JimD said:The play football needs to get rid of is the onside kick. If your team scored, the other team gets the ball - period.
Dislike.
JimD said:The play football needs to get rid of is the onside kick. If your team scored, the other team gets the ball - period.
Which is why, as much as I hate TMQ, his idea is more interesting: TD's remain worth 6, 2-point conversion is required, PAT is abolished. Basically turn it into high school football.bankshot1 said:Off the top of my head, if the NFL changes PATs to a successful pass/run a 1point is awarded (8 points) or fail a 1 point is subtracted (6 points) teams would most likely just take the 7 points, and not risk losing the 1 point, and falling behind when the other team scores. This sounds more like a late game strategy. IMO the probability of success has to be very high to really make this an integral part of the entire game, and not just the 4th quarter (for example the ball is at the 1 instead of the 2). ,
This is never going to happen. Its an exciting play that's already been modified for safety and the NFL doesnt want a 10 point lead with 4 minutes left or something like that to be insurmountable. Not good for ratings.JimD said:The play football needs to get rid of is the onside kick. If your team scored, the other team gets the ball - period.
Harry Hooper said:
Use the top crossbar suggestion made by Jettisoned above and cover the rectangle made by the uprights and the two crossbars with a giant paper sheet featuring an advertiser's logo. Kicked ball breaks through the sheet = good
Add a bullseye target on the sheet for field goals. Hit the small center and get 4 points, larger center 3 points, and just barely within the rectangle is good for 2 points. All dropkicks remain at 3 points.
PaulinMyrBch said:I think we should make kickers use the opposite foot on extra points that they do on field goals. So Gost can kick FG's righty, but must attempt XP's lefty. It would not be automatic.
I'm ready to start up an youth ambidextrous kicking camp.
Why? It's one of the more exciting plays at the end of a game.JimD said:The play football needs to get rid of is the onside kick. If your team scored, the other team gets the ball - period.
SeoulSoxFan said:I favor moving the extra points and not eliminating them altogether. Make it a 35 yarder -- only 12 kickers had a 100% record kicking between 30-39 yards (http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/field-goal-percentage-30-to-39).
Dick Pole Upside said:
I like having the kicker skillset in the game.
I'd be in favor of introducing the rugby conversion (worth one point and not two).
Place the ball on the 25 or 30 (to make it a 35- or 40-yarder), but also locate the ball along the line of the field where the TD was scored. A conversion on a TD scored from a corner fade pattern would be from a more severe angle (against the sideline) relative to a dive play up the middle (directly in front of the goalposts).
I'd make it a free kick, meaning there would be no conversion "team" on the field... this would eliminate the Gronk arm injury. Just the kicker.
This would introduce a) distance, b) angle, c) coaching strategy on red zone playcalling and defense, d) player situational adjustments when approaching the end zone (i.e. how close to the middle of the field can I get before getting tackled), and e) potentially bring the weather/elements much more into play.
I bet Coach Bill would love this.
simplyeric said:or possibly the QB could kick, on a pass play, but from the spot of the pass.
PC Drunken Friar said:So you are going to punish 65 yard bombs from the QB? That's idiotic.
DrewDawg said:
Think this through...we'll wait.
southshoresoxfan said:This is all consistent with my lifelong quest to eliminate D/ST and K from fantasy football. Fuck the XP. Go for two or an auto 7 works for me
wiffleballhero said:Either move it way back (to some distance where the % really makes you calculate if you should go for 2) and/or make the post more narrow or make the player who scored the touchdown kick it. Any of those three options would add both a strategic and entertaining element to the game.
Just giving the point is only doubling down on the lameness.
Another option would be to spot the ball an inch before the goal line and give the offense one point for a running play and two for a pass -- no kicking at all -- with the spot so close that a QB sneak is almost always going to work.
Yeah those Vrabel plays used to suck, and they should have let someone else shoot free throws instead of Shaq.Infield Infidel said:Scoring player to kicking = pitchers hitting. Nothing says excitement like someone doing something they totally weren't hired to do.
It would be fun as a novelty at first, like the shootout in hockey, but would get old quickly, especially as it has a deciding effect in games.simplyeric said:Yeah those Vrabel plays used to suck, and they should have let someone else shoot free throws instead of Shaq.
I see what you're saying though.
It might be enough to say that it had to be at (or in line with) the spot of the TD (or choose spot of the pass, in my setup) but have a real kicker.
If that is still too easy, make it a drop kick.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000330411/article/nfl-might-experiment-with-making-extrapoint-attempts-longer
The NFL Competition Committee has discussed experimenting this preseason with a longer -- much longer -- extra-point try. According to one member, the committee's meetings this weekend included preliminary talks about placing the ball at the 25-yard line for the extra-point kick -- which would make it a 43-yard attempt -- rather than the 2-yard line, where it is currently placed.
Last season, kickers missed just five of 1,267 extra-point attempts, a conversion rate of 99.6 percent --so good that the extra point has become almost automatic, leading Commissioner Roger Goodell to recently suggest its demise could be imminent. A longer extra-point try would certainly make things more interesting and require significantly more strategizing. The conversion rate of field goals between 40 and 49 yards last season was 83 percent. The last time the extra-point conversation rate regularly fell below 90 percent was in the 1930s and early 1940s. That would surely give coaches something to ponder when weighing whether to kick for one point or try for two, with the success rate for two-point conversion attempts typically around 50 percent.
"There is no consensus yet," said the committee member. "We could experiment in preseason, but we are not there yet."
No matter. It seems likely that the extra point as it is currently tallied will eventually be the latest victim of the kickers' own success. It will follow in the footsteps of sudden-death overtime, which was altered first for the 2010 playoffs and then for the regular season in 2012 after years of deliberation, sparked in large part by the kickers' increasing accuracy. Owners feared aSuper Bowl might someday be decided by an overtime coin flip, with one team booting the winning field goal while the opposing squad never had a chance to touch the ball.
The NFL, of course, usually moves deliberately before enacting significant rules changes. In the meantime, kickers -- through a combination of specialization, better field conditions, the now-omnipresent kicking gurus and camps and rules changes -- are only getting better. Kickers made a higher percentage of field-goal (86.5 percent) and extra-point attempts (99.6 percent) last season than they ever had before. Perhaps even more striking is how many long field-goal attempts are being made. In 2013, 67.13 percent of all field-goal attempts of at least 50 yards were good. While the numbers fluctuate from year to year, that is a sharp rise even from 2012, when just 60.92 from long distance were good, and it is dramatically up from just 10 years ago, when kickers made just 48.38 percent from 50 yards or more.
Certainly places a premium on a good snap. Running around and heaving it 40 yards for two points is a lot harder than taking it around the right end and making a two-yard dive. Figure you fall on it at the 45 at that point.soxhop411 said:
Football probably sucked 80-90 years ago too.Spacemans Bong said:I like it, it's football, not handegg. Kicking is the oldest part of the game. But it makes the PAT about a 3 in 4 chance, which is closer to what it was 80-90 years ago.
Klostrophobic said:^yeah, but teams are dumb, as evidenced by the amount of punting still in the game, so they'd probably all still kick except in late-game situations.
Great point, and probably the reason it won't happen.Reverend said:If this goes through, it's going to make the gambling population totally insane through the introduction of a new source of randomness and volatility.
I would think so.singaporesoxfan said:I presume even under this proposal, teams that declare that they are going for two will get to start from the 2-yard line? Because otherwise this essentially gets rid of going for 2.
Jettisoned said:Eliminating the XP or moving the line completely eliminates fake XP's. I guess it doesn't matter that much because no one ever goes for 2 unless they really have to but they're still taking that aspect out of the game.
.
Certainly places a premium on a good snap. Running around and heaving it 40 yards for two points is a lot harder than taking it around the right end and making a two-yard dive. Figure you fall on it at the 45 at that point.
BigJimEd said:I would think so.
I'm for moving it back some but I think back to the 25 is probably too far. 83% success rate would affect most games. But if it is a straight on kick, the % probably wouldn't be nearly as low as FG tries from that distance. I guess it depends on how often you want the extra point to effect a game. I think I read a 97% success rate means an average of missed extra point in 1 out of 8 games.
I like the idea of narrowing the goal posts and also of moving them back another 5 yards. FG kickers are getting better and better. I'd like to see teams have to drive a little deeper before a FG is safe bet.
EP from the hash is also not a bad idea although I'm not sure about the college hashmarks.
I agree with the first point. And I think the player safety implications make the proposal DOA.Hendu for Kutch said:This creates a scenario where you have a now-potentially blockable PAT combined with absolutely no need to guard against a fake (who is going to run a fake from 25 yards out vs. a real play from 2?). At least in the case of most FGs, the defense will typically keep somebody back to guard against a fake for a first down or TD. We're going to see some balls-out 11-man PAT block attempts this year if this goes through.
Also, unlike a FG attempt, if you hit the kicker you're not giving the other team a first down. You're really not giving up much of anything, just 15 yards on the kickoff which likely turns a touchback into...a touchback. If I'm a kicker, I'm nervous because there's gonna be a lot of caution thrown to the wind.