1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Payton's decision to on-side kick: Is it only a good call because it worked?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Double Down, Feb 8, 2010.

  1. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    The plays really went the Saints way. Even that botched fourth-and-1 didn't hurt them and they were able to get a field goal before halftime.

    That was the Colts' bad for being so conservative when they got the ball on the 1.
     
  2. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Re: Payton's decision to on-side kick: Is it only a good call because it worked?

    I disagree. As someone said earlier, it's just as likely he figured Colts are gonna score anyway, so I better give us a chance to score before they do.

    Belichick's odd gamble sure wasn't perceived as faith in his defense to withstand the difference in field position.

    I see no reason to think Payton had that faith, either.
     
  3. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    I liked it, even had it failed. I did too when (I think - I have a terrible memory) Jimmy Johnson did it in a big spot against the Eagles. If it's totally unexpected, your odds are good enough to justify the risk. On the flip side, I hated the call to go for it from the 2, even though he got away with it - not just because he won, but got a gift when Donovan McNabb took over play calling duties for the Colts on the next possession.
     
  4. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    I think Sean Payton and the New Orleans staff decided to call a game like your asshole nephew playing Madden, who never runs a play how an actual human coach would call it. Payton realized that if he played the Colts straight-up -- particularly on defense -- the Saints had little chance of winning. His team had to be unorthodox, particularly in finding ways to keep the ball out of Manning's hands.

    The fourth down call near the goal line was good, even though the play field, because the Colts' defense already was showing it had problems tackling. And the onside kick, either way, was a good call because it came at a time no one expected it. It's not like New Orleans had pulled this earlier, so the Colts could practice against a possible onside kick in a not-onside kick situation.

    The Saints' passing routes, for the most part, was send everyone deep so the Colts had to spread out their zone, thus leaving lots of room for comebacks and underneath routes. That 3rd-and-short early in the game where Brees threw it over the top, even though it didn't work, was a signal the Saints were itching to go deep all game.

    Finally, I heard Ron Jaworski this morning talking about how the Saints ran different defenses every quarter. Until the end, Manning was picking up a lot of those changes, but it still disturbed his rhythm enough that he couldn't completely force the action and carve up a team like he normally does the second half.

    Guy, as for "Donovan McNabb" calling plays after the two-point conversion, the Colts weren't going to be in a hurry because they knew if time was left, New Orleans was going to score.
     
  5. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    The Colts clearly were not expecting it, but it wasn't that great of a kick. Baskett (sp) just plain dropped it when he wasn't under direct pressure.

    The reason I don't like the kick is that you are basically giving 35 or so yards of field position away if it fails and Manning would need to pick up only 15 yards to be in good FG range. It was showing a lack of faith in the defense.

    But it worked, so what do I know.
     
  6. jagtrader

    jagtrader Active Member

    It's a bad play because that kick is so difficult to execute well. Despite the flaw the Saints saw with the Colts, they had a player in perfect position to recover. He blew it. Payton was bold and all, but he got lucky.
     
  7. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    Kicking a football straight at somebody might be better than off to the side, because it can be hard to judge the bounce.

    Anyway, I think the way the kick was executed was good because the way New Orleans was (not) stopping the Colts at that point, Indianapolis would have advanced those 35 yards anyway. At least you've given Peyton Manning less time with the ball, so you get it back sooner.

    The more I think of that last run call of the first half for the Colts, the more I cringe. Shoot, at least do a short play-action and see what you can get. I think Payton had more confidence in his team for that onside kick because it at least found a way to get one more score late in the first. The difference between 10-3 and 10-6 might not seem like much, but it's more like the difference between 10-3 and being stuffed at the goal line and 10-6 and feeling like you caught a break after being stuffed at the goal line.
     
  8. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    If there was any special teams to run that play against, it was the Colts. The team seems to put little value in special teams play, and it shows.
     
  9. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Get to work. :D

    Of course it's a great call because it worked. Payton rolled the dice and got lucky.

    There's so many variables on an onside kick, the kick itself, the coverage, the lucky/unlucky bounces, the pile for a loose ball that may or may not materialize, etc.

    The Saints might have seen something on film, but it's giving them too much credit to dismiss the above factors out of hand. It's a gamble and it paid off.

    I'll give Payton credit for having the balls to do it. The Colts never have the balls to do anything risky like that.
     
  10. Beef03

    Beef03 Active Member

    I like the call, because I like aggressive play. Yes, its cliche, but they were playing to win, not playing to not lose. They viewed it as their once in a lifetime opportunity and they pulled out all the stops. If it hadn't worked, well then you figure it out as you go. But enough conservative play calling goes bad due to fumbles, missed blocks, interceptions, dropped balls and a thousand other reasons that I have no problem with them taking a shot like that. Might as well screw up going for the juggular than screw up when playing it safe. besides, as someone pointed out, if Indy scores a TD off of it, the game is far from out of reach and you have one of the most explosive offences at your disposal.
     
  11. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Are you kidding? This is the Colts & Peyton Manning - they score in the last minute of the half all the time. At the time, I assumed that his ribs were bugging him and that he was very limited in what he could do, otherwise, I see no way to explain 3 running plays.
     
  12. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Sean Payton is a better head coach than Peyton Manning.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page