ADVERTISEMENT

On-side kicks and going for it on fourth down

82hoosier

All-American
Sep 7, 2001
9,600
8,031
113
Last year I was not a fan of the aggressive decisions regarding the above. Some people posted that IU should never punt the ball. Others added that on-side kicks add excitement to the game.

My thought is that Coach Wilson made most of these decisions because, quite rightly so, he had no confidence that the defense could get off the field regardless of field position. The players are pretty smart and must have figured out the same.

So my question is: Do you think these decisions/ gambles deflate the defense's mind-set even more? Or am I just being a curmudgeon?

Its June and not much else too talk about - other than off-field matters.
 
Until IU can control the tempo of the game, it has to do this. Until the defense can move a notch above "atrocious" the coaching staff cannot be conventional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pelkowski
IMO, it is not just IU that are going for it on 4th down and using on-side kicks more. Most teams are going for it on 4th down when they cross the 50 rather than punting, I belief it is more of a shift in philosophy throughout college football. Alot of teams are choosing to take the extra plays on offense, rather than pinning the opponent. The game has changed, even Bama is moving toward trying to score 40+ points a game. This is not Lloyd Carr's and Jim Tressel's college football, not many top teams try to shorten games by playing ball control and defense. Look at the Final 4 last year, only one team was a defensive minded team and even Bama was much more offensive minded than past years. You cannot win without scoring points and more offensive plays give more opportunities to score. So, I expect to see IU go for it on 4th down 2 to 3 times a game and I wouldn't be surprised to see an on-side kick every 2 or 3 games.
 
Last year I was not a fan of the aggressive decisions regarding the above. Some people posted that IU should never punt the ball. Others added that on-side kicks add excitement to the game.

My thought is that Coach Wilson made most of these decisions because, quite rightly so, he had no confidence that the defense could get off the field regardless of field position. The players are pretty smart and must have figured out the same.

So my question is: Do you think these decisions/ gambles deflate the defense's mind-set even more? Or am I just being a curmudgeon?

Its June and not much else too talk about - other than off-field matters.
If the defense can't accept that they have been awful, then they will never succeed.
 
Last year I was not a fan of the aggressive decisions regarding the above. Some people posted that IU should never punt the ball. Others added that on-side kicks add excitement to the game.

My thought is that Coach Wilson made most of these decisions because, quite rightly so, he had no confidence that the defense could get off the field regardless of field position. The players are pretty smart and must have figured out the same.

So my question is: Do you think these decisions/ gambles deflate the defense's mind-set even more? Or am I just being a curmudgeon?

Its June and not much else too talk about - other than off-field matters.

Out of all the onsides kicks I recall last year, most seemed to be your typical late game situations. Only 2 I think would be considered aggressive. Iowa/Rutgers. With Iowa, it was early (2nd quarter so technically plenty of time left) and IU had just scored to bring into a 14 point deficit. However, the team as a whole had looked pretty atrocious to that point, so why not do something to create a momentum swing. With Rutgers, it was the opening kickoff, but it was a road game and IU was coming in on a 4 game losing streak, so why the hell not come out swinging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82hoosier
If the defense can't accept that they have been awful, then they will never succeed.

I think in D defense, post Nate going down, they were doomed. I thought they actually were playing a lot better, made decent amount of stops, gave offense ball back, many times, etc. But sorry, LA QB and Fr WR's were just not ready for prime time yet, so everyone know Tevin was getting ball, and to O-line & his credit, he still managed 2,000 yds.

Per stat read in Ohio St article, IU averaged 37 pts in games w/Nate, & like 14-17 w/out. Had last year's team had Nate all season, I'd bet house they would have won 2 more games, gone bowling and IU D would have been higher than 102.

Hence, why I am so optimistic of them this year, I think Knorr did great job and talent has improved and more athletes to choose from finally! Very bullish this year D will be better, partially b/c the offense will also be better. Both can go hand in hand.
 
Going for it is defensible statistically, but can create a perception problem with fans. So making decisions perceived as risky can both improve your chances of winning, but also of getting fired.

I think the IU staff has reached a point where they have little to lose by taking more gambles.
 
It just seems CKW gambles less than he did in his first few years. However, a good special teams coach will look at tendencies of the opponent, on film, and point that out to the HC. If a weakness can be exploited, they should do it. But it is always a gamble.

Agree that we had to gamble some last year given our injury situation. That shouldn't be the case this year.
 
I think in D defense, post Nate going down, they were doomed. I thought they actually were playing a lot better, made decent amount of stops, gave offense ball back, many times, etc. But sorry, LA QB and Fr WR's were just not ready for prime time yet, so everyone know Tevin was getting ball, and to O-line & his credit, he still managed 2,000 yds.

Per stat read in Ohio St article, IU averaged 37 pts in games w/Nate, & like 14-17 w/out. Had last year's team had Nate all season, I'd bet house they would have won 2 more games, gone bowling and IU D would have been higher than 102.

Hence, why I am so optimistic of them this year, I think Knorr did great job and talent has improved and more athletes to choose from finally! Very bullish this year D will be better, partially b/c the offense will also be better. Both can go hand in hand.

Agree, the defense improved a lot especially as the year went even if the total yardage and points don't reflect that. If you look at efficiency stats, IU's defense ranked in the mid 70's last year (not great, but IU had been consistently ranked 100+ in those stats for YEARS prior).

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef
 
I think in D defense, post Nate going down, they were doomed. I thought they actually were playing a lot better, made decent amount of stops, gave offense ball back, many times, etc. But sorry, LA QB and Fr WR's were just not ready for prime time yet, so everyone know Tevin was getting ball, and to O-line & his credit, he still managed 2,000 yds.

Per stat read in Ohio St article, IU averaged 37 pts in games w/Nate, & like 14-17 w/out. Had last year's team had Nate all season, I'd bet house they would have won 2 more games, gone bowling and IU D would have been higher than 102.

Hence, why I am so optimistic of them this year, I think Knorr did great job and talent has improved and more athletes to choose from finally! Very bullish this year D will be better, partially b/c the offense will also be better. Both can go hand in hand.
Oh I agree. They did look better and I'm a big fan of Coach Knorr. I was just saying that I would hope they wouldn't hang their heads over going for it on 4th, because despite the improvement, they were still pretty bad. You have to try to win.
 
Going for it is defensible statistically, but can create a perception problem with fans. So making decisions perceived as risky can both improve your chances of winning, but also of getting fired.

I think the IU staff has reached a point where they have little to lose by taking more gambles.

"Perceived as risky" is the key phrase. Statistical analysis has revealed that traditional football conventional wisdom about when to punt/kick/go for it is excessively averse to going for it. There are risks on both sides of every decision, but going for it always is perceived as risky even when it provides the best chance to win. I don't always agree with Wilson's decisions, and frankly I don't have the statistical evidence to judge many of his decisions. Still, I'm glad that he is not bound by conventional wisdom, because the conventional wisdom is deficient.
 
I often wonder if CKW goes for it more because he has a math degree and understands risk/reward better than the average coach. He unquestionably has a higher IQ than most of the college level coaches.

That and he clearly doesn't give a rip what anybody thinks about him.
 
I think in D defense, post Nate going down, they were doomed. I thought they actually were playing a lot better, made decent amount of stops, gave offense ball back, many times, etc. But sorry, LA QB and Fr WR's were just not ready for prime time yet, so everyone know Tevin was getting ball, and to O-line & his credit, he still managed 2,000 yds.

Per stat read in Ohio St article, IU averaged 37 pts in games w/Nate, & like 14-17 w/out. Had last year's team had Nate all season, I'd bet house they would have won 2 more games, gone bowling and IU D would have been higher than 102.

Hence, why I am so optimistic of them this year, I think Knorr did great job and talent has improved and more athletes to choose from finally! Very bullish this year D will be better, partially b/c the offense will also be better. Both can go hand in hand.
I think this is truly the case. I know PSU's offense sucked last year, but the D gave up one long running play that lost the game. If we would have had any kind of offense at all, we would have won that game.
 
ADVERTISEMENT