(05-29-2020, 12:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Meh, skateboarding can be an equally violent sport.  Especially if one is uncoordinated and has less than impeccable balance..  

Or has the balls to go for a 900 or 1080!

Two huge issues with this rule had it been implemented:

1.) The success rate for onsides kicks, prior to the new rules, still only had a 15-20% success rate. It's supposed to be extremely unlikely to be a success. I won't go so far as to call it a miracle, or equal to that of a Hail Mary, but I do think it's almost in the same vain.

When you successfully recover an onsides kick it should be a BIG deal. Like, "Holy Crap, we actually recovered!". And it should be difficult. Another team has probably spent 55-59 mintutes slowly building their advantage. It shouldn't be easily erased by a single play.

Converting a 4th and 15 doesn't feel all that special to me. And I feel like the success rate would nearly double (30-40%), given the team going for it. Which brings me to point 2....

2.) The rule would be certain teams at a huge advantage. If you're a team that has a sub-par QB, or maybe your run focused, and/or defensively minded, your odds of completing a 15 yard pass are not going to be at all equal to a team with a stud QB and gobs of weapons.

The onsides kick really gave a pretty equal chance of success across the 32 teams. But with the new rule, a team like Chiefs or the Saints might have a 40% chance of success, where a team like the Jags or the Panthers might have a 20% chance. That doesn't strike me as incredibly fair.

Just my 2 cents...

(05-29-2020, 12:39 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Two huge issues with this rule had it been implemented:

1.) The success rate for onsides kicks, prior to the new rules, still only had a 15-20% success rate.  It's supposed to be extremely unlikely to be a success.  I won't go so far as to call it a miracle, or equal to that of a Hail Mary, but I do think it's almost in the same vain.  

When you successfully recover an onsides kick it should be a BIG deal.  Like, "Holy Crap, we actually recovered!".  And it should be difficult.  Another team has probably spent 55-59 mintutes slowly building their advantage.  It shouldn't be easily erased by a single play.

Converting a 4th and 15 doesn't feel all that special to me.  And I feel like the success rate would nearly double (30-40%), given the team going for it.  Which brings me to point 2....

2.) The rule would be certain teams at a huge advantage.  If you're a team that has a sub-par QB, or maybe your run focused, and/or defensively minded, your odds of completing a 15 yard pass are not going to be at all equal to a team with a stud QB and gobs of weapons.

The onsides kick really gave a pretty equal chance of success across the 32 teams.  But with the new rule, a team like Chiefs or the Saints might have a 40% chance of success, where a team like the Jags or the Panthers might have a 20% chance.  That doesn't strike me as incredibly fair.

Just my 2 cents...

Your first point was what I was discussing earlier.  It shouldn't be as hard as it is now, but it shouldn't be an easy feat. 

An onside kick makes you cover sideline to sideline, but only within 10-15 yards of the LOS.  And you can generally cheat to which half of the field you want to focus on.  4th and 15 from the 25 leaves you covering sideline to sideline and 75 yards deep.  The conversion rate would definitely be better than it has ever been for an onside kick.

(05-27-2020, 02:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The XFL kickoff was fun to watch.  I wonder how an onside kick would happen in that setup?  With 30 yards between the kicker and his own teammates, it would seem too easy for the kicker to simply knock it 10 yards, then pick it up and run for whatever he could get before doing a safe slide.

The NFL onside kick cannot be advanced by the kicking team, so there should be a mechanism to retain that.  Best thing to do if you were utilizing the XFL setup would be to prevent the kicker or returner from recovering the ball, and make it travel at least 35 yards before it can be recovered.  No one can move before it passes the lined up kicking team.

Just a thought...

While nothing is "easy," completing for 15 yards seems a lot more probable to happen than an onside kick. Better than a hail mary, as you don't have to get to the end zone and DPI is still likely. So much has to go right in the game for the onside kick.

(05-29-2020, 12:39 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Converting a 4th and 15 doesn't feel all that special to me.  And I feel like the success rate would nearly double (30-40%), given the team going for it.  

The numbers don't support your theory.  Over the last 5 years NFL teams have converted only 21 of 123 4th and 15+ situations.  No on QB has converted more than one, and there are as many lower tier QBs who have done it (Geno Smith, T.J. Yates, Lac Edwards, Tom Savage, Blake Bortles, Danial Jones, Josh McCowan) as big name stars.

(05-29-2020, 01:02 PM)Destro Wrote: While nothing is "easy," completing for 15 yards seems a lot more probable to happen than an onside kick. Better than a hail mary, as you don't have to get to the end zone and DPI is still likely. So much has to go right in the game for the onside kick.

True, as it should be.

(05-29-2020, 01:02 PM)Destro Wrote: While nothing is "easy," completing for 15 yards seems a lot more probable to happen than an onside kick. Better than a hail mary, as you don't have to get to the end zone and DPI is still likely. So much has to go right in the game for the onside kick.

Until the rule changes in 2018 the success rate of an "expected" on-side kick was around 20%.

Over the last 5 years the conversion rate on 4th and 15+ is 17%.

Pretty much identical.

(05-29-2020, 01:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The numbers don't support your theory.  Over the last 5 years NFL teams have converted only 21 of 123 4th and 15+ situations.  No on QB has converted more than one, and there are as many lower tier QBs who have done it (Geno Smith, T.J. Yates, Lac Edwards, Tom Savage, Blake Bortles, Danial Jones, Josh McCowan) as big name stars.

A lot wrong with this. 

4th and 15+...  Key word (sign) here: Plus.

Please go back and remove any plays that had a distance greater than 15.  You can't factor in the success rate of downs like 4th and 25 to accurately predict the success rate of 4th and 15.

Also, this rule would be an untimed play. So please go back and remove plays where teams had to either a.) throw to the sideline to stop the clock b.) hurry up after a sack c.) throw a hail mary as time expired.

Ill wait for your new results. Until then these numbers are meaningless in comparison.

Thanks.  :andy:

(05-29-2020, 12:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Meh, skateboarding can be an equally violent sport.  Especially if one is uncoordinated and has less than impeccable balance..  

(05-29-2020, 12:34 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Or has the balls to go for a 900 or 1080!

Just watching this video made me wonder how many concussions guys like Tony Hawk have suffered.

(05-29-2020, 02:16 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Until then these numbers are meaningless in comparison.

Meaningless in comparison to what?

Your make believe pretend numbers?

If a team can convert a 4th and 20 then that should count as a conversion for 4th and 15, don't you agree?

(05-29-2020, 01:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Until the rule changes in 2018 the success rate of an "expected" on-side kick was around 20%.

Over the last 5 years the conversion rate on 4th and 15+ is 17%.

Pretty much identical.

Surprised me, thanks for this.

(05-29-2020, 03:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Meaningless in comparison to what?

Your make believe pretend numbers?

If a team can convert a 4th and 20 then that should count as a conversion for 4th and 15, don't you agree?

So I went back 20 years and found 128 4th and EXACTLY 15 yards.  The leaguewide conversion rate was 24%, but still no proof that great teams would convert more than poor teams.  Only THREE QBs converted more than one 4th and 15 over the last 20 years.  .  .  Aaron Brooks, Matt Cassel, and ANDY DALTON

(05-29-2020, 03:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Meaningless in comparison to what?

Your make believe pretend numbers?

If a team can convert a 4th and 20 then that should count as a conversion for 4th and 15, don't you agree?

I think he was referring to the misses, not the mades.  Like is there a difference between the % of the 4th and 15-20's and the 4th and 20+'s.

But I do agree with you on one point Fred, Wes is making numbers up based on gut feel, and needs more quantification to back up his opinion.

(05-29-2020, 03:40 PM)Stewy Wrote: I think he was referring to the misses, not the mades.  Like is there a difference between the % of the 4th and 15-20's and the 4th and 20+'s.

But I do agree with you on one point Fred, Wes is making numbers up based on gut feel, and needs more quantification to back up his opinion.

My gut tells me the same thing (that an onside kick is tougher to convert than a 4th and 15).

Now that Fred provided the numbers for exactly 4th and 15, it'd be interesting to see the conversion rate for onside kicks over the same span.

I have a feeling it's lower than 24%, but seeing the numbers would be nice.

(05-29-2020, 03:53 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: My gut tells me the same thing (that an onside kick is tougher to convert than a 4th and 15).

Now that Fred provided the numbers for exactly 4th and 15, it'd be interesting to see the conversion rate for onside kicks over the same span.

I have a feeling it's lower than 24%, but seeing the numbers would be nice.

The success rate for an "expected" on side kick was right around 20% until the rule change in 2018.  Not it is around 8%.

Interesting to note that the success rate for a "surprise" on side kick was close to 60%.

(05-29-2020, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So I went back 20 years and found 128 4th and EXACTLY 15 yards.  The leaguewide conversion rate was 24%, but still no proof that great teams would convert more than poor teams.  Only THREE QBs converted more than one 4th and 15 over the last 20 years.  .  .  Aaron Brooks, Matt Cassel, and ANDY DALTON

Once again, a lot wrong with this.

1.) How many of these 4th and 15's were in actuality longer conversation attempts? 

Examples:

-4th 15 and from the 30 yard line. Down more than 3.  Less than 10 secs left, no timeouts.  Teams throws to the endzone incomplete.  Statistics shows an uncessful 4th and 15, yet in an entirely different situation (They actually needed 30 yards not the 15 needed in this new rule)

-4th and 15 from your own 40. Down by 3 or less. Time running out.  You need to get into field goal range.  Pass falls incomplete at the 35 yard line.  Down and distance was 4th and 15.  Actual distance needed and attempted was 25.

-4th and 15 from your side of the field.  Time for one Hail Mary. Your QB chucks up a 60 yard incompletion.  Your statistics say you needed 15 yard for the first down.  Reality said it was actually 4th and 60.

2.) I brought up the untimed aspect of the proposed rule, and you chose to ignore it.

How many of these 4th 15 attempts came on plays where time was an issue?  If you're throwing to the sideline, to stop the clock, you're eliminating a big chunk of your playbook.  You're also allowing the other team to key in on this fact.  How many of these plays started with a running clock, where the team was forced to rush to the line?  How many of these plays were the last play of the game?

3.) Going back 20 years muddles the stats.  Pass interference, targeting and personal fouls are all called at a higher rate in 2020 than in 2000.  Thus, drawing a chain moving flag on 4th and 15 is easier in 2020 than 2000.

4.) Listing the QB's with the most conversations doesn't mean much. How many attempts did they have at this unique situation?  What were the circumstances when they tried?

Bad teams may find themselves in more 4th and long situations simply because they're bad.  These plays occur late in the game when you're losing.  A QB like Tom Brady might not find himself facing too many 4th and 15's, whereas a QB like Jack Mioff from The Little Sisters of the Poor might.

If you don't think the Chiefs with Patrick Mahomes, Tyreke Hill, Travis Kelce and Sammy Watkins has a greater chance of converting a 4th and 15 than Gardner Minshew, DJ Chark, Dede Westbrook and Tyler Eifert then pass me what you're smoking.

Teams with better QB's and better weapons have a better chance of conversion.  Period. 20 year old stats, that you pulled from God knows where isn't convincing me otherwise.

(05-29-2020, 03:53 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Now that Fred provided the numbers for exactly 4th and 15, it'd be interesting to see the conversion rate for onside kicks over the same span.

A lot of those 4th and 15's in his numbers probably featured plays where the yardage needed was greater than the first down.  i.e. You have to score, you have to get into field goal range, etc.

Also, none of them were untimed either, which changes quite a bit.  No rushing up to ball, no having to ignore the middle of field so you can get out of bounds.

As much as Fred loves stats, even he can't find them that can accurately measure success for this play.  It's a completely unique situation.

(05-29-2020, 01:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Until the rule changes in 2018 the success rate of an "expected" on-side kick was around 20%.

Over the last 5 years the conversion rate on 4th and 15+ is 17%.

Pretty much identical.

That's also because it is 4th and 15. Calling this proposal "4th" is a bit off, as there was not 3 downs before it. They had to go through three downs of failures, including a penalty to get to 4th and 15. What percentage of plays go for 15 plus yards? How often is it 4th and 15 and the game isn't on the line and they just punt it away instead of attempting it? How many times is a 1st, 2nd or 3rd and 15+ converted. 

(05-29-2020, 04:29 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Once again, a lot wrong with this.

1.) How many of these 4th and 15's were in actuality longer conversation attempts? 

Examples:

-4th 15 and from the 30 yard line. Down more than 3.  Less than 10 secs left, no timeouts.  Teams throws to the endzone incomplete.  Statistics shows an uncessful 4th and 15, yet in an entirely different situation (They actually needed 30 yards not the 15 needed in this new rule)

-4th and 15 from your own 40. Down by 3 or less. Time running out.  You need to get into field goal range.  Pass falls incomplete at the 35 yard line.  Down and distance was 4th and 15.  Actual distance needed and attempted was 25.

-4th and 15 from your side of the field.  Time for one Hail Mary. Your QB chucks up a 60 yard incompletion.  Your statistics say you needed 15 yard for the first down.  Reality said it was actually 4th and 60.

2.) I brought up the untimed aspect of the proposed rule, and you chose to ignore it.

How many of these 4th 15 attempts came on plays where time was an issue?  If you're throwing to the sideline, to stop the clock, you're eliminating a big chunk of your playbook.  You're also allowing the other team to key in on this fact.  How many of these plays started with a running clock, where the team was forced to rush to the line?  How many of these plays were the last play of the game?

3.) Going back 20 years muddles the stats.  Pass interference, targeting and personal fouls are all called at a higher rate in 2020 than in 2000.  Thus, drawing a chain moving flag on 4th and 15 is easier in 2020 than 2000.

4.) Listing the QB's with the most conversations doesn't mean much. How many attempts did they have at this unique situation?  What were the circumstances when they tried?

Bad teams may find themselves in more 4th and long situations simply because they're bad.  These plays occur late in the game when you're losing.  A QB like Tom Brady might not find himself facing too many 4th and 15's, whereas a QB like Jack Mioff from The Little Sisters of the Poor might.

If you don't think the Chiefs with Patrick Mahomes, Tyreke Hill, Travis Kelce and Sammy Watkins has a greater chance of converting a 4th and 15 than Gardner Minshew, DJ Chark, Dede Westbrook and Tyler Eifert then pass me what you're smoking.

Teams with better QB's and better weapons have a better chance of conversion.  Period. 20 year old stats, that you pulled from God knows where isn't convincing me otherwise.

And yet after all this all you've done is argue with pure conjecture, speculation, while continually providing no data of your own.  I'm sorry but Fred's at least providing stats....all your gut is providing is gas.