What if the NFL... (1 Viewer)

[Captain Spaulding]

I had a radical rule change to throw out there for the NFL. What if the NFL implemented a rule change that defensive interceptions, fumble recoveries, blocked punts/field goals can not be advanced. Your offense must take over from the spot your defense made the outstanding "stop play" and prove that you can score (with offense) against the opposition?

Watching the Jacksonville vs Tennessee debacle yesterday and also recalling the Steelers vs Oakland game earlier this season, the better team clearly did not win those games. If you make this rule change, turnovers do not become the 2nd most important factor behind "scoreboard points"...your teams offense's ability to move the ball (and score) and your teams defense's ability to stop the opposition (and prevent them from scoring) really becomes the primarly factor on the scoreboard. I'm tired of seeing games with such drastic point swings occurring in games on freak/fluky turnover type plays.

I know its radical and for historical stat purposes (like Dion's TD records) probably would never fly but do you think this would improve the NFL game we watch and make for team play on the field be more reflective on the scoreboard and wins/losses?

 

[Godsbrother]

I had a radical rule change to throw out there for the NFL. What if the NFL implemented a rule change that defensive interceptions, fumble recoveries, blocked punts/field goals can not be advanced. Your offense must take over from the spot your defense made the outstanding "stop play" and prove that you can score (with offense) against the opposition?Watching the Jacksonville vs Tennessee debacle yesterday and also recalling the Steelers vs Oakland game earlier this season, the better team clearly did not win those games. If you make this rule change, turnovers do not become the 2nd most important factor behind "scoreboard points"...your teams offense's ability to move the ball (and score) and your teams defense's ability to stop the opposition (and prevent them from scoring) really becomes the primarly factor on the scoreboard. I'm tired of seeing games with such drastic point swings occurring in games on freak/fluky turnover type plays.I know its radical and for historical stat purposes (like Dion's TD records) probably would never fly but do you think this would improve the NFL game we watch and make for team play on the field be more reflective on the scoreboard and wins/losses?

I don't think I have ever heard of a rule change proposal that I like worse than this idea.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I don't see how this would improve the game at all. Setting up rules to make it easier for the "better team to win" is not something the NFL would be interested in - they love that anyone can beat anyone on any given Sunday.

So I don't really get why anyone would want this? If you're the better team, protect the ball.

 

[posty]

What a stupid idea...

That is like getting rid of the fast break in hoops...

 

[EdwardCat]

Why can't the best team be the team with the better defense? This is narrow-minded thinking. You are assuming that the better team is a team that wins it on the shoulders of a QB or RB. That flawed thinking in itself makes your idea flawed. The ball is meant to be moved by whomever maintains possession of it. A defense isn't out there to maintain a resistance. They are out there to try and get the ball back as soon as possible. If, on a rare occasion, the team returning the ball to the other team allows said defense to score with the ball, even better. Then that defense is truly superior to the offense they are defending regardless of that defensive counterpart's merits.

 

[Warpig]

Hell...let's take it to another level...how about doing away with defense all together? Hell, the talent level on the field is pretty atrocious. It's hard enough for the WR's to catch a perfectly thrown ball that hits them in the hands...why make it even harder by putting a guy out there that wants to prevent the WR from catching the ball?

 

[EdwardCat]

Personally, I find what TEN did yesterday highly impressive. Their offense was below average but didn't turn the ball over. Their defense was stellar. The game was a thing of beauty.

 

[-OZ-]

I had a radical rule change to throw out there for the NFL. What if the NFL implemented a rule change that defensive interceptions, fumble recoveries, blocked punts/field goals can not be advanced. Your offense must take over from the spot your defense made the outstanding "stop play" and prove that you can score (with offense) against the opposition?

Watching the Jacksonville vs Tennessee debacle yesterday and also recalling the Steelers vs Oakland game earlier this season, the better team clearly did not win those games. If you make this rule change, turnovers do not become the 2nd most important factor behind "scoreboard points"...your teams offense's ability to move the ball (and score) and your teams defense's ability to stop the opposition (and prevent them from scoring) really becomes the primarly factor on the scoreboard. I'm tired of seeing games with such drastic point swings occurring in games on freak/fluky turnover type plays.

I know its radical and for historical stat purposes (like Dion's TD records) probably would never fly but do you think this would improve the NFL game we watch and make for team play on the field be more reflective on the scoreboard and wins/losses?

I applaud your initiative and courage.I deplore your football sense.

 

[Case Ace]

I had a radical rule change to throw out there for the NFL. What if the NFL implemented a rule change that defensive interceptions, fumble recoveries, blocked punts/field goals can not be advanced. Your offense must take over from the spot your defense made the outstanding "stop play" and prove that you can score (with offense) against the opposition?Watching the Jacksonville vs Tennessee debacle yesterday and also recalling the Steelers vs Oakland game earlier this season, the better team clearly did not win those games. If you make this rule change, turnovers do not become the 2nd most important factor behind "scoreboard points"...your teams offense's ability to move the ball (and score) and your teams defense's ability to stop the opposition (and prevent them from scoring) really becomes the primarly factor on the scoreboard. I'm tired of seeing games with such drastic point swings occurring in games on freak/fluky turnover type plays.I know its radical and for historical stat purposes (like Dion's TD records) probably would never fly but do you think this would improve the NFL game we watch and make for team play on the field be more reflective on the scoreboard and wins/losses?

This is a bad idea. It would take exciting plays out of the game. Also, it's up to the offense to take care of the ball. The plays you're talking about are rarely "freaky/fluky" plays. The better defenses are good at creating turnovers &, in some cases, taking them to the house. I've heard on more than 1 occasion members of the Bears defense talking about how their goal is not to get turnovers, it's to get TDs. If a team can do this, they should be rewarded for it.

 

[thesurfshop19]

The interception and runback may be the most "beautiful" play in football.

I agree with others, the benefits you're claiming your proposal would have aren't really benefits and don't make the game better.

 

[EdwardCat]

I can see three reasons why he posted this:

1) He's a Jacksonville fan.

2) He played against Tennessee defense.

3) Tennessee's win somehow adversely affected his team's playoff chances.

 

[PatsFanCT]

I can see three reasons why he posted this:1) He's a Jacksonville fan.2) He played against Tennessee defense.3) Tennessee's win somehow adversely affected his team's playoff chances.

4.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

I knew I'd get alot of cracks and comments on this. My main point is it would put turnovers more to the equivalent importance on a team to lets say penalties (just for example purposes). Making each team's offensive ability to move and score on the opposition to become more of the primary factor that is reflective on the scoreboard.

Like each of Jacksonville's blunder's on offense yesterday (or Tennesee's great defensive stands, you're choice of opinion). If Vince Young and the Tennesse offense had to take over at the spot of the turnover and move the ball against Jax steller defense, you think the same score would have resulted? Turnovers returned for TD's seem to be much more prevalent in the NFL game than that in the college. Its not that rare. Heck the Bears might 2-3 more losses this year if you make this change. They live and die by the sword of turnover differential each week.

 

[-OZ-]

I knew I'd get alot of cracks and comments on this. My main point is it would put turnovers more to the equivalent importance on a team to lets say penalties (just for example purposes). Making each team's offensive ability to move and score on the opposition to become more of the primary factor that is reflective on the scoreboard. Like each of Jacksonville's blunder's on offense yesterday (or Tennesee's great defensive stands, you're choice of opinion). If Vince Young and the Tennesse offense had to take over at the spot of the turnover and move the ball against Jax steller defense, you think the same score would have resulted? Turnovers returned for TD's seem to be much more prevalent in the NFL game than that in the college. Its not that rare. Heck the Bears might 2-3 more losses this year if you make this change. They live and die by the sword of turnover differential each week.

That's fine, but it's not football.

 

[my man otis]

Better yet, why doesn't the NFL postpone games until each team's entire 53 player roster is completely healthy? That way, each team will be at full strength and the result will be a reflection of all players the team has, not just the healthy ones.

seriously though, turnovers are a part of the game. 3 phases - offense, defense and ST.

A defensive TD can be a reflection on poor offensive play - not only the turnover but also bad tacking, poor effort on the return, etc.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Also - I think the team with that the better teams should always get to play at home to help ensure that the better team does in fact win.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Also - no more kick/punt returns. From now on, when you don't convert a 1st down, you automatically start the 20 on every possession. That way the "weaker" teams can't get lucky by playing the so-called "field position" battle.

 

[EdwardCat]

Abolish the on-side kick as well? Whichever team gets the ball has a major advantage over the other. That isn't fair.

 

[PatsWillWin]

In the event of overtime, the better team should get the ball first. A coin flip unfairly gives the weaker team a 50% chance of getting the ball first - that's RIDICULOUS.

 

[shredhead]

Peyton Manning is clearly a better QB than say David Carr. From now on when Indy plays Houston, Peyton has to throw his passes left handed just to make it fair.

 

[PatsFanCT]

I knew I'd get alot of cracks and comments on this. My main point is it would put turnovers more to the equivalent importance on a team to lets say penalties (just for example purposes). Making each team's offensive ability to move and score on the opposition to become more of the primary factor that is reflective on the scoreboard.

Like each of Jacksonville's blunder's on offense yesterday (or Tennesee's great defensive stands, you're choice of opinion). If Vince Young and the Tennesse offense had to take over at the spot of the turnover and move the ball against Jax steller defense, you think the same score would have resulted? Turnovers returned for TD's seem to be much more prevalent in the NFL game than that in the college. Its not that rare. Heck the Bears might 2-3 more losses this year if you make this change. They live and die by the sword of turnover differential each week.

This is where you flaw yourself. If these were the rules, Jacksonville wouldn't have a "stellar defense", nor would any other team.

 

[aposulli]

Also - no more kick/punt returns. From now on, when you don't convert a 1st down, you automatically start the 20 on every possession. That way the "weaker" teams can't get lucky by playing the so-called "field position" battle.

 

[rhawkins68]

Speechless

 

[Synthesizer]

I really like this thread. I like to think about crazy stuff like this.

 

[Gordo]

If this was a poll, it would be the most lopsided poll in the history of mankind.

 

[Archie Bunker]

How about this for a crazy rule. If you so much as breathe on certain players the wrong way, let's say quarterbacks, you get a penalty.......Oh, wait......Nevermind.

 

[BGP]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.

When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.

Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.

I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

 

[rhawkins68]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

So a team that plays and competes in the NFL is not an NFL-level team?

 

[EdwardCat]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

Defensive players are paid to generate turnovers and, if possible, do something with them. Pitchers that bat are, in part, paid to bat. Whether they are good or bad at it, it is part of the duty as a player. It may not be entirely desirable but it is part of the game.No, you do not pay LT to tackle, per se. However, you do pay him to do his job as a football player. If the ball is turned over and he has a chance to make a tackle, he better try to make that tackle whether it is his primary duty or not. These players get paid to do whatever it takes to create a win even if they are substandard at tasks outside of the primary duty.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah, and while we are at it, let's eliminate letting receivers run after the catch. When they catch the ball, they cannot advance the ball, and the play is over. That makes about as much sense as the original idea in this thread.

 

[BGP]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.

When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.

Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.

I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

Defensive players are paid to generate turnovers and, if possible, do something with them. Pitchers that bat are, in part, paid to bat. Whether they are good or bad at it, it is part of the duty as a player. It may not be entirely desirable but it is part of the game.No, you do not pay LT to tackle, per se. However, you do pay him to do his job as a football player. If the ball is turned over and he has a chance to make a tackle, he better try to make that tackle whether it is his primary duty or not. These players get paid to do whatever it takes to create a win even if they are substandard at tasks outside of the primary duty.

Well you or I could be hired to try to make that tackle. But wether its me, you, or LT, its not our speciality. We aren't experts at it. Its a substandard product.So the arguement is that you want to go beyond what your duty is. You want to see the very best. Pitchers hitting and LT tackling is not what we want.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.

When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.

Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.

I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

Defensive players are paid to generate turnovers and, if possible, do something with them. Pitchers that bat are, in part, paid to bat. Whether they are good or bad at it, it is part of the duty as a player. It may not be entirely desirable but it is part of the game.No, you do not pay LT to tackle, per se. However, you do pay him to do his job as a football player. If the ball is turned over and he has a chance to make a tackle, he better try to make that tackle whether it is his primary duty or not. These players get paid to do whatever it takes to create a win even if they are substandard at tasks outside of the primary duty.

Well you or I could be hired to try to make that tackle. But wether its me, you, or LT, its not our speciality. We aren't experts at it. Its a substandard product.So the arguement is that you want to go beyond what your duty is. You want to see the very best. Pitchers hitting and LT tackling is not what we want.

I think we can come to a reasonable compromise here.When a player gets an interception, everyone STOPS like you're playing red-light/green-light. They freeze. Then, the offensive team that just turned the ball over runs off the field, and the defense comes on the field and takes up those exact positions in the same pose as the offensive players were in. Then, when the ref blows the whistle, they start running again, and now the defensive players try and make the tackle.

 

[EdwardCat]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.

When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.

Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.

I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

Defensive players are paid to generate turnovers and, if possible, do something with them. Pitchers that bat are, in part, paid to bat. Whether they are good or bad at it, it is part of the duty as a player. It may not be entirely desirable but it is part of the game.No, you do not pay LT to tackle, per se. However, you do pay him to do his job as a football player. If the ball is turned over and he has a chance to make a tackle, he better try to make that tackle whether it is his primary duty or not. These players get paid to do whatever it takes to create a win even if they are substandard at tasks outside of the primary duty.

Well you or I could be hired to try to make that tackle. But wether its me, you, or LT, its not our speciality. We aren't experts at it. Its a substandard product.So the arguement is that you want to go beyond what your duty is. You want to see the very best. Pitchers hitting and LT tackling is not what we want.

And that is exactly why we do not hire them to do that as their main duty. If they are called upon to do it, though, they are expected to do it. It is circumstance rather than standard practice.

 

[EdwardCat]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.

When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.

Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.

I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

Defensive players are paid to generate turnovers and, if possible, do something with them. Pitchers that bat are, in part, paid to bat. Whether they are good or bad at it, it is part of the duty as a player. It may not be entirely desirable but it is part of the game.No, you do not pay LT to tackle, per se. However, you do pay him to do his job as a football player. If the ball is turned over and he has a chance to make a tackle, he better try to make that tackle whether it is his primary duty or not. These players get paid to do whatever it takes to create a win even if they are substandard at tasks outside of the primary duty.

Well you or I could be hired to try to make that tackle. But wether its me, you, or LT, its not our speciality. We aren't experts at it. Its a substandard product.So the arguement is that you want to go beyond what your duty is. You want to see the very best. Pitchers hitting and LT tackling is not what we want.

I think we can come to a reasonable compromise here.When a player gets an interception, everyone STOPS like you're playing red-light/green-light. They freeze. Then, the offensive team that just turned the ball over runs off the field, and the defense comes on the field and takes up those exact positions in the same pose as the offensive players were in. Then, when the ref blows the whistle, they start running again, and now the defensive players try and make the tackle.

That reminds me of old pictures before they had special effects. They'd stop the cameras, change the character's clothes and restart in the same position to make it look like they had instantly changed clothes. Bewitched is a great example. Yes, we need a Bewitched-based NFL.

 

[Swamprat]

Yeah, and while we are at it, let's eliminate letting receivers run after the catch. When they catch the ball, they cannot advance the ball, and the play is over. That makes about as much sense as the original idea in this thread.

Add to it that no play can go over say 15 yards. That would eliminate those flukey 70 yard runs and long passes where the defender gets burned real bad.

 

[Mario Kart]

Greatest idea EVER!!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I had a radical rule change to throw out there for the NFL. What if the NFL implemented a rule change that defensive interceptions, fumble recoveries, blocked punts/field goals can not be advanced. Your offense must take over from the spot your defense made the outstanding "stop play" and prove that you can score (with offense) against the opposition?

This idea sucks.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In the event of overtime, the better team should get the ball first. A coin flip unfairly gives the weaker team a 50% chance of getting the ball first - that's RIDICULOUS.

This is a good post overall, but I would have gone with "REDICULOUS" just to emphasis the sacarsm.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.

When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.

Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.

I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

Defensive players are paid to generate turnovers and, if possible, do something with them. Pitchers that bat are, in part, paid to bat. Whether they are good or bad at it, it is part of the duty as a player. It may not be entirely desirable but it is part of the game.No, you do not pay LT to tackle, per se. However, you do pay him to do his job as a football player. If the ball is turned over and he has a chance to make a tackle, he better try to make that tackle whether it is his primary duty or not. These players get paid to do whatever it takes to create a win even if they are substandard at tasks outside of the primary duty.

Well you or I could be hired to try to make that tackle. But wether its me, you, or LT, its not our speciality. We aren't experts at it. Its a substandard product.So the arguement is that you want to go beyond what your duty is. You want to see the very best. Pitchers hitting and LT tackling is not what we want.

I think we can come to a reasonable compromise here.When a player gets an interception, everyone STOPS like you're playing red-light/green-light. They freeze. Then, the offensive team that just turned the ball over runs off the field, and the defense comes on the field and takes up those exact positions in the same pose as the offensive players were in. Then, when the ref blows the whistle, they start running again, and now the defensive players try and make the tackle.

 

[lod2005]

Maybe the NFL should examine the ever increasing sucky QB play. By the way TD passes are way off this year AND RB TD's also thru 14 games. It's been steadily worse since 1995 except for the Manning/Culpepper 2004 blowup.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Maybe the NFL should examine the ever increasing sucky QB play. By the way TD passes are way off this year AND RB TD's also thru 14 games. It's been steadily worse since 1995 except for the Manning/Culpepper 2004 blowup.

The problem with QB play in the NFL is that defenses are too violent and subject the QB to too much punishment, thus lowering their stats. The NFL has tried to solve this problem by strictly protecting the QB, but that obviously hasn't been enough. I propose that starting next year the league require defensive linement to count to two-mississippi before they can rush the passer. That way, bad teams that happen to have good pass-rushers won't have such an advantage over superior teams with crappy pass-blocking.

 

[BGP]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.

When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.

Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.

I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

Defensive players are paid to generate turnovers and, if possible, do something with them. Pitchers that bat are, in part, paid to bat. Whether they are good or bad at it, it is part of the duty as a player. It may not be entirely desirable but it is part of the game.No, you do not pay LT to tackle, per se. However, you do pay him to do his job as a football player. If the ball is turned over and he has a chance to make a tackle, he better try to make that tackle whether it is his primary duty or not. These players get paid to do whatever it takes to create a win even if they are substandard at tasks outside of the primary duty.

Well you or I could be hired to try to make that tackle. But wether its me, you, or LT, its not our speciality. We aren't experts at it. Its a substandard product.So the arguement is that you want to go beyond what your duty is. You want to see the very best. Pitchers hitting and LT tackling is not what we want.

And that is exactly why we do not hire them to do that as their main duty. If they are called upon to do it, though, they are expected to do it. It is circumstance rather than standard practice.

Right but the point of this thread is to examine why we allow runbacks. And in that examination, one of the issues that must be looked at is the fact that it makes these athletes perform at a substandard level. This has merit when it comes to the NFL because it was a LANDMARK move when they allowed free substitution on April 7th 1943, which DRAMATICALLY altered the game. That made the NFL what it is today to a large extent. This thread deals with the same issues that free substitution addressed.

 

[EdwardCat]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.

When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.

Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.

I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

Defensive players are paid to generate turnovers and, if possible, do something with them. Pitchers that bat are, in part, paid to bat. Whether they are good or bad at it, it is part of the duty as a player. It may not be entirely desirable but it is part of the game.No, you do not pay LT to tackle, per se. However, you do pay him to do his job as a football player. If the ball is turned over and he has a chance to make a tackle, he better try to make that tackle whether it is his primary duty or not. These players get paid to do whatever it takes to create a win even if they are substandard at tasks outside of the primary duty.

Well you or I could be hired to try to make that tackle. But wether its me, you, or LT, its not our speciality. We aren't experts at it. Its a substandard product.So the arguement is that you want to go beyond what your duty is. You want to see the very best. Pitchers hitting and LT tackling is not what we want.

And that is exactly why we do not hire them to do that as their main duty. If they are called upon to do it, though, they are expected to do it. It is circumstance rather than standard practice.

Right but the point of this thread is to examine why we allow runbacks. And in that examination, one of the issues that must be looked at is the fact that it makes these athletes perform at a substandard level. This has merit when it comes to the NFL because it was a LANDMARK move when they allowed free substitution on April 7th 1943, which DRAMATICALLY altered the game. That made the NFL what it is today to a large extent. This thread deals with the same issues that free substitution addressed.

So you are arguing that anything that causes a player to perform at a substandard level should be disallowed? That would make for a very boring game in almost any sport. I love seeing a kicker take out a return man. I love seeing a goalie toss the puck down the ice and almost score. I love seeing a guy like Kent Hrbek try to steal a base. While they are hired to do a specific job, they are first and foremost athletes. If a situation arises that involves their athletic skills that falls outside of their primary role, they are still required to do it. Life is not cut and dry. We are all asked to do things in life where we are substandard. The same applies to sports.

 

[BGP]

I think the idea makes sense from a certain point of view.

When there is a turnover, until the ball is downed, it essentially puts all the offensive players on defense and all the defensive players on offense. While these are top athletes and they are paid enormous sums of money, they are not paid to excel in that situation. You do not pay LaDainian Tomlinson for his ability to tackle. You do not pay Ed Reed to run block. So, during a turnover runback, you are not seeing the clubs play at an NFL-level.

Its a bit like watching a pitcher bat. A pitcher is not paid for his hitting ability. You are getting a substandard product.

I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL. I've never understood what benefit you get from seeing a pitcher bat, however. It is not exactly exciting...

Defensive players are paid to generate turnovers and, if possible, do something with them. Pitchers that bat are, in part, paid to bat. Whether they are good or bad at it, it is part of the duty as a player. It may not be entirely desirable but it is part of the game.No, you do not pay LT to tackle, per se. However, you do pay him to do his job as a football player. If the ball is turned over and he has a chance to make a tackle, he better try to make that tackle whether it is his primary duty or not. These players get paid to do whatever it takes to create a win even if they are substandard at tasks outside of the primary duty.

Well you or I could be hired to try to make that tackle. But wether its me, you, or LT, its not our speciality. We aren't experts at it. Its a substandard product.So the arguement is that you want to go beyond what your duty is. You want to see the very best. Pitchers hitting and LT tackling is not what we want.

And that is exactly why we do not hire them to do that as their main duty. If they are called upon to do it, though, they are expected to do it. It is circumstance rather than standard practice.

Right but the point of this thread is to examine why we allow runbacks. And in that examination, one of the issues that must be looked at is the fact that it makes these athletes perform at a substandard level. This has merit when it comes to the NFL because it was a LANDMARK move when they allowed free substitution on April 7th 1943, which DRAMATICALLY altered the game. That made the NFL what it is today to a large extent. This thread deals with the same issues that free substitution addressed.

So you are arguing that anything that causes a player to perform at a substandard level should be disallowed? That would make for a very boring game in almost any sport. I love seeing a kicker take out a return man. I love seeing a goalie toss the puck down the ice and almost score. I love seeing a guy like Kent Hrbek try to steal a base. While they are hired to do a specific job, they are first and foremost athletes. If a situation arises that involves their athletic skills that falls outside of their primary role, they are still required to do it. Life is not cut and dry. We are all asked to do things in life where we are substandard. The same applies to sports.

I never said I was in favor of getting rid of runbacks. Read my first post in this thread:

I think the drop in quality of play is offset by the excitement of the runback in the NFL.

I am just looking at both sides of this issue.

 

[BroadwayG]

Why Would Anyone Want The Game To Be Less Exciting?

My Opinion Is That I Probably Wouldn't Watch Any Games Unless The Packers Were Playing.

 

[Bevo]

Terrible idea, simply terrible. Cripes, hasn't the defense already been hamstrung enough with the barrage of rules changes intended to nothing more than give the offense a huge advantage?

 

[pyite76]

this is such a dumb idea. Did you watch the JAX-TEN game? That was pretty damn exciting. Why not just eliminate turnovers altogether? How about if they made it 11 players for the offense and 9 for the defense? What if they just ran plays against air and you added some jumps and steeplechase pools on the field too, and they score points based on their "routine"? Good grief.

 

[Ozymandias]

Why play the games at all?

We know which teams are better before they play. So the fans in the stands just vote.

 

[my man otis]

Wow did this thread turn into a fast!

 

[EdwardCat]

Wow did this thread turn into a fast!

Indeed, from post #1.