Don't get all the hate for #2. We can agree to disagree but I don't get why you guys want more XP kicked and less 2 pt attempts. Would make the game more exciting and much less likely to go to OT and reduce the possibility of ties.

You're worried about ties? Ties in the NFL are rare. OT games, while not rare, are certainly not all that common. And even so, the OT rules could be changed. I think the game is exciting enough as it is. Forcing teams to go for 2 is just trying to turn NFL2K into NFL blitz. It's not a good idea. Just my opinion.

While I agree that there are rules that need tweaking, most of your proposals just make no sense.

1. Totally agree. Thursday night football is just wrong. Keep the 2 (or 3 for hardcore folks) games on Thanksgiving and move along.
2. Nope. Takes the decision out of the coach's hands.
3. Ahhhh-NO! Seriously, that happens maybe once or twice a game (on average), so let's not tinker with such a small item.
4. Well placed timeouts are part of the overall strategy. I'd support getting rid of the change of possession TV timeouts, but you're fooling with the NFL's most prized possession, money. More commercials, more bucks.
5. While we have some Emmy-winning actors in the NFL (Brady), the vast majority of those roughing calls are justified.
6. The intentional grounding penalty is just fine. Checkdown passes are part of the game. They all don't have to be 30 yard bombs. Many 3 and 4 yard gainers contribute to the overall success of the team.

Don't back down, it makes you look weak and FOS. You're ideas are shit but you have a right to post them. Other posters will pick them apart and call you an idiot. Welcome to the Planet.

are players more likely to get injured on Thursdays after they played on Sunday?

There are some NFL rules that I would like to see relaxed some, such as holding. It's a physical game, let the biggest and the strongest win. It would also make it easier for the officiating. It could still be called but stop with ticky-tacky calls

On your rule suggestions.

1. Yes

2. No, Let coaches coach.

3. No. Sometimes a team does go for it. It is part of the game.

4. No. Good teams know how to use their time outs. They would just add more commercial timeouts if you did that.

5. I could maybe see this but they want to protect the franchise QB at all costs. Also don't want QBs being cheesy soccer actors rolling around on ground until they get a penalty called.

6. Maybe, but don't want to more that officials have to watch for. The ball would have to be clearly short.

I know some others have mentioned it in some way, but PI has gotten ridiculous. At no point should a defender have to move out of your way to give you access to the ball. He has position, you need to find a way to go around him.

That and WR pushing off has gotten ridiculous, probably one of the things that makes me want to turn off the game.

If you are going to stick with this stupid new OT rule of both teams getting the ball, even if the first scores a TD, then no extra points or going for 2. That way I don't have to watch a team go for it on 5 4th downs to tie the game just to win on some goal line play.

I really like this idea. I have always hated rules that ask the referees to make a judgement as to whether something happened. For reference, think of the QB "in the grasp" rule, or the rule on whether a receiver "would have landed in bounds if not for the defender." Asking the referees to make judgements like these distract them from officiating penalties like they are supposed to do. Furthermore, if there actually are crooked referees, rules that give them the judgement to determine plays like whether the QB was in the grasp are perfect opportunities to influence the outcome of a game.

Any rule change that takes away judgement calls from the referees and leaves them only with the power to call whether the ball passed the line of scrimmage or not sounds like a great idea to me. This is exactly the kind of rule change that improve the game and reduce the amount of bitching at the refs that occurs in every contest.

ETA - Two really good things are accomplished with that rule change.
1 - The referee is no longer making a determination as to whether there was a receiver in the area. This is highly subjective and can vary wildly depending on who is making the call. The change makes it so the referee is only ruling on whether the ball hit the ground before the line of scrimmage or not and that could be reviewed pretty easily.

2 - We no longer have to sit through determinations of whether the QBs arm was going forward or not. If the ball comes out it's a live ball just as long as it doesn't make it to the line of scrimmage. No more interminable reviews on the QBs arm.

1. Disagree. Keep Thursday night football. It makes it more likely that I'll be able to watch the Chiefs whenever they play.

2. Disagree. Let coaches have different strategies.

3. Disagree mildly. It's annoying, but part of the game. However, defending teams should not be allowed to call timeout on field goal attempts. The whole 'icing the kicker' thing is a waste of time.

4. Disagree mildly. I don't really notice this as a negative unless it's the reason that coaches "ice the kicker".

5. Somewhat agree. Incidental contact shouldn't be called, like when the referees gave tom brady a super bowl by calling a penalty on Chris Jones for brushing the tip of his face mask from three feet away. If refs can distinguish roughing the kicker from running into the kicker, they can distinguish roughing the passer from brushing the passer. It would be ideal if roughing wasn't called unless the QB went down, but I don't want to encourage flopping so I don't know how to implement that.

6. Agree with a twist. I like the proposed rule of making it a live ball if it doesn't reach the line of scrimmage. I would also consider a rule addition on out of bounds throws. You put a wire up around the field (all four ends) that is 10 feet past the sideline and 8 feet in the air (or whatever distance is enough to ensure that it'll never interfere with a receiver). Any pass that goes over that wire is a loss of down atop the incompletion. So if a QB goes back on 1st down and chucks the ball up into the stands, it's an incomplete pass and a loss of down. So now it's third down.

Defensive holding (aka "the brady drive sustainer rule") is the scourge of our era. I'd be fine allowing pushoffs on offense if we would eliminate defensive holding from the rulebook. Let the receivers and defensive backs duke it out.

It also makes lots of money for the NFL, so it is here to stay.

But will the Amazon deal affect you being able to watch the Thursday night games?

Should be a 5 yard penalty with no automatic 1st down.

It appears as though the op wants to remove some of the strategy and just have more action. I like the strategy in sports. Of course now a days most people have no attention span so...

I'm sure it's been mentioned but pass interference should not be spot of the foul.

It'll never happen, but the Super Bowl should not be at a neutral site. It should always be at the home stadium of the highest remaining seed. No extended halftime either. Super Bowls feel "Disneyfied"...a spectacle for casual and non-fans, rather than the actual football fans who have been watching all season.