HawkShack.com

Everything made sense up to that point. Why try a drop kick !? Didn't make sense. What was wrong with a standard regular type onside kick ?

We were doing well up til then ,don't we know how to try a bleeding kick !?!

Next year now.

politicalfootball wrote:Everything made sense up to that point. Why try a drop kick !? Didn't make sense. What was wrong with a standard regular type onside kick ?

We were doing well up til then ,don't we know how to try a bleeding kick !?!

Next year now.

KLind of confused how anything in this game made sense, the game plan and calling was the worst I have ever seen.

That onside kick call was beyond lousy. That's what they needed in order to take the next step. We had time left for a fg or even a TD.

Aaaarrrrrrrggghh !!

politicalfootball wrote:That onside kick call was beyond lousy. That's what they needed in order to take the next step. We had time left for a fg or even a TD.

Aaaarrrrrrrggghh !!

Sea bass was hurt... I imagine the plan wasn’t to kick it where/how he did. He must have miss hit it

Oh he miss hit it it was a boner on his part of the call. Not the coaches fault.
So maybe we will never know how that play should have gone.

Since the rule change that restricts the kicking team from getting a running start, the odds of a successful onside kick have gone way down, from over 20% success rate before the rule change to less than 10% after, and in that situation, with everybody expecting an onside kick, our chances were even further diminished. With Seabass hurt, Dickson's drop kick was perhaps our only viable chance at success. Yea, he hit it poorly, kicked it too strong, but if you've ever tried a drop kick, they're extremely difficult to execute. It's extremely difficult to get any kind of hang time without distance, which is why teams opt to kick the ball off a tee.

Dickson's 'boner' was next to irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. We didn't lose the game because we couldn't execute an onside kick. There were numerous other factors that had a much larger impact on the final score.

River, I know there are / were other things affecting the outcome of the game but Dickson's "boner " virtually erased any slim chance we had at that point to:

A) receive the onside kick

B) kick a fg

C) win the game


So other factors did not matter at that point in the game. -Politicalfootball

politicalfootball wrote:River, I know there are / were other things affecting the outcome of the game but Dickson's "boner " virtually erased any slim chance we had at that point to:

A) receive the onside kick

B) kick a fg

C) win the game


So other factors did not matter at that point in the game. -Politicalfootball

Huh?
So the Seabass injury didn't matter?
As RD said, it's a very low % play today because of the rule changes and doing it with a substitute kicker makes the % even lower.
If the Offense had played better, we wouldn't have been in that position in the first place, but they couldn't make enough
1st downs to eat up the clock when they had the lead.

It's all part of the game and what led up to that point matters completely.

politicalfootball wrote:River, I know there are / were other things affecting the outcome of the game but Dickson's "boner " virtually erased any slim chance we had at that point to:

A) receive the onside kick

B) kick a fg

C) win the game


So other factors did not matter at that point in the game. -Politicalfootball

NorthHawk wrote:Huh?
So the Seabass injury didn't matter?
As RD said, it's a very low % play today because of the rule changes and doing it with a substitute kicker makes the % even lower.

Plus those percentages (the announcers quoted an 8% success rate this season) include all onside kick attempts, which includes those that are not last ditch efforts. Eliminate the element of surprise and the percentages go even lower.

NorthHawk wrote:If the Offense had played better, we wouldn't have been in that position in the first place, but they couldn't make enough
1st downs to eat up the clock when they had the lead.

It's all part of the game and what led up to that point matters completely.

There are dozens of other factors more relevant than the botched onside kick effort: Our missed FG in the first half and the successive penalties we committed after KJ's end zone pick were two that were mentioned in other threads. By the time we scored our last TD, the game had for all intents and purposes already been decided. We were like a dying body taking our last gasps of air.

It was easier for a punter to try a drop kick than to kick off the tee; get over it, Seajack has the worst recovery rate of any kicker around. It was over before that.

Maybe Dickson could become proficient in drop kicking field goals. Would that be within the rules?

trents wrote:Maybe Dickson could become proficient in drop kicking field goals. Would that be within the rules?

Absouletly! The rules state that the ball must be kicked from the ground. There is no requirement that there be a holder.

A drop kick might be useful in short range, ie under 30 yards, but even as good as Dickson is with drop kicks, I doubt that he could achieve any degree of distance and accuracy from 40+ yards.

I'm just curious but why don't teams try onside kicks like the following.

1. Kick it as hard as you can 3 foot off the ground and hope to hit a recieving team member and get the karom?
2. Same thing but straight ahead at the guy lined up straight in front of the kicker. They are not hands team guys but usually big bulky guys.
3. Lay the ball flat and sideways to the kicker and kick one end of it so it spins like crazy scootin' across the field.

idhawkman wrote:I'm just curious but why don't teams try onside kicks like the following.

1. Kick it as hard as you can 3 foot off the ground and hope to hit a recieving team member and get the karom?
2. Same thing but straight ahead at the guy lined up straight in front of the kicker. They are not hands team guys but usually big bulky guys.
3. Lay the ball flat and sideways to the kicker and kick one end of it so it spins like crazy scootin' across the field.

For your first two, it's pretty easy to get out of the way of a kicked football from 12 yards away. Besides, it's not easy to kick a football off a tee on a flat trajectory.

As far as #3 goes, I've seen it tried before, but never with any success. My guess is that the best chance of success is an onside kick like what Hauch kicked in the NFCCG, where you top the ball from the tee and get a big bounce that allows the recovering team time to make up the 10-15 yard distance. It has to take a bounce first or else the recovering team can't be the first ones to touch it.

If Dickson could ever perfect his drop kick where he gets a lot of elevation but not much distance, then it could be a viable weapon. But once again, the shape of the ball makes such a kick very difficult.

RiverDog wrote:For your first two, it's pretty easy to get out of the way of a kicked football from 12 yards away. Besides, it's not easy to kick a football off a tee on a flat trajectory.

They don't have to use a tee or at least a drop kick doesn't use a tee. So maybe he flat drops it and kicks it hard. I think it is more difficult than you think because most of them are worried about blocking the guy in front of them so the guy behind them can field the ball. So which would they focus on, the ball or the guy charging at them full steam to get the onside kick?

As far as #3 goes, I've seen it tried before, but never with any success. My guess is that the best chance of success is an onside kick like what Hauch kicked in the NFCCG, where you top the ball from the tee and get a big bounce that allows the recovering team time to make up the 10-15 yard distance. It has to take a bounce first or else the recovering team can't be the first ones to touch it.

I think you are mistaken. If the ball goes 10 yards it doesn't matter if it hit the ground yet or not. The reason they top the ball is so that the recieving team doesn't call a fair catch. I'd like to see them try and call a fair catch with the ball coming at them full force knuckle ball style. Additionally, topping the ball doesn't work anymore since, as you pointed out, the kicking team doesn't get a running start. The timing is too screwed up for the onside to work from a topped ball.

If Dickson could ever perfect his drop kick where he gets a lot of elevation but not much distance, then it could be a viable weapon. But once again, the shape of the ball makes such a kick very difficult.

Maybe, but again, they CAN call a fair catch on a high short kick.

Dickson has a magic leg. My guess is by next season he will have some answers for a contingency like this.

idhawkman wrote:I think you are mistaken. If the ball goes 10 yards it doesn't matter if it hit the ground yet or not. The reason they top the ball is so that the recieving team doesn't call a fair catch.

You are correct. My bad.

RiverDog wrote:You are correct. My bad.

Regardless, thye have to come up with a better way to do onside kicks as the old method of topping the ball is not working well enough anymore.

Magic leg or not, I wondered why he wouldn't want to use a kicking tee to keep the ball down. I guess we'll never know.

idhawkman wrote:Regardless, thye have to come up with a better way to do onside kicks as the old method of topping the ball is not working well enough anymore.

Unless Dickson or some other punter perfects the drop kick, I don't see that happening under the current kickoff rules. Kinda sucks as it takes away the possibility of a miracle comeback as in our NFCCG against the Packers as well as a bold, surprise play in the middle of the game.

Ya gotta believe that they will change or modify their stand on onside kicks. Or else why even have them.