Game Winning Field Goals?

[Bigeme]

I have been saying this for a few years, but I think the kicking game has no place in football (American clearly). A kicker comes onto the field maybe 3 or 4 times a game and, especially at the professional level, will end a game that is very close from nearly midfield. The act of kicking a ball through the uprights has no bearing on the rest of the game and involves an extremely specialized player that doesn't compare to other players. You shouldn't be able to score just because you made it over midfield.

In short, you should have to get into the endzone to score. Even PATs. You could have a nomal 1 pointer from the 1 yard line and maybe go back to the 5 or 10 for a 2 point (they do similar things in intramural football). I'm just tired of watching games decided by a kicker after a pathetic 20 yard drive to get into range.

I won't go as far as saying you should remove punting (kickoffs as well) from the game because football is, afterall, about field position. If it weren't for the necessity of kickoffs and excitement of a punt return, I might suggest that they be eliminated as well.

[thecowboy]

I disagree, and you really already made my point in the last paragraph. Football is about field position. If the other team gives an opportunity to move 20 yards and kick a field goal to win the game, then so be it. Also, moving across mid-field does not guarantee a completed field goal by any means. Whatever yard-line the team is on, you have to add about 15 yards onto the kick, 10 yards past the goal line and about five yards behind the line of scrimmage. For most kickers, this requires that the team move to at least the 35 yard line for a 50 yard field goal.

[Jabooty_3]

You did contradict your own point in the last paragraph. It's where it pays off to have a good kicker.

[Bigeme]

My point is that it shouldn't pay off to have a good kicker. He's a player that has no impact in any other aspect of the game. You shouldn't invest in a player that is only going to play 4 downs a game (at an extreme).

I also disagree that I contradicted myself. If football is about field position, then you shouldn't be able to score from any point on the field (which you theoretically can do with the kicking game assuming you invested in a good kicker). As soon as a team scores, any pre-existing field position is eliminated, so in order to maximize the importance of position, long drives and defensive stands need to result in either touchdowns or better position for the defense/offense.

It's called hyperbole by the way, when I said they just had to cross mid-field. I know it's more complicated (and the approximate distances required), but the point remains: a kicker has no bearing on the rest of the game other than "resetting" field position or deciding close games. It's an archaic throw back to rugby (where kicking is a much larger part of the game).

My entire point rests on the fact that there are certain elite kickers that win games, playing very few downs and not really fitting into the scheme of football. It reduces the excitement and importance of many of the plays that occur in the rest of the game, while not fitting with the philosphy of the game as a whole.

[joerockhead]

Well, I recall the other league gave more points for longer field goals and fewer for close field goals, and it did not catch on.

As for kicking a Field goal, it is all about strategy, time, players, strength, endurance and of course VEGAS.

When it is your team that loses, it sucks.
When it is your team that wins, it is GREAT!

that is why I like the 2 point conversion for the extra point. takes more effort and thus more reward.

by the way, what was the score of the MNF game - Broncos Vs Raiders???? :mstad:

[canu]

Raiders 41 Bronocs 14

[rexhamer]

I guess I am missing the point of your basic premise. What is the problem with a player coming in to a game to win it after not playing much beforehand? Do you feel the same way about a closer in baseball? Or a pinch hitter with a walk-off hit in the ninth? How about a good free-throw shooting guard that only gets into the game at the end with the expectation of getting fouled?

With the exception of hockey, I cannot think of a major sport that does not have some players that would be described as "specialists" of some sort who only see limited action, but could determine the outcome of a game.

[Bigeme]

I guess I am missing the point of your basic premise. What is the problem with a player coming in to a game to win it after not playing much beforehand? Do you feel the same way about a closer in baseball? Or a pinch hitter with a walk-off hit in the ninth? How about a good free-throw shooting guard that only gets into the game at the end with the expectation of getting fouled?

With the exception of hockey, I cannot think of a major sport that does not have some players that would be described as "specialists" of some sort who only see limited action, but could determine the outcome of a game.

I think a major difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that those players still play the same position with relatively the same build/skill set. It might just be a few attributes that are a little different.

I do think pinch bitting/running is innapropriate (any kind of substitution in baseball seems wrong to me). I am not a fan of baseball in general, but I've always had a problem with the fact that they have so many pitchers in a game that is largely about pitching. I mean its basically a different team if you have a different starting pitcher (the same can be said about football, but generally you start the same quarterback game after game and they play the entire game). And why would you construct a game where it is extremely difficult for the same player to start and end it? Anyway this isn't about baseball. I have little to no interest in the sport so I don't want to talk about it when some people are so passionate.

As far as basketball, you rarely see a player the only plays in those last seconds and they still maintain the ability to play other aspects of the game. Sure you can have a fake kick and they might through a pass or run, but its generally on a completely different level of skill.

[Jabooty_3]

I guess I am missing the point of your basic premise. What is the problem with a player coming in to a game to win it after not playing much beforehand? Do you feel the same way about a closer in baseball? Or a pinch hitter with a walk-off hit in the ninth? How about a good free-throw shooting guard that only gets into the game at the end with the expectation of getting fouled?

With the exception of hockey, I cannot think of a major sport that does not have some players that would be described as "specialists" of some sort who only see limited action, but could determine the outcome of a game.

I would say hockey has it's defensive specialists, the "enforcer", that usually doesn't play very often.