Kirby Jackson Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I take it he didn't do the math 90% of 1 point = .9 probable points 47.8% of 2 points = .956 probable points It won't take the analytics people long to dig into this. This will change the face of football. An interesting comparison is the 3 point shot in the NBA. The 4 teams left are all in the top 7 in 3 pointers attempted and I believe in the bottom of mid range jump shots. I don't have all of the specifics but it amounts to points per possession analysis. Teams will adopt this philosophy in the NFL as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) It won't take the analytics people long to dig into this. This will change the face of football. An interesting comparison is the 3 point shot in the NBA. The 4 teams left are all in the top 7 in 3 pointers attempted and I believe in the bottom of mid range jump shots. I don't have all of the specifics but it amounts to points per possession analysis. Teams will adopt this philosophy in the NFL as well. The lack of 4th down attempts and other such things leaves me skeptical but we will see I don't buy a coach taking the heat on 53% failure in exchange for 2-3 points per season if they go for 2 100% of the time Edited May 20, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 They should narrow the goalposts instead of this rule change. Agreed, and widen the hashes a bit as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 It won't take the analytics people long to dig into this. This will change the face of football. An interesting comparison is the 3 point shot in the NBA. The 4 teams left are all in the top 7 in 3 pointers attempted and I believe in the bottom of mid range jump shots. I don't have all of the specifics but it amounts to points per possession analysis. Teams will adopt this philosophy in the NFL as well. I, for one, really didn't need the face of football changed. I hate games where you are "chasing the point." Now it's going to be all the time. And, I'm not really a fan of the mid range jump shot being taken out of the game. The analytics showed that you either shoot in close with a high % of making it. Or, you shoot threes and get 150% of the points you get if you shoot just a few feet closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 The lack of 4th down attempts and other such things leaves me skeptical but we will see I don't buy a coach taking the heat on 53% failure in exchange for 2-3 points per season if they go for 2 100% of the time It won't be immediate but the NFL equivalent of Dork Elvis (my guess is Chip Kelly) will start the experiment and the trickle down effect will begin. You have actually started to see some of it in college (specifically Oregon and Ohio State). There is a lot more to consider with 4th downs than an extra point. It feels like less of a risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Now when a team is driving, we'll have all this extra excitement wondering if this is going to be for 6, 7 or 8 points. I say we up the excitement quotient - once a team gets in the end zone, we spin a wheel and they get anywhere from 1 to 10 points. i guess the one good thing this will be good for is giving more of an even field in the Super Bowl squares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Why not do this? If the NFL as a whole is going to show us anything, why should it be the old extra point? Where's the entertainment value in it? What does it provide us now, other than extra time for a dopey announcer to trip over his words as he tries to describe the recent TD, but also tries to acknowledge the XP "action", at the same time?(Yes, I'm looking at you Rich Gannon) Hell, half the time they go from the highights, to the ball sailing through the uprights, and you don't even see the kick. Think of it this way: what's the Shout Song going to be like when we go for 2 and Shady/Fred/Karlos Williams gets it? Snoopy x2. We aren't doing it to tie late in the game. I bet Rex says we are doing it on the first TD of the game, and that gives us all, players and fans, momentum. Or think about the difference between going for 2 in Buffalo, vs., going for 2 in Miami?. If anything, the more teams go for 2, the bigger our home field advantage gets. We can demoralize a D by converting 2 pt trys, one after the next. Meanwhile on O, they are giving our crowd time to set up and bring the noise from the endzone, not allowing them to audible? That's home field advantage. We may very well end up winning more than a few games this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogger Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Carrington just became more valuable, no joke ! Exactly what I was thinking. I foresee more injuries this year, also a 15 yard penalty after the offense score, excessive celebration et cetera will result in a 48 yard point after TD attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 As if the 4th quarter of close games was not nerve-wracking enough...this is a good rule change, I think, for ramping up the excitement. While a 33-yd PAT is "almost" automatic, 93-94% is still much less than 99.8% or whatever the existing accuracy rate was. How many total TDs were scored in the league last year (regular season)? 32 teams times 35 (guess) = 1120. The difference in success rate for the new PAT would result in somewhere around 75 more missed tries, or roughly 4 more each week. That's significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloFan68 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Next up - they should make FGs of 60 yrds or more = 4 pts. That would make scoring really interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Does such a rule change increase the likelihood that we keep Tyrod on the roster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 i appreciate the effort, but they did it wrong. if they want teams going for 2 more often they should have moved the ball to the 1 for the conversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 i appreciate the effort, but they did it wrong. if they want teams going for 2 more often they should have moved the ball to the 1 for the conversion. I don't know if that's the case as much as taking some of the "automaticness" out of the EP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 i appreciate the effort, but they did it wrong. if they want teams going for 2 more often they should have moved the ball to the 1 for the conversion. They don't "want" more teams going for two...they wanted to eliminate a non-competitive play (the 20-yard PAT). When you look at the change from that perspective I think it's a good adjustment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) They should narrow the goalposts instead of this rule change. Actually I'd like to see both. I'm getting tired of teams kicking field goals every time they cross the 50. Edited May 20, 2015 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 It occurs to me, I'm not sure if I've ever seen a fake PAT... was that against the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Why is everyone saying it is a 33 yard attempt? I thought you added 10 for the endzone and 7 for the spot, making it 17+ 15=32 yard attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 Why is everyone saying it is a 33 yard attempt? I thought you added 10 for the endzone and 7 for the spot, making it 17+ 15=32 yard attempt.i think it is 11 instead of 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Greg Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 NFL Radio just had Giants kicker on talking with Polian. Bill said this -in effect, means PKs will kick an additional 55 33yrd FGs a year. The PKer said he'd been contemplating this and realizing his mid week schedule will have to be dramatically altered to assure fatigue doesn't become an issue. Interesting discussion. You have got to be kidding me. Kickers need to alter their schedule in the middle of the week so they don't get "too fatigued" on a Sunday because they may have to kick the ball from the 15 instead of the 3? Wow. I knew kickers were soft, but that is extraordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) I take it he didn't do the math 90% of 1 point = .9 probable points 47.8% of 2 points = .956 probable points That just shows that the higher risk has a higher reward. It doesn't change the fact that it's still a near certainty that you will get a point kicking and it's still more likely than not that you will fail to convert a 2 pointer. Not much has changed. 2 pointer didn't get easier and 1 point got insignifcantly less easy. The difference still favors the kick, unless disaster has befallen their kicker. Edited May 20, 2015 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts