- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Field Goals RE: Vinatieri's Suggestion of 4 pts for 50+ yards
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:14 am
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:14 am
Vinatieri with Florio
Don't think this would be a good idea. Premiums for guys like Justin Tucker would go through the roof. This would also severely frick with the end of games if a team down by 3 or 4 only has to get to the 33/34 to win or tie a game. Personally I don't think the NFL should mess with the extra point either. Thoughts?
PS: Saints don't have to worry about 50+ yard field goals anyway.
Don't think this would be a good idea. Premiums for guys like Justin Tucker would go through the roof. This would also severely frick with the end of games if a team down by 3 or 4 only has to get to the 33/34 to win or tie a game. Personally I don't think the NFL should mess with the extra point either. Thoughts?
PS: Saints don't have to worry about 50+ yard field goals anyway.
10
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:17 am to Kankles
I would prefer elminating field goals altogether.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:19 am to Kankles
50+ yarder isn't the impossible feat is used to be. 55+ and maybe. Actually to me 60+ yards would be more realistic to warrant that because only a few kickers can even get it that far.
This rule should not apply to Denver bc frick that kicker for Dempseys record in a cheap arse low altitude environment
This rule should not apply to Denver bc frick that kicker for Dempseys record in a cheap arse low altitude environment
This post was edited on 2/10/14 at 10:20 am
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:25 am to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
his rule should not apply to Denver bc frick that kicker for Dempseys record in a cheap arse low altitude environment
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:27 am to Neauxla
shite, you know what I meant 
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:31 am to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
50+ yarder isn't the impossible feat is used to be.
Someone should look up the percentage of field goals attempted/made made of 50+ yarders this past year.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:32 am to Kankles
It would need to be 55+ in my opinion. 50 is too close.
But, I agree. Having a 20 yard FG count the same as a 60 yard FG doesn't make a lot of sense.
Any FG inside the 10 should be 2 points if we are going to do this. Then, more teams would go for it on 4th down inside the 10 as well, which would make for a better game, I think.
But, overall, leave things the way they are. Why mess with it?
But, I agree. Having a 20 yard FG count the same as a 60 yard FG doesn't make a lot of sense.
Any FG inside the 10 should be 2 points if we are going to do this. Then, more teams would go for it on 4th down inside the 10 as well, which would make for a better game, I think.
But, overall, leave things the way they are. Why mess with it?
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:40 am to Kankles
The problem with the logic is that you are now rewarding more points for advancing the football a shorter distance. The objective is to cross a goal line, for which you are rewarded 6 points. If you come close but cannot make it the full distance, you have the chance to get half of that.
With this proposal, you now have the chance to score 66% of the ultimate objective by not getting anyway near that objective. Trophies for everyone!!!!
With this proposal, you now have the chance to score 66% of the ultimate objective by not getting anyway near that objective. Trophies for everyone!!!!
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:47 am to Kankles
Hate making longer field goals worth more. You could have a situation where a player falls down toward the end of the half or game to put his team in position for a 4 pt kick? No.
I'm fine with getting rid of the extra point, something like 99% of extra points are converted. Either take 7 or make the team go for 2 and if they miss it drop back to 6.
I'm fine with getting rid of the extra point, something like 99% of extra points are converted. Either take 7 or make the team go for 2 and if they miss it drop back to 6.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:57 am to Kankles
I have always liked the idea.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:01 am to staugslugga
I don't know what the correct solution would be, but common sense has to reign that a 20 yard chip shot should not be worth the same as a 60 yarder. I'm all for finding something that brings variation to that and/or the two point conversion. I think it will only add excitement to the game when you bring more options to it. What I am not for, is changing things just to change things...but, I think there is a good opportunity here to look at the options.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:10 am to staugslugga
I really don't think there should be changes to the scoring system. American Football is great, in my opinion, because it is so different from any other sport out there. Any major changes, such as changes to the scoring system, down/distance, clock management, etc should not be done as it will change the overall flavor of the game. If they do major changes like this it will lose part of its history and unique structure.
This post was edited on 2/10/14 at 11:14 am
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:17 am to Tactical1
quote:Me, too. It would be just like the 3 point line in basketball.
I have always liked the idea.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:23 am to MetArl15
quote:
The problem with the logic is that you are now rewarding more points for advancing the football a shorter distance.
This.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:24 am to bountyhunter
I don't think it would change anything too dramatically honestly. Make a FG under30 yards worth only two and then make everything else 3. Or something along those lines. The only difference I see is that teams would be more inclined to go for it on 4th down inside the new two point range
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:25 am to illuminatic
But the reverse logic is the difficulty of the kick and the risk/reward.
I totally get the argument. Never thought of it that way.
I totally get the argument. Never thought of it that way.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:25 am to illuminatic
quote:
The problem with the logic is that you are now rewarding more points for advancing the football a shorter distance.
Good call. Not really sure how to adjust for that. I mean I guess you could look at is as, yeah you advanced the ball that far, but it's still a much easier FG attempt.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:32 am to liquid rabbit
quote:
I would prefer elminating field goals altogether.
Is it at that point that we'd start calling it... handball?
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:33 am to Kankles
No way the NFL changes a rule that could encourage an offense to take a loss on third down instead of going for a first down.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:33 am to AlabamasSalaryCap
No, you'd still have punts and kickoffs.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News