A pretty incredible stat regarding missed PATs vs. missed FGs from the same distance (1 Viewer)

St. Geezy

⚜️
Joined
Jul 8, 2000
Messages
23,171
Reaction score
45,851
Age
44
Offline
"Couple of things are in play here, both externally and internally," Tynes told Bleacher Report in an email when asked about the missed extra points. "The media, fans, etc., are making a big deal out of extra points and kickers are hearing the noise, adding pressure."

"Internally, kickers have been trained in their minds that [extra-point attempts] are automatic, adding pressure," Tynes said. "Today's NFL [extra-point attempt] has become mental gymnastics for every kicker out there. Kickers are kicking not to miss instead of kicking to make it. Not a good place to be mentally."

There's proof to what Tynes is saying. According to former Tampa Bay general manager and current ESPN analyst Mark Dominik, NFL kickers are 44-of-45 on field goals from 32 or 33 yards this season. But they have missed 48 extra points—including a record 12 from this past weekend alone—from that same distance, per Dominik.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-nfl-head-games-taking-toll-on-kicking-corps
 
What's weird about it is that an XP from 33 yards should be the exact same snap-&-kick mechanism as it is from 20 yards. Kickers used to get a ton of verticality on every extra point, but it was clear -- from how high up on the net it hit and the ball's trajectory -- that the old XP kick would still be good from 30, 35, maybe 40 yards.

Kicking really must be 99% mental. Can't figure out why kickers would change anything from what they were doing 3 years ago.

Now ... what I DO see is that some teams have figured out a better defensive mousetrap for blocking kicks. Weird that football had gone on for decades with absolutely no innovation in this area (since the '70s Vikings "leapfrog" scheme was made illegal) ... but I guess that's what happened.
 
I personally hate the new, longer extra point. Sure, it has created the desired effect, making an automatic play be less automatic. At the same time though, I don't find enjoyment in watching the extra point having such a big impact on outcomes.

I prefer the near-automatic extra point; it was just tradition. It was that last, expected cheer and moment of glory for the crowd and team following a score. It was fine for so long; didn't see the need to change it.

I am not liking all these odd scores it is creating and teams needing to chase points, etc.

I view this as one of those subtle changes that is making the game less recognizable to the viewing audience and is having a psychological impact on fans with the lower TV ratings.

To me, I think narrowing the goal posts slightly would have been a better, less noticeable option.
 
I'd also love to see us go for two every time.

Kicking for one still entails the risk of giving up two. Rare, but unfortunately can happen, as we saw. That, paired with moving the spot of the ball back, makes me say what the hell - go for it every time.
 
Interesting theory, for sure, but the small sample size of 32/33 yard FG pct (98%) vs the overall extra point pct since they created the rule last year (94%) is 4 percentage points. Not insignificant, but maybe super small sample size of 32/33 yd FG's compared to the extra points skews the data a little bit.

I actually wonder if the coverage on extra points is a bit more aggressive than that of FG attempts. A successful fake extra point will only net the kicking team one additional point, whereas a successful fake field goal can result in an extra 4 points. Maybe teams have to pressure less to account for the fake.

Anyway, just a thought.
 
Interesting theory, for sure, but the small sample size of 32/33 yard FG pct (98%) vs the overall extra point pct since they created the rule last year (94%) is 4 percentage points. Not insignificant, but maybe super small sample size of 32/33 yd FG's compared to the extra points skews the data a little bit.

I actually wonder if the coverage on extra points is a bit more aggressive than that of FG attempts. A successful fake extra point will only net the kicking team one additional point, whereas a successful fake field goal can result in an extra 4 points. Maybe teams have to pressure less to account for the fake.

Anyway, just a thought.

Yep...also the fear of being called for leverage due to an unsuccessful jump over the file is significantly lessened. An unsuccessful jump on a field goal = 15 yards and an automatic first down whereas a an unsuccessful jump on an extra point = either an extra point retry or a penalty on the kickoff (a kickoff that was going to be a touchback anyway).
 
It's not really a statistically significant sample size.

44 of 45 = 97.8%.

By my count there have been 756 PATs, if I added right. But either way, give or take...that means:

708 of 756 = 93.7%.

That's the difference of about 1.5 makes/misses more in the first percentage on field goals.

I'm not outright discounting a mental side to kicking. I think to a degree we have all seen kickers struggle mentally at time. But statistically those numbers don't really tell us much. It just sounds worse because you're saying, oh my goodness, 48 misses vs. 1 miss?
 
What's weird about it is that an XP from 33 yards should be the exact same snap-&-kick mechanism as it is from 20 yards. Kickers used to get a ton of verticality on every extra point, but it was clear -- from how high up on the net it hit and the ball's trajectory -- that the old XP kick would still be good from 30, 35, maybe 40 yards.

Kicking really must be 99% mental. Can't figure out why kickers would change anything from what they were doing 3 years ago.

Now ... what I DO see is that some teams have figured out a better defensive mousetrap for blocking kicks. Weird that football had gone on for decades with absolutely no innovation in this area (since the '70s Vikings "leapfrog" scheme was made illegal) ... but I guess that's what happened.

Defenses can be more aggressive trying to block since penalties do not give the kicking teams a first down.
 
It's not really a statistically significant sample size.

44 of 45 = 97.8%.

By my count there have been 756 PATs, if I added right. But either way, give or take...that means:

708 of 756 = 93.7%.

That's the difference of about 1.5 makes/misses more in the first percentage on field goals.

I'm not outright discounting a mental side to kicking. I think to a degree we have all seen kickers struggle mentally at time. But statistically those numbers don't really tell us much. It just sounds worse because you're saying, oh my goodness, 48 misses vs. 1 miss?

muPpaSG.gif
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom