PATs changed but not significantly IMO

TheMarathonContinues · May 19, 2015

Toruk_Makto said:
The 4th and 2 long pass to Dez wasn't necessarily the play call. If you go back to the thread where Romo dissects the play he talks about the defense dictating why he threw that ball.

I'd say our lack of using more PA on first down and our general aversion to going for it in no man's land (usually opted for the bad punt or long field goal) marks JG as conservative.

Right but a conservative coach runs the ball there and takes his chances against the defense. A conservative coach doesn't even factor in what the defense is playing when it comes to 4th and 1 or 2.

In regards to your last sentence......how many times should you play action and stay true to the run? We were a run first team last year who allowed for the run to open up the pass.

Floatyworm · May 19, 2015

rocyaice said:
That's completely changing the game IMO. I could see 3 points for a 50 yarder. But having a kick worth a whole touchdown?

If a kicker can hit a 70+ FG then (Hell yes!!!!) IMO he deserves it!!!!! :flagwave:

links18 · May 19, 2015

I like that the defense can now return. Is that just for 2pt tries from the 2 or can missed kicks be returned also?

GoJacks · May 19, 2015

RingOfHonor88 said:
What I don't like is the commercial after a kickoff. It is much worse than the extra point to me. Extra point/FG, 3-4 minute commercial break. Kickoff for a touchback, another 3-4 minute commercial break. It's 10 minutes after an exciting scoring play followed by a 10 minute buzz kill. Just cut out the commercial after kickoffs and I'm happy.

But it does give ample time to refresh a cocktail and use a restroom.

AzorAhai · May 19, 2015

bkight13 said:
Somehow soccer manages to play 45 minutes straight without commercials. With technology today one would think they could run more TV ads during the actual game, using banners and inlays.

I wouldn't mind more any form of advertising that limits commercials other than on jersey sponsors. I don't really mind a break after scores or even punts. It's the back to back breaks I hate. Then you get the injury commercials. Those are stupid because half the time the player is walking off the field as their going to break.

AzorAhai · May 19, 2015

GoJacks said:
But it does give ample time to refresh a cocktail and use a restroom.

I've had oil changes that are shorter than those back to back commercial breaks.

Toruk_Makto · May 19, 2015

rocyaice said:
Right but a conservative coach runs the ball there and takes his chances against the defense. A conservative coach doesn't even factor in what the defense is playing when it comes to 4th and 1 or 2.

In regards to your last sentence......how many times should you play action and stay true to the run? We were a run first team last year who allowed for the run to open up the pass.

If you allow for the run to set up the pass.... How about you use more play action?

SilverStarCowboy · May 19, 2015

Swanny said:
It will make a big difference in my opinion. What is the % of a 19 yd FG compared to 33?? Probably like 99.7% and drops down to 92 or 93%. Thats an extra 7 PATs missed in 100 attempts! This could make a bigger difference than some think.

lol yeup... it may be bigger that the Extra-Point can be returned for a TD by the STs, a rare occurrence but also a potential calamity.

Should've happened sooner.

AzorAhai · May 19, 2015

SilverStarCowboy said:
lol yeup... it may be bigger that the Extra-Point can be returned for a TD by the STs, a rare occurrence but also a potential calamity.

Should've happened sooner.

It only counts as 2 if extra point/failed conversion is returned.

Rogah · May 19, 2015

links18 said:
I like that the defense can now return. Is that just for 2pt tries from the 2 or can missed kicks be returned also?

Blocked kicks can be returned too.

I wonder if they will implement the once-a-lifetime 1 point safety rule like college has....

burmafrd · May 19, 2015

should have just moved the PAT to the 1. That way teams always have to be paranoid about a fake since it would be much easier to snap it to someone suddenly going in motion and he can pick his way to the end zone.

And teams like us with powerful run games would consider going for it more often.

Sasquatch · May 19, 2015

nake said:
You might want to try following the game thread in here because Zoners never run out of things to say during the commercials.

I do from time to time but you know that raises a whole other set of issues.

AdamJT13 · May 19, 2015

Floaty said:
If they are gonna put more emphasis on kickers.....

Why not make FGs 30-39yrds worth 3 pts...

FGs 40-49 worth 4pts

FGs 50-59.....worth 5pts

FGs 60-69....worth 6pts

FGs 70+.....worth 7pts

Because scoring is meant to reward the offense for moving the ball forward as far as possible -- ideally into the end zone. Making longer field goals worth more points would encourage teams in some situations to stop trying to move the ball forward and could even encourage a team to LOSE yardage on purpose in order to score more points.

erod · May 20, 2015

And in 2016, they'll roll out a putt putt hole with a big windmill, and if you make it, you get the ball back at the 20.

Whatever makes fantasy football fans and new women watchers tune in!

Fizziksman · May 20, 2015

if they want to bring more excitement to the game why not just bring the kickoff return back?

Nightman · May 20, 2015

BanditHiro said:
if they want to bring more excitement to the game why not just bring the kickoff return back?

they are afraid of concussions

JD_KaPow · May 20, 2015

AdamJT13 said:
Because scoring is meant to reward the offense for moving the ball forward as far as possible -- ideally into the end zone. Making longer field goals worth more points would encourage teams in some situations to stop trying to move the ball forward and could even encourage a team to LOSE yardage on purpose in order to score more points.

Amen. I can't understand why anyone would want rule changes that incentivize kicking over, you know, football.

bracey · May 20, 2015

This is awful. I'm so sick of this league. This change now makes it more beneficial to go for 2 most of the time. This devalues everything else that happens in the game and makes some gimmick single play from the 2 worth much more.

If the league really thought the XP was some huge massive determent to the game, despite every single shred of evidence and history that shows otherwise, the right answer was to eliminate it and give teams the option of a free point or a 2 point play. Would have keep the same strategy (which was the only reason even allowing the 2 point play in pros was a positive) and sped things up without devaluing the rest of the game.

BAZ · May 20, 2015

I think this is just the first step in eliminating the XP which I have no problem with. In rugby you kick the after try conversion from the angle of where the ball was touched down, this would be a vast improvement over the current NFL operation. If every time teams had to just go for two would be my preference.

jobberone · May 20, 2015

14 teams made 100% of their FG tries from 30-39 yards. I didn't look for a breakdown between 33 and 39 yds.

Last year kicking success was 97.4. 2 pt success was 48%. However when a team runs that success rate avgs to 62%. I didn't look at the breakdown per team. However out of 543 attempts only 18 were runs.

So this will effect the game esp for the Cowboys. About 50% is the break even point kicking vs 2pt. We should be able to do better. My guess is the recent flow chart for 2pts attempts will change. In the end game circumstances will still prevail.

PATs changed but not significantly IMO

Well-Known Member

The Labeled One

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Actualist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Lost in the Woods

Salary Cap Analyst

Well-Known Member

BanditHiro

Capologist

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

Drunken Mick

Kane Ala