The two-point conversion fail

[RiotAct]

1 hour ago, Eastport bills said:

McKenzie is a soft player and I don’t trust him in a big spot.Thankfully he doesn’t return kicks anymore. The 2pt. conversion was only possible if he attempted to break the goal line by turning into the contact. He probably doesn’t make it but you can’t run out of bounds without trying. He fumbles and drops passes and seems slight. He should be a good slot security blanket for Josh, like Beasley, but he doesn’t want to withstand the punishment Cole sought out. Shakir is a much better option.

speaking of which… did Shakir get a single target yesterday?   I can’t remember one.

[I'm Spartacus]

The math, the math, the math. Sometimes analytics is a pain in the a$$.

[msw2112]

1 hour ago, Ned Flanders said:

Apples and oranges...

 

I agree that going for it on 4th down and going for a 2 point conversion can are different.  The 4th down decision usually involves field position and the 2 point conversion does not.  Also, the 2 point conversion always involves foregoing an almost certain 1 point (unless your kicker is injured or there is extremely crazy weather), whereas the 4th down decision may or may not involve foregoing sure points.

 

While every situation is different, I think the correct decision in this instance was to take the 1 point.  I thought that before they went for 2, and I think that now.  It would have put them up 13, which is a real and very common mathematical combination (TD+PAT+FG+FG) which is nearly as likely as 14 (TD+PAT+TD+PAT).  It was still early in the game that it was unclear on what might unfold later, so taking the sure point would have been the best decision.  Also, consider that the Bills offense hasn't been at its best lately, so take the sure point.  Also, Cleveland is not a strong opponent, so the value of the additional point you would get by going for 2 and succeeding isn't worth the risk of getting zero (which is what the Bills got).  If you are playing Kansas City, you probably go for 2, because you know they are going to score a lot of points, so you have to be more aggressive and try to get as many points as you can when you have a chance, as you will likely need them.

 

It's the same reason that I thought they should have gone for the FG against Minnesota.  Minnesota is a good team, but not an offensive juggernaut.  The value of adding 3 points and going up by 13 at that stage of the game would be more valuable than the risk of getting zero vs. the reward of getting 7.  In the end, that lack of 3 points probably cost them the game.  (The final Vikings TD+a 2 point conversion still would have been a point short).  An argument can be made that if the Bills had failed to get the TD, but simply turned it over on downs, Minnesota would have been pinned very deep and there would have been a major field position advantage for the Bills, and I could buy that.  Throwing the INT that was returned 30+ yards killed that scenario.

[ehfeuh57]

I was going to give a thumbsup before i saw you say dont even go for 2 there

 

You go for 2 there and make it  14 point game at ANY time in the game, even the 1st Quarter.

[Billsatlastin2018]

I think the play was fine.

 

The normal thing to do is what Singletary did. Try and break the plane at the corner.

In this case, the correct thing was to cut inside about 6 inches to avoid the defender. Shoulda been in.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Billsatlastin2018

[PromoTheRobot]

3 hours ago, 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:

 

 

 

 

That missing XP allowed the Browns to make it a one possession game at the onside kick. Of course the Bills D shouldn't have let it get to a one-possession game in the first place.

Edited November 21, 2022 by PromoTheRobot

[Eastport bills]

40 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

speaking of which… did Shakir get a single target yesterday?   I can’t remember one.

 

40 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

speaking of which… did Shakir get a single target yesterday?   I can’t remember one.

 

5 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

That missing XP allowed the Browns to make it a one possession game at the onside kick. Of course the Bills D shouldn't have let it get to a one-possession game in the first place.

Is it Shakir’s fault he didn’t get any snaps or targets? Himes can’t get any either. What does this have to do with McKenzie not being an adequate replacement for Beasley?

[PromoTheRobot]

 

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.

Edited November 21, 2022 by PromoTheRobot

[EmotionallyUnstable]

I’m happy with the aggressiveness to go for two.

 

I am fine with the play call.

 

I am curious about the Dawkins/Saffold combo and play design.

 

They worked the DT to backside backer instead of the play side Lb. Had they done this, McKenzie likely turns it up immediately and walks in. 
 

It’s also entirely possible the play design counts on the fact the play side LB is a non-factor due to the quick hitting nature of the play. Yet, if that’s the case, why bother with the backside LB. 
 

Gilliams block was a problem, obviously. But imo so was the combo at the point of attack. 

[ALLEN1QB]

3 hours ago, Airseven said:

No reason to go for 2 in that spot in the 3rd quarter. Especially a team that can't execute in short yardage.

Exactly!!! 100% agree. 

[Freddie's Dead]

The problem is that they had McKittrick standing still, instead of putting him in motion for a jet sweep.  He converts easily if he's moving at the hand-off.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

3 hours ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

 

Lots of teams carry fullbacks.  Most of the times its a core special teamer as well- but they have packages on offense too especially in the RZ.  

 

Modern teams with extra tight ends - https://www.ourlads.com/nfldepthcharts/depthchartpos/TE.  Which one of these #3 TEs is a noticeable upgrade over gilliam at anything?  

 

As for what we could use that roster spot for?  I dunno, but every team has core special teamers.  If its not a FB its an extra WR, or TE, or LB, or Safety.   And most of them don't play offense or defense.  

First Gilliam is not good at being a FB. You are correct many teams carry a FB - this article https://www.sportsrec.com/290825-drills-for-football-fullbacks.html states 19 out of 32 that have a FB under contract.  Some unbelievably have two.  So 13 teams out of 32 agree with me.  

 

[LABILLBACKER]

4 hours ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:

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

I think Hines gets in. McKenzie just doesn't make plays anymore. I'm kinda over him.

[KellyToTasker]

5 hours ago, 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.

The kicking team cannot advance an onside kick. 

[gtw3]

8 hours ago, BernieBill said:

"The math" says 1 point is better than zero, which is what the Bills got, zero ... 

Unless they converted in which case they would have gotten 2.   Or had the extra point been blocked or missed which would have resulted in 0. 

 

Or, on super rare occurrences the defense scores and then they receive 2 points.

 

Ok... I think we covered all of the options.  Can we move on now? 

 

[HappyDays]

McDermott needs to start factoring in our actual success rate on 4th down and 2 point conversion situations when he makes these decisions. It's one thing to be aggressive when you've shown you can capitalize on it. But it feels like we haven't converted one of these situations all year. When we have no choice but to go for it of course we should. But there's no need to press early in games before the outcome is known.

[MJS]

10 hours ago, Process said:

McDermott is aggressive. I love it and wouldn't want it any other way. Players needs to execute. Dorsey needs to call better plays. Plays are there to be made.

He isn't so much aggressive as just smart. He goes for it when he should.

 

One point doesn't do much for us there. Two points does. That's why they went for two. It's a math problem, not an aggressive vs conservative issue.

[HappyDays]

8 hours ago, wagon127 said:

There is very little difference between being up by 12 vs being up by 13.

 

But there is a difference. If you're up by 13 and you get one more FG drive you've put the opponent in a position where they need 2 TD drives with successful 2 point conversions just to tie the game. All these analytics based decisions seem to forget that you will get other possessions that will change the math. Case in point the Browns had an outside chance to win this game if they recovered the onside kick all because we didn't take the easy XP. It's stupid to worry about the score margin with a full 20 minutes to go. Take points while you can until you're forced to be aggressive. Football has become so needlessly complicated.

[Utah John]

I think McDermott is coaching mid-season games to challenge his team and get them ready for late-season and postseason games.  The Bills hadn't run a 2-pt conversion try all year, and he wanted to put them into a challenging situation so they're prepared for it when they need it.  

 

They were playing an inferior opponent, the Bills had a good lead, and McD experimented a little.  Good for him.  This was the right time and the right place and the right opponent.

[Boatdrinks]

McKenzie needed to dive at the pylon.. he was far too uptight for a player of his build to score. The guy just seems to lack some situational awareness.