just leave it alone.the game is great just as it is. better yet make them kick the extra point after an o.t. touchdown.i've been burned a few times on the over because of that point
I know. Honestly, I feel like I am 'overarguing' something that I am pretty neutral on to begin with. I am by no means saying that I WANT the NFL to get rid of PATs. I just feel that there ARE ways that the PAT could be eliminated or changed that MIGHT make things just a bit more interesting without hurting the competitive nature of football. I don't deny that possibility. I think that BB is right to some extent in saying that, philosophically speaking, the PAT doesn't belong because: a)It is a fairly non-competitive play in a competitive sport. b)The NFL exists solely for our entertainment. PATs are not entertaining. I also think that the opposition to the idea would be mostly due to traditional sentiment. While this has its place, people inevitably would get over it and perhaps even decide it was the right decision in retrospect.
I again revert to my original post on the first page of this thread Again, gutsy 2 pt conversion calls and strategy are no more. You dont enjoy those? The ease, or basically "free point" as Bellichick says of the PAT is what makes it harder for coaches to justify going for the 2 pointer ALL THE TIME. In the same sense that sometimes you have to just go for the FG instead of the TD because its easier and "guranteed" points on the board that add up at the end and all together make a difference. EDIT:Basically what im trying to get across is that if you look at the PAT segragated from the rest of the game like you are doing, then yes it is very boring and minute. But the scenarios and strategies that come from its existance are very exciting and a very integral part of the game. EDIT:And im saying this in response to the idea of making the PAT harder, which wouldnt be as bad as etting rid of it, but it would still close the gap and make it alot easier decison to just go for the 2 PT conversion, unless they made that equally harder.
I just don't believe that you NEED one dull, boring scenario to make another scenario exciting by contrast. You could move the kickoff back, which would make the PAT more exciting, and would still leave room for another exciting possibility - the 2 point conversion. If you think that would result in teams always choosing the 2-pt option then I don't necessarily agree. It is just a matter of playing with the numbers to make sure that the PAT is still statistically the better option of the two. 2-pt conversion would be used sparingly in (exciting) situations where they are necessary (e.g. down by 2 late) or where one point wouldn't help (e.g. up by one point late)... basically the same way that they are used now.
we should let kickers run and kick the ball for field goals like on kick offs, would be kinda cool to see guys nail 70-80 yarders.
Belichick loves kickoffs in the game of football, his comments were him saying that he doesn't agree with the new rule because it takes what he thinks was one of the most exciting plays in football and turns it into a touchback a majority of the time. Awhile back they actually moved the kickoff BACK to promote more offense and returns, but now they are going in the other direction and basically removing it from the game. For the PAT, im pretty neutral on that as I don't really think it matters. It would be interesting to see the field goal moved back if you chose to go for the kick, but you could leave the 2 point conversion in the same place its in now. You could also do away with the PAT but still have a 2 pt conversion... You just give the team the option of making the touchdown worth 7 points, or 6 points with the chance to go for 2. It wouldn't change the 2 pt conversion in any way or remove it from the game. Ultimately it doesn't really matter, the main point he was trying to make in that interview on WEEI is that kickoffs are exciting and good for the game of football and this new rule is making it virtually a "non-play" as he describes it, much the same as PATs are. I don't think he is beating his drum and demanding that PAT's be removed from the game, he was merely using it as an example of what the kickoff is likely to become when teams are booting it from its current location.. Granted, I would argue with Belichick that there is still room for error on a kickoff.. The harder a kicker tries to boot the ball to ensure that its a touchdown, the more likely that he may botch the kick and kick it out of bounds, giving the other team excellent field position. Bottom line though, moving the kickoff up is bad for the game of football.. As belichick describes them, they are very exciting plays that can create momentum for your team and gives you a chance to respond to their score by getting excellent field position or possibly a score of your own.
They do actually, its in the rules. Its called aFree kick FG, only can do it after a Fair Catch. Look up Mason Crosby long FG or something on youtube, or the guy from the cardinals i believe did it to. Neil Rackers.
Bellicheat also doesn't see the point in following the rules -- since he is a convicted cheater in his professional and personal life, yet the idiot sportscasters still say he is a man of integrity. Fuck Bellicheat.
I always thought that if the ball hits the uprights they should count it as 3pts, I mean, the probability of hitting them is very little but it was be very exciting to see them try.
I agree with his point about extra points. Of course, this is the guy who last used the drop-kick for his extra point conversion. But his point is solid - conversion kicks are boring and useless. The conversion percentage should be more like the NBA freethrow percentage. Around 75% or so. I'm not so troubled by the kickoff rule. Not yet. I'm not so sure a majority of kickers could put the ball in the back of the endzone every time like Belichick seems to suggest will happen. Plus, it could have other effects, like more onside kicks or more short kicks with hangtime. Will probably hurt some of the younger, fringe rookies, hoping to stick with an NFL team as a special teams maniac, though.
I don't think that was the point of the comments he made. His point was, why are they screwing with something (devaluing the kickoff return) that is an important part of the game. If they are gonna mess with the game and fix something, why not do something with the extra point, which adds little to nothing in value to the game? It wasn't some rallying cry to change the extra point. It was just one of those little conversations he has on his radio segment on WEEI with Smerlas and DeOssie. If he hadn't criticized the kickoff rule previously, this would have just been something that the folks who listen on the radio hear. He honestly thinks they screw around with the rules too much as it is, "fixing things that aren't broken" and has said that often.
Well, we actually would like to get rid of those bastards. --- On topic, it'd be more interesting if both the XP and the 2pt conversion were a bit harder, ie moved 10 and 5 yards backwards each.
That's (almost) exactly how it used to be, actually. As a derivative of rugby, football started by awarding one point for a TD, and four for an extra point. So it's kind of a flawed argument to say, "Well, it's been that way for 100 years" or whatever. Plus, back then, there were no pure kickers on rosters, and it was far from the sure thing it is today. Also, back in '84, the league made it illegal for defenders to take a running jump to try to block PATs. Kicks have been at a 98% success rate or higher since 1993, and although I don't know for sure, I'd guess that probably half or more of all misses are due to bad snaps or fumbled holds. I don't think Belichick was necessarily wrong to say they should make it a bit harder. He was simply answering a question when he was asked. Kick it from the 20 or whatever. Most of us normal, everyday guys would probably hit 5/10 extra point attempts with no one trying to block them... with a clean snap and a good hold, it's a virtual lock these days.
I agree that would be more interesting. I am not sure that I would favor that rule though. I still think it is in the best interest of football to have a reasonable conversion rate for 2-pt tries (i.e. around 30-35%, not 15-20%). I am not sure realistically how that would be affected.
