- Joined
- Sep 16, 2004
- Messages
- 12,442
- Reaction score
- 13,157
Interesting perspective from an old timer
Joe Gibbs suggests eliminating extra points ? and even field goals | ProFootballTalk
Gibbs solution got me thinking about the notion of making longer kicks worth more than 3 points. Yes, a 50 yarder is harder than a 40 yarder is harder than a 30 yarder etc. But getting past the degree of a difficulty concept, why should the league reward a team with a higher scoring opportunity (4 points vs 3) because that team FAILED to be able to move the ball effectively down field. Shouldn't it be the other way around.
Example: The Patriots take the lead vs the Jets 21-17 with 1 minute left in the game. The Jets receive the kickoff and need to score a 4 point FG (50 yards or more) to tie. The Jets strategy = get the ball down field but not past the NE 33 yard line. If the Jets do too good a job (highly unlikely
) and move the ball inside the 33 thereby removing the 4 point opportunity, then they cannot reap the reward of that extra point. The Jets would want to move the ball backwards to get a 4 point opportunity.
Solution: Incorporate the Gibbs proposal of rewarding teams who get the ball inside a certain yard marker (he suggests the 10 yard marker and 5 yard marker (whatever))...But instead of giving teams points for entering a higher valued zone, just make the FG worth more....with maximum points being 3.
Example: A FG snapped from inside the 10 earns 3...A FG snapped between the 10 and the 20 earns 2...And a FG snapped from outside the 20 earns 1 point
Why??: I'm glad you asked. Personally, I hate the idea that the trailing team only needs to move the ball maybe 30 yards to tie or win a game in the final seconds.....and the yardage to be gained is typically the softest yards to be gained on the field. I realize NE's trophies have been achieved thanks to their ability to earn these yards.... but lets be honest, what we are seeing over the past decade is comeback after comeback thanks to teams knowing how to gain the easy middle field yards and incredibly high FG accuracy. No question the NFL would never implement this plan because of the excitement of games turning so quickly ....and those addicted to Red Zone, like me, love the those Sundays when 5 or 6 games are going haywire around 3:55PM. Great entertainment....but.....these comebacks just don't seem that difficult, at least to me.
Conclusion: I hate the 4 point FG idea being floated because just because less is required of the offense. The Gibbs solution sparked this exercise in futility because I absolutely agree with him that earned yards come at a premium and therefore should be valued (somehow). The fact that most every team can get into FG position at the end of these games diminishes the value of those harder fought yards closer to the end zone.
That's all I got
Joe Gibbs suggests eliminating extra points ? and even field goals | ProFootballTalk
Gibbs solution got me thinking about the notion of making longer kicks worth more than 3 points. Yes, a 50 yarder is harder than a 40 yarder is harder than a 30 yarder etc. But getting past the degree of a difficulty concept, why should the league reward a team with a higher scoring opportunity (4 points vs 3) because that team FAILED to be able to move the ball effectively down field. Shouldn't it be the other way around.
Example: The Patriots take the lead vs the Jets 21-17 with 1 minute left in the game. The Jets receive the kickoff and need to score a 4 point FG (50 yards or more) to tie. The Jets strategy = get the ball down field but not past the NE 33 yard line. If the Jets do too good a job (highly unlikely
) and move the ball inside the 33 thereby removing the 4 point opportunity, then they cannot reap the reward of that extra point. The Jets would want to move the ball backwards to get a 4 point opportunity.Solution: Incorporate the Gibbs proposal of rewarding teams who get the ball inside a certain yard marker (he suggests the 10 yard marker and 5 yard marker (whatever))...But instead of giving teams points for entering a higher valued zone, just make the FG worth more....with maximum points being 3.
Example: A FG snapped from inside the 10 earns 3...A FG snapped between the 10 and the 20 earns 2...And a FG snapped from outside the 20 earns 1 point
Why??: I'm glad you asked. Personally, I hate the idea that the trailing team only needs to move the ball maybe 30 yards to tie or win a game in the final seconds.....and the yardage to be gained is typically the softest yards to be gained on the field. I realize NE's trophies have been achieved thanks to their ability to earn these yards.... but lets be honest, what we are seeing over the past decade is comeback after comeback thanks to teams knowing how to gain the easy middle field yards and incredibly high FG accuracy. No question the NFL would never implement this plan because of the excitement of games turning so quickly ....and those addicted to Red Zone, like me, love the those Sundays when 5 or 6 games are going haywire around 3:55PM. Great entertainment....but.....these comebacks just don't seem that difficult, at least to me.
Conclusion: I hate the 4 point FG idea being floated because just because less is required of the offense. The Gibbs solution sparked this exercise in futility because I absolutely agree with him that earned yards come at a premium and therefore should be valued (somehow). The fact that most every team can get into FG position at the end of these games diminishes the value of those harder fought yards closer to the end zone.
That's all I got
