30 replies to this topic

[Cat'sGrowl]

I was watching Mike and Mike this morning, and they were discussing some of the rule changes that Bill Belichick said had been proposed this offseason. The first one they mentioned, was obviously, the kickoff rule, and how Belichick said it was brought forward that moving the KO line up is a first step towards eliminating KO's altogether-which sadly, does not surprise me. The sissification of the game in recent years has reach extraordinary levels, and the "competition" committee-has done anything but keep the game competitive. Offenses are so protected, you have to have an elite defense just to keep up with mid tier offenses.

On to my point, however.

The second rule they brought up-was the proposal of changing the extra point after touchdowns. In other words-getting the extra point by another means rather than the gimme kick. Touchdowns have come to automatically mean "7 points" rather than 6 as they were intended to be, which isn't very competitive, is it? At first I didn't like the idea of changing, but it is kind of growing on me..

Mike and Mike brought forth a few options, some I like, some I don't....

-Move the kick back. Make it a 30 or 35 yard kick. That way it has to be earned. I like this one.

-Eliminate the 2-point conversion, make the team run a standard play for their extra point. Hate this idea.

-Get rid of extra points altogether. Make Touchdowns worth 7 (since apparently the competition committee felt that XP's were a "waste of time")
Hate this one as well.


Thoughts? Ideas?

[CRA]

some things don't need to be changed. XP is fine.

Every year a team not converting an XP is the difference maker in a game.

[bleys]

NFL, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[The_Cannon]

I read Bellicheks article yesterday. I understand the principle behind it but none of the proposed replacements really work for me.

[Kettle]

Kickers aren't really football players so lets just eliminate them all together. Cam can throw it through the uprights for a FG.

[nitroblast]

Of course not.

http://scores.espn.g...ameId=230914027

[Cracka McNasty]

I do like the idea of moving the XP back though. anything that close is a gimmie. Kickers are much better than they were in the past, so move it back and make the kickers actually earn their money.

[Cat'sGrowl]

I do like the idea of moving the XP back though. anything that close is a gimmie. Kickers are much better than they were in the past, so move it back and make the kickers actually earn their money.

This is about the only thing that I can think of that I would be on board with, for the reason.
Even if you only move it back about 10 or 15 yards..

[The_Cannon]

Of course not.

http://scores.espn.g...ameId=230914027

Holy Poo! Look at this:

Delhomme C/ATT- 9/23 YDS- 96 TD-0 INT- 2

Johnson C/ATT- 34/61 YDS-339 TD-1 INT-1

Edited by The_Cannon, 24 August 2011 - 10:13 AM.

[BountyHunter]

What about making the goalposts narrower. Instead of 18' 6", change it to 17'. that way it would make coaches go for it on 4th down more and force teams to drive deeper down the field before settling for a FG. Also it makes a very accurate kicker even more important.

[Cat'sGrowl]

Holy Poo! Look at this:
C/ATT YDS AVG TD INT
Delhomme 9/23 96 4.2 0 2

Johnson 34/61 339 5.6 1 1

I remember that game.
Was a defensive war. Loved it.

[Cracka McNasty]

This is about the only thing that I can think of that I would be on board with, for the reason.
Even if you only move it back about 10 or 15 yards..

seriously, 10-20 yards back and it would be more reasonable than 2 yards away.

[VGcollector]

it should stay the same way where it is. even know it is 85% automatic there are people who miss it even good kickers.

[llalliweid]

Of course not.

http://scores.espn.g...ameId=230914027

Ahhh Memories. This is also part of strategy to take the easy 1 or gamble on the 2. So leave it alone.

[Apeman]

If you move it back 20 yards people will complain about it being one point instead of 3 since you would be making it pretty much a field goal