New Extra Point Rules

[Iamtdg]

Under the new rules, will it be possible to score 2 points from the 15 yard line?

Sure, a coach would have to be crazy to go for 2 points from the 15 instead of the 2 yard line, but then it is possible that a given extra point kick defense would totally fall asleep on a possible fake.

A more likely scenario -- a team attempting a 1 point kick from the 15 yard line could have a bad or bobbled snap and suddenly scramble to throw or run the ball into the endzone. Let's say the offense was successful in getting the ball into the endzone. Would that be 0, 1, or 2 points?

If they make it into the EZ, either by running a fake or because of a bobbled snap, it counts as 2 points.

 

[Doomsday]

I like the narrowed goal post uprights better. Makes all point kicking more difficult and might reduce FG attempts overall.

 

[ZeroClub]

Hate it. Nothing wrong with PATs being a formality. So we want kickers having more impact on the games?

I'm sure they're trying to encourage more 2 point tries, or something.

I'm not a fan of it either.

Seems to me that the change adds even more error variance to the game ... That there is now a greater chance that outcomes will be influenced by something other than how good the teams actually are.

Fluke special teams plays can be "exciting," but they are also sort of random.

 

[dbair1967]

Read it again david. I said 100 points the first time.

I think you need to read it again.

You said if you go for it 100 times, you'll score 100 EXTRA points. That's only true if you make it EVERY time.

Nobody is going to make it every time. Something you showed in another post (I think it was about 50% you wrote)

 

[bbgun]

do you leave the room (for a snack or bathroom break) before the extra point is attempted or do you stay? i always stay, even though it's a "formality." seems like the league wants suspense from extra points but not kickoffs that sail out of the end zone.

 

[peplaw06]

I think you need to read it again.

You said if you go for it 100 times, you'll score 100 EXTRA points. That's only true if you make it EVERY time.

Nobody is going to make it every time. Something you showed in another post (I think it was about 50% you wrote)

FFS David... a touchdown is worth 6 points. If you scored a 2 point conversion every time, it would be 200 EXTRA points. If you were successful half the time, that's 100 EXTRA points. I even stated in the next sentence if you made the PAT 91 times, that's 91... extra points. The extra point is a term of art when applied to this scenario in football. I'm trying to compare apples to apples, and you're fucking it all up.

Do I need to write it in crayon?

 

[Everlastingxxx]

I like the narrowed goal post uprights better. Makes all point kicking more difficult and might reduce FG attempts overall.

I would have liked that better. Adam Vinatieri missed 3 field goals in the Pro Bowl with the skinny tall goal posts. I am all for reducing the importance of the field goal.

 

[peplaw06]

Bunch a kicker hating mini-Hostiles in here.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

Bunch a kicker hating mini-Hostiles in here.

The one aspect i have never liked about football is a team barely advances to the other side of the field and a kicker hits a 55 yarder for 3 points. Just seems cheap. The thin goal posts would have made teams go for it more on 4th down, which i think is more exciting.

 

[Doomsday]

I would have liked that better. Adam Vinatieri missed 3 field goals in the Pro Bowl with the skinny tall goal posts. I am all for reducing the importance of the field goal.

Part of the claim from this owner's meeting is they wanted the kicking to require "more skill." The narrowed goalposts clearly do require it, the longer PAT, really not so much.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

Part of the claim from this owner's meeting is they wanted the kicking to require "more skill." The narrowed goalposts clearly do require it, the longer PAT, really not so much.

I understand the idea behind making a regular field goal tougher to make, but i’m not sure about the PAT. It’s not that big of a deal to me that it’s been automatic. I think the football games are plenty exciting as it is. Usually after a touchdown you use the PAT time to catch your breath, go to the restroom or do something else.

What’s the driving force behind all these moves? On PFT, Goodell was says they have other items but are putting them in slowly. Next year the 2 point conversion will be at the 1 yard line. Are they trying to eliminate the kicking game? I know they want to get rid of the kickoffs. Bill Belichick has been harping for years about the PAT. Why? I don’t really see the motivation.

 

[Doomsday]

I understand the idea behind making a regular field goal tougher to make, but i’m not sure about the PAT. It’s not that big of a deal to me that it’s been automatic. I think the football games are plenty exciting as it is. Usually after a touchdown you use the PAT time to catch your breath and go to the restroom or do something else.

What’s the driving force behind all these moves? On PFT, Goodell was says they have other items but are putting them in slowly. Next year the 2 point conversion will be at the 1 yard line. Are they trying to eliminate the kicking game? I know they want to get rid of the kickoffs. Bill Belichick has been harping for years about the PAT. Why? I don’t really see the motivation.

I don't see it either. Under the old rules if a PAT was missed or blocked it was a dramatic deal since it was so rare to have happen, and more often than not came back to haunt the team.

Now, with it being a 32 yarder, who's gonna kick that on a windy day? I'd almost find myself a back or someone else who can drop kick, set up at the 2 for a 2 point try, and just drop kick it for one.

The drop kick is still legal, and is really a cool and exciting play. I was a drop kick specialist in my playing days, could hit them from a good distance. Made a 40 yarder once. They're worth 3 points as a scrimmage play but pretty sure only one point as a after TD try.

If they wanted to make it harder and add excitement, they should have just required it be a drop kick, for the PAT or even a 2 point play, ball spotted at the two and you choose - and don't have to tell which is coming. If you score by drop kick it's one point, if you run a play and get in the end zone it's still two.

 

[dbair1967]

FFS David... a touchdown is worth 6 points. If you scored a 2 point conversion every time, it would be 200 EXTRA points. If you were successful half the time, that's 100 EXTRA points. I even stated in the next sentence if you made the PAT 91 times, that's 91... extra points. The extra point is a term of art when applied to this scenario in football. I'm trying to compare apples to apples, and you're fucking it all up.

Do I need to write it in crayon?

I guess the confusion is you said "extra points" to me that means you are saying something to make that as an advantage over whats in place now (extra=more). Almost everybody gets 7 pts now when they score a TD.

Again, you only GAIN something in your argument by making more than half of them.

So like I said before, teams with good kickers (like ours) will almost assuredly decide kicking the PAT from the new distance is more beneficial over the long haul. Teams with average to mediocre kickers might be more likely to consider going for 2.

 

[peplaw06]

I guess the confusion is you said "extra points" to me that means you are saying something to make that as an advantage over whats in place now (extra=more). Almost everybody gets 7 pts now when they score a TD.

Yeah, like I said... my statement was correct. You read it wrong. And I'm obviously not talking about the old rule.

Again, you only GAIN something in your argument by making more than half of them.

If you simply go by the percentage of 32-33 yard FGs made over the past 3 years, then you gain something by converting 50% of your 2-point conversions. It's not that simple... I mentioned the variables that affect the comparison. But it might make sense for more innovative coaches to go for 2 every time.

So like I said before, teams with good kickers (like ours) will almost assuredly decide kicking the PAT from the new distance is more beneficial over the long haul. Teams with average to mediocre kickers might be more likely to consider going for 2.

I wouldn't be surprised if Garrett decided to kick the PAT every time. I don't really expect him to be cutting edge on the analytics side of the game.

But I think the more analytical and innovative coaches will go for 2 significantly more often. And I think the more these teams go for it, the better their conversion rates will be.

 

[dbair1967]

You are one argumentative dude pep, I'll give you that.

That said, I still don't see teams thinking about this the way you are. First off no team scores 100 tds in a season or even comes close to that. Most years the top half of the league scores probably between 40-60 tds.

Just looking at last year, the top 10 teams in PATS attempted (which should be pretty close to number of tds scored, I couldn't find total tds by team or 2 pt PATS attempted by team on ESPN) missed 6 FG's from 30-39 yds and missed 3 PATS. Our kicker Bailey has made 38/40 FG's from 30-39 yds in his career, which is 95%. If you assume 50 tds in a season that means he is likely to make 47 or 48 of those. You'd need to be successful on 24 of the same 50 to make the total pts a wash. I don't know what the historical number is for the 2pt conversion (I believe you posted 50%) but even if you can make a slight improvement on that (as you suggest some teams might be able to do by going for it more) is it worth the risk? There's a ton of close games in this league and 1 win or loss can make or break a season (just look at our team the past 4 yrs, 1 more win each season would have netted us vastly different results). I doubt most good coaches would view taking the risk on of potentially giving up a pt or two on a week to week basis as a good thing. And even if you can get the total points to a wash or slightly advantaged, that doesn't account for the one game where not getting it cost you a win or going to OT. You cant get that game back, even though statistically you might make up for the point shortfall in the long run.

I still think the only teams that would give it any serious thought are the one's with mediocre kickers or perhaps in situations where weather is a significant factor (wind, extreme snow/rain).