The onside kick

[West TX Hawk]

My thoughts:
1) No one in the media is really talking about this, but that was a perfectly executed onsides kick by the Hawks. The way Hausch got the ball up in the air is exactly the way it should be done-it makes it a jump ball scenario and gave our team the best chance possible to retrieve the kick. Matthews made an exceptional play on the ball.

2) Bostick is unfairly being made the scapegoat. As someone else mentioned, his assignment may have been to block, but when the ball is going to likely bounce right off you if you do nothing, a natural instinct to reach for the ball is understandable. If he did just attempt to block, Matthews still had a good chance to make the play or if the ball bounced off Bostick and into a Seahawk what would the narrative had been?-"Why didn't Bostick just try to catch it?"

Also if you examine most successful onsides kick recoveries by the kicking team, often the ball will bounce off a player or 2-it's not an easy play to make. It's just ridiculous and cowardly by the Packers to throw him under the bus.

3) Assume G Bay recovers it. There was 2:09 at the start of the kick. Hawks had the 2 min warning and a timeout. We may still have gotten the ball back, albeit with little time and not good field position, but with Wilson getting in the groove late the Hawks would've likely still had at least a chance. The narrative that if not for Bostick G Bay automatically wins is not necessarily true.

Bottom line, it was just another in a series of outstanding focus and execution by the Hawks in the most important moments of this epic game.

 

[Reaneypark]

Remember in last year's playoffs when Golden Tate dropped the onside kick and the Saints got the ball?

Oh yeah, no one talks about it because the Seahawks Defense stopped them.

Great point, OP.

I was going to mention that, but to be fair, the Saints had just a few seconds to work with and no TOs.

Saints got the ball on their last touchdown drive in that game with 2:40 left on the clock. They ran it down to :26 seconds before they punched it in. They recovered the onside kick with no time off the clock and had :26 seconds to work with after the recovery. Time taken on the drives: first drive 2:14, second drive :26, total time: 2:40. The Saints had zero timeouts left plus the two-minute warning, as they'd burned their last one on a challenge a couple of plays prior.

By contrast, the Seahawks on Sunday got the ball on their comeback drive with 3:52 left on the clock. They scored at 2:09. The onside kick was recovered with 2:07 left. Four plays later at 1:25 they were in the end zone again. Time taken on the drives: first drive 1:43, second drive :42, total time: 2:27. We had one timeout left plus the two-minute warning, and did not use the timeout.

So yes, while the Saints got the ball back with only 26 seconds left on their second possession there, they'd taken more time than we took to punch it in on the first drive. And our second drive was only 16 seconds longer than the time they had left on the clock for theirs. They couldn't get it done; we did it.

Thanks for the clarification. For sure, we nutted up on D when we were challenged. Packers didn't.

 

[bigskydoc]

A successful onside kick is essentially a turnover.

So, we picked up a turnover at midfield.

They had 2 interceptions at midfield, an interception at our 19 and a fumble recovery at our 24.

The difference? We capitalized on the turnover and they didn't.

If they scored a touchdown off even one of those four turnovers, we aren't having this conversation.

- bsd

 

[therealjohncarlson]

The way they talk about it, he's some kind of lineman with seven missing fingers. He's a tight end. You know, the position that goes out and catches passes as part of the job description.

To be fair, he is a blocking TE, and his assignment was to block on that play. For some unknown reason, he decided to forego his responsibility and attempted to recover the kick. I am grateful he did.

*facepalm*

So what do you want him to do when the ball comes directly at him, duck? Hope Nelson, who coaches claim he was blocking for, catches it? Effing ridiculous, if this is really true that his one job was to block for Nelson and to avoid the ball if it comes to him, THIS IS ENTIRELY ON THE COACHING STAFF, for a completely screwed up strategy

 

[themunn]

So yes, while the Saints got the ball back with only 26 seconds left on their second possession there, they'd taken more time than we took to punch it in on the first drive. And our second drive was only 16 seconds longer than the time they had left on the clock for theirs. They couldn't get it done; we did it.

It's not comparable though - with 2 minutes and a timeout left your entire playbook is open, you can run upwards of a dozen plays if you do it right and get the ball out of bounds or hurry to the line quickly when stopped inbounds.

With 26 seconds left and no timeouts you HAVE to play the ball to the sidelines and get out of bounds with every play or it's game over with one stop.

 

[Polaris]

Remember in last year's playoffs when Golden Tate dropped the onside kick and the Saints got the ball?

Oh yeah, no one talks about it because the Seahawks Defense stopped them.

Great point, OP.

I was going to mention that, but to be fair, the Saints had just a few seconds to work with and no TOs.

Edit: Whoops! I need to read what I am quoting better. I stand by what I said before though. Too many people nationally are pretending like the onside kick was the difference between GB winning or losing and that's simply not true.

It really annoys me how fast the mediots and (esp Green Bay) fans forget the game they just watched!

When Seattle attempted the onside kick, there was 2:07 left in the game, and Seattle had a time out. If Seattle kicks deep and forces GB to start at the 20, Green Bay would have tried to run out the clock by running three times (we know this because McCarthy was in that mode and was clearly trying to eat clock rather than to score). We were stuffing the run (and Green Bay's offense in general) at this time. So Green Bay would have run once, and Seattle lets it run to the two min warning. Then Green Bay would have tried to run again, and Seattle would have called a time out immedately. The would have taken the clock down to maybe 1:50 or so. Then Green Bay would try to run again, and it would be fourth and long...but Green Bay would run the clock down the full 40 seconds. 1:10 mins left.

Then Green Bay Punts and Seattle gets the ball back in decent field positions with about a minute left and no Time Outs.

That's tough but given how Seattle was playing late in the fourth qtr, I think we would have done it....and Green Bay would have had no time left to counter...unless Green Bay started to burn it's TOs...but GB wasn't in that mode.