Wade Phillips for a few years. Jason Garrett last year and this year. Haven’t a few of the Redskins recent coaches pulled double duty?
I have a running bet about Colt McCoy having the best 5-year passer rating of any QB in his draft class. Right now, he only trails Sam Bradford by two points, although it’s worrying that Bradford’s supporting cast is getting better while McCoy’s is getting worse.
DeSean Jackson just showed up to training camp. Phew.
I’m late to this thread, partly because, while i really like the NFL, i’m something of an “Opening Day to Superbowl” type of fan, who doesn’t spend a whole lot of time reading about football in the off-season, except as it pertains to personnel and other Fantasy-related issues. In summer, i’m too busy following baseball.
Anyway, a question for other folks here: what do you think of the NFL’s new kickoff rule?
I only heard about it today, and i’m quite literally dumbfounded by it. If someone had asked me for a single rule to improve the game, i would have introduced a rule to reduce the number of touchbacks, not increase them. Hell, i would introduce a rule similar to the one in Rugby League, where you’re not allowed to kick it out of the back of the endzone on the full.
I know that the league made an argument about reducing injuries, and everyone involved in the game understandably wants to do that, but i think this rule stinks.
I like it, but I think that this is the measure they should have taken to address overtime complaints instead of that stupid “fair ups” unfairness.
Injuries, significant injuries, occur at a much higher rate on kickoffs. I’d rather have a few more touchbacks than another Kevin Everett incident.
Then why kick off at all?
After a score, just give the ball to the other team and make them start a set of downs on their 20-yard line.
Excitement plus!
Why not allow spearing again, stop penalizing late hits, or release hungry tigers at the two minute warning? That’s more excitement!
The NFL has, and continues to, try and balance player safety and “excitement”. The NFL figures any minor decrease in the “excitement level” of kickoffs is outweighed by the benefit of increased player safety.
I think the rule is idiotic. I understand that kickoff returns are dangerous, if you want to make them less dangerous that’s fine with me. But this is easily the stupidest and least effective of all possible fixes. The frequency of kickoffs returned isn’t this issue, it’s the amount of speed and force generated by the long run ups. Had they wanted to really reduce injuries they should have eliminated the “running start” by the coverage unit entirely, or more logically transfer the 7 men on the line rule that applies to every other snap in the game. If 7 of the 11 coverage men were required to be on the line of scrimmage it’d have shortened the ramp up distance significantly while also adding a level of strategy and complexity to teams coverage schemes. The NFL took a half measure towards this by forcing the coverage team to be restricted to within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage, but this doesn’t go far enough and players are nearly at full speed after 15 yards anyways, taking it from 20 yards to 15 yards is a negligible change.
By moving the kickoff forward they will create fewer returns, but on every one of those touchbacks the coverage and blocking units will have had just as many collisions. The only people protected by this are the return men who’ll get hit less and maybe the personal protector. From a repeated impact/head trauma standpoint it’s a complete wash.
Another solution that would have impacted the degree of impacts would have been to compact the blocking unit by forcing them to be restricted between the 45 and opposite 35 yard line. This would eliminate personal protectors and the wedge entirely. It would probably make the return game far more extreme, there would be far more long returns and more returns stopped inside the 10. If this created too many big returns then that’s the time to move the kickoff to the 35. I’d also be willing to accept a rule that penalized teams for kicking out of the endzone to encourage more returns.
Limiting the number of returns in the wrong tactic. It does nothing to limit the danger inherent in the kicks that still are returned and it has a real negative impact on the competitiveness and enjoyment of the game.
Monumentally fucking stupid rule change. I’m proud that the Bears voted against it and are doing everything they can to subvert it.
But, as Omniscient (and quite a few media commentators on this issue) pointed out, the new rule decreases excitement without really addressing a whole bunch of the most significant factors in kickoff return injuries.
As these folks have noted, the requirement about standing within 5 yards of the kick-off line doesn’t impede the kicking team’s ability to reach maximum speed. So collisions at maximum speed will still occur under the new rule.
The main consequence of the rule will be to increase touchbacks, which eliminate the return altogether. And if you are so concerned about returns that you want to reduce their number, rather than actually make them safer, why not just eliminate them altogether? As i said, after a score, just start the game on the 20-yard line with a set of downs. It would be a crappy solution, but it’s just the logical extension of the way that the NFL has dealt with this issue.
Well, if you go to a scrimmage start, then you eliminate the chances for an onside kick. I don’t think anyone wants that.
Auto touchback would eliminate onside and squib kick opportunity.
The rule *does *enhance the safety for the special teams player, it just does it indirectly. The change does not just add more touchbacks, but teams that shorten their kick do it with either higher arcing or lower powered kicks which will increase the number of fair caught balls. Both will mean that there are fewer opportunities for these high speed tackles to happen and the number of injuries will go down. Shortening the kick also slows down the gunners as they do not want to outrun the kick and there will be more instances where they are holding back to 80-90% (or less) of full speed so that they do not beat the ball to the return man and have to stop or pass by.
Yes, those kicks that go long enough and are returned will still have some full speed collisions, but they will be a fewer number of the overall attempts.
it is not a great solution, but it does what they NFL wants it to do.
nm
This is utter nonsense.
First off, no team will start kicking pop ups or “low powered kicks” (are you implying that gravity slows down or something?). Touchbacks are the ideal outcome for a coverage unit. Teams don’t kickoff with a goal of downing the ball since, you know, that would be an onside kick. “Shortening” the kick is pure fiction both practically and logically. Weak legged kickers give up more returns and those returns have less hangtime and more run up.
Any time a ball is returned the players will be running at full speed at each other. These aren’t ever going to look like punts and there will never be a circumstance where a gunner risks over running the play. These aren’t punts, don’t have the same goal as punts and are physically impossible to cover like punts.
The only effect this rule has is to increase touchbacks. On non-touchbacks the plays will develop EXACTLY the same as a kickoff for the past 50 years (excepting the no wedge rule from a few years back).
You used so many words (as always), but all I read is "Devin Hester, devinhesterdevin hester, Dev in Hester Hester, Devin…:rolleyes:
Idle speculation from the Sun-Times here but it’s sound logic.
If the Bears can manage to flip this turd to a desperate team for a 5th or 6th round pick it’s a miracle. A 7th would even be a blessing, you have to wonder how desperate the Texans would be if they are left with Foster and no one else come week 3 of the preseason. As injuries mount it’s possible that Taylor could actually end up with some value.
From PFT: Updated Cap Space.
How in the hell are the Rams, Vikings, Lions and Panthers basically tapped out? Who on those teams is taking up all that coin? I understand the Rams and Lions both have a bunch of pre-rookie scale bloat from years of sucking on their roster but damn.
The Panthers dropped a big chunk on Charles Johnson, and then resigned D. Williams, and James Anderson AND extended Beason and Thomas Davis. I suspect that made up most of theirs.
ETA: Cam got his too, although not nearly as much as recent #1s.
Sound logic for the Bears. For the Texans it would be idiocy. I don’t think the Texans are that dumb. I think they’ll do what smart teams do, either get a free agent or wait until cut down days and pickup someone then. But trading for a horrible, washed up piece of garbage that may likely be cut. Nah, not seeing it
Escalators. The Rams and Lions have had a bunch of first round picks with incentive-laden contracts perform well enough to earn their incentives.
The Panthers just shelled out a ton of money to retain their own players, so their cap number for this year is big because most of the guaranteed money is paid this season.
The Vikings were huge free agency spenders for like 7 straight seasons. Remember, over the last 5-8 years they’ve given big money ($10 million plus guaranteed) to AP, Steve Hutchinson, Kevin Williams, Pat Williams, John Sullivan, Bernard Berrian, Antoine Winfield, Madieu Williams, Fred Smoot, Brett Favre, Chester Taylor, Visanthe Shiancoe, Jared Allen, EJ Henderson, Darren Sharper, Robert Ferguson, Matt Birk, Sage Rosenfels, Erasmus James, Troy Williams and Kenichi Udeze.
You don’t spend that kind of money for that long and not pay for it eventually. I’m frankly amazed that they were able to keep their roster mostly intact for as long as they did. As far as I can recall, the only significant free agent loss they had in that time was Nate Burleson, who the Seahawks massively overpaid for.