FG’s…food for thought

[slanidrac16]

It’s the bye week so some food for thought.
It use to be a 50 yard fg was a big deal. It has now become the norm. When you watch these guys kicking 55-60 yard fg’s and seeing they clearly could have made it from 60-65 and sometimes more.
I think it won’t be long before the NFL narrows the width of the uprights. If the NFL sees this as a problem what would their options be?
Limited fg attempts to 50 yards or less? Seems absurd.
Lessen the point value of fg’s? Equally absurd.

Hey, maybe you or the NFL doesn’t see this as a problem.

What say you?

 

[kerouac9]

Scoring is down. The last thing the NfL wants to do is have fewer points.

Teams are also going for it more than ever on fourth down.

Going for it > field goal > punts

You’re advocating for more punts. We’re gonna stop everything right now until we figure out what’s going on.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Seems like you are trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[Shane]

Just because kickers skill has increased is a good thing. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

 

[slanidrac16]

Scoring is down. The last thing the NfL wants to do is have fewer points.

Teams are also going for it more than ever on fourth down.

Going for it > field goal > punts

You’re advocating for more punts. We’re gonna stop everything right now until we figure out what’s going on.

No no. I’m not advocating this. I don’t know if it’s even a problem.
I thought about it and then I heard and sport show host bring it up.
You are certainly correct about causing more punts.

 

[CardNots]

No no. I’m not advocating this. I don’t know if it’s even a problem.
I thought about it and then I heard and sport show host bring it up.
You are certainly correct about causing more punts.

I certainly can see the NFL trimming a few feet from the width of the goal post or even adding a couple more uprights and giving 4 points instead of 3 rewarding higher accuracy.

 

[unseenaz]

Ima go a step further and say the NFL should ban the kicker AND punter as specialists. Your QB has to kick field goals and punt.

 

[Cardinal88]

Hmmm… interesting. At first I’d say don’t change it. But, If you narrow the field goals, more teams may go for it on 4th down which leaves it in the hands of the warriors on the field. A team could essentially use a punter for their kicking and extra points basically eliminating the kicker and giving them one more player on the roster. Again…. Hmmm!

 

[SECTION 11]

I like punts and field goals. True story.

 

[oaken1]

Nah, leave it like it is.

At least until guys are hitting 50% from 80 yards...

But if you want to make it harder and stimulate scoring at the same time...
Put a top crossbar on the goalpost and kicks have to go inside the square...easy on long kicks...but short kicks routinely pass through 6 to 10 feet higher than the uprights...kickers are trained to elevate the ball to get it over the LoS ...a top crossbar would force them to flatten their kicks...so a team on the 30 is more likely to go for it rather than kick

 

[SECTION 11]

I think all special teams plays should have golden retrievers on the field. Gotta get the ball before they do.

 

[oaken1]

I think all special teams plays should have golden retrievers on the field. Gotta get the ball before they do.

And the best trainer contracts go to the trainers who can teach their dog to stay in bounds.

 

[SECTION 11]

And the best trainer contracts go to the trainers who can teach their dog to stay in bounds.

Or poop generally by the opposing coaches.

 

[bankybruce]

I like punts and field goals. True story.

I like big punts and I cannot lie!

 

[WisconsinCard]

I don't want them to change anything ever again. I hate that you can't hit a QB low you can't land on him. I hate the you can't touch a receiver 5 years down the field. I don't like the new Kick off rules. Quit messing with the game I love.


Rant off now

 

[TruColor]

Can we fix the thread title? My OCD about apostrophes is getting to me.

 

[daves]

Can we fix the thread title? My OCD about apostrophes is getting to me.

It used to annoy me as well, but various style guides have different guidance for pluralizing acronyms.

There are clear cases where an apostrophe is needed to form a plural, e.g. "Mississippi has four s's and four i's" or in a capitalized title, e.g. "KICKER MISSES THREE FG'S".

My OCD has decided that there's more consistency in using an apostrophe to pluralize ALL acronyms, symbols, etc. than in trying to enforce "apostrophes are only used for omitted letters and possessives".

I still prefer 1970s to 1970's, however.

 

[TruColor]

It used to annoy me as well, but various style guides have different guidance for pluralizing acronyms.

There are clear cases where an apostrophe is needed to form a plural, e.g. "Mississippi has four s's and four i's" or in a capitalized title, e.g. "KICKER MISSES THREE FG'S".

My OCD has decided that there's more consistency in using an apostrophe to pluralize ALL acronyms, symbols, etc. than in trying to enforce "apostrophes are only used for omitted letters and possessives".

I still prefer 1970s to 1970's, however.

But then again, there is this:

You must be registered for see images attach