Dear RR; For the love of god, pls ONSIDE KICK!
let's recap our kickoff's from saturday,
1. Returned to the 44, They get a FG
2. Returned to the 46, They get a TD
3. Returned to the 29, They Punt, we get the ball on the 20
4. Kick out of bounds ball at 40, They get a TD
5. Returned to the 35, They get a FG
6. Returned to the 43, They Punt, we get the ball on the 11
7. Return + penalty to the Michigan 42, They punt for a touchback
8. Return to the 18, they punt. we get the ball at the 31
What exactly would we be losing by trying a few onside kicks? Obviously you can't do it all the time, because it's only high percentage when it's a surprise.
They scored on half of their possessions. The other 4 had us pinned back pretty far. A successful onsides would get us the ball with much better field position.
They started 5 of 8 of their drives at the 40 or better. Even if we failed an onside kick, we're only giving up 5 or 10 yards.
Hopefully we won't need to do onsides vs. Purdue, but against wisconsin and especially OSU, we really need the extra possessions.
AND ABOUT OSU. You can say that you prepare for all the games the same, that's a great cliche' for the media. But if you really believe it, you won't be here for much longer. You've been outclassed by fricken MSU's coaches for 3 years because they understand what a rivalry is about. OSU is the last game of the season, there's no reason to leave anything in the tank.
Lloyd Carr had a much better record than you, and people still wanted to run him out of town because of his record vs. tressell. You really need to do something every week, (if not every day) to beat OSU.
You got your six wins and a bowl berth. That only bought you time. If you want to be here for more than a couple years, you'd better find a way to beat OSU. Trick plays, onside kicks, going for it on 4th when our kickers are bad, you need to do these kinds of things.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
You don't know jack shit about football but please continue to post because it is actually entertaining.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
I post a statistically sound strategic suggestion based on available evidence. you post ... what exactly?
November 7th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
I'm gonna go ahead and throw it out there that this probably isn't one of those cases where, "Hey, something's better than nothing!"
November 7th, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
I respond to you a little further down the thread. Sound strategic suggestion is also a far cry from what you have offered up coach. Have you noticed any other kick off teams who kick onside kicks on a regular basis? You don't because it is a low percentage play which guarantees to put your defense in a hole.
Now your evidence definitely shows that we have a poor kick off team and to that I say, no shit. Did you hear our defense has some problems too?
November 7th, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
Now your evidence definitely shows that we have a poor kick off team and to that I say, no shit. Did you hear our defense has some problems too?
yes, this is the point. it would be worth it to try and not put the game on their shoulders and put it on our very talented offense.
You can't kick onsides everytime. But a 3rd quarter onsides is usally high percentage when the other team is not expecting it.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^
I believe someone has looked up the percentage. We would have a 20 percent chance of recovering.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^
thats for all onsides kicks, including kicks against "hands" teams. If you only look at surprise onsides against non-hands teams you will see the percentage is much, much higher. ask brian.
November 7th, 2010 at 2:55 PM ^
which means, given our defense, it's very likely worth it to try it once this season.
November 7th, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^
Even at 20% it would have been absolutely worth it last week vs Penn State.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
Jesus christ, another "derp RR doesn't understand rivalries!" post? Seriously?
November 7th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
I'm not sure I like your tone. Please save that for a week with an L.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
for 24 hours. 24 hours to celebrate or lament a loss, and then get prepared for future games.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
What exactly would we be losing by trying a few onside kicks?
All of those "punt" and "FG" drives, for one.
Among all their drives in regulation, the averaged 27 yards. Considering most onside kicks give it to the offense at our 40 or so, that means on average they would drive to our 13 on every drive. Enjoy that one.
I'd rather Rich continue to play sound football, teach the boys the correct way to play, and count on his defense to make some important stops.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:58 PM ^
others in this thread could learn from you.
It's a lottery to be sure. but on half of the drives, they did that or better anway. It would help with time of possession, our defense would be fresher. We'd probably have a higher percentage of FG's but I'd take that over trading TD's. At this point we're expecting the opposing offenses to score a lot.
We need to adjust to that reality and not just hope for the D to get better this year. Next year is a different story. This is only a stopgap for the last two games.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
No shit.. our kickers are having a hard enough time just kicking the ball straight and you think they could actually execute a perfect onside kick without it going out of bounds on the 45? You sir are an idiot
November 7th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
BlueSeoul negged every person in this thread that disagreed with his stupid thread.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
if someone negged you its not me. you can check the voting logs.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^
I think the underlying theme to your post rings true. The kickoff team put the defense in a precarious position throughout the entire game. Speculation can definitely be made as to what may have been were Michigan able to put Illinois inside their own 30 on a consistent basis.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
that the kickoff coverage sucked, high risk for high rewards. If we had a stiffer defense and a capable coverage team and they would start at their own 30 instead of midfield, then we wouldn't be even considering this. But we don't, so we are.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
I wouldn't be against an occasional onside kick but working on the kickoff team's ability to get down field and tackle the ball carrier would be time well spent more so than multiple onsides.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
"We" aren't considering this, you are alone on this one. Kick it deep and hope for the best is the correct call every time. Unless we are down 3 with no time outs and 37 seconds left, then I am with you.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^
so obviously "we" doesn't include "you" but it does include me and the people who agree with me as has been demonstrated on several other threads.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
You have to agree that multiple onside kicks is unrealistic. 50% would most likely be as good as it gets and that would be a huge determent to the team. Football is a game of inches. Why give the opponent an extra 20 yards?
November 7th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
but one or two a game is a reasonable tactic. And those posessions could really be the difference in a shootout, as we're excepting against wisc and osu. ask new orleans.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^
EDIT: You stated that in your OP. My mistake.
November 7th, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^
November 7th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
You may be considering this, but the coaches aren't.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^
And we should go for it on 4th down every time, too! Even if we are on our own 10.
Um. Sarcasm.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
but there are some analyses that do.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^
Why are you the way that you are?
I hate.....so much....the things you choose to be...
In all seriousness though, let's settle for actually keeping a kickoff in bounds and MAYBE, just MAYBE, our ridiculously young defence can improve enough that preventing a 70-80 yard drive isn't such an outrageous proposition.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
We can't even keep regular kickoffs in-bounds. The idea of trying an onside kick with the current state of our special teams scares the living daylights out of me.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
The funny thing about yesterdays missed FG, was at halftime he didn't miss from the same spot. I don't know if the kickers get nervous during the game or what, but they were practically down the middle and the had more then enough elevation.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
Pure speculation but if the kicker is having a problem with confidence it isn't helping that his coach is chastising him through every media outlet.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
HIM NOT UNDERSTAND RIVALRY
I AM ANGAR
November 7th, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
Babby before marriage? Not in my city-state.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
Forget the onside kick. Learn to cover kickoffs.
November 7th, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^
we are making changes on Off and Def., mid season. I think there needs to be some changes on the kickoff team. This would be a good topic for someone to write about the next couple of weeks. Who has been on the kickoff team as of last week, and see if any changes / improvements are made after the Purdue/Wisc/OSU games.....
November 7th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
I would rather kick it deep (Sure they return it pretty far but still) and take our chances with them moving the ball on us. If we onside kick, we're giving them even better field position and would only have to drive 15-20 yards to be in field goal range. You have a 20% chance of recovering an onside kick (I looked it up) so just kick it off and maybe the defense even forces a turnover.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
The success rate increases when the onside kick is unexpected (prime example is the Saints in the Super Bowl).
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/onside-kicks.html
An occasional surprise onside kick would be good, but more than one per game would make it somewhat expected. It would have been good to leave the post at that and not bring up the rivalry stuff.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
Does anyone know who is on the kickoff team? I have looked but can't find the depth chart for it. That may answer a lot of questions.
November 7th, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^
you have never played or coached football in your life. You can't do that to the defense. These kids should have gained a little bit of confidence with the way they played against the Fighting Zookers.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
You're gonna compare a high school team to UM. This is brilliant. Why hasn't anyone else thought of this, LMAO.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:22 PM ^
You should probably stop trying to explain yourself and move on with the little blog-dignity you still have
November 7th, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
If we utilized that strategy with some regularity, the opposing teams would almost be forced to use their "hands" team on most kickoffs. We could then kick deep and probably not give up as many yards on the returns. This is not an original idea but I think it has merit.
November 7th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^
#1 Even though the coach is not going to read this and certainly will devise his own game plan apart from what fans think, it is perfectly acceptable for a fan to give his/her opinion. So stop being a douchebag to the poster.
#2 I was extremely thrilled by the win yesterday! The defense showed promise at times. They still give up massive amounts of points including two WIDE open TD passes. If our defense is struggling and we have to win via a shootout then its IMPERATIVE to give our offense as many possessions as possible. Our defense is not forcing turnovers either (yesterdays turnover by Illinois was a gift). I was thinking last week that if we are struggling on defense so much then why not try more onside kicks or atleast maybe ONE onside kick (I don't think Michigan has done it once this year).
Some of you have gripped about the low percentage of success with an onside kick but then again I would argue about the low percentage success our defense has had on stopping a third down. At worst you give a defense that is already struggling horrible field position. I have no doubt the percentages would still be the same for an opponent to score a td REGARDLESS of field position. For those of you who are numb in the head and fail to see otherwise, I point the massive points put up by mediocre offenses as proof of my argument.
By the way, those field goals and the punts were a product more of Ron Zook's conservative by the book nature rather than our defense stopping them cold. The Illini should have gone for it on fourth down rather than punt and had they attempted it there is no doubt in my mind they would have converted. A coach who adjusts for different teams and disregards playing by the books will see his offense score at will on our defense. Therefore, it would be more beneficial to attempt to produce turnovers.
November 7th, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^
You have lost your mind. I am not the Mathlete but just using common sense I would say better field position = better chance of scoring.
November 7th, 2010 at 3:04 PM ^
I wouldn't be averse to trying a surprise onside kick once in the next three weeks, but it's not something you can do regularly. The fact that we stunk on kickoffs and kick coverage suggests to me that . . . we should probably practice those a little more.