The onside kick was just stupid

[NEforceUConn]

It's a gamble to kick onsides but that's what you do in that situation on the road. If it had been later in the game then it's a no-brainer and the returning team is expecting it. Here they were expecting it UConn almost recovered anyway. The payoff would have been a momentum swing and hopefully quieting the home crowd. A wise man once said sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear, well, he eats you.

Momentum swing?????? We had just kicked a field goal and were behind by a TD. There was way too much time left on the clock, actually I believe 8:59. Dumb call.

 

[Jax Husky]

I wouldn't have done it, but I'm giving him a pass on any aggressive moves he wants to make in year 2.

 

[sub legacy]

That was a terrible call by Diaco, and he owes the team an apology for making it. UConn rallies to pull within 7 after a terrible sequence where BYU got 10 points in about a minute, and then Diaco decides to give the game away. NO ONE WAS FOOLED by that call. The announcers saw it coming, and I am sure Mendenhall saw it coming. The fact that the BYU player didn't field the ball cleanly doesn't justify a terrible call that effectively ended the game for the Huskies.

It wasn't daring, and it wasn't a gamble. It is not a gamble when everyone knows you are going to do it. It was just throwing the game away.

Agreed. It was too early for an onside kick and overall, the defense was holding its own against BYU offense. It felt more like a panic move to do an onside kick at that point in the game. They had time and only down one score.

 

[UConnNick]

Here's why the onside kick was a stupid call, there was 8 minutes LEFT in the game. Lets say UConn recovers and takes it in for a TD and ties the game at 20 all; we still have to kick the ball to BYU with probably 3+ minutes left on the board and they had a few timeouts. The D would have to hold them.

If the onside kick fails BYU recovers at midfield and they either put points on the board (and the game is over) or punt it and UConn has to produce a 80+/- yard drive to tie.

The obvious logical call is kick it and see if your D can hold them. If they do then at least you get the ball back with sufficient time and with decent field position. Under either scenario (onside/long kick) your D still is required to produce a stop.

Now if there were only 4 minutes left then yes onside kick.

HCBD needs to think ahead and play the scenarios out in his mind. His decision was 100% wrong.

Did it lose the game, no; but you can't make those type of bonehead calls.

Agreed, plus all of the above causes a change in momentum and the psychology of your team. You just scored, you've got a little momentum going, and then you take the air out of your own sails by calling a play which percentage-wise has a fairly low probability of success. The downside risk isn't worth the small chance of a reward with that much time left in the game. And calling what the defense did afterward a three-and-out is just plain stupid. Hello, it was a defensive player that got whistled for a 15 yard penalty. That's NOT a three-and-out!

You can argue it didn't change the outcome of the game but for the stupid penalty call, but that's what happened, and you probably survive ANY stupid defensive penalty if you kick the ball long and have them in their half of the field. It also took away the momentum and any psychological edge that was giving you. It was a stupid call in a still very winnable game. That's all on the coaching staff.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Agreed, plus all of the above causes a change in momentum and the psychology of your team. You just scored, you've got a little momentum going, and then you take the air out of your own sails by calling a play which percentage-wise has a fairly low probability of success. The downside risk isn't worth the small chance of a reward with that much time left in the game. And calling what the defense did afterward a three-and-out is just plain stupid. Hello, it was a defensive player that got whistled for a 15 yard penalty. That's NOT a three-and-out!

You can argue it didn't change the outcome of the game but for the stupid penalty call, but that's what happened, and you probably survive ANY stupid defensive penalty if you kick the ball long and have them in their half of the field. It also took away the momentum and any psychological edge that was giving you. It was a stupid call in a still very winnable game. That's all on the coaching staff.

+1000

 

[Nostical]

You can call the onside kick a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them. It was actually brilliant and but for a blunder in not blocking the 1 Cougar among 6 over zealous Huskies it would have worked. We need to always be unpredictable.
And (off topic) but one of the guys I met in Missouri was at the South Carolins Mizzou game yesterday. The overwhelming consensus was that UConn was a much better team than the Gamecocks. I liked hearing that.

 

[Greathusky]

I think it was gutsy call at the time except all our boys over ran the ball. Had one stayed back, it would have been our ball and a different game.

 

[whaler11]

You can call the onside kick a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them. It was actually brilliant and but for a blunder in not blocking the 1 Cougar among 6 over zealous Huskies it would have worked. We need to always be unpredictable.
And (off topic) but one of the guys I met in Missouri was at the South Carolins Mizzou game yesterday. The overwhelming consensus was that UConn was a much better team than the Gamecocks. I liked hearing that.

Hey if people running nonsense past you makes you feel better... I do hope you join us on Earth at some point.

 

[SubbaBub]

Here's why the onside kick was a stupid call, there was 8 minutes LEFT in the game. Lets say UConn recovers and takes it in for a TD and ties the game at 20 all; we still have to kick the ball to BYU with probably 3+ minutes left on the board and they had a few timeouts. The D would have to hold them.

If the onside kick fails BYU recovers at midfield and they either put points on the board (and the game is over) or punt it and UConn has to produce a 80+/- yard drive to tie.

The obvious logical call is kick it and see if your D can hold them. If they do then at least you get the ball back with sufficient time and with decent field position. Under either scenario (onside/long kick) your D still is required to produce a stop.

Now if there were only 4 minutes left then yes onside kick.

HCBD needs to think ahead and play the scenarios out in his mind. His decision was 100% wrong.

Did it lose the game, no; but you can't make those type of bonehead calls.

This.

It would have been a less bad call if there was any element of surprise. There wasn't as the kick team all but held up a sign. The result is irrelevant, it was a bad call. As long as the team is suboptimal, the coaching shouldn't be.

We play conservative offense, conservative defense and a non participatory return game. Presumably we do this to limit mistakes. How does that jive with BD doing his tactical impersonation of drunken Shooter from Hoosiers?

 

[Nostical]

Hey if people running nonsense past you makes you feel better... I do hope you join us on Earth at some point.

Nonsense? Thats not nonsense, that's their opinion, based not on conjecture but on the empirical evidence of having sat and watched both teams play their Mizzou Tigers. I believe them.

 

[whaler11]

Nonsense? Thats not nonsense, that's their opinion, based not on conjecture but on the empirical evidence of having sat and watched both teams play their Mizzou Tigers. I believe them.

Yes take the opinion of one person who tells you what you want to hear and ignore the opinion of a liquid marketplace where thousands of people back their opinions with real money.

Also throw out all those pesky computer programmers with their rankings because they don't fit your narrative.

But one Missouri fan who wants to rationalize why his team almost lost to UConn - thats the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

 

[Nostical]

Yes take the opinion of one person

It wasn't one person. It was the opinion of thousands at the game. The fact that you don't want to believe what is pretty obvious to many is your problem.

 

[whaler11]

It wasn't one person. It was the opinion of thousands at the game. The fact that you don't want to believe what is pretty obvious to many is your problem.

You were able to survey the opinion of thousands of people? Impressive.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think it was gutsy call at the time except all our boys over ran the ball. Had one stayed back, it would have been our ball and a different game.

The BYU front 5 did not so much as turn sideways for the onside kick. They were playing the onside kick all the way.

 

[RedStickHusky]

nelson is so right on this point it's amazing. our strategy for the whole game had been to shorten the game and keep the score down. the onside kick with 9 mins left had the exact opposite effect, it sped up the game, magnified subsequent mistakes, and turned the score board into a cash register... if our plan was to get to a last possession where one score could win it, that plan was best served by kicking deep, even down a possession and forcing byu to do something that they had not done much of to that point - sustain and finish a drive. To those that want to argue that the d got a three and out, well, you can say they almost did, or they sort of did, but the fact is that they didn't. But if AA's penalty occurred on the BYU 30 instead of the UConn 20, maybe it's not the backbreaker it was.

 

[Husky25]

Absolutely the wrong call. The correct call to to kick deep and show confidence in your defense which played well up to that point. Maybe you get a quick three and out. Maybe decent field position. Maybe a turnover. But not another of Bobby Boy D's trick plays which are hurting the team.

An Onside kick IS a vote of confidence for the defense. In the likely event that you don't recover it, You are trusting the defense to immediately hold serve and force a punt.

 

[Husky25]

There were two very, very, very stupid plays in that game...Well actually one was a mental mistake and the other was a stupid strategy...and the onside kick was not one of them.

1) The personal foul committed by Andrews.
2) Playing soft on the corners virtually all game long. If you aren't going amount any sort of pass rush, you have to play closer to the line. Michigan shut down BYU by getting in their face.

 

[RedStickHusky]

There were two very, very, very stupid plays in that game...Well actually one was a mental mistake and the other was a stupid strategy...and the onside kick was not one of them.

1) The personal foul committed by Andrews.
2) Playing soft on the corners virtually all game long. If you aren't going amount any sort of pass rush, you have to play closer to the line. Michigan shut down BYU by getting in their face.

agree on Andrews... playing soft had us at 10-10 deep into the third, the onside kick, whatever it might've lead to, opened the floodgates.

 

[CTMike]

The BYU front 5 did not so much as turn sideways for the onside kick. They were playing the onside kick all the way.

You still haven't acknowledged that nearly every onside kick is performed with the full knowledge of everyone involved, yet they still do it. The vast minority are done with an element of surprise.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You still haven't acknowledged that nearly every onside kick is performed with the full knowledge of everyone involved, yet they still do it. The vast minority are done with an element of surprise.

What is your point? Most onside kicks are desperation plays in the last minute or when the kicking team is down 2+ scores. Those kicks might work about 5-10% of the time. Why would UConn make a bet like that at that point in the game?

 

[CTMike]

Only that you are very focused on the element of surprise, which just seems an odd thing to focus on for that play. They are always low percentage plays. Would you have been more ok with it if it did catch them by surprise? Maybe a little. But Diaco took what he felt was a calculated risk that he could get the kick, and if not, the defense wouldn't give up points. I probably would have kicked it off deep, but the calculated gamble nearly worked.

 

[Dooley]

The ball was flopping on the ground like a fish out of water. Their 1 guy recovered it in an area that all 5 of our cover guys should have been but out-ran the kick somehow. The vote of confidence in the defense worked - the D forced a 3 and out. The killer play that ultimately doomed the onside kick decision was Adams' inexplicable delay of game/personal foul penalty. Without that penalty, UConn gets the ball back somewhere on our own 1-20 yard line, down 20-13, with plenty of time left on the clock.

 

[UConnJim]

You have to look at the percentages before you decide if it was a smart or dumb move.

I couldn't find an analysis of college on-side kicks, but there have been studies on NFL on-side kicks and here are the results: 20% of EXPECTED on-side kicks work. 60% of UNEXPECTED on-side kicks work. Despite what the announcers were saying about a possible on-sides kick, BYU was not expecting an on-side kick based on their defensive positioning.

So, based on the data, UConn had a 60% chance of recovering the on-side kick and based on the play execution, UConn probably should have recovered the ball.

Even though UConn didn't recover the ball, the defense would have forced a 3 and out had Adams not kicked the football into the stands. In my opinion, the on-side kick had a better than 50/50 shot and the defense did do their job. I think it was a decent calculated risk.

This is a much better team than last year and Diaco seems to be turning the program around. This was expected to be a rebuilding season with 2016 probably showing significant improvement. Enjoy the ride.

 

[CTMike]

You have to look at the percentages before you decide if it was a smart or dumb move.

I couldn't find an analysis of college on-side kicks, but there have been studies on NFL on-side kicks and here are the results: 20% of EXPECTED on-side kicks work. 60% of UNEXPECTED on-side kicks work. Despite what the announcers were saying about a possible on-sides kick, BYU was not expecting an on-side kick based on their defensive positioning.

So, based on the data, UConn had a 60% chance of recovering the on-side kick and based on the play execution, UConn probably should have recovered the ball.

Even though UConn didn't recover the ball, the defense would have forced a 3 and out had Adams not kicked the football into the stands. In my opinion, the on-side kick had a better than 50/50 shot and the defense did do their job. I think it was a decent calculated risk.

This is a much better team than last year and Diaco seems to be turning the program around. This was expected to be a rebuilding season with 2016 probably showing significant improvement. Enjoy the ride.

Interesting numbers... Thanks

 

[Husky25]

agree on Andrews... playing soft had us at 10-10 deep into the third, the onside kick, whatever it might've lead to, opened the floodgates.

We were watching the game together and commenting in the chatroom, Seoul, and you know I was harping on the easy 8 yard clips BYU was getting. I'll have to re-watch the game to see where the secondary was positioned, but BYU's turnovers had as much to do with the 10-10 score than UConn's "success" with soft coverage.

 

[RedStickHusky]

We were watching the game together and commenting in the chatroom, Seoul, and you know I was harping on the easy 8 yard clips BYU was getting. I'll have to re-watch the game to see where the secondary was positioned, but BYU's turnovers had as much to do with the 10-10 score than UConn's "success" with soft coverage.

No argument, I think BD was willing to give them yards and possession all day as long they were burning clock and the game stayed close. If they were finishing drives he would had to make adjustments but they helped us for most of the game. So if you play the whole game trying to set up one shot, why pull the trigger with nine minutes left. We weren't going to hold the ball for nine minutes. Putting aside the should've, could've, would've what happened was they got a short field, got a two possession lead, we sped up and got a bad turn over and they scored again on a short field. He made his move too early.

 

[Husky25]

No argument, I think BD was willing to give them yards and possession all day as long they were burning clock and the game stayed close. If they were finishing drives he would had to make adjustments but they helped us for most of the game. So if you play the whole game trying to set up one shot, why pull the trigger with nine minutes left. We weren't going to hold the ball for nine minutes. Putting aside the should've, could've, would've what happened was they got a short field, got a two possession lead, we sped up and got a bad turn over and they scored again on a short field. He made his move too early.

Had the onside kicked worked, a subsequent UConn score very well could have had the intended a demoralizing effect on BYU. I agree that it didn't have a very high probability of working and an onside kick at that point of the game either makes the coach a genius (a la Sean Payton), or a dunce. If it was a stupid call (I don't think it was), it was no more stupid than the PF on Andrews or even less advised than Sherriffs' throw while in the grasp.

 

[UConnJim]

Had the onside kicked worked, a subsequent UConn score very well could have had the intended a demoralizing effect on BYU. I agree that it didn't have a very high probability of working and an onside kick at that point of the game either makes the coach a genius (a la Sean Payton), or a dunce. If it was a stupid call (I don't think it was), it was no more stupid than the PF on Andrews or even less advised than Sherriffs' throw while in the grasp.

Based on NFL stats, the on-side kick had a 60% chance of working.

 

[gioff23]

I would not have tried an OS kick at that juncture. But I don't know what went it into it -were the kids showing signs of fatigue, playing late and in the mountains? did they see something on prior kicks that led them to believe it would work? Did they look at the stats and realize they would be hard pressed to get a 3 and out or come back from further? To be fair, it was a great OS kick and should've been recovered, but again, I would not have gone for it.

The irony is that those that don't like BD look for a reason to justify their views. Last year against BYU he got skewered for not trying to win. This year he is getting it because he did try and win. Perhaps not the way some think he should have gone for the win, but he did try and get the kids to believe they were there to win, not look respectable.

 

[UconnFamily]

That was a terrible call by Diaco, and he owes the team an apology for making it. UConn rallies to pull within 7 after a terrible sequence where BYU got 10 points in about a minute, and then Diaco decides to give the game away. NO ONE WAS FOOLED by that call. The announcers saw it coming, and I am sure Mendenhall saw it coming. The fact that the BYU player didn't field the ball cleanly doesn't justify a terrible call that effectively ended the game for the Huskies.

It wasn't daring, and it wasn't a gamble. It is not a gamble when everyone knows you are going to do it. It was just throwing the game away.

I'm sorry, and I might be in the minority, but that onside call was not stupid. BYU was fooled but 1. There was 5 husky players around the football against 1 BYU player. It looked as if the UConn players were fooled because they all ran by the ball while that 1 BYU player went and attacked it. If all 5 players went after that ball you would of loved that onside kick. It was a mental error on the players end.