Onside Kicks

[Tex Long 4,662]

Most of the football world, CFB and NFL alike, have come around to the Pulaski Academy philosophy of the kicking game. For fourth down calls, instead of punting automatically, they're going for the first down. Not always, but far more than they used to.

However, few - if any - are going beyond that phase. Pulaski philosophy not only eschews punting, it also does not kick extra points or FGs. Extra point conversion attempts are always for two, and FGs... well, for FGs, see the part abobut not punting.

More to the point, Pulaski also goes with onside kickoffs every time... and succeeds quite often.

I'd like to see a much more concerted effort on the two-pointers and kickoffs. But the two-pointers are a different subnject, so let's stick with onside kicks.

Our onside attempt against UW was... odd, to say the least. Given that the necessity arises rarely, I doubt we spend much time or effort on these kicks. To me, onside kickoffs look like a great place to put some real "special" into the special teams, potentially using players who are not otherwise going to see the field regularly, and not only practicing several variations, but actually working on them in games. 

There are videos of Pulaski's various onside kick plays, many of them quite innovative, and several I've never been seen before. The idea of showing a formation from which you might kick to either side of the field, with two or more would-be kickers, kicking to opponents who do not spend much time practicing against kickoffs that aren't headed for the touchback... that idea is gruntling for me. 

I don't know what the success stats are for conventional stuff that we see pretty regularly, but I'm guessing that pulling unusual ones work more often.

So... onside kicks: desperation only, or at least semi-regularly attempted?

 

[CoTex 1,177]

Somewhere there is a spreadsheet that includes number of scores and possessions per game, average yard line of recovered onside kicks, and quantifies the risk and benefit.  You give up 40-50 yards of field position if you don't recover, but you gain a possession near midfield if you do recover.  How do you value that in a football game?  Does it matter if you're a high scoring team or grind it out team?

Seems like a team with a finomenal defense would risk less than a porous defense.

[Vic Mackey 47,953]

Punting is for losers unless the distance to gain is extreme. Go back to the Washington game. We bypassed going for it on 4th and 5 around midfield area. A game in which our defense had shown zero. Washington showed it could score from anywhere. I think we were down 10 at this time. Terrible time to punt. I trust my offense to get 5 points more than the defense making any kind of play. And Washington got 3 more points on that subsequent drive.

Washington went for it on 4th and short in their own territory earlier.

[yoladu 4,190]

receiving teams dedicate so many players to each end of the field at the 10 yard away line, that was thinking a pooch kick right over the middle into the area (soft spot) where there are no opposing players would have more success.

put two speedy players in the middle, behind the placekicker, with a running start.

hardly ever see this though.