The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I don't think there is anything concrete as of now, but certainly an idea that is being discussed. Doesn't really seem like a good idea to me but others may like it.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8720551/roger-goodell-floats-idea-end-kickoffs-report-says

Commissioner Roger Goodell recently discussed a proposal to eliminate kickoffs with Rich McKay, the head of the league's competition committee, Time magazine reported.

More telling than the NFL's PR hocus-pocus of health and safety ads are the numbers on weight, the injuries and the PED suspensions, writes Howard Bryant. Story

Goodell and McKay discussed an idea brought up by Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach Greg Schiano in which a team, instead of kicking off, would get the ball at its own 30-yard line in a fourth-and-15 situation. The team then would punt the ball away or, to replace an onside kick, could go for it and, if it failed to get a first down, the opposing squad would start with great field position.

"The fact is, it's a much different end of the play," Goodell said during the meeting, according to Time.

Schiano discussed his idea earlier this season in an ESPN The Magazine story.  Schiano, who was the coach at Rutgers in 2010 when Eric LeGrand was paralyzed on a kickoff, has seen first-hand how the play can adversely affect the safety of players.

LeGrand broke two vertebrae and suffered a serious spinal cord injury in October 2010 during a kickoff return against Army. He became an inspiration to his college teammates, eventually being able to stand upright with the help of a metal frame.

Schiano told ESPN The Magazine in September that he believed kickoffs eventually would be eliminated from pro football.

"I believe that day will come," he said. "Unfortunately, it will probably take more players being seriously hurt. But I think there's another way to do this."

The NFL already has been working to make kickoffs safer.

Last season, the NFL moved kickoffs from the 30-yard line to the 35 and required the coverage unit to start within 5 yards of the ball, closing the distance between the teams. Both rules had their desired effects. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, 16.4 percent of kickoffs led to touchbacks in 2010; last year it was 43.5 percent. The NFL found that players suffered 40 percent fewer concussions on kickoffs in 2011, McKay told ESPN The Magazine.

"I see where they are coming from as far as trying to look for different ways to make the sport a little safer," Chicago Bears punter Adam Podlesh said Thursday. "Do I think that is going to make it safer or are kickoffs the worst part of the game right now? I would be skeptical on that right now, especially considering they moved it up to the 35-yard line and you see so many fewer returns now.

"You take a look at the touchback percentages now and that's gone up so much and they got rid of the three-man plus wedge and leaving it to a tandem of two guys that can only come together. Maybe doing something with that or even eliminating the two-man tandem might help a little more."

Schiano's plan, however, would eliminate kickoffs altogether. Goodell admitted to Time magazine that the proposal is "an off-the-wall idea."

"It's different and makes you think differently. It did me," Goodell said.

Bears kicker Robbie Gould said the proposed changes would impact teams' strategies.

"You're talking about starting off a game with a punt, not that there is anything bad about that, but if you have a strategy in getting the ball because you have a really good kick return team, now you are taking that out of the equation," Gould said. "You're talking about a whole different type of football game. You're talking about returners meaning more and less, punters are going to mean more and less, kickers are going to mean more and less.

"So the value of a player is going to go down drastically and the overall game will decrease if they change the kickoff rule to what they are thinking of."

Information from ESPN The Magazine's Chris Jones, ESPNChicago.com's Jeff Dickerson and The Associated Press was used in this report.

Devin Hester's agent is firmly against it...

Marcus Thigpen's agent should be too.

Soon: the NFFL ( National Flag Football League)

I heard about this today, and was going to post it but couldn't find the article.

I am pretty against this, but I think it could add another element to the game.  I see the plus and minus, but I think kickoffs are fine as they are.

This confirms every suspicion I've ever had about Roger Goodell. 

Interesting the idea comes from Schiano, isn't he the guy who has his players charge the line on an end of game kneel down?

I've always wondered, why are kickoffs considered to be unsafe and punts are not?

Hang Time

It's an interesting idea, high-risk heigh-reward (a form of make-it-take-it in basketball), but it just rubs you the wrong way in that they're turning the NFL into a non-contact league. Just upsetting.

It's not going to happen. I think is all talk but with the amount of touchbacks now by moving the kickoff up 5 yards the risk has been reduced greatly I don't see them doing something drastic like this

I get both sides of the argument. As a fan, kickoffs add a fun aspect, but as we see more and more retired players now "coming out" as it were about conclusions and post-concussion brain issues, I would not be opposed to it. How many concussion related suicides could be prevented? The image of Seau's family on the news after his death is a haunting one and one I could so without. Of course concussions, and safety in general, ate not limited to kickoff returns, but if there is evidence eliminating them would improve player safety, it should be considered seriously. -EK

Have you noticed the number of concussions players are getting this season as compared to many in the past?  I don't see many of them coming on kickoffs, though.

How would it affect onside kicks??

File under the heading "When sarcasim becomes reality."

Belichick proposed something very similiar when the NFL moved kick off location, on the basis that there really is no point in even running the kickoff play if a touchback is almost automatic.  I believe at the time he wasn't actually proposing getting rid of kickoffs but pointing out the new rule made the kickoff pretty meaningless.     

I think I see why he's coming out on this..

I think this is much like the tobacco companies,trying to say,smoking isn't bad for you.(with mountains of information saying otherwise).Then getting sued by everyone under the sun.I think the concussion repercussions,post football is getting a lot of bad publicity with former football players coming down with Lou Gehrig's disease, killing themselves,just coming out talking about post concussion problems..So I think this is partially to thwart huge lawsuits,in the coming years...

Also,He been pushing for 18 game schedules,less preseason,etc,etc...It gives the league an argument of,look we're trying to make the safer,We care about you guys...Safer game,Ok to play 18 game schedule..

Upon further thinking.  I actually like this idea.  And not because of injury but it would make the game more fun.

What is happening is replace a kickoff -- which is almost always a touchback or fair catch.  With punt, which more often gets returned or you have the kicking team trying to prevent from going into the endzone. 

Also I think watching the 4th and 15 attempt would be more exciting than an onside kick.  (My team has a QB for which this is not a mere impossible dream)

Lets assume for a moment that the league is not going to move the kickoff spot back to the 30. Which would you rather see, a punt or a kickoff? I mean most kickoff's now sail into the endzone if not through the endzone and don't get returned at all, that's pretty boring. A punt from the 30 probably would be returned or perhaps fair caught, but returned more often than not. Personally I'd rather see a punt return than a touchback. Heck even a fair catch is more interesting than it going through the endzone, the returner doesn't even have to touch the ball, at least with a fair catch he has to field it cleanly.

Yes, it devalues the kicker and the kick returner, but it actually increases the value of the punter and punt returner and a lot of times the return person is the same for kickoffs and punts, so it's a wash in my humble opinion. The kicker would still be needed for FG's and extra points so it's not like that person would be going away. The same is true for the kick team, they would most just all move to the punt team which is probably true already.

I also think that being able to run a play in a 4th and 15 type of situation is MUCH better than the stupid onsides kick stuff that happens now.

Personally, I like the idea, but what do I know.

LOL. My thoughts almost exactly.

Keep the kickoff but give the kicking team the option of the 4th and 15 to keep the ball. On an off note, I always kind of wondered why kickers didn't learn to punt. They could pull double duty and open up a spot. Unless there is a rule against that or something, it seems like the logical thing to consolidate those 2 positions.

Two reason as I understand it:

1. The two kicks are so different that practicing one hurts the other.  Much the same way some people say that swinging a baseball bat screws up their golf swing.

2.  The punter is typically the back up kicker and the kicker is the back up punter.  If you had one guy who was both the punter and kicker you would still need a second guy to be the backup punter and kicker. 

There have been a few who've pulled double duty... but it seems like the punter handles kickoffs and maybe long field goals, whereas (short) field goals are handled by an experience (old) kicker. Michael Koenen (formerly of the Falcons, now with the Bucs) and Matt Bosher (Falcons) spring to mind. Odd that they would both be with the Falcons, a team who's games I almost never see.

I was not a fan of moving the kickoffs up and I am even less of a fan of this idea. I enjoy the kickoffs and it is part of the game. Most of the guys stepping forward with health issues from the game aren't special teamers anyways. You are more likely to get hurt during the normal flow of the game.

Not true. While the difference isn't that high, stats show injuries are MORE likely to happen on kickoffs than on FGs, passing plays, punts, or runs.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/09/will-new-kickoff-rules-really-reduce.html

-EK

Here's a question. During this "punt off", are the teams going to be lined up for a normal punt or in a free punt formation? If they are lined up normal, this adds a brand new dynamic to the game. The opportunity for a blocked punt.

Another question. Lets say you go for the 4th & 15. Does the clock start at the snap? Does it stop after the conclusion of the play as if it was a change in possession?

Another question. Would it be legal to angle a kick out of bounds? Because it is not for a kickoff.

If the teams line up normally for a punt(in which a fake, would be illegal in this situation), the 4th & 15 play was clock neutral, and you could angle a punt off out of bounds, then I would be in favor of this proposal.

Why would you want a fake punt to be illegal? I would think a fake punt would be totally possible. I would also want out of bounds to be a penalty just like kickoffs. I WANT the team to have to field it. The way you are setting it up it would even be more pointless than the kickoff is now.

My understanding is that after a team scores a TD or FG or at the start of the game/half the team is in 4th and & 15th on their own 30, with the exact same rules that would apply if the team had on the prior play had been 3rd and 15 and threw an incomplete pass.

Because the kicking team would already have the option to "go for it" with the 4th & 15 option. Nobody would run a fake punt on 4th & 15 from their own 30. And the only option for a 1st down would be a touchdown. Regular punts aren't penalized for going out of bounds. These punts shouldn't be either. From the 30, you're already giving up field position with a punt. So why shouldn't the kicking team have the option to kick out of bounds? Especially if the two teams are lined up normally. The would be facing a potential block or snap mishap. Again, that's if the are lined up normally, with the receiving team on the line of scrimmage. If its a free kick, then fuck it.

Would be gutsy but I could see it.

Down by a TD or less.  2:15 seconds left on the clock all three time outs.  Lineup like you are going to punt and then try to stop the other team and force them to punt.  Instead covert on 4th and keep your drive alive. 
[qoute]
And the only option for a 1st down would be a touchdown.
[/quote]

Nope if you can get the ball via run or throw to the 45 you got a first down.

agreed.

The reason I bring that up, is that if you recover an onside kick the clock stops. At the same time the clock wouldn't start on an onside kick until the opposing team touches the ball. In this hypothetical 4& 15, the clock should also stop on a conversion. Otherwise, the offense would be penalized for converting what would have been an onside kick.

Pretty minor detail, which I doubt has been decided yet.

If it was up to me.  Clock starts when the ball is snapped, stops when the ball becomes a dead ball. Just like in a punt. And if you convert and stay inbounds, the clock keeps running.   

Yes, it does mean you lose time that you wouldn't in an onside kick, but I don't see that as a huge deal.

I would go so far as to say, if you got a good tail wind and a kicker with a strong leg....you can even try for a miracle field goal.

It is 4th and 15 on your own 30.  Do what ever the heck you want --  Punt, throw, run.   

Its a minor detail with huge ramifications. You have to look at what the play is replacing. The onside kick. Its essentially the same thing with a change in possession. You're already taking a risk by going for the 4th & 15. Why be penalized for success?

The play that is being replaced is 4th and 15 from your 30 instead of  a free kick from your 35.  The onside kick per se is not being replaced.  The onside kick is on option of a free kick.  Going for it is one option of 4th and 15.  The most common option today is kick it away deep, the most common option if this changes will be a punt.

Why not? They do onsides kicks from their own 35. I think the odds of making it would be about the same.

This isn't exactly a regular punt is it? I want the play to be more exciting than the kickoff is now. Anything that takes away from that excitement should be eliminated, like being able to kick it out of bounds. You can of course, but it should have a severe negative component just like kickoffs do.


I'm not so sure about that, but you can always move it up to the 35 if the 30 doesn't turn out to be a good spot of the ball. However you do it, the whole purpose for me is to make it a more exciting play than the kickoff is.

Because I want to give the kick returner as much chance as possible to return it.

I'm not looking to make it fair, I'm looking to make it exciting. Kickoffs are boring. Punts from about your own 30 are usually pretty fun to watch. If you are going to change the rules, then do it right. Go ALL out. Don't just make it as close to a kickoff as you can without being a kickoff, that's stupid. Make it a whole new play. A whole new set of rules to go with it. It's not a punt and it's not a kickoff, it's a new way to start the game, start the half and start a new possession after a score. Think outside the box. That's what I'm talking about.

Imagine a team like the '01 Rams or '07 Patriots in this system.  You keep the ball after you score.

Or draft Austin Rehkow and just keeping FG after FG.