Why have field goals become so devalued?

It’s the perception. People always point to it going wrong but rarely acknowledge when it goes right. Also when you go for it down on goal line if you don’t get it your opponent is pinned deep which like 50 percent of the time results in an auto 3/ red zone trip. Teams should always go for it there unless the 3 is very meaningful late or expecting a very low scoring game.

So the Colts realized that they would need to put up a significant number of points to try and win. I can understand that.

If Colts were playing - say the Steelers - they probably kick the FG in that situation.

stats are one tool to help make a decision, they do not make the decision for you. If the stats show going for a 4th and goal from the 5 has a 55% chance of being the correct move (for example), it doesn't mean you just do it. You also need to look at your personnel and its strengths/weaknesses, your opponents strengths/weaknesses, the game situation, etc. You can not convince me that the Jets making a 4th and 5 vs the Rams D is the same chance % wise as the Chiefs vs the Cowboys D. However I think some, such as the idiot Pederson in Philly, just blindly go by the percentages.

Analytics, and I've studied them a lot, have their place. However they are a tool like anything else. People who don't get math think they make the decision for you and they don't. If you don't understand the underlying factors you can be lead into bad decisions

should take the points. It does put pressure on the other team.
IMHO

With the way offenses move down the field so quickly these days, you'll get enough opportunities to score again.

In comment 15116982 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

stats are one tool to help make a decision, they do not make the decision for you. If the stats show going for a 4th and goal from the 5 has a 55% chance of being the correct move (for example), it doesn't mean you just do it. You also need to look at your personnel and its strengths/weaknesses, your opponents strengths/weaknesses, the game situation, etc. You can not convince me that the Jets making a 4th and 5 vs the Rams D is the same chance % wise as the Chiefs vs the Cowboys D. However I think some, such as the idiot Pederson in Philly, just blindly go by the percentages. Analytics, and I've studied them a lot, have their place. However they are a tool like anything else. People who don't get math think they make the decision for you and they don't. If you don't understand the underlying factors you can be lead into bad decisions

I agree, but to nitpick a little, the Jets DID beat the Rams. Somehow.

But i've watched the giants struggle in the redzone the past few years. You just don't win with FG's. Of course each situation is different, i'm not saying don't kick lol...4th and < 3 yards in the right place of the field makes sense to me to go. It's why i didnt mind going for it with Colt Mccoy....we need points to win that game...and you don't know how many shots you'll get.

Rule Changes

Since the late 70's, most rule changes have benefited the offensive side. The percentages of going for it on 4th down were much lower, so it didn't make sense to do so. With the decline of defense because of the rule changes, field position is much less important as a factor in winning games.

Misunderstanding Analytics

Analytics are a tool, but should not be the only consideration. I think analytics are being misused in play calling by many teams.

Not every team is the same, nor is every QB as likely to make a 4th down pass. For a team like the Giants, (or Philly this year) it does not make sense to go for it constantly on 4th down. For a Green Bay or KC, since they have superior offenses, it DOES make more sense to go for it more often.

To go by "League Averages" only when making play calling decisions is a good way to lose games. Head Coaches/OC's need to factor in the talent when they make play calls. You can make the perfect play call on 4th down, but if you're throwing to Engram instead of Kelce...well, good luck with that!

One way to increase the value of field goals is to increase the value of a FG to 4 points, which would make a huge impact in analytics. That won't happen, though, because Touchdowns are more attractive for TV ratings.

The players didn't execute - Pittman has to catch that ball.

An area where I think some teams can improve is with their goal to go play selection and design. Generally, it's probably better to pass out of bunched up 3 TE sets and to run out of spread out 3-4 WR sets. Indy didn't really do that that I can recall. I also thought they should have used Brissett more in that area. A mobile QB is a huge advantage in goal to go situations.

Sean. I remember watching games with my Dad back in the day and he’d be so upset whenever teams would pass on field goals. Get the points when you have the opportunity. I knew that FG would come back to haunt the Colts yesterday. Not to mention the dumb decision to go for two in the second half that would have made it a 6 point game vs a 7 point game if converted. Instead they walked away down 8 and had to go for 2 again later to tie.

In comment 15116982 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

stats are one tool to help make a decision, they do not make the decision for you. If the stats show going for a 4th and goal from the 5 has a 55% chance of being the correct move (for example), it doesn't mean you just do it. You also need to look at your personnel and its strengths/weaknesses, your opponents strengths/weaknesses, the game situation, etc. You can not convince me that the Jets making a 4th and 5 vs the Rams D is the same chance % wise as the Chiefs vs the Cowboys D. However I think some, such as the idiot Pederson in Philly, just blindly go by the percentages. Analytics, and I've studied them a lot, have their place. However they are a tool like anything else. People who don't get math think they make the decision for you and they don't. If you don't understand the underlying factors you can be lead into bad decisions

But the analytics only work if you follow them all the time no? For example going for 2. The analytics say going for 2 every time benefits you in the long run. If you go for it every time and make say 55,% you come out ahead.

What bugs me is the coaches who sometimes use the analytics and use them as an recuse when they fall. Either be all in our so using it as an recuse when you fall.

When you need 30+ points to win a game settling for a field goal is less attractive than when you only needed 20+ points to win.

And say, see a field goal there changes it. Colts score a TD there it changes the whole trajectory of the game. Instead, they missed and Buffalo scores a TD.

The Colts made too many mistakes yesterday. They should have gotten blown out, they were lucky the score was as close as it was.

I think a lot of times coaches fall into the opposite category, kicking FGs when they should be trying for TDs. You only get a finite number of possessions and if your offense isn't tops in the league and you are going against a high powered offense, you really need to maximize your possessions.

In comment 15117161 Milton said:

Quote:

When you need 30+ points to win a game settling for a field goal is less attractive than when you only needed 20+ points to win.

This sums it up nicely.

In comment 15116982 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

stats are one tool to help make a decision, they do not make the decision for you. If the stats show going for a 4th and goal from the 5 has a 55% chance of being the correct move (for example), it doesn't mean you just do it. You also need to look at your personnel and its strengths/weaknesses, your opponents strengths/weaknesses, the game situation, etc. You can not convince me that the Jets making a 4th and 5 vs the Rams D is the same chance % wise as the Chiefs vs the Cowboys D. However I think some, such as the idiot Pederson in Philly, just blindly go by the percentages. Analytics, and I've studied them a lot, have their place. However they are a tool like anything else. People who don't get math think they make the decision for you and they don't. If you don't understand the underlying factors you can be lead into bad decisions

Love it or hate it, this is where sports are now. Not only football but all sports. Baseball is probably more extreme than even football. The issue is, as analytics grow, the analytics departments grow and their power and influence grows. The analytics guys are a part of the front office and have more power than most may think. When a coach makes a decision that defies the analytics, they have to answer to that afterwards, particularly if it doesn’t work out. And I think we all know by now that analytics guys don’t like it when their data is questioned. Essentially, whether they agree with decisions or not it’s just easier for coaches to play along. Or suffer the consequences

In comment 15117300 BigBlueShock said:

Quote:

In comment 15116982 PatersonPlank said: Quote: stats are one tool to help make a decision, they do not make the decision for you. If the stats show going for a 4th and goal from the 5 has a 55% chance of being the correct move (for example), it doesn't mean you just do it. You also need to look at your personnel and its strengths/weaknesses, your opponents strengths/weaknesses, the game situation, etc. You can not convince me that the Jets making a 4th and 5 vs the Rams D is the same chance % wise as the Chiefs vs the Cowboys D. However I think some, such as the idiot Pederson in Philly, just blindly go by the percentages. Analytics, and I've studied them a lot, have their place. However they are a tool like anything else. People who don't get math think they make the decision for you and they don't. If you don't understand the underlying factors you can be lead into bad decisions Love it or hate it, this is where sports are now. Not only football but all sports. Baseball is probably more extreme than even football. The issue is, as analytics grow, the analytics departments grow and their power and influence grows. The analytics guys are a part of the front office and have more power than most may think. When a coach makes a decision that defies the analytics, they have to answer to that afterwards, particularly if it doesn’t work out. And I think we all know by now that analytics guys don’t like it when their data is questioned. Essentially, whether they agree with decisions or not it’s just easier for coaches to play along. Or suffer the consequences

Well this type of stuff makes sense to help the humans make the decisions. Baseball should pretty much be purely analytics, the variables are minimal. What I take issue with the analytics people I is trying to shoehorn into every fashion of game in football. When you tell them coaches react it’s speculation. Well if you know anything about football coaches are not going to let teams just gash them on ground because it’s easy and pretty much risk free. Where as if you at least force teams to throw the other team can fail on execution. Of course that’s labeled as “speculation”

In comment 15117315 Zeke's Alibi said:

Quote:

In comment 15117300 BigBlueShock said: Quote: In comment 15116982 PatersonPlank said: Quote: stats are one tool to help make a decision, they do not make the decision for you. If the stats show going for a 4th and goal from the 5 has a 55% chance of being the correct move (for example), it doesn't mean you just do it. You also need to look at your personnel and its strengths/weaknesses, your opponents strengths/weaknesses, the game situation, etc. You can not convince me that the Jets making a 4th and 5 vs the Rams D is the same chance % wise as the Chiefs vs the Cowboys D. However I think some, such as the idiot Pederson in Philly, just blindly go by the percentages. Analytics, and I've studied them a lot, have their place. However they are a tool like anything else. People who don't get math think they make the decision for you and they don't. If you don't understand the underlying factors you can be lead into bad decisions Love it or hate it, this is where sports are now. Not only football but all sports. Baseball is probably more extreme than even football. The issue is, as analytics grow, the analytics departments grow and their power and influence grows. The analytics guys are a part of the front office and have more power than most may think. When a coach makes a decision that defies the analytics, they have to answer to that afterwards, particularly if it doesn’t work out. And I think we all know by now that analytics guys don’t like it when their data is questioned. Essentially, whether they agree with decisions or not it’s just easier for coaches to play along. Or suffer the consequences Well this type of stuff makes sense to help the humans make the decisions. Baseball should pretty much be purely analytics, the variables are minimal. What I take issue with the analytics people I is trying to shoehorn into every fashion of game in football. When you tell them coaches react it’s speculation. Well if you know anything about football coaches are not going to let teams just gash them on ground because it’s easy and pretty much risk free. Where as if you at least force teams to throw the other team can fail on execution. Of course that’s labeled as “speculation”

Coaches will for sure let teams run the ball. Look at the Giants this year. Opposing defenses sat back in coverage all year and let the Giants run the ball as much as they wanted because they knew if they locked down the pass eventually, the Giants would get caught in a down and distance they couldn't convert throwing.

A lot of coaches nowadays do not care about giving up rushing yardage if they can sit back and play pass defense and limit the big play.

In comment 15117065 eric2425ny said:

Quote:

Sean. I remember watching games with my Dad back in the day and he’d be so upset whenever teams would pass on field goals. Get the points when you have the opportunity. I knew that FG would come back to haunt the Colts yesterday. Not to mention the dumb decision to go for two in the second half that would have made it a 6 point game vs a 7 point game if converted. Instead they walked away down 8 and had to go for 2 again later to tie.

Winning the game is preeminent and converting for two would have put his team in a position to win while failing to convert, while lessening their chances, wouldn't have eliminated them. I applaud his decision.

Quote:

One way to increase the value of field goals is to increase the value of a FG to 4 points, which would make a huge impact in analytics. That won't happen, though, because Touchdowns are more attractive for TV ratings.

I'd like to see them decrease the value of the FG to, like, 2 points. Back in the day a good FG kicker might make 60% of them and a 50 yarder was more something you did as a desperation move. Now FG kickers make over 90% of them and a 50 yarder isn't a tough attempt.

I'd rather see the teams play for touchdowns than move the ball 35 yards and to get 3 points.

In comment 15118227 Gman11 said:

Quote:

Quote: One way to increase the value of field goals is to increase the value of a FG to 4 points, which would make a huge impact in analytics. That won't happen, though, because Touchdowns are more attractive for TV ratings. I'd like to see them decrease the value of the FG to, like, 2 points. Back in the day a good FG kicker might make 60% of them and a 50 yarder was more something you did as a desperation move. Now FG kickers make over 90% of them and a 50 yarder isn't a tough attempt. I'd rather see the teams play for touchdowns than move the ball 35 yards and to get 3 points.

2019 had the worst FG % since 2003. FG kickers have been making between 80-85% of their conversions since the 90's.

Not sure why making a FG 2 points would even be a discussion.