Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: NFL moves extra point to 15-yard line
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Phits
QUOTE
The NFL announced the extra point will now be kicked from the 15-yard line with two-point conversions remaining at the 2-yard line. The new rule also gives the defense the ability to score two points on returns.

According to the rule change, if the defense returns a blocked extra point or failed two-point try for a touchdown (i.e. on an interception), they will be awarded two points. Under the previous rule the ball was dead on a failed try.


Linc
mcnabbulous
This is actually relevant to Tebow as a football player! And the reason I think he will make our team over Barkley.
nephillymike
My son had a good point that I didn't think of:

The NFL has just made the kicker more important than ever.

I like the rule change as it is more exciting, but I really wasn't looking for a way to make kicking more of a deciding factor.

Ugh!
samaroo
QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 20 2015, 09:00 AM) *
My son had a good point that I didn't think of:

The NFL has just made the kicker more important than ever.

I like the rule change as it is more exciting, but I really wasn't looking for a way to make kicking more of a deciding factor.

Ugh!

It's supposed to make it less "automatic," but the numbers are still over 97%. Typical BS from the NFL. It's less than a 2% difference! Nobody is gonna go for 2 because of this.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (samaroo @ May 19 2015, 07:03 PM) *
It's supposed to make it less "automatic," but the numbers are still over 97%. Typical BS from the NFL. It's less than a 2% difference! Nobody is gonna go for 2 because of this.

I can name one guy who might
samaroo
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 20 2015, 09:08 AM) *
I can name one guy who might

We all thought that when Chip got here, but it didn't happen. And there's really not any more incentive to do it now. Why do you think he will now?
Phits
QUOTE (samaroo @ May 19 2015, 08:03 PM) *
It's supposed to make it less "automatic," but the numbers are still over 97%. Typical BS from the NFL. It's less than a 2% difference! Nobody is gonna go for 2 because of this.

Consider that the 2 point conversion is going to remain at the 2 yard line, it may make a difference in the amount of attempts. Either way, I like it.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (samaroo @ May 19 2015, 07:10 PM) *
We all thought that when Chip got here, but it didn't happen. And there's really not any more incentive to do it now. Why do you think he will now?

I don't think he's had the personnel to do it more. Think he wants to.
samaroo
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 20 2015, 09:39 AM) *
I don't think he's had the personnel to do it more. Think he wants to.

You mean our Big Bad Back Wrecking Crew? Or our possible 3rd string H-back/QB? I get it either way, and I think Chip wants to do it every time, but the numbers aren't favorable, and Chip seems good at math.

And Phits, do you think the attempts will go up? I don't see this making a difference really. It's a longer formality instead of just a formality. It's still 97% from the 15. I don't think the numbers will change much, if at all.
mcnabbulous
The simple upgrade from Foles to Bradford increases the odds. Demarco's short yardage gains over Shady also increase the chances. Tebow will be an occasional mix up
samaroo
Okay, maybe I suck at math more than I think I do. (Full disclosure: I suck at math.) Here's a very quick read stating that coaches might actually go for 2 more now. Here's the linc.

I have seen different numbers for FG% from the new spot, ranging from 91% to 97%, so there is that, but either way, he makes a good point.

Nabby, you might be right after all. If this article is correct in it's assessment, I did say Chip was good at math.
Christian_Cat
Awesome, I love this new 2 point conversion rule. smile.gif
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 19 2015, 08:53 PM) *
The simple upgrade from Foles to Bradford increases the odds. Demarco's short yardage gains over Shady also increase the chances. Tebow will be an occasional mix up

There are so many questions going into this season from the OL, Bradford's health/rust, Maxwell out of Seattle and did Tebow improve as a QB? If that last question is yes and he is now an adequate backup then Kelly has found himself a new toy.

2015 = The Year of IF.
Eyrie
I'm in favour.

I can see an aggressive coach like Kelly being willing to go for it early in the game, figuring that there will be plenty of time to make up the points if the attempt is missed but liking the thought that success will put pressure on the opposing coach to play catch up.
D Rock
QUOTE (Christian_Cat @ May 20 2015, 07:29 AM) *
Awesome, I love this new 2 point conversion rule. smile.gif

What "new 2 point conversion rule?"

There is no "new 2 point conversion rule." 2 point conversions in 2015 will be as they've been for decades.

The change was made to how ONE (1) point conversions are played.

You are a fan of nonexistent rules as well as nonexistent quarterbacks?

-neat
Dreagon
So what if the QB takes the snap at the two yard line and then does a drop kick through the goal posts?
Phits
QUOTE (Dreagon @ May 20 2015, 06:01 PM) *
So what if the QB takes the snap at the two yard line and then does a drop kick through the goal posts?

5 points, plus the offense gets the ball back.
samaroo
QUOTE (Phits @ May 21 2015, 08:45 AM) *
5 points, plus the offense gets the ball back.

Ha! laugh.gif

I've now read several things that are saying coaches should always go for two now, unless there's a specific game situation that dictates otherwise.

Mikey can check this for me, but if it's roughly 50% success rate for 2 pt conversions (and it is, roughly) and say 91% for a FG from the 15, then it makes sense to go for two.

PAT = 0.91 points
2 pt. = 0.99 points

So, if you miss on a 2, try again the next time and the odds say you'll make up lost ground. Over the long haul, you should score more going for 2 every time. Law of averages.

Maybe everyone will be going for 2 now!

Now if only they could fix the OT rules...
nephillymike
I'll use your FG% success rate for the XP but the actual 2 pt conversion success rate is 44.7%, call it 45%.

So..............

If a team scores 50 TD's and goes for one point each time, they would get it 91% of the time = 45.5 points.

If they go for 2 50 times at a 45% success rate, they would get 45 points.

Even if the other team never returns a failed 2 pointer for a 2 pts the other way, it seems like the kick is the better way, slightly.

But the big story, there will be plenty more games when the kicker misses the XP that costs the team the game.

THAT will be tough for everyone to swallow, fans, players and coaches alike.
samaroo
Hey, I said roughly! Twice!

But it's close. I wonder if that's why Chipper wanted to spot the ball on the 1. He's just trying to make the math match his desires.

As for the missed PAT's costing games...yikes. I hadn't even thought about that. That'd be a brutal way to lose a game. Kickers' life expectancy just took a hit.

BTW, something I saw brought up on FO, what happens if there's a penalty on a PAT? If it's defensive offsides, does the O have the option of putting the ball on the 1 and going for 2? Could definitely cut down on teams pushing hard for a block, which might raise the FG% a bit.
samaroo
Also, does anyone think Chip goes for 2 significantly more this year? If it's the difference of a fraction of a percentage point, don't you think Chip would think he could scheme out the difference? I've been very surprised how little he's gone for it on 4th or gone for 2.

Also, this has to be why Tebow is here, right?
samaroo
Okay, more math. Here's a counter-point to the "teams should go for two" thinking posted in a discussion on Football Outsiders.

QUOTE
This is my absolute #1 pet peeve when it comes to analytics and sports. The worship of expected value while completely ignoring variance, and then labeling people who incorporate variance into their decision making as risk averse(which is used as a pejorative) or even worse dumb(I know that you are not calling coaches dumb, but I see this often at various sites).

Here's an example which I think underscores the problem. You turn 65, you are given $1 million to fund your retirement, you have no other savings, and you have two options to choose from, and can only play this 'game' once:

Option 1) A 90% chance of winning an getting an extra 10%, and 10% chance of getting nothing extra. So, Option 1 has an expected value of $1,090,000(90% * $1.1M) + (10% * $1M)

Option 2) A 50% chance of getting an extra an extra $2 million, and a 50% chance of getting nothing and losing the original $1 milion. So, Option 2 has an expected value of $1.5 million(50% * $3M) + (50% * 0)

I don't think anyone in their right mind would choose Option 2 over Option 1 even though the expected value is 38% higher. If you could play this game over and over, then yes Option #2 makes the most sense, but if you only get one shot at it, you have to take Option #1 because the variance from Option 2 is too extreme, the risk of getting nothing is too much to bear.

Everyone does these types of 2 point conversion analyses from this perspective of 'in the long run' with an infinite number of attempts. The problem of course is that in the real world teams aren't dealing with an infinite number of 2 point attempts, they get maybe 3 or 4 per week. And getting lucky on your 2 point conversions next week doesn't help you if you lose by one point this week. The difference in expected values would have to be much larger than .05 points per attempts to overcome the much larger variance in 2 point attempts. Maybe if the kick was a 45 yarder, something where the likelihood of conversion was 67% instead of 95%, then the math would work for more 2 point conversions.


So, maybe coaches won't go for two more? I know I've put forth data for both sides of the argument, but it's the offseason, and there's nothing else to do. Personally, I think (and hope) that teams do go for two more often. But that's just because I think FG's are boring, especially PATs.
Joegrane
QUOTE (samaroo @ May 21 2015, 12:08 AM) *
Also, does anyone think Chip goes for 2 significantly more this year? If it's the difference of a fraction of a percentage point, don't you think Chip would think he could scheme out the difference? I've been very surprised how little he's gone for it on 4th or gone for 2.

Also, this has to be why Tebow is here, right?


A team's efficiency inside the 5 is going to be a big factor. In recent years the birds have not been great at getting 6 despite having a "big receiver" in Cooper. Also McCoy and DJax were not great in short yardage situations. Maclin's toughness in traffic made him useful but he is gone.

If indeed Bradford is more accurate than Foles and Sanchez that should help. The bigger RBs help. Although Matthews is bigger than Maclin, he won't get the same separation. The eagles have a similar situation with Celek vs Ertz.

If Tebow is not an accurate enough passer teams will just blitz him. If his accuracy improves from poor to just below-average, he should be a nice threat in 3rd and 1 situations. The threat is not the same when there are two yards to gain. You are not likely to use a QB sneak in that situation, even with a Fullback-sized QB.

If Tebow's accuracy has improved to below-average, does Chip keep him active on game day as the very-short-yardage QB, Wildcat and Punter-Protector? I could see Chip going max protect with a Flea Flicker in one of those situations to utilize Tim's big arm and keep defenses honest.
samaroo
Okay, if anyone cares about this PAT stuff, read the comments here. There's some really interesting ideas there. Pretty good read.

Joe, I think we'll be better in short yardage situations this year. Especially in the RZ. It seemed weird to me whenever Sproles would trot onto the field in goal line situations. He was pretty good at it, but everytime it happened I thought "Where is Polk?" The big backs should be perfect for that.

I am confused by one comment however. What do you mean by "Tim's big arm?" Surely no DC is worried about Tebow throwing over their heads in short yardage.
Zero
Akers was on with Cuz yesterday morning. I heard a replay of his comment suggesting that the new distance will separate the men from the boys (or something to that effect) and that it's not a gimme any more.
samaroo
QUOTE (Zero @ May 23 2015, 08:34 PM) *
Akers was on with Cuz yesterday morning. I heard a replay of his comment suggesting that the new distance will separate the men from the boys (or something to that effect) and that it's not a gimme any more.

Meh. If the game's on the line, I'm expecting any K to make a 33 yarder. If it's a routine XP, he damn well better!
nephillymike
QUOTE (samaroo @ May 22 2015, 09:37 PM) *
Okay, more math. Here's a counter-point to the "teams should go for two" thinking posted in a discussion on Football Outsiders.



So, maybe coaches won't go for two more? I know I've put forth data for both sides of the argument, but it's the offseason, and there's nothing else to do. Personally, I think (and hope) that teams do go for two more often. But that's just because I think FG's are boring, especially PATs.



If I understand his math, I think he doesn't understand his math!

To make it easier, let's just look at three PAT's in 1 game, and let's use 94% success rate for XP and 47% for 2 pt conv.

Team A kicks it all three times. Their expected value is .94x1 ptx 3 times = 2.82 pts
Team B goes for 2 three times. Their expected value is .47 x 2 pts x 3 times = 2.82 pts.

In a three TD game, the "variance" has a chance to correct itself. Sure a bigger sample would help smooth it out, but the guy act as if each game is going to be decided by a point. A 2 point miss on try one and you can still get it on try two and be where you would be if you kicked it twice. The variance corrects itself. (I know that's not the correct stat term but that is to put it in the same lingo) I don't know how many are, but I would guess that 90%+ of the NFL games are decided by more than 2 points. This cancels out the variance difference 90% of the time.

I don't think this changes much at all really.

The real takeaway, IMO, is this.

Last year, the Eagles scored 54 TD's. Parkey made all of his XP, but if he was avg and only made 99.% of them, he would have made 53.5 of them, so either 54 or 53, so maybe one missed XP.

This year, if we kick it every time again, our expected made XP is 54 x .94 = 50.7, or roughly three more missed XP's for us all to talk about after the games. Realistically maybe only one costs us, but it sure will put more focus on the kickers.

I don't think that is the NFL's intention but that will be the result.
samaroo
I just did the math for 54 TD's scored using the %'s you did above, Mikey. Your expected XP points in a season is actually 50.76, and the expected for 2 pt tries is also 50.76. What a difference maker this rule is!
nephillymike
QUOTE (samaroo @ May 23 2015, 08:03 PM) *
I just did the math for 54 TD's scored using the %'s you did above, Mikey. Your expected XP points in a season is actually 50.76, and the expected for 2 pt tries is also 50.76. What a difference maker this rule is!



Exactly.

However, it will put more spotlight on the K!!
samaroo
Thank god Henery isn't here. I don't know if he has the leg for a 33 yarder...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.