Scratching my head at midseason

With the NFL officially reaching the midseason, several things have me scratching my head.

Can you figure out what the San Francisco 49ers are trying to do on offense? Jim Harbaugh went to three consecutive NFC title games with a power-running offense. This year, they added Stevie Johnson and Brandon Lloyd to the wide receiver corps and have operated out of three-receiver sets 32.6 plays a game, up from 12.8 last season. The 49ers' scoring is down 4.4 points a game to 21, and their rushing attack is down 18.1 yards a game to 119.5.

On the flip side, have you noticed how well Kansas City Chiefs coach Andy Reid has adjusted his offense to the strengths of his team? Using the West Coast philosophy, Reid operated out of a three-receiver set 53.6 percent of the time last season. This season, he's using two-back and two-tight end formations 67.2 percent of the time, and the team is 5-3 and getting stronger. Although no Chiefs wide receiver has a touchdown reception, the team is contending for a return to the playoffs.

Why were the league office and the competition committee worried about making extra points more exciting? The current rules work, and the game is getting enough offense and excitement. After nine weeks, passing touchdowns are at an all-time high of 459. Last season was the first time NFL teams surpassed 400 touchdown passes in nine weeks. There have been 130 more touchdown passes so far this season than there were at the same point in 2008. That's excitement enough.

Getting back to the kickers, their strength continues to take away the excitement of returns. Through nine weeks, only 40.6 percent of kickoffs have been returned. In the first two years after kickoffs were moved to the 35-yard line, the return rates were 51.3 in 2011 and 50.3 in 2012. The first nine weeks of the 2013 and 2014 seasons saw a total of seven kickoffs returned for touchdowns, including four this year.

What happened to the fast-paced offenses? Before the season, several teams were talking about speeding up their offensive tempos to try to get off more than 70 plays a game. Thus far, only the Indianapolis Colts (74) and Philadelphia Eagles (72.2) are averaging more than 70 plays. Remember how Mike McCarthy talked about getting his Green Bay Packers to 75 offensive plays a game? They are averaging 59.2. League-wide, offensive plays have dropped from 65.05 per team each game to 64.3.

From the inbox

Q: I think something needs to be said about how the Seahawks had to suit up injured players because they maxed out the limit of seven inactive players. So Max Unger and Stephen Schilling both suited up while injured (and Schilling actually had to play). I think the NFL needs to seriously consider a new IR system that allows you to move players to a temporary IR while in-season, so you can add players to the roster and avoid situations in which you might have to play an injured player that you had to suit up. This helps players and owners. More players would get a chance to play, and the injured ones will get a chance to fully heal. Owners can say they are caring for the players while being able to put their best product on the field later in the season.

Matt in Rochester, New York

A: The NFL allows teams to designate one player per season to return from IR after eight weeks. I don't know if owners would go for it, but it would be wise to add one or two more such designations. The number of injured starters grows at a record pace each year, and teams need more flexibility to adjust. I have said for more than a year that the league should allow more than 46 active players. There is still resistance from the NFL for competitive reasons. There is still an old-school line of thinking that less talented teams would be at an even bigger disadvantage if more players were active each week. The more injuries mount, the more the NFL needs to look for ways to help teams that have an abundance of injuries. I don't see the league doing anything with an injury list that would be for fewer than eight games.

Q: Why are you sure the Chargers are the NFL's favorite to move to Los Angeles, over the Rams? The Spanos family, which owns the Chargers, will not give AEG any stake in the franchise for a move to the planned Farmers Field, and unlike Kroenke and the Rams, they do not seem to have the ability to self-finance a stadium. Kroenke/Rams also own a Hollywood Park stadium site.

Robert in Seattle

A: Although the Spanos family won't say anything, I think the Chargers are the favorites to move to Los Angeles. At least, I believe the league is going to handle it that way. From what I hear, NFL owners will give the Spanos family every opportunity to consider a move to Los Angeles if there is no stadium deal in San Diego. Dean Spanos will do anything to keep the team in San Diego. He's waited this long and would be willing to wait longer if he senses a deal could be struck on a new stadium. But the family understands the value of a team in Los Angeles. If the Clippers are worth $2 billion, what will an NFL team in Los Angeles be worth in five or 10 years? The only reason people aren't putting the Chargers as the favorites is Spanos would prefer a new stadium in San Diego over one in L.A., if he gets that option.

Q: How are players' tenures impacted when they are placed on the commissioner's list, as in the cases of Adrian Peterson and Greg Hardy? Will this year count against their contracts?

Joe C. in Wilmington, Ohio

A: Peterson and Hardy are getting paid while on the commissioner's list, so there's no reason their contract terms would change. Hardy wouldn't have entered an agreement that prevented him from hitting the free-agent market after the season. He's the Panthers' franchise player and is making more than $13 million this year. The commissioner's list shouldn't impact the players' benefits. They will get credit for this season.

Q: The Jets have been off to a terrible start, and there is no way they are making the playoffs this season. I know he was just signed to an extension, but is Rex Ryan's seat getting hot? He's a great defensive coach and has wonderful schemes (he's even partially covered up the gaping issues with the secondary). I just don't know if he is head-coach material. We have seen two young QBs go there (Mark Sanchez and Geno Smith) and flop pretty badly and an offense struggle for the past five years. Is it time for the Jets to move on?

Alex B. in Sherwood, Oregon

A: It's safe to say Rex will be fired after the season. I see no reason to fire him before then. I believe he is head-coach material. He won four playoff games in two years. He establishes a winning environment for players. He's a great motivator and a great defensive coach. What he needs is to be aligned with a general manager whose strength is finding offensive players. The decline in the Jets was more on offense over the past several years.

Q: It was reported Tony Romo suffered two fractures of transverse processes of his vertebra, yet he was a game-day decision last week. The fact that the option exists for a player to enter a game with a broken back is a loss for player safety. Rather than marveling at the toughness of Romo (has this ever been in question?), should we not condemn this pointless risk of an individual's health?

Will in Palo Alto, California

A: These days, a team doctor is not going to let a player on the field if he believes the individual's health is in jeopardy. There is too much public information available for a doctor or trainer to risk a lawsuit or public embarrassment. Other players have played with an injury similar to Romo's. Let's go back to the Washington game in which he was hurt. The X-rays and scans at the stadium weren't going to be good enough to detect those fractures. The decision not to play him against Arizona was made because the pain was too much for him to be able to run an offense. Regardless, the Cowboys are taking a risk in flying him to London and letting him consider playing against the Jaguars. But Romo wants to do it for his team and his teammates.