Preseason week 2

So all the games that have been decided by a last second field goal should be erased cuz a guy in a clean jersey came in and kicked it? Wtf?!?!?!

Let the kickers earn there money on the extra points. Why should any play other than the victory snap be a gimme? Especially when it puts even one point on the board?

I was talking about extra points, not field goals. Extra points would not even exist if I had my way. For the record, I'm not too crazy about FG's either but I can see some justification for having them as part of the game.

The rationale for the extra point is weak, as illustrated below:

TD - You get 6 points for putting the ball in the end zone.
FG - You get a chance to score 3 points because you have gained good enough field position to try for it.
Safety - You get 2 points and the ball because you forced the other team back into it's own end zone.
Extra Point - You get to try for one or two points because...well, because you just got six points.

It makes no sense to me that one touchdown should, in effect, be worth less than another touchdown because of a failed extra point attempt. That is especially so because teams only get to try for extra points when they score touchdowns. The extra point itself has no standalone value in the NFL's scoring system. That's because the extra point itself doesn't represent any team accomplishment meaningful enough to be worth a point on its own. So why should a practically meaningless extra point determine a game?

Gfycat - jiffier gifs through HTML5 Video Conversion. Fast, simple gif hosting without size limits. (http://www.gfycat.com/SilkyDarkCapybara)

Trucked.

Nice lick. Too bad he cant stop the puffin... not fo nuffin!!!

I was talking about extra points, not field goals. Extra points would not even exist if I had my way. For the record, I'm not too crazy about FG's either but I can see some justification for having them as part of the game.

The rationale for the extra point is weak, as illustrated below:

TD - You get 6 points for putting the ball in the end zone.
FG - You get a chance to score 3 points because you have gained good enough field position to try for it.
Safety - You get 2 points and the ball because you forced the other team back into it's own end zone.
Extra Point - You get to try for one or two points because...well, because you just got six points.

It makes no sense to me that one touchdown should, in effect, be worth less than another touchdown because of a failed extra point attempt. That is especially so because teams only get to try for extra points when they score touchdowns. The extra point itself has no standalone value in the NFL's scoring system. That's because the extra point itself doesn't represent any team accomplishment meaningful enough to be worth a point on its own. So why should a practically meaningless extra point determine a game?

I think of "kick scoring" as fundamental to the game. Kicking is a significant part of the game even when removing extra points and fields goals from the conversation. Punts and Kickoffs can have a great affect on a game. It is only an extension to then include kicking in some other form to account for scoring directly. I don't see how that doesn't make sense. But the extra point had become so perfunctory so as to make it entirely pointless. It was time to introduce a little change to actually have some affect on games. Otherwise I would agree...just get rid of it since it means practically nothing.

I was talking about extra points, not field goals. Extra points would not even exist if I had my way. For the record, I'm not too crazy about FG's either but I can see some justification for having them as part of the game.

The rationale for the extra point is weak, as illustrated below:

TD - You get 6 points for putting the ball in the end zone.
FG - You get a chance to score 3 points because you have gained good enough field position to try for it.
Safety - You get 2 points and the ball because you forced the other team back into it's own end zone.
Extra Point - You get to try for one or two points because...well, because you just got six points.

It makes no sense to me that one touchdown should, in effect, be worth less than another touchdown because of a failed extra point attempt. That is especially so because teams only get to try for extra points when they score touchdowns. The extra point itself has no standalone value in the NFL's scoring system. That's because the extra point itself doesn't represent any team accomplishment meaningful enough to be worth a point on its own. So why should a practically meaningless extra point determine a game?

I get the point you are making. I think it lends itself to making the TD worth 7 in and of itself. I believe that the XP originated (if I am wrong, please let me know) as a chance to get one more point for getting in the endzone, and thus making one drive that ends in the endzone a bit more valuable then two drives ending in FG's. A secondary rationale was to make ties less likely.

Given your reasoning, I would think you would like the idea of a 7 point TD, with an option of risking 1 point for gaining another by having one play to either put it in the endzone or not. I say that thinking both offense and defense get an opportunity to make 1 point for their team, since the offense scored it gets to decide if it wants to take the risk. If the defense holds, the other team loses a point(in effect scoring a point for your team). I tend to like that option over pushing the XP back 15 to 20 yds.

I get the point you are making. I think it lends itself to making the TD worth 7 in and of itself. I believe that the XP originated (if I am wrong, please let me know) as a chance to get one more point for getting in the endzone, and thus making one drive that ends in the endzone a bit more valuable then two drives ending in FG's. A secondary rationale was to make ties less likely.

Given your reasoning, I would think you would like the idea of a 7 point TD, with an option of risking 1 point for gaining another by having one play to either put it in the endzone or not. I say that thinking both offense and defense get an opportunity to make 1 point for their team, since the offense scored it gets to decide if it wants to take the risk. If the defense holds, the other team loses a point(in effect scoring a point for your team). I tend to like that option over pushing the XP back 15 to 20 yds.

I do like that idea. That sits much better with me because it would be a measure of team accomplishment that could be considered to be a valid difference maker between teams.

I don't think I've heard that idea before. Is that yours?

No, I think Goodell or the league put it out there early on when talk of changes to the XP first were put out there.

I think of "kick scoring" as fundamental to the game. Kicking is a significant part of the game even when removing extra points and fields goals from the conversation. Punts and Kickoffs can have a great affect on a game. It is only an extension to then include kicking in some other form to account for scoring directly. I don't see how that doesn't make sense. But the extra point had become so perfunctory so as to make it entirely pointless. It was time to introduce a little change to actually have some affect on games. Otherwise I would agree...just get rid of it since it means practically nothing.

Again, I accept the reasoning behind the field goal. The validity of "kick scoring" has been compromised by the NFL itself, not only with the meaningless extra point but with the virtual elimination of kick returns.

This was actually a really good play. He seems quicker here then he was in college.
7U-WZlGIydc_C2W62HNNsc
OnceUponATimeThereWasAVeryLongUsernameTheEnd Twerk23 hours ago
stupid qb step up..
Reply · 1

Now that I think about it this really is suspicious. The QB didn't step up here. It reminds me of another time where a LDE born and raised in Texas named Michael S achieved a milestone sack against a Packers QB that almost seemed to be 'asking for it.'

And both the Rams and Giants wear blue jerseys...hmmmmmmmmm (http://youtu.be/BzgXGACAU20?t=4m22s)

It's obvious the NFL is trying to promote it's gay agenda (http://rs1img.memecdn.com/the-amp-quot-gay-amp-quot-agenda_o_1334343.jpg) and give Michael Strahan more money so he doesn't have to sell his house.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001667003/5442783826_trade8034_n2288_Its_a_conspiracy_answer _1_xlarge.jpeg

^^ well, duh! Of course the fix was in. Don't you know these are all scripted??

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

I get the point you are making. I think it lends itself to making the TD worth 7 in and of itself. I believe that the XP originated (if I am wrong, please let me know) as a chance to get one more point for getting in the endzone, and thus making one drive that ends in the endzone a bit more valuable then two drives ending in FG's. A secondary rationale was to make ties less likely.

Given your reasoning, I would think you would like the idea of a 7 point TD, with an option of risking 1 point for gaining another by having one play to either put it in the endzone or not. I say that thinking both offense and defense get an opportunity to make 1 point for their team, since the offense scored it gets to decide if it wants to take the risk. If the defense holds, the other team loses a point(in effect scoring a point for your team). I tend to like that option over pushing the XP back 15 to 20 yds.

I like that approach. Although since the NFL is toying around with longer XP attempts, maybe have the TDs worth 7, with the option of a 40 yard XP attempt to make 8 points. I still think kicking for the XP will entice teams to go for the extra point, where as running a play would only be used about as sparingly as going for two is now.