I want to know why we did not go Onside Kick... | Page 4

Sep 21, 2010 at 6:35 AM

AlohaBruh
Veteran
Posts: 3,521

Originally posted by Youngone:
This thread is the epitome of stupid Ninertalk fans

Sep 21, 2010 at 6:38 AM

Youngone
Veteran
Posts: 23,490

Originally posted by 49ersNoKaOi:
Originally posted by Youngone:
This thread is the epitome of stupid Ninertalk fans

Worth the warning!

Sep 21, 2010 at 6:58 AM

#48

fryet
Veteran
Posts: 3,165

Like others have said, bad idea. With a tied game, the Saints were going to be conservative, i.e. not going on 4th down. If the 49ers were going to do anything different, Frank Gore should have fallen down at the 1, and milked some time off the clock, and the 49ers then score on their next play. But you are never guaranteed of getting in at the 1, so I can't fault the 49ers for scoring with 1 minute to go. The 49er's best chance was doing what they did, but their defense just couldn't deliver.

Sep 21, 2010 at 7:03 AM

#49

gage
Veteran
Posts: 1,485

We thought the D could hold them off.

Sep 21, 2010 at 7:03 AM

#50

ninerlifer
Veteran
Posts: 17,228

Originally posted by 49ersNoKaOi:
Originally posted by ninerlifer:
WE HAD NO TIME OUTS!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoting Valrod...."It would have been fuking stupid"

will he get a warning, or is that okay because of the spelling.

would like to know for future use of the word.

for your referrence, Mr Whistle Blower, its how I always spell it here

Sep 21, 2010 at 7:27 AM

#51

Youngone
Veteran
Posts: 23,490

This thread is so good it deserves a bump

Sep 21, 2010 at 7:28 AM

#52

Kilgore_Trout
Veteran
Posts: 2,150

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
After we got it tied up, why did we not go Onside Kick?

If there EVER is a time to do so, that would be the time. And Nedney can sell the OK damn well so WTF?

I don't think Sing should lose his job over it but C'MON there was NO REASON to give them the ball back if we can give ourselves more of a chance.

~Ceadder

Imagine how you would feel if that was the call, but we didn't recover...

Sep 21, 2010 at 7:30 AM

#53

lamontb
Veteran
Posts: 30,033

Sep 21, 2010 at 7:33 AM

#54

jta854
Veteran
Posts: 2,305

Originally posted by valrod33:
because that would have been f**kin stupid

This.

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:30 AM

#55

miked1978
Veteran
Posts: 11,086

There was just over 1 minute left on the clock and the Saints had 2 timeouts and we had NONE. Even if we held them to a FG there wouldn't have been enough time for us to get it back and score. I would have broken my TV if we went for an onside kick and not recover.

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:36 AM

#56

trapowell
Veteran
Posts: 1

Honestly Dude, I feel you on the onside kick thought, but this aint Madden '11.... It was a tied game + Special teams sucks (so we probably wouldn't recover) + Giving Drew Brees(an elite QB) the short field= 7pts instead of 3... You see what he did 80 yards down the field.... They jus beat us(we beat ourselves

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:38 AM

#57

fastforward
Veteran
Posts: 1,756

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
After we got it tied up, why did we not go Onside Kick?

If there EVER is a time to do so, that would be the time. And Nedney can sell the OK damn well so WTF?

I don't think Sing should lose his job over it but C'MON there was NO REASON to give them the ball back if we can give ourselves more of a chance.

~Ceadder

Too risky. A failed recovery would mean Brees getting the ball back with only 20 yards to go. A normal kick was better in that situation. Unfortunately, the stars were aligned for a Vikings part deux.

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:38 AM

#58

pd24
Veteran
Posts: 8,909

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
After we got it tied up, why did we not go Onside Kick?

If there EVER is a time to do so, that would be the time. And Nedney can sell the OK damn well so WTF?

I don't think Sing should lose his job over it but C'MON there was NO REASON to give them the ball back if we can give ourselves more of a chance.

~Ceadder

lol... If he would have went for the onside kick, he would be in danger of losing his job, not because he did the right thing.

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:40 AM

#59

SybErkRimInAL
Veteran
Posts: 59,184

Our D was playing well. No need for the onside. You go for the onside and miss, the saints only have to go 20 yards.

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:51 AM

#60

tjd808185
Veteran
Posts: 26,007

Ask yourself if you've ever seen this before. Tie game about a minute to go and then the team goes with an onside.

You're basically telling your team we can't stop them, and we can't beat them overtime so I have to risk it all on a long shot.