have to make the XP kick even more challenging than just 33 yards.
It still seems to me to be the far safer bet than going for 2 at the 1 yard line. In the end, coaches are probably still going to gravitate to the kick 90% of the time.
...is that there's no way to spring a two-point conversion by surprise. Now it'll be whatever you line up for. Although it's true that the 2-point conversion is underused, I like having the option of going either route from one set.
I would really just rather make FGs more difficult
A TD is so much more impressive - and difficult - a task than hitting a FG. It should be worth more than 2:1 -- which is what's going to happen now with conversions failing more often while FGs are still just as easy
A TD is so much more impressive - and difficult - a task than hitting a FG. It should be worth more than 2:1 -- which is what's going to happen now with conversions failing more often while FGs are still just as easy
One doesn't preclude the other. In principle, 'pro-forma' exercises at that level of sports seem like anachronisms.
and actually has an impact counter to its intent. A kick of that length is still considered somewhat of a chip shot by pro standards, especially when set up in the middle of the field, as a PAT would be. This still leaves a PAT significantly the wiser choice from a success rate perspective. However, it makes a 2-pt conversion significantly harder for 2 reasons:
1) If you elect for a 2-pt conversion, you are basically announcing your intent, as there is no longer the option to kick from the spot where the ball will be lined up
2) If you elect to go for 2 as a surprise from the spot of the PAT, you have drastically decreased your chances of succeeding.
I don't see this significantly increasing the number of 2 point conversions or significantly decreasing the number of PAT.
I don't see this significantly increasing the number of 2 point conversions or significantly decreasing the number of PAT. [/quote]
Basically agree with this. It's not significant enough to change anything. It looks like they're just really reluctant for a drastic change. I would expect another change next year.
and actually has an impact counter to its intent. A kick of that length is still considered somewhat of a chip shot by pro standards, especially when set up in the middle of the field, as a PAT would be. This still leaves a PAT significantly the wiser choice from a success rate perspective. However, it makes a 2-pt conversion significantly harder for 2 reasons:
1) If you elect for a 2-pt conversion, you are basically announcing your intent, as there is no longer the option to kick from the spot where the ball will be lined up
2) If you elect to go for 2 as a surprise from the spot of the PAT, you have drastically decreased your chances of succeeding.
I don't see this significantly increasing the number of 2 point conversions or significantly decreasing the number of PAT.
That's the argument everyone keeps using, but how often did teams fake the PAT and go for 2? Even giving the offense a boost due to the "surprise" nature, the odds of scoring two with your kicking unit out there is probably less than with your actual offensive players. Especially if a QB isn't your primary holder.
And the expected points from going for 2 is now slightly higher than going for the PAT so I'd expect to see a significant increase in 2 pt attempts. The Eagles will likely be at the forefront since: 1) Kelly isn't scared to break from convention, and 2) their K missed 2 from that range last season.
If they line up for a kick and have enough time on the clock (which I know would be difficult), could they rush up to the 2 yard line to go for the 2 point conversion?
If yes, couldn't they still catch the defense by surprise and/or force a timeout call from the defending team?
If no, then disregard, I was never here.
they should have made it a 50 yarder if you really want
and actually has an impact counter to its intent. A kick of that length is still considered somewhat of a chip shot by pro standards, especially when set up in the middle of the field, as a PAT would be. This still leaves a PAT significantly the wiser choice from a success rate perspective. However, it makes a 2-pt conversion significantly harder for 2 reasons:
1) If you elect for a 2-pt conversion, you are basically announcing your intent, as there is no longer the option to kick from the spot where the ball will be lined up
2) If you elect to go for 2 as a surprise from the spot of the PAT, you have drastically decreased your chances of succeeding.
I don't see this significantly increasing the number of 2 point conversions or significantly decreasing the number of PAT.
I hate the rule, that said I really don't think that a high percentage of 2pt conversions come from the kicking formation.
if this is a trial "let's do it for a year and see how it goes" kind of thing, then how will they measure success? What is the metric that will tell them whether the play is now more or sufficiently meaningful or exciting? Number of 2-pt attempts? Number of missed kicks? Number of tweets or clips on ESPN?
It's not necessarily about increasing/decreasing PATs or 2pt-ers
It's about ensuring that there isn't a wasted (aka "non-competitive") play occurring. Even if the ratio doesn't change of PATs to 2pt-ers, at least all plays now have a certain level of competitiveness.
Compared to PATs which were 99%+, Only 92.8% of 33 yarders or less were converted, the article said. That means one in about 13 or 14 tries will be missed. That's pretty significant.
RE: It's not necessarily about increasing/decreasing PATs or 2pt-ers
It's about ensuring that there isn't a wasted (aka "non-competitive") play occurring. Even if the ratio doesn't change of PATs to 2pt-ers, at least all plays now have a certain level of competitiveness.
Compared to PATs which were 99%+, Only 92.8% of 33 yarders or less were converted, the article said. That means one in about 13 or 14 tries will be missed. That's pretty significant.
I'm not sure I would call 93% probability of success "competitive". But there's no doubt the new rule would be closer to competitive than the old way. Is it close enough? Again, what is the goal or standard? I can come much closer to dunking a basketball than my 14-yr-old daughter can, but I still can't dunk.
So I finally pulled the trigger and registered an account with Big Blue after years of reading all your posts. My brother has been a member for a long time and I'm excited to be involved! ANYWAY, does anybody remember Doug Flutie's last game? When he DROP KICKED an extra point? My question is whether or not that would still be possible from the two yard line lined up for what seems to be a 2pt play to make it easier? Not saying Eli is the guy for this job but could be possible with the kicker taking the snap. I still think it's a good rule change to make it more interesting but having this other option could be viable
It still seems to me to be the far safer bet than going for 2 at the 1 yard line. In the end, coaches are probably still going to gravitate to the kick 90% of the time.
A TD is so much more impressive - and difficult - a task than hitting a FG. It should be worth more than 2:1 -- which is what's going to happen now with conversions failing more often while FGs are still just as easy
Absolutely right -- meant ""underscores" -- not all synapses firing properly yet :)
A TD is so much more impressive - and difficult - a task than hitting a FG. It should be worth more than 2:1 -- which is what's going to happen now with conversions failing more often while FGs are still just as easy
One doesn't preclude the other. In principle, 'pro-forma' exercises at that level of sports seem like anachronisms.
I think that's enough to make coaches actually think and also make it not automatic, actually requiring technique and exectuion.
The best kickers are still going to make that look easy, and lesser kickers will sweat.
I think that's enough to make coaches actually think and also make it not automatic, actually requiring technique and exectuion.
The best kickers are still going to make that look easy, and lesser kickers will sweat.
That's basically Brown's point. Said another way, the top kickers should get paid more now. :)
1) If you elect for a 2-pt conversion, you are basically announcing your intent, as there is no longer the option to kick from the spot where the ball will be lined up
2) If you elect to go for 2 as a surprise from the spot of the PAT, you have drastically decreased your chances of succeeding.
I don't see this significantly increasing the number of 2 point conversions or significantly decreasing the number of PAT.
I don't see this significantly increasing the number of 2 point conversions or significantly decreasing the number of PAT. [/quote]
Basically agree with this. It's not significant enough to change anything. It looks like they're just really reluctant for a drastic change. I would expect another change next year.
Quote:
means what you think it does..:)
Absolutely right -- meant ""underscores" -- not all synapses firing properly yet :)
:)
1) If you elect for a 2-pt conversion, you are basically announcing your intent, as there is no longer the option to kick from the spot where the ball will be lined up
2) If you elect to go for 2 as a surprise from the spot of the PAT, you have drastically decreased your chances of succeeding.
I don't see this significantly increasing the number of 2 point conversions or significantly decreasing the number of PAT.
That's the argument everyone keeps using, but how often did teams fake the PAT and go for 2? Even giving the offense a boost due to the "surprise" nature, the odds of scoring two with your kicking unit out there is probably less than with your actual offensive players. Especially if a QB isn't your primary holder.
And the expected points from going for 2 is now slightly higher than going for the PAT so I'd expect to see a significant increase in 2 pt attempts. The Eagles will likely be at the forefront since: 1) Kelly isn't scared to break from convention, and 2) their K missed 2 from that range last season.
If yes, couldn't they still catch the defense by surprise and/or force a timeout call from the defending team?
If no, then disregard, I was never here.
1) If you elect for a 2-pt conversion, you are basically announcing your intent, as there is no longer the option to kick from the spot where the ball will be lined up
2) If you elect to go for 2 as a surprise from the spot of the PAT, you have drastically decreased your chances of succeeding.
I don't see this significantly increasing the number of 2 point conversions or significantly decreasing the number of PAT.
I hate the rule, that said I really don't think that a high percentage of 2pt conversions come from the kicking formation.
I want Weatherford to try it just to see blood run from TC's ears.
Compared to PATs which were 99%+, Only 92.8% of 33 yarders or less were converted, the article said. That means one in about 13 or 14 tries will be missed. That's pretty significant.
Compared to PATs which were 99%+, Only 92.8% of 33 yarders or less were converted, the article said. That means one in about 13 or 14 tries will be missed. That's pretty significant.
I'm not sure I would call 93% probability of success "competitive". But there's no doubt the new rule would be closer to competitive than the old way. Is it close enough? Again, what is the goal or standard? I can come much closer to dunking a basketball than my 14-yr-old daughter can, but I still can't dunk.