If the Bills scored on the final posession......

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, Buftex said:

I understand the reason why you would go for 2, but I think you have to go for the kick. Your defense just played too damn good to gamble their effort on one play, by an offense that was not exactly lighting it up.

 

Not to change the subject:

 

Forgive me if it is being discussed elsewhere, but did anyone else think it was a bit risky to go for 2, after the Beasley touchdown?  They got it, so it looks like a great decision, but the ramifications of not converting, would have likely ended the game right there...

 

I tuned in to the post-game show on GR (they are twice as bad as Schop and Bulldog, which is saying something). Nate Geary (I think that is the one who made the point) said that going for 1 pt there is just conservative "old thinking" football, and anyone who thinks otherwise just "doesn't understand football". He actually said "if you don't get it, you are down by 9 and you know what you have to do, you have it all in front of you".  It was one of the more idiotic things I have heard in a while, and reminded me why I just can't do the GR post-game stuff any more.  I am para-phrasing a little.  

 

In my opinion anyone who holds his opinion just doesn't understand math.  Again, because they converted the 2 pt play, the point is moot...but if they didn't convert, they would be down by 2 scores, with time running out...they would need to score another td, get the ball back somehow, and then kick a field goal, or get another TD to win.  Is this just "old-guy" thinking on my part?

 

 

 

Yeah, missing the 2 pointer would have put us an extra possession away. Same with missing the two-pointer later in the game, though. We had to make a two-pointer sometime either way. The odds on making a two-ponter don't change depending on how much time there is left in the game.

 

Make it earlier or later and it's no problem, so that doesn't matter.

 

Miss it earlier and you now know that you need two possessions with seven minutes left in the game during which to work the clock and guide your strategy. Miss it later and you now know that you need two possessions when you have ... what? ... 30 seconds left? A minute if you're lucky? Your fate has already been decided at that point.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Thurman#1

[sherpa]

I thought about this that entire drive.

They had just been successful on two similar plays.

One, a touchdown to Beasley, and then the two pointer. Both similar patterns.

 

They had the Ravens set up.

 

I would have lined up for two, and if the liked the play they had against the Ravens defensive set, run it.

If not, run motion to see what see if you can change the matchups and get into another play.

If you really like what you've got after the motion, run it.

 

If not, take the delay and penalty or time out if you think its worth it and you have one, and let Hauschka kick the point.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

Oh, but as for going for two with almost no time left in the game and down by one?

 

No, that's crazy. The odds on making a two-pointer are ever so slightly below 50%.

 

https://rileykolstefootball.com/2018/07/08/two-point-study/

 

Gonna bet the game when you don't quite get coin-flip odds? That would be crazy. You don't buck the odds like that, not if you've got sense.

[CLTbills]

7 hours ago, Buftex said:

Forgive me if it is being discussed elsewhere, but did anyone else think it was a bit risky to go for 2, after the Beasley touchdown?  They got it, so it looks like a great decision, but the ramifications of not converting, would have likely ended the game right there...

 

I tuned in to the post-game show on GR (they are twice as bad as Schop and Bulldog, which is saying something). Nate Geary (I think that is the one who made the point) said that going for 1 pt there is just conservative "old thinking" football, and anyone who thinks otherwise just "doesn't understand football". He actually said "if you don't get it, you are down by 9 and you know what you have to do, you have it all in front of you".  It was one of the more idiotic things I have heard in a while, and reminded me why I just can't do the GR post-game stuff any more.  I am para-phrasing a little.  

 

In my opinion anyone who holds his opinion just doesn't understand math.  Again, because they converted the 2 pt play, the point is moot...but if they didn't convert, they would be down by 2 scores, with time running out...they would need to score another td, get the ball back somehow, and then kick a field goal, or get another TD to win.  Is this just "old-guy" thinking on my part?

Honestly, I liked the call... I posted in another thread about it, but it's as simple as this.

 

I'd rather know now, at this very second, with seven minutes or whatever it was left on the clock, how many more times i need to score. At least if we miss the 2pt conversion (which we're going to have to have one either way, whether it's now or later) now, at 7 minutes, It changes our gameplan a bit, knowing you still need two possessions. Maybe you get the ball back and get a big play, and just kick the FG instead of wasting time trying to score a TD, putting the game back in your defense's hands to get the ball back again.

 

If you go for one (granted Hauschka makes the PAT) and then get the ball back and score again, and miss the 2pt conversion, the game is over, because most likely at that point, there won't be enough time left to get another possession. The CBS broadcast made it sound like an outrageous call to go for 2 when they did... I thought it was pretty simple and straightforward.

[london_bills]

Voted yes as I would want to. 

 

I dont think they would have. 

[DRA3196]

With the way the winds were in the stadium yesterday and watching Hauschka practice, my confidence wasn't inspired. I would have much rather trusted Allen and co. to get the 2yds for the win.

[Greg S]

I think they would have kicked the extra point and taken their chances in OT. It would have been fun to see that scenario play out though.

[Solomon Grundy]

I voted Yes. You go for it and send a message to your team that we came to win. 

[GregPersons]

I do think McDermott could've thought this through more. For example he could've called a time out and polled the crowd. The wifi at the stadium isn't great so getting everyone on TSW at the same time will be tricky. 70,000 little pencils and slips of paper isn't impossible, but a lot of notaries aren't even open on Sundays. Maybe we can just have people raise their hands. One hand per person. Don't count them twice. Get a correct tally the first time and you won't need to review on a recount. 

 

If the crowd says go for it, go for it. If the assembled Mafia and their cousins feel like maybe play it safer here and just take the PAT, then send out the field goal unit. This works on Air Bud rules — there's nothing specifically in the rulebook against it. And of course this is only the beginning. Outsourcing is the future of coaching... certainly it will be cost-effective. Saves on unnecessary coaches. Moneyball to the nth power. Any 50/50 call could be litigated... should be. Poll the audience for the challenge flag. Let majority rule for heads or tails, kick or receive. Download the app, vote on RPO plays for an R or a P in real-time. If it's in the game, it's in the app. 

[Xwnyer]

I think McD would have gone for kick and try to win in OT.

[ILBillsfan]

No way they go for two.  Kick the xp and head to overtime.  

[White Linen]

I believe it's the reason we went for two on the previous TD - so that we could go for the win.  

[buffaloboyinATL]

I voted no. Our defense was playing well enough to stop them, so it would not have been necessary to gamble.

[Jobot]

Couldn't tell from the replay, but was that a drop by Brown on the final play?  Definitely tight coverage, but the ball looked to be perfectly thrown, and not outlandish to expect an NFL caliber receiver to make the catch.

[Buffalo Junction]

14 minutes ago, Jobot said:

Couldn't tell from the replay, but was that a drop by Brown on the final play?  Definitely tight coverage, but the ball looked to be perfectly thrown, and not outlandish to expect an NFL caliber receiver to make the catch.

Peters made an excellent play. 

[badassgixxer05]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Junction said:

Peters made an excellent play. 

He really did. Played the route perfectly. If Brown was bigger he could have boxed him out and prob may a better play on the ball. I would have liked to see him come back to the ball a bit more and cut off Peters, but Allen throws a bullet and he didn't have much time to adjust.

[Jobot]

2 minutes ago, badassgixxer05 said:

He really did. Played the route perfectly. If Brown was bigger he could have boxed him out and prob may a better play on the ball. I would have liked to see him come back to the ball a bit more and cut off Peters, but Allen throws a bullet and he didn't have much time to adjust.

 

No doubt Peters knew the route and did his homework leading up to the game.

[Buftex]

12 hours ago, CLTbills said:

Honestly, I liked the call... I posted in another thread about it, but it's as simple as this.

 

I'd rather know now, at this very second, with seven minutes or whatever it was left on the clock, how many more times i need to score. At least if we miss the 2pt conversion (which we're going to have to have one either way, whether it's now or later) now, at 7 minutes, It changes our gameplan a bit, knowing you still need two possessions. Maybe you get the ball back and get a big play, and just kick the FG instead of wasting time trying to score a TD, putting the game back in your defense's hands to get the ball back again.

 

If you go for one (granted Hauschka makes the PAT) and then get the ball back and score again, and miss the 2pt conversion, the game is over, because most likely at that point, there won't be enough time left to get another possession. The CBS broadcast made it sound like an outrageous call to go for 2 when they did... I thought it was pretty simple and straightforward.

I liked the call, because it worked...but I think had it not, that would have severely decreased our chance of having that chance to win in the waning moments of the game. 

 

I appreciate your explanation, and I get it, and maybe I am just being obstinate... but I still can't get past the idea that if you blow it on the 2 pt conversion, you now have to come up with a TD, and a field goal, and an extra point (which is not a "gimmie" any more), and less clock to work with. 

[Rocket94]

20 hours ago, Warcodered said:

Go into OT if we'd scored we would of been on a roll with some momentum.

The same kind of momentum Allen would have brought if he returned in the first NE game!

[CLTbills]

56 minutes ago, Buftex said:

I liked the call, because it worked...but I think had it not, that would have severely decreased our chance of having that chance to win in the waning moments of the game. 

 

I appreciate your explanation, and I get it, and maybe I am just being obstinate... but I still can't get past the idea that if you blow it on the 2 pt conversion, you now have to come up with a TD, and a field goal, and an extra point (which is not a "gimmie" any more), and less clock to work with. 

Yes but my point is, you actually have WAY more clock to work with if you miss that 2 point conversion now, versus if you miss it with 2 minutes or less left on the game clock.