The re-kick
Good day!
Comments
-
Good day to you Sir. And FTR I agree
-
Kick returns generally take one good block for a guy to break free. Miles was scary bad and taking way too many deep sacks. I agree with Pete on that kick.
-
I didn't mind the re-kick either. Our offense was putrid and a John Ross miracle was our only hope.
-
The re-kick decision was fine. The risk/reward profile for that was good.
Still doesn't make up for the two fucking stupid decisions to go for it on fourth down though. -
I agree, the fake punt in particular was FS.
-
Well, no shit on the 4th downs. But I'm referring to the re-kick, which I see a lot of people lumping into the 4th down decisions as FS. It wasn't.TierbsHsotBoobs said:The re-kick decision was fine. The risk/reward profile for that was good.
Still doesn't make up for the two fucking stupid decisions to go for it on fourth down though.
I agree that the risk reward isn't good in normal situations, but knowing that 3 and out was likely, you have to give Ross the shot.
-
Agreed. Wanna fuck or what?
-
Well, plus the rekick was from 5 yards back due to an off sides. They simply declined the oob penalty.
The fucking planet must be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay fucking out of whack- I agree with Mick Dabone.
Not hating Pete on the rekick.
Ross looked FS on the return but no way Pete knows that will happen. -
Maybe just cyber?TierbsHsotBoobs said:Agreed. Wanna fuck or what?
-
I havent seen anyone criticize the rekick here?
that being said I agreed with the rekick at the time. The chances of us scoring on defense or special teams > chance of scoring on offense -
TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Agreed. Wanna fuck or what?
It's about goddam time this happened. I won't BRB cuz I'll be seriously JO
-
I agree with the rekick, but we need to get much better at the blocking scheme on returns. Ross needs to trust others are going to execute their jobs (or just kill the fucking opponents) to eliminate the indecision. On the last return he looked like Cyler Miles does at QB.
-
Seems that many that agree with me on this didn't 24 hours ago.Houhusky said:I havent seen anyone criticize the rekick here?
that being said I agreed with the rekick at the time. The chances of us scoring on defense or special teams > chance of scoring on offense
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/comment/190340 -
I played some golf today to get some perspective on this decision.MikeDamone said:
Seems that many that agree with me on this didn't 24 hours ago.Houhusky said:I havent seen anyone criticize the rekick here?
that being said I agreed with the rekick at the time. The chances of us scoring on defense or special teams > chance of scoring on offense
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/comment/190340 -
This was covered yesterday. Dimone is correct.
-
Today I'm just here to beat my chest.HeretoBeatmyChest said:This was covered yesterday. Dimone is correct.
-
That's what I told my dad before and after the re-kick. It was the smart thing to do, given how badly our offense was struggling.MikeDamone said:looks like most folks think the re kick was FS. I disagree. Given that the huskies couldn't do shit on offense, 3 and out at the 35 was just as likely as Ross getting a decent run back. I'll take Ross getting the ball at the goal line with a chance to make something happen over the offense at the 35. Also, there is a great chance he returns it close to the 35 anyway. That said, Ross's return looked weird. He started slow and was waiting. He usually turns it on and gets up field quickly. Irregardless, the odds were they were going to get at least out the the 25 with a shot for a big play. I'd take that over letting the clown show start at the 35.
Good day! -
I had no problem with the re-kick. If I was Shaw, I'd be more worried about JRIII taking it to the house than any chance of a 10 play drive lead by Miley. The two 4th down conversions/fake punt malarkey was disheartening, however. I have nothing today that makes me feel better about those choices outside of oxycontin.
Thanks for the perspective on the rekick, Damone. I'd be ok if he did it again with an anemic offense. -
Up vote for the first HH use of "malarkey".MisterEm said:I had no problem with the re-kick. If I was Shaw, I'd be more worried about JRIII taking it to the house than any chance of a 10 play drive lead by Miley. The two 4th down conversions/fake punt malarkey was disheartening, however. I have nothing today that makes me feel better about those choices outside of oxycontin.
Thanks for the perspective on the rekick, Damone. I'd be ok if he did it again with an anemic offense. -
The rekick was a no brainer. It went to commercial and I was muttering to my dog about how they were stupid to take the penalty as it appeared they were doing. I was relieved when it came back and they were lined up for another kickoff. Only chance we had of getting past the 50 was Ross on the KOR.
-
A few things:
1) The reasoning for why to do the re-kick makes a lot of sense. However, after the drive stalled with the bad field position, we got a great punt from Durkee that pinned Stanford inside their 15 and led to our field position on the last drive. Had we taken the penalty on the kick, did nothing, and then punted, we would have ended up losing yards with the exchange because Durkee's punt would have gone into the end zone. It's funny sometimes how things have a way of evening themselves out.
2) on the first 4th down attempt by Miles, I had no problem with that. They needed more or less inches and went with a quick count on it. It's a similar decision that many coaches would make. Miles bobbling the ball that allowed the penetration to eliminate any kind of push that he was going to make was a killer. No problem with the call. Big problem with the execution.
3) The fake on the punt makes sense ONLY when thinking about it from the standpoint of recognizing that the offense was going to need to get some help to win the game. However, the call was 100% FS and the wrong call at the wrong time. It was the call that you'd expect from an impatient teenager playing Madden. That was Petersen's "Welcome to the PAC" moment. That's one area where he's going to have to learn to adjust a little bit to coaching in his new job. -
Stopped reading this bullshit at the bolded section.Tequilla said:A few things:
1) The reasoning for why to do the re-kick makes a lot of sense. However, after the drive stalled with the bad field position, we got a great punt from Durkee that pinned Stanford inside their 15 and led to our field position on the last drive. Had we taken the penalty on the kick, did nothing, and then punted, we would have ended up losing yards with the exchange because Durkee's punt would have gone into the end zone. It's funny sometimes how things have a way of evening themselves out.
2) on the first 4th down attempt by Miles, I had no problem with that. They needed more or less inches and went with a quick count on it. It's a similar decision that many coaches would make. Miles bobbling the ball that allowed the penetration to eliminate any kind of push that he was going to make was a killer. No problem with the call. Big problem with the execution.
3) The fake on the punt makes sense ONLY when thinking about it from the standpoint of recognizing that the offense was going to need to get some help to win the game. However, the call was 100% FS and the wrong call at the wrong time. It was the call that you'd expect from an impatient teenager playing Madden. That was Petersen's "Welcome to the PAC" moment. That's one area where he's going to have to learn to adjust a little bit to coaching in his new job. -
And what part of it was bullshit?
Durkee hit a GREAT punt that outkicked the coverage and would have gone into the endzone ... what part of that is factually incorrect? -
He wouldn't have automatically been trying to hit a bomb in that situation.Tequilla said:And what part of it was bullshit?
Durkee hit a GREAT punt that outkicked the coverage and would have gone into the endzone ... what part of that is factually incorrect?
In fact, he wouldn't have even been on the field for fourth and 3 from the UW 42.
-
I have no problem w/ the rekick
4th & 1 - our midget Beaver OC will need to be more creative, first time we lined up under center
Fake punt, 4th & 9 - after a long walk on the beach to think about it - bad call. Question - does that call definitively go in as a fake, then Shaq has the chance to check out of it? I don't know what they saw there -
Smith isn't killing it, but there is nothing wrong with showing your hand on 4th and inches with a QB who is 6'4 230. I'd be pissed if he tried to get creative to be honest with you.unfrozencaveman said:4th & 1 - our midget Beaver OC will need to be more creative, first time we lined up under center
Edit: Why not even throw the Lindquist package out there, it's not a situation for tricks. -
I am fine with the re-kick for the same reason I am fine with the fake punt.
-
Hypothetical question:
Instead of running a fake punt, Petersen punts the ball, the defense gets a stop, and UW drives it to the 38 with 8 seconds to go where it is 4th and 4. Petersen decides to have Van Winkle kick a 55 yard FG that comes up short. Ty Montgomery is hanging out in the end zone, catches it before it goes out of bounds, and returns it for a TD.
Any criticism at that point? -
I don't deal in hypotheticals.Tequilla said:Hypothetical question:
Instead of running a fake punt, Petersen punts the ball, the defense gets a stop, and UW drives it to the 38 with 8 seconds to go where it is 4th and 4. Petersen decides to have Van Winkle kick a 55 yard FG that comes up short. Ty Montgomery is hanging out in the end zone, catches it before it goes out of bounds, and returns it for a TD.
Any criticism at that point?
-
I don't deal in hypotheticals. (obligatory)Tequilla said:Hypothetical question:
Instead of running a fake punt, Petersen punts the ball, the defense gets a stop, and UW drives it to the 38 with 8 seconds to go where it is 4th and 4. Petersen decides to have Van Winkle kick a 55 yard FG that comes up short. Ty Montgomery is hanging out in the end zone, catches it before it goes out of bounds, and returns it for a TD.
Any criticism at that point?
