You'll have to excuse my use of hyperbole. This was a play that they practiced all week, so the team knew to expect it within the gameplan. Is it high risk? Of course. Did the situation merit it? Absolutely. To that point, we hadn't seen anything from our offense or defense. Let's see, San Diego's first drive...we capitalize on the big play. Next two drives, we hold SD on first and second down, only to get killed consistently on 3rd and long. Our only scoring came as the result of big plays on defense and special teams. Why not throw in a play with a potentially big payoff in that situation, especially if I have practiced it all week? As has been stated, it SHOULD have worked. I'm not arguing hypotheticals here, I'm arguing the situation itself. It was practiced, it was unexpected, and it was designed to be effective had the players executed. That's essentially true for the entire playbook.
The fact that our offense wasn't really doing much at that point is just another reason to kick it off IMO. Even if we got the kick, we very well may have ended up punting anyway. Is that really worth the risk of handing them the ball on the wrong side of the 50?
No, the onside kick was intelligent because our ST was the only unit that WAS clicking. You've just had a big return, send your special teams unit out there on a high and let them execute. Your defense has been ineffective, your offense just got in the end zone (granted, from 5 yards out), you play the hot hand. It was unexpected, which is ideal, and SHOULD have worked. The playcalling has been absolutely atrocious, which I in part attribute to a desire from Schotty to cradle Favre and limit his mistakes. As we've seen, that also limits his effectiveness. They're still learning how to deal with him within their system. I'd have expected a quicker learning process, but I think they're finally going to start opening it up. He seems more motivated to learn than initially as well.
It was a 3-point game in the 2nd quarter, it didn't decide the game. Hindsight is 20/20, if Wright hangs on and we win everyone hails it as genius.
Again, I think everyone is operating under the assumption that this was a typical onside kick. The unexpected, early onside has a much greater chance of effectiveness. They knew they were going to use it in the game. They planned for it all week. There was no better time to use it than when the ST was running high. It should have worked, and the blame is being placed in the wrong position. We're not exactly counting on 15 to light up the receiving world. He's here as a ST specialist, and he failed.
Ed Hochuli gave them all the momentum in the game. They had been fired up ever since the end of the Denver game. I never saw a moment when San Diego was reeling. Even after the Barrett INT, they came right back and put together a long drive on offense. You think holding a four point lead had them feeling defeated?
I agree that the ST was clicking and that they should have executed and recovered the ball. My problem is that the risk was too much for the potential reward at that point in the game. I like Mangini. I think he's a smart football guy. I think this was a ill advised decision on his part.
No way did that kick give them the momentum for the rest of the game. I mean it was in the 2nd quarter. If a team loses momentum permanently in the 2nd quarter than they have got to be the biggest mental weaklings in the world.
Absolutely not, but we did have the momentum at that point, did we not? Once they recovered that kick and drove down for a quick TD they had all the momentum and never looked back. I think it's ridiculous to say that a ref from the opposing teams previous game had more impact on the momentum of the game than this coaching decision. Are you serious?
If we would've recovered it then this thread would say onside kick great call.....The turning point was two INTs, a fumble, and a D that couldnt cover or tackle anyone. If we didnt try it then Rivers would just have another 30 yards added to his passing total
I can't agree with that at all, although I agree that STs was playing out of their mind on Monday night. Had they play worked, I would still disagree with the call. San Diego's ST unit was already amped up after giving away 94 yards to Leon, they were feeling embarrassed and pissed and I'm sure their ST coach was in their face telling them to expect anything and everything. And the STs unit was not out of their groove, many of them having been on the field less than a game minute before. If it had been an extended drive filled with time-consuming runs that lulled their sideline, an explosive playcall like this I might agree with.
I didn'y see our recievers getting open deep at all. It really surprises me that we don't have anyone that can stretch the field. Farve CAN throw downfield, I actually miss Santana Moss...
That's a good debate who would you rather have Moss or Coles, I'd take Moss in a heartbeat at least he cared
And yet San Diego recovered because our player failed to recover the ball, not because of excellent play on their part.
And I'm sure his lack of concentration had nothing to do with the fact the SD's ST unit read and reacted to the onsides so well. He had players in his face, hell even if he held onto it, the ball could have been stripped or he could have gotten drilled and outright lost the ball because of it. Wright was up in the air when the ball got to him.
No, simply arguing that the "momentum" factor is ridiculous. The Chargers were fired up from start to finish. They never let up, and certainly weren't feeling defeated only being up 4.
You're fooling yourself if you don't think momentum plays a big role in football. Not having the momentum on your side and feeling defeated are two entirely different things.
