NoSaint Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 They're not going to change their choice NoSaint. They know the odds, whether we like it or not. Again, we aren;t handicapping QBs, should we change the game against them too? Well many here think we should let corners play more physical. You know, to restore the passing game to previous levels of difficulty.
dave mcbride Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I agree. I can't think of another sport that has such a non-competitive play. And the kick-off is becoming a close second. -- Narrow the goal posts -- Move the kick-off back 5 yards to where it was -- and actually Bellichek had a good idea about extra points to make them more interesting. Take your pick; 2pt conversion from the 2yd line or kick extra point from the 20 yd line Its not sport if a play is designed to be non-competitive... Why not just get rid of the PAT and make the current 2 pt conversion a one point play?
Taro T Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 If they did want to lower the odds of making long kicks it would be easy enough to calculate how much lower the success rate would be at different widths / heights by reviewing kicks from the past x years. It wouldn't be precisely accurate as kickers would be expected to be able to tighten where they'd put the ball with narrower goal posts &/or a higher crossbar, but it would be a good starting point. They also could move the goalposts further back if they saw this as a particularily big issue. They were moved back from the goalline in the 70's. Move them 5 yards further back and then getting to the 33 gives you a 55 yard attempt.
Offside Number 76 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 No, just move the hashmarks to where they belong. And wasn't this discussed last week with a whole thread devoted to it?
Mr. WEO Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 No, just move the hashmarks to where they belong. And wasn't this discussed last week with a whole thread devoted to it? Yes, and this was covered on page 1 of this thread
section122 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Not only is it time to narrow them, but the goalposts need to be placed on sliding rails that move from left to right/right to left between the numbers. In addition, they need to be mechanized as to randomly raise and lower themselves as they conduct their side to side movement. Setting it all to music would be the topper. GO BILLS!!! That would be awesome!!! (not really but I would enjoy it in the Pro Bowl - maybe then I would actually watch) No, just move the hashmarks to where they belong. And wasn't this discussed last week with a whole thread devoted to it? This!!! I can't wrap my head around college kids who aren't as good having to kick from hash marks wider than the field goal bars but the best of the best don't. This would essentially achieve the same effect as narrowing the posts as not every kick would be straight on. It would increase strategy on 3rd down as well as increasing the difficulty of the kick.
Jauronimo Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) What? Insecure much? Do you have any idea how hilarious threatening me, with PPP is? Yeah, I doubt you thought that one through. Hysterical. This thread is about "solving" a "problem" that hasn't even been defined properly...see WEO's posts. Yet, we are going to change the goal posts...on a whim, without even thinking about what else may happen as a result? Don't like my experience with this? Fine. We are ALL encountering the effect of this very behavior, or soon will be. Again, the example I refer to is right under your nose. Paranoid much? Its not a threat. Its an offer to give you the attention you need elsewhere so that I don't have to read through your resume both on the main board and PPP to find whatever point you may have made. In this instance, you could have summed up your position in two sentences. I read WEO's posts, and WEO cites odds which do not consider the higher potential payoff of scoring a TD in the decision tree. Look at the historical FG % posted by NoSaint. Then understand what is driving those %'s (hint, its not rule changes). As for the consequences of lower % FG completion, we don't need to wonder what will happen all that much. We have decades of data. The record is already there. Whether passing the ball has become too easy or not is an unrelated issue to whether kicking has become too easy. Have that discussion in another thread. Edited January 14, 2014 by Jauronimo
K-9 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 No, just move the hashmarks to where they belong. And wasn't this discussed last week with a whole thread devoted to it? OK, I'll bite. Where to the hashmarks belong? GO BILLS!!!
Dorkington Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I don't see a reason why they should be narrowed. Just because kickers are better now, doesn't mean anything. That's like saying we should make the field narrower and longer because WRs and RBs are faster/stronger.
Jauronimo Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I don't see a reason why they should be narrowed. Just because kickers are better now, doesn't mean anything. That's like saying we should make the field narrower and longer because WRs and RBs are faster/stronger. No, its not. CBs and LBs are also faster and stronger. I like WEO's idea of making the ball heavier so that kickers break their feet on anything longer than 20 yards.
Dibs Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 ....... Whether passing the ball has become too easy or not is an unrelated issue to whether kicking has become too easy. Have that discussion in another thread. Actually, I believe that there likely would be a relation(but not in the manner originally intended earlier in the thread). Easier passing likely means more yardage.....more yardage likely means longer average drives.....which would mean more drives finishing within FG range. Yet another reason why the modern game has a lower importance on TDs compared to FGs than in times past.
RyanC883 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 If FGs were riskier you'd likely see the offense on the field on 4th down. If a 50 yarder were more like a 40% completion than a 68%, you think twice about kicking the FG. No one is punting from the 33. Adds suspense in the play calling, creates more 4th down conversion attempts, and makes a 50 yard FG attempt more exciting/impressive. Whats the problem? I like the idea of seeing the offensive more on 4th down, but I think if FG's were riskier you'd see more punting (blah). I'd rather see FG kicks. I also like the idea someone mentioned above of making a FG eligible to be caught like a pass by the kicking team. THAT would make the FG more interesting. Easy 3, or pass! FG's inside the 20 would be lots of fun.
NoSaint Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Actually, I believe that there likely would be a relation(but not in the manner originally intended earlier in the thread). Easier passing likely means more yardage.....more yardage likely means longer average drives.....which would mean more drives finishing within FG range. Yet another reason why the modern game has a lower importance on TDs compared to FGs than in times past. they certainly arent 100% separate as the way things stand its easy to get 35 yards on a drive and thats all it takes on a touchback to start seeing the discussion of a kick. really, those two things amount to the reason that the overtime rules had to be changed. i wouldve preferred to see the discussion on something like this instead, although im sure that discussion occurred. that said simply tossing out random other ways the game has evolved doesnt further this discussion.
Max997 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) I've been saying this for a few years as the kicking game has become too easy and made the game a little boring I also agree that bringing them in a foot on each side would be enough and is a bigger change then it seems The line for Extra points should be moved back at least to the 10 as they are way too automatic. The extra point, commercial break then kickoff which is usually not returned followed by another commercial break is way too much dead time Edited January 14, 2014 by Max997
oman128 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) The width of the goalpost were narrowed 3 feet the year the Bills were in there first Super Bowl. Norwood missed the game winning field goal by about a foot. Had they not narrowed the goal post the ball would have either gone through and the Bills would have won the Super Bowl or hit the post and likely bounced out. Edited January 14, 2014 by oman128
section122 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 OK, I'll bite. Where to the hashmarks belong? GO BILLS!!! Same as College. NFL hashmarks are 18 feet, 6 inches wide (the same as the field goal posts) versus a whopping 40 feet in NCAA football. That is almost 2.2 times wider.
K-9 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Same as College. NFL hashmarks are 18 feet, 6 inches wide (the same as the field goal posts) versus a whopping 40 feet in NCAA football. That is almost 2.2 times wider. Disagree. More than anything, including the liberalized holding rules for OLmen and the elimination of bump and run coverage by DBs, the narrowing of the hashmarks in the early 70s did more to open up the passing game than anything else. Which was the whole reason they were moved more towards the center of the field to begin with. GO BILLS!!!
Jauronimo Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Disagree. More than anything, including the liberalized holding rules for OLmen and the elimination of bump and run coverage by DBs, the narrowing of the hashmarks in the early 70s did more to open up the passing game than anything else. Which was the whole reason they were moved more towards the center of the field to begin with. GO BILLS!!! What if we get rid of of the 50 yard line like they did in hockey? Won't that open up the game?
justnzane Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I don't know about narrowing the posts, but I'd like to see a top crossbar. Depending on how high it's placed it could make kicking more difficult, and it would also take the guesswork out of judging if a kick above the top of the post is good. It would be entertaining. I think it would be wise to raise the height of the uprights another 10 feet as many times the ball is kicked higher than them and it comes down to a judgement call from the officials that is unreviewable. There have been a couple times where the ball goes directly over the upright and it would be more entertaining to watch it hit it instead, No, just move the hashmarks to where they belong. And wasn't this discussed last week with a whole thread devoted to it? The hashmarks would be better wider which would open up the running game more and make it harder to pass as well. This also would make the game more difficult for the kicker.
K-9 Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 It would be entertaining. I think it would be wise to raise the height of the uprights another 10 feet as many times the ball is kicked higher than them and it comes down to a judgement call from the officials that is unreviewable. There have been a couple times where the ball goes directly over the upright and it would be more entertaining to watch it hit it instead, The hashmarks would be better wider which would open up the running game more and make it harder to pass as well. This also would make the game more difficult for the kicker. I don't think anything would be opened up by moving the hashmarks back to where they were originally. And it would absolutely bottle up the passing game. I just don't see the league ever reverting back to the old configuration for that reason. What if we get rid of of the 50 yard line like they did in hockey? Won't that open up the game? Absolutely! GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts