No on-side kick?

by **mr. pony** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:31 am

Surprised we kicked away late. Discuss.

by **MustangMan2001** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:38 am

o0nly thing I can think of is that they were hoping to catch them off guard and get a turnover which was close to happening

by **ponyte** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:51 am

Pin them deep or get a turnover. Then hope the D can stop the run. With two timeouts left and stopping the run, it would be possible to get the ball back in decent field position and have a shot at a TD. Stop Tulane short of a first, have a 40 yard punt and a 3-5 yard return and we are sitting close to midfield with about 1:45 left.

It was gutsy of JJ to place faith in the defense in that situation.

by **couch 'em** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:57 am

We have no idea what our onside kicks have looked like in practice. I'm OK with the call.

by **expony18** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:05 am

couch 'em wrote:We have no idea what our onside kicks have looked like in practice. I'm OK with the call.

true. but i have seen our defense against rice, texas state, tcu, texas tech and now tulane. i wouldnt have put money on them holding tulane to a 3 and out

by **Nacho** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:06 am

Horrible call.

by **JasonB** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:07 am

That was an absolutely horrible decision. I have defended JJ a lot on the board and have said we need time to develop the team and such, but wow, that was a bad one. Three and out hadn't happened all night long. No reason to expect it would pop up then. Tulane was stopping themselves with penalties in the second half, although we did have two nice turnovers. Definately should have tried the onside kick.

by **Nacho** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:08 am

You are agenius JasonB

by **Pony Soup** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:33 am

disappointing

by **EastStang** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:41 am

It was a 50/50 decision. I think a pooch to about the 30 would have been a better move, but again, we don't know what our onsides team looks like in practice. Ganz would. An onsides has about a 10% chance of working with a good team. Jones put the games in the hands of his defense and they didn't get the job done. Personally I would have put Moorstead out there instead of Cunningham and told him to kick the ball as hard as he could right at the groin of a Tulane player and hope for a rebound.

by **Cadillac** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:44 am

I really can't understand the logic there. Maybe June thought there were still 10 minutes in the half. But really, when the other team just needs to move the ball 20 yards, it doesn't seem to matter if you give it to them on your 40 or their 20.

Maybe he thought that by showing the Defense that he was confident in them, they would all grow 4 inches and put on 20 pounds of muscle.

On the other hand, the fake punt was nice to see.

-CoS

by **redpony** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:47 am

Yes, the fake punt was great. However, it is a shame that we were not able to take capitalize on it and a TD.

GO PONIES!!!

by **SMU2007** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:53 am

redpony wrote:Yes, the fake punt was great. However, it is a shame that we were not able to take capitalize on it and a TD.

GO PONIES!!!

yea or even get a FG out of it....

by **SMU89** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:57 am

expony18 wrote:
couch 'em wrote:We have no idea what our onside kicks have looked like in practice. I'm OK with the call.
true. but i have seen our defense against rice, texas state, tcu, texas tech and now tulane. i wouldnt have put money on them holding tulane to a 3 and out

Agree on the 3 and out, but they did hold them to 3 in the second half.

Tough call. Would have been nice to have that 3rd timeout we spent after the non-pass interference call

by **San Antonio Mustang** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:57 am

What are the risk/reward factors in a decision to kick away and put them on their 10 or go for the onside kick. First, which is most likely to put you in position to tie and go into overtime. Second, which is going to have the best psychological impact on a team that does not yet believe it can win.

Going for the onside and getting it would be best, but what happens if you don't. The way Tulane was moving the ball if they get it at mid field then they go for the score and probably get it. How much of the great comeback in the second half's effect is erased? I think it would be diluted at the least and erased at the worst. We are talking psychology here. The other alternative, pining in their end of the field makes them more cautious and you greatly reduce the chance of another score on their part. You have gotten two turnovers already in the half and maybe you can get another and it would be in the red zone which would give you an excellent chance of scoring. If they don't score the team realizes that they can win. After all they won the second half 17 to 3.

In my opinion either option was viable. The question I would ask myself is which will help me change the attitude of this team.

No on-side kick?

No on-side kick?

Who is online