BB doesn't like Field Goals, Why does he like extra points?

Discussion in 'Visiting Locker Room' started by mcoope3, Nov 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mcoope3

    mcoope3 Rookie

    I am a Saints fan who is terribly frustrated by my teams lack of aggression with the weapons it has on offense. I am not going to defect or anything but I have liked the patriots more in recent years than some other top teams. I think they are a good role model. I hate the Colts. Anyway, on ESPN they were talking about how Belichick went for it twice on fourth down while up 28 points. Then they showed a clip where he said "I really don't like kicking field goals."

    Now, I just picked up Gostkowski on my fantasy team, but besides that factor, I love the sentiment. Why not go for it more?

    But the question is, why doesn't this same philosophy go for two point conversions? It's just plain inconsistent. All the same gambles are involved. Belichick also talked about 'giving them an opportunity to stop us, not just taking the points.' Well, a two point conversion attempt is like the same thing.

    I really think that it would benefit some teams to attempt two point conversions on all their early tds. They could force teams to try to match them, but those teams would be less prepared to attempt the two point conversions or defend them than a team that constantly initiates this strategy game to game. It would be great.

    I think that coaches do not do this because they know that it is more likely to cost them their job if it doesnt work than it is to help them if it improves the team. Conventional wisdom and going with the herd is a great defense argument to hold onto a job for a safe amount of time.

    So, how about it? Belichick is getting very aggressive. Why not take the next step? Even if you score just like 35 points without any kick scoring, it will be probably be a record for highest scoring without a kick. Then you can break it the next game. Vrabel could get as many 2 pointers each game as any Celtic but Pierce before the trades. It would be cool and it would destroy the conservatism that plagues many NFL offenses.
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS Supporter Supporter

    He was on the radio yesterday regarding a similar thread, i.e. that the goal posts are too wide and should be narrowed. He thinks FG's have become too easy, in reality BB likes the old time football with an emphasis on scoring td's instead of FG's.. the latter serve a purpose, but if this team drives to the ten yard line BB expects 6 points not 3. Why he does not go for 2 is not known, but stay tuned.
  3. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 Supporter Supporter

    #3 Jersey

    I think it's because, in the long run, the expectation is basically the same (~50% chance of 2, v. near 100% chance of 1). It's not the same thing at all as having first-and-goal from the 3.
  4. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 Supporter Supporter

    #3 Jersey

    You mean football around the 50s or so, then. Believe it or not, when the game first started, field goals were worth 5 points! :eek:
  5. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    A Field Goal is simply an admission that you could not score a touchdown and you need to "SETTLE" for some points out of a possession (3 points is better then zip). In our recent games, there has been alot of talk about out us not going for it on 4th and just trotting Ghost for the FG try, instead of running a play which MIGHT eventually result in a TD. That might be the mindset of SOME TEAMS, but it's not BB's.

    Think about it, why would we kick the FG in those situations.

    1) we don't need the fukcing points, the game is over so why not run plays that take MORE TIME off the clock and where there is every chance that we will get stopped, turn the ball over and it will NOT result in any points. That mindset does not change because they can't stop us.

    2) It's called respect............. Personally, I would rather have my nose rubbed in dog-shyte then to have a team CONTINUALLY settle for FG points just for the sake of "getting some points" on the board. At least by "going for it", we offer them the dignity of allowing the defense to make a FOOTBALL play and STOP US without any points put on the board. If they can't, that's on THEM not us. We're not tossing BOMB's on those plays. They are up the gut, or off tackle runs by a 4th-5th option back.

    3) Ditto for taking a knee outside of like 2-2.5 minutes left on the clock. Imagine "not going for it" and just taking continual knees on multiple possessions. How friggen humiliating and disrespectful is that. You are saying essentially "YOU SUCK, AND I'M TAKING PITY ON YOU". Again, ARROGANT and DISRESPECTFUL IMO

    Don't get me wrong, I respect the respectful tone of your post, but I think your initial premise is wrong. BB will take FG anytime he can't find a way to get it in the EZ. But coupled with that is the percetage game and field position too. So more factor go into deciding if you should go for the try or not.

    The most respectful thing to do IMO when you are up by 30 in the 3rd, is to "go vanilla", keep playing ball and running plays that keep the clock moving and out of their hands (as protection against those "fluky" comeback games). You might score some points still cuz obviously to get to that point, you are facing an inferior defense, but that is not the same as "running it up". That's basically what we did against Buffalo.

    2-pt'ers are NOT FG and are much more in the HIGH RISK/LOW REWARD category. Good chance you don't make it and get zero. the XP is a gimme so the net result is a 2 point swing. Do it if you need to, but if you don't there really in no need to. Plus the chance of INJURY goes up exponentially on a flowing play as opposed to a kick try. Simply, it's not worth the risk in most situations.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page