Buffalo03 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Posted March 22, 2019 22 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Gee....instead of dreaming up completely assinine rules, how about letting guys get a running start on kickoff teams to make onside kicks possible? Asinine? Really? I think people pretty much shut down any rule that the NFL tries proposing simply because they are afraid of change. There is nothing asinine about a 4th and 15 play
prissythecat Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 21 minutes ago, Bills2ref said: 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. Why would you use 256 as your denominator when not all of those games had an onside kick . Your math makes no sense. Percentage success is defined as # successful attempts / # total attempts.
Buffalo03 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Posted March 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: Kicking to the opposing team after a score is a basic football rule. Changing it by having a team being "forced" to put their defense back out goes against that basic concept. And?
quinnearlysghost88 Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 54 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said: Since the onside kick has become a near impossibility for the kicking team to recover, unless it's a surprise onside. They need to put in a rule that eliminates the onside kick and replace it with a 4th and 15. If a team scores they would have the option of kicking the ball off or having a 4th and 15 at their own 35 yard line. If they get the first down the drive keeps going like normal. If they fall short, the other team takes over where they missed from. They can even make it more interesting and make it to where each team only gets two 4th and 15's a game. This would be way better than doing an onside kick which has become nearly impossible for the kicking team to recover. Would anyone be on board with this? It's actually something Steve Tasker said that the NFL Competition committee has had discussions about in the past Last year, onside kick recoveries were at 8%. A 4th and 15 has a much higher % of conversion than recovering an onside kick. Questions: Why are we rewarded the losing team with another possession? What if the defense intercepts it and takes it in for a TD? Does that count? What if there is an illegal hands penalty? Are they awarded a first down? What if the offense takes a penalty? The defense can just decline and take the ball on the 35? Here's Slate's take on the rule. PS they mention on the team's own 30, not 35. https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/nfl-kickoff-rule-change-4th-and-15-play.html
pimp on da' net Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo03 said: Since the onside kick has become a near impossibility for the kicking team to recover, unless it's a surprise onside. They need to put in a rule that eliminates the onside kick and replace it with a 4th and 15. If a team scores they would have the option of kicking the ball off or having a 4th and 15 at their own 35 yard line. If they get the first down the drive keeps going like normal. If they fall short, the other team takes over where they missed from. They can even make it more interesting and make it to where each team only gets two 4th and 15's a game. This would be way better than doing an onside kick which has become nearly impossible for the kicking team to recover. Would anyone be on board with this? It's actually something Steve Tasker said that the NFL Competition committee has had discussions about in the past I like the 4th & 12 version starting at the 28 yd line used by AAF...one caveat any pass interference or illegal contact (5yd holding) are not automatic 1st down unless the infraction happens past the line to gain for a 1st down on the play.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said: Why are we rewarded the losing team with another possession? What if the defense intercepts it and takes it in for a TD? Does that count? What if there is an illegal hands penalty? Are they awarded a first down? What if the offense takes a penalty? The defense can just decline and take the ball on the 35? Here's Slate's take on the rule. PS they mention on the team's own 30, not 35. https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/nfl-kickoff-rule-change-4th-and-15-play.html What a horrible article. If...and this is a HUGE if...the NFL implements something like this, I'd have one foot out the door.
PetermansRedemption Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, prissythecat said: Why would you use 256 as your denominator when not all of those games had an onside kick . Your math makes no sense. Percentage success is defined as # successful attempts / # total attempts. 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 ? Edited March 22, 2019 by Bills2ref
Formerly Allan in MD Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 While you're at it, take the "foot" out of "football."
Buffalo03 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Posted March 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said: Last year, onside kick recoveries were at 8%. A 4th and 15 has a much higher % of conversion than recovering an onside kick. Questions: Why are we rewarded the losing team with another possession? What if the defense intercepts it and takes it in for a TD? Does that count? What if there is an illegal hands penalty? Are they awarded a first down? What if the offense takes a penalty? The defense can just decline and take the ball on the 35? Here's Slate's take on the rule. PS they mention on the team's own 30, not 35. https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/nfl-kickoff-rule-change-4th-and-15-play.html It's not another possession, it's another play with a shot at keeping possession if they convert. So just because they are losing they shouldn't get the chance to gain 15 yards on another play? Under that logic it makes no sense to even let them attempt an onside kick now because technically that gives them another chance at recovery and maintaining possession. Maybe the winning team should stop them on defense. It adds more excitement to the game. I don't know about you, but onside kicks are boring as hell to me unless it's a surprise onside and with the low recovery rate and all this preaching about player safety, eliminating it is the better option
nucci Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 I can understand the safety part but I miss kick returns and onsides kicks....I remember getting pumped up for the opening kickoff.....now it's just a touchback...takes away a bit of the excitement at the start
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said: It's not another possession, it's another play with a shot at keeping possession if they convert. So just because they are losing they shouldn't get the chance to gain 15 yards on another play? Under that logic it makes no sense to even let them attempt an onside kick now because technically that gives them another chance at recovery and maintaining possession. Maybe the winning team should stop them on defense. It adds more excitement to the game. I don't know about you, but onside kicks are boring as hell to me unless it's a surprise onside and with the low recovery rate and all this preaching about player safety, eliminating it is the better option Curious...are you under the age of 30?
prissythecat Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, Bills2ref said: 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 ? Ah so you really didn't have a point. Got it. I actually read the thread. You had stated early on that the onside kick was a zero percent proposition . But then someone correctly pointed out that last season about 8% of the onside kick attempts were successful so that immediately refuted your weak argument. Then to try to save yourself, you came up with a bogus stat comparing successful attempts to number of games played, something which no mathematician or statistician would ever do. That pretty much sum things up?
Buffalo03 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Posted March 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Curious...are you under the age of 30? No, I'm not. What does that have to do with anything? 1
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Buffalo03 said: No, I'm not. What does that have to do with anything? Because, you typically find these kind of opinions on the sport among young people without much experience in watching actual football.
Buffalo03 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Posted March 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: What a horrible article. If...and this is a HUGE if...the NFL implements something like this, I'd have one foot out the door. What I'm referring to is not like what is being described in this article. The article makes it sound as though the scoring team automatically gets the ball back. I'm not for that all. What I'm proposing is they can have the option of kicking it off or going for the 4th and 15 and it's only limited to two 4th and 15's a game so if you go for them earlier in the game you're basically screwed the rest of the way. The article is in no way what I'm referring to
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 Just now, Buffalo03 said: What I'm referring to is not like what is being described in this article. The article makes it sound as though the scoring team automatically gets the ball back. I'm not for that all. What I'm proposing is they can have the option of kicking it off or going for the 4th and 15 and it's only limited to two 4th and 15's a game so if you go for them earlier in the game you're basically screwed the rest of the way. The article is in no way what I'm referring to Oh. I see, so you wouldn't advocate for the removal of the kickoff. OK. I'd honestly like to see them go back to the original kickoff rules. Won't ever happen because the owners are cowardly, but hey.
Buffalo03 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Posted March 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Because, you typically find these kind of opinions on the sport among young people without much experience in watching actual football. I have plenty of experience of watching football. Have been since I was 5. I'm now 33. And the rule I'm proposing is not the same as what was proposed in the arricle posted above and it is a better option than the onside kick the way it is now
Gugny Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Because, you typically find these kind of opinions on the sport among young people without much experience in watching actual football. We're Bills fans. We haven't seen actual football since the 90s. 1
Buffalo03 Posted March 22, 2019 Author Posted March 22, 2019 7 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Oh. I see, so you wouldn't advocate for the removal of the kickoff. OK. I'd honestly like to see them go back to the original kickoff rules. Won't ever happen because the owners are cowardly, but hey. Yeah, no removing the kickoff would be extremely stupid. I would not watch the NFL anymore if they did that 1
Jay_Fixit Posted March 22, 2019 Posted March 22, 2019 1 hour ago, frostbitmic said: Restore the onsides kick to the way it used to be. They’re called Onside Kicks. Just like there is no such thing as Offside. It’s actually called offside.
Recommended Posts