Missed XPs are Impacting Games and the NFL Likes It

[Blokestradamus]

As I said, all psyching themselves out.

 

@MarkdominikESPN

NFL kickers are 44/45 on Field Goals from 32-33 yards this year, but have missed an astounding 48 extra points from that same distance.

[Alphadawg7]

Mathmatically, based on the sample sizes available, teams would score more points annually if they go for 2 rather than 1.

 

The 2pt attempt current success rate average is above 50% meaning they average more than 1 additional point per TD when going for 2.

 

The current success rate of an XP attempt is below 1 additional point per TD because the NFL average success rate is below 100%.

 

So mathematically, teams should always go for 2 based on statistical averages. Now the one disclaimer is that there are a lot more XP kicked than 2 pt conversion attempts, so there isn't an equal sample size. However, there is enough 2 pt attempts to assume there would not be a massive drop in success on a bigger sample size. Plus, the league average could dip below .500 success rate and still mathematically a 2pt attempt every time would equate to more total points as long as the success rate of a 2pt attempt is just .01 better than the XP success rate divided by 2. So if the XP success rate is 90%, then as long as the 2pt conversion was even .01 better than 45% it would statistically be the correct choice.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Alphadawg7

[klos63]

Hah! We are now crossing posts with each other...

 

What is interesting is that the slight difference in extra point distance has really mucked with the kickers' heads apparently, despite the range being easy FG territory.

 

I don't fully understand that. I would not have predicted moving the ball back this amount would alter the success rate this much.

 

Something fun to consider would be a total re-haul of the entire point scoring system.

 

There's a pretty big difference between scoring 3 points for a FG and 6, 7, or 8 for a TD.

 

And it's a lot easier these days for kickers to hit a long FG making it much easier than scoring a TD.

 

If the point scoring gap was reduced between a FG and a TD to only a couple points for example, many more games would be close right until the end, or to put it another way, it would be much harder for a better team to pull away and blow out a weaker opponent.

You would think the NFL and its sponsors would be all over this idea, as I have to imagine tons of games are turned off at halftime in a blowout.

 

It is pretty remarkable how many missed kicks there's been. Even Gostkowski has missed a couple. Don't want to jinx, but Carpenter was solid yesterday. Hopefully, he figured it out.

 

As I said, all psyching themselves out.

 

@MarkdominikESPN

NFL kickers are 44/45 on Field Goals from 32-33 yards this year, but have missed an astounding 48 extra points from that same distance.

 

That's an amazing statistic.

[Fadingpain]

 

As I said, all psyching themselves out.

 

@MarkdominikESPN

NFL kickers are 44/45 on Field Goals from 32-33 yards this year, but have missed an astounding 48 extra points from that same distance.

 

It's fascinating, that aspect of it.

 

Psychology is a huge component in team athletics and it's not really exploited or examined as fully as it should be in my opinion.

 

The combine measures everything in terms of physical parameters and physical performance.

 

How about measuring, for example, a hatred of losing, or an unwillingness to quit?

 

Those psychological components of a player are arguably much more important than his standing broad jump distance.

[eball]

 

As I said, all psyching themselves out.

 

@MarkdominikESPN

NFL kickers are 44/45 on Field Goals from 32-33 yards this year, but have missed an astounding 48 extra points from that same distance.

 

 

Which is why it was an awesome rule change. The PAT under the former rules was a total "non-play." Either take the PAT away entirely (i.e., each TD is worth 7 and you go kick off), or do something to make it meaningful. They chose the latter and I think it's great.

[Jobot]

 

Well considering many many games have come down to whether or not the kicker makes the XP to either win or tie for OT, I would say your assessment is inaccurate on whether its exciting or not. I used to sit back and care less, now every time Carpenter lines up for an attempt I am anxious.

 

Big Kudos to the NFL for finally making a rule change that adds value to the game rather than make it boring.

 

I'd rather make touchdowns 7 points.

 

These are the most competitive events in the world and now they come down to the kicker making an error. Thus making the game worse.

[keepthefaith]

Makes life tough for kickers. Their turnover rate may exceed that of head coaches now.

[MDH]

If two point conversions are made at a .537 percentage, everyone should be going for 2 every time.

 

 

 

If your goal was to score the most points possible during the season, then yes. But the goal is to score more than your opponent each week. As such, the decisions should be based on percentages (like you suggest) but also have to take into account the game situation.

 

So no, not every time, but way more often than they do now.

[Jobot]

ALSO

 

The rule for how you can line-up across from the center snapping the ball during PATs and FG attempts is becoming as complicated as defining a catch!

 

Sorry but excitement as the result of ambiguity is not exciting

[PromoTheRobot]

How about making hitting a goal post on an XP worth 3 points? On a FG worth 5!

[Alphadawg7]

 

I'd rather make touchdowns 7 points.

 

These are the most competitive events in the world and now they come down to the kicker making an error. Thus making the game worse.

 

The game is called "Football" and you want to take one of the only relevant parts of the game involving a foot out? lol

 

Sorry, but XP's matter, and they make the game more interesting especially now with the further distance no longer being a guarantee and the ability to also go for 2. And its a 52 man roster...all positions should matter. So lets get rid of Kickoffs too by your logic because heaven forbid someone return a kick because now the game depends on a kicker making a game saving tackle.

 

Kickers have been a very important part of this competitive event since the invention of this game. Now that they have increased their value and worth you want to get rid of them...makes no sense to me.

 

PS: Case Example: One of the most daring and exciting moments of the whole season was when the young upstart Raiders went for 2 against the high powered Saints team with future HOF Brees on the other side waiting to try and win the game in OT against that terrible Raiders D. Rather than try for OT and hope they get lucky with the coin toss and not have to hold the Saints from scoring, they went for the win right then and there. Great and gutsy call that was awesome to watch.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Alphadawg7

[MDH]

 

The game is called "Football" and you want to take one of the only relevant parts of the game involving a foot out? lol

 

 

It's my understanding that it's called "football" because when it first began it was to differentiate it from sports that took place on horseback (like polo) not because the ball was kicked. The players ran, so it was called football. It then separated into a multitude of different rules which resulted in modern day Soccer (football in Europe), Rugby, and American Football.

 

So even if they take the kicking element out of the game it's still called "football" for the original reason.

[Blokestradamus]

 

Which is why it was an awesome rule change. The PAT under the former rules was a total "non-play." Either take the PAT away entirely (i.e., each TD is worth 7 and you go kick off), or do something to make it meaningful. They chose the latter and I think it's great.

 

It seems to be having the desired effect, so I guess it was a successful move.

 

There are certain balances that I'd rather see addressed before where the XP is kicked from though.

[Alphadawg7]

 

It's my understanding that it's called "football" because when it first began it was to differentiate it from sports that took place on horseback (like polo) not because the ball was kicked. The players ran, so it was called football. It then separated into a multitude of different rules which resulted in modern day Soccer (football in Europe), Rugby, and American Football.

 

So even if they take the kicking element out of the game it's still called "football" for the original reason.

 

LOL, I know...I was being sarcastic and ironic

[Jobot]

 

The game is called "Football" and you want to take one of the only relevant parts of the game involving a foot out? lol

 

Sorry, but XP's matter, and they make the game more interesting especially now with the further distance no longer being a guarantee and the ability to also go for 2. And its a 52 man roster...all positions should matter. So lets get rid of Kickoffs too by your logic because heaven forbid someone return a kick because now the game depends on a kicker making a game saving tackle.

 

Kickers have been a very important part of this competitive event since the invention of this game. Now that they have increased their value and worth you want to get rid of them...makes no sense to me.

 

PS: Case Example: One of the most daring and exciting moments of the whole season was when the young upstart Raiders went for 2 against the high powered Saints team with future HOF Brees on the other side waiting to try and win the game in OT against that terrible Raiders D. Rather than try for OT and hope they get lucky with the coin toss and not have to hold the Saints from scoring, they went for the win right then and there. Great and gutsy call that was awesome to watch.

 

...yawn

 

Really your argument is because the two words that make up the name of the sport are 'foot' and 'ball'?

 

You can't argue past the fact that you're excited for someone (a kicker) to screw up.... He misses it > he's a bum... He makes it > he did what he was supposed to do (hence the yawn)

[Alphadawg7]

 

...yawn

 

Really your argument is because the two words that make up the name of the sport are 'foot' and 'ball'?

 

You can't argue past the fact that you're excited for someone (a kicker) to screw up.... He misses it > he's a bum... He makes it > he did what he was supposed to do (hence the yawn)

It was sarcasm...lol

 

And actually it had nothing to do with my point in anyway shape or form, so apparently you didn't read past it. Your only argument is it bores you...not much of an argument. And its not about "screwing" up, the XP is no longer at a distance that is just a gimme. The OLD XP system was waiting for a kicker to screw up, but this new one makes the kick have enough of an increase in difficulty to no longer be just a gimme you can go get another beer on. And, once an XP is missed, the 2pt conversion almost always comes into play the next score which adds a lot of interest as well.

 

So sorry, you being bored doesnt make me like the rule any less.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Alphadawg7

[Mr. WEO]

Yeah they should. How many had 2 missed? And had the ball late with a chance to win because the other team offense could not close out a game

 

They did close out the game. They scored more points than they Bengals so it turned out that was good enough for the win. It was in all the papers.

 

How did the Bengals get in FG range (from their own 15) so fast with no timeouts and despite 2 offensive penalties?

[billykaykay]

Mathmatically, based on the sample sizes available, teams would score more points annually if they go for 2 rather than 1.

 

The 2pt attempt current success rate average is above 50% meaning they average more than 1 additional point per TD when going for 2.

 

The current success rate of an XP attempt is below 1 additional point per TD because the NFL average success rate is below 100%.

 

So mathematically, teams should always go for 2 based on statistical averages. Now the one disclaimer is that there are a lot more XP kicked than 2 pt conversion attempts, so there isn't an equal sample size. However, there is enough 2 pt attempts to assume there would not be a massive drop in success on a bigger sample size. Plus, the league average could dip below .500 success rate and still mathematically a 2pt attempt every time would equate to more total points as long as the success rate of a 2pt attempt is just .01 better than the XP success rate divided by 2. So if the XP success rate is 90%, then as long as the 2pt conversion was even .01 better than 45% it would statistically be the correct choice.

If I had Brady or Ben as my QB, I would go for 2 all the time. With a poor QB, the rate of sucess will go down.

I think that the ball should be set at the 1 yd line. That would encourage more 2's. Isn't that exactly what the NFL is looking for ?

 

They did close out the game. They scored more points than they Bengals so it turned out that was good enough for the win. It was in all the papers.

 

How did the Bengals get in FG range (from their own 15) so fast with no timeouts and despite 2 offensive penalties?

Prevent defense ???

[GunnerBill]

If two point conversions are made at a .537 percentage, everyone should be going for 2 every time.

 

That means you'll get your 2 every other time basically, which is the same as hitting the extra point every time.

 

The difference is the single extra point is not automatic anymore (making going for 2 more attractive) and you never know if this is the game when you will defy the probability and go on a little run of making the 2 points 3 times in a row for example.

 

It's like flipping a coin. The probably of it coming up heads is .500, but that doesn't mean you can't flip heads 9 times in a row during a little odds-defying streak in a small sample size.

 

(PS: I guess if you are only going to score 1 TD in a game, going for 2 and missing would hurt you more than if you were going to score 2 or more TDs...but I'd go for 2 every time regardless).

I think the thing that skews the percentages is that teams go for so few. I think the Pittsburgh experience shows that once you go for it more often teams begin to key in on your tendencies.

 

If everyone went for 2 all the time I think that percentage drops.

[Protocal69]

Yeah they should. How many had 2 missed? And had the ball late with a chance to win because the other team offense could not close out a game

2 teams