Why not go for 2…

[djp14150]

When it was 31-14 and they scored…

 

31-22

38-22

38-30

38-38…tie game

44-45…they win

 

 

my philosophy is if you are down 17 and think other team could score 7, I’d go for 2 after every TD

 

 

 

[Johnnycage46]

Just now, djp14150 said:

When it was 31-14 and they scored…

 

31-22

38-22

38-30

38-38…tie game

44-45…they win

 

 

my philosophy is if you are down 17 and think other team could score 7, I’d go for 2 after every TD

 

 

 

That would require some level of smart coaching (i.e. I know my defense can't stop a nose bleed today so I need as many points on each drive as possible).

[Donuts and Doritos]

If we're going for 2 bc the D. can't stop them from scoring 7, then we'd need to get a 2 pt conversion 7 times to actually tie them. Josh had to be superman to score 6 tds. Not sure it's practical. Rather have the D. get better.

[mannc]

3 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

When it was 31-14 and they scored…

 

31-22

38-22

38-30

38-38…tie game

44-45…they win

 

 

my philosophy is if you are down 17 and think other team could score 7, I’d go for 2 after every TD

 

 

 

Funny, I was going to post this same thing...I'm not sure it would have been the way to go, but it should at least have been a consideration and I'm confident that the thought never crossed McDermott's baffled mind. 

 

I wonder if the Bills even have a batch of two-point plays ready for such situations.  League-wide, I think two-point plays have just under a 50% success rate, but with Josh Allen, you would think the Bills' chances would be significantly higher. 

[BuffaloBillyG]

7 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

When it was 31-14 and they scored…

 

31-22

38-22

38-30

38-38…tie game

44-45…they win

 

 

my philosophy is if you are down 17 and think other team could score 7, I’d go for 2 after every TD

 

 

 

The math does add that way but the likelihood of getting 4 straight 2 point conversions is probably far less than even the probability of recovering an onside kick. 

[Matt_In_NH]

The problem is you are assuming you just get two everytime, it does not work that way in real life....I think 2 point conversions are a little better than a coin flip.  

[mannc]

Just now, BuffaloBillyG said:

The math does add that way but the likelihood of getting 4 straight 2 point conversions is probably far less than even the probability of recovering an onside kick. 

Nevertheless, it still makes sense.  If you convert two of four you're no worse off and if you convert three or four... 

[dma0034]

I didn't think like that at 31-20  but when it was 38-27 I thought the Bills should have went for 2. It makes the Rams playing the FG more likely if you fail (because then it's 14 points) and if you get it and they score a TD you can pull within one score with another TD and 2pointer.... in this case the kicker missed the XP so that would have been the potential to win.

[Gregg]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

The math does add that way but the likelihood of getting 4 straight 2 point conversions is probably far less than even the probability of recovering an onside kick. 

 

Speaking of the onside kick. If the Bills could have recovered that I have no doubt we would be talking about a 45-44 win today.

[Heavy Kevi]

9 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

When it was 31-14 and they scored…

 

31-22

38-22

38-30

38-38…tie game

44-45…they win

 

 

my philosophy is if you are down 17 and think other team could score 7, I’d go for 2 after every TD

 

 

 

 

100% agree. Though it would require high level on the spot coaching.

 

But we just saw another example of Josh being all-world and McD blowing it.

 

It's good that it's less consequential than a playoff game but it's another canary in the coal mine.

 

Spoiler: the Canary did not come back.

[djp14150]

1 minute ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

The math does add that way but the likelihood of getting 4 straight 2 point conversions is probably far less than even the probability of recovering an onside kick. 

Its actually  not….

 

P= probability of success at going for 2.

the probability of getting 3 in a row going 14-23-30-38 is P*P*P

 

if P= 0.7 then PPP= 34.3%

 

It’s about 3% for an onside kick 

 

when you are down by 14 three analytics say go for 2 because it's based on probabilities assuming you have a good 3 yd offense. The Bills has a very good 2yd offense theirprobabilities likely higher at 80%+

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

I know when you're down by 14 in the 4th Q and you score a TD the math says to go for 2. If you convert the 2 pt you can now win the game with a stop and another TD with a PAT. If you don't convert you can still tie the game with another TD and 2 pt conversion.

 

That math doesn't really work out when you're down by 17. Requiring multiple 2 pt conversions in a row to gain an advantage is not a sound strategy. 

 

If we're talking aggressive coaching tactics, why didn't we go for it on 4th and 2 from our 41 with 1 minute left in the 1st half? 

[djp14150]

8 minutes ago, dma0034 said:

I didn't think like that at 31-20  but when it was 38-27 I thought the Bills should have went for 2. It makes the Rams playing the FG more likely if you fail (because then it's 14 points) and if you get it and they score a TD you can pull within one score with another TD and 2pointer.... in this case the kicker missed the XP so that would have been the potential to win.

 

my thinking is this

 

doen 31-14 you think they May get a TD or 2 FGs.  If you go for 2 and are successful then it’s 37 or 38 to 30. You reducing test 3 score to a 2 score, then one score deficit 

 

I would also apply the same logic to a 9 pt deficit. You get a TD go for 2 making it a one pt game.

 

its 44-35. Bills score, I’d go for 2 making it 44-43. Turn kick off down field and let the KO returner score making it 51-43 and buffalo has TOS and around 50 seconds to get a TD+2 to tie.

 

 

9 minutes ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

I know when you're down by 14 in the 4th Q and you score a TD the math says to go for 2. If you convert the 2 pt you can now win the game with a stop and another TD with a PAT. If you don't convert you can still tie the game with another TD and 2 pt conversion.

 

That math doesn't really work out when you're down by 17. Requiring multiple 2 pt conversions in a row to gain an advantage is not a sound strategy. 

 

If we're talking aggressive coaching tactics, why didn't we go for it on 4th and 2 from our 41 with 1 minute left in the 1st half? 

It does though….

 

going for 2 means you need 3 scores instead of possibly 4.

[Yobogoya!]

1 hour ago, djp14150 said:

When it was 31-14 and they scored…

 

31-22

38-22

38-30

38-38…tie game

44-45…they win

 

 

my philosophy is if you are down 17 and think other team could score 7, I’d go for 2 after every TD

 

 

 

I like your thinking, but this staff has problems with normal game flow, challenges, and end of game organization.

 

What you’re proposing would be like jumping into 5d chess for them. Should probably get the hang of the easy stuff first. 

Edited December 9 by Yobogoya!

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

27 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

The math does add that way but the likelihood of getting 4 straight 2 point conversions is probably far less than even the probability of recovering an onside kick. 

Probably 50/50 each time is a safe bet.  Might be a little higher on the first few attempts because you have a few go to plays for that situation and then lower for the final two.  That would put it at 6% ish to convert all 4.  

[BuffaloBillyG]

22 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

Probably 50/50 each time is a safe bet.  Might be a little higher on the first few attempts because you have a few go to plays for that situation and then lower for the final two.  That would put it at 6% ish to convert all 4.  

And the broadcast showed league wise the onside kick conversion rate was 7.7%.

Edited December 9 by BuffaloBillyG

[Sweats]

And we should have gone for it on every 4th down too..........it's like i tell my wife, "Not every idea, is a good idea".

[BuffaloBillyG]

45 minutes ago, djp14150 said:

Its actually  not….

 

P= probability of success at going for 2.

the probability of getting 3 in a row going 14-23-30-38 is P*P*P

 

if P= 0.7 then PPP= 34.3%

 

It’s about 3% for an onside kick 

 

when you are down by 14 three analytics say go for 2 because it's based on probabilities assuming you have a good 3 yd offense. The Bills has a very good 2yd offense theirprobabilities likely higher at 80%+

You set the likelihood of converting 3-4 straight 2 point conversions in the same game...at 80%????😂😂😂

 

 

League wide the success rate is about 30 percent. And that's just on one...not 3 or 4 straight. 

 

Edited December 9 by BuffaloBillyG

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

1 hour ago, djp14150 said:

Its actually  not….

 

P= probability of success at going for 2.

the probability of getting 3 in a row going 14-23-30-38 is P*P*P

 

if P= 0.7 then PPP= 34.3%

 

It’s about 3% for an onside kick 

 

when you are down by 14 three analytics say go for 2 because it's based on probabilities assuming you have a good 3 yd offense. The Bills has a very good 2yd offense theirprobabilities likely higher at 80%+

Even with this questionably high probability you’ve chosen  you completely change how Detroit plays defense and offense down the stretch if the game is suddenly one score instead of two because you somehow hit a bunch of two point conversions in a row 

 

 

it’s not as simple as saying ‘we lost by 2 imagine if we went for two three times’ 

 

edit: have Detroit on the brain haha meant LA 

Edited December 9 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[LABILLBACKER]

You guys are all assuming McD has the intelligence to activate such a strategy.  That's a big ask?