The onside kick was just stupid | Page 3 | The Boneyard
.-.

The onside kick was just stupid

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
UConnJim said:
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.
Expand ...
Interesting numbers... Thanks
 
SeoulHuskyFan said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Husky25 said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
SeoulHuskyFan said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Husky25 said:
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.
Expand ...

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

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.
 
CTMike said:
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.
Expand ...

He gave up 25 yards or so of field position. BYU was moving the ball at will between the 20's so I don't think he risked too much.

We got the 3 and out...and then the dropped INT...it didn't change the outcome.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
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.
Expand ...
Oh yeah, I'm a supporter of Diaco and believe he is overall doing an excellent job. But that call was stupid; maybe down 3 you could make a case but not 7. He needs to pick his spots better.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
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.
Expand ...
Not really, if the players didn't out run the ball they would of had it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
428
Guests online
13,685
Total visitors
14,113
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,389
Messages
4,434,641
Members
10,286
Latest member
John15:4


p
p
Top Bottom