I wanted to see what the board thought after the fact about those onside kicks. Maybe its just the homer in me, but I thought we had at least a 50/50 chance at getting to both of those balls. I know I've seen a several posts about onside kicks in the past weeks, given that we actually tried it and it looked decent, I wanted to hear some opinions on it. Are there desenting views that didn't like the call? Can we expect one or two against OSU if we are down in the 2nd half?
how about opening kickoff = onside kick?
I liked the call, just because we had about 8 guys around the ball both times and both times the 1 wisconsin player right there got the Fing ball.. I couldn't believe it. At least they were well executed, seemed like though that some of our players more looking to block instead of going after the ball..
If we would of got both of those that would of been a huge swing in momentum
I think both were *beautifully* executed. The first was unlucky and the second was perfection -- right up to the part where Wisconsin ended up with the ball.
It was the right time for both, and either one would have been a difference maker.
I'd say we had about a 75/25 chance on each one. There were 3-4 players around the ball each time and we let it get away. It was especially painful on the second one.
I loved the call though. Recover and offense stays out on the field. Don't recover and it shortens the field for Wiscy to let them score faster so we can score and try the onside kick again.
I liked the attempts. But it looked like the players were more worried about blocking/hittting a Wisconsin player, and they forget about recovering the ball
against a better team to try and close the gap. We were down and, at least in the 3rd, had to figure out how to stop just trading points. Not against taking an occassional chance, but real risky because of the hole we put our (already shaky) D in. With our D, anythign less that a 50% chance of recovery is too risky.
I thought that the first onside kick was a bit premature. Michigan wasn't desperate yet at that point and you don't want to give Wisky the ball on your side of the field. The second onside was pretty much needed.
i thought they should have OS kicked every time in the 2nd half.
I thought that the first onside kick was a bit premature. Michigan wasn't desperate yet at that point
That was the whole point. Wisconsin wasn't supposed to expect an onside kick then. Surprise onside kicks are recovered more than 50% of the time. As it turned out, we had a shot at the bouncing ball and just missed.
I had no beef with the kicks. We even had a shot on both of them, but it'll take more than onside kicks to beat OSU
The key argument against it, for me at least, is field position. It was a pretty great way of handing UW the ball with a short field when we were only down two scores (if I'm remembering correctly). Yeah, we almost got it both times, but almost doesn't count in football.
Yeah, but with our defense, it was worth the risk IMO. We barely stopped them when they had the whole field to go, let alone in short field position, so I'd factor our odds of onside recovery against the odds of being able to stop them from their own 30.
I'm pretty sure field position is the key argument against for everyone.
Field position matters when your team has a reasonable chance of stopping a drive. Field position matters a lot less when you're not stopping the other team. This is especially true when you're down 2 or more scores -- you need possessions and an onside kick, especially a surprise one, is a great way to get those possessions.
I thought it was two of the best executed plays the UM special teams ran, even though they didn't come up with the ball
I hate that this is spot-on.
The only thing we've done better on special teams (as a whole - Hagerup's 72 yard punt was all him) was the reverse return against UI.
we couldn't really stop wiscy's run game, so giving up field position was a crapshoot. And it is the best execution I have seen yet from our kicking game.
Obi Ezeh had the second one. Unfortunately, his job was clear out he Wisconsin players and let the 2nd wave get the ball. That second wave was caught watching just like Ezeh. Conversion failed.
Just a pre-emptive, because in the game, a lot of people wanted to jump Obi specifically. I could at least see it from his point.
Having a bad defense should make you more likely to try an onside kick. Not less. So yeah, I liked 'em. Too bad about the results.
They were both excellent calls, especially at that stage of the game. Once you're down and have demonstrated that you can't stop the opposing offense, just the chance of getting the ball back for your offense vastly outweighs the 30 or so yards of field position.
is not why did we try onside kicks. The question is why do we even continue to try and kick field goals?
I was completely in favor of both onside kicks and we had great shots at both.
The only non-punt, non-extra point kicking should be onside kicks. Or does someone want to go for the 2-point conversion?
They were the best executed ST plays all day - the ball was still loose after 10 yards & we were unlucky not to at a minimum get the first one.
I would humbly suggest we onside kick practically every time - seriously. I don't have the figure handy, but I would guess that approx 10-15% of the time kicking teams recover. I would take those odds to keep our O on the field versus the significantly higher (approaching 100%) the other team scores regardless of where they start their possession.
Altogether, onside kicks are recovered around 25% of the time. Surprise onside kicks have a recovery rate of over 50%.
I liked them. We had a good chance each time and just didn't end up with the ball. Tough break.
Onside in my head when we scored the time before and again when we first did it. I almost think we should onside kick every time we score. Our chances of getting an onside kick may be better than our chances of stopping the other teams offense. Plus they would score faster if we don't get it thus preserving more clock. I'm serious.
It was a good call. It's part really bad luck that we didn't recover the ball, and putting Wisconsin so deep in our territory made a comeback really impossible. Too much of a gamble for me, but it's playing to win and it wasn't a stupid decision.
I called the first one, we almost had. Might have to get on ore two of those to pull it out next week.
I thought the first one was a good choice but a number of people in my section saw it coming because they used a different kicker. It didn't appear as though W picked up on that. The execution was simply not there, which is true for several aspects of our team. We're simply not there.
I thought it was premature and gave Wisc. a short field,which they capitalized on by scoring another t.d. Should have kicked deep because we had some momentum after our score. We gave it right back to them with the onside. It was like a turnover because they got the ball in our territory with a short field.
I liked it. The kicking game has stuggled all year with getting the ball down deep on kick offs and the result usually puts the return team on the 40ish anyway. The D was stuggling, the O was struggling but coming on, and it could have been a HUGE momentuem swing. Good call.
Great call, good execution by the kicker. We were so close to getting them, it was weird though, on one of them it seemed like a few of the guys weren't willing to give their body up for the ball.