What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Are FGs too easy now in todays NFL? (1 Viewer)

Da Guru

Da Guru

Fair & Balanced
Watching some of the games this year and the kickers seem to hardly ever miss.  Then I am watching guys making 50+ yard FGs and hitting high into the net behind the goalposts.  The Cowboy kicker made  a 53 yarder yesterday that would have been easily good from 63 yards.

I checked the total FG % for all FGs attempted in the NFL.  Since 2013 the NFL average for FGs made has been right around 86%.

Year 2012 to now total FG % has held steady right around 86%  With PATs still made a a 93-94% even moved back.

Year 2000:  Total FG %-- 79%

Year 1990: Total FG %-- 74%

Year 1980 Total FG %-- 64%

Year 1970 Total FG %--59%

86% success seems way too high and without much risk.  Of course a kicker will hook a short one once in awhile but these guys are like machines now.

The advent of soccer style kicking made kicking a football much easier than straight on like the old days.

Not sure what the answer is since they can`t move the goal posts back anymore.  Goal posts are 18ft 6 inches wide now.  Make them 14 ft would knock off 2 ft on each end to add a little more drama to each kick?

Any other ideas to make FGs a little more interesting?

 
It's not just that the percentages are way up, it's also that they're way up despite attempts being much longer now. 

I feel like I remember watching 15-20 years ago and a 50 yard attempt was a rare thing and if they did it was expected they would miss. Now kickers are getting cut because they go 1 for 3 on 54 yarders. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We're already seeing an uptick in teams going for it on 4th down.  I imagine that would skyrocket if they narrow up the goal posts.  

I'm not saying that would be good or bad, but I think it would happen.

 
Changing of the times. Bigger, stronger humans with better equipment to do the job right. Kickers are like pro golfers. Kickers now a days can kick the ball 50+ with ease and pro golfers now a days can drive the ball 350 yards with ease. Both were rare 20 years ago. 

 
Just like my idea of little people on top of backboards swatting away easy jump shots, you could place a special teams player on top of the goalposts to block some of the kicks. 

 
Who cares?

Seriously....I'd rather FG's under 50 WERE nearly automatic. Still plenty of drama on 50+ yarders late in games

 
If you caught Bill Belichick's presser the other day when he was asked why teams have a long snapper instead of a regular center and an extra roster spot (which he answered for close to 10 minutes!), he said a lot of success on kicks these days is due to teams having a dedicated long snapper and not a regular center, a dedicated place holder (usually the punter), and the kicker that can now all practice together and do nothing else all practice. That way, they can get their timing down, they can practice a boatload of kicks all practice, and they get the timing and ball placement down to a science. Back in the early days, all three of those positions were guys that played other positions and then added special teams to their things to do list. Now there are players growing up that specialize in these things and it has made a big difference in the percentage of kicks made. At least in BB's eyes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Only tangentially related but we are in a golden age of punters and have been for some time.

Tonight you’ll get to see one of (if not the) best. Probably often.

 
Da Guru said:
Watching some of the games this year and the kickers seem to hardly ever miss.  Then I am watching guys making 50+ yard FGs and hitting high into the net behind the goalposts.  The Cowboy kicker made  a 53 yarder yesterday that would have been easily good from 63 yards.

I checked the total FG % for all FGs attempted in the NFL.  Since 2013 the NFL average for FGs made has been right around 86%.

Year 2012 to now total FG % has held steady right around 86%  With PATs still made a a 93-94% even moved back.

Year 2000:  Total FG %-- 79%

Year 1990: Total FG %-- 74%

Year 1980 Total FG %-- 64%

Year 1970 Total FG %--59%

86% success seems way too high and without much risk.  Of course a kicker will hook a short one once in awhile but these guys are like machines now.

The advent of soccer style kicking made kicking a football much easier than straight on like the old days.

Not sure what the answer is since they can`t move the goal posts back anymore.  Goal posts are 18ft 6 inches wide now.  Make them 14 ft would knock off 2 ft on each end to add a little more drama to each kick?

Any other ideas to make FGs a little more interesting?
Click to expand...
Same kicker missed a 31-yarder the week before. FGs are nowhere near automatic. 

 
BobbyLayne said:
Only tangentially related but we are in a golden age of punters and have been for some time.

Tonight you’ll get to see one of (if not the) best. Probably often.
Click to expand...
In general for both P and PK, there have been advances in strength / conditioning / pliability that gives these guys more extension and flexibility than ever before. The use of kicking footballs in 1999 also helped a ton, as guys did not have to use scuffed up footballs to kick.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We're also in a golden age for QBs. Mahomes, Allen, and even the average QBs can make all the throws, the back shoulder throw, etc. I don't think Tarkenton or Unitas would be all pro in today's NFL.

 
Skipdog77 said:
Same kicker missed a 31-yarder the week before. FGs are nowhere near automatic. 
Click to expand...
I'm sure I will jinx him, but 37-year-old Nick Folk has made 33 straight FG attempts in NE. Before coming to the Patriots, he made 80% of his kicks along the way. Not sure why he discovered his accuracy late in his career, but he has been pretty reliable. (He has missed some XP tries in that time, however.)

 
SoBeDad said:
We're also in a golden age for QBs. Mahomes, Allen, and even the average QBs can make all the throws, the back shoulder throw, etc. I don't think Tarkenton or Unitas would be all pro in today's NFL.
Click to expand...
We're also in a golden age of referees giving huge advantages to the offense compared to any other era before. Back when it was big boy football, defenders could maul receivers before the ball was thrown and that wasn't a penalty. Then they added defensive holding and guys couldn't touch a receiver after 5 yards. Then they started calling way more DPI. And now pass rushers can barely touch a QB or get a 15 yard penalty. And you can only hit them above the knees but below the shoulders and any incidental contact even grazing a helmet is a penalty. Last year, DPI penalties went up a huge amount and offense holding calls were down like 50% compared to 2019. The league wanted more offense, and that's one way to get it.

 
Interesting. Without looking at the percentages, it doesn't feel at all like FGs are too easy. In fact, I can't say I've even thought anything close to that. 

Vikings game yesterday felt right in line with how I see things.

Basically, I love how the game is now. 

 
Anarchy99 said:
We're also in a golden age of referees giving huge advantages to the offense compared to any other era before. Back when it was big boy football, defenders could maul receivers before the ball was thrown and that wasn't a penalty. Then they added defensive holding and guys couldn't touch a receiver after 5 yards. Then they started calling way more DPI. And now pass rushers can barely touch a QB or get a 15 yard penalty. And you can only hit them above the knees but below the shoulders and any incidental contact even grazing a helmet is a penalty. Last year, DPI penalties went up a huge amount and offense holding calls were down like 50% compared to 2019. The league wanted more offense, and that's one way to get it.
Click to expand...
True. But we have a much bigger pool of QBs today, and they're being trained better and earlier. I'm seeing more elite throws into tight windows than I saw during the Marino years, and definitely more than during the Griese years. Today's QBs are bigger, stronger and more athletic. I doubt if Unitas or Tarkenton weighed over 190 lbs.

With kickers, the pool is bigger and more of them have soccer experience. Dedicated snappers and holders has helped.

 
Caesar said:
We're already seeing an uptick in teams going for it on 4th down.  I imagine that would skyrocket if they narrow up the goal posts.  

I'm not saying that would be good or bad, but I think it would happen.
Click to expand...


Okay, then I will say it. 🙂   Narrow posts would be better.   In my mind, the PAT should still be a 20 yard field goal, but they should have narrowed the posts to make it a 90-92% success rate instead of making it from farther back.    I don't like having to declare which you're going for and having that dictate a different line of scrimmage.   Faking the PAT to go for 2 should be a thing (even though it technically still is from the 15).

For the top half of the league, stud kickers who seem to convert automatically from 55 yards when the game is on the line, it also makes those kicks more of a 50-50 or even heaven forbid a 30-70, and us Vikings fans might not feel so lonesome in our quarter century nightmare that never ends.

 
SoBeDad said:
True. But we have a much bigger pool of QBs today, and they're being trained better and earlier. I'm seeing more elite throws into tight windows than I saw during the Marino years, and definitely more than during the Griese years. Today's QBs are bigger, stronger and more athletic. I doubt if Unitas or Tarkenton weighed over 190 lbs.

With kickers, the pool is bigger and more of them have soccer experience. Dedicated snappers and holders has helped.
Click to expand...
The one thing I hear from the old time defenders and QBs is that back in the day when receivers could get mauled running routes, it was a lot harder to have precise timing patterns because guys didn't get free run off the LOS. Plus QB could be clobbered by blitzers without them having fear of getting flagged and fined every play. Many QBs were in the 190's . . . but defenders were way smaller too. Definitely more of a flag football product than back 40-50 years ago or more.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
Just like my idea of little people on top of backboards swatting away easy jump shots, you could place a special teams player on top of the goalposts to block some of the kicks. 
Click to expand...
I think a 2-man aeronautics team on trampolines would be an amazing addition to the sport for this very purpose.   And I'm only half-kidding.   

On the topic of crackpot ideas in the kicking game, if we're going to insist on kicking balls out of the back of the endzone instead of having actual kick returns, maybe kicking those through the uprights should just be the extra point.   You would have to move back 2-point conversions to get the success rates right.

Also, I favor narrowing the goalposts, but it we're keeping them the same width I would settle for a dead center pole that's worth a bonus point (preferably 2 points for regular + 1 if you knock it dead center).   

I will quit now.  Thanks for indulging my dumb ideas.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sushinsky4tsar said:
Okay, then I will say it. 🙂   Narrow posts would be better.   In my mind, the PAT should still be a 20 yard field goal, but they should have narrowed the posts to make it a 90-92% success rate instead of making it from farther back.    I don't like having to declare which you're going for and having that dictate a different line of scrimmage.   Faking the PAT to go for 2 should be a thing (even though it technically still is from the 15).

For the top half of the league, stud kickers who seem to convert automatically from 55 yards when the game is on the line, it also makes those kicks more of a 50-50 or even heaven forbid a 30-70, and us Vikings fans might not feel so lonesome in our quarter century nightmare that never ends.
Click to expand...
Which PK are automatic from 55 yards? The top kickers have made roughly 65% of their 50 yard attempts over their careers, let alone 55 yarders in crunch time.

 
Leroy Hoard said:
Just like my idea of little people on top of backboards swatting away easy jump shots, you could place a special teams player on top of the goalposts to block some of the kicks. 
Click to expand...
Teams have tried putting a guy right underneath the goal post to jump and swat away long FG attempts that might barely clear the bar. Can't say I ever remember a team ever denying a kick, but I remember them setting up a guy to try it.

 
Anarchy99 said:
Which PK are automatic from 55 yards? The top kickers have made roughly 65% of their 50 yard attempts over their careers, let alone 55 yarders in crunch time.
Click to expand...
Automatic is certainly hyperbole, and the collection of elite kickers is probably more like the top quarter of the league than the top third.   However, if Tucker, Butker, (healthy) Lutz, Carlson are lining up for game-winners from 54, 55, 56 yards, are you more surprised when they make it, or more surprised when they miss?

For FGs to be worth about 43% of a touchdown + XP attempt, I personally think it would be better if they were less successful than the current rate.

 
New blocking rules have put a damper on the FG rush imo, that's why the percentage is up compared to recent years.

I would expect the numbers to be higher than 70s/80s to evolution of players and the game 

Eta: I understand the reason for the changes but it's a big part imo

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sushinsky4tsar said:
Automatic is certainly hyperbole, and the collection of elite kickers is probably more like the top quarter of the league than the top third.   However, if Tucker, Butker, (healthy) Lutz, Carlson are lining up for game-winners from 54, 55, 56 yards, are you more surprised when they make it, or more surprised when they miss?

For FGs to be worth about 43% of a touchdown + XP attempt, I personally think it would be better if they were less successful than the current rate.
Click to expand...
I liked football a lot more when games were in the teens instead of the 40's. IMO, that made for more competitive games and the outcome could flip on any single play. A lot of games these days seem like one team gets way ahead and the team that's behind scores a bunch of empty calorie points to make the final score end up closer than the blow out it really was.

As far as kickers go, for kicks from long distance in crunch time, at best I see about a 50/50 success rate. Not sure if that should be considered high, low, or just right in terms of an expected outcome. One would think the better kickers would make more than the bottom feeders, so the league average is probably pretty close to your expected successful kick / value calculation.

 
belljr said:
I would expect the numbers to be higher than 70s/80s to evolution of players and the game
Click to expand...


This is where I'm at, and why I think narrowing the posts is a valid topic.   When pro kickers were obligated to bag groceries or substitute teach in the offseason, that's when I think the success rates were commensurate with TD = 6+1 & FG = 3. 

 
sushinsky4tsar said:
This is where I'm at, and why I think narrowing the posts is a valid topic.   When pro kickers were obligated to bag groceries or substitute teach in the offseason, that's when I think the success rates were commensurate with TD = 6+1 & FG = 3. 
Click to expand...
I guess we all have different ways of looking at things. If you look at the number of points scored in a game these days, I am not sure making more FG's represents a greater portion of the total. Last year, combined scoring was 49.6 ppg. In 1990 it was 40.2. In 1970 it was 38.6.

The average of made FG has been over 80% since 2004 (from all distances) and hasn't dropped below that since. Last year the league average from 50+ was 63%. Not sure what the expected successful completion rate you are looking for to make things balance out.

 
Might just be a factor of kickers getting better, fields getting better and analytics seeing teams correctly going for it rather than taking long FGs more often

 
Anarchy99 said:
I guess we all have different ways of looking at things. If you look at the number of points scored in a game these days, I am not sure making more FG's represents a greater portion of the total. Last year, combined scoring was 49.6 ppg. In 1990 it was 40.2. In 1970 it was 38.6.

The average of made FG has been over 80% since 2004 (from all distances) and hasn't dropped below that since. Last year the league average from 50+ was 63%. Not sure what the expected successful completion rate you are looking for to make things balance out.
Click to expand...


Not really a concern of point totals for me.   It's a matter of risk/reward that promotes going for the end zone, or even pushing for a shorter field goal vs preserving the average field goal attempt that has an 86% success rate per the OP.

Vikings should have been pushing for a shorter field goal attempt yesterday.   They deserved to get burned.   As a fan of football, it was good to see, even if it wasn't as a fan of the Vikings.   Frankly, I would like to see more teams get burned for settling for that 46-yard game winning attempt.   If a team is running down their opponents throat in OT (following the initial possession), I would like to see them keep pushing for the endzone instead of settling for, "we got inside the 25, now let's scoot over to the preferred hashmark."   

Just one man's opinion.   Perhaps there are those who feel goal post width and 80+% success rates are sacred cows.   For me, it's a general preference to see more walk-offs decided by the great athletes of the game instead of the kicker.   More teams going for it on 4th & 3 instead of settling for the field goal attempt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sushinsky4tsar said:
Not really a concern of point totals for me.   It's a matter of risk/reward that promotes going for the end zone, or even pushing for a shorter field goal vs preserving the average field goal attempt that has an 86% success rate per the OP.

Vikings should have been pushing for a shorter field goal attempt yesterday.   They deserved to get burned.   As a fan of football, it was good to see, even if it wasn't as a fan of the Vikings.   Frankly, I would like to see more teams get burned for settling for that 46-yard game winning attempt.   If a team is running down their opponents throat in OT (following the initial possession), I would like to see them keep pushing for the endzone instead of settling for, "we got inside the 25, now let's scoot over to the preferred hashmark."   

Just one man's opinion.   Perhaps there are those who feel goal post width and 80+% success rates are sacred cows.
Click to expand...
Except the numbers in the OP aren't totally accurate. Consistently 86% for 7 straight years was a bit of a reach . . . but the percentage still has been higher than decades ago.

2020 - 84.6% FG - 93.0% XP
2019 - 81.6 - 93.9
2018 - 84.7 - 94.3
2017 - 84.3 - 94.0
2016 - 84.2 - 93.6
2015 - 84.5 - 94.2
2014 - 84.0 - 99.3
2013 - 86.5 - 99.6
2012 - 83.9 - 99.5
2011 - 82.9 - 99.4

LINK

In 10 years, the make % has gone up 1.5 points on FG and gone down 6 points on XP. As already discussed, dedicated long snappers, dedicated holders, kicking balls, and better turf fields likely all played into that.

I am sure all teams would rather score TD than settle for FG attempts. Some teams like my Patriots these days are ill equipped to get into the end zone. In today's game, against a lot of opponents, settling for FG attempts is not going to be good enough to win games. So I would argue that only getting 3 points (even if the expected return is better) can hurt a team more times than it helps them.

 
^^^Thanks for the numbers.  I think it would be pretty swell if those 8X% turned into 6X%.   If that happens, I guarantee you that you will see a lot more teams going for it on 4th & 5 on the 25 instead of playing for 3.

 
sushinsky4tsar said:
^^^Thanks for the numbers.  I think it would be pretty swell if those 8X% turned into 6X%.   If that happens, I guarantee you that you will see a lot more teams going for it on 4th & 5 on the 25 instead of playing for 3.
Click to expand...
I guess my question would be why would the league want to go back to the 1970's in terms of made FG%? For all the reasons discussed in this thread that is a thing of the past. With several high scoring teams out there these days, I think more teams are going for 4th and 2 or 4th and 3 than in day's past, especially over a long FG attempt that would give the other team the ball at close to mid field. I also think it makes way more sense to go for it than try a punt from the opponent's 40 yard line. And obviously if a team is behind late in the game they have no choice to go for those 4th downs anyway.

If you really want to encourage teams for going for TD (especially in late game come backs), allow teams to get a TD and XP try and then give them the option of kicking off or kicking a free kick FG from the spot of the kickoff. Make it and get 3 points, miss it and the other team gets the ball at the spot of the kick (30 yard line). This would really impact when there are penalties assessed on the kickoff as well.

 
Anarchy99 said:
Except the numbers in the OP aren't totally accurate. Consistently 86% for 7 straight years was a bit of a reach . . . but the percentage still has been higher than decades ago.

2020 - 84.6% FG - 93.0% XP
2019 - 81.6 - 93.9
2018 - 84.7 - 94.3
2017 - 84.3 - 94.0
2016 - 84.2 - 93.6
2015 - 84.5 - 94.2
2014 - 84.0 - 99.3
2013 - 86.5 - 99.6
2012 - 83.9 - 99.5
2011 - 82.9 - 99.4

LINK

In 10 years, the make % has gone up 1.5 points on FG and gone down 6 points on XP.
Click to expand...


When did they move the spot back for the XP?

 
I'm not sure there's much more that needs to be explained.   This is basic game theory and probability stuff.    Make the conversion rate significantly less on the 3, the propensity for teams to go for 6 increases.    Yes, going for it on 4th & 2 from the 25 has become more fashionable in recent years.   Make field goal conversion rates less successful and now you see a lot more teams going for it on 4th & 5.   Could it mean more punting on 4th & 8 from the 36?   I suppose if a team doesn't like their kicker or their QB, but they better love their D and their punter's ability to pin the other team deep if they're playing that conservative. 

More walk-offs from WRs and RBs.   Less walk-offs from the K.    A lot more drama when the kicker is actually lining up for a game-winner.   I'm not sure that can be stated as fact without in actually happening, but it should be fairly intuitive that this would be the outcome.     

 
If you really wanted to make extra points fun, make the scoring player kick them.   You might end up with a sport that can call itself football with a straight face.

You would have to make 2 point conversions more difficult.

 
sushinsky4tsar said:
I'm not sure there's much more that needs to be explained.   This is basic game theory and probability stuff.    Make the conversion rate significantly less on the 3, the propensity for teams to go for 6 increases.    Yes, going for it on 4th & 2 from the 25 has become more fashionable in recent years.   Make field goal conversion rates less successful and now you see a lot more teams going for it on 4th & 5.   Could it mean more punting on 4th & 8 from the 36?   I suppose if a team doesn't like their kicker or their QB, but they better love their D and their punter's ability to pin the other team deep if they're playing that conservative. 

More walk-offs from WRs and RBs.   Less walk-offs from the K.    A lot more drama when the kicker is actually lining up for a game-winner.   I'm not sure that can be stated as fact without in actually happening, but it should be fairly intuitive that this would be the outcome.     
Click to expand...
But I still don’t get why there is a need to try to decrease the rate of success rate n kicking. Guys got better. It happens. 

Is going for on 4th down earlier in the game more exciting than guys trying for a game winning FG? It’s statistically been shown the expected return going for a 2 point conversion is higher than kicking extra points. Yet teams would still rather take the kick than go for two. 

I get that you personally would rather see fewer kicks made, but I haven’t seen a movement or outrage over teams making too many kicks. The longer XP tries were instituted because people weren’t watching the chip shots. 

Unless and until a team starts going on 4th downs and winning because of it, I don’t see teams shying away from taking three points if available. 

 
Anarchy99 said:
But I still don’t get why there is a need to try to decrease the rate of success rate n kicking. Guys got better. It happens. 

Is going for on 4th down earlier in the game more exciting than guys trying for a game winning FG? It’s statistically been shown the expected return going for a 2 point conversion is higher than kicking extra points. Yet teams would still rather take the kick than go for two. 

I get that you personally would rather see fewer kicks made, but I haven’t seen a movement or outrage over teams making too many kicks. The longer XP tries were instituted because people weren’t watching the chip shots. 

Unless and until a team starts going on 4th downs and winning because of it, I don’t see teams shying away from taking three points if available. 
Click to expand...


  • It's not a need, nor do I ever envision the masses ever demanding change, but I don't think it's impossible if the competition committee ever takes a real look at it
  • I'm actually surprised that they did alter the XPA in 2015.   Making extra points less automatic was the correct move, I just wish they accomplished this by narrowing the posts instead of moving the LOS farther back than the 2-point conversion / old XP LOS.
  • Much in the same way that XPAs aren't nearly as automatic as they used to be, and therefore more interesting imo.   I think field goal attempts would also become more interesting if the average success rate was significantly less than 82-86% or whatever it is we've settled into.
  • I do think it's problematic that 2 point conversions are statistically more lucrative than extra points, but it's splitting hairs as a math nerd.    I suspect this changed in 2015 when the new LOS made XPs 94% instead of 99+%, but it's possible that 2-point success rate previously exceeded the 49.8% or 50% rate that would have made them statistically superior even from the old spot.   I would have moved the 2-point conversion line from the 2 to the 3 when they changed the XP.    If the XP conversion rate is expected to be at 94%, I think the 2-point conversion line should ideally be at a spot that's less than 47%, but it's definitely splitting hairs.   Why do teams not go for the 2 more given the math?   Probably some combo of herd mentality, score predictability, protecting star players from getting hurt. 
 
Anarchy99 said:
I'm sure I will jinx him, but 37-year-old Nick Folk has made 33 straight FG attempts in NE. Before coming to the Patriots, he made 80% of his kicks along the way. Not sure why he discovered his accuracy late in his career, but he has been pretty reliable. (He has missed some XP tries in that time, however.)
Click to expand...
As a Bills fan, I would like to assist with any jinxing of any Patriots players.

 
Giants kicker Gano has made 35 in a row. Seven of those have been 50+ Yard kicks. It does seem like it is a lot easier to make FGs these days.

 
Hasn’t the Titans had 7 kickers in the last 10 months give or take?  What they really need to do is move kickoff back to the 35.  Kickoffs are boring with so few returns.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Da Guru
Are FGs too easy now in todays NFL?
Replies
0
Views
199
Da Guru
Da Guru
Hankmoody
NFL salary cap discussion
Replies
26
Views
649
Anarchy99
Anarchy99
Scoresman
Playoff League/Contest Strategy - Assessing NFL Team Playoff Success
Replies
28
Views
779
Gally
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top