Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=Meks;971731][B]No, it isnt, yet i still dont see that big of a gap when it comes down to the hits returners take either scenario[/B] ... blocking and people getting cut low is an obvious KO risk along with blind side hits, but punts also carry those type hits ... its a difference, but in my opiniin the gap isnt that big to make such a deal out of kickoffs and assume punts are just fine and dandy[/quote]

It's not just the returners taking big hits on kickoffs. That's the difference.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=CrazyCanuck;971773]What about Schiano's proposed "zero blitz on kneel down plays"?[/quote]

I hate that crap. Bush league.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

I think they should go the other route and get rid of the fair catch on punts. Remember this sicko??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxBBd1gQVE]Skins vs Rams no "Fair Catch" against the Skins is a bad idea Week 4 2011 - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Replacing the KO
 

I keep going back and forth on how I feel about this, but I think my main is concern is this: If we're taking kickoffs out of the game because they're the most dangerous play in the game, how long before we remove the next most dangerous play in the game?

I mean, let's say this actually happens and we replace kickoffs with punts. Then, after a while, the league starts to notice that more guys are being carted off from injuries during punts. Are we then going to eliminate punts and arbitrarily place the ball at the 20? If so, why don't we just do that now, if we're getting rid of the kickoff?

Also, what if this change makes team change their punt return formations? What if, a head coach says, "You know what, having all of my guys on the line for a punt doesn't make much sense, why don't we start dropping them back?...I can still keep a bunch of guys within 10-15 yards of the ball in case of a fake, but I'm not going to try to block their kickoff." Now, we're right back in the same position of guys getting a 10-20 yard head start before collisions start to occur.

Basically, my thinking is, if you're getting rid of kickoffs, you should probably be prepared for punts to also go by the way side. So, I don't think this solution is particularly viable since it will just replace "the most dangerous play in the game" with "the most dangerous play in the game."

The only way I really see this working, from a safety standpoint, is if you start to create rules for punt return formations. If you're going to do that, why not just mandate that a return team must have X number of plays within Y yards of the ball on kickoffs and avoid the big collisions that way?

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=RedskinRat;971705]Paintrain, meet First Down. First Down, put down the rooster and meet Paintrain.

Or you could just read FD's magnificent post [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/50594-in-the-year-2000-a.html#post971228"]here[/URL] which he's subsequently edited. Daseal ([B]correction[/B]) quoted him later in the thread so it's saved for eternity.[/quote]

For the record I tried to change it back but the system will not let me edit it again. I ask Matty to put it back as it was.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

The more I think about it, the more I come up with reasons why this shouldn't be adopted.

Let's say I just scored and I just want to try to dominate the ball, so I decide to go for this 4th and 15. I call a pass play and illegal contact/pass interference is called on the play. I now get to keep the ball because of an automatic first down? How does that seem fair? The only way I can get on board with that occurring is if it goes both ways. Let's say I'm going for it and one of my linemen is called for holding, I think the ruling should be: other team's ball at my 20. That's really the only way I see it being fair and even then, with the way the NFL skews their officiating toward the offense, it's not really giving the defense a fair shake, in my opinion.

If this is going to be a rule, you have to come up with a realistic way to deal with automatic first down penalties.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

You don't think the Refs would weigh that in any post flag conversation?

Flopping should be a 15 Yard unsportsmanlike, like the roughing the kicker BS we had recently.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

id like to see hard data which shows that kickoffs result in significantly more serious injuries to players than any other play.

I also agree with Jdlea that if you remove the most dangerous play, then another play will become the most dangerous. Then another play. If you keep removing the most dangerous plays from the game, then you're left with 11 guys on the field hugging eachother.

The kicking game is integral to the game of FOOTball. Leave it as is. Just come up with ways to make the game safer through technology and [U]minor [/U]rule changes.

The only significant change i'd support is eliminating overtime. by allowing games to go on longer than 4 quarters, you increase the number of plays in the game and the number of opportunities for players to get hurt. You elminate ridiculous and overly complex overtime rules. You make the actual 4 quarters of the game more meaningful. Sure, there would be ALOT more ties, but that would also change the strategy of the game. I think it would be interesting to see.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;971857]id like to see hard data which shows that kickoffs result in significantly more serious injuries to players than any other play.

I also agree with Jdlea that if you remove the most dangerous play, then another play will become the most dangerous. Then another play. If you keep removing the most dangerous plays from the game, then you're left with 11 guys on the field hugging eachother.

The kicking game is integral to the game of FOOTball. Leave it as is. Just come up with ways to make the game safer through technology and [U]minor [/U]rule changes.

The only significant change i'd support is eliminating overtime. by allowing games to go on longer than 4 quarters, you increase the number of plays in the game and the number of opportunities for players to get hurt. You elminate ridiculous and overly complex overtime rules. You make the actual 4 quarters of the game more meaningful. Sure, there would be ALOT more ties, but that would also change the strategy of the game. I think it would be interesting to see.[/quote] with all the BS about sudden death being unfair, personally I'd like to see no overtime rather than a college style shootout overtime.

how about making kickoffs a free kick at say the 50 and the receiving team has to have nine guys on the line ten yards downfield. no field goals allowed.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

Pat Kirwan suggested on NFL Radio today that they should do a kickoff at the beginning of each half and overtime but place the ball at the 20 for all other post score scenarios. He didn't however address onside possibilities.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

Bottom line is Mr. Commish needs to just leave the damn game alone.Enough with this nonsense. Since this clown has taken over the over pussification of the league has gone through the roof. Can't touch the qb's, can't hit the wr's, kick offs are pretty much done away with....a big reason why we watch it the violence. It's like Goodell is trying to make a hyena a house pet. Why the owners like him is beyond me.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[IMG]http://www.ohmyweird.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/pet%20hyena.jpg[/IMG]

I'm not sure the hyenas could put up with Goodell.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=RedskinRat;971890][IMG]http://www.ohmyweird.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/pet%20hyena.jpg[/IMG]

I'm not sure the hyenas could put up with Goodell.[/quote]

:laughing2

Re: Replacing the KO
 

They should not get rid of kick-offs. Most of the injuries they are trying to protect the players from are not happened on the kick-off. I like the idea someone posted earlier, if you kick it out of the end zone the ball gets placed on the 25 yard line. Like someone else mentioned if they get rid of it because it is the most dangerous play then they will keep doing it with other plays that are dangerous. Why don't they just use robots ...just kidding.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

Moving the kickoff up 5 yards has drastically cut down returns and injuries related to returns. At least let the change settle for a couple of years before another big change.

The idea in the article is absurd. Who in their rite mind would ever start a game going for it on 4th and 15 at their own 30? Would make punters ultra important though. I like the way it is now - more safe than before but still some returns. If you are going to do away with kickoffs than just do a coinflip, and the winning team can choose to play offense or defense. If you choose offense you start at the twenty. Its basically how most games / drives begin anyway.

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck;971813]I think they should go the other route and get rid of the fair catch on punts. Remember this sicko??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxBBd1gQVE]Skins vs Rams no "Fair Catch" against the Skins is a bad idea Week 4 2011 - YouTube[/ame][/QUOTE]

Holy shit that hurt to watch. I forgot about those. The first one was just bologna. The second one Paul went helmet to helmet and he didnt have to lower his head. Ouch though.

[QUOTE=RedskinRat;971669]Now we have an answer to the question: Who snorts the most cock before kickoff?

I did always wonder.....[/QUOTE]

FD would be my guess. I have actually never even heard of anybody else snorting cock before so I think that is an easy question.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

It amazes me that every week we see a QB or two or three throw to a WR over the middle and throws it slightly too high and a little late, exposing the WR to life changing injury.
- On 9/9/12 Devery Henderson was knocked unconscious in the game against us this year.
- Two weeks later Oakland Raiders wide receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey still has no recollection of the devastating hit by Pittsburgh safety Ryan Mundy.
- Jags WR Laurent Robinson has sustained three concussions this season -- one in the preseason, one in Week 3 vs. Cincinnati and one in Week 4 vs. Chicago. Sat out the month of October, but played the last two weeks after a Week 9 return vs. Detroit.
- Giants WR D. Hixson sustained a concussion in week 2.
- Giants WR Ramses Barden sustained a concusion in week 4.
- Redskins Snatana Moss was concussed on Nov 4th.

I am willing bet more WR's get more head injuries and other potential career threatening injuries then injuries on kickoffs.
But do to ratings, since the mid 80's the NFL changed rules to promote more passing because that is what sells. Now we see Qb's throw twice as much as they used to. We are also seeing more these Wr head injuries. Where is the same concern? They want to eliminate the KO but they want more passing. Kind of funny how that works.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

How bout we tweak Hines wards idea - no helmets, but only on kick offs

Re: Replacing the KO
 

I don't think Goodell is seriously considering this. I think this is one of those cases where he threw an Idea out there to gauge the public reaction

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=SmootSmack;971942]I don't think Goodell is seriously considering this. I think this is one of those cases where he threw an Idea out there to gauge the public reaction[/quote]

If so, the reaction has been clear: it isn't popular.

As I stated above, I actually like the idea, not so much because it gets rid of kick-offs, but because it gets rid of onside kicks. Onside kicks are ridiculous. They remind me of penalty kicks in soccer: something that is a very small part of the game becomes a major determining factor in the outcome of the game. The NFL should replace onside kicks with the 4th and 15 scenario for no other reason than onside kicks are dumb, fluky plays while the 4th and 15 scenario taps into the fundamental spirit of the game.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

Having no Kickoffs would be better than watching a commercial, then a kickoff go to the back of the endzone which takes 5 seconds and then an other commercial.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

I understand Goodell may have thrown that out there just to gauge public reaction, but he doesn't throw that out there without some tendency of wanting to seriously move in that direction. Otherwise, he would never have mentioned it. If you want to make the game of football safer, put your investments toward the technology that's going to make the safety equipment protect the players better. Football is a dangerous, vicious, contact sport. That's just the way it is. Don't like it? Don't play it. Don't watch it.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=donofriose;971975]Having no Kickoffs would be better than watching a commercial, then a kickoff go to the back of the endzone which takes 5 seconds and then an other commercial.[/quote]

Trust me, advertisers will get their commercials in someway, you'd still have commercial breaks - they would just work them in at some other annoying point during the ball game.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=skinsguy;971997]Trust me, advertisers will get their commercials in someway, you'd still have commercial breaks - they would just work them in at some other annoying point during the ball game.[/quote]

What I think would happen is there would be longer commercial breaks after at a team scores. Which I am ok with. It is like Hulu where you can sometimes get the option to watch all the commercials at first then watch the entire show commercial free. I like the second option.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=skinsguy;971996]I understand Goodell may have thrown that out there just to gauge public reaction <snip>.[/quote]

Goodell doesn't give a fark about public opinion.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=RedskinRat;972001]Goodell doesn't give a fark about public opinion.[/quote]

LOL, true! But then again, I could see him asking for public opinion just so he could smugly do the exact opposite just because he's the commish.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

interesting out of the box thinking. I still want some help for our defense on 3rd down conversion ratio.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=skinsguy;971996]I understand Goodell may have thrown that out there just to gauge public reaction, but he doesn't throw that out there without some tendency of wanting to seriously move in that direction. Otherwise, he would never have mentioned it. If you want to make the game of football safer, put your investments toward the technology that's going to make the safety equipment protect the players better. Football is a dangerous, vicious, contact sport. That's just the way it is. Don't like it? Don't play it. Don't watch it.[/quote]
Exactly. Improve the equipment...don't change the game. Right now the NFL has the most popular sport in America. Why change the game? Did Goodell work for Coca Cola long time ago?

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=skinsguy;971996]I understand Goodell may have thrown that out there just to gauge public reaction, but he doesn't throw that out there without some tendency of wanting to seriously move in that direction. Otherwise, he would never have mentioned it. If you want to make the game of football safer, put your investments toward the technology that's going to make the safety equipment protect the players better. Football is a dangerous, vicious, contact sport. That's just the way it is. Don't like it? Don't play it. Don't watch it.[/quote]

Back in the 90s Tagliabue used to float out talk of NFL teams in Europe in interviews. Maybe it happens one day but it's so many years away. Same with this

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=53Fan;972013]Exactly. Improve the equipment...don't change the game. Right now the NFL has the most popular sport in America. Why change the game? Did Goodell work for Coca Cola long time ago?[/quote]

They can't improve the helmet much more in a practical sense. Apparently to improve helmets to the point of drastically reducing concussions they'd have to make the helmet so much larger that it would cause more neck injuries. There's always the notion too that the helmets only serve to promote more head injuries since they provide a sense of invulnerability that is dangerous.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned but now the competition committee (headed by John Mara) is giving serious thought to making cut blocks illegal. Nothing like 400+ rushing yards in two games to speed the process up eh John? Luckily only a fraction of our plays use the cut blocks so it's not like we're doomed without them but as always interesting timing.

As for kickoffs. I guess you could do it so long as you were allowed unlimited onside kicks within the last 6 minutes. In high school I had the worse job on Kickoff team...wedge buster. That basically meant line up next to the kicker and run full speed down the field into a group of 3 or 4 guys who half the time were holding hands.

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;972015]Back in the 90s Tagliabue used to float out talk of NFL teams in Europe in interviews. Maybe it happens one day but it's so many years away. Same with this[/QUOTE]

I say not before supersonic commercial flights become the norm. No one can deal with that schedule though. I mean for goodness sakes, prime time Champion League games in Europe are broadcast live in the states at 2:00 PM Eastern Time.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=FRPLG;972025]They can't improve the helmet much more in a practical sense. Apparently to improve helmets to the point of drastically reducing concussions they'd have to make the helmet so much larger that it would cause more neck injuries. There's always the notion too that the helmets only serve to promote more head injuries since they provide a sense of invulnerability that is dangerous.[/quote]

It's hard to believe they used to play in those leather helmets. Seems like there would have been guys laying all over the field after every play.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

People don't seem to realize that you don't need to hit your head to get a concussion. A high speed collision that jars your head and body enough to cause your brain to hit inside of your skull is all it takes. People get concussions all the time in car accidents, even when your head doesn't hit against anything.

Taking off the helmets is not going to get rid of concussions.

A collision sport like football is always going to have to live with a concussion problem to a degree.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=FRPLG;972025]They can't improve the helmet much more in a practical sense.[/quote]

They could make the shoulder pads and helmet one piece and create a goldfish bowl type dome that allows clear field of vision. Then the focus would be on leg injuries, then something else. Then they'll be rolling around the field in a hamster ball.

It's a dangerous game, that's why I like *watching* it.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=Mattyk;972038]People don't seem to realize that you don't need to hit your head to get a concussion. A high speed collision that jars your head and body enough to cause your brain to hit inside of your skull is all it takes. People get concussions all the time in car accidents, even when your head doesn't hit against anything.

Taking off the helmets is not going to get rid of concussions.

A collision sport like football is always going to have to live with a concussion problem to a degree.[/quote]

True that! And people break bones and sometimes die from snow skiing. There's a risk involved in alot of sports. If you don't want to take it...don't. It's a violent sport. People know that when they play...and when they take huge sums of money to do it. Nobody wants to see someone get seriously hurt. But the reality of the game is it can happen.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

They can also make simple changes to the game like making mouthpieces mandatory (nothing dumber to me than seeing a QB barking out signals with his mouthpiece lodged in his face mask) and while I'm sure it would be hideously ugly, developing a neck roll that restrict the jarring head movements that rattle the brain in the skull.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

It's kind of funny that they're talking about wanting to change a huge part of the game of football to make it safer, yet for the past few years, it hasn't been mandatory for the players to wear thigh and knee pads. At least make sure all the equipment must be mandatory for game day, then worry about changing the game itself.

Re: Replacing the KO
 

[quote=skinsguy;972068]It's kind of funny that they're talking about wanting to change a huge part of the game of football to make it safer, yet for the past few years, it hasn't been mandatory for the players to wear thigh and knee pads. At least make sure all the equipment must be mandatory for game day, then worry about changing the game itself.[/quote]

That goes into effect next year.

[url=http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7959313/nfl-says-players-wear-thigh-knee-pads-2013]NFL says players must wear thigh, knee pads in 2013 - ESPN[/url]