San Jose Bills Fan Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 If taken to the logical extreme, we'd eventually end up with one really strong guy representing each team. facing each other in a contest of physical perserverance. Of course there would be a football involved. And the field could probably be made smaller too.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 24, 2012 Author Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Barbarian, my good man, if YE OLE is following what you are saying, your logic dictates that field goals are not a necessary evil and can be abolished, because teams can simply go for it on 4th down and create more excitement in the game. If that is the case, why is the same not true for punters? Why would the punt be a necessary evil? Couldn't teams simply go for it on 4th down, therefore creating more excitement in the game? No the point of no kickers is to not allow kicking to score the rest of the game would be the same. Having to go for it on say 4rth and 20 on your side of the field would be exciting but very bad strategy. I don't want to change the game to be more exciting even though it would, the point is to having scoring only done by running or throwing the ball. (and safeties) If taken to the logical extreme, we'd eventually end up with one really strong guy representing each team. facing each other in a contest of physical perserverance. Of course there would be a football involved. And the field could probably be made smaller too. This is how the UFC got started Edited November 24, 2012 by Buffalo Barbarian
Chandemonium Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) I'd like to see more kicking to score. The name of the game is football, after all, so on every scoring play you should be required to touch the ball with your foot. I propose that teams can elect to kick a field goal at any time, just like they can now. Instead of getting 6 points automatically for crossing the goal line, they earn 3 kicks. The first 2 are uncontested free kicks from 40 yards out for 3 points each, and the 3rd would be the extra point attempt as it currently exists. If a team elects to go for a 2 point conversion, the final kick would be a 40 yarder which the opponent has the opportunity to block. To add strategy and prevent teams from going for 2 every time, the kicking team is only allowed to have 9 players on the field, while the team attempting to block the kick gets 11, making blocks more likely. Kickoffs after scoring plays would work the same as they do now. if you reach the endzone and then fail to convert all three of your kicks, therefore getting 0 points, it is an automatic touchback for your opponent. Edited November 24, 2012 by Chandemonium
San Jose Bills Fan Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Seriously, there should be no ties in football. As in some other sports, if the game is tied after overtime, they should have a shootout to decide the winner. The teams could take turns attempting contested field goals from say the 30 yard line (47-48 yard FGA).
NoSaint Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Seriously, there should be no ties in football. As in some other sports, if the game is tied after overtime, they should have a shootout to decide the winner. The teams could take turns attempting contested field goals from say the 30 yard line (47-48 yard FGA). How would that make sense if he was eliminated from the rest of the game? We'd have to carry one just for ties? Or would brad smith do it?
Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 24, 2012 Author Posted November 24, 2012 Seriously, there should be no ties in football. As in some other sports, if the game is tied after overtime, they should have a shootout to decide the winner. The teams could take turns attempting contested field goals from say the 30 yard line (47-48 yard FGA). ... by using college rules for Over Time
Astrobot Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Bill Chickweed agrees about extra points, http://bit.ly/mSyaAi San Diego State eliminates punts, http://collegespun.com/national/san-diego-state-getting-rid-of-the-punt
Just Jack Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Seriously, there should be no ties in football. As in some other sports, if the game is tied after overtime, they should have a shootout to decide the winner. The teams could take turns attempting contested field goals from say the 30 yard line (47-48 yard FGA). Too close, make it the 40.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 24, 2012 Author Posted November 24, 2012 Bill Chickweed agrees about extra points, http://bit.ly/mSyaAi San Diego State eliminates punts, http://collegespun.c...rid-of-the-punt and so it begins :devil:
benderbender Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 It seems like the prevailing attitude is to create a different sport. But it's mostly sounding like arena football mixed with the 90's American Gladiators tv show.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Bill Chickweed agrees about extra points, http://bit.ly/mSyaAi Bill Chickweed? I wouldn't put too much credence into his football opinions. Isn't he the guy who was hanging out with Ken Kesey and the Grateful Dead up in those hills near La Honda?
RkFast Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 This thread wins. What it wins I'm not sure of. But it definitely wins
KRT88 Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Why do you want kickers determining the outcome of the game? but you don't care if some idiot WR or a pass interference for breathing near a WR determines a game? Why do we want to mess with what is not broken?
Offside Number 76 Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Want to know when NOT to punt?! Dammit, Chan. If you punted: At best, you were getting the ball at your own 30 or so with Fitz and 48 seconds. At worst, you were going to never see the ball again. If you didn't punt: At best, you gained a first down. At worst, you got the ball back on your 10, with Fitz and 48 seconds. You dig? Idiotic. !@#$ing idiotic. You're 4-6. YOU GO FOR IT YOU !@#$ING MORON. You're not on the cusp of the playoffs; you need to be aggressive to make the playoffs. You needed to !@#$ the Colts today; you chose to make gentle love instead. EDIT: and now, you're 4-7, smart guy. Edited November 26, 2012 by Offsides Number 76
Buffalo Barbarian Posted November 26, 2012 Author Posted November 26, 2012 This thread wins. What it wins I'm not sure of. But it definitely wins thread of the year !!!!! Want to know when NOT to punt?! Dammit, Chan. If you punted: At best, you were getting the ball at your own 30 or so with Fitz and 48 seconds. At worst, you were going to never see the ball again. If you didn't punt: At best, you gained a first down. At worst, you got the ball back on your 10, with Fitz and 48 seconds. You dig? Idiotic. !@#$ing idiotic. You're 4-6. YOU GO FOR IT YOU !@#$ING MORON. You're not on the cusp of the playoffs; you need to be aggressive to make the playoffs. You needed to !@#$ the Colts today; you chose to make gentle love instead. EDIT: and now, you're 4-7, smart guy. Wrong thread?
Offside Number 76 Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 RIght thread. It's the one about punts, right?
Recommended Posts