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.
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 !!
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
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.
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.
trents wrote:Maybe Dickson could become proficient in drop kicking field goals. Would that be within the rules?
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.
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.
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.
Maybe, but again, they CAN call a fair catch on a high short kick.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.
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.
RiverDog wrote:You are correct. My bad.
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.
Users browsing this forum: 4XPIPS and 22 guests