Onside kick to increase number of offensive series?

I have a feeling that Dantonio might call this against us. They are going to need all the possessions that they can get to outscore us.

I'm not a kicking expert, so I'm not sure what the difficulty level of an onside kick is relative to other kicking skills. So, the recent kicking woes may or may not factor into that decision because you don't want to just hand the ball over to the opponent even if it feels like the opponent would get to that point on the field had you kicked it off anyways. However, it's not like they don't practice onside kicks, so I'm sure it's in the bag of tricks, maybe we can get Mathlete to calculate the potential point pay off or something.

Edit: I know onside kicks are dificult, just not sure how much skill/luck, etcetera is involved, and what that says about the odds of our kickers having a realistic chance to give the hands team a shot at recovering the kick.

Statistically, maybe it wouldn't hurt.  You'd have to compare the expected recovery rate of onside kicks to the chance of your defense getting a stop on a short field (as opposed to a longer field).

But, in a year where RR's job is on the line, etc., do you want him making strategic gambles this big, and being perceived as a 'rogue' coach (think Les Miles).  If it works, it might be worth it, but otherwise it's asking for trouble.

The "bend don't break" defense doesn't work when bending allows your opponent into the endzone immediately.

With our defense our best chance is getting the other team into long drives, forcing them to dink and dunk their way down the field and make mistakes. Starting them out at our own 40 automatically doesn't help our case at all, especially with the small chances that an onside kick actually works.

Robinson is fast enough that if he played on special teams that they could kick it to him.  He could catch it midair and go for the score immediately.  He can do it all!

I initially dismissed your idea as insane.

Then I thought about it. 

On the theory that our defense is going to give up 7 on just about every drive, why not risk it?  What is the worst that can happen?  State (or whatever team we play) will get good field position and score? Ok, so what?  They were going to score anyway.  But, as you said, if even 1 on-side kick results in us getting the ball back, then +7 for us.

Here are the problems with your plan, though:

1.  Our special teams / kicking / punt coverage has been not great.  They are also young.  Successfully working the onside kick is very difficult, even if performed by the best, most experienced personnel.  More often than not, this will just result on State (or whoever) getting the ball around the 50.

2.  We don't get scored on EVERY time - just most of the time.  So, while there is the chance of +7 in our favor, there is also the chance that Stete gets 7 (based on great field position)  on a drive where we might have stopped them.

3.  Element of surprise - if we do this too much, opposing teams will be on the lookout for it, reducing our success rate.

Here's how I would use your strategy:  If we are in a game where our offense is getting scored consistently (3 straight drives or 4 of 5), break it out.  At that point, what's the difference. 

What's next? take the defense off the field completely so that they score on the first play and we win the time of possession battle? Our defense needs to make enough stops to give our offense a chance to win. Thankfully, that is not a very high number.  There aren't any magic schemes or approaches left.  It's just going to come down to coaching and execution by the players to see if we can get any more out of our current talent.  If they can start to get more stops, we'll see more offense and probably more wins. Easy enough? 

This assumes our kicker would be able to properly execute an onside kick consistently.  I wouldn't do it unless we were huge underdogs to someone.

I think the problem with this idea, as it has been mentioned before, is that our defense relies on getting the opposing offense to make mistakes.  With a much shorter field, the opportunity to do so is much less.  Secondly, you're also assuming that our offense will score every time we touch the ball.  As prolific our offense is, that's not going to be the case either.  This is a very high risk/high reward scenario and I doubt it would be profitable over time.

I like the way you move.

First we'd either have to do it on the first kickoff for maximum surprise or (recommended) kick once or twice to see how the kick coverage is reacting.  If the front line is bailing early just dribble it straight ahead and grab it.

Obviously, this isn't some sort of sustainable strategy but I'd say the rewards offset the risks to give it a shot.  The risk is giving up 30 yards of field position--our kick coverage typically downs the returner around the 30 (weak kicks and meh coverage), whereas a failed onside will give it to the other team on your own 40.  So...what are these 30 yards worth?  IMO, not that much.  The bend don't break defense is the weakest through the middle of the field.  The idea is to shorten the field and then firm up the zone.  Obviously, we lose chances at a big play (turnover) through the middle of the field, but let's be honest...at this point any decent opposing offense is really only required not to drool on itself to march it from their 30 to our 40.  We still have the opportunity to force a 3 and out from the 40 or a long, difficult FG attempt.  If we happen to give up the TD it won't be the end of the world, either.

The upside, OTOH is tremendous.  It would provide a big momentum boost.  Our offense is awesome.  We could go up 2 scores instead of trading TDs.  We keep the defense off the field for another 90 seconds while we go 60 yards for the TD.

I was actually hoping for one of these against IU but it's probably saved for a better opponent.

I think that we could try this every once in a while, the surprise onside kick is a cool idea and can change the momentum quickly.  I think the more effective way to control the game would be to run the play clock down more often.  I LOVE that we have the ability to score quickly, but the better way to keep the defense off the field (especially with a lead) is to slow the game down a little.  Some of the best drives in Michigan history have been those long 8 minute drives that just make statements during the game, or salt the game away at the end.  Again scoring quickly is amazing, and I don't want us to become conservative, but maybe a little less of the Jet tempo and a little more of milking the full 40 of the play clock can be a very effective tool to help the defense.

Well since we r playing madden now Y dont we go for two every time we score as well.

I think Fritz Crisler and the Mad Magicians would be down for this type of trickery.  We are bringing it back to our roots!

the Les Miles MGoBlog member account!

Les (or shall I call you oldcityblue) your tendency for sane-sounding madness has exposed your true identity!

I only want to see an onside kick if Michigan is up 28+ points(which I would love to see, but do not expect).  I would love to see a 70 on that scoreboard this weekend.

This is always what I do in video games where I have a great offense and terrible defense, therefore I approve.

I thought Chip Kelly's onside kick was a great call and it also worked out well for Purdue last year. Obviously it's high risk but I think in certain situations it's well worth it. In addition I think we need to be more aggresive on 4th downs. Within our 40 to Opp 20, I think we should be essentially playing for four downs from first down. Mathlete has shown good statistical support of this argument, but I think it's also just common sense. We simply can't afford to not score on drives.

Some have said shortening the field puts our bend but don't break defense at a big disadvantage. Well that might be true, except I'd say a more accurate description of our defense is bend and then break.

Pick-sixes by opposing D would also help TOP, but there are drawbacks there too. If anyone needs onside kicks, it will be Sparty 

totally irrelevant, but on the playstation i never punt or kick field goals and ALWAYS onside.  The only reason why this seems plausible now is because on playstation I usually get denard 200 rushing and 300 passing or there abouts.  Life is starting to immitate art.

I can see doing ONE onside kick, as trickery, but more than that just doesn't seem helpful. Just my epinion.

The Saints situayion was very clever, not only did we get an extra possesion, we took one away from Peyton Manning, a 14 point swing. The result? Saints win by 14.