- Joined
- Aug 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,306
Saw it come up in another thread, didn't want to thread-jack, but it was the right call for several reasons.
The chances of recovering an onside kick when the opposition is expecting it is 21%. The chances of recovering two in a row are roughly 4%. Plus the plays in between to score twice. I get that it's a slim chance. This article puts it at approximately 0.002%.
However, it also goes on to show since 2001, teams in one-possession games have run 832 plays in the final 43 seconds with 0 turnovers. That is slightly better than the 0.002%. Even if you factor in one potential fumble, the win probability changes to 0.002%.
So it was statistically better, and even if you cheat the numbers, it still wasn't any worse. But here's the difference.
The offense runs two kneel-downs. Pretty low-risk, not just from an execution point of view but an injury point of view. Or you can risk the onside kick where there's a scrum, a potential injury, and then some deep balls thrown into crowds, where there's another risk of injury. Assuming perfection from Seattle, that's still a potential 4 or 5 live plays for your defense/special teams where someone could get hurt.
Considering this is a game after a short week against a physical opponent like the Giants and it was absolutely the right decision. I'm sorry some people lost some money but it really was the right decision no matter how you look at it.
The chances of recovering an onside kick when the opposition is expecting it is 21%. The chances of recovering two in a row are roughly 4%. Plus the plays in between to score twice. I get that it's a slim chance. This article puts it at approximately 0.002%.
However, it also goes on to show since 2001, teams in one-possession games have run 832 plays in the final 43 seconds with 0 turnovers. That is slightly better than the 0.002%. Even if you factor in one potential fumble, the win probability changes to 0.002%.
So it was statistically better, and even if you cheat the numbers, it still wasn't any worse. But here's the difference.
The offense runs two kneel-downs. Pretty low-risk, not just from an execution point of view but an injury point of view. Or you can risk the onside kick where there's a scrum, a potential injury, and then some deep balls thrown into crowds, where there's another risk of injury. Assuming perfection from Seattle, that's still a potential 4 or 5 live plays for your defense/special teams where someone could get hurt.
Considering this is a game after a short week against a physical opponent like the Giants and it was absolutely the right decision. I'm sorry some people lost some money but it really was the right decision no matter how you look at it.
