NewEra Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 Glad to see you are back to personal attacks with no insight , thanks I've missed that How much insight can someone have on such a ludicrous idea. It'll never happen, not sure why its even being discussed.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 23, 2012 Author Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) What about interceptions and fumbles in the redzone? Does the offense still get 3 points? Would it more sense to just take the ball to the one and accept 3 points and stick bad field position? Why eliminate kickers but not punters? What if you intercept a pass with a team backed up into their own redzone? Can you just take 3 points and let them go again just give them the ball back? Are you jus trolling? This doesn't make sense. if the offense crosses the 20 they get 3 points no matter what. If you intercept the ball in their redzone you get three just like if they recovered the ball in the endzone and got a TD. Then the offense would come to try to get to the endzone to score 4 more points. If you don't score a TD then it turns over on downs (unless you want punt inside the 20 on 4rth down). This would get scoring up which the League wants so this is another win. You need punters to punt, I'm not get rid of kickers to get rid of them, I want scoring done on the field by guys playing football, not kicking it. I'm dead serious. Edited November 24, 2012 by Buffalo Barbarian
Beerball Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 Question: Was everyone who posted in this thread wasted when they posted? I was not.
Fan in San Diego Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 The field goal comes from the fact that football is loosely based on Rugby. Which has a designated kicker try to kick the ball thru the up rights from where the ball was crossed over the goal line. It gets get brought back a bit, (I forget how much) but the hash mark so to speak is where the ball went into the endzone. So Rugby players want to enter the endzone in the center of the field, which then makes it harder because the defense knows this as well.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 23, 2012 Author Posted November 23, 2012 So punters are football players? no but you need them punt, so they are a necessary evil.
Just Jack Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 It'll never happen, not sure why its even being discussed. It's in response to this thread, which is about an article to eliminate the Extra Point..... http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/152846-nfl-should-eliminate-pat-kicks/
Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 23, 2012 Author Posted November 23, 2012 The field goal comes from the fact that football is loosely based on Rugby. Which has a designated kicker try to kick the ball thru the up rights from where the ball was crossed over the goal line. It gets get brought back a bit, (I forget how much) but the hash mark so to speak is where the ball went into the endzone. So Rugby players want to enter the endzone in the center of the field, which then makes it harder because the defense knows this as well. Interesting, too bad they didn't drop it when the game became totally different. I just dont understand this line of thinking. We saw two kickers miss in overtime yesterday. Its makes the game exciting, it adds strategy and its been a part of the game for years. I dont understand why anyone would think the game needs to change more than it already has. more 4rth down conversions would be more exciting and would lead to more scoring. Eliminate field goals as a rule? No. Have coaches go for it on fourth and short more often? Yes. Same with punts. Punting when less than 50 yards from the end zone? No, thank you. you can't make coaches go for it more and punt less unless there is a reason too. Why not? They are part of each team aren't they? shouldn't be
marauderswr80 Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 Just turn the NFL into flag football.....
Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 23, 2012 Author Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) Just turn the NFL into flag football..... Hows does getting rid of Pats and FGs make football less violent? Edited November 23, 2012 by Buffalo Barbarian
McBeane Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 If Gronk had never broken his arm on that PAT we wouldn't have to suffer through these troll-esque pair of threads we've seen the past few days. Can we vote people off the "Thread Starting Island?" I know who would be the first to get my vote...
Offside Number 76 Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) I realize that this thread was started as a joke, but enough people have treated this seriously, unfortunately, so now I feel compelled to respond, instead of asking whether everyone was drunk when they posted. Look, field goals, and the strategy behind setting them up are integral and important parts of the game. Who doesn't love a drive to get into FG range at the end of a half? And the chance that it might be missed! Those of you who were aware in 1991, you know. It wasn't about getting to the 20-yard-line (OP's sarcastic suggestion), it was about getting Norwood into his range. Which they didn't do (grass not turf). How was that not an exciting kick? How was it not an exciting drive leading to it? We've seen three SBs on FGs in the last dozen years, and that's only if I'm not missing any. Again, how is that not exciting? How is the drive to get there not exciting? And once more, I do realize the initial post was sarcastic. But come on, those of you who have responded that there should be no FGs in football. Get it, already. Edited November 24, 2012 by Offsides Number 76
San Jose Bills Fan Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 I realize that this thread was started as a joke, but enough people have treated this seriously, unfortunately, so now I feel compelled to respond, instead of asking whether everyone was drunk when they posted. Look, field goals, and the strategy behind setting them up are integral and important parts of the game. Who doesn't love a drive to get into FG range at the end of a half? And the chance that it might be missed! Those of you who were aware in 1991, you know. It wasn't about getting to the 20-yard-line (OP's sarcastic suggestion), it was about getting Norwood into his range. Which they didn't do (grass not turf). How was that not an exciting kick? How was it not an exciting drive leading to it? We've seen three SBs on FGs in the last dozen years, and that's only if I'm not missing any. Again, how is that not exciting? How is the drive to get there not exciting? And once more, I do realize the initial post was sarcastic. But come on, those of you who have responded that there should be no FGs in football. Get it, already. What are your thoughts on punting?
NoSaint Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 I realize that this thread was started as a joke, but enough people have treated this seriously, unfortunately, so now I feel compelled to respond, instead of asking whether everyone was drunk when they posted. Look, field goals, and the strategy behind setting them up are integral and important parts of the game. Who doesn't love a drive to get into FG range at the end of a half? And the chance that it might be missed! Those of you who were aware in 1991, you know. It wasn't about getting to the 20-yard-line (OP's sarcastic suggestion), it was about getting Norwood into his range. Which they didn't do (grass not turf). How was that not an exciting kick? How was it not an exciting drive leading to it? We've seen three SBs on FGs in the last dozen years, and that's only if I'm not missing any. Again, how is that not exciting? How is the drive to get there not exciting? And once more, I do realize the initial post was sarcastic. But come on, those of you who have responded that there should be no FGs in football. Get it, already. Wait - you read this and thought it started as a joke and everyone replied too seriously?
Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 24, 2012 Author Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) If Gronk had never broken his arm on that PAT we wouldn't have to suffer through these troll-esque pair of threads we've seen the past few days. Can we vote people off the "Thread Starting Island?" I know who would be the first to get my vote... I actually came up with this years ago when Pittsburgh lost a playoff game when their kicker missed 4 field goals, seeing the other thread just reminded me of having no kicking to score points. I realize that this thread was started as a joke, but enough people have treated this seriously, unfortunately, so now I feel compelled to respond, instead of asking whether everyone was drunk when they posted. Look, field goals, and the strategy behind setting them up are integral and important parts of the game. Who doesn't love a drive to get into FG range at the end of a half? And the chance that it might be missed! Those of you who were aware in 1991, you know. It wasn't about getting to the 20-yard-line (OP's sarcastic suggestion), it was about getting Norwood into his range. Which they didn't do (grass not turf). How was that not an exciting kick? How was it not an exciting drive leading to it? We've seen three SBs on FGs in the last dozen years, and that's only if I'm not missing any. Again, how is that not exciting? How is the drive to get there not exciting? And once more, I do realize the initial post was sarcastic. But come on, those of you who have responded that there should be no FGs in football. Get it, already. You must not know me very well. I am not kidding about this and would drop kicking for scoring in a heartbeat. That said it would have been way more exciting to win the superbowl with Jim getting to the 20 than watching Norwood go wide right ever year on the most heartbreaking losses on the NFL network. Edited November 24, 2012 by Buffalo Barbarian
Offside Number 76 Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 What are your thoughts on punting? They're complex. I'm not a big fan, though; in many situations, I think it's a bad strategy. Ask Fezmid; we've been through it in chatrooms enough times. (He doesn't agree with me.) But I do think it should be available as an option. Wait - you read this and thought it started as a joke and everyone replied too seriously? I actually came up with this years ago when Pittsburgh lost a playoff game when their kicker missed 4 field goals, seeing the other thread just reminded me of having no kicking to score points. You must not know me very well. I am not kidding about this and would drop kicking for scoring in a heartbeat. That said it would have been way more exciting to win the superbowl with Jim getting to the 20 than watching Norwood go wide right ever year on the most heartbreaking losses on the NFL network. I really did think it was a sarcastic reaction to the thread on eliminating the PAT. Obviously, the wrong interpretation. The rest of my thoughts on the topic already are posted upthread.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 I realize that this thread was started as a joke, but enough people have treated this seriously, unfortunately, so now I feel compelled to respond, instead of asking whether everyone was drunk when they posted. "Offsides… Number 76"
Billshank Redemption Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 this is just a completely radical and unnecessary argument this is obviously never going to happen.
Offside Number 76 Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 "Offsides… Number 76" Yeah, I Smerlased the hell out of this one.
Cotton Fitzsimmons Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 What's a 4th down?My game doesn't have downs, just ups. Ups beat downs every time. Big UPS to Beerball!
Cotton Fitzsimmons Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) no but you need them punt, so they are a necessary evil. Barbarian, my good man, if YE OLE is following what you are saying, your logic dictates that field goals are not a necessary evil and can be abolished, because teams can simply go for it on 4th down and create more excitement in the game. If that is the case, why is the same not true for punters? Why would the punt be a necessary evil? Couldn't teams simply go for it on 4th down, therefore creating more excitement in the game? Edited November 24, 2012 by Cotton Fitzsimmons
Recommended Posts