Shaft Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 11 missed this week and counting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Somewhere Blair Walsh is smiling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Up to 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Moving the extra point to be a mid range FG was stupid even before this week's games. And we're probably going to see more of this with the weather getting worse. NFL games shouldn't be so heavily influenced by extra points. They should either make it a chip shot similar to what it was or just get rid of it and force the 2pt conversion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Moving the extra point to be a mid range FG was stupid even before this week's games. And we're probably going to see more of this with the weather getting worse. NFL games shouldn't be so heavily influenced by extra points. They should either make it a chip shot similar to what it was or just get rid of it and force the 2pt conversion. This week had a lot of bad weather and a very high number of misses. Before the change the XP was made at about 99% rate, after the change that dropped to about 95% last year and was holding when I checked a few weeks ago. I don't think it has changed much since then and this one week anomoly will not cause a big change either. It makes for some more excitement, some games where a miss means different strategy, going for 2 later or something. I prefer this change to the crazy ones I heard initially of simply doing away with the XP. 701 out of 749 (93.5%) XP have been made, not sure how many misses are from a distance further than the default. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/index.htm#kicking::none Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 This week had a lot of bad weather and a very high number of misses. Before the change the XP was made at about 99% rate, after the change that dropped to about 95% last year and was holding when I checked a few weeks ago. I don't think it has changed much since then and this one week anomoly will not cause a big change either. It makes for some more excitement, some games where a miss means different strategy, going for 2 later or something. I prefer this change to the crazy ones I heard initially of simply doing away with the XP. 701 out of 749 (93.5%) XP have been made, not sure how many misses are from a distance further than the default. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/index.htm#kicking::none I suppose if the point of the rule change was to make NFL coaches really squirm with the decision to kick vs. go for 2, then it is a good change. They took the sure thing (99%) in the past every time virtually when a game situation didn't demand going for 2. But now it's a "do you want a 93% chance at 1 point or a ~50% chance at 2 points" situation. THe expected value of going for 2 actually makes it the smarter choice in most cases. And some NFL coaches seem to coach that way (Mike Tomlin comes to mind). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I suppose if the point of the rule change was to make NFL coaches really squirm with the decision to kick vs. go for 2, then it is a good change. They took the sure thing (99%) in the past every time virtually when a game situation didn't demand going for 2. But now it's a "do you want a 93% chance at 1 point or a ~50% chance at 2 points" situation. THe expected value of going for 2 actually makes it the smarter choice in most cases. And some NFL coaches seem to coach that way (Mike Tomlin comes to mind). The purpose was to make them less automatic, if they're good 99% of the time some felt they could just get rid of it, make the game move faster, get rid of a play where an injury can happen etc. And yes I think they expected that if 2P conv are good close to 50% of the time more coaches would try that, ads excitement. I don't really like the constant rule tweaking for a variety of reasons, makes me feel like they're chasing fans that don't like the game as is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.