Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
For the first 2 weeks of the NFL preseason at least, they will move extra point kicks back to the 20 yard line.
Anybody here think this become a permanant change? How does it affect 2-point conversions? If I'm an NFL coach, I seriously consider going for 2 after each touchdown.
Anybody think this will trickle down to the college game?
A 37-yard attempt is still a gimme. Decent FG kickers should make at least 95% of those, 90% in the worst case.
90-95% is much, much more interesting than the (essentially) 100% that you see now. I can't even remember the last time I saw an NFL kicker miss an extra point. And if the outcome of every extra point is the same, why do it?
Personally, I would prefer eliminating the extra point altogether but giving teams the option to "risk one to get one" on a 2-point conversion. In other words, a touchdown with no extra point attempt would be worth 7, but a team would have the option to take only 6 points for the touchdown and then try a 2-point conversion.
I completely agree with you about your opinion of what they should do. It would make it much more interesting that way.
While I agree with Alton's recommendation, I don't see it as any more interesting than status quo, other than you don't waste time on the extra points. Why I say this is because you wouldn't see any more 2 pt conversions.
With today's almost 100% extra pt, that is essentially the same as awarding 7 for a touchdown and risking one point if you want to try for the two point conversion.
The optional extra point is a winner.
As for the 37 yarder, they will have to move the 2 point conversion back as well - maybe to the 5 yard line depending on what stats say. It should be twice as difficult = twice the failure rate. Not an easy stat to come by...
Why would they need to more the 2-pt conversion back?
I would guess to incentivize kicking (or disincentivize the two), but I'm not sure why incentivizing two pointers would be a bad thing for the general excitement of the game.
Part of the reason for my cynicism is that I don't think a 95% sure thing is enough incentive to alter the conversion calculus much. In my opinion, the calculus will only really change if and when the statistical value for a 2-point conversion (at the rough 50% conversion rare! about a point a try) is significantly better than the value of a one-point try (still close to 1 at 37 yards).
But perhaps that's ok. Do we really want the 2-point conversion to be the dominant play? I like the idea of "more," not sure I want it to always be the advisable choice.
That makes plenty sense and I think we're in agreement there, which is why moving the two pointer back doesn't make much sense, since the 37 yard field goal doesn't change the equation all that much.
The 2 pt conversion rate is around 50%. So really, the extra point is still far more certain, even at 37 yards.
Rob
for moving the XPs back is to encourage teams to go for more two point conversions.
Given that the 19-yard extra point is just a formality, this system is essentially what is already in place.
"Pick-Seven" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Nor does "Pick-Seven-With-An-Option-To-Risk-One-For-The-Possibility-Of-Eight".
The last one I remember was Suh's shank.
Do we really want kickers to have a greater impact on the game? Why not rock-scissors-paper PATs to make it more exciting?
According to advancednflstats.com the NFL average when the LOS is the 20 is about 85%, and I tend to think that the average NFL kicker is a "decent FG kicker".
At 85%, we'd expect the majority of NFL games to have at least one missed extra point.
If you have a shaky kicker, though, it does make you consider the 2 point pay off from 2 yards away.
Little to no impact on the NFL if they do that. It gives the appearance of being more difficult. In college it would be a game changer. I think I recall our kickers going like 4-14 one season during the RR era, and 37 yards would've been like trying to shoot a running rabbit with a $3 pistol.
This is a good thing. The normal 20-yard PAT is, for the most part, pointless and I really think it should be moved back. Obviously there have been games won and lost with the PAT, but not many when taking into account the amount of football games (on all levels) have been played.
All in favor. I read where some kickers were complaining this kind of change would legislate them out of the game and make their position far less important. I really don't think they get it. Such a change would make their position much more valuable. Why pay more for a kicker if any asshole kicker can make the kick? But if the range of success in the league becomes 85% to 95% on XPs, that's a real difference. A good kicker becomes that much more important and teams will be willing to fork out when they find one.
Kicker salaries would actually go UP if the extra point is moved back. Even if they eliminate the XP and do the "go for 2 or get 1" scenario, I still don't think there will be any negative impact to kickers. Field goals will always be valuable.
However the kick off change (moving it up) and potential elimination of the kick off would impact a specific type of kicker (long distance, not so accurate). but I'm not sure any NFL team employs that type of kicker today.
I think they were complaining that they were essentially being penalized for doing too good of a job. Passing yards are going up around the league but the rules are not being changed to make completing a pass more difficult.
Also the argument for being phased out is simple, if they move the kick far enough back that most if not all teams start going for 2 then that is one less thing a kicker is doing, that probably won't lead to an increase in salaries. That plus moving the kickoff up makes kickers with big legs who could gaurantee touchbacks before the new rules less valuable as well.
I totally disagree. PATs for kickers are like expense reports for me. They're simple, a little tedious, no one tells me I do them well, but when I'm go through it too quickly and screw up, I get in trouble. If my boss took "doing expense reports" away from me, I wouldn't think I was any less valuable to my company. Same thing with KOs - almost everyone was getting touchbacks anyway.
FGs are the only way kickers are separated from one another. As long as those exist, kickers are fine. Now you want to give kickers more importance? Have two options to go for two - run a play from the 2, or kick a 55 yard FG.
on your expense reports.
He doesn't forget the cover sheet?
I wasn't saying it would lead to them getting paid less, I was saying it wouldn't lead to them getting paid more. Kickers used to matter more in games but now the kickoff has been taken away, if it goes far enough away xp will be too. It's not that xp's are meaningful but I don't think its unreasonable for kickers to think people are trying to phase out their importance on the game.
THe solution in the NFL is to get rid of the expense reports, not to make them more complicated.
Kickers exist on NFL teams for FGs. Kick offs and PATs are such easy tasks that any D3 kicker could do it, so they could eliminate a both of those and it wouldn't change the value of a kicker to the team. 4th and 8 from the 30 is why the kickers exist. Nothing they do to KOs or PATs will have an impact on how a team views their kicker.
Good point about the kickers' complaining. The farther the kick, the more difficult it is, so why they think they would be phased out of the game is beyond me.
the better choice in the majority of situations if going for two remains at the 3 yard line.
I'd also imagine this may also possibly bring an end to signing a 2nd kicker for a few weeks only when absolutely necessary due to injury. You'd almost have to go 2 deep during the whole season with your placekickers because you no longer could just cope with the punter handling the PATs for part of a game if something happens to the starter. This change is absolutely going to make kickers much more valuable (and demanding of more money).
I would go for two every time. I would also go for it on every 4th down and onside every kick off.
I actually remember hearing about a HS coach a while back who did things like this because the sucess percentages were good enough for him to try.
yeah yeah yeah, we all heard that story. The problem is that it was HIGH SCHOOL football. That shit doesn't work in the NFL or even NCAA.
yeah i think he would only punt when on his side of his own 30.
He sat us all down one day and he said, "Alright gents, we've done the math, and, well... we're just not gonna punt anymore. We're also gonna go for two every time and we're gonna onside kick it every time." We had about six different kinds of onside kicks we could use including one without the tee that was still within the rules.
It worked because in 8-man football you're pretty much as likely to score from the 50-yard line as you are from the opposing 20. But yeah... high school.
us Saints fans will never take another XP for granted, no matter where its kicked from. thx John Carney
was my thought exactly. I knew a Jacksonville fan who spoke about this game in solemn tones-- he said he was more confused than anything.
The TD before that missed XP is unbelievable.
What will happen is that kickers will get really good at kicking extra points from 20 yards out. Natural evolution and everything, you know.
I'm in favor of them going rugby-style and kicking from the part of the field you score on.
And the guy who scores the touchdown has to kick the field goal.
Kickers gotta earn a living too, ya know.
This will just make kickers hit longer field goals more consistently. They'll be kicking a lot more game time pressured kicks. So I guess you'll see a lot more dramatic end of game FGs.
over something that was such a non-issue. Sitting on the sidelines is pretty easy too; we should add boobie traps and live bears to the side line to make it more difficult. Seriously, I don't ever remember watching an extra point and thinking "You know what? I need more excitement. STIMULATE ME MORE NFL." In an over analyzed league with terrible,terrible announcers in abundance, a concussion problem that is both a huge PR problem and an actual health risk, players who wreck their bodies and rutinely end up broke, the fact that there are like two minutes of non-stress per game seems like such a non-issue.
You're telling me you wouldn't be in favor of boobie traps and live bears on the sideline? Now instead of 11 minutes of gameplay stretched into a 3 hour broadcast, you have something to enjoy between the snaps!
Snark aside, I pretty much agree with you on this point.
Do teams ever line up to kick an extra point, and then fake it to attempt a two point conversion? I don't really recall ever seeing that. Fake field goals, sure. Fake extra points, not so much.
yes here is one.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000101022/GameDay-V...
check it out starting at the :50 mark.
Screw kickers' feelings.
Totally better idea is what's been floated as the no-kick alternative -- all TD's are worth 7 points, but, if you "go for 2" (really, now, "go for 1") you get 8 points if you make it and 6 if you don't. So the economics are the same -- the 2-point conversion represents a difference of 6 versus 8 points; if you don't try the 2-pointer, you get 7 points. So no kicking XP's, no stupid extra play that's automatic anyway.
But what can I say, I also like the idea of replacing the kickoff with a 4th-and-25 at the 35 yard line, so you normally would punt (not kick off) or, instead of the "onside" kickoff, you would line up with your offense to go for it (but only Ray Rice, however, will actually be able to make that conversion, if he's not, you know, in jail).
Make kickers convert the extra point rugby style. The kick can be made from any distance, but it has to be in the line of where the touchdown was scored.
Have different length XP worth different amounts. For instance, a kick from the 20 is one point. One from the 40 is two points and one from the 50 is 3 points. Makes for a lot more strategy.
I think this is a great idea. While a 37 footer is still easy for a NFL kicker, it at least makes them think about kicking it rather than just purely autopilot. We also will see a few missed PATS here and there which will be nice.
the arena league has the right idea ... narrow the goalpost. Leave the XP at 20 yards - but narrow the goal posts by about 30%. This would also make FG's a much more risky attempt at points. The NFL hash marks make FG's routine because there is no angle. Totally stupid idea to make the kick longer ... idiotic!
I wouldn't mind seeing a narrowing of the goalpost in the college game too, but not as much as the pro's ... maybe something like 10%.
Go Blue!
Why not the 23, so it's a 40-yd kick?
Interesting: 3 of the top 10 FG kickers of 2013 have misses in the 30s, but not in the 40s.
I think it is funny that we all debate the validity of the extra point, two-point conversion and monkeying with them from a football stand point, but that is irrelevant to the conversation. The NFL is screwing around with it because people complain about all of the time and meaningless activity now between a touchdown and the next series.
They aren't trying to make extra points more competitive or harder for kickers. They are trying to keep everyone from using the 10 minute break between real plays as bathroom and food breaks.
They should just give the auto-point with an option to risk it for 2 and speed up the game.
Before they had finally decided to test this out in the preseason, USA Today did interview a few kickers about the possibility of a rule change, including our own Jay Feely. Here's what Jay had to say about it:
"You don't penalize a baseball closer for being great, you celebrate that. You should do the same thing with kickers," Feely says. "If you're going to change the extra-point rule, I'd rather see you change it and still have it as part of the game than eliminate it."
He also mentioned that he did believe that the days of near-automatic PATs were coming to an end, but he said that even with this sort of change, you'd still see a lot of coaches opting for a kick.
Pure football is more like Australian rules, where the object is to gain field position in order to make the kick easier.
I'd like to see graduate points for FGs, but more points for being closer. If you score a TD, you kick the XP for 7, but if you miss the XP, you get zero.
It'd also be great b/c it would make fantasy football have to change to put the emphasis where it should be--yards, not points.
So if you promise to kick, you run a play from the 20, and if you promise to go for it, you run a play from the 2? Sounds complicated.
What would be wrong with just making the goalposts half as wide as they are now? This would also encourage teams to go for it more often in opponents' territory, which would be more exciting than essentially giving teams an automatic 3 points as soon as they cross the 30. It's not like the NFL would struggle to afford a few new pieces of metal. Plus, less room to be dunked on!
Why would you go for two when you have a kicker that can probably hit 50 yard field goals consistently? I don't think it really changes all that much.
And make everyone go for two. That will keep people in their seats and add variability - one play from two yards out is pretty much a crapshoot for every NFL team.
I like it. The 25 would have been more interesting but something's better than nothing.
