Sean Peyton Embodies The Modern Head Coach

There was a stat somewhere that showed that onside kicks worked ~60% of the time if the other team isn't expecting it and ~15% of the time if they are. Given that situation, and the fact he had been having his kicker practice it for the last two weeks, you gotta think they had better than even odds on the kick ~55-65%.

 

the odds were even lower when the ball bounced less than 10 yards right into a colts players hands. I really don't think you can attribute luck to good coaching..

the play was as lucky as they get.

 

That's originally what I was saying, but my friend chimed it...

"Why? Manning drives for a 50 yard TD or an 80 yard TD... what's the difference?"


Same reason going for it on 4th and goal, even though they failed, was smart. Teams lose to the Colts by trading field goals for TDs.

 

don't you mean the opposite of this ?
I get what your saying though
FG's will not beat the Colts

 

In my opinion, the odds were in their favor. It's basically 5 on 2 for the football putting their odds at about 72%.

The graphs below indicate that when a team not expecting an onside kick receives one ( because the kicking team is winning), the kicking team will win about 60% of the kicks. While the Saints were losing at the time, the Colts were still surprised, putting them into that category. All gamblers will take 60-70% odds because that is a relatively safe bet. I thought it was a good play and the statistics back that up.

 

The PFP 2007 article: Their numbers are: from 1996-2006, there were 78 surprise onside kicks, 55 of which were successfully recovered (71%), and 516 expected onside kicks, 85 of which were successfully recovered (16.5%). They say that the break-even point for a surprise onside kick is 62%.

This tells you one extra thing, that risking field position to the Colts is worth the risk too. So all the statistics are in your favor for a surprise kick so long as you are willing to take the chance. Kicking away appears to be a less successful venture than if you were to onsides kick it. That is counterintuitive, but it's true. The key is that it is a suprise. The more you do it, the less of a surprise it is. Fatigue also plays a role, as the later in the game you do a surprise, the more apt a team is too fatiqued to responds to it. So doing this late in the third is even better than doing it to open the game. Opening the half was not the best decision, as fatigue was reduced, and if you watch, the colts did advance on the kick rather than retreat like a fatigued team might do. But the odds were still very good.

 

it seems like your job is to post up random stats that prove absolutely nothing....... ooooooooooooooooooh

 

The question is not your ability to post stats, but the ability to read stats and understand what they mean.

The saints have fewer 4th down attempts because they didnt get blown out 59-0 or hand off huge leads to teams so that every down became a must make down late in the game where punting made absolutely no sense.

But then again you are the master of posting slanted stats while ignoring the reality.


Ps..(Watch him folks, the answer i have given him is the simplest most logical true answer that any one who understands even a lick of football sense can understand. But he is probably going to go out and find some stat (probably not even related to the titans) and attempt to make some really tortured argument out of it.)

 

I am really amused you constantly justify your comments in an attempt to validate them while also attempting to "prove" you are smarter then whoever is meant to respond. Talk about insecure.

 

As impressive as those stats and those graphs are, I still say the Saints got lucky because Hank Baskett blew it big time.