Captain Caveman Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 We have a few dynamic kick returners on the team, unfortunately, I don't see them getting many chance this year with the new rule moving the kickoff spot to the 35 yard line. How do you see this (and other rules changes) impacting us this year?
KD in CA Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 Probably not significantly more or less than other teams. The league wanted to kill KO returns and the ugly injuries that result without taking the drastic step of eliminating them completely.
BUFFALOKIE Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) It will give us a little more time to hit the head and grab a fresh beer, since there is no point in hurrying back to your seat to watch the kickoff. For that reason, I predict that the post-touchdown commercial air time will become less valuable, therefore the kickoff will be moved back next season. Edited August 12, 2011 by Stranger in a Strange Land
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) There was a kickoff return for a TD last night. Look on the bright side--now Lindell will have a few touchbacks. Edited August 12, 2011 by Mr. WEO
Doc Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) There was a kickoff return for a TD last night. Look on the bright side--now Lindell will have a few touchbacks. Or on the flip side, with coverage players 5 yards closer, you kick it high and close to the goal line, and pin them back. Edited August 12, 2011 by Doc
Turbosrrgood Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) I knew someone was going to open a thread on this...It was hard NOT to notice the new kick off location in every game so far. Many kicks were going right out of the endzone, resulting in most kicks ending in touch backs. Most of the kicks that WERE returned ended up not making it back to the 20 yard line. Surprisingly there were still a few big returns though. To me this minimizes the importance of some special teams guys. For instance Mcintyre, he is our full back (used rarely)his main role was ST. I might prefer the younger more explosive Caulcrick make the team... Edited August 12, 2011 by Turbosrrgood
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 All this is true... but let's not forget that kickoffs came from the 35 until very recently, when the league moved them back to create more returns.
Turbosrrgood Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) All this is true... but let's not forget that kickoffs came from the 35 until very recently, when the league moved them back to create more returns. This is true They had wedges back then though. Edited August 12, 2011 by Turbosrrgood
Damian Posted August 12, 2011 Posted August 12, 2011 I think it sucks too because we have some really good KO returners (McKelvin, McGee, Parrish, Spiller, White). The other new rule about hitting the receivers while in the act of catching is another one I am unhappy about.
Captain Caveman Posted August 12, 2011 Author Posted August 12, 2011 It makes me think of the Sabres post lockout, when they took advantage of some rules changes (or changes in emphasis) and really surprised a lot of people. It seems like by making our biggest FA signing a glorified KR, we've kind of done the opposite.
Beerball Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 Probably not significantly more or less than other teams. The league wanted to kill KO returns and the ugly injuries that result without taking the drastic step of eliminating them completely. If that's the goal (and I think you are right) then it could go badly wrong. Early returns (preseason games) are that teams will kick the ball higher in the air, giving the coverage extra time to get downfield. Returners are still getting the ball, but I've seen a couple get killed. Now...it will be a different story at critical times in a game. Before the half or at the end of a close game teams will boom the kick eliminating the return. There will also be teams that won't get kicked to based on their return game, I don't know if Buffalo is one of those teams.
Doc Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 It makes me think of the Sabres post lockout, when they took advantage of some rules changes (or changes in emphasis) and really surprised a lot of people. It seems like by making our biggest FA signing a glorified KR, we've kind of done the opposite. He's far from a glorified KR, but he'll still get his chances to do it. The Jets underutilized him on offense, but Gailey won't.
Formerly Allan in MD Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 In the Redskins/Steelers exhibition game, every kickoff by Graham Cano went through the end zone. That rarely happened last year with him kicking.
Chilly Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 It makes me think of the Sabres post lockout, when they took advantage of some rules changes (or changes in emphasis) and really surprised a lot of people. It seems like by making our biggest FA signing a glorified KR, we've kind of done the opposite. Brad Smith signing was to take advantage of the new QB rules.
Beerball Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 Brad Smith signing was to take advantage of the new QB rules. I'm not so sure about that. He could have been carried as a RB, WR, KR, PR and still have had packages where he played QB.
Doc Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 I'm not so sure about that. He could have been carried as a RB, WR, KR, PR and still have had packages where he played QB. If he was kept as a WR or RB, it eliminates a spot for someone else. The 3rd QB was almost always a filled position, but before was never active unless he had to come into the game.
ostlc77 Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 I'm not so sure about that. He could have been carried as a RB, WR, KR, PR and still have had packages where he played QB. it was because of the qb rule....there is no other way to look at it. by listing him as QB you basically add a roster spot.
Beerball Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 If he was kept as a WR or RB, it eliminates a spot for someone else. The 3rd QB was almost always a filled position, but before was never active unless he had to come into the game. So they've increased the game day roster (no sarcasm, I'm asking)? If not...makes no difference. He takes one roster spot and fills multiple roles.
Doc Posted August 13, 2011 Posted August 13, 2011 So they've increased the game day roster (no sarcasm, I'm asking)? If not...makes no difference. He takes one roster spot and fills multiple roles. No. In the past, the 3rd QB, which almost every team has, was only active if the first 2 QB's got injured (and if he entered before the 4th quarter, the 1st and 2nd QB couldn't re-enter the game). That rarely ever happened, meaning the 3rd QB was almost always inactive. The new rule is that the 3rd QB is active the entire game. So while not increasing the game day roster, it's increasing the number of active players.
Recommended Posts