LaRonDontLikeUgly Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 This article doesn't really mention Greg Schiano's proposed plan-- which I think is pretty awesome. (Apparently it's the one thing Mr. Goodell and I agree on.) Instead of kick-offs, teams that score get the ball on their own 30 yard line in a 4th and 15 situation. You can opt to punt or to go for it. Don't really want to see the kick-off get eliminated, but in many ways it already has so I'm ready for whatever is next. Bring on Schiano's plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_328 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I wonder if there is a way they could incorporate team captains playing 'paper, rock, scissors' at midfield to figure out starting field position for the offense. 3 wins in a row = 30 yard line, 4 wins in a row = 40 yard line, etc... It would be both very exciting and extremely safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 This is absoloutely insane. I still dont undertand how kids playing this sport from age 5 are allowed to do kickoffs, but players being paid hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars cant. I am sure if Goodell had any sense and polled players and fans, he would see overwhelming majority wanta kickoff. What this idiot is proposing changes the game completely.you are right that a fan poll would be against it. That's because most people are traditionalists. Traditionalists hate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 No more chance for an onside kick? Computer randomly generates odds of success or team attempting onside kick waits while they pull a slot machine onto the field. One pull and if it goes jackpot the kicking team recovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 This isn't anything new. Bellechick came out with this idea years ago. He basically said that if they keep handicapping what actually happens on kickoffs then they may as well just eliminate them and come up with something like this. I don't get the hate; I really don't. I know it's popular to hate Goodell for everything that may ever slightly even consider coming out of his mouth, but who really enjoys kickoffs? They're the most boring part of the game. They're tedious, they add a whole extra set of commercials (because they always come back just long enough for the kickoff), they slow the whole gameplay down, and especially with the new rules, NOTHING ever happens. We've had what, 2 kick return TDs all season? NFL wide? That's like a third of what Hester could get on his own some years. Why are we still kicking off, and watching with baited breath, as if something is actually going to happen? And it isn't just about concussions. Schiano coached a player who was paralyzed. I don't care what anyone tells me, the ONLY time I was ever scared on the football field was on special teams. Those collisions are massive and it was as a gunner on a kickoff that I got my own concussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santana_4_prez Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yeah, i really don't care too much about kickoffs (especially since Forbath can't get a touchback, lol) but I would not like the idea of getting rid of onsides kicks. That will make the end of games a lot less exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 No more chance for an onside kick? Well, you get the ball 4th and 15 on your own 30... so you could go for it and try and get a penalty, you could punt it... it's very street basketball/make-it take-it to me and will completely undermind the strategies that have been in place for years. At the same time, the punter becomes much more valuable. The big legged kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortisBetts Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 you are right that a fan poll would be against it. That's because most people are traditionalists. Traditionalists hate change. Its not even that its traditional. That changes the game so much. You dont see baseball, soccer, basketball, hockey, or any other sport change there game so dramatically. Why should football? Because of risks that we all know about? If you dont want to take them, leave the contract on the table. No one is holding a gun to your head. It just irks me so much that the people who pay to watch the sport and the people who play the sport, past and present, really have no say in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Its not even that its traditional. That changes the game so much. You dont see baseball, soccer, basketball, hockey, or any other sport change there game so dramatically. Why should football? Because of risks that we all know about? If you dont want to take them, leave the contract on the table. No one is holding a gun to your head. It just irks me so much that the people who pay to watch the sport and the people who play the sport, past and present, really have no say in the matter. Yes you do. How about hockey getting rid of the two-line pass and ending regular season games with shootouts instead of ties? Those were pretty big changes, and probably a good thing as far as attracting fans. And you talk like it's so simple to leave millions of dollars on the table. They already changed the game so much by giving the kicker 5 more yards, and now kickoffs usually are the most boring part of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMUSkins Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yes you do. How about hockey getting rid of the two-line pass and ending regular season games with shootouts instead of ties? Those were pretty big changes, and probably a good thing as far as attracting fans. I think this change would be more akin to ending face-offs and having the team that scored start with the puck behind their own net.... or even ending fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I don't think it's a horrible idea. I'd prefer to keep kickoffs, but this could be interesting and introduce some additional variables to the game. I wouldn't jump off a cliff if this happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asoccerplayer99 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I've been for that idea for years. The tradeoff is a rare exciting kickoff return for a faster-paced game. After a score, the opponent's offense starts on the 20. A faster paced game? That will NEVER happen for this league, where full commercial breaks are taken at EVERY opportunity. They will never do anything to speed a game's start or re-start, only to slow it. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a giant infomercial, with the occasional break for some football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Its not even that its traditional. That changes the game so much. You dont see baseball, soccer, basketball, hockey, or any other sport change there game so dramatically. Why should football? Because of risks that we all know about? If you dont want to take them, leave the contract on the table. No one is holding a gun to your head. It just irks me so much that the people who pay to watch the sport and the people who play the sport, past and present, really have no say in the matter.It once required five balls for a walk in Baseball. Basketball once had no shot clock. Other rule changes have improved those games. Baseball will be better when more umpiring decisions can be booth reviewed by slow motion TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I think this change would be more akin to ending face-offs and having the team that scored start with the puck behind their own net.... or even ending fighting. Not really. First off, the first rule change wouldn't make sense considering face-offs happen all the time. Second, kickoffs are lame with the 5 extra yards while fighting is still exciting to watch. They'd have to force NHL players to fight with the gloves on THEN say that fighting is banned for your analogy to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMUSkins Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 A faster paced game? That will NEVER happen for this league, where full commercial breaks are taken at EVERY opportunity. They will never do anything to speed a game's start or re-start, only to slow it. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a giant infomercial, with the occasional break for some football. +1... a kickoff or a play at the 30 w/ a 4th and 15 scenario are both just one play. It wouldn't speed things up, especially if the team with the ball decided to punt (which is the most likely scenario unless you are trying to make a comeback late). You'd still end up having to change units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortisBetts Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yes you do. How about hockey getting rid of the two-line pass and ending regular season games with shootouts instead of ties? Those were pretty big changes, and probably a good thing as far as attracting fans.And you talk like it's so simple to leave millions of dollars on the table. I think the problem i have with this mostly is taking away the onside kick and putting the offense out there. I guess i am traditionalist the more i think of it. I hate the changing of a game i have watched and played my whole life without the people who play it even having a say. It is just whatever Goodell and a competition comittee want. And i am not saying its simple to leave the money. But you know the risks when you take it, so dont double back and get upset when those risks become reality. The players sueing now had no knowledge. THe players now do. And there are rules in place to protect them. ---------- Post added December-7th-2012 at 09:31 AM ---------- It once required five balls for a walk in Baseball. Basketball once had no shot clock. Other rule changes have improved those games. Baseball will be better when more umpiring decisions can be booth reviewed by slow motion TV. Ok, you got me with these. But these were to improve the game while i just think this move is being made to have the look like the NFL cares so much about player safety when they are in fact just treying to cover years of neglect. Thats what grinds my gears. There wasnt a problem with kickoffs. I think there is now. I think the players need to have a say in a rule change this big and i dont see them having one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 ... I guess i am traditionalist the more i think of it...If aircraft designers were traditionalists, we would have planes that looked like the Wright Bros. model able to fly 2,311 feet by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I've been for that idea for years. The tradeoff is a rare exciting kickoff return for a faster-paced game. After a score, the opponent's offense starts on the 20. I don't necessarily mind this idea. I would miss the kickoffs on one hand (though not so much if Banks is apparently going to be here forever ) but I don't see too much of a problem with it. It's kind of like old playground rules. Score, losers walk and take the ball. I didn't read the article yet, did it say how it would handle onside kicks? It would take some of the element of surprise from that out if they still allowed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMUSkins Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Not really. First off, the first rule change wouldn't make sense considering face-offs happen all the time. Second, kickoffs are lame with the 5 extra yards while fighting is still exciting to watch. They'd have to force NHL players to fight with the gloves on THEN say that fighting is banned for your analogy to work. I was just trying to make the point that it would be akin to guaranteeing the scoring team possession of the puck/ball after a score (lame). They are, after all, two different sports so you'll never get an exact 1-to-1 comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 This is so dumb. No onside kicks would RUIN the game. Go for it on 4th and 15 instead of onside? The **** kinda crap is that? Taking away kickoffs takes away pretty much the most electric opening to any sports game. It's like if the NBA got rid of tip offs, or hockey got rid of the dropping of the puck. You just don't get rid of staples in these key sports. Someone needs to get rid of Goddell and quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I wonder if there is a way they could incorporate team captains playing 'paper, rock, scissors' at midfield to figure out starting field position for the offense. 3 wins in a row = 30 yard line, 4 wins in a row = 40 yard line, etc... It would be both very exciting and extremely safe. LOL don't give them any ideas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Well, you get the ball 4th and 15 on your own 30... so you could go for it and try and get a penalty, you could punt it... it's very street basketball/make-it take-it to me and will completely undermind the strategies that have been in place for years.At the same time, the punter becomes much more valuable. The big legged kind. Yeah, no I got that. I'm asking Oldfan specifically about his idea to just place the ball at the 20 after a score, which would do away with any possibility of a team regaining possession. If you're down by two scores with two minutes to go, game's over. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twofoot Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 If they decided to do something closer to 4th and 20 or 25 I'd be 100% in favor of this, I wouldn't want to see roughing the punter be an auto first down in this instance. Onside kicks almost always fail anyways and Kickoffs are near guaranteed to be touchbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 This article doesn't really mention Greg Schiano's proposed plan-- which I think is pretty awesome. (Apparently it's the one thing Mr. Goodell and I agree on.)Instead of kick-offs, teams that score get the ball on their own 30 yard line in a 4th and 15 situation. You can opt to punt or to go for it. Don't really want to see the kick-off get eliminated, but in many ways it already has so I'm ready for whatever is next. Bring on Schiano's plan. Interesting I suppose but feels gimmicky and silly to me. Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but Extra Points are useless to but I don't want them removed. I would like to remove the opening coin toss, and just make the home team have the decision to receive or defer.. Bring a tiny bit of meaning to home field advantage... But I digress ---------- Post added December-7th-2012 at 10:57 AM ---------- If they decided to do something closer to 4th and 20 or 25 I'd be 100% in favor of this, I wouldn't want to see roughing the punter be an auto first down in this instance.Onside kicks almost always fail anyways and Kickoffs are near guaranteed to be touchbacks. Kick offs need to be moved back.. The experiment is a failure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 If they decided to do something closer to 4th and 20 or 25 I'd be 100% in favor of this, I wouldn't want to see roughing the punter be an auto first down in this instance.Onside kicks almost always fail anyways and Kickoffs are near guaranteed to be touchbacks. The way I would do it would be to calculate the mathematical probability to converting an onside kick and compare to the mathematical probability of converting 4th and X. Then simply use the value of X for which the two probabilities were equivalent. I would also pose that on this given play, defensive penalties are normal distance but NOT automatic first downs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.