Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Beason's take on the new kickoff rule (via twitter)


CatMan72

Recommended Posts

In my opinion, moving the kickoff up to the 35yd line is more dangerous. As fb players were taught at a young age to run the 40....

Just like baseball players are taught to run the 60yd dash. Football players will reach their top speed at 40yds. Versus slowing down after

That point. Contact is typically made at 50yds, when players are slowing down. Now they will be speeding up along with kickers utilizing

Their ability to hang the ball up because their now closer. Just my opinion.

So he's basically saying that by making the return distance shorter, the coverage team will have just hit peak acceleration by the time they reach the returner... interesting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its a good point but the number of kicks actually returned will drastically reduced so I guess the NFL decided that the fewer number of returns is more important than the shorter field for the players to run.

Yup, they're playing the percentages knowing that the increased # of touchbacks alone will reduce the opportunity for injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unless kickers start aiming for the 5 yard line in an attempt to down the ball carrier inside the 20.

They moved the line back from the 35 to the 30 back in the 90's. before that it wasnt really a problem of players trying to keep them inside the 20. they seemed pretty content to just have the touchbacks. not saying that couldnt change, but history doesnt match it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect this rule to last maybe a year or two.

Once overall scoring is down (because teams will have to drive farther) fans will start complaining about that and about how few exciting kickoff returns there are.

If that happens, then I think the league will cite a lack of data showing that it helped (regardless of whether the data exists or not) and reverse itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • PJ's completion % was 63% when starting games in Carolina.  Which I believe is better than Bryce when starting.  And again, 4-3 as the starter here and the LONE QB Carolina has been able to actually win with in the Tepper era.  If you ask a gambling gunslinger to come into blowouts.....they are going to go down in a blaze of glory.  Which he would do.  Yeah, he isn't good.  And gunslingers are supposed to have rockier stats than checkdown QBs.   So....why does PJ Walker have a better comp % as a starter than Bryce Young.  And for every knock you want to make about PJ, you can find something or a skillset that PJ does better than Bryce.   I didn't say PJ had good field vision.  He doesn't.  Tell me about Bryce after he comes off the first read lol.  Let me repeat, PJ Walker is not a good QB.  He is NFL depth and an in house arm.  Bryce Young doesn't belong in a convo w/ Jake and Cam.  He belongs closer in a convo with the backup caliber QBs Carolina was forced into playing.  Which isn't just PJ Walker.  But Kyle Allen.  Moore.  Guys like that.   
    • Oh I see what you meant by memory. I will trust my memory, I have looked a a lot of those ball charts for Bryce and they trend a general pattern. They thing that has changed that I have noticed more recently is the reduction in the bunching of behind or at  the LOS passes over to his right.  Aside from the quantity of throws recently since the running game has become a more dominant factor. 
    • Yes but you basically said you are going from a quick skim of those charts without doing the same for Bryce and/or Andy. So you are going memory vs. snapshots. That's not going to be a very comprehensive analysis.
×
×
  • Create New...