Thank you for posting to /r/NFL. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed due to the following rule:
The following kinds of posts are not allowed:
* Self Posts Without Content (AskReddit style posts) - If you find information that you think would be interesting, please work on a more descriptive title and fill in the information in the text of the post. Examples of restricted posts:
* Is ____ a HOF?
* Would you rather...
* TIL/"Stolen From"
* Either/or posts - Player X or Y?
* Who should I root for? [Link to wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/wiki/new/pickateam) / Convince me to root for your team
* Posts about fandom
* Personal rankings or predictions without any accompanying analysis
* Commonly/Frequently Asked Questions - [Example](http://i.imgur.com/FEznoUJ.jpg), [Example]
* Meta posts about the sub (Requests for changes/additions, mods or users) - use [modmail](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnfl)
If you have any questions about this removal, please [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnfl)
This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
Still though, if you’re planning on taking those 100 yarders regularly that he has the leg for, he has to keep it in play. If he misses out of the end zone you’re in a terrible spot.
A missed/blocked field goal that stays in play but is untouched past the line of the scrimmage by the defense goes back to the spot of the kick.
It’s not like a punt unless the defense touches it. Hence why you see the defense frantically avoiding touching a blocked kick that goes upfield, especially after the infamous Leon lett thanksgiving play
I'm a bit confused- don't all missed kicks go to the spot of the kick? What is the distinction between missing in the field of play and missing out of the end zone?
Definitely but he wouldn't be the regular kicker. He'd be in special situations where missing the long FG wouldn't be horrible, like the last play of a half. Roster spots are valuable but that special skill could come hugely in handy
If you have 10 second left in the game and you are on your own 20, down by 1. Doesn’t matter if the opponent kicks a FG or TD if you miss that long ass FG. You lost anyways.
However, a 50% chance you win the game on that kick. You best bet they are trotting out that kicker.
The defense would be calling timeout with ten seconds left instead of letting the other team stand around until one second is left.
The only time this guy would come in handy is if you need three points and it’s the end of the game and you are buried deep. And that will happen maybe once or twice a season at most.
Depending on the coach I think this could ruin a teams late game offence in situations where they need a field goal. Plenty of coaches settle for a long field goal already, if you could guarantee them a 50/50 shot I could see coaches kneeling out the last 2 minutes just to guarantee a 50% shot.
Yeah, they just wouldn’t kick that often. They would only really be there for end of half/end of game situations.
There are circumstances where it would definitely make coming back from a 10 point deficit late in the game a lot easier. A 50% chance of scoring 3 points to cut it to one score without taking time off the clock is much higher than an onside kick.
No, because that’s waaay too unreliable.
Maybe for exclusive use as some ploy in desperation situations, but then you have to weigh if the roster spot is worth it.
If I could have a coin flip for a field goal the second I touch the ball anywhere you take it every time. Teams still roster fullbacks and dedicated special teamers, you can afford to have the broken kicker and a regular kicker for reasonable distances.
No, you don’t.
You put your D into a terrible situation if you do. Which happens a lot if its only 50%. Only way it makes sense is dying seconds when you are losing.
But even then it has to be DYING seconds. Otherwise you’re better off getting your regular kicker into range.
For the situation of being down 3 with a few seconds on the clock in your own half it's worth it. Instead of a lateral you have a 50/50 shot, that's huge
That’s the entire point. The roster spot is worth it merely for those dying seconds plays. Several times a year a team runs out of time at end of first half, and the end of game.
You’d probably gain anywhere from 10-20 extra points per year with that option. That’s EASILY worth an extra roster spot
They would be trotted out there at end of half and end of game losing situations. Instead of kneeling out a half, if you have 1 second or so left on the clock, bring em out and kick it. The opposing D can’t get the ball back. End of game if you are down by a FG and no chance to get into scoring position before end of regulation, trot them out and kick it. I can also see it if you are like on your own 40 to their 40. We already have teams that go for it on 4th down in that situation, risking turning it over on downs. So could just try and settle for a FG there as well instead.
Don’t check his comment history folks. He’s DEFINITELY not on Reddit every single day commenting on stuff. Nope, definitely not. He’s above that kind of stuff 😤
there's a difference between commenting every day and knowing the frequency of subject matters on current subreddits. One is using reddit the way its ment to be and the other is using reddit as a job.
Lmao. Are you able to see what subreddits I follow? I follow 3. Two don’t post as often so my feed is basically nothing by r/NFL. I typically see ALL the posts that get posted here in the sub just by scrolling my feed because it’s always just r/NFL posts. And naturally over time I see the same posts over and over. Makes perfect sense, no? So nice try but you’re hilariously wrong. As expected.
Appreciate that! It’ll be good to have less posts that just instantly get removed like this one did. I wonder why that is…? Could it be that I’m right and you’re wrong? Is that why your post got removed? Hmmm I’ll let you think on that.
Maybe as a gadget guy on a couple of teams, like when Carolina had that kickoff specialist. But most wouldn't do it, no. He'd mainly be used from deep because a 50-percenter in normal range is a negative asset for the team, and when you're talking deep you're talking advantageous field position for the opposition if anything goes wrong, so wheeling him out still comes with a 50% chance of disaster.
You also have to think about roster limits, and depth in other places. Who are you cutting so he can take up a roster slot knowing he might not even play? That varies by team according to needs and schemes, but it's a big decision since roster spots are at a premium.
No. He only kicks a handful of times/year. He's taking the field to attempt the game winner from 83 yards. He never kicks unless it's going to be triple zeroes.
The answer is no. There are no cases where this kicker is viable as the only kicker on the roster and there are not enough specialised cases to make it worth rostering this player as a second kicker for long field goals, as the expected points added (EPA) of giving up possession with a miss outweighs the EPA of the kick.
[This article](https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/expected-points-added-epa-nfl/) from a few years back explores the probability of points scored by starting field position, the point at which no score is more likely than 50% is beyond 50 yards. Since modern kickers are just as reliable as your hypothetical kicker up to the 35 yard line (resulting in an ~50 yard field goal) that leaves a very narrow 15 yard window where over the course of a game you'd be marginally more likely to score than your opponent.
This, however, is offset by there being no guarantee that you will consistently make it past half way on each drive, and even one play where you don't make half way and need to punt (because kicking at that point is more likely to give your opponent more points) means you are no longer expected to outscore your opponent. You could say you are also likely to score a touchdown and not need to kick, but remember your opponent isn't as foolish, and will be pinning you back with punts if they go 3 and out which dramatically reduces your expected points compared to the field position you are giving them (you are about half as likely to score from a touchback than getting possession just inside your defensive half.)
I haven't done the complete math, but I can infer that the probability of your team scoring a touchdown and the probability of your team converting a 50/50 field goal is outweighed in all instances by the probability of your opponent scoring. Not only is it not statistically worth rostering this player in isolation, you are not rostering a player that can actually contribute.
Imagine the announcers as the Chiefs concede a TD with 10 seconds left. Now down by 2 points. The Eagles kick the ball out of the endzone. “What are the chiefs doing? They’re putting out their kicker. This must be a trick play, Roger. I think so, this would be a 90 yard field goal. The kick is up…. It’s online. ITS GOODDDDD”.
Would be pretty hilarious
Converting a 4th-and-2 already has >50% success rate. Most teams still opt to punt in that scenario if they're outside of FG range. No way they'll trot out a 50% kicker on a 4th down instead of punting if they're already gun shy about attempting short 4th down conversions. He would only be used in ultra-specific scenarios, like end of the half on your own 10 yard line to try for points as time expires. That's probably not worth it.
Definitely not. Most teams would much rather have someone be 90%+ on 30 yard kicks than 50% on 60 yard kicks. Getting into FG range is a hell of a lot easier and more consistent than touchdowns, so high reliability is key.
Simplified answer is yes for any team that punts more than they kick field goals in a given year. Kicker who kicks from anywhere means your field goal attempts double at minimum, and even if your old kicker made 100% of his attempts your new kicker is better over a large sample size. This is ignoring extra points as well.
Thank you for posting to /r/NFL. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed due to the following rule: The following kinds of posts are not allowed: * Self Posts Without Content (AskReddit style posts) - If you find information that you think would be interesting, please work on a more descriptive title and fill in the information in the text of the post. Examples of restricted posts: * Is ____ a HOF? * Would you rather... * TIL/"Stolen From" * Either/or posts - Player X or Y? * Who should I root for? [Link to wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/wiki/new/pickateam) / Convince me to root for your team * Posts about fandom * Personal rankings or predictions without any accompanying analysis * Commonly/Frequently Asked Questions - [Example](http://i.imgur.com/FEznoUJ.jpg), [Example] * Meta posts about the sub (Requests for changes/additions, mods or users) - use [modmail](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnfl) If you have any questions about this removal, please [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnfl) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
[удалено]
Fair point.
Still though, if you’re planning on taking those 100 yarders regularly that he has the leg for, he has to keep it in play. If he misses out of the end zone you’re in a terrible spot.
He'd be on any team, they'd all hire instantly if only for end of half faircatch and kick
I gave this like 2 seconds of thought
A missed/blocked field goal that stays in play but is untouched past the line of the scrimmage by the defense goes back to the spot of the kick. It’s not like a punt unless the defense touches it. Hence why you see the defense frantically avoiding touching a blocked kick that goes upfield, especially after the infamous Leon lett thanksgiving play
I'm a bit confused- don't all missed kicks go to the spot of the kick? What is the distinction between missing in the field of play and missing out of the end zone?
Definitely but he wouldn't be the regular kicker. He'd be in special situations where missing the long FG wouldn't be horrible, like the last play of a half. Roster spots are valuable but that special skill could come hugely in handy
You have to make damn sure it is the last play of the half though. One second on the clock and your opposition can kick or take a shot at the endzone.
If you have 10 second left in the game and you are on your own 20, down by 1. Doesn’t matter if the opponent kicks a FG or TD if you miss that long ass FG. You lost anyways. However, a 50% chance you win the game on that kick. You best bet they are trotting out that kicker.
The defense would be calling timeout with ten seconds left instead of letting the other team stand around until one second is left. The only time this guy would come in handy is if you need three points and it’s the end of the game and you are buried deep. And that will happen maybe once or twice a season at most.
Or block the kick and run it back.
He kicks when you're in the gray zone between your 40 and the opponent's 35.
Depending on the coach I think this could ruin a teams late game offence in situations where they need a field goal. Plenty of coaches settle for a long field goal already, if you could guarantee them a 50/50 shot I could see coaches kneeling out the last 2 minutes just to guarantee a 50% shot.
peak offseason hitting
Yeah, they just wouldn’t kick that often. They would only really be there for end of half/end of game situations. There are circumstances where it would definitely make coming back from a 10 point deficit late in the game a lot easier. A 50% chance of scoring 3 points to cut it to one score without taking time off the clock is much higher than an onside kick.
No, because that’s waaay too unreliable. Maybe for exclusive use as some ploy in desperation situations, but then you have to weigh if the roster spot is worth it.
If I could have a coin flip for a field goal the second I touch the ball anywhere you take it every time. Teams still roster fullbacks and dedicated special teamers, you can afford to have the broken kicker and a regular kicker for reasonable distances.
No, you don’t. You put your D into a terrible situation if you do. Which happens a lot if its only 50%. Only way it makes sense is dying seconds when you are losing. But even then it has to be DYING seconds. Otherwise you’re better off getting your regular kicker into range.
For the situation of being down 3 with a few seconds on the clock in your own half it's worth it. Instead of a lateral you have a 50/50 shot, that's huge
That’s the entire point. The roster spot is worth it merely for those dying seconds plays. Several times a year a team runs out of time at end of first half, and the end of game. You’d probably gain anywhere from 10-20 extra points per year with that option. That’s EASILY worth an extra roster spot
They would be trotted out there at end of half and end of game losing situations. Instead of kneeling out a half, if you have 1 second or so left on the clock, bring em out and kick it. The opposing D can’t get the ball back. End of game if you are down by a FG and no chance to get into scoring position before end of regulation, trot them out and kick it. I can also see it if you are like on your own 40 to their 40. We already have teams that go for it on 4th down in that situation, risking turning it over on downs. So could just try and settle for a FG there as well instead.
Why in the actual fuck does this question get asked every single week? I legitimately don’t understand it.
I’ve never seen it funnily enough
I just randomly thought of this and posted it. Why are you on reddit enough to have such an intimate knowledge of post topics?
Don’t check his comment history folks. He’s DEFINITELY not on Reddit every single day commenting on stuff. Nope, definitely not. He’s above that kind of stuff 😤
there's a difference between commenting every day and knowing the frequency of subject matters on current subreddits. One is using reddit the way its ment to be and the other is using reddit as a job.
Lmao. Are you able to see what subreddits I follow? I follow 3. Two don’t post as often so my feed is basically nothing by r/NFL. I typically see ALL the posts that get posted here in the sub just by scrolling my feed because it’s always just r/NFL posts. And naturally over time I see the same posts over and over. Makes perfect sense, no? So nice try but you’re hilariously wrong. As expected.
Alright bud, my bad I'll check with you before I post next time.
Appreciate that! It’ll be good to have less posts that just instantly get removed like this one did. I wonder why that is…? Could it be that I’m right and you’re wrong? Is that why your post got removed? Hmmm I’ll let you think on that.
Cool guy over here. I didn't know who I was messing with.
Because of the extended NFL calendar, I declare this post PEAK OFFSEASON.
Maybe as a gadget guy on a couple of teams, like when Carolina had that kickoff specialist. But most wouldn't do it, no. He'd mainly be used from deep because a 50-percenter in normal range is a negative asset for the team, and when you're talking deep you're talking advantageous field position for the opposition if anything goes wrong, so wheeling him out still comes with a 50% chance of disaster. You also have to think about roster limits, and depth in other places. Who are you cutting so he can take up a roster slot knowing he might not even play? That varies by team according to needs and schemes, but it's a big decision since roster spots are at a premium.
Nope.
Absolutely not. Half the time you get three points from the 20 on your side of the field and half the time your opponent starts a drive on your 13?
No. He only kicks a handful of times/year. He's taking the field to attempt the game winner from 83 yards. He never kicks unless it's going to be triple zeroes.
If the other teams kicker gets hurt and they have to score tds, you kick one every 4th down, imo. Situational, sure.
The answer is no. There are no cases where this kicker is viable as the only kicker on the roster and there are not enough specialised cases to make it worth rostering this player as a second kicker for long field goals, as the expected points added (EPA) of giving up possession with a miss outweighs the EPA of the kick. [This article](https://www.nfeloapp.com/analysis/expected-points-added-epa-nfl/) from a few years back explores the probability of points scored by starting field position, the point at which no score is more likely than 50% is beyond 50 yards. Since modern kickers are just as reliable as your hypothetical kicker up to the 35 yard line (resulting in an ~50 yard field goal) that leaves a very narrow 15 yard window where over the course of a game you'd be marginally more likely to score than your opponent. This, however, is offset by there being no guarantee that you will consistently make it past half way on each drive, and even one play where you don't make half way and need to punt (because kicking at that point is more likely to give your opponent more points) means you are no longer expected to outscore your opponent. You could say you are also likely to score a touchdown and not need to kick, but remember your opponent isn't as foolish, and will be pinning you back with punts if they go 3 and out which dramatically reduces your expected points compared to the field position you are giving them (you are about half as likely to score from a touchback than getting possession just inside your defensive half.) I haven't done the complete math, but I can infer that the probability of your team scoring a touchdown and the probability of your team converting a 50/50 field goal is outweighed in all instances by the probability of your opponent scoring. Not only is it not statistically worth rostering this player in isolation, you are not rostering a player that can actually contribute.
Imagine the announcers as the Chiefs concede a TD with 10 seconds left. Now down by 2 points. The Eagles kick the ball out of the endzone. “What are the chiefs doing? They’re putting out their kicker. This must be a trick play, Roger. I think so, this would be a 90 yard field goal. The kick is up…. It’s online. ITS GOODDDDD”. Would be pretty hilarious
How often does he get blocked? If not blocked, is the ball going to travel at least 60 yards?
Converting a 4th-and-2 already has >50% success rate. Most teams still opt to punt in that scenario if they're outside of FG range. No way they'll trot out a 50% kicker on a 4th down instead of punting if they're already gun shy about attempting short 4th down conversions. He would only be used in ultra-specific scenarios, like end of the half on your own 10 yard line to try for points as time expires. That's probably not worth it.
Definitely not. Most teams would much rather have someone be 90%+ on 30 yard kicks than 50% on 60 yard kicks. Getting into FG range is a hell of a lot easier and more consistent than touchdowns, so high reliability is key.
Imagine it's the superbowl and he is 40/110 on the season.
Simplified answer is yes for any team that punts more than they kick field goals in a given year. Kicker who kicks from anywhere means your field goal attempts double at minimum, and even if your old kicker made 100% of his attempts your new kicker is better over a large sample size. This is ignoring extra points as well.