Jump to content


Is it time to narrow the goal posts?


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#1 gjv001

gjv001

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:07 PM

I'd like to know your opinion on narrowing the goal posts by 2 feet.

#2 vincec

vincec

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:12 PM

Big fan, but the last time I mentioned it on TBD I was laughed out of the shout box so don't expect too much support.

BTW, I would narrow them by more than 2 feet.  At least 2 yards.

Edited by vincec, 13 January 2014 - 02:12 PM.


#3 BuffaloBillsMagic1

BuffaloBillsMagic1

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,712 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:14 PM

View Postgjv001, on 13 January 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

I'd like to know your opinion on narrowing the goal posts by 2 feet.
I'd narrow by 3 feet and raise by by 3 ft!!!!!

#4 Jauronimo

Jauronimo

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,507 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:42 PM

Agreed, narrow the goal posts.  Kickers went 96-142 from beyond 50 yards, a completion rate of 67%.  Only 3 of the top 40 kickers had less than a 50% completion rate from 50+.  When 50+ yard field goals become a high percentage play, kicking is too easy.   From 40-49, kickers were 82.5% on the season.  May as well just award 3 points for crossing midfield.

#5 The Wiz

The Wiz

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:48 PM

Switch to arena football goal posts.  9ft wide and 15ft high.  (NFL is 18.5 ft wide and 10 ft high).

And if that's to narrow or too hard, make it so a kick counts as a pass attempt which a receiver can catch.  It sounds dumb I know but can you imagine the different chip shot formations to attempt a TD Kick.

Edited by The Wiz, 13 January 2014 - 02:50 PM.


#6 Wayne Cubed

Wayne Cubed

    TBD's Local Shell Fish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,690 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:59 PM

I'm for narrowing and taking a Rugby type approach for extra points. Whatever side you score from you kick from that hash. If you score between the hash marks you can line the ball up from there and kick. And move the hash marks out a bit. The extra point is the most boring play in all of sports.

#7 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,354 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 03:00 PM

ill say yes but i wont pretend to be able to put a number on how much they need to be narrowed by. I think it would be a positive though.

#8 Mr. WEO

Mr. WEO

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,303 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 03:38 PM

Someone posted this same thing 3 weeks ago: http://forums.twobil...-goal-possible/

I asked this:


Would you rather instead see teams encouraged to punt more?

I don't understand the "kickers are too accurate now" arguement.  Why isn't that a good thing?  Teams still have to drive down filed (in most instances) before attempting one.  Why would any team's fans want a situation where salvaging a stalled drive with 3 points would be more difficult?  Makes no sense.  Didn't the Bills release Lindell because he was an 81% FG career guy?  His FGs were hardly a "sure thing".  In fact Carpenter was cut by Miami for the same reason (his average for his career is only 83%).  Everyone here seems quite happy that he is making 90% of his FGs.

Given the tired observation that "the NFL has become a passing game", and that it only favors QBs and WRs and that passing stats are ballooning over the past decade, should we be calling for heavier footballs?  Limits on how many passes can be attempted per game, because they are "too easy"?

Of course not.  The FG problem isn't a problem at all. Doesn't need fixing."

#9 Jauronimo

Jauronimo

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,507 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 03:55 PM

View PostMr. WEO, on 13 January 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

Someone posted this same thing 3 weeks ago: http://forums.twobil...-goal-possible/

I asked this:


Would you rather instead see teams encouraged to punt more?

I don't understand the "kickers are too accurate now" arguement.  Why isn't that a good thing?  Teams still have to drive down filed (in most instances) before attempting one.  Why would any team's fans want a situation where salvaging a stalled drive with 3 points would be more difficult?  Makes no sense.  Didn't the Bills release Lindell because he was an 81% FG career guy?  His FGs were hardly a "sure thing".  In fact Carpenter was cut by Miami for the same reason (his average for his career is only 83%).  Everyone here seems quite happy that he is making 90% of his FGs.

Given the tired observation that "the NFL has become a passing game", and that it only favors QBs and WRs and that passing stats are ballooning over the past decade, should we be calling for heavier footballs?  Limits on how many passes can be attempted per game, because they are "too easy"?

Of course not.  The FG problem isn't a problem at all. Doesn't need fixing."
If FGs were riskier you'd likely see the offense on the field on 4th down. If a 50 yarder were more like a 40% completion than a 68%, you think twice about kicking the FG.  No one is punting from the 33.  Adds suspense in the play calling, creates more 4th down conversion attempts, and makes a 50 yard FG attempt more exciting/impressive.  Whats the problem?

#10 OCinBuffalo

OCinBuffalo

    This...for the first 6 games he plays

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,471 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:16 PM

:rolleyes: I suppose I should then ask:

Is is time we stop coming up with ways to F around with the game....that suits special interests/whatever whim comes along?


The game has tradition....because it's "traditional". Constantly creating uncertainty and "solving" problems before we've defined them properly.....is exactly how you end up with the awful officiating we've had this year. This year had some of the worst calls I've ever seen. Not just the ones that went against us. We GOT awful calls this year.

When has that ever happened?

Unintended consequences. That's what all this mucking around with the rules creates, because NOBODY has done the work required to identify all the possible outcomes of doing X, and then accounting for the ones we don't want.

The best you can hope for doing things this way? You get lucky, and nothing too bad happens.

#11 VirginiaMike

VirginiaMike

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:16 PM

View PostJauronimo, on 13 January 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

Agreed, narrow the goal posts.  Kickers went 96-142 from beyond 50 yards, a completion rate of 67%.  Only 3 of the top 40 kickers had less than a 50% completion rate from 50+.  When 50+ yard field goals become a high percentage play, kicking is too easy.   From 40-49, kickers were 82.5% on the season.  May as well just award 3 points for crossing midfield.
Good Stats -- thanks -- It is time to narrow then by minimally 3 feet.

#12 distortions

distortions

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:19 PM

I would narrow them and also widen and lengthen the field. It might cut down on injuries and make the game more exciting to watch. Today's players have outgrown the game.

#13 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,354 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:23 PM

View PostJauronimo, on 13 January 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:


If FGs were riskier you'd likely see the offense on the field on 4th down. If a 50 yarder were more like a 40% completion than a 68%, you think twice about kicking the FG.  No one is punting from the 33.  Adds suspense in the play calling, creates more 4th down conversion attempts, and makes a 50 yard FG attempt more exciting/impressive.  Whats the problem?

agreed. further, ill say ill disagree with WEOs premise that as a fan i should be happy seeing scoring on the end of more drives. i like the kicking game to be a bit risky.

really, this probably couldve had a nice effect on the overtime issues as well, instead of instituting the two possession rule. it also would reduce kickoff returns, another problem the nfl is dealing with.

View PostVirginiaMike, on 13 January 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:


Good Stats -- thanks -- It is time to narrow then by minimally 3 feet.

ive got to ask - as many have chimed in -- other than saying numbers for fun, how is anyone throwing out 1 ft vs 3 ft vs any other measurement?

#14 DC Grid

DC Grid

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:45 PM

I'd love to see this.  Make the kicking game a little more of an unknown.  I'd be up for narrowing them by 3 yards in each of the three directions.  Make it so a good kicker truly means something and encourage teams to go for it a little more and not just leave it up to a boring 37 yarder to win the game.  They should also consider chipping the ball so we don't have two guys giving it their best guess when it crosses above the goalpost.  This would speed things up a bit and avoid the potential replay of FGs that I've heard talked about.

Edited by DC Grid, 13 January 2014 - 04:45 PM.


#15 Wayne Cubed

Wayne Cubed

    TBD's Local Shell Fish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,690 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 05:32 PM

View PostOCinBuffalo, on 13 January 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

:rolleyes: I suppose I should then ask:

Is is time we stop coming up with ways to F around with the game....that suits special interests/whatever whim comes along?


The game has tradition....because it's "traditional". Constantly creating uncertainty and "solving" problems before we've defined them properly.....is exactly how you end up with the awful officiating we've had this year. This year had some of the worst calls I've ever seen. Not just the ones that went against us. We GOT awful calls this year.

When has that ever happened?

Unintended consequences. That's what all this mucking around with the rules creates, because NOBODY has done the work required to identify all the possible outcomes of doing X, and then accounting for the ones we don't want.

The best you can hope for doing things this way? You get lucky, and nothing too bad happens.

But the game has been changed loads of times in the past. Some good, some bad.

Specifically in terms of FGs the style of kicking has changed from drop kicks to place kicks to soccer style kicks.

In 89' they got rid of the tee you could use for FGs.

The place kicker didn't become a specialized role until the 60s. They'd have someone who plays another position, much like the rest of STs now, kick.

Now maybe specializing the kicking positon contributed to what we see now in the game. Gimme extra points and high percentage FGs within 50 yards.

Is this made the game better? Or less exciting?

#16 Mr. WEO

Mr. WEO

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,303 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 05:48 PM

View PostJauronimo, on 13 January 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

If FGs were riskier you'd likely see the offense on the field on 4th down. If a 50 yarder were more like a 40% completion than a 68%, you think twice about kicking the FG.  No one is punting from the 33.  Adds suspense in the play calling, creates more 4th down conversion attempts, and makes a 50 yard FG attempt more exciting/impressive.  Whats the problem?

Why would you want your kicker to be worse at making FGs?

Teams are free to attermpt that 4th and 1 on the 33 now--and will succeed 67% of the time.  But what if it's 4th and 8 on the 33?  4th and 7,6,5,4?

Even if  the Goalposts were narrowed to decrease the FG success down to 50%, you would still kick a FG on anything more than 4th and 3 because beyond that, the success at getting a 1st down is below 50%.

View PostNoSaint, on 13 January 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

agreed. further, ill say ill disagree with WEOs premise that as a fan i should be happy seeing scoring on the end of more drives. i like the kicking game to be a bit risky.

really, this probably couldve had a nice effect on the overtime issues as well, instead of instituting the two possession rule. it also would reduce kickoff returns, another problem the nfl is dealing with.



ive got to ask - as many have chimed in -- other than saying numbers for fun, how is anyone throwing out 1 ft vs 3 ft vs any other measurement?

Ask NO about the current risks of the kicking game.

Want to spice up 4th down?  Get rid of punting.

View PostDC Grid, on 13 January 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

I'd love to see this.  Make the kicking game a little more of an unknown. I'd be up for narrowing them by 3 yards in each of the three directions.  Make it so a good kicker truly means something and encourage teams to go for it a little more and not just leave it up to a boring 37 yarder to win the game.  They should also consider chipping the ball so we don't have two guys giving it their best guess when it crosses above the goalpost.  This would speed things up a bit and avoid the potential replay of FGs that I've heard talked about.

Each of the three directions? What three directions are there?

The posts are only 18 feet apart, narrowing them by 3 yards would make them only 9 feet wide, which would render kicking for points nearly impossible.

#17 OCinBuffalo

OCinBuffalo

    This...for the first 6 games he plays

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,471 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 05:53 PM

View PostWayne Cubed, on 13 January 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

But the game has been changed loads of times in the past. Some good, some bad.

Specifically in terms of FGs the style of kicking has changed from drop kicks to place kicks to soccer style kicks.

In 89' they got rid of the tee you could use for FGs.

The place kicker didn't become a specialized role until the 60s. They'd have someone who plays another position, much like the rest of STs now, kick.

Now maybe specializing the kicking positon contributed to what we see now in the game. Gimme extra points and high percentage FGs within 50 yards.

Is this made the game better? Or less exciting?
And the fact that the changes you've described have happened...

...over the course of 60 years....

...doesn't make you stop and think?

Again, just because something is a statistical spike today, doesn't mean it will stay that way. Show me 5 straight years of outlier kicking, and I suppose there might be a cause for concern.

Look, I hate problems. My life is about killing them, permanently. But, that's the point: permanently.

I've seen far too many short-sighted "solutions" that end up causing more problems than they solve, produced by people who aren't qualified/haven't done the work that is necessary to produce good solutions.

There's a perfect, giant example of what I'm talking about...somewhere on this page. :lol:

#18 Jauronimo

Jauronimo

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,507 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:34 PM

View PostMr. WEO, on 13 January 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

Why would you want your kicker to be worse at making FGs?

Teams are free to attermpt that 4th and 1 on the 33 now--and will succeed 67% of the time.  But what if it's 4th and 8 on the 33?  4th and 7,6,5,4?

Even if  the Goalposts were narrowed to decrease the FG success down to 50%, you would still kick a FG on anything more than 4th and 3 because beyond that, the success at getting a 1st down is below 50%.
Its not just my kicker.  Its everyone's kicker.  I'd prefer to watch a game where a 40 yarder isn't a foregone conclusion.

What if it were 4th and 7 and you had to decide between going for a new set of downs or taking a risky kick?  Sounds pretty !@#$ing exciting to me.  Endless debate on strategy.  You'd also see the play calling change as teams enter 4 down territory.

We wouldn't see so many games end with the offense running the clock out, content to kick a 45 yarder.  Sounds good to me.  I guess I don't share your affinity for the kicking game.

#19 Baba Booey

Baba Booey

    Practice Squad

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:52 PM

It's defineatly time to do something, FG's are becoming automatic from 50 yards. It's become to easy.

#20 Jauronimo

Jauronimo

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,507 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 07:00 PM

View PostOCinBuffalo, on 13 January 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

And the fact that the changes you've described have happened...

...over the course of 60 years....

...doesn't make you stop and think?

Again, just because something is a statistical spike today, doesn't mean it will stay that way. Show me 5 straight years of outlier kicking, and I suppose there might be a cause for concern.

Look, I hate problems. My life is about killing them, permanently. But, that's the point: permanently.

I've seen far too many short-sighted "solutions" that end up causing more problems than they solve, produced by people who aren't qualified/haven't done the work that is necessary to produce good solutions.

There's a perfect, giant example of what I'm talking about...somewhere on this page. :lol:
If I start a thread in PPP devoted solely to you and showering you with attention will you stop polluting this thread with your views on you and how your IT experience relates to not only you but to field goals and you and football as well?

Edited by Jauronimo, 13 January 2014 - 07:04 PM.