MyFairLady
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 6,497
- Reaction score
- 7,856
Players not gonna wanna share their piece of the pie with 5 more.If they're so concerned about injuries, add 5 players to the active roster. Problem solved.
Players not gonna wanna share their piece of the pie with 5 more.If they're so concerned about injuries, add 5 players to the active roster. Problem solved.
The bottom 5 wouldn't make enough for it to matter. But a good point none the less.Players not gonna wanna share their piece of the pie with 5 more.
I agree but I am pretty sure it is documented that the NFLPA dos not agree. Surely you are not proposing that we take foods out of the mouths of NFL players children.The bottom 5 wouldn't make enough for it to matter. But a good point none the less.
It appeared they were trying to eliminate returns, but it’s taking some of the excitement out of the game. It started to look like they were going to remove the kick off from the game. As I said in another post if you move the kickoff back defenders are able to gain speed down the field, leading to more violent collisions.It seems like they want to eliminate it completely. Because they're going to all of these lengths to change the kickoff.
Sometimes you have to ask yourself how much do you want to negatively impact the game with gimmicks to reduce injuries from 1 play. Just move the ball back to the 30, about half the kickoffs will be returned. Eliminate that stupid fair catch rule too. And place the ball on the 20, not 25. If they're so concerned about injuries, add 5 players to the active roster. Problem solved.
The easiest way to make the onside a possibility would be to have the opposing teams line up more than 10 yards apart. I’d make it 20 and the kicking team must announce it’s going to onside kick it - like tackle eligible.Well they succeeded. So what is the problem?
I would like a rule change that makes onside kicks more successful than 1%.
Has to be like the most boring play in football.