Touchbacks at the 25, automatic ejections happening

[JARROD]

Actually since they moved up to the 25, I think it's possible more kickers are instructed to kick to the 1 forcing a return. It's a better chance to stop them short of the 25 than the 20. 

So some teams will kick touchbacks, others with good kickoff teams will kick to the 1, and the opposite effect could happen.

Also, if you were the coach and you saw the other team sell out and put someone back there that sucks at returns,...wouldn't you kick it to the 1? 

just my thoughts

[O-Ther]

Both rules are only for this year. NFL wants to get rid of kickoffs, but then there would be no more onside kicks. They know teams could try more short and squib kicks to back their opponent behind the 25, and if this rule causes more injuries, it won't be there next year. Onside kicks are the big hang-up. How would you replace them?

The ejection rule for unsportsmanlike conduct doesn't give cover for the horrible refs in our game vs. Giants. Odell racked up personal fouls, not unsportsmanlike conducts. The refs already had the power to eject him, and they didn't. That's what I wanted fixed.

 

[stankowalski]

Kickoffs will eventually be phased out of the game entirely I believe, maybe even punt returns.  It's a lot easier to accomplish this with as little backlash as possible from fans when you do it incrementally.  I mean if they all of a sudden took away kickoffs and punts next year then that would turn off a lot of older fans.  The most exciting plays typically come from kickoffs and punt returns but they are also the most dangerous plays.

I truly believe that within the next 20 years kickoffs and punts will be done away with altogether.

[KillaCamNewton]

Maybe Im wrong but does anyone else see this as an opportunity for teams to NOT kick it out of the endzone and try to tackle the returner before the 25?

[NanuqoftheNorth]

Touchbacks being moved to the 25 yard line will cause more injuries not less as kickers will now attempt to keep the ball out of the end zone.

Panthers special teams tackling will need to vastly improve this year as teams will have more opportunities than ever to take it to the house.

[t96]

9 hours ago, MHS831 said:

The big problem I have is TV.  are we going to see a score--then 3 minutes of commercials---watch a kickoff get downed for 11 seconds----3 more minutes of commercials.  etc?

It's always been like that...

[t96]

13 hours ago, KB_fan said:

Somewhere I saw that Panthers' proposal on intentional grounding had been defeated.

What is this?

[iamhubby1]

15 hours ago, Riverboat Ron said:

I actually see more pooch kicks and high kicks instead of surrendering those 5 yards. Think this will result in more injuries.

 

Kasay was actually pretty good at this for a while there. High booming kicks that came down near the 5. Lots of hang time for the STers to get under it. We were good at keeping teams from getting good returns. Then his leg started to go, and the kick-offs were not getting high enough, or deep enough. Gano has the leg for it. High booming shorter kicks.

 

 

1 hour ago, thomas96 said:

What is this?

 

RR wanted the terminology tweaked. As it sits now. The ball has to be "Around" an eligible receiver. We lost some penalties because the QB would get away with throwing it away, where no one was "Around". RR just wanted the parameters tweaked. Define what "Around" is. Make it a call that the Defense earned with pressure.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, stankowalski said:

Kickoffs will eventually be phased out of the game entirely I believe, maybe even punt returns.  It's a lot easier to accomplish this with as little backlash as possible from fans when you do it incrementally.  I mean if they all of a sudden took away kickoffs and punts next year then that would turn off a lot of older fans.  The most exciting plays typically come from kickoffs and punt returns but they are also the most dangerous plays.

I truly believe that within the next 20 years kickoffs and punts will be done away with altogether.

It will be a shame if that happens for fans, but more so for players that make a living from being special teamers that otherwise might not be on a team's roster if the league does away with returns.

In a sense doing away with returns doesn't eliminate the risk of playing football. In fact, it is probably debatable which part of the game brings the greatest risk. Returns might leave players prone to being hit, but you don't see players stretchered off or eliminated from the game anywhere near as much as during the main part of the game. Offensive and defensive players go down injured, minor or major, most games. We see players taken off the field to be tested for concussions, we see O-Line and D-Line players get tangled up and players roll an ankle or tweak a muscle, and so on. There are ex-line men that probably never played special teams in the NFL that are now suffering from past knee injuries, or other injuries, or brain conditions (eg Conrad Dobler recently saying he has memory issues), or players from other positions that suffered from hits that affect their post football lives (eg Jarrod Cooper is 37/38 and battling CTE like symptoms).

Now sure, the players these days are paid well and know the risks of playing football. But there is more risk of doing long term harm to your body playing the main part of the game than playing special teams. If the league eliminates returns, they aren't going to magically change what happens during the main part of the game. The players that get hurt playing defense or offense are still going to get hurt. The only way to eliminate, or reduce these risks to a minimum, is to make it flag football. I hope that never happens, it won't happen (I think), but as long as the league stays as a physical game, there will always be a risk to player health now and in their post-football lives. All they can do is try to protect them as best as possible through better equipment and rule tweaks, but eliminating returns would only save special teamers from injury risks and potentially puts them out of a job if they are not good enough to play on offense or defense, it wouldn't help the players that spend most or all of their time on offense or defense.

[MHS831]

7 hours ago, thomas96 said:

It's always been like that...

 It sure has---since they moved up the kickoff--but at least you used to see something more than how far your kicker can/ boot it because the general rule seemed to be, if you can catch the ball with forward momentum, even if 5 yards deep in the end zone, you run it out.  There is little to be gained by doing that now.    If I am a special teams coach, I have to think this way:  If I can loft a high kick where they have to catch the ball inside the five or in that area, my coverage will get there and should be able to keep them from getting to the 25--so this could mean more returns and not fewer.  Just a thought. 

[t96]

15 hours ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

Kasay was actually pretty good at this for a while there. High booming kicks that came down near the 5. Lots of hang time for the STers to get under it. We were good at keeping teams from getting good returns. Then his leg started to go, and the kick-offs were not getting high enough, or deep enough. Gano has the leg for it. High booming shorter kicks.

 

 

 

RR wanted the terminology tweaked. As it sits now. The ball has to be "Around" an eligible receiver. We lost some penalties because the QB would get away with throwing it away, where no one was "Around". RR just wanted the parameters tweaked. Define what "Around" is. Make it a call that the Defense earned with pressure.

Gotcha. I know the rule is the ball has to be thrown at or about the line of scrimmage if no receiver is in the area, which is outrageous because guys like Wilson and Brady get away with grounding so much even when it doesn't make it to the LoS because of that ridiculous wording in the rule. Maybe it's that as well.

[iamhubby1]

1 minute ago, thomas96 said:

Gotcha. I know the rule is the ball has to be thrown at or about the line of scrimmage if no receiver is in the area, which is outrageous because guys like Wilson and Brady get away with grounding so much even when it doesn't make it to the LoS because of that ridiculous wording in the rule. Maybe it's that as well.

 

Yea. RR was just a tad upset about it. You rush the passer and get enough pressure for him to panic and throw the ball away. Great for the D. Except the QB gets bailed out with a BS "Close enough" call. And he claims we are not the only team that has had this effect their pass rush.

 

Get it down so that a Defense gets credit for what they do. Rush the passer and get pressure. And quit bailing out QBs that just get rid of the ball.

[Mr. Scot]

On 3/23/2016 at 11:45 AM, KBRed said:

If it were me, I'm purposely kicking to the 1 yard line to encourage a runner. The possibility to tackle someone pre-25 yard line is high, especially if I have a good special teams group. That's 5 yards closer to my endzone that I'm trying to defend. So, in turn...I see the opposite result of what they are looking for. 

That particular thought has crossed the mind of a lot of teams.

Even the guys who put the rule in acknowledge that what they did to try to cut down on kickoff returns might actually have the unintended effect of creating more of them.

[Mr. Scot]

23 hours ago, stankowalski said:

Kickoffs will eventually be phased out of the game entirely I believe, maybe even punt returns.  It's a lot easier to accomplish this with as little backlash as possible from fans when you do it incrementally.  I mean if they all of a sudden took away kickoffs and punts next year then that would turn off a lot of older fans.  The most exciting plays typically come from kickoffs and punt returns but they are also the most dangerous plays.

I truly believe that within the next 20 years kickoffs and punts will be done away with altogether.

Agree that's what they're trying to do, and no matter how incrementally it's done I'll still rage against it.