NFL thinking of moving PAT to 25 yrd line

[imac_21]

If the extra point is a 40-yard FG, then teams would probably just go for 2 every time. Statistically they'd speaking they'd probably score more points.

Statistically speaking they wouldn't. Team convert 2 point conversions roughly 45% of the time. 42 yard FGs are successful in the 85% range. A 42 yard PAT would, on average, produce 0.85 points. A 2 point conversion attempt would produce, on average, 0.9 points.

It's nearly a wash. We'd probably see a lot more 2 point conversion attempts, but not every time. There would still be situations where a single point would be advantageous (say you just scored to go up 27-20 and have a choice between an 8 point lead and a 9 point lead).

It would challenge coaches in a new way.

 

[imac_21]

I only used that Carney one because it was sooooo brutal. Poor Saints make maybe arguably the greatest play in NFL history only to lose that way. If I am not mistaken I think that either kept them out of the playoffs that year, or let the Jag in. I could be wrong though.

I am not apposed to them moving the kick back, because it would add some drama, but I just want them to stop changing everything. In 10 years the game will not be recognizable anymore.

It kept the Saints out.

They keep changing the game? There are fairly minor rule tweaks each year, but this would be a fairly significant change. I can't think of the last fairly significant change in the rules.

Edit: I take it back, the new OT rules are a significant change.

 

[imac_21]

For whatever it's worth......

New NFL Extra Point Rule Would Bump 2-Point Conversions - Business Insider

These numbers are slightly different than the ones I saw (my numbers were from an advancednflstats.com article looking at 2000-2009).

I don't think it would force teams to go for two every time. It would depend on your kicker quite a bit. Dawson was 10/11 from 40-49 yards this year. Houston's kicker on the other hand was 12/17.

I think for us, kicking the PAT is a much safer play than it would be for Houston.

You also have to consider the QB, and the goal line offense the team has. Our goal line offense has sucked. If I had to choose between Dawson kicking a 43 yard PAT, or us trying to get two yards at the goal line, I'm kicking unless I have to.

 

[tomikcon1971]

These numbers are slightly different than the ones I saw (my numbers were from an advancednflstats.com article looking at 2000-2009).

I don't think it would force teams to go for two every time. It would depend on your kicker quite a bit. Dawson was 10/11 from 40-49 yards this year. Houston's kicker on the other hand was 12/17.

I think for us, kicking the PAT is a much safer play than it would be for Houston.

You also have to consider the QB, and the goal line offense the team has. Our goal line offense has sucked. If I had to choose between Dawson kicking a 43 yard PAT, or us trying to get two yards at the goal line, I'm kicking unless I have to.

I looked multiple places and the numbers varied a bit everywhere based on the data sample. I'm with you in terms of thinking that it would be handled by teams and coaches very differently. The kicker, the weather during the game, the game situation, the quality of the team's offense, etc would all come into play.

I'm fine with making the kick longer vs eliminating it, narrowing goal posts, and some of the other ideas I've seen. I'm also fine leaving it alone. I think there are bigger issues to tackle (no pun intended) than this. Changing the rule that Bow was injured on should be near the top of the list. That play should be reviewable.

 

[BoBlake]

It kept the Saints out.

They keep changing the game? There are fairly minor rule tweaks each year, but this would be a fairly significant change. I can't think of the last fairly significant change in the rules.

Edit: I take it back, the new OT rules are a significant change.

Instant replay was a significant change.
The 2 point conversion was a significant change.
The QB bubble is a significant change.
The 45 second play clock was a significant change.


The Saints were 7-7 at the point in time where a missed field goal mathematically eliminated them from the playoffs. The missed the playoffs because the lost 20-19 to a Jags team who was 4-10. The didn't make the playoffs because they weren't any good that year.

 

[purguy12]

This sport is becoming a joke. I love it but damn Im starting to lose a little interest. I miss the 90's and 80's. That's football. This is starting to turn into arena Football. Cant touch the QB cant hit a receiver and now changing the extra point makes no sense. I understand if they don't want it to be a chip shot but don't make it that far. Maybe in 30-35 range.

 

[MHSL82]

This sport is becoming a joke. I love it but damn Im starting to lose a little interest. I miss the 90's and 80's. That's football. This is starting to turn into arena Football. Cant touch the QB cant hit a receiver and now changing the extra point makes no sense. I understand if they don't want it to be a chip shot but don't make it that far. Maybe in 30-35 range.

I heard on ESPN that the NFL is considering some more protection for mobile QBs. How? Can't hit them when they are running? Can't treat them as a runningback when being used as one? You can contact the head for a runningback but not when that runningback is a quarterback? Is this like the can't hit kicker because he's not a football player but the kicker can try to tackle or get in your way feel?

Talking about arena football: Tampa Bay Buccaneers unveil new uniforms for 2014 | FOX Sports on MSN

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

I would lose it if this rule passes. I don't think I or any fan can handle losing on an extra point fg. Especially if you just rallied back to tie it. I realize both teams have to make it, however it can easily take away from the effort the other players have put in to Make it a game.

 

[MHSL82]

I looked multiple places and the numbers varied a bit everywhere based on the data sample. I'm with you in terms of thinking that it would be handled by teams and coaches very differently. The kicker, the weather during the game, the game situation, the quality of the team's offense, etc would all come into play.

I'm fine with making the kick longer vs eliminating it, narrowing goal posts, and some of the other ideas I've seen. I'm also fine leaving it alone. I think there are bigger issues to tackle (no pun intended) than this. Changing the rule that Bow was injured on should be near the top of the list. That play should be reviewable.

You know what? You know how they say the field goal posts extend into the heavens? They should make that literal. They could change the rule to make it that you have to get between the inner sides of the posts, not above it. This would only apply for field goals because who needs every inch for a PAT (unless they move it back)? They could make it a square. Better yet, a triangle like a dartboard where the corners are 2 points and the middle is 1. Outside is zero, so it's a gamble. They could turn the field goal posts upside down and do it goalie style. Penalty kick? Add some penguins. They could give an option of an onside kick. They could add a second field goal post behind it where if you get both, you get two points... and this second goal post moves back and forth like a carnival game. Add some lions. They should give you the option of having your QB chuck it as far as he can, if he can get past a certain distance he gets more points, that way strong armed QBs can use their arms even in a conservative offense that doesn't have speed guys who get open down the field. Maybe make it hail mary style. Add some virgins.

 

[MHSL82]

I would lose it if this rule passes. I don't think I or any fan can handle losing on an extra point fg. Especially if you just rallied back to tie it. I realize both teams have to make it, however it can easily take away from the effort the other players have put in to Make it a game.

That's strange, until now, I kept thinking this rule sucks for kickers and how now they'll be blamed for more losses where the defense couldn't stop, QB couldn't score, linemen couldn't block (perhaps a blocked PAT because of it)... but I never applied that to my team losing. I just kept thinking about the damn kickers. Who does that? Kickers should never be thought about.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

You know what? You know how they say the field goal posts extend into the heavens? They should make that literal. They could change the rule to make it that you have to get between the inner sides of the posts, not above it. This would only apply for field goals because who needs every inch for a PAT (unless they move it back)? They could make it a square. Better yet, a triangle like a dartboard where the corners are 2 points and the middle is 1. Outside is zero, so it's a gamble. They could turn the field goal posts upside down and do it goalie style. Penalty kick? Add some penguins. They could give an option of an onside kick. They could add a second field goal post behind it where if you get both, you get two points... and this second goal post moves back and forth like a carnival game. Add some lions. They should give you the option of having your QB chuck it as far as he can, if he can get past a certain distance he gets more points, that way strong armed QBs can use their arms even in a conservative offense that doesn't have speed guys who get open down the field. Maybe make it hail mary style. Add some virgins.

Please breathe for a second and put the caffeine down

You forgot adding the obvious option where the kicker yells "pull" and 7 white doves are released as he's kicking. You get an added point for each hit. Doves will be equipped with football pads/helmet with the official team jersey for protection to avoid lawsuits from the animal cruelty people.

 

[MHSL82]

Please breathe for a second and put the caffeine down

You forgot adding the obvious option where the kicker yells "pull" and 7 white doves are released as he's kicking. You get an added point for each hit. Doves will be equipped with football pads/helmet with the official team jersey for protection to avoid lawsuits from the animal cruelty people.

Never! Hmm... I'll consider breathing. But never to no caffffffeine. I live in Utah now (I miss California and Washington) and I have to distinguish myself from the locals who can't drink caffeine (but do when God's not watching).

 

[EaseUrStorm]

I've never been a coffee drinker because I feel sick like everytime I drink it. My body just doesn't like the stuff and won't get used to it. I'm also not a morning person either so I tend to walk around like a zombie in the morning time. Are you for real that the Mormons don't drink coffee either! Not surprising they have such a hard drug issue in that state. Be very careful, coffee is a major gateway drug. First coffee, then some weed, then directly onto the meth walking around with no teeth. Tragic.

 

[-AC-]

It's not the extra point kick that is the problem... It's all the rules at the line that prevent the defenders from doing anything other than to stand up and watch the ball sail through the up-rights...

 

[MHSL82]

I've never been a coffee drinker because I feel sick like everytime I drink it. My body just doesn't like the stuff and won't get used to it. I'm also not a morning person either so I tend to walk around like a zombie in the morning time. Are you for real that the Mormons don't drink coffee either! Not surprising they have such a hard drug issue in that state. Be very careful, coffee is a major gateway drug. First coffee, then some weed, then directly onto the meth walking around with no teeth. Tragic.

They are not supposed to drink coffee or tea at all, your body is your temple - something against hot drinks. Hot chocolate is ok, preferentially no caffeine.... apparently. They sell a lot of caffeine free drinks here, but that's not a hot beverage. I've seen Mormons drink coffee before, so it's like any religion. Christians do bad things despite their teachings. Mormons drink coffee though they won't admit it. Some don't know the rule and drink caffeine free coffee when the "hot" drink is the problem, not the caffeine.

I'll PM you about it, because I don't want to offend anyone here. It doesn't make sense, people don't understand the rule nor follow it, and can be as hypocritical as any religion.

I don't drink coffee, either, but I drink soda drinks with caffeine.

 

[imac_21]

Instant replay was a significant change.
The 2 point conversion was a significant change.
The QB bubble is a significant change.
The 45 second play clock was a significant change.


The Saints were 7-7 at the point in time where a missed field goal mathematically eliminated them from the playoffs. The missed the playoffs because the lost 20-19 to a Jags team who was 4-10. The didn't make the playoffs because they weren't any good that year.

The two point conversion was 20 years ago.

The QB bubble? You mean the increased protection? I suppose that's "significant," but I would disagree. And Niner fans could make a pretty strong case that cost us a Super Bowl this year, because the BS Roughing the Passer call against Brooks in New Orleans cost us home field, and put the NFCC game in Seattle.

What 45 second play clock? The play clock is either 40 or 25 seconds.

 

[BoBlake]

The two point conversion was 20 years ago.

Why does it matter when changes go in? If the PAT is modified in some way, 20 years from now it will also be 20 years old.

If your point is that 20 years from now these "significant changes" will be completely absorbed by the league, teams, fans, etc. If you're saying that 20 years from now people will forget what the league was like without these changes. Then yes, I completely agree with you.

 

[imac_21]

Why does it matter when changes go in? If the PAT is modified in some way, 20 years from now it will also be 20 years old.

If your point is that 20 years from now these "significant changes" will be completely absorbed by the league, teams, fans, etc. If you're saying that 20 years from now people will forget what the league was like without these changes. Then yes, I completely agree with you.

If you trace the specific thread of this conversation that I'm a part of, right from the beginning one of the topics was the frequency of the changes. The first post I responded to referenced the NFL being pretty consistent with major changes (the exact quote was "I just want them to stop changing everything").

It's been 20 years since a significant change.

And no, I don't think the (re-)introduction of instant replay was a significant change. It didn't change the way the game was played, it didn't change how teams went about preparing. It allowed for bad calls to be corrected.

I think the significant change prior to the 2 point conversion was adding two games and playing 16 instead of 14. If they add more teams to the playoffs, or go to an 17 or 18 game season that would be another significant change in my eyes.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

Moving extra point kicks back would be so ridiculously stupid.

As others have alluded to, this feels like it could be the 'ol negotiation ploy of first asking for something ludicrous before "settling" for a "compromise" that was the initial goal all along.

 

[imac_21]

Moving extra point kicks back would be so ridiculously stupid.

As others have alluded to, this feels like it could be the 'ol negotiation ploy of first asking for something ludicrous before "settling" for a "compromise" that was the initial goal all along.

Moving it back is the compromise. They have talked about getting rid of it entirely.

A lot of people are saying it's ridiculous to move the kick attempt back. Can anyone make a case for why keeping it at the 2 yard line is worthwhile?