Catching up...
Since I haven't been able to keep up with my reading the last couple days, thought I would try to catch up by weighing in on:
- Kickoffs. Richt would vote in favor of eliminating them. I understand his and Schiano's basis for this radical idea. But aren't there other things we could do instead of completely scrapping on of the most exciting 15 seconds in sports? Move the scrimmage line on kickoffs back up to the 40...make the coverage team scrimmage from the line rather than get a running head start...let Coach Fabris return kicks.
- Football is a dangerous sport. I'm not in favor of more injuries. And I certainly recognize that players have gotten bigger and faster (aka they've "Thomas Davis'd"). But rather than eliminate kickoffs and drastically alter the game, can't we explore some other options? I won't speak for the entire Dawg Nation, but I cheer just as loud when Blair Walsh booms one through the endzone as I do when an opposing player gets buried inside the 20 by a backup linebacker.
- Giving James Eunice a roster spot is right in line with the Texas Rangers drafting Jonathan Taylor last week. Eunice's 18th birthday would've been yesterday. He was planning to walk on this Fall.
- Speaking of Taylor, the Rangers are in Atlanta for a series and will hold an official press conference Saturday with Cone and Taylor. So with all due respect to the local team...I'm a big Rangers fan this weekend.
- Crowell puking, Glenn getting more mobile and Geathers as Animal...I would "Like" all that sh*t on BookFace!
- And Mike paints a picture of the Georgia Dome and the opening kickoff....Goooooooo DAAAWWWWGGGGGSS!!!
2 comments:
One thing that is truly positive about Crowell puking, for an athlete like him to puke he had to be pushing himself. If he keeps putting in that type work then he has plenty of time to get himself in the type shape he needs to be.
Another possible kick-off rules change that would make kick-off returns less frequent (and, therefore, the game safer), while preserving options and strategy for both the kicking team and the receiving team would be to place the ball short of the receiving team's twenty yard line if the kicking team sends the ball completely through the end zone.
For example, if instead of the return team taking over on its twenty yard line when the kick sails all the way through the end zone, maybe the receiving team would take the ball on its 15 or 13yard line instead.
That would give kicking teams an incentive to kick the ball completely out of play, if they could. The rules change would be advantagous to the stronger-legged kickers, but that's football.
The rules would remain the same as they are now if the kick does not sail completely through the end zone. That would leave open to the kicking team the option of trying to kick the ball 1) short of the end zone, in which case the receiving team would have to try to run the ball back as far as they could, or 2)into the end zone but not completely through it, in which case the rules would be the same as now, the receiving team has the option of trying to run the ball out or to down the ball in the end zone and start from the twenty yard line.
The rules could require the kicker to kick from the 30, the 35, or the 40, whichever is far enough away from the end of the end zone to require a really strong kick from the average college kicker to sail all the way through.
The kicking team's defenders could be required to be positioned within a zone between their own 40 and their own, say, 37, when the ball passes over their 40 yard line, even if the rules require the kicker to kick from his 30 or 35.
Changing defender positions would make on-side kicks more difficult to accomplish successfully, but on-side kicks are supposed to hard anyway.
Post a Comment