NFL odds....is 8 the new 7?

[Sharky]

this week doesn't seem to be much of an indication, but was wondering how lines will be affected b/c of new extra point rule...there were at least a handful or so missed extra point in this year's preseason.

also interesting to see if power running teams, with superior offensive lines, like Seattle & Dallas, won't just always line up for 2...especially against inferior defensive rush teams - Clev, Tenn, Giants, to name a few...figure against these teams they'd likely to make 3-3, or 2-3 two pt conversions

surely this new rule will lead to some 'screw jobs' with teams going for 2 and missing when the kick would've given you the win (against the spread, of course)

Sharky

[biggg]

Nah it will make very little difference to the actual line. Even if teams go for two more the win margins will be balanced across the 7 (equal probability of wins by 6 and 8 basically as teams make it ~50% of the time). It's more likely that that won't happen and any difference will come from missed XPs. The one change is that the 3 and 7 will be worth less but probably only 2-3 cents less on the 3 and maybe 1-2 cents less on the 7.

The thing that might be affected are teasers for those who can still get good enough odds to bet Wong teasers. Teasers crossing the 2 and 8 will be fine, but these aren't the stronger teaser plays historically, usually you want to barely cross the 7 or 3 because those plays give you the most bang for the buck.

One quick way to look at it is if you assume 6 TDs a game, teams always kicking and a 95% make rate at the longer distance then 27% of games will feature a missed XP now vs 6% before when it was 99%...so yeah there will be quite a few more odd numbers although this will be partially offset by teams that get behind by odd numbers going for 2 more.

[biggg]

Sharky: I was thinking the same thing. I talk to a guy in the sportsbook that is a good NFL handicappers. Kickers may soon take on the same importance as QBs...at least for handicappers. The teams with upper echelon kickers will probably not be affected by the rule change. But the kickers with lousy kickers will be the ones that make up most of that dip in missed PATS. I expect this will picture will become much clearer about 3 or 4 weeks into the season.

There really isn't much difference across the league in kicker skill especially when it comes to making short field goals. And even if there was, the sample size of an NFL season or multiple NFL seasons isn't large enough to tell who is really good. Most of the variation in FG% is caused by field conditions, distances attempted, and luck. I ran some mixed models on this stuff and there were a few standouts (and believe it or not they were all the most respected kickers) but it was very bunched together and there were basically no kickers that were more than 2-3% worse at making 32 yard field goals than any other as long as you throw out punters and one game replacements.

With that said, in a windy/snowy game where there is actually a chance to miss these extra points, totals should come down a little, maybe even as much as a full point in extreme cases, but then again teams would probably just go for two in that situation if coaches are competent. Which they usually aren't.

[Sharky]

...basically as teams make it ~50% of the time...

power rush teams will make 2 yards way more than 50% of time imo...makes going for it a no brainer...throw in some play action to TE...looks like an easy 2 to me...really interested to see how this plays out..what teams did in the preseason has absolutely no correlation to real meaningful games...don't be surprised....great point with bad conditions as well

[bigplayer]

Teams make the 2pt conversion 47.5% of the time. If the standard PAT drops below 95% it "could be" +EV for them to go for 2 points. Of course there is CE and variance issues for them to consider as well as game situations, but for teams with a weak kicker I could see them going for two more often, unfortunately, not all teams with a weak kicker will be able to punch it in from the 2 yard line more than 47.5% of the time, so each team will have to consider it's own skills when deciding on a strategy.

I'd have much rather then kept all conversions 1 or 2 points from the same position and just narrow the goal posts from the current 18.5 feet to 15 or 14 feet and continue to narrow it until they get the desired effect on the standard PAT.

[Three]

I was talking to someone about this recently. He was clueless. I tried to explain the nonlinearity of the frequency of various MOV and how moving the line one point could be huge while moving it several points could be trivial depending on what MOV the move crosses. I am just going to wait and see this season. My big equalizer has been the few sites that give good teaser odds. This year I am just going to watch and see how things are affected. It could really screw up the teaser edge. It could take years to get enough scoring data to be significant for answering the question of how the rule change affects the frequencies for MOV.

[Three]

No more trick 2 pointers while lining up for the PAT at the 2 yard line. They will have to show their intentions on the 2 pointer. Might hurt some coaches who favor trickery a little.

Don't rule out a trick play from far back unless you can't get 2 when you line up for 1.

[Three]

A coach would have to be brain dead to try a trick two pointer from the 15 yard line instead on one with no trick from the 2 yard line.

If that is what everyone thinks, it is why it would be effective. I would bet special teams coaches would scout teams that commit totally to the defense of the kick. If they do they are practically handing you 2 points if you fake it. If they leave at least 1 guy to defend the fake or the botched play then you don't even think about it. Most out of the blue on sides kicks are from special teams coach scouting a team for the weakness to surprise on sides kicks not a let's just see what happens thing. The success rate of spotting a team with their guard down is pretty high. A lot of football success is tied to making a team cover certain options and exploiting when they overcommit to a certain play or attack. The coach would most likely authorize an audible if what you saw as a weakness was shown before the snap.

[Three]

I guess you don't hang with any of the coaches. The holder is usually a QB or other ball handler so no need to change personnel. Why would you need a wide receiver on the play? There are lots of TE's and even RB's that are fine receivers. Just look at the success rate of onside kicks. When it is expected you are successful about 20% of the time but the element of surprise ups it to a 60% success rate. The effectiveness of surprise is something every good coach uses. They don't just go what the hell let's try it here. They scout the other teams and if they think the opponent is vulnerable to an unexpected play they may decide to try it. If you line up on the 2 they know you are going for 2 but if your opponent shows that you can easily get behind all the defenders all you have to do is get the ball there the distance doesn't matter. Once you are behind the defense with the ball you will easily cover whatever ground you need to to score. The play will be rehearsed and can be audible on or off depending on how the defense is set up. Catching a team off guard is a big part of the big play. Every team has a bunch of trick plays. they usually don't just decide to try them. They try them when the opponent is overcommitting making them vulnerable to the deception. I can guarantee you most or all teams will have a play in the play book for this. They may not use it but it is there. It will just depend on the defense as to whether or not it is a high percentage play. The issue many teams have scoring in the red zone is the short field is easy to defend. With a little more space to work with it is easier to pass the ball which is most likely the type of play that would be used here. With almost every defender committed to blocking the extra point the field will be very open behind them. From watching pre-season the teams pretty much line up with 1 guy at the 10 yard line to make sure there is not a fake. Sometimes they drop men at both ends a the snap to cover the whole field. Sometimes they don't. If a team ends to rush 10 and the guy at the 10 yard line to protect against a fake is predictable at the way he plays you have a vulnerability to exploit. Send 2 TE's or RB combinations and he has to commit to one or leave them both wide open. Most teams are unpredictable and drop a man or 2 but if a team is predictable the AP move is to exploit the vulnerability. It is akin to doubling down on a strong hand and not a weak one. Just pay attention to how teams defend the extra point. Don't be surprised if you see this done against a team that leaves all the defense up to the one guy at the 10 yard line.

[Three]

You are missing the point. From the 2 you can only go for 2. The field is short and easy to defend for both the pass and the run. From the 15 you can look for the advantage play and take advantage when it presents itself. You don't just line up to go for 2 from the 15. You kick if the defense isn't what you are looking for and if they are exposed you take the shot. It is an audible done with the same players on the field. An example of the trick would be a lateral pass followed by a pass run option when you make the defense commit their 1 guy assigned to defend against a fake or a botched play to one or the other. The QB holding the snap if a running QB could simply roll out and send 2 guys downfield splitting the field. There will likely not be the personnel to defend against this if the scouting showed this was a high percentage play. The QB/holder stares down one receiver causing the defender to commit and then hits the other for a walk in TD. I just reviewed a couple games extra point tries for the pre-season. The Ravens always had different wrinkles to have several people end up back to defend against a fake even though only 1 lined up on the 10 yard line. The other teams were predictable and only had one man to defend the whole field against a fake. If this continues into the regular season some smart coach will take the easy 2 points after scouting this weakness.

[Three]

The team kicking onside didn't give up 13 yards. You've written a lot of words and you can believe it if you like. But don't expect to get a call from the NFL asking you to be a Special Teams consultant any time soon.

The team kicking an onside kick when it is not expected five up 30 yards if unsuccessful. When they try it it is because their special teams scouting spotted a vulnerability and they saw it on the field when lining up for the kick.A 60% success rate versus a 20% success rate when this weakness is spotted in an opponent shows the value of the surprise aspect of the play. You scout the other team to exploit their weaknesses. If your scouting says they are giving you an easy 2 points and you have a play in the book to exploit the weakness you are probably going to look for it in the game and audible when the time is right and the weakness looks to be exposed.

[Three]

In the situation I am talking about the success rate would be much higher than that. I am not talking about just trying it for the hell of it. Like the surprise extra point your scouting spotted the vulnerability and you looked to use it at an opportune time. We are talking an easy pass to a wide open receiver that can walk into the end zone after the catch. Not trying it against the Ravens, who have obviously committed to never leaving it to one guy and having many different ways to have 3 guys end up in the d-backfield after lining up like everyone else with 10 on the line a one guy 5 yards deep in the middle of the field. That is the point you are missing. As for the making an odd play that could cause a coach a lot of flak, that happens in most games. Coaches are used to that and the good ones know when a gamble is an advantage play.

[Three]

I think it was last year Peyton Manning who can't run literally walked into the end zone on I'm pretty sure it was a red zone play from about the 5 yard line.

And he could have walked in from the 15 especially if the other team was expecting a kick.

We'll watch the whole season and see if its ever done and if it is what the success rate is. Oh right, but then you're going to say the success rate was low because the teams made a bad decision to go ahead with the play.

Everyone on this site should know why a small sampling is insufficient to indicate the true expectation for an event. I am sure it will rarely be attempted and be successful a high percentage of the time. To approach expectation you will likely need several seasons results but you would think there would be more of an opportunity in the first season of the rule change. After that you will see less and less opportunity for the play so both the attempts and the success rate should fall some. So the results will likely never give you any sense for the true odds. Feel free to argue you are right at the end of the year despite a high success rate in actual results. It is a valid argument given what the sample size is likely to be. Your example of using trick plays to make easy opportunities even easier just makes my point that once you get behind the defense the extra 13 yards is almost nothing. If the vulnerability exists getting behind the defense almost a given.