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

[london_bills]

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 think as others have said he did this because the offence hadn't clicked all day and wanted to spark something in them. We all know this offence and Allen are quite bi polar in their play. 

 

Personally I loved it. 

Beasley was a non factor in the game. These two plays got him Involved. The.PI play at the end that got the bills closer was drawn by beasley. 

 

People say josh needs to get in rythmn, so do the recievers. These plays to Beasley started to slice the Ravens a bit. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by london_bills

[RiotAct]

59 minutes ago, Fixxxer said:

 

I have the feeling that had we scored a TD on that last drive , McD goes for the win on another two point convertion.

I really don’t think so

[Rochesterfan]

5 minutes ago, SDS said:

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

 

Well said.  Especially since after our TD and 2 point at 7 minutes - we stopped the Ravens with over 5:30 left and got the ball back.  We were then in FG range at 3:30 even without hurry up.  We still had timeouts and the 2 minute warning.  There was time to kick a FG and kickoff deep and still have nearly 2 minutes left if needed to score the TD had we missed the 2 pt.

 

The percentages change very little because being down by 15 late - either call has little chance of changing the outcome, but going for 2 early opens up more options and allows you to adjust you thoughts sooner.

 

 

[london_bills]

1 hour ago, Fixxxer said:

 

I have the feeling that had we scored a TD on that last drive , McD goes for the win on another two point convertion.

I thought about that. Maybe and I would love it if he did. If I was to guess I think he would kick the field goal. 

[MAJBobby]

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?

because you get the points when you can.  So smart to do it then after just marching down the field. It was the right time to do it. 

[Bob in STL]

7 minutes ago, SDS said:

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

I understand the math and the risk assessment in detail and I can say it with confidence.  

 

I looked at your reference.  Still comes down to a judgement call.  The key to assessment of the risk is to predict the likelihood of getting the ball back, with adequate time, two times if the conversation fails.  

 

We do risk assessment all the time in my work.  I am considered by my peers to be a subject matter expert on risk assessment for product development program.  There is not an exact science here. Even with your referenced document as guidance.  

 

I conceded (multiple times)  it was worth the gamble.   Since McD succeeded he would have been faced with another big decision if we scored.  That is, play for the tie or go for two again.  

[Rochesterfan]

21 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. 

 

They had already stopped them once and you do realize that strong run game barely cracked 100 yards and was 27% on 3rd down.  We easily - even with the Bills running clock.  Could have kicked a FG with 3:30 left - kicked off deep - and forced a punt with over 2 minutes left if needed.  We had timeouts and the 2 minute warning left.

 

There was plenty of time to get the ball 2 times if that was what w needed.  As it was - we only needed 1 score so we ran clock and used 4:30 minutes on the final drive rather than doing any hurry-up.

 

That was because we knew we only needed 1 TD - it effects the outcome.

[Warcodered]

15 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

I understand the math and the risk assessment in detail and I can say it with confidence.  

 

I looked at your reference.  Still comes down to a judgement call.  The key to assessment of the risk is to predict the likelihood of getting the ball back, with adequate time, two times if the conversation fails.  

 

We do risk assessment all the time in my work.  I am considered by my peers to be a subject matter expert on risk assessment for product development program.  There is not an exact science here. Even with your referenced document as guidance.  

 

I conceded (multiple times)  it was worth the gamble.   Since McD succeeded he would have been faced with another big decision if we scored.  That is, play for the tie or go for two again.  

Right but if they didn't get it at the end they'd also need to get the ball back again the only way for them to only need it two times is to get a 2pt conversion(even then that just gets them to overtime) So it basically comes down to when do you want to know how many more times you need the ball back and to score.

[Do The Reich Thing]

2 hours 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. 

100% agreed

[peterpan]

2 hours 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?

You go for two earlier.  Always.  That way, if you fail, you know that you need two possessions to win.  This changes your whole strategy with playcalling.  

[JoshAllin]

In simple terms, 2 scores if miss or 1 score (if you make it) vs 1 score (+2pt conversion), I think you always take the 1 score guarantee

 

Also after that call I think he goes for 2pt if they score in the end if hes playing the momentum of the offense again

Edited December 9, 2019 by motorj

[row_33]

52 minutes ago, peterpan said:

You go for two earlier.  Always.  That way, if you fail, you know that you need two possessions to win.  This changes your whole strategy with playcalling.  

not at all, teams take the safe 7 often in pro and college

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by row_33

[CLTbills]

3 hours 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?

Why not? I'd rather know right now, with 7 minutes left or whatever, how many more times I need to score. 

If you go for the PAT and get it, and get the ball back and score another TD, and miss the 2pt conversion, the game is over. 

At least if you miss the 2pt conversion with 7 minutes left, you know that you have to score two more times. I'd rather know with 7 minutes left than with 1 minute left when there's nothing you can do about it.

It was pretty simple to me, and the CBS crew made it sound like an outrageous decision.

[Real McClappy]

3 hours ago, fansince88 said:

Kick the xp and you still need to get a 2pt. No problem. Seems like if you are looking for something to complain about you could do a better job then this

RIght? I'd get the complaint if it went unsuccessful I guess.

[CLTbills]

1 minute ago, Real McCoy said:

RIght? I'd get the complaint if it went unsuccessful I guess.

I'd still totally agree with going for two when they did. If they didn't get it, it changes the game plan going forward. At least you could change it before it's too late.

[JoshAllin]

25 minutes ago, CLTbills said:

Why not? I'd rather know right now, with 7 minutes left or whatever, how many more times I need to score. 

If you go for the PAT and get it, and get the ball back and score another TD, and miss the 2pt conversion, the game is over. 

At least if you miss the 2pt conversion with 7 minutes left, you know that you have to score two more times. I'd rather know with 7 minutes left than with 1 minute left when there's nothing you can do about it.

It was pretty simple to me, and the CBS crew made it sound like an outrageous decision.

 

Well if you kick the pat with 7 mins the team should be prepared either way to have extra time on the board incase of a missed 2pt, also being down by 9 just seems like a momemtum killer compared to 1 score

Edited December 9, 2019 by motorj

[CLTbills]

2 minutes ago, motorj said:

 

Well if you kick the pat with 7 mins the team should be prepared either way to have extra time on the board incase of a missed 2pt, also being down by 9 just seems like a momemtum killer compared to 1 score

Not necessarily. Think about the Bills' last drive. I literally said to my buddy that I was watching the game with, "If we score here, I want to leave no time left for Baltimore to get in FG range because Tucker is automatic." 

 

You wouldn't have that luxury if you were prepared to have "extra time on the board."

 

The fact that we were down seven gave us the luxury of using all the time we needed to score the final TD, which unfortunately, we weren't able to do.

[Big Turk]

4 hours 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?

 

Actually it makes perfect sense because if they don't make it, they know what they need to do. If they kick it and wait til the end to.go for 2 and don't make it they have no chance to make it up.

 

Why would you back yourself into a corner where the game is over if you miss a 2 point conversion?

[Ethan in Cleveland]

It doesn't matter.  You have to go for 2 at some point.  They had a little momentum.  I have no issue with the decision to go for two there - even if they had not made it.  

[SDS]