I'm not a huge fan of chicken(any poultry actually), but the Mrs would like
some chicken on the grill. To her, that's grill up some thighs, legs,
etc.... and I'll prob. do that. But I'd like to do something different too,
and maybe something I'd like a little better. Unfortunately I'm probably
asking too late to get info for this cook... I'll be headed to the market
here in prob. a couple hours tops.

Anyway, from what I see, spatchcocking is fairly simple? Basically just
cutting the backbone out?

Also, any recommended recipes? Marinades, sauces, etc? Should I inject
anything?

Thanks!

"43fan" > wrote in message
>
> Anyway, from what I see, spatchcocking is fairly simple? Basically just
> cutting the backbone out?
>
> Also, any recommended recipes? Marinades, sauces, etc? Should I inject
> anything?

It is that simple and, IMO, comes out very well as it has a good crisp skin
and lots of flavor from both sides.

As for seasoning, that is a matter of taste. If you want to take a quick
and easy way out, while at the store pick up one of the McCormick's
seasonings for chicken, or their lemon pepper or roasted garlic seasoning.
Some people think anything grilled must have bbq sauce on it; if so, baste
away at the end.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:29:07 -0400, "43fan" >
wrote:

>I'm not a huge fan of chicken(any poultry actually), but the Mrs would like
>some chicken on the grill. To her, that's grill up some thighs, legs,
>etc.... and I'll prob. do that. But I'd like to do something different too,
>and maybe something I'd like a little better. Unfortunately I'm probably
>asking too late to get info for this cook... I'll be headed to the market
>here in prob. a couple hours tops.
>
>Anyway, from what I see, spatchcocking is fairly simple? Basically just
>cutting the backbone out?
>
>Also, any recommended recipes? Marinades, sauces, etc? Should I inject
>anything?
>
>Thanks!
>

Yes, spatchcockiing a bird is quite easy. I use poultry shears ($3
wonders from Target, lol) but I hear it can be done with a hefty
knife. If you would like to see some photos of the process, take a
look at my web page:

http://www.nakedwhiz.com/spatch.htm

I keep it simple an usually just sprinkle on some Montreal Steak
Seasoning. I tried Alton Brown's mixture that he used in the show
where he roasts a spatchcocked chicken in the oven, but I wasn't all
that impressed.

In a BGE, I cook it direct around 375 on a raised grid for an hour or
so. You should be very pleased with the results.

TNW

"The Naked Whiz" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, spatchcockiing a bird is quite easy. I use poultry shears ($3
> wonders from Target, lol) but I hear it can be done with a hefty
> knife. If you would like to see some photos of the process, take a
> look at my web page:
>
> http://www.nakedwhiz.com/spatch.htm
> In a BGE, I cook it direct around 375 on a raised grid for an hour or
> so. You should be very pleased with the results.
>
> TNW

To make handling the bird easier I finish the job and cut the breasts apart.
Since I learned about this technique from the guys here have done very
little chicken differently.

D
--

"Duwop" > wrote in message
...
> "The Naked Whiz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yes, spatchcockiing a bird is quite easy. I use poultry shears ($3
>> wonders from Target, lol) but I hear it can be done with a hefty
>> knife. If you would like to see some photos of the process, take a
>> look at my web page:
>>
>> http://www.nakedwhiz.com/spatch.htm
>> In a BGE, I cook it direct around 375 on a raised grid for an hour or
>> so. You should be very pleased with the results.
>>
>> TNW
>
> To make handling the bird easier I finish the job and cut the breasts
> apart.
> Since I learned about this technique from the guys here have done very
> little chicken differently.
>
> D
> --
>
>
>
>

At the risk of sounding sarcastic, which I'm not, why not just split the
chicken before it goes to the heat? Isn't a spatchcocked chicken basically
a simple means to a presentation that appears complex?

"Green Mtn. Griller" > wrote in message >

> At the risk of sounding sarcastic, which I'm not, why not just split the
> chicken before it goes to the heat?

Sorry if I wasn't clear, yeah when finished I'm cooking 2 half chickens.
Easier to handle and cook as you have guessed.

>Isn't a spatchcocked chicken basically
> a simple means to a presentation that appears complex?

It's just how you halve a chicken is all. Some just don't take that last
cut.

D
--

>
> At the risk of sounding sarcastic, which I'm not, why not just split the
> chicken before it goes to the heat? Isn't a spatchcocked chicken basically
> a simple means to a presentation that appears complex?

If you're smoking a bird, splitting it this way also allows it to cook
faster in my experience, which means juicier breasts. And we all want
that, right?

-John O

"JohnO" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
>
>>
>> At the risk of sounding sarcastic, which I'm not, why not just split the
>> chicken before it goes to the heat? Isn't a spatchcocked chicken
>> basically
>> a simple means to a presentation that appears complex?
>
> If you're smoking a bird, splitting it this way also allows it to cook
> faster in my experience, which means juicier breasts. And we all want
> that, right?
>
> -John O
>

Does not making that final cut to separate the two halves before cooking
make the difference compared to cooking two half chickens, separated?

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:52:26 GMT, "Green Mtn. Griller"
> wrote:

>
>"JohnO" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> At the risk of sounding sarcastic, which I'm not, why not just split the
>>> chicken before it goes to the heat? Isn't a spatchcocked chicken
>>> basically
>>> a simple means to a presentation that appears complex?
>>
>> If you're smoking a bird, splitting it this way also allows it to cook
>> faster in my experience, which means juicier breasts. And we all want
>> that, right?
>>
>> -John O
>>
>
>Does not making that final cut to separate the two halves before cooking
>make the difference compared to cooking two half chickens, separated?
>

Um . . . yeah. This spatchcocking business isn't rocket surgery,
folks. It's a chicken split in half, with the backbone removed.

--
"Danked," the past participle of "dank", is used to refer to someone
who replies to his own post on an online forum posing as another person
(see "Internet sock puppet") but forgetting to change his username . . . .
This was an act of stupidity meriting a name of its own, and because the hapless
contributor's username was Danks, the term "dank" or "danked" emerged.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danked

> Does not making that final cut to separate the two halves before cooking
> make the difference compared to cooking two half chickens, separated?

I think so. Splitting into two halves leaves a big piece of breast cut
open, and all the goodness leaks out when it cooks. I like leaving them
connected. But chickens are cheap. Try it both ways and see what you
like.

-John O

In oups.com,
JohnO > typed:
>> Does not making that final cut to separate the two halves before
>> cooking
>> make the difference compared to cooking two half chickens,
>> separated?
>
> I think so. Splitting into two halves leaves a big piece of breast
> cut
> open, and all the goodness leaks out when it cooks. I like leaving
> them
> connected. But chickens are cheap. Try it both ways and see what you
> like.
>
> -John O

Bingo. We have a winner here, folks!

Having said that, I do think that a spatchcocked chicken is juicier
that two halves. I don't have any concrete evidence, it just seems
that way. My favorite way to cook/smoke chickens for juicy, smokey
flavor is to hang them whole, but this takes special modifications or
accessories. Failing in the hanger category, my vote goes to
spatchcocked rather than "half-cocked" (TNW's term for chicken
halves).

BOB

" BOB" > wrote in message
. ..
> In oups.com,
> JohnO > typed:
>>> Does not making that final cut to separate the two halves before cooking
>>> make the difference compared to cooking two half chickens, separated?
>>
>> I think so. Splitting into two halves leaves a big piece of breast cut
>> open, and all the goodness leaks out when it cooks. I like leaving them
>> connected. But chickens are cheap. Try it both ways and see what you
>> like.
>>
>> -John O
>
> Bingo. We have a winner here, folks!
>
> Having said that, I do think that a spatchcocked chicken is juicier that
> two halves. I don't have any concrete evidence, it just seems that way.
> My favorite way to cook/smoke chickens for juicy, smokey flavor is to hang
> them whole, but this takes special modifications or accessories. Failing
> in the hanger category, my vote goes to spatchcocked rather than
> "half-cocked" (TNW's term for chicken halves).
>
> BOB
>

Yes, I see your point. Thanks! Will have to try it for the next chicken
round. Never really considered it, for one thing it's kind of hard to say
the word "spatchcock" around here without some giggling or goofy comments!
;-) But, it will have to wait until I figure something out... I got the TNW
thing - The Naked Whiz, but "rocket surgery"? That one's got me! ;-)~

"Denny Wheeler" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:16:06 GMT, "Green Mtn. Griller"
> > wrote:
>
>>. I got the TNW
>>thing - The Naked Whiz, but "rocket surgery"? That one's got me! ;-)~
>
> Methinks it's a shortened combination of "rocket science" and "brain
> surgery."
>
> -denny-
> --
> Never look for a worm in the apple of your eye.
> --Langston Hughes

Umm... yes, I did get the "rocket surgery" condensation. After following
the "Fall Q-Fest" thread below, I'm glad my purported ignorance was
overlooked and/or ignored! Wow. Thank you, though.