Did Frost know the onside success rate is 21%?
- Thread starter BoSolich
- Start date
I’m not defending the call, just saying maybe it wasn’t as bad of a call as we all thought statistically. But since B1G coaches love to throw shade at Frost Im sure one of them will be analyzing our kickoff returns and if our guys turn their backs early one of them will pounce at the chance to try it against us. If successful it would be the ultimate way to throw shade at Frost and humiliate him. Somebody will try it if we give them an opening I guarantee it.
I’m sure that Frost was aware of his own success rate for onside kicks attempts. Before the try it was 0/5. He hadn’t had 1 successful attempt other than on one occasion when it was nullified due to penalty.
I’m not opposed to onside kicks. It didn’t necessarily cost us the game. It just wasn’t the time to do it. With everything else that was going on, we didn’t need to add one more thing to the mix as a likely hindrance. The odds weren’t in our favor. And the timing of it didn’t match up with it’s implementation.
I’m not opposed to onside kicks. It didn’t necessarily cost us the game. It just wasn’t the time to do it. With everything else that was going on, we didn’t need to add one more thing to the mix as a likely hindrance. The odds weren’t in our favor. And the timing of it didn’t match up with it’s implementation.
Husker in WI
New member
He also hadn't had a special teams coordinator. I don't like the call either but this was literally the time the odds were in our favor. And even with our defense getting pushed around, I don't think NW would've come back from 3 scores down. It was too risky for my taste even with better odds with the lead, but this is the kind of thing that would be lauded as a genius move and Frost doing what it takes to win if it's just a better kick.
suh_fan93
New member
Not a bad call when your team aka Nebraska literally returns one of the worst if not the worst special teams units in the entire conference if not all of college football???
I think it's laughable to expect that Nebraska would have a good chance of successfully executing it because statistically other teams have. That's tin foil hat territory imo based on the team attempting said onside kick when up by only 11 points is Nebraska.
Husker in WI
New member
Got it, so numbers don't apply to your team because it's different. Most people aren't a fan of the call, but it's at the very least defensible.
suh_fan93
New member
Last edited by a moderator:
hskrfan4life
New member
Does the OP know we can move on to North Dakota?
It's a high risk, high return situation in my opinion. If his decision works, it's a brilliant move. The way our defense was playing could give him pause to consider it. One has to weigh all the potential consequences of it being unsuccessful including, how it could negatively influence not only the outcome of the game. There's lots to consider. And, it's convenient to criticize.
I'm not sure what favorable "looks" Northwestern was giving that would indicate it working. It might be useful to go back and review each of the kicks. On that particular play, Northwestern's players were seemingly doing what they should've been doing at the precise moment ready. It wasn't a great kick, either as you say.
In hindsight, perhaps a fake onside kick attempt sometime during the game would've helped our cause. The defense wasn't playing well and couldn't catch a break.
Mavric
Yoda
Yep. Once you fail at something you should never try that thing again for the duration of the program.
I don't expect us to attempt any field goals this year because we were so bad at that last year.
irafreak
New member
The problem with stats is they really don't tell the whole story. You may have a 60% chance to recover the kick but the mentally weak Scott Frost era teams won't recover from that kind of failure.
Here's how I look at it. Which would you be more comfortable betting your house on?
1) they recover the kick and go on to win
2) they don't recover and go on to lose
I know which one I'm betting on.
Here's how I look at it. Which would you be more comfortable betting your house on?
1) they recover the kick and go on to win
2) they don't recover and go on to lose
I know which one I'm betting on.
Husker in WI
New member
What about 3) they don't recover the kick but still win, because they were up by two scores and up to that point moving the ball just fine. IMO assigning an arbitrary 100% loss rate after not getting the kick based on our beliefs about the team's psyche is pretty ridiculous. And yes, I've watched the team in the Frost era.
knapplc
Active member
The risk/reward analysis favors kicking it deep.
Your defense is gassed and hasn't slowed Northwestern much all day. You have a two-score lead. Kick it deep and let your defense defend the length of the field. This is the lowest-risk option.
The high-risk option is the onside kick. If you recover, your defense gets more rest and you have the potential to blow the game open with another score. If you fail, you give Northwestern the ball in plus field position against your gassed, ineffective defense, and you make it a one-score game whether they kick a field goal or score a TD.
The odds may say surprise kicks are recovered 60% of the time, but that's not a good enough bet in that situation.
DefenderAO
New member
Someone told him the odds were close to his one score win %. Since he didn't know that he "let it rip!"