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

Good call, great execution, but there was nothing innovative about Payton's decision.

Other than late in a game, isn't an onside kick to begin the second half the next logical timeframe to give one a try?

Call me a fanboi, but I was more impressed with Pittsburgh's onside kick in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XXX. To me, it takes a lot more balls attempting one when trailing 20-10, as the Steelers did at the time, than when you're down four points.

 

Excellent point.

 

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

I don't know if Payton does the onside kick if the Saints didn't get that field goal to close out the first half.
Saw more than a few teams this year have the ball with less than two minutes in a half be unable to hold on to the ball and end up giving up three points or more because they could decide whether they wanted to go for a first down or eat clock and ended up doing neither.

 

Something Peter King touched on in his breakdown, but didn't go into great depth with, was how well the Saints sold it. According to one of the AP stories, Morstead sent a warm-up kick deep so as not to tip off the Colts. Then Morstead did a regular kicking motion all the way up until he sent it left.
The Colts were caught off-guard, but the Saints did a great job of making them drop their guard too.

 

What I think is interesting, and it dovetails a bit with LongTimeLisener's point, is that if your chances are 90 percent (or whatever) that it's going to be successful, and you determine that it's worth the gamble, then it's still a good call even if Hank Baskett is able to rip the ball out of Reis' hands at the bottom of the pile.

But let's be frank about it: There is not a single media person who would have acknowledged that it was a great call had it not worked out. Some of us would practically be calling for Sean Payton to be stoned to death outside the stadium. I just think it's a good discussion point to think about considering the hysterical analysis we so often cough up as media people.

I like the call either way, but can say that in retrospect. It's a lot easier to say that now. I guess it comes back to my original point, that Payton did not give a shit what people would say if it didn't work. I admire that, because I think a lot of NFL coaches are terrified of being second guessed, which is why so many of them play it safe and conventional, and it's also why some people think the league is so homogeneous.

 

I think Payton figured that the Colts could score from anywhere on field so what was the difference if they started in Saints 40 /45 or Colts 20 or so. Updside at that point was much bigger.

 

I agree with a lot on this thread, especially this.

I'm reminded of the 2007 game at LSU when Arkansas seemingly knocked the Tigers out of the BCS championship picture (for a week, anyway). Les Miles punted on fourth-and-short from the Arkansas 40, and I said before and after the punt that it was a mistake. That was the Arkansas team of the Wildcat offense and Darren McFadden, and I argued it didn't matter whether the Razorbacks got the ball on their 40 or farther away from the goal line -- they were a threat to score if they had the ball anywhere on the field.

The punt went into the end zone, so LSU gained all of 20 yards in field position. McFadden busted an 80-yard touchdown.

There was more upside to going for it, especially when LSU had such a run of fourth-down success in 2007 with Jacob Hester, Matt Flynn and others. Miles defended the call when I pressed him about it, and I think he used the hindsight argument, but I first-guessed as being a mistake. To me it was easier than second-guessing, because McFadden was just that big a home run threat.

Peyton Manning at quarterback, to me, is like McFadden that year. Keep the ball out of his hands.

 

Yeah, it was a great call simply because it had a good chance of working. Payton knew the Colts two up men cheated on kick-offs and thought it would be successful. So it didn't come by a gut instinct. It came by film study and knowing tendencies.

Pretty damn good coaching.

 

I thought the same thing, except in regards to USC going for it on fourth down against Texas in 2005. If Vince Young had 200 yards to go, he would have found a way to score with how he was playing. So you keep the ball out of his hands.

That's why the call was a very good one. They had to take a shot, staring at 17-6.

As for whether it was good coaching: a friend who is a Colts fan said today that one coach was playing chess, and the other was playing tic-tac-toe. That about sums it up.

 

Funny JD I was thinking of Arkansas also but in 2007 SEC championship when Meyer went for fake punt on 4th and 10 from his own 15 down 21 - 17. That call won him the 2007 BCS.

That might have been gut check call of the century.

 

Probably in college football, a coach will decide to never punt unless inside their own 20 or facing a fourth and 15 or greater, always go for two points on the conversion and always onside kick.

And the crazy SOB might be onto something.

 

it was like every other unusual call, like a running play on third-and-20 that goes for a first down or a reverse that goes for a td or is thrown for a 15-yard loss -- great if it works, awful if it doesn't.

sean payton "goes off the reservation" with some of his calls, mentor bill parcells always said. "sometimes you have to pull him back onto it."

it's a characteristic that can make you look like a genius or a fool. yesterday, for the most part, it was the former.

i admire his nerve but it can make a fan cringe, i'd imagine. parcells was the same way, though. everyone remember leon johnson? ??? ??? ???