There is a reason coaches went for the 1 point kick instead of the 2 point run or pass and that is because it was pretty much automatic. It is still going to be pretty much automatic so I don't expect a big increase in 2 point tries. Where there may be an increase is after a missed 1 pointer they may try for 2 just to even things out.
TeamTundra
Cheesehead
I could see an opponent's kicker from a warm weather team miss a PAT on a cold December
Day at Lambeau. I'd still expect the majority of PATs to be made, but this could make it
Interesting.
Day at Lambeau. I'd still expect the majority of PATs to be made, but this could make it
Interesting.
GoPGo
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,862
- Reaction score
- 150
With any major rule change there are always unforseen/unintended consequences. I hope they've done a thorough analysis of potential pitfalls with this rule. Either way, someone is going to be extremely unhappy at some point.
It's getting to the point where I wish they would just leave the game alone. Adding the 2 point conversion was good in the 90s. Replay still isn't perfect but was a necessary addition. Safety rules I understand...
But everything else, c'mon, let's stop tinkering so much. Its already a great game.
But everything else, c'mon, let's stop tinkering so much. Its already a great game.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Actually the rule change makes the kicking game more important.
JBlood
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,159
- Reaction score
- 467
2 pts from 2 yards vs 1 point from 32 yds makes the 2 pt more valuable. Overall success rate for 2 pt conversions is 46.7%, with running attempts over 60% success(http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/12/almost-always-go-for-2-point.html). At 46% you average .92 points from the 2. Kicks from 32 yds are 91% successful, which averages out to .91 points/ extra point. So you will average more points going for 2.
JBlood
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,159
- Reaction score
- 467
And, as I understand the rule, if the defense is offsides on the kick attempt, the kicking team can elect to take the penalty from the 2 yd line and go for 2 from the 1 yard line. Who wouldn't take that?
Somebody has figured that kicks from the 32 at the center of the field have been 97% successful, making each try average to .97 points. Conversion from the 2 would have to rise to 49% to match.
Running back a blocked kick 85 yds would seem to be easier than running back a fumble or interception from the 2.
You're going to see a lot of 2 pt attempts in Chicago and Green Bay in December and January.
Somebody has figured that kicks from the 32 at the center of the field have been 97% successful, making each try average to .97 points. Conversion from the 2 would have to rise to 49% to match.
Running back a blocked kick 85 yds would seem to be easier than running back a fumble or interception from the 2.
You're going to see a lot of 2 pt attempts in Chicago and Green Bay in December and January.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Those numbers aren´t accurate though. Last season kickers made 32 of 33 (97.0%) field goals with the ball being snapped on the 15 yard line. Over the last four seasons that number drop to 93.7%. Over the same period two point conversions have been succesful 48.9% of the time.
The expected points going for two points (0.978) is therfore higher than kicking a PAT (0.937).
GreenBaySlacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2014
- Messages
- 3,176
- Reaction score
- 248
ANother point that has to be considered. The ability to return the blocked kicks for 2 points.
Is it safer to have the ball in a RBs hands? or to kick a 33 yard FG?
Is it safer to have the ball in a RBs hands? or to kick a 33 yard FG?
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I don´t think that coaches will take that into consideration. During the last 17 seasons no kick with the ball being snapped from the 15 yard line has been returned for a TD (532 attempts). On the other hand the defense scored a TD five times on a play from the two yard line over the same period (3,100 plays).
GreenBaySlacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2014
- Messages
- 3,176
- Reaction score
- 248
It
Overall. I think its going to tip the scale to get the 2 pt conversion to be common within a hand full of years.
said if you scratch the botched snaps, and the odd ball plays and only count actual 2pt conversion attempts. The number is 47.9%. Again with running attempts by RBs being 57.4% and QBs being 74.5%, averaging 61.7% for runs. One could assume a team with good RB and running QB will be closer to the 61.7% mark...
Overall. I think its going to tip the scale to get the 2 pt conversion to be common within a hand full of years.
JBlood
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,159
- Reaction score
- 467
Which gets back to my original point. I'm in favor of anything that de-emphasizes the kicking game and promotes the aim of scoring touchdowns. For instance, I would favor 3 points for field goals kicked inside of 27 yds; dropping the value of a field goal taken from 27-37 yds to 2 points; the value beyond 37 yds to 1 point. But I would allow a full 3 for a dropkick from anywhere, in honor of Flutie.
OP
OP
HardRightEdge
Guest
More points for the easier effort? That's downright un-American.Which gets back to my original point. I'm in favor of anything that de-emphasizes the kicking game and promotes the aim of scoring touchdowns. For instance, I would favor 3 points for field goals kicked inside of 27 yds; dropping the value of a field goal taken from 27-37 yds to 2 points; the value beyond 37 yds to 1 point. But I would allow a full 3 for a dropkick from anywhere, in honor of Flutie.
More points for the easier effort? That's downright un-American.
Depends on what part of America you are from (and I ain't just talking geographically)
JBlood
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,159
- Reaction score
- 467
No, 6 pts for harder effort.More points for the easier effort? That's downright un-American.
IMO FGs are fine the way they are. I enjoy the drama of the pressure on a kicker knowing it's now being left all up to them to connect from 50 yards. That rule would take all that away in favor of a last second Hail Mary that would be answered once every couple hundred tries.
Kicking and the pressure of a last minute kick is a big part of the game I know. I sure wouldn't want to lose that.
They have already passed numerous rules in the 90s to reduce the role of the kicker. Smaller tees and spotting the ball from the spot of a missed kick, to name a couple. Isn't it a little crazy that the better that kickers get at their craft, the more that we punish them for it?
Kicking and the pressure of a last minute kick is a big part of the game I know. I sure wouldn't want to lose that.
They have already passed numerous rules in the 90s to reduce the role of the kicker. Smaller tees and spotting the ball from the spot of a missed kick, to name a couple. Isn't it a little crazy that the better that kickers get at their craft, the more that we punish them for it?
OP
OP
HardRightEdge
Guest
Did I not understand your proposal? The longer the FG the fewer points? It's a bad idea.
All you'd get out of it is teams trying cross the line to the higher FG point range on 3rd. down, not try to extend drives and score TDs with any more frequency, perhaps less.
Last edited by a moderator:
GreenBaySlacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2014
- Messages
- 3,176
- Reaction score
- 248
We have Lacy. Go-for-it!
Half Empty
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,600
- Reaction score
- 696
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think it's crazy. This is, after entertainment. They're messing with the PAT because we all know what's going to happen, and what's the fun in that? They move the kick-off because all them are touchbacks, and what's the fun in that? I don't think most of the rules are intended to reduce the kicker's role so much as to make what they do more interesting/exciting/entertaining. As with any rule/law, there are always unintended consequences, and we never know 'til we try it.
As I alluded to above, I don't think anyone can say what we'd get out of this, or any other proposal. I'm sure when the two point conversion came in, there were a lot of opinions as to how it would affect the game, and many of them were wrong. How close is that more worthwhile FG, how important is that additional point, what's the game situation, etc. Lot's of ways to go, even if it was the reverse, like most of us would assume, where the change would be to make longer FGs more valuable.
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
This is different than when the two point conversion was introduced into the NFL - it had existed in college football for about 36 years. Not an exact comparison but I think they had a better idea of the consequences of it than moving back the extra point kick.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Dumbest quote on the matter heard on NFL radio, by Steve Smith Sr.: "Just because kickers are 98.4% accurate on extra points does not mean its a sure thing."
I've gone through the numbers several times very carefully and verified his hypothesis. Give this guy a PHD for his advancements in statistical analysis!
I've gone through the numbers several times very carefully and verified his hypothesis. Give this guy a PHD for his advancements in statistical analysis!
There are plenty of people who seem to think 98.4% is a sure thing so Smith is just pointing out that they are wrong. Take out the "just because" and its a fine and accurate statement. I'm sure there are dumber quotes out there.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Yes, i know what he meant. He just should have said it differently. Like "its 98.4%. If it was a sure thing as some people seem to think, it would be 100%"
if given the time to think about it maybe he could have worded it better but for an off the cuff remark or a quick response to a question I don't really see a problem with it.
