NFL teams
ESPN.com staff 9y

Roundtable: What to do with points after touchdowns

The NFL owners tabled a vote to change the point-after touchdown attempt for 2015 until their meeting later this spring in San Francisco, but change appears to be on the way.

With the almost automatic nature of the extra point, the NFL wants to come up with a way to make the play more competitive. Do they move the PAT attempt to the 15-yard line? Do they move the two-point conversion to the 1½–yard line or even to the 1?

NFL Nation reporters Rob Demovsky, Rich Cimini, Jeff Legwold and Todd Archer got together for a roundtable on the subject, ranging from where the kick should be attempted to the narrowing of the goalposts.

Should the extra-point kick just be eliminated and replaced by the two-point play?

Archer: I don’t believe so. I go back to something Bill Parcells used to say: Let’s keep the foot in football. The PAT as we know it now is too much of a give-up play, according to some, so I would have no problem moving it back to the 15. That makes it a 32- or 33-yard field-goal try. From the Cowboys' perspective, Dan Bailey has two misses from 30 to 39 yards and none from closer than 35 yards. The kickers have improved tremendously, but I think moving it to the 15 at least gives the defense a chance to come up with a block. But it will also bring some player safety questions into play. Most of the time the PAT as we know it now is a give-up play for the defense, too. Now this would affect the rush, and it could lead to more injuries across the board.

Cimini: I think we can all agree the PAT is broken -- it’s simply a non-competitive play -- but that doesn’t mean it should be tossed out of the game. I’m a traditionalist, and I’d like to see it stay, though not in its current form. Sorry, it’s hard to get revved up about a play that is successful 99.3 percent of the time, based on last season’s stats. If we’re ranking the most tedious plays in sports, the current PAT is right up there with the intentional walk. But to punt the PAT, relying solely on a two-point play after a touchdown, would eliminate a strategic element from the game. It creates a layer of intrigue when it’s late in the third quarter or early in the fourth and a coach must decide whether it’s the right time to go for two. Let’s not dumb down the sport by eliminating options.

Demovsky: No. Why make it easier for the head coaches, who routinely botch when to go for two? It’s fun to watch them make strategic decisions, and it’s even more fun when they get it wrong. When coaches go for two any earlier than the 8-minute mark of the fourth quarter, it’s usually a mistake. You shouldn’t be giving away one sure point when you have no idea how many possessions will remain the rest of the game and what that one point might mean later in the game. Eliminating the extra point would take away a key strategic aspect of the game.

Legwold: I understand the boredom factor in the extra point -- at least the boredom factor in so far as the league’s kickers have made the extra point mind-numbingly successful. Kickers missed just eight last season and six other attempts were blocked. But it’s just odd that with everything else the league has on its collective plate that needs far more attention, somehow the fact kickers have become exceedingly proficient at their jobs bothers so many folks so much. Quarterbacks haven’t been punished by the rules makers for their increased proficiency despite the fact 25 passers topped a 60 percent completion rate in 2014, compared with two in 1981 and 12 in 1995. So in essence, the kicking game is the only area on the field where the league wants to make it more difficult to score. Also, if the ball was moved so fewer kickoffs would be returned as part of a health and safety initiative, then the process to now add a required two-point play from scrimmage would seem to swim upstream against that thought as well.

Should the goalposts be narrowed?

Archer: If they are moving the PATs back to the 15, then I would say no. We saw Adam Vinatieri struggle with the narrow goalposts in the Pro Bowl. I don’t think they need to trick it up so much to penalize kickers for becoming so proficient. We aren’t telling receivers they can’t wear gloves that help them catch the ball so much better than their counterparts years and years ago. I’ll use a golf analogy: We all like the U.S. Open because of how the best golfers in the world struggle on such a tight course with high rough, but we wouldn’t like to see it every week. I’m OK seeing a lot of birdies and eagles. Would narrow goalposts add to the excitement? I guess so, but we’re punishing excellence more than anything else.

Cimini: Short answer: Yes. Narrower goalposts, coupled with a longer distance for PATs, would drop the success rate to a point where there actually could be some suspense. Let’s face it: Kicking is a lot easier today than it used to be. The kickers are bigger and stronger than the old soccer-style guys. The snaps and placements are almost always perfect. Long snappers no longer have to worry about having a player lined up over them (a recent rule change in the name of safety), so the accuracy has improved and the average get-off time went from an average of 1.33 seconds to 1.23, according to former longtime special-teams coach Mike Westhoff. Heck, even the conditions are better in the new stadiums across the league. I like Westhoff’s suggestion: He’d like to see the goalposts narrowed by 1 yard, 1½ feet on each side. That certainly would increase the degree of difficulty.

Demovsky: Should we raise the basketball hoop just because players are taller and can jump higher than in past eras? I’ve never heard that subject discussed once in the NBA, which seems to be the king of cockamamy rules, or by the NCAA. Narrowing the goalposts would be the football equivalent. Vinatieri is one of the best kickers of all time, and he missed a pair of 35-yard extra points and a 38-yard field goal in the most recent Pro Bowl, where they experimented with the narrow goalposts. If you’re going to change anything, maybe widen the hashmarks to the college width.

Legwold: Again, penalizing proficiency is on the table here. But if the goal is to simply make it more difficult on the kickers, then narrowing the goalposts would be the quickest way to impact the percentages, especially if done in conjunction with an adjustment to where teams attempt the extra point. Vinatieri missed two extra points in the Pro Bowl with the narrow goalposts when the kicks were attempted with the holder at the 25-yard-line. Vinatieri missed a 38-yard field goal in the game as well. It might impact the record-keeping, or at least be cause for a notation or two, but the league doesn’t designate its rushing champions or 1,000-yard rushers before and after the hashmarks were moved in.

What impact would moving the two-point try to the 1½ and the kick to the 15, have on the game?

Archer: You would see more coaches going for two, but heck, why not move it to the 1 and make it even more enticing? Some coaches will be more than willing to take the chance, but others won’t. A 32-, 33-yard kick is still close to automatic, so the sure seven points might be too much of a good thing for coaches to go for two. The analytics folks would have a field day with this. They already want coaches to go for it on most fourth-and-short scenarios, but they don’t factor in matchups a lot of the time. Would a half-yard make that much of a difference to a coach? Heck, move it to the 1. If you have a great offensive line, I think you’d see more teams go for it. The coaches who already struggle with game management would certainly struggle with this move, in my opinion.

Cimini: I say leave the two-point play where it is now: the 2-yard line. Right now, it’s basically a 50-50 play -- a 47.5 percent success rate last season. The current distance works because it creates a run-pass threat. If you move it closer by a half-yard, I think you’ll see the quarterback sneak become a bigger part of the game -- unless you’re the Seahawks, who prefer passing from that distance (ouch!). As for the 15-yard line for the PAT, that’s still a chip shot. In fact, 10 teams converted 100 percent of their field-goal attempts last season in the 30- to 39-yard range. If you put it at the 15, narrow the goalposts. If the goalposts remain as they are, move the PAT to the 20 or 25. The downside to separating the PAT and two-point play is you’re making teams declare their intention before the play starts, eliminating the possibility of a fake. But honestly, how many times does a team try for two out of a fake PAT?

Demovsky: You almost never see quarterback sneaks on two-point plays. Would a half-yard difference be more enticing, especially if you had a tall, athletic quarterback like, say, Cam Newton? Perhaps. But would the overall success rate of the play, which was 47.5 percent last season (according to ESPN Stats & Information), change significantly? I doubt it. The bigger issue might be the 33-yard PAT, but even that probably isn’t enough to make most coaches go for two more often. Packers kicker Mason Crosby was 11-of-12 on field goals in the 30- to 39-yard range last season, yet he missed two extra points (both were blocked).

Legwold: In asking coaches around the league about this in recent days, it’s clear this choice would be a lot like decisions on fourth-and-short on offense down in close. An extra point from the 15-yard line would essentially be a 32-yard kick, so some coaches would be searching for the percentage play and some would be more aggressive if that choice were on the table. But for the most part, owners vote on rule changes and coaches are the ones held accountable on game day for making the decisions. Some coaches say it’s simply another choice thrown in their laps. And in the end, until we see anything different, the anecdotal evidence would suggest most coaches would still simply send the kicker on for the extra point.

Should blocked PATs from the 15 or intercepted passes or fumbles on two-point conversion attempts be able to be returned for a touchdown?

Archer: A touchdown? No, I wouldn’t say a touchdown. But I would make it like the college rule where you can take back any point-after conversion attempt for a point of your own. If a team wants to go for two, there has to be a penalty for a quarterback throwing a bad pass or a running back fumbling. So now that I think about my previous answer, maybe I would go for the two-point conversion more if there is no downside to a turnover or miscue. I don’t think it should be a touchdown. I think that’s too much of a reward.

Cimini: Absolutely. I’m in favor of anything that can add potential excitement to a play. Right now, players simply go through the motions on PATs. If they manage to block one -- yeah, good luck with that -- the play simply dies and they save a point. It’s like winning only $100 on a Powerball ticket; you expect to win a lot more, considering the crazy odds. If a team can save a point and add six on the same play, now you’re talking. You’d also force the kicking team to adjust its personnel, putting faster players on the field in the event of a block. To me, this is a no-brainer. The so-called guardians of the league are killing special teams with all their new rules, so why not create a rule that would allow actual football to occur on a football play? What a concept. Totally radical.

Demovsky: If you do that, then you’d have to run the clock on those plays. Currently, the clock doesn’t run on an extra point or a two-point try. It’s essentially a dead-ball play. Now, you’re messing with the timing of the game. Say, for example, a team scores a touchdown with fewer than 10 seconds remaining in the game. They would then be able to run out the remainder of the game during the extra point or two-point play. The end of NFL games are anti-climactic enough with all the kneel-down plays. This would make it more so because you’d eliminate the chance for a play like the “Music City Miracle.”

Legwold: Speaking of choices, because the chances of an interception or fumble on an attempted two-point play are greater than the chances of a blocked extra point -- or more importantly, many coaches believe the chances are far greater, even on kicks attempted from the 15-yard line -- the incentive to try a two-point play would be muted even a bit more if a possible return is on the table. If the league’s goal is to simply get more people to try two-point plays, then adding this to the mix will reduce the incentive for coaches to do that.

^ Back to Top ^