2016 NFL THREAD - Super Bowl 51 - Patriots' Day: V - Screw Goodell

[cramx3]

I don't generally like monkeying with rules, especially those that alter longstanding mechanics of the game.  The touchback rule falls squarely into that category.  But that said, that is an interesting one, and I kinda like it because I think it will result in fewer kicks out of the back of the endzone, which means more actual returns, which means more fun.

I think this is kind of the opposite. It moves where you start with the ball after you take a touchback from the 20 out to the 25, giving teams less of an incentive to attempt a return.

I think what Bosk1 is on to is that by moving the ball to the 25 after a touchback, they could tempt some of the teams to explore kicking it in front of the endzone so they don't have to yield a quarter of the field before the first play. It's a matter of the kickers being able to place the ball, even though that's much trickier to do for them than it is for punters for multiple reasons. I could see the Pats or Steelers toying with this idea.

I'm more aligned with axeman in thinking this is going to create less returns, hence why the NFL is saying this is a safety rule change.

[El Barto]

Nobody is going to kick short rather than give up a 25 yard touchback. Not only do you give the returner an extra 5-10 yards, but you give your coverage guys less time to develop containment. This rule honestly makes no sense to me.

As for the ejection thing, I tend to agree with Bosk. I'd rather see a player ejected on the first foul if it's flagrant and deliberate (Burfict). Let the refs exercise some discretion, but nudge them int he direction of being more assertive in that area. An interesting aspect of this will be on the coaches. Maybe if he knows that his star player is fixing to get himself bounced Tom Coughlin's silly ass sits down ODBJr for a quarter to let him cool off. Maybe Marvin Lewis's even sillier ass demonstrates some freaking discipline before his cadre of numbskulls blow their season.

[cramx3]

As for the ejection thing, I tend to agree with Bosk. I'd rather see a player ejected on the first foul if it's flagrant and deliberate (Burfict). Let the refs exercise some discretion, but nudge them int he direction of being more assertive in that area. An interesting aspect of this will be on the coaches. Maybe if he knows that his star player is fixing to get himself bounced Tom Coughlin's silly ass sits down ODBJr for a quarter to let him cool off. Maybe Marvin Lewis's even sillier ass demonstrates some freaking discipline before his cadre of numbskulls blow their season.

The problem is you are asking the ref to make a ruling on "intention" in that case vs. following a set of rules (the NFL's new rule).  I think it makes it more clear and easy for the refs to make the ejection decision this way, although this is not a perfect solution either.  The college rules have the refs make a call on "intention" on dirty hits and players get ejected for what is sometimes not really a dirty play.  I kind of like the written rule approach, everyone knows where they stand.  If you get one, you need to be on better behavior.

[hefdaddy42]

I agree.  The less left to discretion, the better. 

Kind of like 2 technical fouls = an ejection in basketball.

[El Barto]

While you're supporting the removal of discretion in this instance, it's still applicable in the calls that matter. How many times do we see a flag for a late hit on the QB that's highly questionable? That will almost certainly be one of the personal fouls that count towards the two.  A questionable late hit, plus a collision with a short-fuck receiver who puts his head down so low it's impossible to avoid and a player is out. Sort of like the guy who gets a life sentence for stealing $14 worth of video tapes.

[cramx3]

While you're supporting the removal of discretion in this instance, it's still applicable in the calls that matter. How many times do we see a flag for a late hit on the QB that's highly questionable? That will almost certainly be one of the personal fouls that count towards the two.  A questionable late hit, plus a collision with a short-fuck receiver who puts his head down so low it's impossible to avoid and a player is out. Sort of like the guy who gets a life sentence for stealing $14 worth of video tapes.

Maybe I am wrong or maybe this isnt the full list (wording implies it is not the full list) but from the linked article

Those categories include throwing a punch at or kicking an opponent; taunting; and using abusive, threatening or insulting language or gestures.

So doesn't sound like roughing the passer is included.  But I get what you are saying, there is plenty of judgement calls as is.

[King Postwhore]

As soon as they start red cards, we'll start to see diving. Just throw the guy out when doing anything deliberate.

[hefdaddy42]

While you're supporting the removal of discretion in this instance, it's still applicable in the calls that matter. How many times do we see a flag for a late hit on the QB that's highly questionable? That will almost certainly be one of the personal fouls that count towards the two.  A questionable late hit, plus a collision with a short-fuck receiver who puts his head down so low it's impossible to avoid and a player is out. Sort of like the guy who gets a life sentence for stealing $14 worth of video tapes.

Maybe I am wrong or maybe this isnt the full list (wording implies it is not the full list) but from the linked article

Those categories include throwing a punch at or kicking an opponent; taunting; and using abusive, threatening or insulting language or gestures.

So doesn't sound like roughing the passer is included.  But I get what you are saying, there is plenty of judgement calls as is.

This, they aren't looking for "regular" personal fouls under this rule.

[El Barto]

If that's the case then alright. However, should it take a second instance of throwing a punch?

[cramx3]

If that's the case then alright. However, should it take a second instance of throwing a punch?

Probably not if you ask me.

[cramx3]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/nfl-essentially-eliminates-return-kickoffs-105200009.html

In 2012, the NCAA moved the kickoff to the 35-yard line instead of the 30-yard line (something the NFL did in 2011) and made the same 25-yard line touchback rule. It's difficult to compare the NCAA to the NFL considering the wide range of talent among kickers and returners, but after one year touchbacks increased from 15.2 percent to 34.8 percent.

and

The first rule is something that has been covered extensively and was expected to pass — automatic ejection of a player who receives two unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in a game. Coaches were opposed to the automatic ejection penalty, but owners seem to like the idea.

[hefdaddy42]

If that's the case then alright. However, should it take a second instance of throwing a punch?

It shouldn't, but it has at times.

I think that the NFL is erring on the side of caution here.  The game is violent enough on its own, with enough risk of injury, without fucktards intentionally trying to hurt other players by punching/kicking/whatever.  The way I understand it, the refs will still have authority to toss someone at any time like they do now, if the offense is egregious enough, but two such penalties will be an automatic ejection.

Also, this is a one-year trial, like the 25 yard line thing.  If it doesn't work out for whatever reason, they will chuck it the next year.

[KevShmev]

I don't like the new rule about two unsportsmanlike penalties equalling an ejection, but from what I understand, personal fouls do not count as unsportsmanlike penalties, so that is good. I'd hate to see a DB get ejected from a game because he delivered a good hit that suddenly became bad because the WR lowered his head into it at the last minute.  Defenses already get screwed with 15-yard penalties on plays like that; no need for players to get tossed because of them, too.

I am fine with touchbacks coming out to the 25.  The reason is obvious: the NFL wants less returns out of the end zone, but good luck getting those bonehead returners who often think they can outrun everyone sideways to stop running them out.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Hopefully (for Browns fans) Hue can work his magic.


https://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15058201/cleveland-browns-sign-robert-griffin-iii

[hefdaddy42]

I foresee nothing but pain, blues, and agony.

[King Postwhore]

Man RGIII hates his career.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Man RGIII hates his career.

Denver was the best landing spot for him.... but apparently Elway and Kubiak didn't want any part of that. Can't say that I blame them.

[King Postwhore]

That has to be any other place that needs a QB than the Browns.

[KevShmev]

Man RGIII hates his career.

Denver was the best landing spot for him.... but apparently Elway and Kubiak didn't want any part of that. Can't say that I blame them.

I never bought any of the "RG3 might go to the Broncos" talk.  RG3 got along terribly with Shanahan, who is still pals with Elway and Kubiak, and, well, do the math. 

[Destiny Of Chaos]

I don't generally like monkeying with rules, especially those that alter longstanding mechanics of the game.  The touchback rule falls squarely into that category.  But that said, that is an interesting one, and I kinda like it because I think it will result in fewer kicks out of the back of the endzone, which means more actual returns, which means more fun.

 

I think this is kind of the opposite. It moves where you start with the ball after you take a touchback from the 20 out to the 25, giving teams less of an incentive to attempt a return.

I think what Bosk1 is on to is that by moving the ball to the 25 after a touchback, they could tempt some of the teams to explore kicking it in front of the endzone so they don't have to yield a quarter of the field before the first play. It's a matter of the kickers being able to place the ball, even though that's much trickier to do for them than it is for punters for multiple reasons. I could see the Pats or Steelers toying with this idea.

I'm more aligned with axeman in thinking this is going to create less returns, hence why the NFL is saying this is a safety rule change.

I came across an article on this:

Talking with some NFL coaches on Thursday, they want to use the "sky" kick more after this rule change. Put that thing up high in the air and drop it in the bucket near the goal line. Hey, even kick it to the corner and give yourself a bigger advantage. Nowhere to hide there. Let's go...

...This rule change -- designed, in theory, to limit returns even more -- will ironically end up having the opposite effect based on the coaches I've talked to.

https://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15064520/how-nfl-coaches-take-advantage-new-kickoff-rule

[pogoowner]

Personally, I think that strategy would backfire often enough that most coaches wouldn't do it.

[hefdaddy42]

Personally, I think that strategy would backfire often enough that most coaches wouldn't do it.

Exactly.  Trying for corner kicks is going to end with kicks going out of bounds just as often as not, meaning the offense will start on the 40 instead of the 25.  Not a good gamble.

Corner kicks are useful on punts, but not kickoffs.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

The article didn't mention the "coaches" that were interviewed. For all we know, they could be special teams coaches or assistants who have all of these ideas that will ultimately scrapped when the head coach walks in and says "Just boot the ball out of the back of the endzone and put our defense out on the 25".

We shall see. I'd like to see a few teams try to play with the options. Sure, worst case is the ball goes out of bounds and you start at the 40... but that's only 15 yards worse than what a touchback gets you. And while I get that it sucks to start at the 40, the question will be if the potential rewards (pinning them back deeper than the 25 or even having the kicking team recover a few kicks) will be worth the risk.

[hefdaddy42]

They won't.  15 yards don't mean much if you are talking from the 1 yard line to the 16 yard line.

Going from the 25 to the 40 is huge.  You may see a maverick try it once in a blue moon, but as S.O.P. no sane coach is going to risk that.

[cramx3]

If the idea is to kick the ball high enough to get air time, if it's enough time for the kicking team to get near the ball, you'll see fair catches which is a win for the kicking team (and the NFL for no return), but I can't recall ever seeing that.

[King Postwhore]

[El Barto]

How terrible it must be for the league. 

[King Postwhore]

I feel nothing but joy right now.

[Rattlehead]

Man RGIII hates his career.

Denver was the best landing spot for him.... but apparently Elway and Kubiak didn't want any part of that. Can't say that I blame them.

I never bought any of the "RG3 might go to the Broncos" talk.  RG3 got along terribly with Shanahan, who is still pals with Elway and Kubiak, and, well, do the math. 

Me neither. I also don't understand why Denver would go after Hoyer, McCown or Kaepernick after acquiring Sanchez unless Elway and Kubiak feel that Siemian is a long term solution, which I highly doubt. I'm really hoping we draft Paxton Lynch in the first round and let Sanchez start until he is ready.

[splent]

I've heard the 49ers are going to keep Kaep... Idk why...

I can't see any situation where Sanchez is the permanent starter for Denver. I think Elway is a little worried.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

I've heard the 49ers are going to keep Kaep... Idk why...

I can't see any situation where Sanchez is the permanent starter for Denver. I think Elway is a little worried.

Your second point kind of answers your first point. 49ers are keeping Kaepernick due to the sheer lack of depth at the QB position league wide. On top of that, he could be an ideal fit for Chip Kelly's system.

Denver can win a Super Bowl with Mark Sanchez. They just won it with a corpse.

[Rattlehead]

I've heard the 49ers are going to keep Kaep... Idk why...

I can't see any situation where Sanchez is the permanent starter for Denver. I think Elway is a little worried.

I don't think Elway's goal was to replace our QBs with a guy he was able to trade a conditional 7th round draft pick for. He obviously has another move in mind and I'm hoping it's drafting Paxton Lynch at the end of the first round. I wouldn't mind seeing them trade up into the 20s for him either, and it wouldn't bother me if Sanchez started some games next season if that is the route Elway is going in the draft.

[King Postwhore]

From looking outside they had a guy to run a team that is playoff bound every year.  He seemed upset from the benching the last game of the year. Now a team, playoff ready has no qb and that's not good.

[Rattlehead]

From looking outside they had a guy to run a team that is playoff bound every year.  He seemed upset from the benching the last game of the year. Now a team, playoff ready has no qb and that's not good.

We'll never know if he left because Houston was willing to overpay him or if it's because he really was that sour over a benching that lead to a Super Bowl win, or a combination of both. Regardless, Elway was put in a very tough spot and I wouldn't put it past him to get it figured out.

[El Barto]

I have to say, I'm pretty happy that the concussion thing is starting to blow up, and happier still that the owners are bungling it as badly as they are. After reading up on the infighting and conniving that has gone on over the last couple of years, with deflategate and the LA relocation being focal points, I've decided that collectively those people don't deserve what they have. Concussions are a big enough deal, with enough money on the line that it could actually pose an existential threat to the NFL, and this really doesn't bug me much. Whether or not the links to big tobacco are solid or not, there is a great deal of similarity in the way they're positioning themselves. Very bad people.

And it's just about time for Jerry Jones to die. It's the only way he stops being an active participant in the ownership cartel, and his presence is a big part of the reason they're so awful.