POLL: So, should ET be returning punts?

[RolandDeschain]

Yeah, on a per play basis, because every punt goes to the same returner.

If you target a WR 10 times a game he's still on the field for anywhere between 30-60 plays where the ball goes nowhere near him, so the chance for injury on a per play basis is significantly less. The chance for injury on PRs is ridiculously low when you consider the number of punts fielded in a season

No, that was specifically factored in. It was about double the rate of injury compared to other skill positions where they have the ball. A lot of the cases where punters get injured, however, are because the punter's trying to be a hero and doesn't wave off a fair catch when he should have and gets blasted.

 

[Cartire]

Yeah, on a per play basis, because every punt goes to the same returner.

If you target a WR 10 times a game he's still on the field for anywhere between 30-60 plays where the ball goes nowhere near him, so the chance for injury on a per play basis is significantly less. The chance for injury on PRs is ridiculously low when you consider the number of punts fielded in a season

No, that was specifically factored in. It was about double the rate of injury compared to other skill positions where they have the ball. A lot of the cases where punters get injured, however, are because the punter's trying to be a hero and doesn't wave off a fair catch when he should have and gets blasted.

Source please.

Dont need to argue the basis if you have a source.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I still don't understand why Pete it putting Earl back there.

Punt returns for me have now gone from exciting to "OMG DON'T GET HURT!" I just don't think the payoff is worth the risk, especially for a player like Earl who WILL take risks because he's such a competitor.

Turbin, C-Mike, Richardson, Baldwin, Percy, Bates, Walters.............all safer choices than the most critical defensive player on our team, and arguably the entire league.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Source please.

Dont need to argue the basis if you have a source.

I don't remember. Not trying to avoid it - I just don't remember, .NET had a big discussion on this like two years ago. I'll see if I can find it tonight.

 

[OkieHawk]

Source please.

Dont need to argue the basis if you have a source.

I don't remember. Not trying to avoid it - I just don't remember, .NET had a big discussion on this like two years ago. I'll see if I can find it tonight.

I thought it was last year that this discussion was had.

 

[ivotuk]

No.

The man goes full on in practice and at everything he does. Sure it may seem cool if he gets a great run back or two, but to me it's not worth it.

All it takes is one gunner who is barely on a team and wants to make a name for himself to take out Earl's knee..after he calls fair catch.

He's too valuable, and other teams know that so they will be going hard to injure him. Do you really think there's only one player like Rocket out there that lays the hits, legal and illegal on punt returners?

Do you think Sean Payton would shy away from a late hit on Earl?

 

[DavidSeven]

I guess another question would be....Who fills his spot at safety if he gets injured and are you happy with having that player there, and what kind of drop off would there be?

Likely Jeron Johnson, who has been said to be the back-up at both FS and SS. JJ is a starting-quality safety on most teams. Again, the scheme might look different, but that doesn't mean it won't be effective. Like I said earlier in this thread, people are too honed in on the idea that there isn't another Earl Thomas type safety on the team. If that was such a crucial deal, then why haven't we been converting a bunch of fast 5'10 CBs to safety? Because Earl is an exception for Pete due to his skill. If Pete had it his way, he'd probably have a team full of long, bruising safeties (which he basically does outside of Earl). Pete has coached up many elite secondaries without a small rangy safety. Why would we doubt that he could do it again?

Obviously, if you lose an all-pro, then there's going to be a drop-off. However, no single loss on defense would drop Seattle from #1 defense to #20 overnight. IMO, losing one of our top pass rushers might be an even bigger issue.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I thought it was last year that this discussion was had.

It may have been. I don't remember.

 

[volsunghawk]

I look at it this way...
Imagine the best case scenario happens. Earl returns a punt for a touchdown. 70 yards at full speed or near it. Exhausted and sucking on an oxygen tank after the run. Now he has to go back out there and be who he is for our defense.

No thanks. Rest up Earl. We need every bit of your speed and energy on D.

Honestly, that's the only concern I really have with him returning punts... I prefer all of his energy to be available for his defensive excellence. But I also like the idea of him giving our offense short fields to work with on the regular.

I'm not worried in the slightest about the injury thing. Guys get injured far more often on regular football plays than they do on punts.

 

[Blitzer88]

I don't really like it.................

 

[OkieHawk]

I don't really like it.................

Not really surprised by that Blitzer... :lol: