Kickoffs

[Toledo Bill]

I have been frustrated for a long time on our decision to keep trying short kickoffs. I understand the logic that you are hoping to pin the other team deeper than the 25 but I am waiting for us to get burned on one of these for a touchdown. Kicking out of the end zone guarantees they have to start at the 25 and the risk/reward of these short kickoffs doesn’t seem worth it.

Curious if I am missing something.

[PatsFanNH]

The reward is pretty much gone, all they have to do is call for a fair catch and they get the ball at the 25.  So IMO the danger is the only possible outcome unless the other team isn’t smart enough to call fair catch. 

[Warcodered]

Haven't we put teams on shorter fields plenty of times doing this?

[NoSaint]

1 minute ago, PatsFanNH said:

The reward is pretty much gone, all they have to do is call for a fair catch and they get the ball at the 25.  So IMO the danger is the only possible outcome unless the other team isn’t smart enough to call fair catch. 

or they hold

 

or they fumble 

[GustheDog33]

Returns are hotbeds for penalties by the returning team, so perhaps the thought process is that if we can force a return we are likely to stop them near the 25 and maybe they will commit a penalty that will back them up further and maybe there is a muff or a fumble as well.  Just a thought.

[PatsFanNH]

Just now, NoSaint said:

or they hold

 

or they fumble 

The hold could still happen.. the fumble the same odds if it’s kicked into the end zone.. or do you mean tackled and fumble? I think the odds are very low on that.. 

[NoSaint]

3 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

The hold could still happen.. the fumble the same odds if it’s kicked into the end zone.. or do you mean tackled and fumble? I think the odds are very low on that.. 

 

I don’t know the stats, but yea, a returner fumbling. I’m not pretending it’s ultra common. just in evaluating the risk reward you can’t pretend the only variable is a long return and not a bad outcome for the returner. 

[ngbills]

McD is so risk averse yet he loves the risk of a long kickoff return. It is weird. 

[Big Turk]

29 minutes ago, Toledo Bill said:

I have been frustrated for a long time on our decision to keep trying short kickoffs. I understand the logic that you are hoping to pin the other team deeper than the 25 but I am waiting for us to get burned on one of these for a touchdown. Kicking out of the end zone guarantees they have to start at the 25 and the risk/reward of these short kickoffs doesn’t seem worth it.

Curious if I am missing something.

 

You are.  The teams typically aren't taking advantage of the rule that allows a fair catch to the 25 on any short kickoff...last night was only the 2nd or 3rd one I have seen in all the games I have watched this year.  Teams are still trying to return them for the most part.  Half the time they end up within 5 yards of where the TB spot would be.  Usually don't allow big returns, maybe 5% of the time.  The other times, they are stopped well short of the 25 or take a penalty which push them back. 

 

That's what the big advantage is...the chance a team will take a penalty which typically happens early in the return and is 10 yards from where the ball carrier was when the penalty occurred. 

[mrags]

The correct answer is to plan to kick the ball out of the end zone 100% of the time. This ensures you don’t give up a big play on game day. However, the kicker imo is that it enables you to spend less resources on special teams players like Matakevich, Neal, Kumerow (I know not this season) and utilize the roster spots, as well as salary cap, towards players that excel at skill positions rather than teams. If you think of it this way, if you spent the cap and roster space you are spending on Matakevich, you might actually have someone at LB in case of emergency when someone like Milano goes down and Williams isn’t playing as well as you hoped. Or for when you lose White for the season, Benford for a game, Elam can’t do anything right apparently, and then you are forced to sign a guy that’s been retired for a year in Josh Norman. 

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, mrags said:

The correct answer is to plan to kick the ball out of the end zone 100% of the time. This ensures you don’t give up a big play on game day. However, the kicker imo is that it enables you to spend less resources on special teams players like Matakevich, Neal, Kumerow (I know not this season) and utilize the roster spots, as well as salary cap, towards players that excel at skill positions rather than teams. If you think of it this way, if you spent the cap and roster space you are spending on Matakevich, you might actually have someone at LB in case of emergency when someone like Milano goes down and Williams isn’t playing as well as you hoped. Or for when you lose White for the season, Benford for a game, Elam can’t do anything right apparently, and then you are forced to sign a guy that’s been retired for a year in Josh Norman. 

 

Ah yes because kick off coverage is the only special team. 

[mrags]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Ah yes because kick off coverage is the only special team. 

Well. We had a punter that was able to kick it out of the end zone also but something happened to him. That’s over half the teams play. If you want to argue the use of special teamers in the return game. I have the same argument. Harty is getting paid over $5m a year and hasn’t done anything worthwhile at WR all year (minus a TD that just about anyone could have had). Other than last night he hasn’t done anything particularly impressive in the return game. And half the returns he made last night that were decent were called back due to penalties. Better off saving the cap, and roster space for someone like a decent WR. Having literally anyone out there waving their hand and letting the punt go into the end zone. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, mrags said:

Well. We had a punter that was able to kick it out of the end zone also but something happened to him. That’s over half the teams play. If you want to argue the use of special teamers in the return game. I have the same argument. Harty is getting paid over $5m a year and hasn’t done anything worthwhile at WR all year (minus a TD that just about anyone could have had). Other than last night he hasn’t done anything particularly impressive in the return game. And half the returns he made last night that were decent were called back due to penalties. Better off saving the cap, and roster space for someone like a decent WR. Having literally anyone out there waving their hand and letting the punt go into the end zone. 

 

But they didn't sign Harty to be a returner. They signed him to play receiver. There wasn't even a vacancy at returner at the time they signed him. I don't disagree he isn't playing to the value of the contract. But they signed him because they thought he was a decent receiver. Just bad talent evaluation from Beane.

[mrags]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

But they didn't sign Harty to be a returner. They signed him to play receiver. There wasn't even a vacancy at returner at the time they signed him. I don't disagree he isn't playing to the value of the contract. But they signed him because they thought he was a decent receiver. Just bad talent evaluation from Beane.

Well. It’s basically the same thing. The argument that someone isn’t good enough for a skill position. I have been against him from the start. So far last night was the only time I’ve been impressed. Unfortunately half of his decent returns were negated by flags. I don’t remember who got the flags, but I hope it wasn’t other special teamers brought on this team taking up roster spots by skill players. 

[lookylookyherecomescookie]

serious, not sarcastic-

    How about on kick-offs, kick into the end zone

                        on kick returns, fair catch

                         on punts, punt out of bounds, as was very common years ago

                          on punt returns, fair catch

    you are now down to only needing special teamers on field goal attempts and PAT's

 benefits would be more flexible  roster management, fewer injuries, fewer penalties

 cost would be some loss of yardage in the punt game, I don't honestly know how much, and would hope teams have done an analysis so they could weigh these                  costs  vs. benefits

        

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, mrags said:

Well. It’s basically the same thing. The argument that someone isn’t good enough for a skill position. I have been against him from the start. So far last night was the only time I’ve been impressed. Unfortunately half of his decent returns were negated by flags. I don’t remember who got the flags, but I hope it wasn’t other special teamers brought on this team taking up roster spots by skill players. 

 

You are just wrong on special teams. You might be right on Harty not being any good. But they didn't bring him here to play special teams.

[mrags]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You are just wrong on special teams. You might be right on Harty not being any good. But they didn't bring him here to play special teams.

Yes. I understand he was not brought here specifically for that. But he did do it previously. It would be dumb if they didn’t take it into account. 
 

regardless, it’s not the argument. The argument is spending money and roster spots on guys for special teams. A facet of the game that the league is systematically removing. 
 

save the money. Save the roster spaces. Get some kick &$$ kickers and punters that regularly kick it out of the back of the end zone and take your chances. 
 

yes, I know special teams with downing punts is a big reason for our success last night. Whoop-de-do

[LABILLBACKER]

I have no problem with this strategy as long as Bass gets the ball high enough.  The problem I'm starting to see (especially last night) is how slow our punt coverage is getting down field to the ball. It tool Neal days to finally get to that perfect kick by Martin.  Giving Baker an extra 18 yards.

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, ngbills said:

McD is so risk averse yet he loves the risk of a long kickoff return. It is weird. 

my guess is that the numbers reveal  long returns aren’t super common. Offenses move the ball anyway and that the turnover or penalty prospect is just consistently a little more punishing than the return yardage 

[BillsUberAlles]

6 hours ago, ngbills said:

McD is so risk averse yet he loves the risk of a long kickoff return. It is weird. 

 

Statistics do not bear this opinion out.