Something needs to be done, as they have made converting the onside kick too difficult.

With that said, the current proposal is not it. First, you are only allowed to do it twice in a game. I understand that you don't want a great offense to do it over and over and the opponent is constantly kept off of the field, but if that is possible then it is obviously the wrong concept. Secondly, as has been well covered in the media, the defense is at a tremendous disadvantage late in close games as they are more tired and likely to be unable to keep up. Drive 80 yards for a score and the defense is winded, then if you convert the 4th and 15 it is almost a guarantee you are going to be able to drive for another score, as they will be even more gassed.

Whatever the solution is, it needs to remain a Special Teams play...

(05-23-2020, 09:04 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Something needs to be done, as they have made converting the onside kick too difficult.

With that said, the current proposal is not it.  First, you are only allowed to do it twice in a game.  I understand that you don't want a great offense to do it over and over and the opponent is constantly kept off of the field, but if that is possible then it is obviously the wrong concept.  Secondly, as has been well covered in the media, the defense is at a tremendous disadvantage late in close games as they are more tired and likely to be unable to keep up.  Drive 80 yards for a score and the defense is winded, then if you convert the 4th and 15 it is almost a guarantee you are going to be able to drive for another score, as they will be even more gassed.

Whatever the solution is, it needs to remain a Special Teams play...

It should be difficult. That is what the best should be able to do to overcome to win the game.

This would just make the great play lesser and lesser and lessen the game.

I dislike it, gets rid of the hail mary and everything that makes the game great and entertaining and just fixes the game more.

The refs can just call a PI and the other team will have the ball...

(05-23-2020, 09:15 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote:
It should be difficult. That is what the best should be able to do to overcome to win the game.

This would just make the great play lesser and lesser and lessen the game.

I dislike it, gets rid of the hail mary and everything that makes the game great and entertaining and just fixes the game more.

The refs can just call a PI and the other team will have the ball...

The onside kick has always been difficult, but it's now damn near impossible because of the changes to the kick off rules.  Whatever the solution is needs to have a conversion rate similar to what the onside kick was prior to the kickoff changes, i.e. chances are you won't convert, but not so bad you aren't even willing to try.

This rule is just going to make the dominant teams more dominant and the bad teams worse. There will be more blow outs. I vote no.

(05-23-2020, 07:12 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: Are there just a bunch of yuppies coming up with these ideas in sports these days? People want to feel important so badly that they will eventually change these sports into something entirely different then what they originally were. How about base runners in baseball ride bicycles and WR’s can be on horseback? Seriously, they want to change something every single year. There’s also the behind the scenes things they change too, the balls change.... when is it ever good enough?

(05-23-2020, 08:36 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: It needs to stop.

Yuppies?

WTF are you drama queens crying about.  There have been changes to the game constantly for the entire life of the game.  Did yuppies make the forward pass legal?  Did they invent face maskes?  Did  they move the goalposts from the goal line to the back of the end zone?  

In 1977 Bert Jones led the league with 2800 passing yards, and the league average was 141 passing yards per game.  Ken Andersons 69.7 passer rating was good for 9th in the league.  After that season the NFL changed the rules so that a defender could no longer maintain physical contact with a receiver more than 5 yards past the line of scrimmage.  It revolutionized the game and changed it into what we like to watch today.  If the yuppies were responsible for that then I want to thank them.

This current rule proposal is a tiny change that effects way less than 1% of the plays in a season and people are comparing it to baseball players riding horses?

And WTF do "yuppies" have to do with any of this?

(05-23-2020, 04:17 PM)Jason_NC Wrote: Especially under the new "safety" rules.  That's why they are proposing this.

I wouldnt consider the traditional onside kick a "unsafe" play. 

(05-23-2020, 09:34 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: The onside kick has always been difficult, but it's now damn near impossible because of the changes to the kick off rules.  Whatever the solution is needs to have a conversion rate similar to what the onside kick was prior to the kickoff changes, i.e. chances are you won't convert, but not so bad you aren't even willing to try.

I agree, the chances of converting an onside kick before the rule changes were a little higher, but not much.  Under the old rules, a team with momentum at least felt like they had a realistic chance of recovery, by overloading one side and performing some determined execution.  Under the current rules, it's more in the chances of a "lucky hop", or hoping for a human error on the part of the receiving team.

I'm not sure that the "4th and 15" proposal is the right solution, but I do agree that something needs to be done, to give team's mounting a comeback a fair chance of doing so.  

I kind of liked the XFL's approach to XP's, with the 1,2, and 3 point options.  However, I also don't want to see the kicking aspect of the game phased out, either.  What would be wrong with allowing XP kicks from greater distances, for higher point values?  We're currently at 35 for 1 point, and it has (in my opinion) made the XP a bit more exciting, as it's no longer "automatic".  Along those same lines, why not provide the option of a 2 point kick from 45, and a 3 point kick from say 52 yards?

Thoughts?

(05-24-2020, 10:55 AM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: I wouldnt consider the traditional onside kick a "unsafe" play. 

It is a very unsafe play.

The kicking team is literally running to blow up the guy in front of him in hopes that it leaves the designated teammate free to grab the ball.  The same goes for the receiving team who is attempting to leave the designated hands guys free to come down with it unmolested and get to the ground.

I recall hearing on the radio that most onside kick plays lead to injuries.  Most of the time it is not noticed by the fans as it happens late in the game, when the cameras suddenly focus on the coaches and QB discussing what to do next.  Then, because there is little time remaining, the fact the injured player cannot return isn't noticed.

(05-24-2020, 11:54 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree, the chances of converting an onside kick before the rule changes were a little higher, but not much.  Under the old rules, a team with momentum at least felt like they had a realistic chance of recovery, by overloading one side and performing some determined execution.  Under the current rules, it's more in the chances of a "lucky hop", or hoping for a human error on the part of the receiving team.

I'm not sure that the "4th and 15" proposal is the right solution, but I do agree that something needs to be done, to give team's mounting a comeback a fair chance of doing so.  

I kind of liked the XFL's approach to XP's, with the 1,2, and 3 point options.  However, I also don't want to see the kicking aspect of the game phased out, either.  What would be wrong with allowing XP kicks from greater distances, for higher point values?  We're currently at 35 for 1 point, and it has (in my opinion) made the XP a bit more exciting, as it's no longer "automatic".  Along those same lines, why not provide the option of a 2 point kick from 45, and a 3 point kick from say 52 yards?

Thoughts?

I'm not so sure about the 4th and 15 thing ?

But to your other point I've heard many say they'd like to see and increase in points for FG's for distance. Why is a 23 yard FG the same points as a 57 yarder ? And you could do extra points the same way.

(05-24-2020, 11:54 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree, the chances of converting an onside kick before the rule changes were a little higher, but not much.  Under the old rules, a team with momentum at least felt like they had a realistic chance of recovery, by overloading one side and performing some determined execution.  Under the current rules, it's more in the chances of a "lucky hop", or hoping for a human error on the part of the receiving team.

I'm not sure that the "4th and 15" proposal is the right solution, but I do agree that something needs to be done, to give team's mounting a comeback a fair chance of doing so.  

I kind of liked the XFL's approach to XP's, with the 1,2, and 3 point options.  However, I also don't want to see the kicking aspect of the game phased out, either.  What would be wrong with allowing XP kicks from greater distances, for higher point values?  We're currently at 35 for 1 point, and it has (in my opinion) made the XP a bit more exciting, as it's no longer "automatic".  Along those same lines, why not provide the option of a 2 point kick from 45, and a 3 point kick from say 52 yards?

Thoughts?

3 is too much.  It give a team like Baltimore a huge competitive advantage because Tucker is automatic even at that distance.  So they get to have 9 points every score because they have the league's best kicker.  And there are not enough kickers that talented to keep any kind of parity to that.  I doubt there are even 5 elite kickers in the league.

(05-24-2020, 12:04 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: It is a very unsafe play.

The kicking team is literally running to blow up the guy in front of him in hopes that it leaves the designated teammate free to grab the ball.  The same goes for the receiving team who is attempting to leave the designated hands guys free to come down with it unmolested and get to the ground.

I recall hearing on the radio that most onside kick plays lead to injuries.  Most of the time it is not noticed by the fans as it happens late in the game, when the cameras suddenly focus on the coaches and QB discussing what to do next.  Then, because there is little time remaining, the fact the injured player cannot return isn't noticed.

Football back in its infancy was more about tackling than "hitting".   Hitting had gotten so out of hand that RBs were just deflecting poor hits instead of poor tackles, not too mention of course the "hitting" increasing the number of injuries.

The league really needs to decide whether they truly want to make the game safe, by completely bastardizing it and changing the way it's played entirely, or they need to just accept the fact the game can be dangerous and just play the game the way it's meant to be played.

To each their own, but I consider many of these rules changes that have been made to be glorified PR stunts. They're half-measures that really don't address the root problem. That problem being, that football is a violent game. It can be and mostly is violent at all times, in all plays, in endless scenarios.

Injuries can happen at any time, and there is nothing that can done to fully protect against it without a complete overhaul of the rules of the game. Of course, the league can't come out and admit this, even know everyone knows it to be true. And they can't completely change the sport because it will result in less interest. So what we're left with are these minor changes to kickoffs, and lowering of the head and targeting rules, so it appears the league is all about player safety. By making these changes the league can say they're addressing safety concerns. But are they really? Of course not.

Look at Luke Kuechley. That guy came into the league and played the majority of his career after a lot of these rule changes. He also played the right way. But guess what? The dude had a ton of concussions. Why? Because that's the nature of the game. The famous concussion he had, where he was out of on the sideline and was crying, didn't come after lowering his head or anything that could be described against the rules. It came after he was fell back after making a tackle and his helmet hit another defenders. You can't protect against that.

Like I said, I really just wish the league would make a choice. Either go all in, and let me decide if I want to watch a newer or safer version of the NFL, or just leave the game alone.

Too many of these rule changes result in inconsistent calls and completely put certain players at tremendous disadvantages. Take targeting. If the ball is up in the air and the receiver is already going up to get and you're closing in, are you not supposed to try to break up the play? What's the alternative? Just let him catch the ball? Do you stand in place, and wait for him to catch it, then try to make the tackle? What are you supposed to do.

Personally, I really wish they would just trust the officials as they did for years to decide when a play is deserving of being dirty. It's like the quote about pornography; you'll know it when you see it. Instead they're forcing them to work off a defined rulebook and to flag everything, regardless of the situation or intent.

I'll stop rambling, but this crap drives me nut. Just play the sport as intended or don't play it all. The fact it's gotten to the point that ideas like being able to go for a 4th and 15 instead of an onsides kick is ridiculous. This isn't the arena league. And the rule change that preceeded this proposal isn't doing nearly enough in making the game safe to warrant a domino effect of idiotic changes.

/Rant

(05-24-2020, 12:37 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: The league really needs to decide whether they truly want to make the game safe, by completely bastardizing it and changing the way it's played entirely, or they need to just accept the fact the game can be dangerous and just play the game the way it's meant to be played.

To each their own, but I consider many of these rules changes that have been made to be glorified PR stunts. They're half-measures that really don't address the root problem.  That problem being, that football is a violent game.  It can be and mostly is violent at all times, in all plays, in endless scenarios.  

Injuries can happen at any time, and there is nothing that can done to fully protect against it without a complete overhaul of the rules of the game.  Of course, the league can't come out and admit this, even know everyone knows it to be true.  And they can't completely change the sport because it will result in less interest.  So what we're left with are these minor changes to kickoffs, and lowering of the head and targeting rules, so it appears the league is all about player safety.  By making these changes the league can say they're addressing safety concerns.  But are they really? Of course not.

Look at Luke Kuechley. That guy came into the league and played the majority of his career after a lot of these rule changes.  He also played the right way.  But guess what?  The dude had a ton of concussions.  Why?  Because that's the nature of the game.  The famous concussion he had, where he was out of on the sideline and was crying, didn't come after lowering his head or anything that could be described against the rules.  It came after he was fell back after making a tackle and his helmet hit another defenders.  You can't protect against that.

Like I said, I really just wish the league would make a choice. Either go all in, and let me decide if I want to watch a newer or safer version of the NFL, or just leave the game alone.

Too many of these rule changes result in inconsistent calls and completely put certain players at tremendous disadvantages.  Take targeting.  If the ball is up in the air and the receiver is already going up to get and you're closing in, are you not supposed to try to break up the play?  What's the alternative?  Just let him catch the ball?  Do you stand in place, and wait for him to catch it, then try to make the tackle?  What are you supposed to do.

Personally, I really wish they would just trust the officials as they did for years to decide when a play is deserving of being dirty. It's like the quote about pornography; you'll know it when you see it.  Instead they're forcing them to work off a defined rulebook and to flag everything, regardless of the situation or intent.

I'll stop rambling, but these crap drives me nut.  Just play the sport as intended or don't play it all.  The fact it's gotten to the point that ideas like being able to go for a 4th and 15 instead of an onsides kick is ridiculous. This isn't the arena league.

/Rant

Well, it already is bastardized.  The original game was going to be outlawed due to the number of deaths incurred, so they changed it to make it safer.

(05-24-2020, 12:44 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Well, it already is bastardized.  The original game was going to be outlawed due to the number of deaths incurred, so they changed it to make it safer.

And those changes worked. The made drastic changes to make the game safer. 

The problem is the changes made recently have failed to make any real impact in actual player safety.  There's been a few different studies that support this.  Injuries have not gone decreased, concussions have not either.  These half-measures taken by the league seem to be have been made more for appearance than actual results.

Because the reality is if you truly want to confront issues like CTE then you're going to have to do so much more. But the league can't or won't do that, because it would completely change the sport.  Which is what they did back in the day, the completely changed it. 

I just think they either need to do enough to actually make the game safe, or leave it alone.  These rules changes are really hurting the game without any real benefit.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lucasseehafer/2020/04/08/new-study-nfl-rule-changes-failed-to-make-game-safer/

(05-24-2020, 10:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yuppies?

WTF are you drama queens crying about.  There have been changes to the game constantly for the entire life of the game.  Did yuppies make the forward pass legal?  Did they invent face maskes?  Did  they move the goalposts from the goal line to the back of the end zone?  

In 1977 Bert Jones led the league with 2800 passing yards, and the league average was 141 passing yards per game.  Ken Andersons 69.7 passer rating was good for 9th in the league.  After that season the NFL changed the rules so that a defender could no longer maintain physical contact with a receiver more than 5 yards past the line of scrimmage.  It revolutionized the game and changed it into what we like to watch today.  If the yuppies were responsible for that then I want to thank them.

This current rule proposal is a tiny change that effects way less than 1% of the plays in a season and people are comparing it to baseball players riding horses?

And WTF do "yuppies" have to do with any of this?

Obviously there have been good rule changes in every sport, wearing helmets comes to mind. If you don’t see that changes are more than about improving the game then I don’t know what to tell you. Political correctness and changes just to say they changed something is my gripe. I’m sorry if the word yuppie sets you off, I’ll use do-gooder the next time. People have a need to feel important and this brings on many of these changes. Unless something is absolutely detrimental, leave it alone. There’s no such thing as the perfect game but the thing that makes it closest to perfect is tradition.

Maybe I have just lived through enough to see that change does not destroy any sport.  And I have seen BIG changes.  I remember baseball purists heads were exploding over the designated hitter.   I remember when there was no three point shot in basketball, and I remember the brutal "thug ball" of the NBA in the '80's and '90's.  When I first became an NFL fan the passing game was at it's lowest level of the modern era.  The passing numbers from the early to mid seventies were worse than the in the 50's and 60's.  They made a major rule change in '78 and it changed the game forever.  If you like passing then you owe it to a rule change in the '70's.

I watch sports to see super human athletes perform amazing feats of strength, speed, and dexterity.  I watch to feed the basic human instict of competition for supremacy.  Rule changes don't make much difference to me.

I'm not totally oppossed to it, but it will make it easier for teams to rally. I guess that will add more drama to the games.

I think the real question is how penalties enforced on the kickoff will mesh with this rule. For example, the defense is offsides on a successful PAT and the offense chooses to enforce the penalty on the kickoff. Do they now have to convert a 4th and 15 from 5 yards further up the field or is it 4th and 10? Would a dead ball personal foul enforced on the defense on the kickoff result in an automatic 1st down?

Another question would be are you locked into your decision? If you decide to go for it and you false start, can you then decide to kick it instead? Or if the receiving team takes a penalty where the kicking team has the option to rekick, can they just decide to go for it?

(05-22-2020, 03:24 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-updates-language-on-4th-and-15-proposal-taking-out-trailing-requirement

Have the Bengals FA additions to the defensive backfield improved or weakened their chances of defending against it? Gone are Joseph and Kirkpatrick and it looks like Shawn Williams will either lose some snaps or play a S/LB hybrid.
Cover
The
Damn
Tight
End

Bengals WRs may be ranked 11th by PFF but they suck as a whole at getting separation. Boyd is great in the short range but doesn't catch a lot of balls 15 yards past the LOS. Ross still has great speed but is very unreliable. Tee Higgins is a big question mark. Some rookie WRs jump right in, some take awhile to get everything up to speed.

AJ is awesome . . . BUT, he doesn't really do a lot when contesting for a 50/50 ball with a DB. Julio Jones is probably the best at that right now with DeAndre Hopkins a close 2nd. Anquan Boldin was the best I ever saw at fighting for the ball. That was a big part of Steve Smith's greatness. AJ doesn't appear to have that tough guy, killer spirit that they do.

Losing Eifert hurts because he's made for 4th and 15 type of situations. Whether CJ or Sample can fill that role remains to be seen but that is a drop off.

Like most good RBs, Mixon and Gio are both very dangerous in the open field. I could see a roll out to one side and a screen set-up on the other. Neither is likely to be involved in a 4th and 15 situation other than a screen or blocking

Burrow is another question mark. A strong arm with a college ball doesn't mean a smooth transition to an NFL ball. There are adjustments to be made. Hopefully they can game plan around his strengths and work from there. I had that hope last year and wasn't impressed. Zac needs to step up.

If the rule is approved, I don't see this Bengals team being that threatening on 4th and 15. Next year, though . . .

Thoughts?

Question: Can a team still attempt an on-side kick? Personally, I'd rather do that than the 4-15 from even deeper.

 

(05-24-2020, 01:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe I have just lived through enough to see that change does not destroy any sport.  And I have seen BIG changes.  I remember baseball purists heads were exploding over the designated hitter.   I remember when there was no three point shot in basketball, and I remember the brutal "thug ball" of the NBA in the '80's and '90's.  When I first became an NFL fan the passing game was at it's lowest level of the modern era.  The passing numbers from the early to mid seventies were worse than the in the 50's and 60's.  They made a major rule change in '78 and it changed the game forever.  If you like passing then you owe it to a rule change in the '70's.

I watch sports to see super human athletes perform amazing feats of strength, speed, and dexterity.  I watch to feed the basic human instict of competition for supremacy.  Rule changes don't make much difference to me.

I get that sometimes things need to evolve with the times. I’m guessing that you’re in the minority when it comes to people that watched 80’s NBA. It was very physical but it went from one extreme to the other. They call any little foul, they totally ignore traveling. I laugh at people that think that Lebran would have dominated in that era. He isn’t tough enough mentally to take that physical beating plus he’d get called for traveling and he’d be guarded. Watch how guys were guarded then vs. now. The Bird/Magic era will always be the greatest and both of their teams would beat any team from any era... including Jordan.