PetermansRedemption

Easily top 2. Someone (Giants?) would come up to get him at 2 if Murray went one. And the only reason he wouldn’t go 1 is because the Cardinals seem to have a love affair with Murray.

Love the alternative to an onside. But one thing stuck out to me “The play could be attempted after any score, including a touchdown or a field goal. A team could also attempt the fourth-and-15 after giving up a safety.” Why on earth would a team that just gave up a safety have an option of performing an onside conversion. That’s just plain stupid.

Oh for sure. But even if a brand new stadium needed to be constructed. I just can’t believe no major sports owner or prospective owner hasn’t tried to enter the 7th biggest city in the country.

It’s definitely a bit dated. But I think a facelift would be pretty economical. The location of it is absolutely stellar. Literally a 5 minute walk from the river walk. The river walk contains as many bars and restaurants as you can imagine. Completely perfect for a downtown stadium/arena.

If Josh Allen falls to the Bills this season I would do backflips down the sidewalk.

I can’t for the life of me figure out why San Antonio only has one big 5 team (NHL, NFL, MLB, MLS, NBA). 7th largest city in the country, and one hour away from the 11th largest city (Austin), which has ZERO big 5 teams. They come out in droves to support the Spurs of the NBA and support the Rampage of the AHL well. They have the Alamodome with a capacity of around 70k in the heart of the city which is sitting unused, other than the alliance now. At the absolute least, they should have an MLS team.

I would vote for option 3, work to extend him without exercising the option. Barring that, I would pick up the option.

Because I’ve already beat the drum ad naseum of the 4 successful conversions on 53 attempts. In this post I was illustrating how infrequent the play is. Read the entire thread and you’ll be up to speed ?

That team is more than welcome to put their kick return team out for the play. I just don’t think it would go very well ?

NFL is too scared of the lawsuits stemming from player safety.

You would have no shortage of men risking their body for millions of dollars a year. That’s the opportunity cost that they can weigh. If they don’t want to risk it they are more than welcome to go work anywhere else they can secure employment. It’s completely up to them. With all the studies and medical information available today it is pretty easy to make an informed decision.

I would think it would be the teams option. They are allowed to line up for a traditional kick (and do a surprise onside) or go for the 4th and 15 option.

The 7.5% is somewhat misleading because of how little it was attempted. There were a grand total of 4 successful attempts last season. That number is far too low. By my calculation 256 regular season games were played. That means an onside kick was converted in 1.5% of NFL games last season.

To elaborate more on why this has to happen. The historical fumble rate for kickoffs is 3.1%. Last year onside kicks were converted at a 7.5% success rate. Down from a 21.7% success rate the year before. Right now, it is nearly a better proposition to kick it deep and try to force a fumble! 4th and 10 conversion percentages hover around 20-30%. 4th and 15 conversion percentage is 10-20%. Therefore, by eliminating the onside kick and allowing a 4th and 15 try you are really just going back to pre-neutered onside kick numbers. Albeit a much safer alternative. Unfortunately I don’t think the NFL will consider that with today’s emphasis on player safety. Hence the alternatives start to fly. This one is actually a good alternative.

Because the onside kick has become a near 0% proposition and it is bad for business to not have some late game comebacks.

Couple this rule change with allowing coaches to challenge everything.

Absolutely needs to happen. The onside kick is completely pointless now. It has been completely neutered by the NFL. You are better off kicking it deep and hoping to force a fumble. In light of that, the NFL must adopt a new policy to keep games somewhat interesting in the end. This is that policy, this is the solution. Only a matter of time before it passes IMO.

?

The thing is, if the NFL followed their own rules, the games would still be 3 hours or less. If the call doesn’t have conclusive evidence then it is supposed to stand. So why stare at 100 different replays twenty times? If it is that subtle then it should stand. The solution is to put a time limit on officials reviews. 2-3 minutes in my opinion. If you can’t find evidence to overturn in 2-3 minutes the call should be standing anyways.

That’s impressive drive. I need to start doing that myself.

I am of the mindset nothing should be an automatic review. Not within 2 minutes, not scoring plays. Let the coaches challenge anything they think is wrong. The booth shouldn’t get involved unless they are requested to do so. We say “coaches” but thats really a broad term in this sense. The coach is really just the guy throwing the flag. I am sure he has about ten guys upstairs looking at it that tell him to challenge or not.

I’ll never understand how a man that burns thousands of calories running for a living can develop a gut.

I feel like every complaint is beyond simple to fix. Allow coaches to challenge anything, boom, problem solved. Inconsistent refereeing? Doesn’t matter, your coach should have challenged it. I would advocate for giving coaches 2 or 3 challenges, total, for the entire game. You don’t get any back if you win 2 of them. Also, there needs to be a time clock on reviewed plays. Something like 2 minutes to review the call. If it isn’t clear after 2 minutes then do what the rule intends, stick with the original call on the field. Coaches would have to be careful about what they challenge. Absolutely everything should be reviewable. The phantom PI call on the Bills a few years back comes to mind. I think it was against the Raiders. Their WR slips going over the middle and the Bills get a PI call. Then you have the no call on the Rams against the Saints. It is simply time to allow everything to be challengeable. Let’s be honest, the game moves at a snails pace anyways. Adding an extra 2 minutes for a challenge won’t kill it.

He will never replicate his end to last season. In addition to that, the current Bills depth chart at RB is McCoy-Gore-Ivory-Murphy and I think they will draft one in rounds 3-7. At the worst you sign an UDFA. There is no where to fit in another RB, especially a relatively expensive one like CJ Anderson will be.

Don’t scare me like that. I fully expected to read another article like the Zay Jones TMZ where he fought for Jesus. Then I see it’s about Basketball ?