Packers down 7 with just over a minute left, all three TOs.
Everyone lined up for onside kick.
Would have it been a better choice to kick deep but in play - and pin the Eagles inside the 20, then HOPEFULLY stop them and get the ball near/around midfield with 45-50 seconds left?
I understand the onside kick in terms you haven't stopped them all night on the ground and you need to take your shot. But even if they stopped them - another long FG was on the table to essentially end the game (gamble on Philly's part too).
But the main part of all this is if the Eagles punt - you need to go 80 yards in 45-50 seconds with NO timeouts.
I think the better option given the onside kick rules and having three TO's was to kickoff.
And in an absolute best case scenario - you're likely getting the ball back with :35-:40, no timeouts, and a backup QB needing to score with starting field position at the 25? 30?
MANY things need to go EXACTLY right there - where as an onside kick you just need that one break.
And in an absolute best case scenario - you're likely getting the ball back with :35-:40, no timeouts, and a backup QB needing to score with starting field position at the 25? 30?
MANY things need to go EXACTLY right there - where as an onside kick you just need that one break.
I guess I agree, but onside kicks are like going at a 6% recovery rate.
And I think if you do KO and hold, more likely to get it at the 35/40 IMO esp if you kicker squibs it correctly.
Did the Eagles even have a man back?