|
|
#41
10-09-2007, 01:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Exactly. Of course, the thing is, I don't think it confers an advantage, and it's just stupid to watch. [/ QUOTE ] Ask Lane Kiffin, Mike Shanahan, Romeo Crennel, Sebastian Janikowski, Jason Elam, and Phil Dawson about that. [/ QUOTE ] Your sample size astounds me. 
|
|
#43
10-09-2007, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe if an offense lined up with more than a few seconds left on the play clock they could either a) get the snap off before the timeout was called b) get the coach to call a timeout without snapping the ball by the center lifting his head like he normally would [/ QUOTE ] Coaches usually tell the refs that they want a TO before the ball is snapped. I agree it's so bad for the game but I just don't see the NFL implementing a rule for next year.
|
|
#44
10-09-2007, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't think it's unethical, cheap, douchey or effective. However, it should still be banned. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand how giving the kicker a practice shot would hurt him in any way, but results-oriented geniuses have decided that it's good strategy because it worked twice. I can't wait until it backfires on someone, I bet some moran in the media will say that that coach isn't as smart as Mike Shanahan because he called the timeout at the wrong time. [/ QUOTE ] Lots of kickers are somewhat mentally fragile. Not that that's a good thing, but they are. Also, changes in wind, a better jump for the defense, and (if you're on a natural field) minor changes in field condition can happen. Also, obviously, the possibility of a fumbled snap, bad hold, or just general stuff that happens when Tony Romo is your holder could happen too.
|
|
#45
10-09-2007, 01:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
The old way was fine. It was never debated. I bet they just go back to the way it was. [/ QUOTE ]Yep. It's only an issue because coming from the sideline. Just go back to old way. Makes no difference. If you can't communicate to players to call timeout for you, you suck.
|
|
#46
10-09-2007, 01:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Exactly. Of course, the thing is, I don't think it confers an advantage, and it's just stupid to watch. [/ QUOTE ] Ask Lane Kiffin, Mike Shanahan, Romeo Crennel, Sebastian Janikowski, Jason Elam, and Phil Dawson about that. [/ QUOTE ] Your sample size astounds me. [/ QUOTE ] You said you don't think it confers an advantage. That's THIS YEAR. Do you really want me to go research how many times someone has called a time out before a FG and on the next attempt, the kick failed? Christ. By your argument, then, what sample size do you want to show that it can work? Is there one?
|
|
#47
10-09-2007, 01:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Exactly. Of course, the thing is, I don't think it confers an advantage, and it's just stupid to watch. [/ QUOTE ] Ask Lane Kiffin, Mike Shanahan, Romeo Crennel, Sebastian Janikowski, Jason Elam, and Phil Dawson about that. [/ QUOTE ] Your sample size astounds me. [/ QUOTE ] You said you don't think it confers an advantage. That's THIS YEAR. Do you really want me to go research how many times someone has called a time out before a FG and on the next attempt, the kick failed? Christ. By your argument, then, what sample size do you want to show that it can work? Is there one? [/ QUOTE ] People already have, and no, there isn't a significant advantage. At least to the old method of 'icing' the kicker - but usually there wasn't a kick already made as in these examples.
|
|
#48
10-09-2007, 01:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
Lots of kickers are somewhat mentally fragile. Not that that's a good thing, but they are. Also, changes in wind, a better jump for the defense, and (if you're on a natural field) minor changes in field condition can happen. Also, obviously, the possibility of a fumbled snap, bad hold, or just general stuff that happens when Tony Romo is your holder could happen too. [/ QUOTE ] How are these things any more likely to happen on the second try than on the first one??? From your posts in this thread it seems like you don't realize that if the first FG goes wide but timeout was called, they get to try again.
|
|
#49
10-09-2007, 01:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Exactly. Of course, the thing is, I don't think it confers an advantage, and it's just stupid to watch. [/ QUOTE ] Ask Lane Kiffin, Mike Shanahan, Romeo Crennel, Sebastian Janikowski, Jason Elam, and Phil Dawson about that. [/ QUOTE ] Your sample size astounds me. [/ QUOTE ] You said you don't think it confers an advantage. That's THIS YEAR. Do you really want me to go research how many times someone has called a time out before a FG and on the next attempt, the kick failed? Christ. By your argument, then, what sample size do you want to show that it can work? Is there one? [/ QUOTE ] People already have, and no, there isn't a significant advantage. At least to the old method of 'icing' the kicker - but usually there wasn't a kick already made as in these examples. [/ QUOTE ] I don't believe there is a "significant" advantage either. But on that same note, if there is any chance it will work, a coach should definitely do it. I said it before, the only way to change this is to take away the coach's TO. And if that happens, fine. But it has worked, and there's any number of things that can change when you call that time out. That's all. LOL @ "your sample size is astounding" though when someone says they don't think it confers an advantage and I show 3 times its worked this year.
|
|
#50
10-09-2007, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should icing the kicker be banned?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Lots of kickers are somewhat mentally fragile. Not that that's a good thing, but they are. Also, changes in wind, a better jump for the defense, and (if you're on a natural field) minor changes in field condition can happen. Also, obviously, the possibility of a fumbled snap, bad hold, or just general stuff that happens when Tony Romo is your holder could happen too. [/ QUOTE ] How are these things any more likely to happen on the second try than on the first one??? From your posts in this thread it seems like you don't realize that if the first FG goes wide but timeout was called, they get to try again. [/ QUOTE ] I totally realize that. I'm a kicker. Its a completely different ball game the second time around. You have to have a VERY short memory as a kicker to put previous misses or makes behind you. If you can't do that, you lose a lot of your effectiveness. A lot of it is strictly in chance too. The defense getting 2 shots at a block is better than one, obviously. Same for a fumbled snap, or even a simple shank. They're not that common on any one given play, but you get two shots at it, and who knows what can happen? I fully understand that if the kicker misses the first time they get to try again. That's part of the gamble you take when you try to "ice" a guy.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
