Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
NFL replacing kickoffs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
Banemorth
Footballguy
I was and still am intrigued. I'd love to see it in practice, say in a few preseason games, before deciding whether or not to make the switch. Replacing kickoffs with a punt isn't a *HUGE* difference IMO and the 4th and 15 option really intrigues me. Much more so than the nonsense of the on-sides kick.
biju
Footballguy
This completely eliminates the surprise onside kick. The Saints seriously altered their Superbowl due to this.I voted against.
I think it an interesting idea. I think it would reduce teh risk of significant injuries - given the number of FC on punts. I don't think the current kick-off strategy of moving the ball back has worked since more players are bringing the ball out from 6-8 yards deep in the end zone.
It would be weird to see a punt on the first play - before anyone has really gotten warmed up in a game - but it would be tactically interesting - do you rush the punter, set up a return?
It would be weird to see a punt on the first play - before anyone has really gotten warmed up in a game - but it would be tactically interesting - do you rush the punter, set up a return?
How so? You could do a fake punt the same as an on-side kick - with probably the same success rate. (Or you could line-up with your offense, and probably force a TO by the other team.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
How about a hail mary if still down late after a TD. Catch or flag you keep the ball, INT would be pretty much like a punt.
I'd rather watch a team try that than an on-side kick imo
Bud
Footballguy
Interesting when you really think about who has the advantage. The defense could really put their team in terrific field position but I don't really like a team automatically getting possession of the ball after a score.
Are there really that many injuries on kick offs with all the touchbacks nowadays? This liability issue for the NFL is getting ridiculous. At some point there has to be personal accountability for making a choice to play a contact sport. No one forces these guys to play and they choose to sacrifice their bodies to make their way in the world. If this kind of change in the game does happen it is a result of the players union forcing the NFL's hand, not the commissioners fault.
Are there really that many injuries on kick offs with all the touchbacks nowadays? This liability issue for the NFL is getting ridiculous. At some point there has to be personal accountability for making a choice to play a contact sport. No one forces these guys to play and they choose to sacrifice their bodies to make their way in the world. If this kind of change in the game does happen it is a result of the players union forcing the NFL's hand, not the commissioners fault.
I am not sure I follow. Under the proposal the team that scored would have the ball - but it would be 4th and 15, on your own 30. In most cases, you are punting, and the team receiving will get the ball around the 30 (assuming a net-40 yd punt). But, if the team needs the ball back, and would otherwise have tried an on-side kick, they can line up and attempt to complete the 4th and 15 play - and have the ball at the 45ish yard line if successful.
The play also opens up the possibility for a bad snap, blocked punt, great punt return, fake punt (for a surprise on-side kick)
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Anyone know the odds of converting a 4th and 15? Seems like it would be higher than an onside recovery.
Also, worth noting, this rule would be yet another to really favor passing teams.
Also, worth noting, this rule would be yet another to really favor passing teams.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
I'm pretty sure that the NFL's squadron of lawyers has something to do with it too. Court cases years from now won't need the union's involvement to result in huge judge & jury payoffs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B
Footballguy
If this goes into effect ... at some point there will be a game where:
1. Team is down 27 with about 5:00 left in the fourth. They've got all three time outs.
2. They score four consecutive TDs in the time alotted, marching down the field in hurry-up each time. They convert three consecutive 4th-&-15 "kick-offs" to make it happen.
Purists will scoff, but that would be pretty awesome to witness.
1. Team is down 27 with about 5:00 left in the fourth. They've got all three time outs.
2. They score four consecutive TDs in the time alotted, marching down the field in hurry-up each time. They convert three consecutive 4th-&-15 "kick-offs" to make it happen.
Purists will scoff, but that would be pretty awesome to witness.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
IMO no, it wouldn't be awesome at any level to witness. It could possibly fundamentally change the game forever. Kind of like make-it-take-it for football. Imagine a team like the Patriots playing a bad team. There could be scores of 70 or 80-10. If I knew I had a dominant offense, why wouldn't I keep going for it??? Vegas will not allow this! And as fans, neither should we.
⚡DEADHEAD⚡
Footballguy
Chipping away at the "foot" in football.
Not a good idea. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist. Tweaks are fine. Changing fundamental aspects of the game almost seems sacreligious.
Not a good idea. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist. Tweaks are fine. Changing fundamental aspects of the game almost seems sacreligious.
treat88
Footballguy
Yep.
Doug B
Footballguy
Don't have the numbers ... but it seems like 4th-&-15 get converted far more often than an onside kick.
snogger
Footballguy
let's think "outside the box".Imagine a team that is facing an inferior Defense and is having no problems converting that 4th & 15.. You could in theory have a game where one team never gets the ball.Anyone know the odds of converting a 4th and 15? Seems like it would be higher than an onside recovery. Also, worth noting, this rule would be yet another to really favor passing teams.
GregR
Footballguy
From 2000 to present on 4th and 15 exactly, there were 78 pass plays and 18 rushing plays. Of the rush plays I'll only count 2 which are QB scrambles probably on a pass play, the rest being QB kneels or rushes by a punter or FG holder, and the ones by a punter I'm figuring were more likely aborted punts as 15 yards is a lot to expect a punter to pick up on a fake.So 20 of 78 pass plays picked up 15 yards (including 2 touchdowns) or more, and 1 play drew a personal foul on the defense that would have gained a first down so 21 out of 78 on pass plays. 1 of the 2 rushes (Vick a first down, Dilfer not) gained a first down. So 22 of 80 would be 27.5%, since 2000.
shader
Footballguy
Slightly higher than an onside kick, which tends to be around 20-23%.
I'm trying to think of a situation where an offense would want to keep the ball. If they're not up big they won't want to attempt a 4th and 15 to possibly give the other offense a chance. If they're up 21 or more, why run the injury risk of having your offensive team constantly on the field? That o-line would be gassed with multiple scoring possessions in a row and the risk isn't worth punting to the other team so your defense can play.let's think "outside the box".Imagine a team that is facing an inferior Defense and is having no problems converting that 4th & 15.. You could in theory have a game where one team never gets the ball.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Is it? I thought it in the 12%-15% range.
RUSF18
Footballguy
Punts are nowhere near as dangerous. The easiest way to show this is the number of fair catches and kicks that end up going out of bounds. Beyond that, kickoffs have a line of guys running 50 yards downfield to smash into another group of guys (even have that fancy "wedgebuster" term, although the wedge has technically gone away). On punts, you have the gunners running along the outside of the field, fighting for position with another guy running the same direction. There aren't head on collisions. The guys on both lines are taking a similar approach.
shader
Footballguy
Gronkowski likes this idea
John 14:6
Jesus is Lord!
That was the incident that sparked the author's article...
If this rule proposal were to be presented in a more fleshed out and formal manner I think the answer to your question would be not until the ball is touched by the receiving team or the snap taken by the qb, same as any kickoff or play from scrimmage after any clock stoppage play.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Agreed. It is fun to talk about but I hate this idea just like I hate the DH in baseball.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
4th-and-15 is easier to convert than recovering an onside kick.
edit: actually they are pretty close:
18% chance of converting 4th-and-15
20% chance of recovering EXPECTED onside kick
edit: actually they are pretty close:
18% chance of converting 4th-and-15
20% chance of recovering EXPECTED onside kick
Last edited by a moderator:
⚡DEADHEAD⚡
Footballguy
So does Romo.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
That would eliminate the possibility of the defense making a comeback with ~4 seconds on the clock, because the QB could just take the snap and run around until the clock expired.
Bamac
Footballguy
Plus, what happens on a fake punt?I think the best rule is this: if ball is punted, clock starts when receiving team touches the ball; if ball is not punted, clock doesn't run on the play.
packseasontix
Footballguy
ChargerPride
Footballguy
What's Next getting rid of all tackling and make all the players wear flags!! Come on this is football people are going to get hurt.
xenith
Footballguy
Precisely his point. This change gives possession to the scoring team again, albeit a back against the wall scenario, but possession all the same.
LarryAllen'sJockstrap
Footballguy
You could do that today. Get the initial kickoff, score, onside kick attempt/recover, score, repeat...let's think "outside the box".Imagine a team that is facing an inferior Defense and is having no problems converting that 4th & 15.. You could in theory have a game where one team never gets the ball.
GregR
Footballguy
I suspect he didn't remove kneel downs and bad snaps on punts and FGs. Using PFR I came up with over 27% when I removed plays that didn't look like they were an attempt to pick up a first down. If I add those back in, then the percentage is down around what he's showing.
bigfeet_88
Footballguy
Danny White!
