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

You are always a coaching genius when a gimmick or trick play works.
But if the Saints had lost and the fourth down try or the onside kick was the reason, the fans and the writers would have had Payton for dinner.
Then you become the coaching goat.

 

Well, sure. When the game's over, there's no such thing as a good call that didn't work -- even if there really is. But football's a game of aggression, and Payton was willing to be the aggressor all night. Hard to argue with that idea, whether it works or not.

 

You can't listen to the public reaction as a coach. The play was still successful and look how much attention it is getting and how much it is still being questioned. You just have to be confident and believe in what play you are calling and let the chips fall where they may. I can't remember who it was now (buffalo?) but a couple fo years ago it was a coach going for two and the win on a last minute touchdown instead of settling for overtime, I like the call, I also liked Belichik going for it on fourth and two from his own 30 earlier this year, even though the play that was called was questionable and didn't work.

 

Great thread DD. To me it was a good example of what all the great coaches have in common. The ability to "let it go". Put their balls on the line and make decisions that the average coach can't and won't make. They are willing to accept the downside if the play does not work.
It also shows how much respect that teams have for Peyton Manning. They did not want to put the ball back in his hands at start of 2nd half.

 

Given your juxtaposition, I thought you meant he went Donovan McNabb in the drive after the Saints made it 24-17. You were talking about after the Colts stopped Pierre Thomas on the fourth-and-goal. Yes, I would agree on that one. The first running play, I can see as a means of clearing a little space. Even the second one made a little bit of sense. But that third one -- even on third-and-short, and I don't see why he did that, especially with New Orleans stacking the line.

 

The one part of the discussion that I think is getting kind of short shrift is Payton's confidence that the play would work. If they had practiced it and the kicker was inconsistent, or if they hadn't seen the Colts retreating to block on every kick, then it's just a random chance thing. But they rehearsed that play over and over, got it to the point where the kid could hit it exactly where they wanted him to hit it, and then Payton got two good looks at the Indy kick team in the first half. At that point the odds and percentages become secondary.

 

Luck, as Branch Rickey put it, is the residue of design. Great call.

 

He couldn't possibly have known it would work. He may have thought it had a high probability of working, but he had to still weigh the reward against the possibility of failure.

 

Fair point. Let me put it this way: The link posted earlier on the thread says surprise onside kicks have a 60 percent success rate. Seeing how his team executed in practice and the Colts' tendencies, Payton probably felt like he had a 90 percent chance or greater in that case. My point is, all the debate about the strategy has focused on the hypothetical win percentages, but the fact that he had seen the play work for two weeks is something that no historical data sample can include.

 

That Peter King bit about the onside kick was excellent.

 

It's a great decision because he was willing to do it on the biggest stage. If you see something in the tape, you have to be willing to take a chance and exploit it.

 

Baskett was thinking of his wife's tits and got distracted.