Should have attempted blocked punts?

[Numark3]

I was curious about this, and was talking to a friend about this during the game.  On punts, the snow was essentially playing the role of the punt returner.  In the sense the ball was not rolling, and dropping dead when it hit the ground.  Muffing the ball was also a concern on punt returns.  On the other side of the punt plays, teams were taking a longer time to get the punt off it seemed, and chances of the punter muffing the snap are increased in the snow.

 

So why not have no punt returner and attempt to block the punts with an extra man rushing?  Am I clueless or decent idea?  Not saying the bills should have done this, just football discussion. 

[cage]

I was tweeting exactly that during the game.  There was no return game on, fair catches could only be muffed and the ball basically stuck wherever it dropped without a roll.  Other than accounting for outside gunners I would have rushed everyone else and put nobody back to receive...#NeededSTInnovation

[Fadingpain]

Seems to have some merit.  On a number of punts, our strategy clearly was "don't catch it and then just get out of the way"...so sure, why not load up the LOS and go for a block?

 

On a few punts the ball did bounce and continue beyond its point of impact, but on a number the ball just stopped dead on contact, like "bean bag" as Tasker said on the broadcast.

 

 

[ticketssince61]

On a similar vein, at the end of regulation, the colts, instead of running plays, should have been clearing an area for Vinatieri or taking the ball in front of the hash marks where the snow was cleared.

 

On the missed FG, he did not have nearly as clean a surface as on the extra point

 

 

[Buffalo716]

Because punt blocking is a 100% effort play...

 

high effort + snow= crashing into punter and a personal foul

[Wayne Arnold]

53 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

I was curious about this, and was talking to a friend about this during the game.  On punts, the snow was essentially playing the role of the punt returner.  In the sense the ball was not rolling, and dropping dead when it hit the ground.  Muffing the ball was also a concern on punt returns.  On the other side of the punt plays, teams were taking a longer time to get the punt off it seemed, and chances of the punter muffing the snap are increased in the snow.

 

So why not have no punt returner and attempt to block the punts with an extra man rushing?  Am I clueless or decent idea?  Not saying the bills should have done this, just football discussion. 

 

38 minutes ago, cage said:

I was tweeting exactly that during the game.  There was no return game on, fair catches could only be muffed and the ball basically stuck wherever it dropped without a roll.  Other than accounting for outside gunners I would have rushed everyone else and put nobody back to receive...#NeededSTInnovation

 

Big roughing the punter risk. You can't slow down.

[eSJayDee]

I think the one thing you have going against you is that the punts were not getting off THAT much slower.  Snaps were about the same; punters only slightly slower w/ their approach.  I'd say maybe 0.2, 0.3 seconds tops.  The rushers ability to accelerate & rush I think would be dramatically slowed.  Coupled that w/ the increased likelihood of losing your footing & running into the kicker, don't really think it was worth it. 

Also, punting isn't the weapon that it usually is.  Both punters netted high 30s, which I think was VERY good given the conditions.  Normally, not restricted my distance, a good punt you hope to net almost 50.

[PolishDave]

2 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

I was curious about this, and was talking to a friend about this during the game.  On punts, the snow was essentially playing the role of the punt returner.  In the sense the ball was not rolling, and dropping dead when it hit the ground.  Muffing the ball was also a concern on punt returns.  On the other side of the punt plays, teams were taking a longer time to get the punt off it seemed, and chances of the punter muffing the snap are increased in the snow.

 

So why not have no punt returner and attempt to block the punts with an extra man rushing?  Am I clueless or decent idea?  Not saying the bills should have done this, just football discussion. 

 

We were talking about this during the game today at the stadium.   Seems like it would have made a lot of sense to go after the punters more when you had basically zero intention of catching or returning a punt.   Thought maybe they would have realized it and made the change at half time.  Would have been somewhat innovative thinking.   Oh well.   Glad we got the win.

[Numark3]

1 hour ago, eSJayDee said:

I think the one thing you have going against you is that the punts were not getting off THAT much slower.  Snaps were about the same; punters only slightly slower w/ their approach.  I'd say maybe 0.2, 0.3 seconds tops.  The rushers ability to accelerate & rush I think would be dramatically slowed.  Coupled that w/ the increased likelihood of losing your footing & running into the kicker, don't really think it was worth it. 

Also, punting isn't the weapon that it usually is.  Both punters netted high 30s, which I think was VERY good given the conditions.  Normally, not restricted my distance, a good punt you hope to net almost 50.

 

But it wasn't just that the punts were getting off slightly, it is also ripe for muffed snaps or mistakes under pressure.  Good points about the potential penalties though, that type of penalty is always a backbreaker.

[SinceThe70s]

Whether it's overloading to block a punt or some other way to exploit the conditions, we should definitely have something up our sleeves for these games.