As the team receiving the kick here is one way to win and that path is simply touchdown. Return the kickoff for a touchdown? Game over. Receiving team scores a touchdown on their first offensive possession? Game over. Any other outcome means that the kicking team will get the ball back, with the added benefit of knowing exactly how many points they have to score to win/tie.
Taking directly from the NFL’s rules page on the matter, even an onside kick carries maximal benefit to the kicking team and very little penalty: “A kickoff is considered an opportunity to possess for the receiving team” so a successful onside puts the kicking team in perfect position to travel the 20-ish yards to get into field goal range (which can now be kicked for the victory). If the onside attempt fails, barring a subsequent touchdown by the receiving team (who admittedly has good field position somewhere around the opposition’s 45) an unsuccessful onside giving up only a field goal will still reward the kicking team with both the ball and the knowledge of just how many points they need to win/tie.
What does this all mean? Under the new rules it’s just not an advantage to receive the kick anymore. By moving the kickoff line up to the 35 this season the NFL has increased the number of touchbacks on kickoffs from 18.8% to 45.9%, which certainly helps to stifle the gifted return men in the NFL today (also making that game ending opening drive touchdown even more elusive). Even once the kick is received, the offense is now not only burdened with scoring a touchdown but also must protect itself from any of the myriad things that can go wrong: defensive safety? Game over. Turn the ball over? Sudden death rules, since both teams have had a chance at possession. Blocked punt or field goal? Same issue, so unless Coach is certain his offense can score a touchdown and end the affair immediately there’s simply too many ways to fail and too few ways to succeed to make that first possession worthwhile.
Are there circumstances under which a team would still want to receive? If you’re one of the teams this year with an offense as productive as the defense is porous, it’s a perfectly good strategy. Why not put your faith in your offense if you’ve evolved to “My offense is better than your defense” mentality of say the Packers, Giants, Saints or Patriots. Speaking as a Giants fan I would much rather give Eli his chance to march down the field than hope our 7th and 8th string players in the secondary could hope to stop a playoff caliber offense from getting in the end zone.
What then is to be done? The new overtime rules should do what they set out to do, that is give both teams a chance a possession, but at what cost? There should be some sort of advantage from winning the coin flip, just not as large and advantage as the previous system did confer (and the new one will, wait and see). I am big fan of the sudden death format, if for no other reason the opening possession is now as much a “Don’t %#$@ it up” possession rather than a “Let’s end this thing” type of drive.
My solution? Return to the sudden death format, move the kickoff to the kicking team’s 45 and shorten the ball’s distance to go before it can be recovered by the offense to 5 yards. Should the kicking team decide to actually kick the ball away, moving the spot of the kick farther up the field will further increase the number the touchbacks (which should decrease the number of opening possession scoring drives which then provide more opportunity for both teams to get the football.) Decreasing the number of yards the ball has to travel would create an create something akin to a line out in Rugby. Given that the kicking team would know the play they wish to run and the accuracy of onside kickers, amending the distance to 5 years will give the kicking team some serious incentive to refine set onside pieces. While of course just conjecture, I would foam at the mouth a little to see a “my hands team versus your hands team” situation.
I realize that in this plan the major advantage toward overtime victory could come from a high drama play in the middle of field, but I would much rather confer such advantage that way than from the randomness of coin toss. By giving coaches the option of high risk/high reward play or a more conservative approach we enable coaches to plan overtime strategy on how their team is doing in that game (momentum, player health, etc.) by providing another option in strategy. Plus, could there be a more exciting way to kick off? Well, perhaps an Aussie Rules style Centre Bounce, but one step at a time. As an added bonus it would certainly increase the utility of a versatile kicker who may be needed as much for touch as leg strength. One of the reasons the NFL hasn’t done away with kick offs entirely is the possibility of the onside (and a great return now and again) so why not incentivize that option?
In any case we won’t know how the proposed rule changes effect the outcome of a game until, well, the rule changes actually effect the outcome of a game. I look forward to seeing which coaches agree with my assessment and which don’t, and if any of the stats we currently use for discussions like this will be relevant in a few years as the NFL fully transitions to a passer’s game. There will most certainly be analyst bedlam when we start to get some data on the new OT format, and I’m looking forward to hopefully getting some validation on these thoughts in the process. In any case look forward to seeing how the game evolves in the future in response to the rule and strategy changes of the game now; just as the creation of rules protecting quarterbacks and wide outs have ushered in a new aerial era of football I look forward to seeing just how the new overtime rules will affect strategy and outcome in these new and uncharted waters.
No comments:
Post a Comment