Two-point conversion? (Or why do I hate a well-executed bad play-call?)

[Rochesterfan]

1 minute ago, Margarita said:

It’s the 9 point differential that makes that call very risky if they KICKED THE PAT the score would have been 24-16 and then they needed a 2 pointer to tie.  They went for 2 which made the score 24-17. If they’d have missed the 2 pointer The score would have been 24-15

 

Yes, but you needed the 2 at some point to tie the game.

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, Margarita said:

But only if they were behind by 8 if they’d have missed the 2 point try they’d have been behind by 9

They were down by 15 - they needed a 2 TDs and one 2 pt conversion.  You are correct if they missed they would have been down by 9, but if the missed on the last TD with under 30 seconds left - they lose by 2 with no time to correct the issue.  The 9 pts is irrelevant because if they had kicked the extra point - it was still 8 and you would still need the 2 pt later.

[buffalobillswin]

I hate when people think this isn't the right call. You go for a two down 9 because you can't assume you'll make it when you're down 8. And if you miss when down 9, you don't have any time to get the ball back.

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Margarita said:

But only if they were behind by 8 if they’d have missed the 2 point try they’d have been behind by 9

Ack I give up lol if they’d have missed the 2 point conversion they’d have been down by 9 not 8 points though and at that point a two pointer wpuldnt have been enough

Right but if they kicked they'd be down by 8 and then if they scored another TD and didn't get the 2pt conversion they'd be down by 2 and still need a FG. It's the same on either end but if you do it on the first one you know from that point on whether you need to also get a FG.

[Bob in STL]

7 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Totally disagree - completely the right call whether he makes it or not.  It allows you to focus on what you need as early as possible.  The later in the game makes it a 2 pt to tie or a loss.  With 7 minutes left the Bills still had time to have 2 possessions if needed.

Disagree. That’s fine.   It’s was ok because it worked.  

 

Of course they did not get that extra possession did they?   Even with 50+ yards of penalties in their favor on their last possession they did not score 

 

Down by 9 with 7 minutes left and you think they were going to stop Baltimore, score another TD, recover an insides kick or somehow get the ball back again, and then score a FG?   Not likely. 

 

McD choose the risky path, it worked.  Good  for him.  I would have done the same but I would also admit it was extremely high  risk if you miss that 2pointer.  

[SDS]

1 hour ago, slipkid said:

Going for two when down by nine with seven minutes left makes no sense to me. Hauschka was fine today. Why take yourself out of the game if you don’t get the two there?

 

Maybe McD had already decided that we would go for two again and the win if we scored another TD. I don’t know.

 

Does anyone have a reasonable reason why they would do that?

correct call. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/amp/

[Bob in STL]

12 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

It wasn't the wrong call if you need 2TD and 1 2pt conversion it doesn't matter on which of the TDs you try it you still have to try it. Going for it on the earlier one just gives you more information. I mean if they'd waited and not converted on the second TD they'd need another possession too.

Haha. More information.   Good one. 

[MDH]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

It’s the right call. You will need 2 at some point. Better to know what you need as early as possible. 

Exactly. 

[muppy]

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right but if they kicked they'd be down by 8 and then if they scored another TD and didn't get the 2pt conversion they'd be down by 2 and still need a FG. It's the same on either end but if you do it on the first one you know from that point on whether you need to also get a FG.

Okay I see what you mean now I thought you were talking about only 1 possession after the TD at 15/16 at that time juncture 2 possessions was very unlikely though IMO

[LSHMEAB]

The whole notion of "you're still down by one score" if you kick is archaic thinking. 

 

From a non analytics standpoint, I HATE when you need that two at the end of a game. There's far more energy on the defensive side of the ball. That's just my perception.

 

From a practical standpoint, you want to know THEN if you're gonna need to score once or twice so you can proceed accordingly. 

[eanyills]

I don’t understand how people don’t get this. The order of going for two is largely irrelevant. By going for two earlier, you’re giving yourself more time on the clock in case you don’t make it.

 

No matter what, you’re at risk of not converting, Going for it earlier gives you more time to make up the lost points if you don’t convert.

 

All this convoluted math to explain why it was a bad decision is illogical.

Edited December 9, 2019 by eanyills

[Rochesterfan]

4 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

Disagree. That’s fine.   It’s was ok because it worked.  

 

Of course they did not get that extra possession did they?   Even with 50+ yards of penalties in their favor on their last possession they did not score 

 

Down by 9 with 7 minutes left and you think they were going to stop Baltimore, score another TD, recover an insides kick or somehow get the ball back again, and then score a FG?   Not likely. 

 

McD choose the risky path, it worked.  Good  for him.  I would have done the same but I would also admit it was extremely high  risk if you miss that 2pointer.  

 

It was the right call.  They were in FG range with 2 minutes left and timeouts.  They could have kicked it then and gone onside.   The point is they knew they needed just a TD - so they ran the ball and clock.  They ran 4:30 off the clock.  If they had needed 9 - don’t you think they run a different drive.  They had plenty of time to turn that into 2 drives.

[row_33]

It can go either way, some teams take the 7 then go for 8

 

some risk the 8 them go for the 7

 

dogmatically dictating it has to be one or the other is a harbinger you’ll wind up in the booby hatch some day..:

 

 

 

[muppy]

2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

It was the right call.  They were in FG range with 2 minutes left and timeouts.  They could have kicked it then and gone onside.   The point is they knew they needed just a TD - so they ran the ball and clock.  They ran 4:30 off the clock.  If they had needed 9 - don’t you think they run a different drive.  They had plenty of time to turn that into 2 drives.

That’s the rub wether or not they had plenty of time to turn into 2 more drives now I get what y’all mean 

[Talley56]

1 hour ago, slipkid said:

Going for two when down by nine with seven minutes left makes no sense to me. Hauschka was fine today. Why take yourself out of the game if you don’t get the two there?

 

Maybe McD had already decided that we would go for two again and the win if we scored another TD. I don’t know.

 

Does anyone have a reasonable reason why they would do that?

I can't really disagree with your point because as they were setting up for two I was thinking they should go for the extra point and worry about two if they score again.  And make no mistake, this board would have been fuming over the decision if it failed.

[Beast]

It’s better to miss a 2 point conversion at that point of the game than to miss it in the last seconds oF the game. Better to know what you are up against.

[SDS]

I miss read the 538 charts. They actually say it is slightly better to go for two but the effect is small and maybe not there at all. 
 

 

[Bob in STL]

4 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

It was the right call.  They were in FG range with 2 minutes left and timeouts.  They could have kicked it then and gone onside.   The point is they knew they needed just a TD - so they ran the ball and clock.  They ran 4:30 off the clock.  If they had needed 9 - don’t you think they run a different drive.  They had plenty of time to turn that into 2 drives.

 

Look, I understand the call, the math, and the logic.  

 

I did not think they were going to get two more possessions if that 2 pointer failed.  Seven minutes is borderline against Baltimore.  I say that because the odds of recovering an onside kick are minuscule in today’s NFL.   Also, Baltimore has a fine offense and strong run game.  In addition our two minute offense has not shown good clock management.  

 

Its great we got the 2.  It was a gamble worth taking.  Percentage wise it was the riskier option but we had the right play and we executed. Great. Ok.  Out now. 

[Warcodered]

10 minutes ago, Margarita said:

That’s the rub wether or not they had plenty of time to turn into 2 more drives now I get what y’all mean 

I mean that's true odds were it would be a serious long shot if they didn't get the 2pt conversion where ever they tried it.

[SDS]

16 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

 

Look, I understand the call, the math, and the logic.  

 

I did not think they were going to get two more possessions if that 2 pointer failed.  Seven minutes is borderline against Baltimore.  I say that because the odds of recovering an onside kick are minuscule in today’s NFL.   Also, Baltimore has a fine offense and strong run game.  In addition our two minute offense has not shown good clock management.  

 

Its great we got the 2.  It was a gamble worth taking.  Percentage wise it was the riskier option but we had the right play and we executed. Great. Ok.  Out now. 

you cannot say you understand the math and then claim it was the riskier option. You literally are not willing to accept the math or having bother to look it up. Either way you’re just defending an incorrect opinion. Which is your prerogative.