Dooley
Done with U-con athletics
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 9,960
- Reaction Score
- 32,818
This has been brought up in various threads and I thought it might be fun to discuss in a separate thread.
What do you guys think of the idea of more onside kick attempts? Yes, I realize that sounds completely like fan-speak, but I think there could be some tactical advantages of trying it.
It makes no lick of difference if opponents begin their drives from their own 25 yard line vs. our 45 yard line. For most competent FBS level offenses against our defense, that's probably a 2-4 play sequence to gain those 30 or so yards. Our defense is so young, so overmatched strength and speed wise, and so inexperienced fundamentally and tactically that defending less yards might actually be a good thing.
The biggest concern with onside kicking is obviously the odds aren't very good at recovering the football and that sets up offenses with terrific field position. I think it's > 10% chance of recovery by the kicking team, if I'm not mistaken. But with our defense - so what? If our D has to defend 45 yards vs 75 yards, we can then begin to coach our guys to keep plays in front of them, take proper tackle angles, and not worry about being torched for a 75 yard big play. For example, safeties can play 5 yards or so deeper in 2-deep coverage and know full well that anything over their head is a shot to the end zone. It lets the shorter field help us defend, in other words. Our second level D won't be extended as far for pass coverage assignment and with 2 safeties taking better angles, could help cover TEs and backs. And our front might have an extra second or so to try to get off blocks and develop a pass rush.
I know our D is still the same overmatched defense on our own 45 yard line that it is on their 25 yard line and we will give up points no matter what. We're giving up yards and points at a historic clip as it is. Can it get worse? Sure. We would run the risk of having 80+ dropped on us in a game if the opposing offense can cash in every time on the terrific field position. But...who cares if we give up 700 yards and 60 points or if we give up 400 yards and 80 points? I'm more concerned with teaching proper technique and fundamentals and it might be easier to do this if we are defending less turf. If our D starts to force more FGs than TDs, than we can always kick off conventionally. Apply the learned technique/fundamentals from 45 yards or less on a stretched 75 yards or less field at that point.
I think we all agree that while our offense is no Chip Kelly Oregon offense, it is MUCH further along than our defense. We have a FBS level QB that can make plays. Very easily our best player. Give him the opportunity to make more plays. Hopefully, we can cash in those plays into points at some point. Our best defense this year might just be our offense for no other reason than letting that clock tick and tick and tick. Play some time of possession and hope that we can get some points. Melt as much clock as possible and defend less turf if we are unable to cash in points.
I also know full well that Randy and traditional coaches would probably absolutely hate this idea and I understand it. Our defense will only get better through more practice time and more game reps (and a few years of S&C). I just wonder if the coaching staff has considered the idea more from a technique angle. Keep plays in front of you. Play the dreaded bend-but-don't-break defense only that the amount of bending won't be quite as drastic on a smaller field.
I wonder what the analytics say in how play callers call plays on a shorter field. I think they would call a few shots to the end zone - fly routes, playaction shots, etc - but I also think that beginning drives on our 45 could create an element of conservative play calling for some. They would feel fairly confident in knowing they have a FG in their back pocket so the play calling could reflect that. Another reason why and how our defense can play more read and react to keep plays in front of them. We can clog up a shorter field much easier than a longer one if playcalling turns more conservative. Force OCs to dial up aggressive shots to the end zone and hope the shorter success rate odds help us out with over/under thrown balls, an extra second for our pass rush, blown routes by opposing WRs, etc.
Food for thought, anyway. Being asked this at a press conference would likely result in another storm away ending as he'll defend his DC to the end. But what the heck do we have to lose in trying it? Analytic approaches helped the Tampa Rays and Oakland A's (and others) compete with non-traditional approaches. Maybe it could (COULD!) help our overmatched defense. Plus, we might actually recover 1 or 2 and play some offense.
What do you guys think of the idea of more onside kick attempts? Yes, I realize that sounds completely like fan-speak, but I think there could be some tactical advantages of trying it.
It makes no lick of difference if opponents begin their drives from their own 25 yard line vs. our 45 yard line. For most competent FBS level offenses against our defense, that's probably a 2-4 play sequence to gain those 30 or so yards. Our defense is so young, so overmatched strength and speed wise, and so inexperienced fundamentally and tactically that defending less yards might actually be a good thing.
The biggest concern with onside kicking is obviously the odds aren't very good at recovering the football and that sets up offenses with terrific field position. I think it's > 10% chance of recovery by the kicking team, if I'm not mistaken. But with our defense - so what? If our D has to defend 45 yards vs 75 yards, we can then begin to coach our guys to keep plays in front of them, take proper tackle angles, and not worry about being torched for a 75 yard big play. For example, safeties can play 5 yards or so deeper in 2-deep coverage and know full well that anything over their head is a shot to the end zone. It lets the shorter field help us defend, in other words. Our second level D won't be extended as far for pass coverage assignment and with 2 safeties taking better angles, could help cover TEs and backs. And our front might have an extra second or so to try to get off blocks and develop a pass rush.
I know our D is still the same overmatched defense on our own 45 yard line that it is on their 25 yard line and we will give up points no matter what. We're giving up yards and points at a historic clip as it is. Can it get worse? Sure. We would run the risk of having 80+ dropped on us in a game if the opposing offense can cash in every time on the terrific field position. But...who cares if we give up 700 yards and 60 points or if we give up 400 yards and 80 points? I'm more concerned with teaching proper technique and fundamentals and it might be easier to do this if we are defending less turf. If our D starts to force more FGs than TDs, than we can always kick off conventionally. Apply the learned technique/fundamentals from 45 yards or less on a stretched 75 yards or less field at that point.
I think we all agree that while our offense is no Chip Kelly Oregon offense, it is MUCH further along than our defense. We have a FBS level QB that can make plays. Very easily our best player. Give him the opportunity to make more plays. Hopefully, we can cash in those plays into points at some point. Our best defense this year might just be our offense for no other reason than letting that clock tick and tick and tick. Play some time of possession and hope that we can get some points. Melt as much clock as possible and defend less turf if we are unable to cash in points.
I also know full well that Randy and traditional coaches would probably absolutely hate this idea and I understand it. Our defense will only get better through more practice time and more game reps (and a few years of S&C). I just wonder if the coaching staff has considered the idea more from a technique angle. Keep plays in front of you. Play the dreaded bend-but-don't-break defense only that the amount of bending won't be quite as drastic on a smaller field.
I wonder what the analytics say in how play callers call plays on a shorter field. I think they would call a few shots to the end zone - fly routes, playaction shots, etc - but I also think that beginning drives on our 45 could create an element of conservative play calling for some. They would feel fairly confident in knowing they have a FG in their back pocket so the play calling could reflect that. Another reason why and how our defense can play more read and react to keep plays in front of them. We can clog up a shorter field much easier than a longer one if playcalling turns more conservative. Force OCs to dial up aggressive shots to the end zone and hope the shorter success rate odds help us out with over/under thrown balls, an extra second for our pass rush, blown routes by opposing WRs, etc.
Food for thought, anyway. Being asked this at a press conference would likely result in another storm away ending as he'll defend his DC to the end. But what the heck do we have to lose in trying it? Analytic approaches helped the Tampa Rays and Oakland A's (and others) compete with non-traditional approaches. Maybe it could (COULD!) help our overmatched defense. Plus, we might actually recover 1 or 2 and play some offense.
