Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by sb1, Dec 5, 2018.
Reality definitely crapped in his cornflakes today.
The QB is not the same as everyone else. He's far more vulnerable than any other player as he releases a pass. He's easy pickings for any dirty player that wants to end his season.
Also he’s the most responsible for the success or failure of the team. And he’s often the face of the team and having him healthy is good for the NFL in general. Nobody wants to see Brian Hoyer taking snaps in the playoffs, even Goodell.
I’m fine with adding rules against plays like Bernard Pollards takedown of Brady that took him out for the year. I can’t see how any NFL fan would be against that.
Same can be said for any star player. Doesn’t matter the position. Look at Gronk. Look what happens to teams when their top D player goes down.
That's the fan who thinks we're liars.
I'll never forget the day that Darryl Stingley's career ended.
You mean like Ryan Shazier?
Yep, look at the play he was injured on. In this reactionary league, tackles like that will soon be outlawed based on an injury that happens once out of every (countless, insert number here) tackles.
after the coin flip, the ball is placed on the 50 yard line.......team has one play to get it into the end zone, then the ball goes to the other team to try to do the same. no punts, no kicks.....each team takes turns getting one play.....now you can choose to be strategic and use the play to move the ball a little, or you can go for it all....
and oh yeah......everyone is eligible and there you have time to substitute until the offensive team lines up
This is a fantasy. Owners invest well over $100 million into a franchise QB, they will never allow an old style of play that could have any JAG off the bench come in and end their career
It also wouldn’t be good for the sport, because QBs are incredibly important to the game.. the quality of the product goes way down when you have scrub QBs out there
You also have to protect QBs, because the very nature of their position leaves them incredibly vulnerable, with their eyes down field and lighter padding... no one would enjoy watching football if it was just to tune in and watch some 300lb lineman send a QB to IR every weekend
I also think they should outlaw hits and tackles to the knees across the board for the same reasons. It’s not good for the league when superstars like Gronk go on IR because sleezebags like TJ Ward deliberately target and blow out their knees
I heard* back then the would have coffee and donuts in the locker room, as well as ashtrays for the players who smoked. No joke.
(* like I read it on the internet, so it must be true)
It’s not entertaining according to you yet ratings have hit an all time high during the “soft” era. Yes ratings are down slightly but there’s a better argument to be made that that’s a result of cord cutting than a sea of fans tuning out because of these changes
Every generation thinks the version of the game they grew up watching is the best. Sports evolve. The fact that you still watch and post about it despite finding it to be “nit entertaining” is very telling
Sports leagues will always do what’s most profitable. They don’t exist to make you happy, they exist to make money. Until they start consistently losing huge amounts of money, they’re not going to care if a few thousand internet message board posters think the game is too this or too that.
I am quoting DaBruinz' comment because it is well worth repeating.
In my opinion this is a strategic tactic that the NFL plans to employ so that they can say 'see, we are really trying to make the game safer'. Same goes in a more obvious sense with all the commercials they run on the topic during games. There is a very real fear at 345 Park Avenue that a lawsuit could hit every owner's bank account in a very large manner. Just speculation, but perhaps the 32 knew about player safety and concussion issues for years - but chose to ignore the topic.
As for onside kicks being an excited play, that is no longer the case. Rules were changed so that you cannot stack one side of the field with most of your players in an attempt to recover the kickoff. This rule change was also implemented under the title of 'player safety'. Onside kicks are now boring, not remotely exciting.
I believe this rule change is inevitable. The team that just scored can elect to hand the ball over to the opponent at their 25, or go for it. If this rule change is indeed inevitable, the question remains what the proper down and distance should be. Maybe 4th and 20 or 25 instead?
If they get rid of the kickoff (which I don’t want to see) my proposal would be this:
A) team that scored can give the opponent the ball on the opponent’s 20 (no need for the phony 25 thing if there aren’t kickoffs anymore); or
B) team that scored can elect to execute one scrimmage play from their own 35 (adjusted for any penalties). If they get 20 yards or more on that play they get the ball 15 yards from the spot of the “kickoff” (regardless of how many yards they gain!) . If they fail to get 20 yards the opponents get the ball 10 yards from the spot of the “kickoff”.
The idea behind behind this is to simulate the outcome of onside kicks. Failed onsides kicks almost always result in the receiving team ending up with the ball around the kicking team’s 45. Successful onsides kicks generally result in the kicking team getting the ball around midfield.
One thing this doesn’t solve is that there’s no analog of a surprise onsides kick.
Of course they have no evidence. That's the way they operate. Most concussions are caused by human spears with missile heads. Hire real scientists to investigate a way to make a helmet which is soft on the outside, but durable. Player will soon stop spearing when the result is ore injuries to themselves than their targets.
That's fact, not speculation.
Watch a rugby game and see if you find one player leading with his head on a tackle.
That is the most confusing first PP or so I can ever recall reading. We're going to dress up the clubhouse leader so we can stop the punt by making it a kick off on 4th and fifteen. If anyone can tell me exactly what that means, I'd be obliged.
The NFL wants to eliminate the kickoff. One idea, "the clubhouse leader", would be to replace it with a punt. After a team scores it would get the ball back on its own 35 but with a 4th-and-15. So... most often, you'd punt. If it were a late game onsides kick situation, you'd go for it.
But before the punt replaces the kickoff, they are looking for ideas to make the punt safer. It is apparently safer than a KO return, but less safer than a regular play. So they want to "dress up" the punt a bit.
I have heard that as well, in part because the NFL is apparently actively seeking opinions on how to improve the punt. (Here's an idea: do something so there is not a flag on every punt).
My question is this: what makes a punt better/safer/whatever than a kickoff? A punt doesn't go quite as far as a kickoff, but it is close.
Add the yardage a punter is behind the line of scrimmage, and factor in on the new kickoff (puntoff?) that he is not facing a pass rush. What's the difference?
Are we looking for more fair catches and fewer returns? If so, isn't starting a drive somewhere between the 10-a5 yard line (rather than the 25) contrary to the NFL's desire for more scoring?
Separate names with a comma.