Extra points

[PatsFanNH]

 

 

OK right. Like when they stopped NE from using those the illegal substitutions against Baltimore? That's never gonna happen.

Were you talking about a drop kick like Flutie did once like years ago? (I remember because everyone was laughing on the sidelines when he made it.)

[BringBackFergy]

 

And which bit of the "isn't allowed in today's rules" didn't you get?

Last time I checked a "drop kick" is still allowed in the NFL. The OP is suggesting just that.

[4merper4mer]

Last time I checked a "drop kick" is still allowed in the NFL. The OP is suggesting just that.

 

 

That's fine but not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying line up at the 2....maybe Carp is at WR....pre-snap shift back to kicking formation, snap the ball and kick it through. You just made the PAT easier again.

[Nanker]

We're wasting points on blowouts when we could really use them in other games.

[4merper4mer]

We're wasting points on blowouts when we could really use them in other games.

 

 

I agree and think that this fake should only be used in circumstances when:

 

1. We really need the point for that game

 

and

 

2. there is something that puts a longer PAT in doubt like wind or Carp having another bad day

[BringBackFergy]

We're wasting points on blowouts when we could really use them in other games.

Seriously...if we have a surplus in one game, put them in a lockbox.

[GunnerBill]

The rules, as I read them, are that if the ball is spotted at the 2 you can only score by run or pass and if you spot the ball at the 15 you may only score by kicking. I do not think from my reading of the current rules you can fake and do the alternative from either line.

[PatsFanNH]

 

 

That's fine but not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying line up at the 2....maybe Carp is at WR....pre-snap shift back to kicking formation, snap the ball and kick it through. You just made the PAT easier again.

THAT I don't think is legal.

[The Big Cat]

Working the kinks out of the old schtick now that Rex's defense is playing well, I see.

[Cugalabanza]

My suggestion:

 

Put the ball back at the 2 for all after-TD tries. But here's the catch: If you kick for 1, then it has to be KICKED BY THE PLAYER WHO SCORED THE TD!

 

That makes the PAT much more interesting than it has been. It eliminates the stupid 15 yard line rule in effect now. Allows for fakes. And it will encourage more 2 point tries. Makes the whole scenario way more interesting and adds drama.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Do you have any statistics to back that up? Even going back to the old rules, teams are all dat driven if there was better than a 50/50 chance of scoring from the 2 yard line on one play, they'd all have been doing it a long time ago. Think I one time saw a stat that put the odds at scoring at 43% from the two.

 

So now from what it it the 20 or 25 yard line, itf the 43% was the correct number, then the odds would say there's more than an 86% chance of making the kick from that distance. If you feel your kicker is less than that, then yes go for two.

 

 

Just go for 2 everytime you will come out ahead in the long run

[4merper4mer]

THAT I don't think is legal.

 

 

The crap the Pats ran against the Ravens isn't legal either but it took them until the following Thursday to figure that out.

 

Again, this isn't a big thing and we'll probably only be able to do it once and only if we're the first one. I just hope it is in our bag of tricks if we need a point and Carp is doing poorly.

[MAJBobby]

Do you have any statistics to back that up? Even going back to the old rules, teams are all dat driven if there was better than a 50/50 chance of scoring from the 2 yard line on one play, they'd all have been doing it a long time ago. Think I one time saw a stat that put the odds at scoring at 43% from the two.

 

So now from what it it the 20 or 25 yard line, itf the 43% was the correct number, then the odds would say there's more than an 86% chance of making the kick from that distance. If you feel your kicker is less than that, then yes go for two.

 

 

From 2010, but this is when the XP was from the same area as it would be going for 2. Now you would think making the XP a 35 yard FG it would be even more leaning toward going for two.

 

It's well established that 2-point conversion attempts are successful slightly less than 50% of the time, so could the 65% number for runs possibly be true? If so, what would that mean for NFL strategy?

 

There have been 718 2-point conversion attempts from 2000-2009, including playoff games. Overall, they've been successful 46.3% of the time. But this is slightly misleading because it includes aborted kick attempts. If we weed those out, along with some other mysterious plays, such as Josh McCown's kneel-down while trailing by 5 points in the final few seconds of the Cardinals-Vikings 2003 game, we get a different answer. For all normal 2-point conversions, the success rate is 47.9%.

 

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/12/almost-always-go-for-2-point.html

 

 

Gonna take likely another year of this new Distance XP to really get a good enough sample size but I think you should go for 2 every time.

[GunnerBill]

 

 

The crap the Pats ran against the Ravens isn't legal either but it took them until the following Thursday to figure that out.

 

Again, this isn't a big thing and we'll probably only be able to do it once and only if we're the first one. I just hope it is in our bag of tricks if we need a point and Carp is doing poorly.

 

It depends..... the initial play against the Ravens with Vereen reporting as ineligible and a lineman being eligible was legal (albeit was banned the following year). What they eventually I think decided was illegal was in the deflategate game against the Colts where the issue was a lineman declaring eligible and then ineligible on consecutive plays. The rules said that a lineman could only change between eligible and ineligible if he sat out a play in between.

 

Gonna take likely another year of this new Distance XP to really get a good enough sample size but I think you should go for 2 every time.

 

The variable missing though is that one of the advantages of the 2pt conversion is teams run so few of them it is harder to read tendencies etc. If any team came out and went for 2 every time it would give opponents far more film to study to pick up tendencies and I think they'd see that 47% or so drop a little bit.

[MAJBobby]

 

It depends..... the initial play against the Ravens with Vereen reporting as ineligible and a lineman being eligible was legal (albeit was banned the following year). What they eventually I think decided was illegal was in the deflategate game against the Colts where the issue was a lineman declaring eligible and then ineligible on consecutive plays. The rules said that a lineman could only change between eligible and ineligible if he sat out a play in between.

 

The variable missing though is that one of the advantages of the 2pt conversion is teams run so few of them it is harder to read tendencies etc. If any team came out and went for 2 every time it would give opponents far more film to study to pick up tendencies and I think they'd see that 47% or so drop a little bit.

All you have to do is looks at the 3rd and 2 and 4th and two plays as well, that allows for a good extrapolation. stopping any offense for less than 2 yards doesn't happen much

 

And all you have to be is 50% and nothing lost.

 

Lets not forget the variable of now your offense is also dictating to the other teams offense.

Edited October 21, 2016 by MAJBobby

[GunnerBill]

All you have to do is looks at the 3rd and 2 and 4th and two plays as well, that allows for a good extrapolation. stopping any offense for less than 2 yards doesn't happen much

 

And all you have to be is 50% and nothing lost.

 

Lets not forget the variable of now your offense is also dictating to the other teams offense.

I think teams going for it every time would be much closer to 40% than 50%. 3rd and 2s and 4th and 2s especially in the redzone are not gimme plays.

[scribo]

 

 

That's fine but not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying line up at the 2....maybe Carp is at WR....pre-snap shift back to kicking formation, snap the ball and kick it through. You just made the PAT easier again.

It isn't legal. But let's just say it becomes legal... You think there'd be enough time to snap the ball, have Carpenter run backward, set up for his steps while the person who accepted the snap places the ball on the ground (won't have a kicking block with him, presumably), take his steps and kick the ball before the defense gets in. Hmm, seems legit.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

OK, os if 46.3% of 2 point conversions were successful, that means prior to changing the rules, too go for two all the time, you would have to be successful kicking from the two less than 92.6% I'm pretty certain extra points were like in the 98 to 99% range prior to the change. So that says it was much smarter to kick back then.

 

Now that it's been moved back are kicks made greater or less than 92.6%? The answer to that likely varies by team.

 

 

 

As far as stopping an offense from gaining two yards, huge difference between stopping a team from gaining two yards when you're at the 50 yard line or even the 20 yard line than from the two as you now have 11 guys only needing to defend 12 yards of turf.

 

 

There have been 718 2-point conversion attempts from 2000-2009, including playoff games. Overall, they've been successful 46.3% of the time. But this is slightly misleading because it includes aborted kick attempts. If we weed those out, along with some other mysterious plays, such as Josh McCown's kneel-down while trailing by 5 points in the final few seconds of the Cardinals-Vikings 2003 game, we get a different answer. For all normal 2-point conversions, the success rate is 47.9%.

 

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/12/almost-always-go-for-2-point.html

 

 

Gonna take likely another year of this new Distance XP to really get a good enough sample size but I think you should go for 2 every time.

 

 

stopping any offense for less than 2 yards doesn't happen much

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

When combined with the relatively new 2 point conversion, the long extra point seems weird to me. Under the old system, you could fake an extra point and go for 2. You can still do that but realistically it is too far. It takes a little something away.

 

But here's the thing....a lot of long XP's get missed. If you want the 1 point, why not just fake a 2 point conversion and kick from short instead?

Because of the tiebreaker scenario 😎

[4merper4mer]

 

It depends..... the initial play against the Ravens with Vereen reporting as ineligible and a lineman being eligible was legal (albeit was banned the following year). What they eventually I think decided was illegal was in the deflategate game against the Colts where the issue was a lineman declaring eligible and then ineligible on consecutive plays. The rules said that a lineman could only change between eligible and ineligible if he sat out a play in between.

 

 

 

IIRC it all occurred in the Ravens game and the flip flopping is what I meant. Blatant trickery of not only the Ravens but the refs too. It got caught days after the game was over. That is why we could do the XP thing.

 

On a side note, even the original plays were questionable because the refs were too old, dumb and slow to properly communicate the eligibility to the Ravens. The Pats were getting hammered on the field so they fooled the refs. Why not have that be us doing it if we really need an XP.

You think there'd be enough time to snap the ball, have Carpenter run backward, set up for his steps while the person who accepted the snap places the ball on the ground (won't have a kicking block with him, presumably), take his steps and kick the ball before the defense gets in. Hmm, seems legit.

 

 

Shift would be pre-snap and right after the ball is set down at the 2.

Edited October 21, 2016 by 4merper4mer