43 yard XP? Competition committee is discussing it.

[ctpatsfan77]

Wouldn't this mean fewer 2 pt conversion attempts, since you'd have one play to score from 25 yards out?

There would be no change for the 2-point play.

 

[BradyManny]

I understand the sentiment, but assuming teams are still going for the PAT as the go to after TD method, you're likely to see more situations where the deficit at the end of the game is 5 or 6 points instead of 7. So yes, a 7 point deficit would require a Tom Brady comeback drive AND a Gost 43 yarder, but the go ahead touchdown prior to that would have required the same from the other team. It's equal.

Right - it's certainly not an unfair rule suggestion, and you are right that the prior team would've had to earn that point. And maybe there are going to be less 7 pt leads, and less comebacks banking on a 43 yarder to seal the deal. But it still will happen.

But why bother? Why are we going out of our way to make the kicking game a more prominent part of the game? It's already very prominent and decides many games at it is. I don't think there's any reason to change the XP from being the perfunctory add on that it is.

Football is a beautiful game with a lot of strategy and 22 men all doing intricate individual tasks, with one side trying to move teams down field and put up points. It seems like we'd be over-emphasizing the kicking game if we were to take the XP and turn it into something that fails 20% of the time.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There would be no change for the 2-point play.

That's a pretty dumb, cobbled together solution though. There's a point to the PAT always occurring from the same place. Changing the LOS based on what you want to do for the PAT is nonsense.

 

[Sicilian]

That's a pretty dumb, cobbled together solution though. There's a point to the PAT always occurring from the same place. Changing the LOS based on what you want to do for the PAT is nonsense.

How so? You declare your intention and the ball is placed at the required spot depending on the play. From that point on you can't change your mind, so if there's a penalty of something that knocks the LOS back 5 yards, you still have to follow through with your original intention.

The only thing it affects is fakes, and I can't remember the last time I saw one.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I'd rather they just do away with the extra point ..... but keep the option to go for two if desired.

 

[TonyTucker]

They should also add these rules:

1 An extra point attempt from 60 yards counts for 5 points
2 2 PT conversion is 4 points if the QB uses his other hand to throw a TD
3 Make a 50 yard FG blindfolded, and it's 12 points
4 Each team gets one mulligan per game for a botched play (fumble, INT)
5 The clock works like in Soccer, so you have no clue when the game ends

 

[Froob]

horrible idea why would you want missed extra points deciding games? would decrease amount of OT games and tied games at end of regulation. xp are fine as they are.

 

[Sicilian]

horrible idea why would you want missed extra points deciding games? would decrease amount of OT games and tied games at end of regulation. xp are fine as they are.

Um, and.....?

 

[dales804]

I think the XP should either be made harder (i.e. longer distance) or just given automatically. Kicking a 19-yard XP after each TD is mostly just a waste of time.

And I wonder what this change could do to betting.

 

[Joker]

I got it!!!!

we'll make the extra point a Frisbee toss!!! Yeah...and the opposing team gets to have one of those trained jumping dogs to defend the upright...the kicker...er..thrower...tosses the Friosbee and the assigned roster spot dog handler let's Fido go and jump up trying to catch the disc!!! UNREAL EXCITEMENT!!! TREMENDOUS CHANGE!!!

just what is needed....then we can look into tee shirt cannons launching nerf footballs on kickoffs...YAY!!!

 

[VJCPatriot]

Agreed on all points. I think making the extra point a 43 yard attempt actually adds some excitement to it. Because there's a real possibility of a miss. Those kickers will have to earn their money!! I think it's a fun and interesting idea. Because at that distance, misses will happen. And that one point could determine a ballgame!!

Well thinking of that, kickers probably hate the idea. That's just one more way they could get fired. Imagine your team scores what looks like the tying touchdown with 30 seconds left to go in the game BUT... the kicker misses the extra point??!!! Bedlam!! Heads will roll!!

I'm okay with it. It feels a little weird to have a 43 yard kick be worth 1 point where a potentially shorter kick can be worth 3, but as it's an EXTRA point by definition, I can get over it. As BB said, when the PAT was put into the game it wasn't considered the 99.6% automatic play that it is today. It was meant to be earned, and that's what this would do.

As for the distance, I think it's important to make it so that the percentage of made PAT's is more than double the percentage of successful 2-pt conversions. If it's less than that, the mathematically better play over the long term becomes the 2-pt, and I prefer to keep that as a strategic/desperation option, not the norm.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Agreed on all points. I think making the extra point a 43 yard attempt actually adds some excitement to it. Because there's a real possibility of a miss. Those kickers will have to earn their money!! I think it's a fun and interesting idea. Because at that distance, misses will happen. And that one point could determine a ballgame!!

Well thinking of that, kickers probably hate the idea. That's just one more way they could get fired. Imagine your team scores what looks like the tying touchdown with 30 seconds left to go in the game BUT... the kicker misses the extra point??!!! Bedlam!! Heads will roll!!

I don't think that it would lead to increased kicker turnover. Certainly not in midseason. OTOH, it might hasten the demise of the old guard of kickers (i.e., everyone older than the Ghost).

 

[1960Pats]

What are they fixing with this idiotic move and whose idea was it?

The popularity of the NFL is at an all-time high. They're talking about raising the salary cap by close to 400 million, so you know the owners are making much more than that.

These are the members.

Rich McKay Atlanta Falcons Chairman
Jeff Fisher St. Louis Rams
Stephen Jones Dallas Cowboys
Marvin Lewis Cincinnati Bengals
John Mara New York Giants
Mark Murphy Green Bay Packers
Ozzie Newsome Baltimore Ravens
Rick Smith Houston Texans
Mike Tomlin Pittsburgh Steelers

And this is the subcommittee of the Competition committee;

John Madden Chairman
Tom Coughlin New York Giants
Leslie Frazier Minnesota Vikings
John Harbaugh Baltimore Ravens
Joe Philbin Miami Dolphins
Andy Reid Kansas City Chiefs
Ron Rivera Carolina Panthers
Mike Smith Atlanta Falcons

There's too many people involved.

 

[Kontradiction]

It's an awful idea. If they want to make it more exciting, just make the offense have to punch it in for a two point conversion. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with the way things are right now.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

According to pro-football-reference.com, the conversion rate for XPs has been about 99%+ since 1999 or so.

About the only way it makes sense to keep a play like that is to go way, way back with the rules and add this rule, which actually was once a rule (back in the days before forward passes were legal, IIRC):

If you attempt an XP and miss it, you lose the points for the touchdown.

 

[moosekill]

Extra points are boring and with a 99% success rate are a given. Why keep that in the game? Either go to the 25 or get rid of it all together and just give 7 points or the possibility of 8 points if you get the conversion.

Also, the percentages being bandied about are league wide. Each team would look at it for their own team. If you have a great kicker, your team's percentage for kicks might be 85%, but if your offense sucks your 2 point conversion average might be 35%. Of course if you are playing against a team with a crappy defense you might figure a 60% chance of success.

It adds a lot more thought into the game, but it does minimize the time to go take a leak and grab a beer from the fridge, so.........

 

[1960Pats]

It's an awful idea. If they want to make it more exciting, just make the offense have to punch it in for a two point conversion. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with the way things are right now.

Yours is the best idea. If making the kick is too easy, then make them punch it in. THAT would be exciting.

 

[dales804]

This is the best idea. If making the kick is too easy, then make them punch it in. THAT would be exciting.

I know I'd rather see a game decided by whether a defense held up (or not) versus whether a kicker boots a long extra point.

 

[chasa]

id rather teams have a choice of how far back they kick it, and depending on the distance it could be worth more then 1 point

 

[SB39]

I doubt they will ever change this rule. A lot of people don't think it needs changing but among those who do, they don't have any replacement system with any amount of legit support. The people who want a change have too many competing ideas regarding what to change it to.