NFL proposal to eliminate kickoffs being considered

[adambr2]

The idea is that instead of a kickoff, after scoring a team would get the ball 4th and 15 on their own 30. So teams would pretty much punt from there every time, unless they were down late and needed the ball back, in which case that 4th and 15 would become the "new" onside kick.

Thoughts? I'm guessing this isn't going to be very popular as it's a very drastic change, but I wouldn't mind it. Don't get me wrong -- I'd rather keep the kickoffs, but if they're going to get rid of them eventually anyway, this doesn't seem like a horrible alternative to me.

Some people will argue to just give the opposing team the ball at their own 20 and be done with it. In my opinion, no, no, NO. There HAS to be a way for a team to get the ball back after they score. Otherwise you remove a very exciting late game element from the game.

 

[GreenBlood]

I think it's an absolutely ridiculous idea. It would reward teams that are great passing teams and penalize teams that are great running teams. Result? Further diminishing of the running game in the NFL. It's time for random drug testing at NFL HQ. It ain't broke, so don't go fixing it.

 

[mradtke66]

I don't like it because of the over-emphasis on rewarding passing teams and because I like Kickoffs. They're exciting and I have a soft spot for them. I'd prefer kickoff to remain.

I don't hate it because this is still a chance to get the ball back when you need it. Evolution of the sport happens and if eliminating the kickoff drastically reduces injuries, it'll be hard to argue against them in the long term.

Perhaps there is a relative starting point based on distance?

4th and 15 at the 30

4th and 10 at the 15

4th and 5 at the 2 (Lots of risk plus we get to reuse the PAT mark.)

Now even running teams have a chance. I don't like that because it makes things complicated. Just thinking out loud.

 

[slaughter25]

I don't like it because of the over-emphasis on rewarding passing teams and because I like Kickoffs. They're exciting and I have a soft spot for them. I'd prefer kickoff to remain.

I don't hate it because this is still a chance to get the ball back when you need it. Evolution of the sport happens and if eliminating the kickoff drastically reduces injuries, it'll be hard to argue against them in the long term.

Perhaps there is a relative starting point based on distance?

4th and 15 at the 30

4th and 10 at the 15

4th and 5 at the 2 (Lots of risk plus we get to reuse the PAT mark.)

Now even running teams have a chance. I don't like that because it makes things complicated. Just thinking out loud.

I think its creative and I sort of like it. Brings a bit more sideline strategy into the game. But is also a bit complicated like you said.

 

[Aaron rodgers is god]

A lot of players are going to lose their jobs. People with good special teams skills are going to be under valued. Jarett Bush for instance. What does he provide now except for punt coverage? I don't like it frankly. It adds excitement to the game. It is a phase of the game that is under valued and it very important in field position.

 

[Vladimirr]

Terrible, terrible idea. In 2014 will they try to get rid of tackling?

 

[HyponGrey]

The punt teams would still be there, so special teams would still exist. This is a horrible idea though, and I'd rather see them put the ball on the twenty with an option to onside/squib. It takes away a whole dimension of the game

 

[Trapped In Vikingville]

I wasn't so surprised about this announcement, I was quite shocked when they said they were going to vote in 2015 on the color of flags the NFL was going to go to for the players belts.

 

[LZ13]

What a goofy idea. The onsides kick is one of the most exciting things we have going for us - and it can be used in any kickoff, if a team dares.

If they want to update something, get rid of the no-challenge no-repay rule that was invoked in the Thanksgiving game - that is a really bad rule.

 

[carr3rules]

The "NFL" is turning into the "NFFL" National Flag Footbal League.

 

[TJV]

I'd like to see the stats of injuries on KOs as opposed to punts and plays from scrimmage. Are they attempting to fix a problem that really doesn't exist? (I don't know, just asking.) That rule change would certainly increase the importance of punters and PRs and IMO players like Bush would be more valuable as good gunners on punts are more valuable than one of 10 players on KO coverage. And it would add a new element to the game - the blocked punt when used as a replacement for a KO. We seldom see KOs blocked!

Unless the injury stats "scream" a change should be made I'd rather they not change it.

 

[rodell330]

it's more to cut down on high speed collisions but at the same time it makes guy's like Hester,Cribbs, and Leon Washington kinda useless in a way. Some guy's are in the league only because they can return kicks or punts.

 

[TJV]

... at the same time it makes guy's like Hester,Cribbs, and Leon Washington kinda useless in a way. Some guy's are in the league only because they can return kicks or punts.

Actually IMO it would increase the value of returners as long as they excel at returning punts because of the number of KOs that currently aren’t being returned.

If after scoring a team punts from its 30 yard line, on average the other team will have the ball at about its 30. According to ESPN’s stats the Packers are at the median (16th) in net punting average at 41.5 yards, so opponents would on average start on their 28.5 yard line against the Packers. (The average on "KO punts" would probably change because of the lack of touchbacks.) Anyway, my guess is more “KO punts” would be returned than current KOs.

According to the ESPN article linked below, in the four seasons before 2011, about 80% of KOs were returned. After moving KOs up in 2011, that number was reduced to 53.4%. (BTW, KOs returned for TDs went from 23 in 2010 to 9 in 2011.) The average starting field position after KOs in the four years previous to 2011 was about the 27 yard line. In 2011 it was 22.1. How does a league which values offense but wants to reduce KO related injuries “fix” this problem while allowing an opportunity for teams to gamble ala onsides KOs? By having teams punt the vast majority of the time and returning average starting position to closer to the 30 yard line. But still allowing a 4th and 15 gamble.
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/35597/kickoff-rule-change-has-big-effect-on-nfl

Which NFL player would be most affected? My guess is a kicker whose strong leg is an asset on KOs but whose accuracy, particularly on long FGs, isn't very good. Any player in particular leap to mind?

 

[adambr2]

A lot of players are going to lose their jobs. People with good special teams skills are going to be under valued. Jarett Bush for instance. What does he provide now except for punt coverage? I don't like it frankly. It adds excitement to the game. It is a phase of the game that is under valued and it very important in field position.

Bush is a gunner. He would be more valuable if every kickoff were instead a punt, not less. Bush isn't all that valuable on kickoffs.

 

[GreenBlood]

It's a stupid idea no matter how you look at it. It's been part of football for more than a century and there's absolutely no good reason to change it.

 

[Aaron rodgers is god]

Bush is a gunner. He would be more valuable if every kickoff were instead a punt, not less. Bush isn't all that valuable on kickoffs.

True.

 

[weeds]

It's a stupid idea no matter how you look at it.

I was going to say that I agree 100% and was going to make no further comment about it and then realized that I couldn't NOT make further comment. Further comment is as such (yes, I'm yelling): I WISH THESE SLACK JAWED, GAP-TOOTHED MO'FO's WOULD STOP ******** WITH THE GAME UNDER THE GUISE OF "PLAYER SAFETY"!!!

 

[adambr2]

I agree that taking the kickoff away is going too far.

You have to understand where the NFL is coming from, though. They are being sued by literally thousands of former players for past brain injuries. They will do whatever it takes to protect themselves from these lawsuits and future lawsuits. One of those protections is doing everything possible to make the game safer.

I'm not saying I agree with it. But I don't think the NFL and Goodell just have a big agenda going. They know very well that hard hits, violence, and controversy sells. They just don't really have a choice anymore. At this point, they have to convince the public and potential juries that they will make the game safer. The alternative is even more litigation or worse yet, no NFL.

 

[Bensalama21]

A lot of players are going to lose their jobs. People with good special teams skills are going to be under valued. Jarett Bush for instance. What does he provide now except for punt coverage? I don't like it frankly. It adds excitement to the game. It is a phase of the game that is under valued and it very important in field position.

plus, Randall Cobb's tie for longest kick return might be one of the most exciting Packer plays in history.

 

[Poppa San]

I was going to say that I agree 100% and was going to make no further comment about it and then realized that I couldn't NOT make further comment. Further comment is as such (yes, I'm yelling): I WISH THESE SLACK JAWED, GAP-TOOTHED MO'FO's WOULD STOP ******** WITH THE GAME UNDER THE GUISE OF "PLAYER SAFETY"!!!

Kind of felt that way until I read this column :http://www.packersnews.com/article/...gest-draws-also-threatens-game?nclick_check=1

...NFL owners don’t want to lose hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to concussion and injury lawsuits, so Goodell has a mandate to find ways to protect them. That mainly entails demonstrably making the game safer.

and

What if, in the coming years, more and more people like my friend dissuade or prohibit their children and grandchildren from playing football for fear of their good health? Could the NFL go the way of boxing, which in the 1920s was as popular as any sport in the country; a major player on the U.S. sports scene in the ’40s and ’50s; and still able capture much of the nation’s imagination as recently as the ’80s? Boxing, though still alive, is strictly a niche sport.

 

[LZ13]

Kind of felt that way until I read this column :http://www.packersnews.com/article/...gest-draws-also-threatens-game?nclick_check=1

and

I think the number of kids playing football is going to decrease due to the current lawsuit and all the publicity it draws. Parents will not allow their kids to play. Fewer high school players, fewer college players. What is unknown is the effect it will have on the NFL. The superstars might look even more super if they are surrounded by more ordinary (than previously) players. Kind of like the basketball league my kids are in - it is a church and private school league and the talent is limited cause there are limited numbers of players. But when there is a superstar, they completely dominate. We probably will not realize any effect at all this way in the NFL for a good 10 years. By that time Goodell (or whoever replaces him) might have the players out there playing shadow tag.

 

[HyponGrey]

It's all PR bull. Goodell is more than willing to ruin the game in order to bail out the bank accounts of his employers

 

[12theTruth]

Absolutely HATE the idea!!!

 

[SVang_8704]

The idea, suggested by Greg Schiano all because he allowed a 300lb d-lineman be on his kickoff team and got paralyzed...what's a 300lb guy doing on kickoff coverage anyway, and lets not forget, this same coach has his player dive into the opposing teams knees and ankles when the game is over and they are taking a knee...very classy, I hope he sucks and gets fired n a few years...

 

[P-E-Z]

No!