DrDawkinstein pointed out they seem to continually look for 10 and 20 yard gains when they need 2 yards...that is what is frustrating. Maybe it's the absence of a true slot that really understands zone and how to sit in open space..and right now they don't trust Shakir cause he a rookie(or just not good enough at it) and seems like McKenzie is just flat out better against man and does not understand zone concepts as well.

 

One thing they started to use more to slow the rush down this game was the delayed handoff, with great success. With our tendencies, one would think a delayed handoff on 3rd and even longer would work like a champ, unless D is playing a spy on 17 which could  complicate things.

 

Think we both agree short yardage has to be better. 

 

 

 

One of the group texts had everyone SCREAMING for just one quick slant. We finally got one, I believe to Diggs in like the 4th quarter.

 

Maybe it is not having the slot expert/vet available. I'd hope Hines could make that up with Crowder out.

 

No reason to be throwing 20 yard crossers when we need 2-3 yards. Use the quick slant if we MUST pass.