Kick returning with the new rules

[Sicilian]

So, I apologize if this was brought up in one of the many post game threads, but I didn't see it specifically. It seems with the new kickoff rules that teams are going to take one of two approaches:

1) Kick the ball as deep as they can and go for the touchback.

2) Try to get more air under the ball, have it land as close to the goal line as possible, and rely on your coverage team to drop the returner prior to the 20.

Hard for me to tell if the Lions were doing that on purpose or whether their kicker just couldn't leg it deeper into the end zone consistently, but the shorter kicks certainly gave Tate some trouble. That's because Tate was most effective on kick returns where he could get a running start, make one cut (maybe two) and beat everyone with speed. It's harder for him to get that start if the ball is in the air for an extra second.

Enter Julian Edelman, who returned one kick on Saturday and actually brought it out past the 30. IMO, this will be the evolution of the kick returner, from a short move fast speed guy, to more of your prototypical punt returning type (shifty, quick burst, good hands).

This covers both options. If it's kicked too deep, he's not running it out anyway. If it hangs and falls short, you basically treat it like a punt anyway (minus the fair catches), so you want an Edelman, Welker, Faulk type fielding those.

What do you guys think? Is this a possible direction for kick returns to go?

 

[IllegalContact]

the ball is not going to be kicked in a way that it's going to be stopped inside the 10 on a return.....its easy......force 'em to take it at the 20 every time.....less wear and tear on the players

 

[Sicilian]

the ball is not going to be kicked in a way that it's going to be stopped inside the 10 on a return.....its easy......force 'em to take it at the 20 every time.....less wear and tear on the players

Maybe not inside the 10, but inside the 20, as we saw a few times with Tate on Saturday. Not every coach is going to think that way, some may elect to try a shorter kick to back an offense up an extra five yards. In these cases, having a player more suited for punt returns makes sense.

 

[xmarkd400x]

I think the Patriots prefer kicks that cannot be returned. I think that can either be somebody who kicks it long (Gostkowski) or high (not sure).

I certainly think the high kick into fair catch strategy will be one that many teams explore on kickoffs.

 

[Mike the Brit]

So, I apologize if this was brought up in one of the many post game threads, but I didn't see it specifically. It seems with the new kickoff rules that teams are going to take one of two approaches:

1) Kick the ball as deep as they can and go for the touchback.

2) Try to get more air under the ball, have it land as close to the goal line as possible, and rely on your coverage team to drop the returner prior to the 20.

Hard for me to tell if the Lions were doing that on purpose or whether their kicker just couldn't leg it deeper into the end zone consistently, but the shorter kicks certainly gave Tate some trouble. That's because Tate was most effective on kick returns where he could get a running start, make one cut (maybe two) and beat everyone with speed. It's harder for him to get that start if the ball is in the air for an extra second.

Enter Julian Edelman, who returned one kick on Saturday and actually brought it out past the 30. IMO, this will be the evolution of the kick returner, from a short move fast speed guy, to more of your prototypical punt returning type (shifty, quick burst, good hands).

This covers both options. If it's kicked too deep, he's not running it out anyway. If it hangs and falls short, you basically treat it like a punt anyway (minus the fair catches), so you want an Edelman, Welker, Faulk type fielding those.

What do you guys think? Is this a possible direction for kick returns to go?

Yes, they were. They even said that that was what they intended to do (nothing like tipping your hand in the pre-season, is there?)

It's obviously a good strategy, particularly if you're playing in a dome, where there's much less risk.

And yes, it will (should) affect the kick-off to make it more like punt returning. Whether that's still true in outdoor stadiums later in the season remains to be seen.

 

[IllegalContact]

Maybe not inside the 10, but inside the 20, as we saw a few times with Tate on Saturday. Not every coach is going to think that way, some may elect to try a shorter kick to back an offense up an extra five yards. In these cases, having a player more suited for punt returns makes sense.

at the same time, risking a longer return

 

[WhiZa]

Yes, they were. They even said that that was what they intended to do (nothing like tipping your hand in the pre-season, is there?)

It's obviously a good strategy, particularly if you're playing in a dome, where there's much less risk.

And yes, it will (should) affect the kick-off to make it more like punt returning. Whether that's still true in outdoor stadiums later in the season remains to be seen.

I heard the announcers talk about it too.

Wouldn't playing in a dome be an advantage to the return team? It would make them faster and more able to execute their blocks. On a grass/weathered field the return would be slower and sloppier. Making them more susceptible to a tackle.

 

[Sicilian]

Yes, they were. They even said that that was what they intended to do (nothing like tipping your hand in the pre-season, is there?)

It's obviously a good strategy, particularly if you're playing in a dome, where there's much less risk.

And yes, it will (should) affect the kick-off to make it more like punt returning. Whether that's still true in outdoor stadiums later in the season remains to be seen.

That's what I thought but I couldn't recall an exact quote to confirm it. You also bring up a good point on weather being a factor, as a kickoff out of bounds obviously carries a penalty that punting out of bounds does not.

at the same time, risking a longer return

Well yes, that's the strategic choice. Do you feel confident that your coverage guys can make the stop consistently enough to outweigh the occasional longer return. If you don't, you boot it. If you do, it could give you a little edge.

It will also depend heavily on WHO you're kicking to. If someone proves to be a consistent return threat even with the new rules, you'll boot it, similar to kicking away from a Devin Hester type in previous years.

I heard the announcers talk about it too.

Wouldn't playing in a dome be an advantage to the return team? It would make them faster and more able to execute their blocks. On a grass/weathered field the return would be slower and sloppier. Making them more susceptible to a tackle.

It would also slow the tacklers too, though you're probably right in the end.

 

[signbabybrady]

The funny thing is they have done this for player safety.

And I dont see where it keeps players all that much safe other than the returner himself and only on touchbacks.

The way I see it most players on the field have to engage in contact wether the play is a touchback or not as you need to be ready to cover in case it is not and you need to have your guy blocked in case it is not.

Now if you factor in that teams may use the same strategy the Lions tested out then imo those are plays where it is more dangerous for the returner and equally dangerous for everyone else.

So basically in order to stop a few tackles from happening which persumably makes it safer for the player we subject him to potentially more dangerous contact on the returns that do end tackles as he has less reaction time.

I think if you add all this up sure there will be slightly less hitting on KR but some of the hits will be more dangerous and all of this comes at the expense of the kicking game as we knew it.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Jules's quickness > Tate's speed when it comes to kick returns.

 

[Sicilian]

Jules's quickness > Tate's speed when it comes to kick returns.

I agree with this too. Though IMO Tate was kind of an overrated kick returner even with the old rules. He had the two big returns for TD's, but most of the time he would get stuffed pretty early. He wasn't a consistent threat and he didn't often put us in great starting position, but he had two TD's so he was viewed as a "threat" to go the distance.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

I agree with this too. Though IMO Tate was kind of an overrated kick returner even with the old rules. He had the two big returns for TD's, but most of the time he would get stuffed pretty early. He wasn't a consistent threat and he didn't often put us in great starting position, but he had two TD's so he was viewed as a "threat" to go the distance.

Hmm yeah. In the first return for a td, the Bengals lost their lanes and contain. In the 2nd one, one of the Fins player-Bobby Carpenter, lost contain and let Tate run past him. Think he took the wrong turn.

Actually, Bobby cost his team two TD's. The blocked punt, he screwed up the stunt by the Pats block team on the left side.

 

[jmt57]

So, I apologize if this was brought up in one of the many post game threads, but I didn't see it specifically. It seems with the new kickoff rules that teams are going to take one of two approaches:

1) Kick the ball as deep as they can and go for the touchback.

2) Try to get more air under the ball, have it land as close to the goal line as possible, and rely on your coverage team to drop the returner prior to the 20.

Hard for me to tell if the Lions were doing that on purpose or whether their kicker just couldn't leg it deeper into the end zone consistently, but the shorter kicks certainly gave Tate some trouble. That's because Tate was most effective on kick returns where he could get a running start, make one cut (maybe two) and beat everyone with speed. It's harder for him to get that start if the ball is in the air for an extra second.

Enter Julian Edelman, who returned one kick on Saturday and actually brought it out past the 30. IMO, this will be the evolution of the kick returner, from a short move fast speed guy, to more of your prototypical punt returning type (shifty, quick burst, good hands).

This covers both options. If it's kicked too deep, he's not running it out anyway. If it hangs and falls short, you basically treat it like a punt anyway (minus the fair catches), so you want an Edelman, Welker, Faulk type fielding those.

What do you guys think? Is this a possible direction for kick returns to go?

I wondered about this myself in some other previous threads. Kicking for height from a tee is different than punting for height and specific distance, but it sure did appear that the Lions were able to accomplish just that. I would think being indoors helps with this tactic - especially as the season moves along and the weather gets cooler. I don't know how many kickers in the NFL will be able to perfect this type of height/distance placement, but I guess we'll find out in a couple of weeks.

On a side note this does seem to bring in more of a chasm between how games are played indoors versus outdoors. If anybody is going to work on perfecting these type of kicks it would probably make more sense for that to be kickers who play indoors. And (warning: conspiracy theory speculation) it may not be entirely coincidental that this change came about via the Polian Council To Aid The Colts, aka the NFL Competition Committee; it just so happened that Indy did not have particularly good special teams last year - oh yeah, and they also happen to play indoors.

 

[jmt57]

Jules's quickness > Tate's speed when it comes to kick returns.

Why not Edelman (quickness) for punt returns, and Price (speed) for kickoff returns? Price is faster than Tate, and will presumably be part of the typical 45-man roster this year.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Why not Edelman (quickness) for punt returns, and Price (speed) for kickoff returns? Price is faster than Tate, and will presumably be part of the typical 45-man roster this year.

Well, with the new stupid KO rules, the receiving team has less time to set up blocks. That, imo, prevents a speedy KR from building up speed in the 1st 5-10 yards. With Edelman, he has decent speed but he also has quickness and he can juke around blocks and lane contains.
I don't think Tate has good lateral movement. Not sure about Price though.

 

[Gwedd]

As I posted in an earlier thread, what I am MOST interested in seeing is how these new rules will affect the onside kick.

I see some very interesting situations coming where a team may actually WANT to try an onside kick outside of a normal situation where it would be tried.

The kicking team would have an advantage inthat the kick could well be recovered by them on their own 45, or perhaps even the 50 yard line.

If the kick is recovered by the defebders, then they are still at least on the kicking teams 45, and perhaps even midefield or a few yards further back. It all depends upon the vagaries of that bouncing football, and how quick the players can react to it.

But I can definitely see a team attempting an onside kick, maybe even on the initial kick off. Those extra 5 yards might well change some in-game adjustment thinking.

Anyway, that's my 2-cent's worth on the subject.

V/R

 

[unoriginal]

If your goal is to kick it high and short so that you can quickly tackle a returner inside the 20, it would be most advantageous to be kicking outdoors into a headwind. You can get some pretty good hangtimes that way, so long as the wind isn't down-drafting.

 

[signbabybrady]

As I posted in an earlier thread, what I am MOST interested in seeing is how these new rules will affect the onside kick.

I see some very interesting situations coming where a team may actually WANT to try an onside kick outside of a normal situation where it would be tried.

The kicking team would have an advantage inthat the kick could well be recovered by them on their own 45, or perhaps even the 50 yard line.

If the kick is recovered by the defebders, then they are still at least on the kicking teams 45, and perhaps even midefield or a few yards further back. It all depends upon the vagaries of that bouncing football, and how quick the players can react to it.

But I can definitely see a team attempting an onside kick, maybe even on the initial kick off. Those extra 5 yards might well change some in-game adjustment thinking.

Anyway, that's my 2-cent's worth on the subject.

V/R

One might argue that the kicking team now only has five yards to get up speed compared to 10 in the past and this might make teams even more hesitant to try the onside kicks.

But I am not one of those people as I am under the impression 5 yards is enough for most of these guys to get to full speed especially the hands team.

 

[Gwedd]

I would say that, right now, my impression is that there is more reasons to go for the onside kick than there is to forgo it.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

I would say that, right now, my impression is that there is more reasons to go for the onside kick than there is to forgo it.

Esp if the receiving team gets a 15 yard personal foul on the X pt and it's enforced on the kick off.
I could see some team try that...where the kicker either kicks an onside kick or pooch kicks (while pretending to go for the onside kick) somewhere in the 10-20 yard area.