I'm surprised so many people are upset about this. If they get rid of the PAT, would anyone really pine for the days when a TD was followed by a 17-yd FG? I think a mandatory two-point try or a kick from 20 yards further back would be much more thrilling than what we currently have. Statjeff had it right earlier. Extra points are a relic from an era when a position player would serve as the Kicker, not someone who's been specializing in it since high school. Hall of Famer Lou Groza was arguably the best Kicker of his era (1946-67) and he's 88th all-time in XP%. He was also a 6-fot-3 250 lb offensive lineman.
First, its annoying that Belichek can utter an idle complaint and it picks up steam so quickly. The origin of the PAT is that it is considered a BONUS point - The opportunity is given as a reward for scoring the TD. It should not be automatically awarded. That being said, the idea of making it a 35 yarder is interesting. I'm sure there is a yard-line where the percentage of conversions is equal to that of an extra point from 50 years ago. BTW, If you want to see some dramatically different stats, take a look a FG & XP percentages from the 60s to now. For what it is worth, I hope the TD is not changed to an automatic 7 points.
I say get rid of the extra point. If it has a 99.6% rate then it should be gone. Imagine losing a Superbowl because of a PAT. A TD is 7 points and FG is 3 points. No 2 point conversion either. The two point conversion is very fluky. It's luck. And I don't want to see games decided by kicks.
I dislike extra points. I say either make them go for 2 every time or back it up a little bit. Maybe have the option of kicking either a 30 yard FG (1 point) or a 50 yard FG (2 points).
Nah can't get rid of the two points. It makes a huge impact as a team down by 16 can catch up with two scores instead of three. Plus a team leading can go for 2 points in certain situations to force the trailing team to need a TD instead of just a FG, etc. Adds to the strategy, making tough decisions and it isn't fluky or luck, it takes a well executed play. End of story.
I can disagree w/ certain things he has done while still thinking he has done a good job overall. I don't have to agree w/ everything. he is doing what is best for the sport not what is best for me. they play the game in front of people that don't give a s*** now. the people that go to SBs(most of them) are not there for the game and couldn't care less who wins or loses. The Broncos play in cold weather, they'd have the same shot as Seattle if they played in bad conditions. if we used that line of thinking it benefits the warm weather/dome teams when Sbs are played in warm weather/domes. why should a southern team have an edge over a northern team if the game is played in Miami? same thing. check out how the game changed from the 40s to the 60s or the 70s to the 90s, etc... the game changes all the time.
I think this is the best idea. I'd probably be okay with moving the PAT back, but I would have no problem with dropping them altogether.
Yesterday I was listening to Mike and Mike on my way to work. Green made a good suggestion. Instead of moving back the kicking point, he said move it closer and make it more favorable for teams who wants to go for 2. Not a bad idea.Put the ball at half yard line and allow teams to go for 1 or 2.
The more I think about this, the more it bothers me. Is the game of football broken? Does Roger Goodell think he needs to fix it for us? Exactly when did kicking the PAT become an issue for anyone? If they decide to make it a little harder so be it, but getting rid of it is a terrible idea. This just in ... MLB has announced that pitchers will no longer need to throw the four pitches required for an intentional walk ... And all putts on the PGA Tour under 13" will now be considered "gimmes". BTW --- for those opposed to the 8 vs 6 idea ... Its bush league and gimmicky, but no choice. If you remove the PAT You absolutely have to do that or you completely disrupt the scoring balance of the sport. Can't have TD + 2 = 3 FG's ... Doesn't work in the big picture. If you eliminate the PAT you have to have the 8 / 6 thing, or you have to get rid of the 2 point conversion as well. It's the only way it works. The bottom line is ... Just leave the goddamn thing alone!
You are so right, but Goodell's big picture is geared toward eliminating what he perceives to be potential areas of liability for the NFL rather than maintaining the league as we know it. There is no other reason for eliminating the XP
The ideas of getting an extra point without having to earn it and losing points because you failed to execute on a play are just really bad.
The reasons are that it's boring and the same thing happens literally 99% of the time. Seriously, the first time a team is forced to either go for two or kick a 37 yd FG for one point, will there be anyone saying "I sure miss the old extra point play"?
I am not against pushing the yard line of the extra point back. That's not a bad idea, but that is not what is under consideration. They are considering doing away with the extra point, i.e., eliminating it from the game entirely. And not kicking an extra point is not how the game is played.
No. Not really. I don't want to turn this into a different thread but what you're saying sounds good in theory, but it doesn't ring true in the real world. Good weather is never a detriment to any offense, and every team in the league plays most of their games in good weather so the advantage, if there is any at all, is minimal. The proof is in the results ... Cold weather teams have won as many SB's as warm weather teams. It would be interesting to look at the results of all SB's where cold weather teams played warm weather teams. Without going too far back ... PITT beat AZ, NE beat CAR, INDY beat CHI, NE beat St. Louis, Denver beat ATL. That's 4 out of 5 for the cold weather teams vs warm weather teams.
