1-year of new PAT rule under our belt: what did you think?

So what do you guys think?

My original thought upon introduction of the rule was I didn't like it. I liked the PAT as it was: kind of like a formal celebration of a touchdown

Have to admit, over the season the intrigue got me and I liked it. I liked the reduced percentages from 98% to 90%.

I don't like that kickers got blamed a lot for it though. A lot of pieces have to go right for a kick to go through (as we all experienced) and so all the pieces involved should take some blame not just the kickers and you saw almost a weird frenzy of kicker turnover during the season.

I do think that next year the percentages would go up a slight bit with some slight correction and this first year was more an aberration just because it was brand new.

I say keep it at the 15!

It's fine. Just leave it. That's how I feel.

I like it,make the kickers earn more of their $..@ the 2 is too easy

Still hate it for the same two reasons I initially hated it ( 1) ever so slightly pushes winning or losing away from skill and toward random chance and 2) ever so slightly pushes winning and losing away from offense and defense toward kicking).

Basically, the NFL, in trying to solve a problem (the extra point being a meaningless and boring play), rather than just fully solving it in the easiest way possible (TD means go for two or defer the chance for 1), only barely solved the problem at the margins of it and introduced new problems in their solution.

I think it won us a playoff game.

Largent80":2ckymx0z said:

I think it won us a playoff game.

Click to expand...

When?

^^^^ I assume he's misremembering Walsh's blown chip shot FG as an extra point (about the same distance, IIRC).

yup, thats it.

Opposed at first. Growing on me now. Keep it, at least for another season or so.

Probably never see a line up for a kick, fake and go for 2 play ever again. At least not intentionally.

Largent80":3p5adobm said:

yup, thats it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, almost the exact same distance as I recall.

When Walsh blew that kick my first thought was honestly "I wish it had been an extra point instead of a FG" as that would have maybe pushed the NFL to do away with this nonsense. :lol:

As a blown FG it obviously really, really sucked for the Vikes and their fans (while being really, really awesome for the Hawks and their fans), but if it had been an extra point it would have looked really bad for the NFL in its entirety, IMO.

I was very surprised it had the impact it did. I personally love the rule change, one of the rare circumstances lately where a Goodell move has paid off.

And also it helped prevent the Patriots from possibly repeating, so from that perspective it was worth it ten fold :lol:

It boned the Pats, so I'm fine with it.

Would you bone this Pat?

Popeyejones":1d8wplu2 said:

Still hate it for the same two reasons I initially hated it ( 1) ever so slightly pushes winning or losing away from skill and toward random chance and 2) ever so slightly pushes winning and losing away from offense and defense toward kicking).

Basically, the NFL, in trying to solve a problem (the extra point being a meaningless and boring play), rather than just fully solving it in the easiest way possible (TD means go for two or defer the chance for 1), only barely solved the problem at the margins of it and introduced new problems in their solution.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Thought it was (typically) dumb from the git-go. Football is already super high-variance. Why make it even more arbitrary than it already is? Dumb.

Of course if it did "bone the Patriots" as mentioned above, it can't be ALL bad.

Popeyejones":3k9skog6 said:

^^^^ I assume he's misremembering Walsh's blown chip shot FG as an extra point (about the same distance, IIRC).

Click to expand...

I knew what he meant. I just wanted to point out that he was wrong.

CurryStopstheRuns":114tgrcg said:

Popeyejones":114tgrcg said:

^^^^ I assume he's misremembering Walsh's blown chip shot FG as an extra point (about the same distance, IIRC).

Click to expand...

I knew what he meant. I just wanted to point out that he was wrong.

Click to expand...

Yup, you always have to try and push buttons. But YOU are wrong because the FG was shorter than an extra point. Suck that.

Popeyejones":ndxf61t0 said:

Still hate it for the same two reasons I initially hated it ( 1) ever so slightly pushes winning or losing away from skill and toward random chance and 2) ever so slightly pushes winning and losing away from offense and defense toward kicking).

Basically, the NFL, in trying to solve a problem (the extra point being a meaningless and boring play), rather than just fully solving it in the easiest way possible (TD means go for two or defer the chance for 1), only barely solved the problem at the margins of it and introduced new problems in their solution.

Click to expand...

I'm in this camp as well. It didn't make the game better, it just made it more RNG. If I am watching a game that I have no rooting interest in, I just want to see the better team win. I don't want to see an inferior team win just because they got lucky. Anything that increases the role of luck in football is bad for the game, IMO.

I honestly think the only reason they made the change was to keep people from changing the channel or going to the bathroom before the commercial break began. With Goodell, pretty much every decision he makes comes down to money.

I think I still hate the kickoff distance change more, but this is up there for the most hated things Goodell has done for me.

I really like it.

The extra point used to be a really boring nothing play that wasn't worth watching and was largely a formality and waste of time. Now, there is some intrigue with the play and it is worth watching as it isn't such a gimme.

With the way kickoffs are going these days (mostly through the back of the endzone), and the number of fair catches, I think it is good that there is one less dull part of the game.

A miss is also generally followed by more 2pt attempts, which makes for even more plays worth watching.

kearly":1zcy8nzw said:

Popeyejones":1zcy8nzw said:

Still hate it for the same two reasons I initially hated it ( 1) ever so slightly pushes winning or losing away from skill and toward random chance and 2) ever so slightly pushes winning and losing away from offense and defense toward kicking).

Basically, the NFL, in trying to solve a problem (the extra point being a meaningless and boring play), rather than just fully solving it in the easiest way possible (TD means go for two or defer the chance for 1), only barely solved the problem at the margins of it and introduced new problems in their solution.

Click to expand...

I'm in this camp as well. It didn't make the game better, it just made it more RNG. If I am watching a game that I have no rooting interest in, I just want to see the better team win. I don't want to see an inferior team win just because they got lucky. Anything that increases the role of luck in football is bad for the game, IMO.

I honestly think the only reason they made the change was to keep people from changing the channel or going to the bathroom before the commercial break began. With Goodell, pretty much every decision he makes comes down to money.

I think I still hate the kickoff distance change more, but this is up there for the most hated things Goodell has done for me.

Click to expand...

What game was decided from a missed PAT though? Aside from Largent's stretch of an example .. I can't really recall one. Even the AFC Championship would have headed to OT so it wasn't a lock by any stretch that the Pats would have won.

Every sport involves luck. You'll never be able to fully eliminate it.

Largent80":13joczer said:

Would you bone this Pat?

Click to expand...

Would anyone find out?