Getting power RBs, blocking TE's and road grading cornfed is soon to be paramount | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Getting power RBs, blocking TE's and road grading cornfed is soon to be paramount

W

WVDolphan

☠️ Banned ☠️
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
15,867
Reaction score
161
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...es-of-moving-extra-points-to-the-1-yard-line/
The change is simple: Move extra points from the 1-yard line to the 2-yard line. That wouldn’t have any noticeable change on the success rate of extra point kicks (the difference to an NFL kicker between essentially a 19-yard field goal and a 20-yard field goal is nothing), but it would have significantly change how often coaches go for two. From the 2-yard line, two-point conversions have been successful less than half the time. But from the 1-yard line, two-point conversions would likely be successful more than half the time. That means that most of the time, going for two would have better odds than kicking the extra point.​
Click to expand...

That should state from the 2-yard line to the 1-yard line.
There’s not currently a specific rules proposal regarding moving extra points to the 1-yard line, but Sal Paolantonio reported on SportsCenter this morning that there’s an undercurrent of movement toward making the change. And NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told Peter King in today’s Monday Morning Quarterback that there’s a chance of such a change.It’s unclear, however, how enthusiastic the owners are about making such a change. The league might experiment with having all extra points at the 1-yard line for the preseason, just to see how big a difference it makes. Then, if owners, coaches, players and fans like it, the move could be made for the regular season in 2016.​
Click to expand...

If the change is coming the smart teams will be ahead of the curve. With a try coming from the 1 yard line it would seem to make sense for teams to not only go for 2 points on every conversion attempt where an extra point does not win the game(the success rate will be higher than 50%) but, to have the kind of players on their roster that gives them a great chance of success on these attempts. After all, given the fact that most games are already decided by one score, these 2 point conversion attempts will be huge.

If a team can create a situation where they are successful around 90% of the time they will have a huge edge on the rest of the league. To do that a team should make sure to have a couple of power RBs on their roster along with some stout run blocking cornfed. These type of RBs will become a hot commodity and their market value will increase as a result of this rule.

For some reason though a lot of FO guys and head coaches do not seem to be all that bright. Look for Belichick to be one of the few guys to be ahead of the curve on this one and have a very high success rate on these conversions. The Pats will likely win 1 or 2 more games than they would have as a result.
 
Good point, this doesn't seem like that big of a possibility though, especially given the fact they were experimenting with the much longer distance extra point last preseason and seemed to like the idea
 
Would be stupid to move it anyways...

Similar to how the Colts are proposing that of you are successful on the 2 pt, you should get an extra fg attempt to. F***ing ridiculous
 
D0lphan72 said:
Good point, this doesn't seem like that big of a possibility though, especially given the fact they were experimenting with the much longer distance extra point last preseason and seemed to like the idea
Click to expand...

I do not think anyone liked the longer extra point try and therefore this is their new idea.

What they want is more teams going for 2 points. They want MORE scoring. They have made the passing game as easy as they can possibly make it. Now they are looking for ways to directly put more points on the board.

The whole notion of doing away with the PAT for safety concerns was pure nonsense. It was always about getting teams to attempt more 2 point conversions. They are only concerned with safety in terms of avoiding lawsuits. A 2 point conversion play is just as tough on the players as a PAT. In fact, I would say it does more harm than a PAT, but no one seemed to argue that when it was first suggested that we eliminate the PAT altogether. It was just a way to get more 2 point tries and more scoring. The NFL just used the notion of safety to pretend they care.

Anywho, they tried this longer PAT thing to see if it might persuade teams to go for 2 more often, but what they found was people just did not like it. It was unlikely to persuade many of these queasy, gutless, coaches to go for 2 more often and at the same time it would cause quite a few missed PATs. These coaches will not even attempt what is perceived to be a risk even when the math says it is in their favor to do something such as go for it on 4th and 1. I swear Belichick and Chip Kelly might be the only coaches in the league with any real balls.

So now that they know that longer PATs blow, their new idea is to just make the 2 point conversion ridiculously tempting by moving it closer. From the 1 yard line the success rate should be pretty high, but I guarantee you that most coaches still will not have the ****ing balls to go for them. It will take someone like Belichick or Kelly to do it every single time(except when an extra point will win the game) and have a great deal of success at it before any of the other coaches grow a pair. You could even show that these tries are 60% and coaches will not go for it every time as they should. They will wait until someone has like a 85-90% success rate and it is common practice around the league for EVERYONE to do it before they try it. Morons. Gutless too. We are running out of leaders quickly. :bobdole:

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------
Travis34 said:
Would be stupid to move it anyways...

Similar to how the Colts are proposing that of you are successful on the 2 pt, you should get an extra fg attempt to. F***ing ridiculous
Click to expand...

Well that was Irsay's idea. You must consider that he is on drugs.
 
Actually what I would propose is getting one extra point for kicking the ball through the uprights on kick-offs. This would give more incentive to teams to find kickers capable of getting the ball out of the end zone on kick-offs and possibly solve the leagues problem with kick return injuries that we know they are trying to stop. Imagine being down by nine late in the 4th quarter and scoring a touchdown and a two point conversion. You take the onside kick out of the equation and try for the kick-off score. Would be a helluva lot more interesting.
 
ncmedic5 said:
Actually what I would propose is getting one extra point for kicking the ball through the uprights on kick-offs. This would give more incentive to teams to find kickers capable of getting the ball out of the end zone on kick-offs and possibly solve the leagues problem with kick return injuries that we know they are trying to stop. Imagine being down by nine late in the 4th quarter and scoring a touchdown and a two point conversion. You take the onside kick out of the equation and try for the kick-off score. Would be a helluva lot more interesting.
Click to expand...

Meh. We have enough soccer players on the field as it is.
 
Flip Tanneflop said:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...es-of-moving-extra-points-to-the-1-yard-line/


That should state from the 2-yard line to the 1-yard line.


If the change is coming the smart teams will be ahead of the curve. With a try coming from the 1 yard line it would seem to make sense for teams to not only go for 2 points on every conversion attempt where an extra point does not win the game(the success rate will be higher than 50%) but, to have the kind of players on their roster that gives them a great chance of success on these attempts. After all, given the fact that most games are already decided by one score, these 2 point conversion attempts will be huge.

If a team can create a situation where they are successful around 90% of the time they will have a huge edge on the rest of the league. To do that a team should make sure to have a couple of power RBs on their roster along with some stout run blocking cornfed. These type of RBs will become a hot commodity and their market value will increase as a result of this rule.

For some reason though a lot of FO guys and head coaches do not seem to be all that bright. Look for Belichick to be one of the few guys to be ahead of the curve on this one and have a very high success rate on these conversions. The Pats will likely win 1 or 2 more games than they would have as a result.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry ... Did I just read YOU stumping for cornfeds?!?

The internet may now end. I've read everything. :chuckle:
 
Use Suh for third and short and goal-line o, prob solved
 
artdnj said:
Use Suh for third and short and goal-line o, prob solved
Click to expand...

Mr. Perry approves.

d0814fridge.jpg
 
Bumpus said:
I'm sorry ... Did I just read YOU stumping for cornfeds?!?

The internet may now end. I've read everything. :chuckle:
Click to expand...

I am for WINNING. I am for whatever is the most sound strategy towards that goal.

If 2 point conversion tries were moved the 1 yard line, it would be an obvious HUGE advantage to have a couple of power backs on your roster(must have 2 in case of injury) along with some cornfed who are excellent short yardage run blockers. I would have a package that includes a couple of beastly TEs and my 5 best run blocking cornfed. I would dare the opposition to keep me from converting at a 90% clip.

Under this scenario I would almost never attempt FGs either. Taking 3 points when at TD results in 8 points almost every time is just not a very smart strategy.
 
Call me a contrarian but wouldn't a Tall WR or TE (i.e. L Fitzgerald or Jimmy Graham) be another possible solution.

p.s. I do like Indy's idea as well.

Flip Tanneflop said:
...Under this scenario I would almost never attempt FGs either. Taking 3 points when at TD results in 8 points almost every time is just not a very smart strategy.
Click to expand...

Am I to deduce you are not a proponent of meatball math???
 
utahphinsfan said:
Call me a contrarian but wouldn't a Tall WR or TE (i.e. L Fitzgerald or Jimmy Graham) be another possible solution.
Click to expand...

Maybe for Pete Carroll. Those of us with a brain would prefer to play smash mouth football from 1 yard out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom