Saints/Packers Kickoff vs Onside Kick (1 Viewer)

[Late225]

This decision has been debated much in the past, but I haven't heard one tv show mention the decision. If the Saints kicked the ball off instead of trying for an onside kick, their final drive field position could have improved by 30 or 40 yards. If that happens, it could be safe to assume they would have scored since they were able to drive down to the 1 yard line where they started this drive.

I don't really want to start a discussion about if it was the right decision or not. I'm really more interested in why none of the tv networks mentioned it as controversial or second guessed it. Most notably, I watch ESPN and NFL Network and it was never discussed as a bad decision on either of these channels.

Could someone throw out a few reasons why?

 

[Sabertooth]

This decision has been debated much in the past, but I haven't heard one tv show mention the decision. If the Saints kicked the ball off instead of trying for an onside kick, their final drive field position could have improved by 30 or 40 yards. If that happens, it could be safe to assume they would have scored since they were able to drive down to the 1 yard line where they started this drive.

I don't really want to start a discussion about if it was the right decision or not. I'm really more interested in why none of the tv networks mentioned it as controversial or second guessed it. Most notably, I watch ESPN and NFL Network and it was never discussed as a bad decision on either of these channels.

Could someone throw out a few reasons why?

They don't have time to cover everything?

 

[DropKick]

This decision has been debated much in the past, but I haven't heard one tv show mention the decision. If the Saints kicked the ball off instead of trying for an onside kick, their final drive field position could have improved by 30 or 40 yards. If that happens, it could be safe to assume they would have scored since they were able to drive down to the 1 yard line where they started this drive.

I don't really want to start a discussion about if it was the right decision or not. I'm really more interested in why none of the tv networks mentioned it as controversial or second guessed it. Most notably, I watch ESPN and NFL Network and it was never discussed as a bad decision on either of these channels.

Could someone throw out a few reasons why?

It's a stretch to assume their field position would improve by 30-40 yards. They took over at the twenty... Those numbers would put them at midfield or in Packer territory. Not likely... The fact they drove to the one doesn't imply they would have scored either... Different game situation, different play calls, different defense.I don't think the play was questioned because New Orleans only had a single time-out. At the time, it was probably the best tactic - not controversial or remarkable really.

I didn't see the post game coverage but assume the networks discussed what was a very entertaining game rather than descend into second guessing.

If you did want to second guess the Saints, you could question the decision not to take the earlier field goal, squandering of time-outs or even the play call to end the game. Green Bay dominated the line of scrimmage all night.

However, you have to give the Saints a ton of credit. They took Green Bay's best shot and almost puled that thing out!

 

[Tiger Fan]

because it was the right decision. They had a chance to get the ball (and didn't get it)...and still held them to a 3 and out. Any coach in the NFL would have taken that

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Like you said, they drove to the one yard line. If they block and Ingram scores, then we are talking about how it was a great decision.

 

[CalBear]

This is related to one of last year's hotly debated threads: Down by 15.

Before scoring the TD, the Saints were down by 15. They needed a TD, an extra point, and a two-point conversion to tie. The correct thing to do in that situation is to go for two after the first TD. Why? Because then you know whether you'll need two possessions or one. If they went for two and made it, they'd know they'd only need the ball once, and could contemplate kicking away and stopping the Pack on defense. If they went for two and missed it, they'd know they'd have to get two onsides kicks to have a chance.

I think once you have made the tactical error of kicking the PAT to go down by 8, going for an onsides kick is the correct play; there's a 60% chance that you'll need two possessions, because it's more likely that the 2-point conversion fails than that it succeeds, so you should probably play as if you need two possessions.

But it would be a lot better to know that up front.

 

[Joe Summer]

If the Saints kicked the ball off instead of trying for an onside kick, their final drive field position could have improved by 30 or 40 yards.

...and it also could have resulted in a touchdown for the Packers. /thread

 

[Late225]

If the Saints kicked the ball off instead of trying for an onside kick, their final drive field position could have improved by 30 or 40 yards.

...and it also could have resulted in a touchdown for the Packers. /thread

Someone has Randall Cobb on their fantasy team. <?php restart_thread(); ?>