PATs changed but not significantly IMO

[links18]

This gives teams an incentive to put a player back in the end zone in order to try to return any missed kicks that don't make it out of the field of play. This won't happen often, but there is no risk in trying to return any kicks that fall short, so teams will likely have a designated "missed extra-point returner" on the field for each kick.

The one thing this rule does is practically eliminate the threat of any fake kicks on the extra point: sorry Chip!

 

[Toruk_Makto]

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..

No it doesn't. Do you know how I know? Math.

Also I find it strange that you consider a play that has a 99 percent success rate less gimmicky than an offense lining up and trying to advance two yards against a defense with its ears pinned back.

If anything what was eliminated is the goofy pre kick shenanigans that occur when a chip Kelly offense lines up for the PAT.

In short I agree with everything you said only the exact opposite.

 

[Joe Realist]

This is why the Eagles have Tebow - he will be the 2 point person.

 

[DallasDomination]

Go for 2 or make the kick it's that simle. I hated the extra kick at the 19 anyways. It's a formality, nothing more.

 

[erod]

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.

This will affect those cold, windy playoff games in Green Bay, and the early-season downpours in Florida. Going for two will make sense there.

I've always thought that if a team would commit 100 percent to going for 2 every time, in the end they'd probably end up with the same points anyway. Perhaps even more if practice and gameplanning was focused on it more.

 

[erod]

This is why the Eagles have Tebow - he will be the 2 point person.

He's slow as Christmas now though.

 

[erod]

Here's why this is so significant.

Let's say Dallas goes for two and makes it, but is called for a holding penalty. Now, the right move is to kick instead, but I assume that penalty will be assessed from the 15-yard line.

Now you have a 42-yard extra point against the wind in Buffalo in December.

 

[Swanny]

Dont knwo if this is in this thread already but what if the QB does a dropkick from the 2 yd line and kicks it through the goalposts? Like that kick Doug Flutie mad years ago? Just put the kicker in at QB line up like you are going for two and do the drop kick

 

[big dog cowboy]

Let's say Dallas goes for two and makes it, but is called for a holding penalty. Now, the right move is to kick instead, but I assume that penalty will be assessed from the 15-yard line.

The same is true with an extra point and holding is called. Move the ball back 10 more yards.

Do you then try a 40+ yard extra point or go for 2 from the 12?

 

[bracey]

No it doesn't. Do you know how I know? Math.

Also I find it strange that you consider a play that has a 99 percent success rate less gimmicky than an offense lining up and trying to advance two yards against a defense with its ears pinned back.

If anything what was eliminated is the goofy pre kick shenanigans that occur when a chip Kelly offense lines up for the PAT.

In short I agree with everything you said only the exact opposite.

Before teams took an almost guaranteed 1 or gambled for 2 in certain situations. The XP conversion was about a 100% gimme and 2 pt conversion was about a 50% chance. Outside of specific game situations, it was already basically a coin flip between then. Coaches being conservative usually go for the guaranteed 1. Now the ratios are different and the XP conversion is only a 90% chance. That makes going for two the right choice almost every single time. Once coaches figure that out, games are going to be teams struggling and playing real football to get 6 points and then some gimmick play is worth a third of all that effort. So many games will be decided by team's ability for this one gimmick untimed play from the 2 yard line. That's not football.

 

[erod]

The same is true with an extra point and holding is called. Move the ball back 10 more yards.

Do you then try a 40+ yard extra point or go for 2 from the 12?

This will really make you throw up. There are discussions about rewarding 50+ field goals with four points instead of three.

So here's your scenario: Dallas is down by four with 12 seconds left on the opponents 15 yard line. So Romo tosses it back to Randle, who then sprints backwards to the 34 yard line and takes a knee so they can try for the four-pointer.

Dumb. Why reward teams for failing to drive the ball further into opponent's territory? Failing to do so results in a more difficult field goal, as it should. Why reward offensive failure?

 

[CowboyMort]

Now will be a 33 yard FG. I don't think it will that big a deal. 2-point conversions will stay at the 2. Would have been more entertaining to go to the 1 since the Dallas OL could have pushed its way through.

I think that this is an advantage for us with our current kicker.

 

[remdak]

My preference would have been to make the extra point automatic. Every TD counts 7 points. You can still try to get into the end zone from the 2 yd line, but if you don't make it, you lose 1 point and if you do make it, you gain 1 point.

 

[erod]

My preference would have been to narrow the goal posts. That alone would change the game strategically without changing any of the rules at all.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Before teams took an almost guaranteed 1 or gambled for 2 in certain situations. The XP conversion was about a 100% gimme and 2 pt conversion was about a 50% chance. Outside of specific game situations, it was already basically a coin flip between then. Coaches being conservative usually go for the guaranteed 1. Now the ratios are different and the XP conversion is only a 90% chance. That makes going for two the right choice almost every single time. Once coaches figure that out, games are going to be teams struggling and playing real football to get 6 points and then some gimmick play is worth a third of all that effort. So many games will be decided by team's ability for this one gimmick untimed play from the 2 yard line. That's not football.

You can't just say it was about a 50% chance. The actual numbers here are important. Rounding defeats the purpose.

Before the Expected value of a kick was 0.99 points. Before the expected value of going for two was 0.95 points. The clear choice unless in late game situations was to kick the ball.

32/33 yard field goals were converted over the last 10 seasons at a 91.6% clip. Over the last 3 seasons that number is 94.4%. Last year it was 96.7%

This article.. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kickers-are-forever/...talks about how kickers have gotten better at an almost linear rate and so we shouldn't be surprised that these percentages are trending in an upward direction.

What would kickers need to convert at to make a coach indifferent as to kicking the ball or going for 2? In other words what percentage of makes would bring the expected value of kicks to 0.95 points? Well 95%. As you can see we passed that mark last year.

Also when you consider that kickers will get to select where to place the ball on PATs (a luxury not always afforded to fgs where our dat comes from) its reasonable to expect that PATs will be made more frequently than equidistant field goal attempts.

Sorry your numbers are just off and oversimplified.

I expect the biggest difference in PATs vs 2 point conversions will come in bad weather. You can boot a PAT from the 2 in very bad weather. You can't necessarily make a 33 yard field goal.

 

[_sturt_]

"Narrowing the uprights would make it a lot more challenging than moving the extra point," said Connor Barth, a six-year veteran who signed with Denver last November. "Most guys can hit 33-yarders in their sleep."

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_28148509/broncos-connor-barth-not-happy-nfls-pat-change

You'd think that someone in the NFL hierarchy was smart enough to ask the KICKERS THEMSELVES... and that Connor Barth's recommendation (and I'm sure he's not alone in suggesting that an ACCURACY approach rather than a distance appraoch) would be taken seriously.

"Yeah, but if you narrow the posts, you negate FG attempts."

Not if you have dual posts.

(FG posts remain 18 ft, and I'd advocate PAT posts at about 12 ft.)

And don't laugh. Wouldn't be the first time that football goal posts have been modified in some way.

It'd look funny for about a week, and then we'd all be used to it.

 

[big dog cowboy]

This will really make you throw up. There are discussions about rewarding 50+ field goals with four points instead of three.

So here's your scenario: Dallas is down by four with 12 seconds left on the opponents 15 yard line. So Romo tosses it back to Randle, who then sprints backwards to the 34 yard line and takes a knee so they can try for the four-pointer.

Dumb. Why reward teams for failing to drive the ball further into opponent's territory? Failing to do so results in a more difficult field goal, as it should. Why reward offensive failure?

The NFL owners are not stupid enough to pass something like that. Ever. It might work in fantasy football but not in real life.

 

[erod]

"Yeah, but if you narrow the posts, you negate FG attempts."

Is that not a GREAT reason to narrow them? More teams going for it on fourth down?

This was such an easy fix, and they screwed it up.

I promise you, this was all for fantasy football.

 

[erod]

The NFL owners are not stupid enough to pass something like that. Ever. It might work in fantasy football but not in real life.

Fantasty football is the reason they're doing this.

Why do you think stats are constantly scrolled at the bottom of the screen? Why else would it be notable that Ellington has four carries for 12 yards?

FF has brought a huge number of casual fans to the NFL, and that's who they're catering to. They don't give a rip about us.

 

[_sturt_]

It is, indeed, an easy fix. And I wouldn't be totally against narrowing them, but I think you may over-estimate how many would decide to punt instead of going for it.

Adding two inner posts cures it all, with no unintended consequences period.