Is the next "Great Wall" made for 2 points?

[MWH1967]

let me explain....The cowboys every growing talent on the offensive line lead one article in the past days to play with the idea that this line indeed has the potential to become pretty good. With that said the "pre-season experiment" kicking an extra point that has become a little longer at 33yds has given a result some were looking for. More missed field goals than the entire season last year and already two games decided by those misses.

Here is where the "Wall" comes into play. While they continue to tweak the extra point...Some have suggested making the (2) point conversion more interesting as well. Move it to the (1) yd line.

Longer extra point or try to force your will from the 1......I may need to rethink the "bathroom" break schedule if this happens, i just can't miss the commercials..lol!

 

[MWH1967]

after i posted this thread i found out it had been scraped for the rest of the year, but the idea is still out there to place the ball at the 1.


“I didn’t think much of it when it was suggested,” New York Giants Coach Tom Coughlin said at a news conference Wednesday. “There are some ways to change that part of it if the intent is to make it more exciting. … I think you have to be aware of the fact that it’s a 33-yard field goal in November when the wind’s blowing and it’s snowing here and … in Miami it’s 75 degrees. It’s a little different in different parts of the country. You do have to be aware of that. I would say probably the ball will stay at the 2[-yard line for] extra points. But if you really want to make it interesting put it at the 1[-yard line].”

 

[Crown Royal]

after i posted this thread i found out it had been scraped for the rest of the year, but the idea is still out there to place the ball at the 1.


“I didn’t think much of it when it was suggested,” New York Giants Coach Tom Coughlin said at a news conference Wednesday. “There are some ways to change that part of it if the intent is to make it more exciting. … I think you have to be aware of the fact that it’s a 33-yard field goal in November when the wind’s blowing and it’s snowing here and … in Miami it’s 75 degrees. It’s a little different in different parts of the country. You do have to be aware of that. I would say probably the ball will stay at the 2[-yard line for] extra points. But if you really want to make it interesting put it at the 1[-yard line].”

"I think you have to be aware of the fact that it’s a 33-yard field goal in November when the wind’s blowing and it’s snowing here and Washington and Philadelphia… in Dallas it’s 75 degrees in a dome"

I don't see a problem.

 

[MWH1967]

^^^^^

 

[xwalker]

after i posted this thread i found out it had been scraped for the rest of the year, but the idea is still out there to place the ball at the 1.


“I didn’t think much of it when it was suggested,” New York Giants Coach Tom Coughlin said at a news conference Wednesday. “There are some ways to change that part of it if the intent is to make it more exciting. … I think you have to be aware of the fact that it’s a 33-yard field goal in November when the wind’s blowing and it’s snowing here and … in Miami it’s 75 degrees. It’s a little different in different parts of the country. You do have to be aware of that. I would say probably the ball will stay at the 2[-yard line for] extra points. But if you really want to make it interesting put it at the 1[-yard line].”

If a team thought they could score more than 50% of the time on the 2 point conversion, then it would be worth going for it regardless of the extra point location.

I would bet that the 92-95 Cowboys with Emmitt and the Great Wall could have scored more than 50% of the time on 2 point conversions. They didn't implement it until 94, so that wouldn't have been an option in 92-93.

 

[Reality]

There is something that most people and the media have not considered with this test PAT change the NFL implemented through the first couple of preseason weeks. Of course there was the obvious purpose, which was to see if it would encourage teams to go for 2 more often. The flaw with this thinking is that most teams want to work on their kicking game during preseason as part of filtering the bubble players and winning in the preseason is not really a priority for most teams.

However, there was another reason to make this temporary change. A lot of teams go into training camp with two field goal kickers, a new field goal kicker and/or a new long-snapper. By moving the kicks back, they gave teams a lot more opportunities to practice their regular field goals and determine which bubble players can be counted on to play on their field goal squads.

Ultimately I see moving the PAT back as a bad move because it will give an unfair advantage to some teams (those in domes for example) over outdoor teams in windy cities who play half their games in those environments. They would be better off removing the PAT completely. They could give a team 7 points for scoring a touchdown and give them the option to try for 2 points. If they succeed, they would get 8 points. If they fail, they would get 6 points. If they are set on making a change, that would be the best solution.

 

[MWH1967]

There is something that most people and the media have not considered with this test PAT change the NFL implemented through the first couple of preseason weeks. Of course there was the obvious purpose, which was to see if it would encourage teams to go for 2 more often. The flaw with this thinking is that most teams want to work on their kicking game during preseason as part of filtering the bubble players and winning in the preseason is not really a priority for most teams.

However, there was another reason to make this temporary change. A lot of teams go into training camp with two field goal kickers, a new field goal kicker and/or a new long-snapper. By moving the kicks back, they gave teams a lot more opportunities to practice their regular field goals and determine which bubble players can be counted on to play on their field goal squads.

Ultimately I see moving the PAT back as a bad move because it will give an unfair advantage to some teams (those in domes for example) over outdoor teams in windy cities who play half their games in those environments. They would be better off removing the PAT completely. They could give a team 7 points for scoring a touchdown and give them the option to try for 2 points. If they succeed, they would get 8 points. If they fail, they would get 6 points. If they are set on making a change, that would be the best solution.

place it at the one yard line and you have got a deal. Now, that would be some serious nail biting...

 

[xwalker]

There is something that most people and the media have not considered with this test PAT change the NFL implemented through the first couple of preseason weeks. Of course there was the obvious purpose, which was to see if it would encourage teams to go for 2 more often. The flaw with this thinking is that most teams want to work on their kicking game during preseason as part of filtering the bubble players and winning in the preseason is not really a priority for most teams.

However, there was another reason to make this temporary change. A lot of teams go into training camp with two field goal kickers, a new field goal kicker and/or a new long-snapper. By moving the kicks back, they gave teams a lot more opportunities to practice their regular field goals and determine which bubble players can be counted on to play on their field goal squads.

Ultimately I see moving the PAT back as a bad move because it will give an unfair advantage to some teams (those in domes for example) over outdoor teams in windy cities who play half their games in those environments. They would be better off removing the PAT completely. They could give a team 7 points for scoring a touchdown and give them the option to try for 2 points. If they succeed, they would get 8 points. If they fail, they would get 6 points. If they are set on making a change, that would be the best solution.

I saw that Coughlin also mentioned the weather issue. I guess the bad weather located team's kicker would have more practice in bad weather, but in the game itself, both kickers would either be in bad weather or in the dome.

 

[MWH1967]

I saw that Coughlin also mentioned the weather issue. I guess the bad weather located team's kicker would have more practice in bad weather, but in the game itself, both kickers would either be in bad weather or in the dome.

No, see the way it's stated Dan can stay in Dallas and attempt uncontested field goals...

 

[JD_KaPow]

Ultimately I see moving the PAT back as a bad move because it will give an unfair advantage to some teams (those in domes for example) over outdoor teams in windy cities who play half their games in those environments. They would be better off removing the PAT completely. They could give a team 7 points for scoring a touchdown and give them the option to try for 2 points. If they succeed, they would get 8 points. If they fail, they would get 6 points. If they are set on making a change, that would be the best solution.

I don't object to your solution; it's my preferred solution, too. You get to gamble that 7th point, double or nothing, on a try.

But I don't see how any teams get an unfair advantage. In every game, both teams play in the same conditions.

 

[Reality]

I don't object to your solution; it's my preferred solution, too. You get to gamble that 7th point, double or nothing, on a try.

But I don't see how any teams get an unfair advantage. In every game, both teams play in the same conditions.

One-on-one, yes, they are playing in the same conditions. However, the Bears for example would have windy conditions likely in their 8 home games where the Saints/Falcons (dome teams) would have a guaranteed 8 home games with no wind. So in that case, the Bears would deal with windy conditions 8-16 times a season where as the Saints/Falcons would only have to deal with windy conditions 0-8 games at most.

 

[Crown Royal]

I don't object to your solution; it's my preferred solution, too. You get to gamble that 7th point, double or nothing, on a try.

But I don't see how any teams get an unfair advantage. In every game, both teams play in the same conditions.

Not on a game by game basis, but the Giants for instance are in an outdoor stadium for AT LEAST 10 games. Depending on their road schedule they could play 75% + outside in the elements. THe cowboys, on the other hand, are guaranteed to play at least 50% of their games in a nice stadium without Wind being a huge factor.

 

[JD_KaPow]

One-on-one, yes, they are playing in the same conditions. However, the Bears for example would have windy conditions likely in their 8 home games where the Saints/Falcons (dome teams) would have a guaranteed 8 home games with no wind. So in that case, the Bears would deal with windy conditions 8-16 times a season where as the Saints/Falcons would only have to deal with windy conditions 0-8 games at most.

But again, so what? Seasonal numbers don't matter at all (except when you get deep into tiebreakers). In any individual game, there's no advantage, except maybe that the team used to the conditions is better equipped to deal with them, but you're arguing the opposite.

If there's no advantage over your opponent in any one of your games, then there's no advantage.

 

[Reality]

But again, so what? Seasonal numbers don't matter at all (except when you get deep into tiebreakers). In any individual game, there's no advantage, except maybe that the team used to the conditions is better equipped to deal with them, but you're arguing the opposite.

If there's no advantage over your opponent in any one of your games, then there's no advantage.

If you think in a narrow focus, a single one-on-one game would be fair to both teams. However, that's not the case when you factor in a full season. There's an advantage over the course of a season, which could have a dramatic impact on playoff chances or positioning for some teams if some teams were forced to play by rules that put them at a disadvantage over 8+ games.

 

[JD_KaPow]

If you think in a narrow focus, a single one-on-one game would be fair to both teams. However, that's not the case when you factor in a full season. There's an advantage over the course of a season, which could have a dramatic impact on playoff chances or positioning for some teams if some teams were forced to play by rules that put them at a disadvantage over 8+ games.

I'm sorry, but I'm really confused.

"A one-on-one game is fair to both teams." Therefore, neither team is at a disadvantage in any game.
The season is a collection of one-on-one games. No more, no less. Therefore, no team is at a disadvantage over a season.
"There's an advantage over the course of a season..." What, exactly, is the advantage that you're envisioning? Because I'm not seeing it.

 

[Reality]

I'm sorry, but I'm really confused.

"A one-on-one game is fair to both teams." Therefore, neither team is at a disadvantage in any game.
The season is a collection of one-on-one games. No more, no less. Therefore, no team is at a disadvantage over a season.
"There's an advantage over the course of a season..." What, exactly, is the advantage that you're envisioning? Because I'm not seeing it.

For example, I will use the Bears and Vikings. The Bears play outdoors in a traditionally windy stadium. The Vikings play in a dome without wind. So, when the Vikings and Bears play each other in a "one-on-one" (head-to-head) game, it will be fair just as you stated. However, the Vikings will get 7 other games guaranteed in a non-windy dome plus any non-windy games they play on the road. At the same time, the Bears will play 7 more games at home against teams-not-named-Vikings where they will likely play in windy conditions. That creates a +7 game advantage for the Vikings over their divisional opponent, the Bears.

Now, from a "the Bears' opponents during those 7 other home games will play under the same conditions so that's fair" standpoint, you are right. It's fair for the Bears and each team the play against. However, when compared to the entire season between the Bears' 16-games and the Viking's 16 games, the Bears will be at a disadvantage because they will have more risks over 7 or more games than the Vikings will have over their 7 home dome games.

Overall, moving the PAT back provides no real benefit, since as you said, "it's fair to every team", so that in itself would negate any reason to do it. I have no problem with them keeping or eliminating PATs, but I think giving a seasonal advantage or disadvantage to teams for the sake of "let's make it less boring" is counterproductive. If a change is desired, it would be much better and more fair to make a change that will be impacted a more by team performance than stadium conditions.

 

[jazzcat22]

What are the stats, how did the extra point from 33 yards do, how many misses or even near misses, as Baily had one hitting the upright.
What is the % compared to the % of 2 point conversions. I bet the longer extra point was still a higher % made to the 2 point conversion. May need to use last years 2 point trys to get a better indication.

 

[Nomad]

The opponent would always have a similar weather disadvantage, both in individual games and over the course of the season. Every team that played the Bears at Soldier Field would have the same -1 along with the Bears, whether it's the Falcons in week 10 or Dolphins in week 14.

Sure average scoring will be down for teams at bad weather stadiums, but that already happens, and it's irrelevant because average Visitor scoring is lower also.

Semi-related: If anything bad weather in the home stadium is seen as an advantage, because the home team gets used to the conditions. Frozen Tundra etc.

 

[casmith07]

PAT tries and 2-Point Conversion tries should both be from the 5-yard line, period.

It makes the 2PC actually somewhat difficult to achieve - you can't just dive forward and push the pile, and it forces those little short playaction plays to have to really get behind the defense, etc.

As for the kicks, it moves them back from a 17-yarder to a 20-yarder. I think that's sufficient.

 

[MWH1967]

What are the stats, how did the extra point from 33 yards do, how many misses or even near misses, as Baily had one hitting the upright.
What is the % compared to the % of 2 point conversions. I bet the longer extra point was still a higher % made to the 2 point conversion. May need to use last years 2 point trys to get a better indication.

94% 8 misses