You can not defend the onside kick

[Sgt. Largent]

0-25 in onside kicks. What part of that stat makes you feel confident that THIS time it will work?

This is the part of the equation for me that I don't get.

I have no problem with the call. Your defense hasn't stopped the Ram's offense all day, you just scored a FG and don't want to give the ball back............but there's no way Pete can trust Seabass to execute the onside when he's 0 for his career on onside kicks. I don't care if he executed it in practice all week..........he stinks at it. Didn't even get the damn kick 10 yards.

 

[mrt144]

0-25 in onside kicks. What part of that stat makes you feel confident that THIS time it will work?

This is the part of the equation for me that I don't get.

I have no problem with the call. Your defense hasn't stopped the Ram's offense all day, you just scored a FG and don't want to give the ball back............but there's no way Pete can trust Seabass to execute the onside when he's 0 for his career on onside kicks. I don't care if he executed it in practice all week..........he stinks at it. Didn't even get the damn kick 10 yards.

There are lot of things this team does out of seeming necessity that it doesn't usually do because of aptitude.

 

[hawknation2018]

They practiced it, and it was apparently working enough in practice to gamble on the opportunity.

Attempting the onside kick when it is less anticipated does increase the odds of success. The Rams didn't have their "hands team" in there. Had the onside kick not been badly shanked, maybe they would have had a successful recovery -- which would have been a game-changing play and the equivalent of a turnover.

You also have to factor in the way that the Rams were moving the ball with relevant ease into the red zone. They very well could have still ended up with a field goal (or worse, a TD, in certain hypothetical scenarios). And the Rams would have probably taken more time off the clock.

It was unconventional and a sad testament to how little resistance the defense was mustering, until the Rams reached the red zone, where there was less space for their offense to exploit.

 

[mrt144]

They practiced it, and it was apparently working enough in practice to gamble on the opportunity.

Attempting the onside kick when it is less anticipated does increase the odds of success. The Rams didn't have their "hands team" in there. Had the onside kick not been badly shanked, maybe they would have had a successful recovery -- which would have been a game-changing play and the equivalent of a turnover.

You also have to factor in the way that the Rams were moving the ball with relevant ease into the red zone. They very well could have still ended up with a field goal (or worse, a TD, in certain hypothetical scenarios). And the Rams would have probably taken more time off the clock.

It was unconventional and a sad testament to how little resistance the defense was mustering, until the Rams reached the red zone, where there was less space for their offense to exploit.

The element of surprise doesn't turn something with a 10% chance of working into a 60% chance of working (5000 basis points!). Whatever amount you think surprise adds to the chances, start really really low on the initial chance.

 

[hawknation2018]

They practiced it, and it was apparently working enough in practice to gamble on the opportunity.

Attempting the onside kick when it is less anticipated does increase the odds of success. The Rams didn't have their "hands team" in there. Had the onside kick not been badly shanked, maybe they would have had a successful recovery -- which would have been a game-changing play and the equivalent of a turnover.

You also have to factor in the way that the Rams were moving the ball with relevant ease into the red zone. They very well could have still ended up with a field goal (or worse, a TD, in certain hypothetical scenarios). And the Rams would have probably taken more time off the clock.

It was unconventional and a sad testament to how little resistance the defense was mustering, until the Rams reached the red zone, where there was less space for their offense to exploit.

The element of surprise doesn't turn something with a 10% chance of working into a 60% chance of working (5000 basis points!). Whatever amount you think surprise adds to the chances, start really really low on the initial chance.

Maybe it adds 5%? Number pulled from my backside. So let’s say there was a 15% chance to successfully execute the onside kick that they practiced. They knew the Rams would probably move the ball as well or better than they did in their last meeting at CenturyLink.

I would guess that the Rams had a greater than 35% chance to advance the ball to midfield, regardless. Such a drive would have drained more time off the clock. It would have further depleted an already tired defense. Those are all factors to consider.

In the end, it was a desperation move that was not executed as practiced.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Basically what others have said - either we hold the Rams to a field goal or a touchdown, because we hadn't stopped them all game. Give them the length of the field and it's just more opportunity for them to consume time. If they score a TD, game's effectively over anyway. if we keep them to a field goal, we get the ball with time on the clock and have a chance.

As far as the rules go, there is one that needs to change for onside kicks. Currently the fair catch rule bars the kicking team from interfering with the path of the ball in the event a fair catch is called, as well as the receiver having his bubble of protection. They need to allow the kicking team to compete for the football even if a fair catch is called by the receiving team. That would make the drop-kick kickoff far more effective as it's easy to get height under the ball and allow both sides to compete for the kickoff.

 

[Seymour]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/BradyHenderson/status/1061809283422130176[/tweet]

Maybe Pete Carroll should look closely at the rule changes and also SeaBass's history of choking under pressure of OSK's. Hell, did Pete see last weeks attempt?

That was a dumb ass gamble with ZERO upside and shows no confidence in your ability to stop the opponent. :141847_bnono:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Just a plain stupid decision. ZERO excuse for calling that crap.

 

[had2bhawk]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/BradyHenderson/status/1061809283422130176[/tweet]

Maybe Pete Carroll should look closely at the rule changes and also SeaBass's history of choking under pressure of OSK's. Hell, did Pete see last weeks attempt?

That was a dumb ass gamble with ZERO upside and shows no confidence in your ability to stop the opponent. :141847_bnono:

Yeah Pete, that's what I think when I'm 150 yards away from the green . I need a high ball with a slight fade and drop right on the green. That's the way it worked at the driving range. Put a 100 bucks on it!

 

[jammerhawk]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/BradyHenderson/status/1061809283422130176[/tweet]

No kidding!

 

[MD5eahawks]

Apparently Chicago disagrees with the ZERO chance. Yes, the percentage for success has been decreased. But it is still a possibility to pull it off.

 

[sutz]

The big reason they work less often really doesn't have a lot to do with the receiving team. The real problem with the new rules is that on onside kicks the kicking team no longer gets a running start. This means the receiving team gets almost a full second to get on the ball. Unless they fumble it or something, not much chance for the kicking team to get there.

:229031_shrug: