Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Josh Allen would absolutely eat if this came to fruition. 
 

The man loves 4th and 15+. Sometimes I think it’s easier for him to convert than 4th and 1. 

  • Agree 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted

I don't like it. It eliminates the possibility of a surprise onside kick, in the same way that the new PAT rule eliminates the possibility of a surprise two-point conversion. Sure, both are rare, but it's fun when it happens.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Josh Allen would absolutely eat if this came to fruition. 
 

The man loves 4th and 15+. Sometimes I think it’s easier for him to convert than 4th and 1. 

May be true, but it seems like our defense can't defend third and longs lately, so there is always that.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Would be great for Bills even though our kicker can also execute an onside kick 

 

1 hour ago, thenorthremembers said:

Didnt they bring up the same idea last year?  I think its stupid.   While picking up a 4th and 15 is rare, its more likely to happen than something like an onside kick.  In my opinion, if a team needs a miracle to win a game despite losing for 59 minutes, you dont change rules to make them more likely to have a chance.

 

 

This story is a year old.  Why is this guy tweeting it now?

 

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-to-vote-on-wild-rule-change-that-would-allow-a-fourth-and-15-onside-kick-alternative/

 

"A dramatic rule change pertaining to onside kicks could be coming to the NFL in 2020 if the league's owners vote to make it happen. The Eagles have proposed a rule that would give teams an alternative option to the onside kick. Instead of trying to recover an onside kick, teams would have the option of attempting to convert a fourth-and-15 play from their own 25-yard line"

 

Edited by Mr. WEO
Posted
2 hours ago, thenorthremembers said:

Didnt they bring up the same idea last year?  I think its stupid.   While picking up a 4th and 15 is rare, its more likely to happen than something like an onside kick.  In my opinion, if a team needs a miracle to win a game despite losing for 59 minutes, you dont change rules to make them more likely to have a chance.

 

The problem is they changed the kickoff rules that made an onside kick even MORE difficult to complete than it already was.  That is the real issue, not that the onside needs to be easier, its that they made substantially less likely than it had been throughout NFL history with the changes to the kickoff.  

 

Personally, I don't hate this idea, but I think 4th and 15 is too easy.  If they are going to go with a 4th and distance scenario, I think it should be more like 4th and 20 or 4th and 25.  Maybe limit the defense from being able to line all their guys up down filed around the 25 yard mark and make them play a normal D formation with only the safeties allowed to line up deep.

 

So I agree it should NOT be made to be so easy that it happens at too high of a rate, but it should also not be so hard that its super rare to convert.  

Posted
2 hours ago, coloradobillsfan said:

I don't like the idea.  I think onside kicks should be difficult and converting them a rare occurrence.  I want to see the better team win the game, not allow for more ways for lesser teams to upset them.  My .02 anyway

Anything that reduces the kicker's role in the game is something I can get behind!

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

The problem is they changed the kickoff rules that made an onside kick even MORE difficult to complete than it already was.  That is the real issue, not that the onside needs to be easier, its that they made substantially less likely than it had been throughout NFL history with the changes to the kickoff.  

 

Personally, I don't hate this idea, but I think 4th and 15 is too easy.  If they are going to go with a 4th and distance scenario, I think it should be more like 4th and 20 or 4th and 25.  Maybe limit the defense from being able to line all their guys up down filed around the 25 yard mark and make them play a normal D formation with only the safeties allowed to line up deep.

 

So I agree it should NOT be made to be so easy that it happens at too high of a rate, but it should also not be so hard that its super rare to convert.  

They did it to reduce injury. The old school onside kick -- particularly the scrum tactic -- had the highest rate of injury of any play in the league. I'm not for injuries.

 

I do think 4th and 15 is too easy. I'd make it 4th and 20.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, thenorthremembers said:

Didnt they bring up the same idea last year?  I think its stupid.   While picking up a 4th and 15 is rare, its more likely to happen than something like an onside kick.  In my opinion, if a team needs a miracle to win a game despite losing for 59 minutes, you dont change rules to make them more likely to have a chance.

 

Well, a few years back they did change the rules of how an onside kick needs to be executed....so why can't they change them again?

 

I like the 4th and 15 idea better than what they currently have but not as good as what they used to have.

 

Also, make this 4th and 15 play from your own 15 yard line. I hope they don't do it from the 35 where they kickoff from.

Edited by Beast
Posted
3 hours ago, thenorthremembers said:

Didnt they bring up the same idea last year?  I think its stupid.   While picking up a 4th and 15 is rare, its more likely to happen than something like an onside kick.  In my opinion, if a team needs a miracle to win a game despite losing for 59 minutes, you dont change rules to make them more likely to have a chance.

 

3 hours ago, coloradobillsfan said:

I don't like the idea.  I think onside kicks should be difficult and converting them a rare occurrence.  I want to see the better team win the game, not allow for more ways for lesser teams to upset them.  My .02 anyway


A contrarian thought: the onside kick is available throughout the game, not just at the end. Remember the Saints fooling Indy in the Super Bowl? Teams just don’t use it because it’s risky. What if the 4th and 15 rule is adopted and a good team (like the Bills) scores early and then uses this to really put pressure on an opponent? Sounds interesting. 

Posted
4 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I just don't like this rule. How about a 100 yard dash. Get your fastest guy up. Winner gets the ball on their own 20.

 

 


I liked the way the XFL did “kickoffs” in their initial season.  With the ball placed between them, One player from each team sprints to go get the ball.  Yeah, it was gimmicky but fun.

Posted
5 minutes ago, ColeB said:


I liked the way the XFL did “kickoffs” in their initial season.  With the ball placed between them, One player from each team sprints to go get the ball.  Yeah, it was gimmicky but fun.

Lol, it was. 

Posted
4 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Would be great for Bills even though our kicker can also execute an onside kick 

What are the numbers on third & 15ish yards? This seems to favor the team playing catch-up. Don’t like it.

Posted
4 hours ago, Doc said:

I'd say go back to the old onside kick rules.

They initially changed the rule "to protect" players from the extra collisions i believe.  Even if they wanted to, i dont think they can go back now.  Seems like thatd open them up to all sorts of scrutiny/ lawsuits down the road for deciding safety isnt important again.  I wish they could go back though, there was no reason to make it a lower % recovery than it already was

Posted
15 minutes ago, Beerball said:

What are the numbers on third & 15ish yards? This seems to favor the team playing catch-up. Don’t like it.

What about street basketball rules? Make it take it.

 

How about if your score a TD and 2 point conversion you keep ball. At least that would be exciting. No game would be over. Lol. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

OK, if this rule gets implemented the 4th and 15 should take place at the defending teams 15 yard line. Less field for the defending team to cover and makes it more difficult on the offense. Also, at the snap, the clock runs.

 

If successful, you get the ball on your own 35, where the kickoff takes place from.

Posted
5 hours ago, thenorthremembers said:

Didnt they bring up the same idea last year?  I think its stupid.   While picking up a 4th and 15 is rare, its more likely to happen than something like an onside kick.  In my opinion, if a team needs a miracle to win a game despite losing for 59 minutes, you dont change rules to make them more likely to have a chance.

 

Does it? I have no idea!  I'm sure there is enough analytics data out there that can tell you what the odds under the older system was and whatever the odds were just back up the distance until the odds are the same.  Maybe it's 4th and 23 produces the same chance of success, then go with that.

 

Admittedly I'm not sure I like this rule, but do think the current setup is practically impossible to succeed at, even though the Bills did.

Posted

I’m a big fan of this rule. While winning the game in the final minute shouldn’t be likely, it also should be impossible. Id also argue there’s far more luck than skill involved in the current onside kick format. Changing it to 4th and 15 shifts the needle closer to skill. 

5 hours ago, NewEra said:

Awful rule.  If they were to give the option of an offensive play, I feel it should be 4th and 25 at least, if not more.

But the reason of the rule would be to make it less impossible than an onside kick, not more. 4th and 25 and you might as well keep the current format. They didn’t arbitrarily pull the 15 yards out of thin air. It has very similar conversion percentages of the old onside kick I believe. 

×
×
  • Create New...