Thoughts on KO return after SEA vs. GB

I noticed at least 4 kickoffs in that game where the returner caught the ball deep in the endzone and ran the ball out to around the 14. I think that this does not make sense strategically, but it happened so much I wonder if it was couched. Wouldn't teams rather have the ball consistently at the 20? To me the small chance of a large return is not worth the risk of horrible field position.

I noticed that you rarely get it to the 20. So I hope we see more knees in the EZ then getting the ball out to the 15

The NFL and stronger legs have effectively eliminated perhaps one of the most exciting plays in the game and turned it into a post TD version of the extra point. My guess that over 75% of KO's won't be returned, and more than half of those that actually do, will never reach the 20. When those figures start to reach special teams coaches, the percentage of KO's that aren't returned will rise over 90%. What would be the point of risking injuries, fumbles, and loss of field position vs a small percentage chance at marginally improving that 20 yard line starting point.

Its just another shameful decision by the league.

patfanken said:

The NFL and stronger legs have effectively eliminated perhaps one of the most exciting plays in the game and turned it into a post TD version of the extra point. My guess that over 75% of KO's won't be returned, and more than half of those that actually do, will never reach the 20. When those figures start to reach special teams coaches, the percentage of KO's that aren't returned will rise over 90%. What would be the point of risking injuries, fumbles, and loss of field position vs a small percentage chance at marginally improving that 20 yard line starting point.

Its just another shameful decision by the league.

Click to expand...

.

The fifteen yd line is the new twenty.

For the record, here are the kickoff's in Thursday's game.

• S.Hauschka kicks 71 yards from SEA 35 to GB -6. D.Harris to GB 13 for 19 yards
• S.Hauschka kicks 65 yards from SEA 35 to end zone, Touchback
• M.Crosby kicks 65 yards from GB 35 to end zone, Touchback
• S.Hauschka kicks 70 yards from SEA 35 to GB -5. D.Harris to GB 16 for 21 yards
• M.Crosby kicks 66 yards from GB 35 to SEA -1. P.Harvin to SEA 30 for 31 yards
• S.Hauschka kicks 65 yards from SEA 35 to end zone, Touchback
• M.Crosby kicks 73 yards from GB 35 to SEA -8. P.Harvin to SEA 14 for 22 yards
• S.Hauschka kicks 65 yards from SEA 35 to end zone, Touchback
• S.Hauschka kicks 68 yards from SEA 35 to GB -3. M.Hyde to GB 18 for 21 yards
• M.Crosby kicks 65 yards from GB 35 to end zone, Touchback
• S.Hauschka kicks 69 yards from SEA 35 to GB -4. M.Hyde pushed ob at GB 24 for 28 yards

Obviously this is such a small sample size that no conclusions should be made from, but two thirds of the returns failed to make it back to the 20 - and one of the two that went beyond the 20 was on a kick that was only one yard deep in the end zone. Even with that return included, the starting field position for the six kicks that were returned was the 19-yard line. Remove that one return on the shortest kick from the analysis and the average starting field position was the 17-yard line, with only one kick return having a more favorable outcome than a touchback.

It would indeed appear that taking a knee and starting at the 20 would be a better decision - and that's before considering the potential downside due to a fumble.

I'd be much more inclined to take my chances with Percy Harvin taking one back vs not having the chance and guaranteeing myself 5 extra yards @ the 20. If I didn't have a dangerous kick returner I'd probably take the 5-10 extra yards.

NE-VT said:

I noticed at least 4 kickoffs in that game where the returner caught the ball deep in the endzone and ran the ball out to around the 14. I think that this does not make sense strategically, but it happened so much I wonder if it was couched. Wouldn't teams rather have the ball consistently at the 20? To me the small chance of a large return is not worth the risk of horrible field position.

Click to expand...

Belichick was asked about the strategy of this last year. His answer surprised me a little bit. He said that he was happy to give up 5 yards of field position (a return to the 15 yard line) in exchange for the possibility of popping a big return. The five yards is relatively insignificant. A big return is a complete field-position (or even game) changer.

What hwc said. The difference between the 15 and the 20 is not that great. If you are going to be starting out inside the 15 and one negative play can put your punter on the end line, then you really shouldn't be taking it out. However, put in the context of the recent discussion wherein one of our fellow posters cited some statistics for the relative number of scoring drives that include big plays, I would suggest that unless the ball is both deep and hangs in the air, it's worth running it out more often than not. You can only end-up so far behind the 20, but there's a lot of field beyond it when there is a big play.

And just for some context, last year, there were 30 fumbles on 1,225 KO returns, or roughly 2.5%. The top 30 QBs last season threw INTs at 2.6% but nobody is suggesting abandoning the pass play.

817 of those 1,225 KO returns went for 20+ yards (66%), meaning they made it back to the 20-yard line 2/3 times. But 191 went for 40+ yards (16%). Even subtracting the 20 yards you automatically get for downing the ball, 16% is pretty significant. Again, the top 30 QBs last season threw 20+ yard plays at a rate of 9%. Even elite guys like Manning and Brees barely topped 10%.

Different context I know, but in terms of explosive play potential, it's well worth the risk.