Kick-Off Changes

[Friddeadine]

I wasn't able to watch all of the games today, but I saw several kick-offs and almost all of them seemed to be touchbacks, rarely returns. What were your experiences with the new rule? I know there was a lot of talk about it in advance, but do now that you have seen some action, do you think it takes a lot away from the game?

fred

[Gunsdontkill_Bullitdoes]

I wasn't able to watch all of the games today, but I saw several kick-offs and almost all of them seemed to be touchbacks, rarely returns. What were your experiences with the new rule? I know there was a lot of talk about it in advance, but do now that you have seen some action, do you think it takes a lot away from the game?

fred

While I dont like the amount of touchbacks because it takes away a certain element of Football. Plain and simple it will reduce the number of injuries to our players. Less Colt injuries = more winning. And, all of us would love another Colt Superbowl this year.

[cokomenow]

Over time, if the rule is continued, it will be something football fans could learn to live without. However, I think taking away kickoffs/kickoff returns, it completely takes away the 3rd and often unappreciated element of football - Special Teams. You might still have your punts and your field goals, but kickoffs are the crux of the special teams. It is a dynamic that certain teams can use to their advantage; what would football be without exploiting all the tiny intricacies, trying to use anything and everything possible to your benefit? One could argue for the injury aspect, which is an unfortunate thing that happens in the NFL. But that is a price that the players must pay - they know what they are getting themselves into. What would football be without the "X-Factor", which makes opposing teams shudder. Don't you, as a football fan, look forward to the possibility of the confident play-making abilities of Devin Hester and Josh Cribbs? With this new rule that has been enforced, it seems like over 60% of all kickoffs will result in touchbacks. Then what is the point of having a kickoff? Just to give temporary respites in order to show commercials? Don't waste our time (as viewers) by teasing us with something we already know will happen (touchback). To me, I live for the opening kickoff of a Sunday night game, because there just might be a chance something big can happen - be it a touchdown, a bit hit, or even flashy across-the-field moves that result in no positive yardage. I love having the knowledge that any team can win a football game as long as they have the confidence, and the momentum going for them. This was diminished when the kickoff spot changed.

[eaglejoe8]

Terrible. 7 kickoffs in our game and only 1 return. They're trying to take away an exciting aspect of the game.

[Thewholefnshow28]

I absolutely despise the new rule change. They are taking away one of the most exciting plays in the entire game. Watching balls go out of the endzone or guys taking a knee is not exciting.

Not much comes close to watching fans get riled up as the kicker approaches the ball, the players running, and then watching a guy return it all the way for a touchdown.

[Rich Cannon]

yea this rule changes stinks but will help our crappy special teams lol

[Mrfox]

I think it will result in kickoff specialists, and the new thing will not to be trying to boot it out of the endzone, but to trying and get it high and arching giving the coverage a chance to get there and bounce around down it inside the 5 similar to what the punters try and do now.

[ViriLudant]

Hate it. I also find it contemptible that some will like it because their STs are so bad that it'll aid their team.

Talk about diluting.

By the way, Brent, on kickoffs, there's no way a kicker can kick it high and arcing and have it bounce. The receiving team puts two guys back there to field kicks, so the chance of a high kick bouncing is virtually nil.

[Friddeadine]

By the way, Brent, on kickoffs, there's no way a kicker can kick it high and arcing and have it bounce. The receiving team puts two guys back there to field kicks, so the chance of a high kick bouncing is virtually nil.

From what i understand he means that the coverage guys will "bounce" around the return guy, not the ball.

I know there were lots of injuries on kick-off returns, but so were there injuries during the usual plays. Football is a dangerous sport! No one asks kick-boxers to not aim at certain bodyparts just so the sport is less dangerous.

[Mrfox]

what I was getting at, is kick it high and shorter (not in the endzone), so it has hang time and allows coverage time to get down the field and stop either the ball from going into the endzone or the runner from advancing, with the intent being that the ball and the coverage guys get there about the same time. (like high arching punts)

[Friddeadine]

from my experience as a kicker, i don't think you can give it quite enough hangtime to actually be there at the same time as the ball arrives. but than again it will probably be enough to have the coverage at the twenty when the return guy gets the ball in order to get a good field position for your D.

[Coltswarriors]

I watched the very beginning of Seahawks/Chargers and all kickoffs went into the end zone, resulting in touchbacks. I don't like it personally, even though it does in a way benefit the Colts, because we were never able to have a dynamic kick returner.

Also, the reviewing of a TD after every play is kind of annoying.

[Coffeedrinker]

As a Colts fan, I like it. It will help Colts D quite a bit.

As an old school-football fan, I don't like it. What was that league the wrestling guys tried starting years ago? The XFL or or whatever. That was one thing, about the only thing, I liked about it, no fair catches, no touch backs.

As someone who likes to analyze the effect of things, I think this will lead to more onside kicks.

[ruksak]

They should've changed it so that touch-backs result in starting at the 15 instead of the 20. Give some incentive to run it out. Then again, the purpose and intent was to kill the return. Well, kinda. Whats off about this is teams that play outdoors, especially inclimate areas, will be returning and defending returns way more than indoor teams. It creates a different set of parameters for teams without a roof and that can't be good for the NFL.

I'm still waiting on an exact description of "unnecessary lunging". These rules are getting silly, and its all because of the money invested in players.

The rule regarding contact to a QB's helmet is a perfect example where the intent of a rule is molested into dysfunctionality. A finger swipe to the helmet is called a 15 yard penalty even though such a call violates the spirit of the rule. The spirit of the rule is sound, to protect a defenseless QB from being smacked/punched in the head, but they call even a casual, and accidental, swipe that couldn't kill a fly as the same.

When I see old 70's footage of Mel Blount clotheslining a defenseless receiver across the neck, I can see why rules needed to be introduced to protect players from essentially being assaulted by defenders. But the slippery slope has struck again, and we are getting 'powder puff' with my beloved game.

[Moose Of Woe]

Seeing as our special teams (both returning AND coverage) are both beyond atrocious I like it.

In the grand scheme of football I absolutely hate it and feel it waters down the game.

[eaglejoe8]

They should've changed it so that touch-backs result in starting at the 15 instead of the 20. Give some incentive to run it out. Then again, the purpose and intent was to kill the return. Well, kinda. Whats off about this is teams that play outdoors, especially inclimate areas, will be returning and defending returns way more than indoor teams. It creates a different set of parameters for teams without a roof and that can't be good for the NFL.

I'm still waiting on an exact description of "unnecessary lunging". These rules are getting silly, and its all because of the money invested in players.

The rule regarding contact to a QB's helmet is a perfect example where the intent of a rule is molested into dysfunctionality. A finger swipe to the helmet is called a 15 yard penalty even though such a call violates the spirit of the rule. The spirit of the rule is sound, to protect a defenseless QB from being smacked/punched in the head, but they call even a casual, and accidental, swipe that couldn't kill a fly as the same.

When I see old 70's footage of Mel Blount clotheslining a defenseless receiver across the neck, I can see why rules needed to be introduced to protect players from essentially being assaulted by defenders. But the slippery slope has struck again, and we are getting 'powder puff' with my beloved game.

That rule has been changed. It almost cost us the game against the Colts last year.

[Ryan Pelley]

Colts' fans should be happy. We won't have to witness ridiculously bad special teams play on both ends anymore.

[CR91]

seriously this league is becoming pathetic. guys like dick butkus, sam huff, and ray nitschke are shaking their heads in disgust.

[ruksak]

I'm going to say some things that will likely not sit well with many of you, but here it goes....

I like the change. One gripe I've heard for years is how kickers shouldn't affect the game so much. How many times have we seen, in big games, an offense execute a great 1:00 drill only to end up inside of FG range with only seconds left.....then the kicker shanks it (see 2005 Colts Divisional game).

The same could be said about the kick-offs. Poor kicking and sloppy special teams can murder offenses and defenses alike (again, see last years Colts divisional playoff). Special teams is exciting, but all too often it is random and one missed tackle by an ancillary special teams player sends HoF champions home for the season.

With this I have come to feel comfortable about the rule change. It will put the onus back on the offenses and defenses, the true components of football.

With little effort I have placed before you above, two examples of how special teams may have cost us two legitimate shots at SB titles.

I have never liked kick-offs. The very nature of the kick-off is random and wholly reliant on the play of guys that are perennially on the practice squad bubble.

Kick it, down it at the 20 and lets play football, not smear the _____. The rule change allows for a chance, albeit much less of one, for a return. That component is still intact, only now it is minimized.

[ViriLudant]

Horrible argument, Ruk.

STs and kick-offs are an integral part of the game , and always have been.

Watering them down is the second-most pansying down of the NFL, following all of the pass-happy rules that gave all the favoritism to the offense.

[ruksak]

STs and kick-offs are an integral part of the game , and always have been.

...and still are. Only now, the dynamic has changed. In many cases the kicking team can decide whether to allow a return or not. In many cases not. I would strongly argue that this rule change has added an entirely new dimension of strategy to the game, for both respective sides.

Watering them down is the second-most pansying down of the NFL

Explain in detail how this has watered down the returns? I think it has made them more challenging. Returners have exponentially gotten better, more athletic, faster and we've seen record TD returns over the last decade in men like Dante Hall and Devin Hester, Cribbs and even Sanders going back a little further. Tell me how returning a kick for 95 YDS and returning a kick for 105 YDS is any different, other than the added excitement involved?

....following all of the pass-happy rules that gave all the favoritism to the offense.

....which did what for the fans? Anyone under 60 tends to agree that this made the game funner to watch. Bronco Nagurski is dead, and so is the game he played. Good for that, well not the death of Bronco, but the one dimensional game that was his NFL. Defenses adjusted and we still see 10-6 scores every year.

I didn't like the 2 point conversion when it was added. I have grown to adore it.

Many people hated the instant reply when it was introduced. Heck, they're still working on it, but most fans have grown to demand this aspect now.

Change is a stubborn package to sell in sports, but it often breeds more than mere acceptance after time.

[Yehoodi]

I'm going to say some things that will likely not sit well with many of you, but here it goes....

I like the change. One gripe I've heard for years is how kickers shouldn't affect the game so much. How many times have we seen, in big games, an offense execute a great 1:00 drill only to end up inside of FG range with only seconds left.....then the kicker shanks it (see 2005 Colts Divisional game).

The same could be said about the kick-offs. Poor kicking and sloppy special teams can murder offenses and defenses alike (again, see last years Colts divisional playoff). Special teams is exciting, but all too often it is random and one missed tackle by an ancillary special teams player sends HoF champions home for the season.

With this I have come to feel comfortable about the rule change. It will put the onus back on the offenses and defenses, the true components of football.

With little effort I have placed before you above, two examples of how special teams may have cost us two legitimate shots at SB titles.

I have never liked kick-offs. The very nature of the kick-off is random and wholly reliant on the play of guys that are perennially on the practice squad bubble.

Kick it, down it at the 20 and lets play football, not smear the _____. The rule change allows for a chance, albeit much less of one, for a return. That component is still intact, only now it is minimized.

Ruksak, you mention STs and the '05 diviional game but forget to mention the '06 divisional game against Balt in which AV kicked 5 FGs, three of which where from over 40 yards. Furthermore, the colts were trailing in last years' WC game to the Jets and the colts offense was stopped, the only reason why colts even took the lead was due to their ST in which AV hit a 50 yard FG, I beleive a long for the year for AV. So if AV and the ST teams don't make that 50 yard FG, Sanchez is taking a knee and thus making the kick off return moot . . . so altho the ST "let" the colts down late in the game, the ST "put" the colts up in that same game . . . just saying . . .

I do think ST is important part of the team, 1/3 in my opinion, and to discount it I think it being harsh . . .if a team selects or trades for a good return man why should they be penaltized? . . . why should a team like the colts have a PM who single handley can have more of an impact on the game than say Chad Henne, it is fair that the colts have a signle player (PM) that can have more of an impact that his counterpart in Miami? If not, then why should not teams have a Cribbs whilst others have a lesser return man . . . so it kind of work both ways . . .

BTW, I love your Pepe le Pew avatar . . .

[ViriLudant]

...and still are. Only now, the dynamic has changed. In many cases the kicking team can decide whether to allow a return or not. In many cases not. I would strongly argue that this rule change has added an entirely new dimension of strategy to the game, for both respective sides.

Explain in detail how this has watered down the returns? I think it has made them more challenging. Returners have exponentially gotten better, more athletic, faster and we've seen record TD returns over the last decade in men like Dante Hall and Devin Hester, Cribbs and even Sanders going back a little further. Tell me how returning a kick for 95 YDS and returning a kick for 105 YDS is any different, other than the added excitement involved?

....which did what for the fans? Anyone under 60 tends to agree that this made the game funner to watch. Bronco Nagurski is dead, and so is the game he played. Good for that, well not the death of Bronco, but the one dimensional game that was his NFL. Defenses adjusted and we still see 10-6 scores every year.

I didn't like the 2 point conversion when it was added. I have grown to adore it.

Many people hated the instant reply when it was introduced. Heck, they're still working on it, but most fans have grown to demand this aspect now.

Change is a stubborn package to sell in sports, but it often breeds more than mere acceptance after time.

Huh?

You do realize that 99.9% of kick returners will take a knee if it's 5 yards deep in the endzone, right?

Kickoffs so far this preseason have now yielded 40% of touchbacks. Take into account that many teams right now are running back others in order to test out new schemes, etc., and the more likely % of touchbacks in normal circumstances would be 50-60%.

Boring.

The most exciting "definite" play in football is the kickoff. I say "definite" because it's the only play that will feature such speed every single time.

[GoPats]

Don't like this new rule at all.

This is a betting site, but has some interesting info: History of kickoff rule changes in NFL.

The year before the NFL moved the kickoff to the 30 yard line in 1994, there were touchbacks 27% of the time. Someone around that time must have realized what everyone was missing on more than a quarter of the overall returns that season.

Both kickoff returns and coverage offer teams with opportunities to make big plays, change momentum, etc.

And in this case, it's not like the NFL is doing something "new." This isn't the type of change that people just need to get used to. They're going back to something that was in place for 20 years, and was modified... for a reason, it seems.

[ruksak]

Ruksak, you mention STs and the '05 diviional game but forget to mention the '06 divisional game against Balt in which AV kicked 5 FGs, three of which where from over 40 yards.

Convenient of me wasn't it? L0L...

Look, I don't like kickers. I don't like FG's. I wouldn't complain a bit if they cut them out of the game altogether. Or at least lessened the FG to 1 point. I hate to see all the hard work and strategy inherent in todays NFL offenses and defenses get placed upon the foot of a tiny Venezuelan immigrant soccer convert. I have a certain appreciation for the FG, but more often than not I am not a fan of the FG.

I do think ST is important part of the team, 1/3 in my opinion, and to discount it I think it being harsh . . .if a team selects or trades for a good return man why should they be penalized? . . . why should a team like the colts have a PM who single handedly can have more of an impact on the game than say Chad Henne, it is fair that the colts have a signle player (PM) that can have more of an impact that his counterpart in Miami? If not, then why should not teams have a Cribbs whilst others have a lesser return man . . . so it kind of work both ways . . .

That was well said and much truth to it, I won't deny. I do not like the reason for the change. That being safety. I think its a cop-out to protect they're overpaid investments (players). Its more about the bottom line than actually protecting the careers of mostly ancillary players.

[ruksak]

Huh?

You do realize that 99.9% of kick returners will take a knee if it's 5 yards deep in the endzone, right?

Thats a gross exaggeration. Teams will roll the dice for a myriad of reasons by running it out. The old philosophy kept the returner bound to take a knee. With the rule change, even early in pre, we see teams putting their toes in the water and bringing it out, often with some success, in relation to advancing beyond the 20.

A team that needs a big play but has a stagnant, ineffective offense, but a great returner, will bring it out in hopes of shortening the field or scoring on a big return. To that end, I feel this rule change may enhance the excitement, rather than tether it as so many are fearful of.

The most exciting "definite" play in football is the kickoff. I say "definite" because it's the only play that will feature such speed every single time.

It is also the most random and empty-headed play in football. I require more strategy to wipe my bum-bum.

My singular greatest reason for supporting the new rule is, we will now see more onus placed upon the offense to operate as intended. By default, this drastic reduction of returns directly gives us, the fans, more offense vs defense football.

The only statistic that people are drumming up when invoking the last period in which we kicked off from the 35 has been in direct correlation to return averages and starting field position averages.

The lost statistics tied to the rule, that I simply cannot locate, is how this effects the numbers on offense and defense.

Less returns mean:

Less injury.

Less turnover.

More offense / More total YDS

It cannot be argued that the trade-off for less returns, which most often result in a guy sliding to the ground at the 19, is more offense. A trade-off that has due benefit for the fan.

Frankly, I don't like watching our return guy, Joe Blow, fumble the ball away from our offense and inherent possession toward the opposing team. Watching my QB take his helmet back off and reading the foulest of curse words upon his lips doesn't add much positive to the game for me.

GoPats wrote:

And in this case, it's not like the NFL is doing something "new." This isn't the type of change that people just need to get used to. They're going back to something that was in place for 20 years, and was modified... for a reason, it seems.

So much has changed in since then. Many rules have been tweaked to improve offense. The players are, overall, better athletes. The defensive schemes have changed accordingly.

I ask that people look beyond the obvious statistics regarding returns, and look deeper into how this correlates toward offense, number of possessions (less muffed returns) and how field position directly affects the quality of the game.

It will be interesting to see the final tally when the year is up, in regard to total returns for TD. But when we dig deeper and realize the effect this has on offense, I think many people will become converts toward acceptance of the change.

[Korey]

This rule was put into place just for the Colts lol