Jump to content

"The extra point rule for 2015 just changed"


Morrissey

Recommended Posts

More PAT fun...

PAT could move back even farther

Posted by Mike Florio on May 20, 2015, 9:09 AM EDT

The NFL has decided to push back the one-point extra point to the 15, converting the try from a 19-yard kick to a 32-yarder. The league’s V.P. of officiating now says that it could be pushed back even farther.

Via Bob Glauber of Newsday, the NFL will consider an additional change if the conversion rate doesn’t fall significantly below 99 percent.

During last year’s limited experiment in the preseason with the PAT snap from the 15, kickers made 94.3 percent of the extra points.

The goal is to make a meaningless, perfunctory play more meaningful. Some think there’s a better way to do it than to make it what will still be a mostly automatic field goal.

“Narrowing the uprights would make it a lot more challenging than moving the extra point,” Broncos kicker Connor Barth told Nicki Jhabvala of the Denver Post. “Most guys can hit 33-yarders in their sleep.”

(Be careful what you wish for, Barth.)

Regardless, tinkering with the extra point will place more of a premium on making shorter kicks.

“It would weed out the strong-legged kickers who aren’t accurate,” Barth said. “It would make our value go up.”

And by weeding out kickers with stronger legs who aren’t accurate, NFL teams may end up being less inclined to try longer field goals, opting instead to go for it on fourth down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

More PAT fun...

PAT could move back even farther

Posted by Mike Florio on May 20, 2015, 9:09 AM EDT

The NFL has decided to push back the one-point extra point to the 15, converting the try from a 19-yard kick to a 32-yarder. The league’s V.P. of officiating now says that it could be pushed back even farther.

Via Bob Glauber of Newsday, the NFL will consider an additional change if the conversion rate doesn’t fall significantly below 99 percent.

During last year’s limited experiment in the preseason with the PAT snap from the 15, kickers made 94.3 percent of the extra points.

The goal is to make a meaningless, perfunctory play more meaningful. Some think there’s a better way to do it than to make it what will still be a mostly automatic field goal.

“Narrowing the uprights would make it a lot more challenging than moving the extra point,” Broncos kicker Connor Barth told Nicki Jhabvala of the Denver Post. “Most guys can hit 33-yarders in their sleep.”

(Be careful what you wish for, Barth.)

Regardless, tinkering with the extra point will place more of a premium on making shorter kicks.

“It would weed out the strong-legged kickers who aren’t accurate,” Barth said. “It would make our value go up.”

And by weeding out kickers with stronger legs who aren’t accurate, NFL teams may end up being less inclined to try longer field goals, opting instead to go for it on fourth down.

 

Perfect.  Let's put even more importance into a position that does one function....swing their leg. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The chart says you go for 2 here!"

Love when announcers mindlessly parrot that line no matter how stupidly early in the game it is. Like we should ignore how much time there is left, where they're assuming no one else scores for the balance of the game. Also proudly repeating as though they're the only ones who can add a 2 to a number, that then leaves a difference of 0, 3, 7, or 10 between the 2 scores. No one else can do that.

This is why we watch. This is why we listen.

 

Lol I agree, going for two before the 4th quarter or late 3rd if the offenses are truly struggling is a poor risk decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams are going to start carrying 2 kickers and a goal line QB.

 

The NFL is so great.  Goodell has done so much good for the league. 

 

Don't forget the Tavon Austin-type who teams pitch the ball to on blocked PAT's, in an attempt to get 2 the other way.  They might as well just expand rosters to 56 and get it over with now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would make more sense if there were more ways to score points in the NFL. You can score a single point in the CFL much more easily to make up for any missed extra point. Much tougher in the NFL.

Those Canadians. They're all the same, with their beady eyes and flapping heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it wasn't designed that way.  In 1932 kickers made 67% of extra points.  Last year it was over 99%.  That's something that is broken.

And even into the sixties and seventies most teams missed once or twice a season, and it frequently affected game situations the rest of the way.  I remember John Madden saying once that it always seems that a missed extra point burns you later in the game.  He wouldn't have said that if they ALWAYS made them when he was coaching.  99% is ridiculous, the kicking game has evolved to the point where they had to do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those Canadians. They're all the same, with their beady eyes and flapping heads.

An endless supply of Canadian back bacon and the guilt of having unleashed celine dion and justin bieber on the world will do that to you.  I would think you would have just a touch more sympathy for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even into the sixties and seventies most teams missed once or twice a season, and it frequently affected game situations the rest of the way.  I remember John Madden saying once that it always seems that a missed extra point burns you later in the game.  He wouldn't have said that if they ALWAYS made them when he was coaching.  99% is ridiculous, the kicking game has evolved to the point where they had to do something.

 

They could make the hash marks like college to make the angles come into play more.  Not sure why that's not done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, and few teams come back from 15 late in the 4th anyways, so the deck is stacked heavily against you.  But putting off going for 2 just to give yourself the feeling that you still have a shot is stupid.  If you fail the 2 early, you still have a shot.  If you fail the 2 late, you pretty much have no shot.  It reduces your chances to win by waiting to go for 2. 

 

Plus, by going for 2 early, it still gives you a shot at an "element of surprise" situation, where maybe you fake a kick, whereas later on the opponent KNOWS you have to go for 2 and can gameplan for that accordingly.  Of course, with the new PAT rules, this particular part of my argument now becomes moot, which is one aspect people are complaining about in this thread.  It's so rare that a team fakes a kick on a PAT though so....meh.

 

How about the case where you're down 15 with about 6 minutes in the 4th quarter.  If you score a TD and miss the 2 then the opponent just plays super-conservative.  If you get 7 (to cut it to 8), then they have to consider throwing the ball on 3rd down (which could save you 30-45 seconds - whatever the play clock is these days).  Plus if they get in a 2nd and long situation they might also be more aggressive because they don't want to be in 3rd and long.

 

When you have the ball you can always hurry.  When your opponent has it you're somewhat powerless.  The best chance you've got to get the ball back more quickly is to keep within 1 (8 point) score. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could make the hash marks like college to make the angles come into play more. Not sure why that's not done.

Agreed.

And boy oh boy do I hate the 2 minute warning (I'm being serious).

College does have a few rules that are better. Thier OT rule is hands down better than the 'If, but, maybe, unless' rule the NFL has for OT now. The deck is so stacked against the D's it's only fair to let each team get a possession on Offense.

JMO.

I like this rule though. I think you won't see much of a difference until November when 33 and the weather isn't so much of a gimme. Though I did see on one of the sports channels today that 30-35 was still like 95% or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick thought on the 2 pt conversion. Now that the D can run it back if they cause a turnover, does that make it more likely that the team going for 2 will keep it on the ground (straight run, or QB bootleg with the primary aim of running it in and only pass if necessary)?

 

It'd seem more likely that the D will get a turnover and a return from a pass play than a run play. So I wonder if this might factor in at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the case where you're down 15 with about 6 minutes in the 4th quarter.  If you score a TD and miss the 2 then the opponent just plays super-conservative.  If you get 7 (to cut it to 8), then they have to consider throwing the ball on 3rd down (which could save you 30-45 seconds - whatever the play clock is these days).  Plus if they get in a 2nd and long situation they might also be more aggressive because they don't want to be in 3rd and long.

 

When you have the ball you can always hurry.  When your opponent has it you're somewhat powerless.  The best chance you've got to get the ball back more quickly is to keep within 1 (8 point) score. 

 

I don't think the opponent's style of play would differ much if it's a 7 point gap or an 8 point gap.  They still know it's a one possession game.  True, if you fail on the 2 and are down 9, they may play even more conservative knowing you now need 2 scores.  But I'd still rather know I need 2 scores and gameplan accordingly than push it back.  You need the 2 at some point regardless, I just see little sense in waiting. 

 

However, when it comes to coaching, there's a lot more factors going on than simple mathematics or logic.  Coaches by nature (unless they're well established) have to lean towards a conservative approach because their jobs are always on the line, seemingly every game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An endless supply of Canadian back bacon and the guilt of having unleashed celine dion and justin bieber on the world will do that to you.  I would think you would have just a touch more sympathy for us.

Serving thickly sliced ham and calling it bacon is a crime against humanity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear ....

 

The new rule will NOT change one single bit of strategy or decision.  All decisions will be made exactly like before...

 

The only thing it assures is a game or two (and that's all it'll be) will be decided by kicker error.

 

It really is the last thing the NFL needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys wouldn't know bacon if it hit you in the face.

Child please.  You say bacon and 9 1/2 out of 10 posters on this board say Crusher.  I actually really know nothing else.  Hell probably 5 threads on this site alone are Crusher love teh bacon threads.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the opponent's style of play would differ much if it's a 7 point gap or an 8 point gap. They still know it's a one possession game. True, if you fail on the 2 and are down 9, they may play even more conservative knowing you now need 2 scores. But I'd still rather know I need 2 scores and gameplan accordingly than push it back. You need the 2 at some point regardless, I just see little sense in waiting.

However, when it comes to coaching, there's a lot more factors going on than simple mathematics or logic. Coaches by nature (unless they're well established) have to lean towards a conservative approach because their jobs are always on the line, seemingly every game.

My post was not about the difference between a 7 vs 8 point gap but rather between 8 and 9 (1 score vs 2 scores).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...