Sgt. Ryan Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Personally I didnt get the onside kick at all. You have 2 TOs left. Why not kick it deep and then stop them on 3 downs and make them punt out of their endzone and you are 1 or 2 first downs away from the tying FG with as it turned out 44 seconds to go. Hell at the 50, you may even get a return and get the ball in NE territory. Instead you give NE the ball around midfield they burn a minute off the clock and you are pinned inside your 6 yd line with 44 seconds to go with no timeouts. Reid definately deserves some blame, but McNabb was pressured every *** play and was picked 3 times, 4 if you count the one he threw that was overturned by a defensive penalty. Ne forced their will on Philly and McNabb made the big mistake over and over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Maybe he thought they could recover the onside kick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Personally I didnt get the onside kick at all. You have 2 TOs left. Why not kick it deep and then stop them on 3 downs and make them punt out of their endzone and you are 1 or 2 first downs away from the tying FG with as it turned out 44 seconds to go. Hell at the 50, you may even get a return and get the ball in NE territory. Instead you give NE the ball around midfield they burn a minute off the clock and you are pinned inside your 6 yd line with 44 seconds to go with no timeouts. Reid definately deserves some blame, but McNabb was pressured every *** play and was picked 3 times, 4 if you count the one he threw that was overturned by a defensive penalty. Ne forced their will on Philly and McNabb made the big mistake over and over. 687592[/snapback] I actually agree with you 100% I didnt like the onside kick at all...they had to believe their DEF could get them the ball back....and not only did McNabb make some big mistakes those mistakes KILLED some AWESOME opportunities that could have thrown NE into a possible tizzy of sorts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Maybe he thought they could recover the onside kick. 687595[/snapback] I would like to know the %s of Recovering an onside kick VS stopping a team for a 3 and out when they are just trying to kill the clock...I would have taken my chance with my DEF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I would like to know the %s of Recovering an onside kick VS stopping a team for a 3 and out when they are just trying to kill the clock...I would have taken my chance with my DEF 687601[/snapback] I would have too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meat Face Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I would like to know the %s of Recovering an onside kick VS stopping a team for a 3 and out when they are just trying to kill the clock...I would have taken my chance with my DEF 687601[/snapback] But he'd be a "genius" if they had recovered the ball, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) But he'd be a "genius" if they had recovered the ball, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. 687668[/snapback] genius smenius he would have been a lucky sob is all...onside kicks when they are expected are a crap shoot and no better...maybe he has been spending to much time in AC? Edited February 7, 2005 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I say they should have kicked it deep. I'm not sure how the percentages of recovering an on-side kick stack up against the percentages of stopping your opponent 3 & out when they are trying to run out the clock but I do know this...there was a zero % chance that New England was going to throw the ball in that series, especially if they were deep in their own territory. So all Philly would have to do is stuff the run for three plays and they would get the ball back close to their 40 yd line instead of being stuck inside the 5. Regardless of whether the other team is trying to run out the clock or not I would bet that the trailing team would have a better chance of getting the ball back with a chance to score by kicking it deep than by trying ther onside kick. I would personally save the onside kick for use when I need several scores, have no timeouts left or as a surprise attempt at retaining possession of the ball at an unexpected time in the game. But when needing a FG to tie and having two timeouts left, I kick it deep and play the field position percentages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 no, it was the right call. figure you absolutely had to stop them on 3 downs either way. so the question is...is it worth giving up 30 yards of field position for a 1-in-5 (or whatever) chance at getting the ball near midfield with a minute and a half and two timeouts? it's not a no-brainer either way, but i think they made the right call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 no, it was the right call. figure you absolutely had to stop them on 3 downs either way. so the question is...is it worth giving up 30 yards of field position for a 1-in-5 (or whatever) chance at getting the ball near midfield with a minute and a half and two timeouts? it's not a no-brainer either way, but i think they made the right call. 687740[/snapback] Regarding the most idiotic post of the year, above. I don't even know where to start cleaning up this mess. How can something be a no-brainer either way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolv Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Considering their lack of an effective 2 minute drill, they really had no choice.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) i'm not going to try and deconstruct all of the variables. but you're dead wrong to suggest that it's somehow a decision between getting the ball at midfield and getting at your own 5. if NE takes the kickoff to the 25, gets 5 yards on 3 running plays then gets a 40 yard net punt, philly takes over at their own 30. so in reality, we're looking at 10-30 (maybe 40 at the very outside) difference in field position they give up by trying the onside kick. either way, the odds of scoring with no timeouts and 45 seconds on the clock are very slim. maybe you've got a 10% chance of getting it done starting from your 30, and a 3% chance starting from your own 10 -- and that's only IF you stop them on 3 downs. whereas if you recover the onside kick and get the ball at your own 45 with two timeouts and a minute and a half, you're in great shape. that was by far their best single chance of tying the game. every head coach in the league probably would have made the same decision. but sarge and this vet moran know it all Edited February 7, 2005 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Denny Green did the same thing in Minnesota a few years ago, against the NYG in the playoffs. The Vikings recovered the onside kick and went on to win the game. I remember wondering what in the hell is he thinking? Even after the win, all I could do was shake my head.... One of the many poorly managed games by Denny "Time Management" Green. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrambled Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 i'm not going to try and deconstruct all of the variables. but you're dead wrong to suggest that it's somehow a decision between getting the ball at midfield and getting at your own 5. if NE takes the kickoff to the 25, gets 5 yards on 3 running plays then gets a 40 yard net punt, philly takes over at their own 30. so in reality, we're looking at 10-30 (maybe 40 at the very outside) difference in field position they give up by trying the onside kick. either way, the odds of scoring with no timeouts and 45 seconds on the clock are very slim. maybe you've got a 10% chance of getting it done starting from your 30, and a 3% chance starting from your own 10 -- and that's only IF you stop them on 3 downs. whereas if you recover the onside kick and get the ball at your own 45 with two timeouts and a minute and a half, you're in great shape. that was by far their best single chance of tying the game. every head coach in the league probably would have made the same decision. but sarge and this vet moran know it all 687878[/snapback] I have to disagree here. If they kicked the ball deep the Pats would have called 3 running plays the keep the chance of an INT down to a minimum. Being on your own 30-40 is a lot better then being backed up against your endzone plus its 25-35 less yards that you have to get for a field goal. I think the odds of recovering an on side kick are not that good and the Eagles D was not playing that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Denny Green did the same thing in Minnesota a few years ago, against the NYG in the playoffs. The Vikings recovered the onside kick and went on to win the game. I remember wondering what in the hell is he thinking? Even after the win, all I could do was shake my head.... One of the many poorly managed games by Denny "Time Management" Green. 687899[/snapback] Actually, it may have been a must-win game to get INTO the playoffs. Anyone else remember that game? It was in the 1997-1999 range, off the top of my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I agree with Sgt. Ryan as well. At the time I was thinking the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Here's what it comes down to, whether you try the onside kick or not the chances are better than not that after you kick the ball the other team is going to gain possession of it. If the Eagles did not have any timeouts left then the onside kick would have been the right play. But they did have 2 timeouts left. So now they need to weigh the odds of recovering an onside kick against the odds of stopping the other team on 3 straight downs. Since the other team had the lead and was going to be interested in running out the clock you could be pretty sure that they would run 3 straight plays and then punt. That means you would have pretty good odds of getting the 3 & out that you need. And since you had 2 timeouts left you could use them to conserve a little more time. So if you figure to lose possession of the ball after the kick, and you figure to get the 3 & out that you need, there's only one more thing to consider. Would you rather let them kick from midfield which means you get zero chance at a punt return and you will regain possession most likely inside your own 20 or would you rather have them kick the ball from their own 25 yd line, giving your team a chance at taking the return into FG range but if not at least allowing yourself the chance at regaining possession closer to midfield? The answer to that question is the no brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) Denny Green did the same thing in Minnesota a few years ago, against the NYG in the playoffs. The Vikings recovered the onside kick and went on to win the game. I remember wondering what in the hell is he thinking? Even after the win, all I could do was shake my head.... One of the many poorly managed games by Denny "Time Management" Green. 687899[/snapback] And now you get to deal with Mike Tice, who is just as bad if not worse! And it was the 1997 Wild Card game. Dennys first playoff win. I was wondering if Denny was gonna keep his job after all the clock management problems in that game, but they won. They went on to get smoked by the niners in the Divisionals. Edited February 7, 2005 by GWPFFL BrianW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrambled Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Would you rather let them kick from midfield which means you get zero chance at a punt return and you will regain possession most likely inside your own 20 or would you rather have them kick the ball from their own 25 yd line, giving your team a chance at taking the return into FG range but if not at least allowing yourself the chance at regaining possession closer to midfield? The answer to that question is the no brainer. 687932[/snapback] Bingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 The onside was the right call, the game was over, they had to try something to change the inevitable, the onside kick was that try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimshim Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 genius smenius he would have been a lucky sob is all...onside kicks when they are expected are a crap shoot and no better...maybe he has been spending to much time in AC? 687677[/snapback] Another play that people are going ga-ga over was the Mcnabb touchdown between the 2 defenders. People are saying that it was an amazing throw. It could have been been a horrible throw just the same. It was mili-seconds away from being picked off. I thought it was a bad desperation throw that managed to be found by Westbrook. Great catch though! Slim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Personally I didnt get the onside kick at all. You have 2 TOs left. Why not kick it deep and then stop them on 3 downs and make them punt out of their endzone and you are 1 or 2 first downs away from the tying FG with as it turned out 44 seconds to go. Hell at the 50, you may even get a return and get the ball in NE territory. Instead you give NE the ball around midfield they burn a minute off the clock and you are pinned inside your 6 yd line with 44 seconds to go with no timeouts. Reid definately deserves some blame, but McNabb was pressured every *** play and was picked 3 times, 4 if you count the one he threw that was overturned by a defensive penalty. Ne forced their will on Philly and McNabb made the big mistake over and over. 687592[/snapback] Well said, I made the same comment to my buddy BEFORE they kicked it. I though it was a very poor decision for all the reasons that you have stated above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I too would have taken my chances with my d and 2 time outs. The Eagles d had played very well up until that point, no reason to believe they couldnt stop the patriots on 3 straight running plays, knowing full well they were going to run. Plus they had a ton of momentum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 what are the odds of recovering an onside kick and moving 25 yards in a minute and a half with two timeouts? what are the odds of holding a team to a three and out, then moving 40 yards in 40 seconds? what are the odds of holding a team to a three and out, then moving 70 yards in 40 seconds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 but I do know if you kick the ball in the endzone, or they return it to the 20, if they get 5 yds, they are punting from their 15 yd line and Philly is more likely to field a punt just past midfield 687909[/snapback] oh ok. so you know for a fact that NE wouldn't have gotten it past the 20 amd NE's punter would have only gotten off a 25 yard punt under that scenario, huh? just like you know for a fact that he would pin them at the 5 under the other scenario? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.