Onside Kick Wasn’t as Crazy as You Think

[Matt_In_NH]

2 minutes ago, QB Bills said:

Agreed. That was totally the right call. The odd thing was they didn't do it again after their next TD. 

 

Also, no way McDermott would ever even think of doing that. He sounded confused by the decision in his postgame presser. 

I believe you can only do it twice total....

[Blackbeard]

There would be 4 different threads going, all with a smattering of titles something like "McDermott has GOT to go!!" if this were the Bills.

 

 

ALL COACHES HAVE TOUGH CALLS AND ALL MAKE GAFFS.  Sometimes these calls pan out.  Sometimes they don't.

 

I'm sure this will be in one ear out the other for the McD haters.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

It was an idiotic call.  Any other coach would be held accountable for such an assinine decision, but so many people think that it is cool that Dan Campbell makes reckless decisions and bites kneecaps.

[entropyrules]

what was clever by Campbell was the altering of the second on-sides kick as it kinda caught the Bills off guard..thank god Taron Johnson is a baller

Edited 4 hours ago by entropyrules

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

22 minutes ago, QB Bills said:

Agreed. That was totally the right call. The odd thing was they didn't do it again after their next TD. 

 

Also, no way McDermott would ever even think of doing that. He sounded confused by the decision in his postgame presser. 

Haha now we’re using a terrible decision by the opposing coach to take a shot at McDermott.  That is hilarious.   He realized it was an awful call that’s why he didn’t do it again 😂. You’re basically gifting the opponent a 2 score lead and having to drive down the whole field an extra time late in the game 

 

this was an all time bad call imo…it worked out in their favor to a degree that the return was so good.  the odds you force a punt are wayyyy higher than the odds you recover an onside kick now that you have to declare it even against a qb that’s on fire with a depleted defense 

Edited 4 hours ago by Generic_Bills_Fan

[st pete gogolak]

22 minutes ago, HereComesTheReignAgain said:

It was an idiotic call.  Any other coach would be held accountable for such an assinine decision, but so many people think that it is cool that Dan Campbell makes reckless decisions and bites kneecaps.

The point of the thread is that it wasn’t idiotic. It was a high risk gamble but there were some non-crazy analytics behind it.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

I understand the decision and it is defensable. 

Not taking your timeouts on defense before the 2 min warning is not however. McDermott made same mistake against Rams. 

You control the clock on offense.  Use timeouts on defense to save over 100 seconds of clock. Maybe save one if only down by a FG. But if down multiple scores you need time. 

[Bangarang]

The onside kick could have worked if teams didn't have to foolishly declare they were doing it. 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

16 minutes ago, st pete gogolak said:

The point of the thread is that it wasn’t idiotic. It was a high risk gamble but there were some non-crazy analytics behind it.

Lol I mean people are disagreeing with that assertion which can easily be justified too 😂.  From poking around lions forums nearly all of them were against it.

 

i don’t even think the analytics support it personally..  assuming the bills start the drive in the 25-30 range stopping 1 of those 3 ish sets of downs is a much higher probability than recovering a declared onside kick and I don’t even think it’s remotely debatable.  Recovering a declared onside kick is just an insanely low percentage play. Heck kicking it short of the end zone and the returner fumbling is probably as likely as an onside kick recovery these days.   And also on top of that the lions pretty much gifted us a td giving up that huge return 

5 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

The onside kick could have worked if teams didn't have to foolishly declare they were doing it. 

This is true…if it could’ve been a surprise I would not have been against it even if it didn’t work 

Edited 3 hours ago by Generic_Bills_Fan

[Mikie2times]

1 hour ago, Logic said:

I'm with Kyle Brandt. It was the Lions admitting they knew they couldn't stop the Bills offense. It was them saying "we have a better chance at recovering an onsides kick than we do at stopping the Bills from scoring". 
 

 

Exactly. I don't know why this is controversial 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

2 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

Exactly. I don't know why this is controversial 

I think a surprise onside kick there would’ve been controversial even but certainly defensible.  What the lions did yesterday was massively controversial lol the only place I see it being defended with some regularity is the bills message board who has been talking up every lions coach for years so there seems to be a bit of bias going on 😂

[Sweats]

27 minutes ago, st pete gogolak said:

The point of the thread is that it wasn’t idiotic. It was a high risk gamble but there were some non-crazy analytics behind it.

 

 

 

Down by 10 with 12 minutes to go and a 7% chance of making it doesn't really seem like a good idea to me, unless you're just admitting that you can't possibly stop JA and trying everything to get the ball back.

 

.........seems a little desperate to me.

[Cash]

1 hour ago, transient said:

Honestly, I don't understand why Detroit didn't try an onsides kick after every possession from that point forward. They've already abdicated any defensive expectations at that point. They've accepted the Bills are going to score every time they get the ball. They've basically accepted that it doesn't matter where the Bills start from on the field at that point, the outcome will be the same. Why not try to steal a possession every chance they can. The benefit of doing it with 12 minutes left should have been that it would have given them multiple opportunities to do it.

 

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, Campbell is also a crazy gambler, so there's that. 

 

But I completely agree with Brandt's point that if it made sense to do it when they did, it had to make sense to do it when they scored again. The fact that they didn't do it again means either (1) Brandt's right - Allen was in their heads or (2) the LIons aren't very good at the details.  

 

I think it might be (2), because I also don't get why the Lions didn't take the field goal when they were in the red zone and the clock running.  They needed two scores, they were saving timeouts so the Bills couldn't run out the clock, they had to save themselves some time for another drive. 

 

Whatever, Allen's amazing. 

 

My guess is that it just came down to morale.  If the result of the first one had been us barely recovering it and not advancing the ball, I think they probably keep going onsides the rest of the game.  But Mack running it down to the 5 was demoralizing.  Hard to run it back when your players (who are human, and affected by emotion) just saw the last result.

[Mikie2times]

31 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

I think a surprise onside kick there would’ve been controversial even but certainly defensible.  What the lions did yesterday was massively controversial lol the only place I see it being defended with some regularity is the bills message board who has been talking up every lions coach for years so there seems to be a bit of bias going on 😂

1. No such thing as a surprise onside exists anymore

2. It's probably because Bills fan recognize what Campbell did as well, they weren't going to stop us. At which point you have no more decisions to make. The mistake was not doing it again after they scored again as we marched right down the field (AGAIN). 

3. They have good coaches, this decision has nothing to with that.

26 minutes ago, Sweats said:

 

 

 

Down by 10 with 12 minutes to go and a 7% chance of making it doesn't really seem like a good idea to me, unless you're just admitting that you can't possibly stop JA and trying everything to get the ball back.

 

.........seems a little desperate to me.

It was desperate and justifiably so 

[st pete gogolak]

The thing that totallly screwed the Lion’s strategy was a great play by Hollins. I assume Campbell thought worst case scenario was Bills’ ball on Lion’s 45 yard line.  Hold Bills without a first down  (unlikely), Bills punt. Hold them to a field goal (with Bills burning significantly less time off the clock than if you kicked deep) and Lions win with two TD’s.  Again, risky but not totally moronic.

[JerseyBills]

2 hours ago, Sweats said:

Imagine your mindset with 12 minutes to play, down by 10 and you feel an onside kick is your best option?!?..........we were in their heads, and THIS is the mentality that i've been hoping for from the Bills since McD came in.

Brilliant gameplan by Brady. the 2 rb formations were a beautiful new wrinkle. 

The timing of play calls was beautiful 

[Rochesterfan]

3 minutes ago, st pete gogolak said:

The thing that totallly screwed the Lion’s strategy was a great play by Hollins. I assume Campbell thought worst case scenario was Bills’ ball on Lion’s 45 yard line.  Hold Bills without a first down  (unlikely), Bills punt. Hold them to a field goal (with Bills burning significantly less time off the clock than if you kicked deep) and Lions win with two TD’s.  Again, risky but not totally moronic.

 

Totally disagree.  The Bills like the Lions are very aggressive once you get passed the 50.  
 

The onside kick makes it more likely the Bills are aggressive and have 4 downs to get a first down.  A full kick-off put the Bills on their side of mid field and they need 2+ first downs to get passed the 50.  The Lions were significantly more likely to get a potential stop at the 12 minute mark with a full kickoff rather than the onside kick.

 

The onside kick failed and allowed the Bills a TD and then the Lions were back down as if their last drive did not happen.  When they kicked deep they held the Bills to a FG (somewhat asterisked), but it actually allowed them to get closer rather than the onside kick.

 

I can understand wanting to on-side, but how he handled the next kick-off tells you that he recognized it was the wrong call or he would of done it again.

[ticketssince61]

1 hour ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

I understand the decision and it is defensable. 

Not taking your timeouts on defense before the 2 min warning is not however. McDermott made same mistake against Rams. 

You control the clock on offense.  Use timeouts on defense to save over 100 seconds of clock. Maybe save one if only down by a FG. But if down multiple scores you need time. 

 

EVERY COACH DOES THIS AND IT IS TOTALLY MORONIC

 

As you said, on offense you can control the clock but you cannot on defense

 

Coaches should call timeouts starting around 3:30 left in the game.  So many times they wait until closer to the 2 minute warning

 

use your timeouts when you can save the entire 40 seconds NOT when you are saving 15 or 20

 

There is so much analytics these days, but no one seems to analyze timeouts