NFL considering widening field by 35 feet

[tog]

I am at a total loss as to how a wider field = safer game. Sounds pretty **CENSORED**ing stupid to me.

 In theory it could mean guys get more room to run (faster)and thus bigger hits on each other but the more realisitc scenario is that it opens up a lot more space for WR's to work in on the field and thus be able to protect themselves for big hits. I really think you;d see an end to zones long before you see a wider field.

Yeah, it's the opposite.  Getting more room to run = smaller hits.  You're widening the lanes so defenders have to make tackles in more space, thus fewer kill shots.  Big hits 99% of the time come from having a guy lined up and being able to come downhill and tee off on him.  Now defenders coming downhill will have to just wrap up more often because the offensive player has more space to move, vs. say coming through a lane and having to just take the hit.

[Dolorous Jason]

Yeah, it's the opposite.  Getting more room to run = smaller hits.  You're widening the lanes so defenders have to make tackles in more space, thus fewer kill shots.  Big hits 99% of the time come from having a guy lined up and being able to come downhill and tee off on him.  Now defenders coming downhill will have to just wrap up more often because the offensive player has more space to move, vs. say coming through a lane and having to just take the hit.

hogwash.

If more space to run = less dangerous , then why are kickoffs considered so dangerous ?

Most big hits happen when a player doesn't see another coming and is in a defenseless position . Usually a QB or a WR.  Those scenarios will still be a part of the game , no matter how big the field is , until you make it 2-hand touch.

[tog]

Yeah, it's the opposite.  Getting more room to run = smaller hits.  You're widening the lanes so defenders have to make tackles in more space, thus fewer kill shots.  Big hits 99% of the time come from having a guy lined up and being able to come downhill and tee off on him.  Now defenders coming downhill will have to just wrap up more often because the offensive player has more space to move, vs. say coming through a lane and having to just take the hit.

hogwash.

If more space to run = less dangerous , then why are kickoffs considered so dangerous ?

Most big hits happen when a player doesn't see another coming and is in a defenseless position . Usually a QB or a WR.  Those scenarios will still be a part of the game , no matter how big the field is , until you make it 2-hand touch.

No offfence, but comparing kickoffs to a wider field makes no sense - the situations are totally unrelated. With kickoffs you have a 40+ yard run up and the KR team has to block you as you come running down on a straight line.  They're often initiating blocks around the 15-25 yard line, and taking on guys who have been flying downfield on a straight line.  That's why there are so many big hits and injuries (hence the removal of the wedge).

And that's exactly what a wider field does.  Not only will you have fewer defenceless players (by moving players farther apart) but it's much more difficult to come straight downhill on guys.  It doesn't matter if you don't see me, if I'm not able to get a run up on you its not going to be a big hit.

[caradoc]

DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HAVE BEEN ARGUING FOR THIS FOR YEARS!!!!

As you can tell, I am an avid proponent of this (what gave it away right?).  I'm a huge CFL football fan, and I can list a ton of advantages to a wider field.  And let me be clear as well, my love is defense, I think way too many flags are thrown, and I do agree the NFL is going overboard with head hits (not in intent, but in implementation).  Just so you know where I'm coming from

1) Safer.  There's a more space and you'll reduce the impact and number of collisions, as well as how many tacklers are in every play.  This is because players will operate in more space.  Trust me, having played on CFL fields my entire life, making tackles in space is really difficult.  It's really difficult to tee off on guys in that space.  Plus, the offense has more room to make moves.  Lastly, speed becomes more of an asset and you'll reduce the size of some players. 

2) Fewer flags. Pass interference in the NFL is a joke.  Watch a CFL game and you'll see how WRs and DBs are meant to play - with contact (handfighting, a little grabbing).  Pass interference calls are flagrant in the CFL, such as wrapping around a guy or blatantly holding on  (not the "tugging" you get flagged for in the NFL).  It's different because the NFL has mandated more explosive offences.  To accomplish that goal, they've tried to hind defences as much as possible with some ridiculous outcomes.  The bigger field lets you keep your flags in your pocket because you'll see more explosive output. More space= more offence.  If the NFL is smart, that means fewer flags on dumb defensive penalties.  Let them play.

3) Defenceless what?  While we all agree we want a safer game for players, the implementation has been flat out stupid.  Many media members who never played football have completely failed to realise how impossible it is to instantly adjust your strike zone by an inch on a moving target.  It's also a joke, and I think few people would disagree.  Coupled with Point 1, you can get rid of (or minimize) a lot of these stupid rules/flags.

There are three issues.  First, if they go Canadian width - that's pretty wide considering that the CFL has 12 players. I would expect a wider field, but not CFL width.  Second, you'll have to look at logistics.  Third, you'll fight a lot of people who resist change arbitrarily.  Field width is not essential to NFL football.  Not to mention, the  real threat to good ol' football is the constant bevy of new, wussy rules - the Tom Brady rule, defenceless players, etc.

So in summation, I believe a wider field is an amazing idea and will (if done intelligently) HELP those of us who love defences. I believe it will allow the NFL to return to its roots while still being high octane and exciting.

There's nothing "arbitrary" about people who don't this change, so stop patting yourself on the back for being so much more open minded than the rest of us. You like the CFL, watch the CFL.  But this change would have downstream repercussions on the entire game, the physical characteristics of player selection, it would be a major change to a game that is already impressively balanced and exciting.  Doing this would be fixing what isn't broke. 

I have an idea.  Lets change the field, replace the endzones with "goals", take off the pads, make the ball round, and only let the players kick the ball, no hands allowed except maybe for one guy we'll call the "goalie".  Wouldn't that be high octane and exciting football? 

[Dolorous Jason]

LOL , sure .....now let's see that theory in practice:

[cyberdude558]

I am at a total loss as to how a wider field = safer game. Sounds pretty **CENSORED**ing stupid to me.

More scoring, less collisions is the thinking.

BUT.....

Like the article said, more space allows for more buildup of speed. So i dont really think it will help a whole lot. Maybe less collisions, but the collisions that do happen will be more severe.

[tog]

There's nothing "arbitrary" about people who don't this change, so stop patting yourself on the back for being so much more open minded than the rest of us. You like the CFL, watch the CFL.  But this change would have downstream repercussions on the entire game, the physical characteristics of player selection, it would be a major change to a game that is already impressively balanced and exciting.  Doing this would be fixing what isn't broke. 

I have an idea.  Lets change the field, replace the endzones with "goals", take off the pads, make the ball round, and only let the players kick the ball, no hands allowed except maybe for one guy we'll call the "goalie".  Wouldn't that be high octane and exciting football?

Hmmm... sounds like you have the makings of a game that could be the most popular in the world!

LOL , sure .....now let's see that theory in practice:

What a great point!  Because clearly "fewer big hits = no big hits". 

Fun videos to watch though.

I am at a total loss as to how a wider field = safer game. Sounds pretty **CENSORED**ing stupid to me.

More scoring, less collisions is the thinking.

BUT.....

Like the article said, more space allows for more buildup of speed. So i dont really think it will help a whole lot. Maybe less collisions, but the collisions that do happen will be more severe.

Logics reversed.  If you have more space to run at a player, that player has more time to respond and protect himself/make a move (not to mention the defender has to make a tackle with more space, which means that you make fewer big hit attempts). 

[Hate]

Ain't happnin.

agreed!!

[Ms Elam]

That would kill defense. Defense is what separates college from the pros. If this happen you will see a bunch of 50 to 66 games, which would be interesting for all of 2 seasons but defense is what separates the NFL from all other forms of football. Widen the field and turn it into a competition if who gets the ball last and football would only be interesting in the 4th quarter.

[ryan24]

I don't think there's very much chance this happens.

[dbucfan]

It would be something to see - the guy who would have to tell Jerry Jones they need to expand ... lol

[JDouble]

I started watching football because I loved defense. I became a Buccaneers fan because I love defense. 25 years later I watch football for defense. I'm not supporting some random change that will do nothing for safety and hurt defense. It's a stupid idea. They need to quit changing **CENSORED** that isn't broken.

If they really want to make a huge change that will improve safety and cut down on head trauma, lose the helmets.

[Dolorous Jason]

Hardshell Helmets are the problem . No doubt. They are used as a weapon more so than provide protection.  I garantee you wouldn't see many defenders flying through the air with reckless abandon using  thier head as a battering ram if they knew they didn't have a hardshell helmet on.

Look at Rugby and Australian Rules football. Lots of contact, few concussions .

[BucNY]

Couple things come to mind. Wider field means much less zone coverage and more man coverage. I'm not sure it would mean more scoring. At first glance you would think it would be easier on the QB but he is still going to have the same short amount of time to throw the ball. Also, easy, high percentage throws like a slant or an out route suddenly became much more difficult. Imagine a 10 yard out route to the wide side of the field? We're talking about that being a 30-35 yard throw. Hardly an easy completion. Deep balls down the sideline would become even deeper and we should see QBs with average arms be phased out. That means guys like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning who can't throw a dime would be less effective.

Initially sounds like a big boost to the offense but i'm not sure it would work out that way.

[Bucs_Rule]

Couple things come to mind. Wider field means much less zone coverage and more man coverage. I'm not sure it would mean more scoring. At first glance you would think it would be easier on the QB but he is still going to have the same short amount of time to throw the ball. Also, easy, high percentage throws like a slant or an out route suddenly became much more difficult. Imagine a 10 yard out route to the wide side of the field? We're talking about that being a 30-35 yard throw. Hardly an easy completion. Deep balls down the sideline would become even deeper and we should see QBs with average arms be phased out. That means guys like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning who can't throw a dime would be less effective.

Initially sounds like a big boost to the offense but i'm not sure it would work out that way.

It would work out that way. If you add more space to the field it benefits the offense. Imagine if a CB slips on the wide side of the field, the WR would get an easy 20 yards or more every time.