100 percent agree with this—safeties should be worth more than 2 points

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Stank_Nasty said:

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. 

I think you can make the argument it's not any harder getting a sack for a safety than it would be in other short-yardage type downs.

[MJS]

1 minute ago, Stank_Nasty said:

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. 

Why are you restating yourself? I didn't say offenses don't change their approach. I said the offensive approach is secondary to the argument.

[Stank_Nasty]

7 minutes ago, MJS said:

Why are you restating yourself? I didn't say offenses don't change their approach. I said the offensive approach is secondary to the argument.

It’s not secondary to the argument at all. The argument I saw was that it can be argued it’s easier to get a sack on the end zone. My response was directly towards that. offensive approach can dictate and manipulate the opportunities a defense has to sack a qb for a loss or tackle a ball carrier behind the line. 
 

but I honestly dont freaking care enough to debate this much. You can have it. 
 
 

1 hour ago, 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. Of course, no risk, no reward, which is drives stall so often in that area of the field.

This is apparently a novel concept to some. I didn’t think it needed a ton of explaining. 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Stank_Nasty

[CA OC Bills Fan]

I like the idea of a safety being worth more than 2 points, perhaps 5 as some others have said, not 11 like the article said.

 

For those that said a safety is 2 points plus a turnover, not really true. Yes, the scoring team gets the ball back, but as the article said, due to it being a free kick, the average starting position isn't much better than after any other kickoff. If they had not scored the safety, then there is a very high chance that they'd force the other team to punt from very deep and they'd get the ball back almost in field goal range.

 

I've felt since SB XXV that safeties are not worthwhile unless you drive down the field and score right afterwards. As said above, you have a better chance of scoring a field goal or a touchdown if the defense holds them deep than getting a safety. Also, someone else pointed out that at the end of a game, up by 3 or more points with seconds left, it's a good strategy to run out of the endzone. I don't really see this as a problem, but changing the point count would decrease the point range that this strategy would work.

 

Another solution to what's said above is leave the 2 points as is but change where the scoring team gets the ball back. Either it has to be kicked from very deep, like perhaps the 5 yard line or it's just spotted somewhere automatically like at the 50 or even on the opponents side of the field.

[dave mcbride]

14 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Again I find that without supporting data this is simply anecdotal

I don’t have supporting evidence, but given the extreme rarity of end zone sacks relative to teams being buried deep, I’d venture a substantial sum of money that I’m right about this.

[Mango]

I think it’s silly that sometimes a field goal is worth one point, and sometimes it’s worth 3 points. 

[Mr. K]

But thats more math...