Roger Goodell says NFL considering eliminating extra point

[irish]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I voted 'yes' they should consider eliminating the XP but I'd rather see them modify it by making it an actual play. Give teams the option to kick from the 18 yd line (35 yd FG) for one or run a play from the 3 yd line for two. Adds an element of strategy to each scoring play and execution so that it's not automatic.

My bet is 98.4% of the time teams would opt for the easy FG rather than the play. IMO there wouldnt be any more strategy in a play/kick option than there is now.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by irish

My bet is 98.4% of the time teams would opt for the easy FG rather than the play. IMO there wouldnt be any more strategy in a play/kick option than there is now.

A 35 yarder isn't a gimme FG like the XP is now. Now windy/wet conditions potentially could be a factor in deciding to kick or go for two. What if your kicker gets injured in game? Sure a punter can knock it in from 19 yds but how about from 35?

*Update* Only 11 of 34 kickers who attempted a FG this past season were perfect from less than 39 yards. Not a sure thing every time.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I voted 'yes' they should consider eliminating the XP but I'd rather see them modify it by making it an actual play. Give teams the option to kick from the 18 yd line (35 yd FG) for one or run a play from the 3 yd line for two. Adds an element of strategy to each scoring play and execution so that it's not automatic.

I agree with this. Make it more competitive, but dont take the foot out of football.

[MTK]

People act like Goodell is the only commish to have rule changes go into effect under his regime.

The game is constantly evolving. Always has, always will.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

People act like Goodell is the only commish to have rule changes go into effect under his regime.

The game is constantly evolving. Always has, always will.

Problem is his changes have had negative impacts on the game, from a fans perspective and for players playing defense. I don't remember Rozelle or Tagliabue having such negativity during their runs. But I like some of the new proposals that are on the table w/ the PAT.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Problem is his changes have had negative impacts on the game, from a fans perspective and for players playing defense. I don't remember Rozelle or Tagliabue having such negativity during their runs. But I like some of the new proposals that are on the table w/ the PAT.

That is because tagliabue and Rozelle just hid the information. Unfortunately Goodell is working in a time where information automatically becomes public.

If they worked in a time where the long term effects of concussions became public and the NFL was constantly being sued by ex players for not being honest about the risks, they would be doing the same thing in order to make the NFL marketable.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Problem is his changes have had negative impacts on the game, from a fans perspective and for players playing defense. I don't remember Rozelle or Tagliabue having such negativity during their runs. But I like some of the new proposals that are on the table w/ the PAT.

Different times/eras. Neither of them had to deal with the 24/7 glare from traditional and social media like Goodell does. Both of them had their share of problems if you do some research. Rozelle had his run ins with Al Davis, there were issues with drugs/steroids in the 80s, he also had two strikes during his tenure. Tags put in some strict and unpopular rule changes too. The start of the term "No Fun League" came under his watch.

[MTK]

I've yet to hear a legit compelling argument in favor of the PAT.

Probably a good indication why it's likely to change sooner rather than later.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I've yet to hear a legit compelling argument in favor of the PAT.

Probably a good indication why it's likely to change sooner rather than later.

Interesting because I havent heard a compelling arguement to change it.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by irish

Interesting because I havent heard a compelling arguement to change it.

Adding a more impactful plays to the game on extra scoring attempts rather than a 98% gimme point for a more exciting game isnt compelling? I think Goodell makes a pretty layman arguement

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

Interesting because I havent heard a compelling arguement to change it.

If saying a play that fails 1% of the time couldn't be improved upon isn't good enough for you there's not much else to say.

[SkinsGuru]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

If saying a play that fails 1% of the time couldn't be improved upon isn't good enough for you there's not much else to say.

actually 1.4% . . . and that 1.4% has the ability to change the outcome of 2 - 3 games per year . . . so is it because the Skins kickers have sucked as we had a better chance at being the team that blows that game??

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SkinsGuru

actually 1.4% . . . and that 1.4% has the ability to change the outcome of 2 - 3 games per year . . . so is it because the Skins kickers have sucked as we had a better chance at being the team that blows that game??

It's up to 99.1% since 2004.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by irish

Interesting because I havent heard a compelling arguement to change it.

It is the most boring part of a football game.

One of the most exciting parts of a football game is a 2 point conversion.

I believe it is that simple. This isn't High school or college.

[irish]

Originally Posted by donofriose

It is the most boring part of a football game.

One of the most exciting parts of a football game is a 2 point conversion.

I believe it is that simple. This isn't High school or college.

No, the kickoff is the most boring play in football.