Invece secondo me, con le nuove regole, ha senso una chiamata del genere, specie se hai fiducia nella tua difesa (che quindi secondo te può limitare a solo un FG l'attacco avversario) perché così ti puoi giocare la possibilità di vincere direttamente la gara con un FG o, al più, se non subisci un TD, hai comunque la tua possibilità di pareggiare o vincere la gara invece di essere solo "spettatore".
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_28 ... e-nfl-isnt
Anche perché poi c'è l'effetto sorpresa nell'onside:
The fact that an onside kick is so unlikely, however, means that it's likely to work. When it comes to onside kicks, the likelihood of success depends heavily on the element of surprise. Over the past 10 seasons, surprise onside kicks—defined as when the kicking team, based on win probability statistics, has a better than 20 percent chance of winning at the time of the kick—are recovered around 60 percent of the time. Expected onside kicks—those that come when a team obviously must resort to an onside kick and the receiving team can plan accordingly—succeed less than 20 percent of the time.
E poi c'è anche da considerare la possibilità di un'onside dopo che la squadra che ha iniziato l'OT ha segnato "solo" un FG:
Even so, an opening onside kick is actually a worse percentage play under the new system—the break-even rate has increased to 40 percent. Although it's true that failing to recover isn't as costly as it was before, a conventional deep kickoff has become even more valuable. If the kicking team stops the receiving team deep in its own territory, after all, it will get the ball back in good field position with a great chance to end the game with a chip-shot field goal.
Though the new rules have made overtime onside kicks less advantageous, the numbers still suggest that an onside attempt would be a smart play. Never once has a team opened an NFL overtime game with an onside kick. With the element of surprise, the chance of recovery should be around 60 percent—well above the 40 percent break-even point to make the onside kick a sound decision.
Another intriguing possibility would be an onside kick following a first-possession field goal. I think this would be even more surprising than an onside attempt on the opening kickoff—everyone on the opposing sideline will be deep in thought about what strategy they should use down by three points in overtime, a situation no one has ever seen. In this case, a successful recovery would end the game immediately. And even if the receiving team recovers, the kicking team can still give up a field goal and get the ball back; at that point, the game reverts to old-fashioned sudden-death overtime, where you get the ball and have the advantage.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sp ... _work.html