Jim in Anchorage Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 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. Or better yet the defending team. Most exciting game ending I ever saw.
NoSaint Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) I had a little bit of time so I decided to look at a few quick numbers. I thought I'd compare the 1966 season(1st SB year) to the 2013 season(current). (note: For ease of calculation I counted TDs as a flat 7 points, ignoring missed PAT & 2pt attempts). 1966: Offensive TDs/team: 33 (231.3 pts/team) Successful FGs/team: 16.9 (50.8 pts/team) Total offensive points/game: 282.1 FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 18% 2013: Offensive TDs/team: 37.9 (265.6 pts/team) Successful FGs/team: 27 (80.9 pts/team) Total offensive points/game: 346.5 FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 23.3% In 48 years.... Total offensive scoring has increased by 23% (surprising low to me) Offensive TD scoring has increased by 15% (even more surprising low) FG scoring has increased by 59% Though the percentage of FGs scored has increased dramatically in those 48 years, the percentage of offensive scoring for FGs compared to the overall offensive scoring has only increased by 5.3% over that time. Another way of looking at the numbers would be.....FG scoring has seen a 29.4% increase in relation to the total scoring while TD scoring has seen a 6.5% decrease. These numbers have somewhat changed my view on the situation. Though it is clear that FG scoring has increased at a very high rate, the effect of the increase on the overall scoring is only a small amount(5.3%) more than 48 years ago. I tend to think that the situation should still be addressed at some point.....but I no longer think that the increase in FG scoring has a significant effect on the game(when compared to how it was originally intended). For a play worth less than half the points and more rare to contribute more of an increase in points seems significant to me. That's like a 5 fg increase to 2 tds when tds are traditionally scored at a faster rate than tds (nearly 2td-1fg in 1966). not to mention changes that it has contributed to such as the change in OT rules because getting a FG was deemed to easy (does that count as a problem it couldve fixed WEO?). and heck, in an effort to reduce kick returns, it could skim an extra 5-10 off the top potentially without drastically changing the game (ie moving the yard line kicked from, or conversations about drastically overhauling the KO procedures) Edited January 15, 2014 by NoSaint
Mr. WEO Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 What problem does that address? You would rather see the game fundamentally changed rather than see those 50 yarders get a little tougher? Are you Caleb Sturgis? Well, there is no problem, but that doesn't seem to be slowing down the trajectory of this discussion. I thought you wanted team's to go for it more on 4th down instead of kicking a FG (unless you simply have a fetish for missed FGs, and I'm not judgng...). If a team knows they can't punt past the 50, you will have more interesting scenarios I would imagine. Reduding (somehow) the FG success to less than 40% would drastically change the way the modern game is played...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 . . . Reduding (somehow) the FG success to less than 40% would drastically change the way the modern game is played... So the next time a coach like Jauron elects a cowardly punt from the other team's 30, the reduced odds of making a field goal would let him get his man card back?
MikeSpeed Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 This will never happen, but I'd get rid of the kicking game all together save punting. Most times the kickoff goes out of the end zone and starts at the 20. Just start there and be done with it. Extra point kicks are useless. Give them 7 unless they try for 2. A missed 2 point would result in 6. Remove FGs from the game completely. A turnover in your own end wouldn't "automatically" give the other team 3 points. Make them move the ball on offense to get a reward. Punting I would keep.
Dibs Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) For a play worth less than half the points and more rare to contribute more of an increase in points seems significant to me. That's like a 5 fg increase to 2 tds when tds are traditionally scored at a faster rate than tds (nearly 2td-1fg in 1966). not to mention changes that it has contributed to such as the change in OT rules because getting a FG was deemed to easy (does that count as a problem it couldve fixed WEO?). and heck, in an effort to reduce kick returns, it could skim an extra 5-10 off the top potentially without drastically changing the game (ie moving the yard line kicked from, or conversations about drastically overhauling the KO procedures) I've come to realize that picking 1966 was not a good year to select. As the FG posts were moved in 1974 to the back of the endzone, 1966 becomes a mid section year rather than a reasonable start point. 1974 however was effected by a strike(lower scoring), so I figure the best start year should be 1975. I also listed things on a per team basis which confuses things slightly due to the additional games played today(16) compared to 1966 & 1975(14). 1975: Offensive TDs/team/game: 2.32 (16.27 pts/team/game) Successful FGs/team/game: 1.01 (3.04 pts/team/game) Total offensive points/team/game: 19.31 FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 15.7% 2013: Offensive TDs/team/game: 2.37 (16.60 pts/team/game) Successful FGs/team/game: 1.69 (5.06 pts/team/game) Total offensive points/team/game: 21.65 FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 23.3% In 39 years.... Total offensive scoring/game has increased by 12.1% (Wow, that's low.) Offensive TD scoring/game has increased by 2.2% (Who'd have thought that!) FG scoring/game has increased by 67.3% In 39 years, the offensive TD scoring has remained pretty much the same(2.2% increase)......while there has been an increase of 2/3 in FG scoring(which looks to be gradually increasing....though I haven't done the numbers to back that thought). One of the reasons why I believe the NFL is the most popular sport in the US is because it does not restrict itself to traditions. The game is constantly tweeked and changed......and pretty much always has been. I see no reason why scoring an increased number of FGs compared to TDs could be considered a desireable situation & I would be very surprised if the NFL didn't do something about this within the next decade. Edited January 16, 2014 by Dibs
Jauronimo Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) I've come to realize that picking 1966 was not a good year to select. As the FG posts were moved in 1974 to the back of the endzone, 1966 becomes a mid section year rather than a reasonable start point. 1974 however was effected by a strike(lower scoring), so I figure the best start year should be 1975. I also listed things on a per team basis which confuses things slightly due to the additional games played today(16) compared to 1966 & 1975(14). 1975: Offensive TDs/team/game: 2.32 (16.27 pts/team/game) Successful FGs/team/game: 1.01 (3.04 pts/team/game) Total offensive points/team/game: 19.31 FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 15.7% 2013: Offensive TDs/team/game: 2.37 (16.60 pts/team/game) Successful FGs/team/game: 1.69 (5.06 pts/team/game) Total offensive points/team/game: 21.65 FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 23.3% In 39 years.... Total offensive scoring/game has increased by 12.1% (Wow, that's low.) Offensive TD scoring/game has increased by 2.2% (Who'd have thought that!) FG scoring/game has increased by 67.3% In 39 years, the offensive TD scoring has remained pretty much the same(2.2% increase)......while there has been an increase of 2/3 in FG scoring(which looks to be gradually increasing....though I haven't done the numbers to back that thought). One of the reasons why I believe the NFL is the most popular sport in the US is because it does not restrict itself to traditions. The game is constantly tweeked and changed......and pretty much always has been. I see no reason why scoring an increased number of FGs compared to TDs could be considered a desirable situation & I would be very surprised if the NFL didn't do something about this within the next decade. I took a peek at total points scored broken down by TDs, FGs and XPs. I compared a few years from 2013 back to 1990. I found that FGs as a % of total points scored increased ~2% over the last 23 years. Not what I was expecting to see. Sauce: http://www.sportingc...core-type/2013/ Edited January 16, 2014 by Jauronimo
NoSaint Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 One of the reasons why I believe the NFL is the most popular sport in the US is because it does not restrict itself to traditions. The game is constantly tweeked and changed......and pretty much always has been. I see no reason why scoring an increased number of FGs compared to TDs could be considered a desireable situation & I would be very surprised if the NFL didn't do something about this within the next decade. always appreciate that you take the time to get a bit deeper in the numbers. I know i tend to stick a bit closer to bar napkin math, which serves its purpose, but to get the more accurate story does add to the discussion. Generally, i agree that we see some tweaks in the coming years. Wouldnt even have to be huge but I think its on the radar.
Dibs Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I took a peek at total points scored broken down by TDs, FGs and XPs. I compared a few years from 2013 back to 1990. I found that FGs as a % of total points scored increased ~2% over the last 23 years. Not what I was expecting to see. Sauce: http://www.sportingc...core-type/2013/ Nice pickup. I did another quick number run on 2000. There was only a 0.3% increase from the 2000 season to 2013. This really does shake up the common perception somewhat IMO. Virtually no change in the past 14 years.....and minimal change(2%) in the last 24(as you said). Perception can certainly be a hoary beast sometimes.
PolishDave Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I think the NFL should decree that all field goals kicked over 50 yards gets you 4 points, and less than 50 gets you 3 points And that a team can move the ball backwards to be able to kick a 50 yard fg to get the extra point. I like it, but make it a 55 yarder or longer in order to get 4 points. You could also say that field goals under 35 are only worth 2 and force the team to make a harder kick for more points. Or you could add the crossbar to the top (as an option for the kicking team) and if they get the kick in, they get 4 points instead of 3. (Forces them to kick lower thereby increasing the chance of a block)
Jauronimo Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Nice pickup. I did another quick number run on 2000. There was only a 0.3% increase from the 2000 season to 2013. This really does shake up the common perception somewhat IMO. Virtually no change in the past 14 years.....and minimal change(2%) in the last 24(as you said). Perception can certainly be a hoary beast sometimes. The two observations mesh. Even though FGs per game have increased significantly, due to the relative point value even a small increase in TD's per game can preserve the margin in terms of total points scored. Looking a bit closer, in the 32 team era, total points scored increased from 11,097 to 11,985, an increase of 8.0%. During that period, points from TDs increased 5.4% and points scored from FGs increased 17.1%. Multiplying these increases by the relative point values per score we see that FGs explain 51.3% of this increase while TDs and XPs account for 47.4%. After taking a quick look at the point breakdown, its my revised opinion that in the era of gaudy passing stats and higher scoring games, there is nothing "wrong" with the status quo. I will now stand by WEO and usher in the golden age of field goal kicking. Anybody want to watch Premiership later?
K-9 Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 The two observations mesh. Even though FGs per game have increased significantly, due to the relative point value even a small increase in TD's per game can preserve the margin in terms of total points scored. Looking a bit closer, in the 32 team era, total points scored increased from 11,097 to 11,985, an increase of 8.0%. During that period, points from TDs increased 5.4% and points scored from FGs increased 17.1%. Multiplying these increases by the relative point values per score we see that FGs explain 51.3% of this increase while TDs and XPs account for 47.4%. After taking a quick look at the point breakdown, its my revised opinion that in the era of gaudy passing stats and higher scoring games, there is nothing "wrong" with the status quo. I will now stand by WEO and usher in the golden age of field goal kicking. Anybody want to watch Premiership later? I'll be wearing my footies! GO BILLS!!!
Mr. WEO Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 The two observations mesh. Even though FGs per game have increased significantly, due to the relative point value even a small increase in TD's per game can preserve the margin in terms of total points scored. Looking a bit closer, in the 32 team era, total points scored increased from 11,097 to 11,985, an increase of 8.0%. During that period, points from TDs increased 5.4% and points scored from FGs increased 17.1%. Multiplying these increases by the relative point values per score we see that FGs explain 51.3% of this increase while TDs and XPs account for 47.4%. After taking a quick look at the point breakdown, its my revised opinion that in the era of gaudy passing stats and higher scoring games, there is nothing "wrong" with the status quo. I will now stand by WEO and usher in the golden age of field goal kicking. Anybody want to watch Premiership later? Kicking has become too easy in soccer!
Jauronimo Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Kicking has become too easy in soccer! How could more kicking ever be bad? If I'm a coach, I'll take more kicks. Plus putting constraints on kicking won't effect everyone equally and that is....like...not... fair, man!
Mr. WEO Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 How could more kicking ever be bad? If I'm a coach, I'll take more kicks. Plus putting constraints on kicking won't effect everyone equally and that is....like...not... fair, man! Soccer should be 5 on 5.
stuckinny Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I wouldn't mind seeing the Arena Net seeing kick off returns are almost non existant. The returner woudl have to field the ball! The other thing i don't quite understand now is why when a Kick Returner fields the ball and momentum takes him out of the end zone...why is that not a safety? Or when he touches the ball and it rolls out of bounds?
Jauronimo Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I wouldn't mind seeing the Arena Net seeing kick off returns are almost non existant. The returner woudl have to field the ball! The other thing i don't quite understand now is why when a Kick Returner fields the ball and momentum takes him out of the end zone...why is that not a safety? Or when he touches the ball and it rolls out of bounds? Here's some low hanging fruit. Who needs a gimme?
stuckinny Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 well now that i think about it, it works the same way on say an interception doesn't it? It's a change os possession play not like a punter or QB going out of the back of the end zone. Writing it out helped my t hought process... Nothing to see here!
billygoats Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I would like to see the hash marks moved out beyond the college marks. Just far enough away from the sideline to allow for a legal formation on the ensuing snap after a play which finished outside the hash marks. This would change the kicking game more than narrowing the goal posts, as it would make short kicks disproportionately more difficult than long kicks and would force teams to decide between centering the ball on third down inside the 30 vs going for 1st down.
K-9 Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 I would like to see the hash marks moved out beyond the college marks. Just far enough away from the sideline to allow for a legal formation on the ensuing snap after a play which finished outside the hash marks. This would change the kicking game more than narrowing the goal posts, as it would make short kicks disproportionately more difficult than long kicks and would force teams to decide between centering the ball on third down inside the 30 vs going for 1st down. At the same time it was changing the kicking game, it would put the passing game back in the very vice-gripped, Neanderthal state it was and that the league sought to eliminate by moving the hashmarks closer to midfield in the first place. Running games to the near side would be virtually non-existent. Defenses would reclaim a huge advantage by virtue of defending that much smaller space. The NFL won't sacrifice offensive evolution at the expense of making it more challenging for kickers. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts