FWIW, I'm fairly sure BB is NOT calling for the two-point play to be from the 15 or 20, only the XP, since, as he points out, it's basically a 99%+ proposition (there were just 9 misses last year on over 1,200 attempts). [Although the exact number is probably a touch lower than that, b/c aborted attempts aren't counted.]
I think there were actually 10 misses last year, not 9, although the percentage is still better than 99 percent. The year before, though, it was higher. There were 20 misses in 2009. Maybe there was more weather?
Still, to me I think that this supports the point I was trying to make rather than disproving it. That's 10 games last year and 20 the year before that were affected by a missed point, and, as you say, it's probably more since the stat doesn't include failed conversions after kicks not attempted. Ten games, to me, though very small on a percentage basis, is not negligible -- particularly given how important each win and loss is in the NFL and how important a point can be.
It's still a play that requires precision to accomplish. The fact that most teams practice it enough to make it
almost a foregone conclusion is true, but it's not a foregone conclusion. It almost is. The Cowboys lost a playoff game on a botched snap on a field goal that was actually shorter than an extra point by a yard.
Let me put is this way -- what if the proposal were, instead of moving the kick back, simply awarding 7 points for a touchdown? You could still have a two-point conversion. If you make it, you get an 8th point, but if you miss, you lose a point. I think if that were the proposal it's easier to see the point I'm trying to make -- that while the percentage is very high, it's not 100 percent.
Maybe it would indeed be a better game if the kick was moved back -- it would certainly alter the risk-reward balance for a 2 point try. But I like the game as it is. There have been enough changes recently for my tastes. 10 games a year, though a very small number, is still enough to me make it matter. It's kind of like the intentional walk in baseball. You could argue that instead the pitcher should just be able to say, "put him on base" without actually throwing 4 pitches. But, sure enough, a couple of times every season a guy throws a wild pitch or a catcher drops the ball, and it often has an effect on the game.
Belichick loves the situational risk-reward scenarios, so I can see where this would appeal to him and where it would give our team a leg up. But to me, it's good the way it is. Would it make a game where a team is down by 3 late more interesting in weather? Yes, I think so. Maybe it changes the risk-reward and clock management issues because you have to start taking into account a higher possibility that a touch down will only puts you up by a field goal instead of four points. But I'm good with the way the game is now. If nobody ever missed a field goal, I might change my mind. But sometimes they do.
