Underrated Play - The 2 point conversion was HUGE . McDermotts aggressiveness paid off Big Time!

[JerseyBills]

Haven't seen this play talked about much at all but it ended up having a huge impact in the 4th quarter . If McDermott decides to take the extra point after the penalty , Cincy is likely down 3 on their final drive and likely call a completely different series. 

 

Now maybe that play calling doesn't get them in FG range , but if it does , they obviously have a chance at a 40 yard FG or so , potentially sending the game to OT. 

 

I thought it was a great call by McD. We had a ton of momentum , the crowd , and a defense that looked incredible . The usually conservative HCs decision turned out to have a huge impact!

 

I'm guessing they saw something on film and were extremely confident rolling Allen out to his right on possessions inside the 5 , as they did on the Knox TD ,then Beasely and he executed those passes to perfection.

[mikemac2001]

Totally agree! 
 

watching the josh Allen mic’d Up I was like damn what a huge call at the time. 

[mannc]

It was a great call and one McDermott definitely would not have made in year one.  He’s learning.

[Rochesterfan]

1 minute ago, mannc said:

It was a great call and one McDermott definitely would not have made in year one.  He’s learning.

 

Is he learning or does he actually have more horses on offense now so going for plays have a higher percentage of working?

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

It was a great call and one McDermott definitely would not have made in year one.  He’s learning.

 

For people that think he is conservative or a mini Jauron- just look at last year later in the season as Josh progressed and the Bills went for more 4th and shorts with his athleticism.

 

McDermott is a good coach and he has a pulse on the team and makes decisions based on team and situation and he has a pretty good feel - even if not everyone agrees.

[mannc]

17 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Is he learning or does he actually have more horses on offense now so going for plays have a higher percentage of working?

 

Hard to tell for sure, but I think he’s growing more comfortable and confident and now realizes that sometimes “safe” decisions lose games.

Edited September 24, 2019 by mannc

[Comebackkid]

This didn't escape me. But mainly what was going through my mind was how ironic it was that this was the exact situation that Cincinnati was in on that final drive that got us to the playoffs

Edited September 24, 2019 by Comebackkid

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

He went for it because of the penalty right? 

[H2o]

That conversion kept Cincy from being able to have an opportunity to tie with a FG late. Instead they had to get the ball in the endzone. Insert TreD into that equation and you have a W. 

[RiotAct]

Never know how the game would have played out if we just kicked the XP there... but ceteris paribus, very good decision! 

[Boatdrinks]

The fact that the penalty places the ball at the 1 yard line makes the situation perfect for a “ pick play”. So good that an official threw a flag before Blakeman overruled on the basis of the one yard free zone. I don’t think they saw anything special on film, just that the rule makes the gamble a very good one. 

[Ned Flanders]

Never a realized a defensive penalty, especially a normal five-yarder, on the XP kick sends the ball to the one yard line.

[Just Joshin']

8 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

He went for it because of the penalty right? 

Yes.

[Rochesterfan]

3 minutes ago, Ned Flanders said:

Never a realized a defensive penalty, especially a normal five-yarder, on the XP kick sends the ball to the one yard line.

 

If they go for 2 pts - the penalty was 1/2 the difference from the 2.

[eball]

3 minutes ago, Ned Flanders said:

Never a realized a defensive penalty, especially a normal five-yarder, on the XP kick sends the ball to the one yard line.

 

Yes -- the offense has the option to enforce at the 2-yard-line and go for two.

[Rochesterfan]

10 minutes ago, H2o said:

That conversion kept Cincy from being able to have an opportunity to tie with a FG late. Instead they had to get the ball in the endzone. Insert TreD into that equation and you have a W. 

 

The conversion also had an impact on the Bills drive.  It made the Cincy lead only 3 points - so the Bills could be more aggressive on their drive once they got into FG range.  
 

If they had not gotten the 2pts and needed the TD because they were down by 4 - it makes the Bills drive much harder and even if they score - it makes the Cincy drive afterwards easier because of the score.

 

Of course what we will never know is the impact on the rest of the game - tons of other choices may have been different.

[The Dean]

35 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Is he learning or does he actually have more horses on offense now so going for plays have a higher percentage of working?

 

 

Can't it be both? As this is his 1st HC job, I expect he is learning and growing. Hopefully he will continue to do so for several years.  With that said, the team is also more talented this year, and he is taking advantage of that talent. 

[No_Matter_What]

No offense to anybody but it never stops to confuse me why so many people do not understand simple concept that the game would go totally different in case that we were kicking. Every single snap would be different. It might have had same outcome, but only as a result of completely different actions.

 

Just to be clear - I am not questioning McD's decision. Quite the opposite, I really like it, and I really think it helped us overall.

 

But if anybody thinks that if we made different decision (PAT) at the beginning of the game it wouldn't change anything and it would be 20-17 (instead of 21-17) after Gore's TD with 3 mins left they are completely wrong.

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, The Dean said:

 

 

Can't it be both? As this is his 1st HC job, I expect he is learning and growing. Hopefully he will continue to do so for several years.  With that said, the team is also more talented this year, and he is taking advantage of that talent. 

 

It certainly could be both, but the point is - this was not something that just started - this started last year as Josh showed what he could do.

 

Even with limited talent last year - he started making more choices to go for it and was more successful.

[BillsFanSD]

18 minutes ago, No_Matter_What said:

No offense to anybody but it never stops to confuse me why so many people do not understand simple concept that the game would go totally different in case that we were kicking. Every single snap would be different. It might have had same outcome, but only as a result of completely different actions.

 

Just to be clear - I am not questioning McD's decision. Quite the opposite, I really like it, and I really think it helped us overall.

 

But if anybody thinks that if we made different decision (PAT) at the beginning of the game it wouldn't change anything and it would be 20-17 (instead of 21-17) after Gore's TD with 3 mins left they are completely wrong.

What specifically do you think would have happened differently?  I can't really come up with anything that would NOT have the score 20-17 for Cincinnati's final drive.  (Obviously that drive might go way differently if the offense had the option of attempting a game-tying FG instead of needing the TD).

[Golden*Wheels]

Worked out well--I didn't particularly like it though.