Wolverine247 Board

Makes sense to me actually. He's 3rd on the depth chart at Safety, but has good size and speed. Everyone talked about him as a RB in high school, but said he ran too upright to be a college RB. That isn't too big of a deal for KR where you want a guy at full speed quickly and is in the open field.

Kind of interesting..hes strong..if he gets a head of steam he wont be easy to tackle..him and Norfleet back there id like to see

I don't think this will matter much anyway because of the new kickoff rules. Most kickers were getting it to the goal line last year, so moving the kick up to the 35 means most kickoffs will be around 5-yards deep in the end zone. Then combine it with the fact touchbacks now come to the 25 instead of the 20 and there is a lot less reason to even attempt a return. You're basically telling the return man he needs to get at least 30 yards to make it worthwhile, which is going to mean a lot of touchbacks.

Like Dizzo said, how important are kickoff returners with the new rules? I mean, it's important on punts, but other than that I just want the returners to catch the ball.

These new rules are BS

I hate it too. It us taking away a huge part of the game

When the NFL practically removed kickoffs, I was like "It's ok, CFB won't do this.."

Looks like I was wrong.

Josh Furman's a really good guy off of the field. I wish him much success.

You state your point eloquently and I cannot agree more. How can a team even get a chance to come back without even a possibility of a big return. It takes the excitement away.

I actually like the new rules (aside from onside kicks). I'd be okay with teams just starting from the 20 all the time, with no kickoff (except onsides). This should make the game much safer, without destroying it too much. Sure, long kickoff returns are awesome, but they're also pretty rare and involve a ton of luck. I don't think it significantly hinders a team's chances of making a comeback either.

The onsides change, however, is ridiculous. They're basically ending games that would otherwise have a chance to comeback and be exciting at least. Now there will no point in watching games when a team is up 2 scores and under ~3 minutes. Even though teams rarely get that onsides kick, it makes it a lot more fun to watch knowing that that is still in play. Shame...

I like the onside kick rule change because It basically makes it the same as a punt. Having a guy standing still looking up in the air to make a catch while 11 guys are allowed to run right at him, full speed, and hit him before he has the ball was just crazy. I always thought it was unfair to allow the kicking team to hit the receiving players before they touched the ball.

The rule only allows for a fair catch after one bounce, so those cases where the ball hits once and bounces high in the air, which was the most dangerous type of play possible.

If the ball bounces twice, no fair catch. So the play is still there, they just need to execute it with a different kick. You'll see kickers squibbing the ball more hoping the receiver can't field it cleanly instead of the bounce-high-hit-everyone approach. I also think the bounce-high approach could work too if you have a guy who can jump up and grab it before the receiver catches it, as long as they don't hit them.

I think you're right that teams will not do the high-bounce kick anymore. The one kick that came to mind that made me think it might be possible still was Auburn-Utah State to start last season. The Auburn player basically caught it clean out of the air. I'm not sure of the nuances of the new rules, but if the kicking team player catches the ball and then hits the receiving player, would it be allowed? This play wasn't a violent hit, but there was contact after he caught the ball.