eball Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 58 minutes ago, MJS said: It's not the opposite. My analytical approach is just as valid as yours: "a safety should be worth more because they are cool, man!" Ok, you’re obviously around 15 years old. I’m done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChans Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 Just now, eball said: Ok, you’re obviously around 15 years old. I’m done here. You never even said anything of value!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 21, 2020 Author Share Posted April 21, 2020 1 hour ago, MJS said: How about we keep everything regarding points in the game of football the same? It works and I like it. No need for a change. The reasoning for the 2-point safety is not based on any retrospective analysis of the play's impact on the game or the fact that it's a difficult play featuring elite-level defense. It is literally the product of a metaphorical blind dart throw by the guy who came up with scoring in the 1890s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 1 minute ago, FireChans said: You never even said anything of value!! If the rules of TSW ever include that as a requirement this will become a lonely place. I read the article and found it interesting. Then I saw posts by people who clearly didn’t even read it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 21, 2020 Author Share Posted April 21, 2020 1 hour ago, njbuff said: How about you get the option of the regular two points and a free kick, or..................... No points and you get the ball at the opponents 20 yard line? Not a bad idea. I like the idea of teams being forced to choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChans Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 Just now, eball said: If the rules of TSW ever include that as a requirement this will become a lonely place. I read the article and found it interesting. Then I saw posts by people who clearly didn’t even read it. And that’s where you should have stopped. If you aren’t interested in a discussion, don’t post. Unless you’re drinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: It's a great play and it's a football play (rather then a set-piece ST play). It's rare. And it's worth less than a garden-variety FG, the most boring play in the game outside of kickoff touchbacks. Moreover, it's worth 2 points because .... some guy in the 1890s assigned it two points. It's only rare by design. Again, I doubt it's that rare when you adjust for percentage of plays run from the offense's 3>...which imo is the better way of looking at it You are also leaving out the offensive penalty in end zone...you really want 11 points awarded to the other team because of a holding call or intentional grounding? 4 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: The reasoning for the 2-point safety is not based on any retrospective analysis of the play's impact on the game or the fact that it's a difficult play featuring elite-level defense. It is literally the product of a metaphorical blind dart throw by the guy who came up with scoring in the 1890s. It's more the product of good special teams play. I don't consider a tackle for loss or sack the product of elite-level defense, nor an offensive penalty in the end zone. I find it hard to reconcile your disdain for a 3 point field goal on special teams with your enthusiasm for an 11 point safety, which is by and large almost always the product of good punt coverage...on special teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 21, 2020 Author Share Posted April 21, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: It's only rare by design. Again, I doubt it's that rare when you adjust for percentage of plays run from the offense's 3>...which imo is the better way of looking at it You are also leaving out the offensive penalty in end zone...you really want 11 points awarded to the other team because of a holding call or intentional grounding? No, I think 11 is too high. I think 5 is better for a couple of reasons. It forces the offense to choose - do I want to give up 7 by deliberately fumbling it to the D and then get the ball again, or do I want to give up 5 and have to give the ball back to the other team? Bear in mind that the expected point production on any given drive is 2.1 points. Also, the rarity is somewhat immaterial to me and frankly more of a feature than a bug. It's simply a better play and a harder play to make than a FG, which - again - is the most boring play in the game (in my opinion). A defensive sack in the EZ or a stuff of a RB behind the line is about as good as football gets. 6 minutes ago, FireChans said: And that’s where you should have stopped. If you aren’t interested in a discussion, don’t post. Unless you’re drinking. He raises a very fair point about people clearly not reading the article. Edited April 21, 2020 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 1 minute ago, dave mcbride said: No, I think 11 is too high. I think 5 is better for a couple of reasons. It forces the offense to choose - do I want to give up 7 by deliberately fumbling it to the D and then get the ball again, or do I want to give up 5 and have to give the ball back to the other team? The rarity is somewhat immaterial to me - it's simply a better play and a harder play to make than a FG, which - again - is the most boring play in the game (in my opinion). A defensive sack in the EZ or a stuff of a RB behind the line is about as good as football gets. He raises a very fair point about people clearly not reading the article. Yes I agree, but it goes to my point that it's only a safety because those plays happen to occur in a very specific part of the field. It requires no greater effort than a normal sack or TFL which I think we all agree shouldn't be worth any point or fraction thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChans Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: No, I think 11 is too high. I think 5 is better for a couple of reasons. It forces the offense to choose - do I want to give up 7 by deliberately fumbling it to the D and then get the ball again, or do I want to give up 5 and have to give the ball back to the other team? Bear in mind that the expected point production on any given drive is 2.1 points. Also, the rarity is somewhat immaterial to me and frankly more of a feature than a bug. It's simply a better play and a harder play to make than a FG, which - again - is the most boring play in the game (in my opinion). A defensive sack in the EZ or a stuff of a RB behind the line is about as good as football gets. He raises a very fair point about people clearly not reading the article. Except it took him two pages to make it. It was mostly name-calling. And “I’m done here!!!!” Talk about childish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 21, 2020 Author Share Posted April 21, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Yes I agree, but it goes to my point that it's only a safety because those plays happen to occur in a very specific part of the field. It requires no greater effort than a normal sack or TFL which I think we all agree shouldn't be worth any point or fraction thereof. Disagree because every team has plays that are "loss preventers" - max protect with short routes, fullback blocks, etc. Teams end up with the ball inside the 3 all the time, yet you hardly ever see safeties because it's not hard to draw up plays and personnel groupings that prevent safeties from happening. Of course, no risk, no reward, which is drives stall so often in that area of the field. Edited April 21, 2020 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 Just now, dave mcbride said: Disagree because every team has plays that are "loss preventers" - max protect with short routes, fullback blocks, etc. Teams end up with the ball inside the 3 all the time, yet you hardly ever see safeties because it's not hard to draw up plays and personnel groupings that prevent safeties from happening. This is why IMO the idea is incomplete without corresponding stats on # of plays run inside the 3/safety %...instead of just saying 'safeties are way more rare than touchdowns on a per snap basis' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 4 hours ago, dave mcbride said: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-safeties-should-be-worth-more-than-touchdowns/?cid=taboola_rcc_r And if they were worth more, the Bills would have won a Super Bowl. Meh. If our hall of fame DE caused a fumble and recovered maybe this too. I still have no idea how that didn’t come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 1 hour ago, dave mcbride said: The reasoning for the 2-point safety is not based on any retrospective analysis of the play's impact on the game or the fact that it's a difficult play featuring elite-level defense. It is literally the product of a metaphorical blind dart throw by the guy who came up with scoring in the 1890s. It's the same difficulty as a sack. The rarity of a safety is due to the position on the field, not due to difficulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 21, 2020 Author Share Posted April 21, 2020 11 minutes ago, MJS said: It's the same difficulty as a sack. The rarity of a safety is due to the position on the field, not due to difficulty. No, that's not really true. As I say above, teams gameplan far differently when they're close to their own goal line. The difficulty of an endzone sack is extraordinarily high and hardly ever happens despite the fact that teams are regularly buried in their own end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stank_Nasty Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 11 minutes ago, MJS said: It's the same difficulty as a sack. The rarity of a safety is due to the position on the field, not due to difficulty. While I agree the scoring shouldn’t change because 2 and the ball is enough. Saying it’s just as easy to sack a qb when they are in their own endzone as anywhere else is just kinda ridiculous IMO. There’s obviously a heightened awareness of what needs to happen and different play calling based on field position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uticaclub Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 4 hours ago, GoBills808 said: I think it needs to be addressed that safeties can only really occur within a very specific part of the field, whereas defensive TDs can happen from anywhere. So it's not simply that safeties occur more infrequently...imo you have to look at the ratio of how many plays run from inside the 3 result in safeties vs the ratio of overall defensive snaps that result in defensive TDs...I expect it will make defensive TDs as infrequent, if not rarer, than safeties. Five thirty eighty has very flawed ways for producing stats to support their theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: No, that's not really true. As I say above, teams gameplan far differently when they're close to their own goal line. The difficulty of an endzone sack is extraordinarily high and hardly ever happens despite the fact that teams are regularly buried in their own end. Again I find that without supporting data this is simply anecdotal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: No, that's not really true. As I say above, teams gameplan far differently when they're close to their own goal line. The difficulty of an endzone sack is extraordinarily high and hardly ever happens despite the fact that teams are regularly buried in their own end. 6 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: While I agree the scoring shouldn’t change because 2 and the ball is enough. Saying it’s just as easy to sack a qb when they are in their own endzone as anywhere else is just kinda ridiculous IMO. There’s obviously a heightened awareness of what needs to happen and different play calling based on field position. In fact it's easier than a sack because you can tackle any ball carrier. It's more akin to a tackle for loss. Offensive philosophy is secondary, I feel. And that same philosophy also makes it more difficult to pick up enough yards for a first down, so there's benefit to the defense. Blocked punts are also rare and difficult. Should we give out points for those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stank_Nasty Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, MJS said: In fact it's easier than a sack because you can tackle any ball carrier. It's more akin to a tackle for loss. Offensive philosophy is secondary, I feel. And that same philosophy also makes it more difficult to pick up enough yards for a first down, so there's benefit to the defense. Blocked punts are also rare and difficult. Should we give out points for those? Bro, I just said I think the scoring is fine as you get points AND a TO. But saying it’s not any harder to get a sack back there is absolutely absurd IMO. teams routinely use quick drops and short passes or jumbo package quick handoffs fo make more room. they safeguard against a game changing safety. I have no clue how somebody can’t notice that. If you can’t notice the different approaches that teams use down inside their own 5 I don’t know what to say to that. but again.... 2 points and possession is game changing enough. So I’m cool with it. Edited April 21, 2020 by Stank_Nasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts