Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Vikings 4th and 1 Sunday Night. What would you have done? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Deamon
Footballguy
Nothing is 100%. A ball could have been tipped at the LOS and intercepted very easily.
However, if you DO assume that he's getting the TD, then going for it is for sure the best option. 65% chance you win the game vs 50% (at best) that you win in OT.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
They were running all over Seattle on that drive and you've got the league MVP on the other side if you kick the FG. Easy call to go for it there, though with the way the line was pushing Seattle around at that point I probably would have rathered they just go QB sneak than a handoff. Either one is preferable to the FG for me though.
How does that assumption = fair?
That's like saying....assuming there is 100% chance you fail the 4th and 1 what do you do
jtd13
Footballguy
It's not fair, but neither is facing Russell Wilson on a game winning drive.How does that assumption = fair?
That's like saying....assuming there is 100% chance you fail the 4th and 1 what do you do
Signed, a Michigan State fan who still feels the pain of an old deep stab when I think of the 2011 Big Ten championship game.
PS, the punter totally flopped, and we should have won anyway.
The Frankman
Footballguy
Vikings aren't a good defensive unit. Going by the win probabilities you go for it and end the game.
Now the unimaginative play they drew and the HORRIBLE vision by Mattison is another thing altogether (had a massive hole to his right but decided to push the pile at 5'11 - 220), but going for it was the right decision.
Now the unimaginative play they drew and the HORRIBLE vision by Mattison is another thing altogether (had a massive hole to his right but decided to push the pile at 5'11 - 220), but going for it was the right decision.
At the time I was torn but leaning towards kicking the field goal. I think the Seahawks might have had a lot to do with the decision. Off the top of my head assume Seattle is a top 5 scoring offense in the league so the Viking's coaching staff probably didn't want to give them a chance to go up against their D which has been pretty brutal all year. They did have some decent moments last night but they have been brutal and they probably were tired towards the end of the game.
He didn't say what that was. It's why I asked him.If it didn’t work, and assuming they didn’t do anything dumb to lose yardage, you do whatever you were going to do before you tried it.
Sure it's in doubt. It's obviously possible. How possible is the question.
I don't give the ball back to Wilson there. The same way I don't give the ball back to Mahomes and I thought the Raiders were completely right to go for it on 4th down late like they did.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Apologies, that was the dry humor of a Vike fan who has already seen that movie, say a few dozen times.
AndrewClark
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Sure, but why would it change the decision?
If you were planning on going for it & first tried to get them to jump & they didn't jump, you call the TO, and come back, line up and go for it. If you were gonna kick the FG, then even more reason to try to get them to jump. And again, if it fails, kick the FG.
Does the defense have any advantage if you're lining up to go for it & call TO, then line up to go for it again? I've seen teams do this (in game situations of less criticality) when they didn't like the look defensively for the play they had called.
One could argue that MIN should have stopped and called a different play after seeing how Seattle lined up since they stacked the middle.
And that's why you kick the FG. Best they can do is tie. Instead best they can do is beat you.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
i don't think there is a wrong answer here. Just different philosophies.
I see people say "you can't play scared", but then isn't going for the 1st playing "scared that Seattle will beat you if you kick the FG"?
Or to @Joe Bryant's point, if they're "scared" that the K will miss based on past experience?
So I don't really see it as a matter of playing scared. There's playing aggressively and there's playing not as aggressively. That doesn't mean not being as aggressive & making it an 8 point game is a bad call. It just means a different coaching decisions based on whatever in-the-moment analysis the coach is using. Same with being aggressive and trying to ice it.
I don't think it was a terrible call to go for it, even though it didn't work. I just think there are a lot of factors involved in making a team score a TD & PAT, and I am of the belief that it changes the way a defense plays if they can play aggressively.
ZWK
Footballguy
It's a really close call.
In the case where Seattle is down by 8 and then score a TD, I think there's about a 25% chance that Seattle wins the game, since they still need two more things to go right for them: make a 2-point conversion and score in overtime.
As a rough first pass, that suggests that the two options are equally good if Seattle has a 25% chance of stuffing Minnesota, because then the bolded parts of the two scenarios will balance out:
If Minnesota goes for it, then in order for Seattle to win they need:
* to stuff Minnesota on 4th & 1
* to have a touchdown drive
If Minnesota makes the FG, then in order for Seattle to win they need:
* to have a touchdown drive
* to make the 2-point conversion
* to win in overtime
So this suggests that Minnesota should go for it if they have at least a 75% chance of converting.
But this is missing a couple things
* maybe MIN misses the FG
* having a touchdown drive after the made FG is easier than having a touchdown drive after a 4th down stuff, because there's about a 20 yard difference in field position
Both of these make the FG option better for Seattle and worse for Minnesota. Each one moves the breakeven probability for the 4th down conversion by a few percentage points, so I guess the breakeven probability is somewhere in the 65%-70% range. Minnesota should go for it if their chances of converting are higher than that, and kick if they're lower.
But I'd guess their chances of converting were somewhere in that 65%-70% range. So, a really close call.
I voted "kick FG" but don't really mind them taking the other option.
In the case where Seattle is down by 8 and then score a TD, I think there's about a 25% chance that Seattle wins the game, since they still need two more things to go right for them: make a 2-point conversion and score in overtime.
As a rough first pass, that suggests that the two options are equally good if Seattle has a 25% chance of stuffing Minnesota, because then the bolded parts of the two scenarios will balance out:
If Minnesota goes for it, then in order for Seattle to win they need:
* to stuff Minnesota on 4th & 1
* to have a touchdown drive
If Minnesota makes the FG, then in order for Seattle to win they need:
* to have a touchdown drive
* to make the 2-point conversion
* to win in overtime
So this suggests that Minnesota should go for it if they have at least a 75% chance of converting.
But this is missing a couple things
* maybe MIN misses the FG
* having a touchdown drive after the made FG is easier than having a touchdown drive after a 4th down stuff, because there's about a 20 yard difference in field position
Both of these make the FG option better for Seattle and worse for Minnesota. Each one moves the breakeven probability for the 4th down conversion by a few percentage points, so I guess the breakeven probability is somewhere in the 65%-70% range. Minnesota should go for it if their chances of converting are higher than that, and kick if they're lower.
But I'd guess their chances of converting were somewhere in that 65%-70% range. So, a really close call.
I voted "kick FG" but don't really mind them taking the other option.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deamon
Footballguy
That's the difference in playing to win vs playing not to lose. Didn't work this time (maybe it wouldn't have mattered) but you're pretty much relying on your defense to stop them from scoring a TD... I'd rather do that from 95 yards vs 75 yards. Your chances of converting are higher than your chances of winning in OT.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
To the 2nd bolded point, you're assuming it goes to OT.
Remember how Seattle went for 2 and didn't get it? Yeah - that adds yet another play to the mix. Seattle has to drive 95 yards and score, and THEN they still have to convert the 2PAT. Any time you add additional plays, you're decreasing the odds of success. Like a parlay in gambling vs a straight wager.
And to the italicized part, as I've said a couple of times now the defense plays so much differently with the game on the line (down 5) vs playing with an 8 point lead. Because then they would not be "playing not to lose" - it would be literally impossible for them to lose even IF Seattle drives 95, converts the 2PAT and takes it to OT. They might still lose in OT, but they'd be giving up a tie, at worst. As such, they can play defense far far more aggressively, as they were doing with some success earlier in the game. IMO this is the key difference in this discussion - the fact that they couldn't lose on the ensuing drive, and could win with either 1. a defensive stop, or 2. stopping the 2PAT
Then ya get into OT and start calculating odds all over again depending on who wins the coin toss, but that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deamon
Footballguy
I was going off of the poster who I was responding to, who said there was a 100% chance Seattle was scoring a TD either from 75 or 95 yards. If you're assuming (incorrectly) that Seattle's TD was a 'lock" then the 2 point play probably was too.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Ah, ok. That lends context.
I wouldn't assume either of those scores were locks. And as I said, I actually believe it is much harder to do BOTH of those things correctly than to do one or the other.
Deamon
Footballguy
Neither of those were locks at all. People saying it was guaranteed the Seahawks score must not have watched the game. Those throws to DK on 4th downs slightly miss and Minny wins the game. It's so hard to predict games of inches.... if Mattison takes literally one step to his right, Minny is praised all day today for saying they played it right by not giving RW the ball back. ONE STEP!
Go for it, wasn't a close call for me either. If you can't gain an inch or stop a 94 yard drive it wasn't meant to be.
The bad coaching decision happened earlier in the 4th when Zimmer was kicking the extra point to go up 5 instead of going for two to be up 6. Then kicking the FG for sure wins game
The bad coaching decision happened earlier in the 4th when Zimmer was kicking the extra point to go up 5 instead of going for two to be up 6. Then kicking the FG for sure wins game
Last edited by a moderator:
DropKick
Footballguy
Pretty much my thought.
Also overlooked is the decision to go for two at 21-19. Still lots of time left in the game and, sometimes, every point matters.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I was just listening to Mike ZImmers press conference from today and he says he will choose to go for it and win the game every time in that situation.
I do think this is new for him as I recall his decisions being more conservative in years past with better defense. So I am thinking what he says is true for this team, but maybe not with some of the previous Vikings teams.
I do think this is new for him as I recall his decisions being more conservative in years past with better defense. So I am thinking what he says is true for this team, but maybe not with some of the previous Vikings teams.
BigJim®
Footballguy
It was a talker on local radio. Had the Vikes kicked the xpt earlier, the field goal option at the end of the game puts them up 9.
Heatman
Footballguy
The interesting and funny part of all this is if they had gone for the field goal and missed then still lost the game everyone of the second guessers would be saying you go for it every time.
Mattison missed the hole or it's game over. I know there are different opinions and personally either way I was fine with. Going for it was my preference in the moment so I would say it is still my preference now. Had they kicked the field goal I would also have been fine with it.
Fact is, there are so many different factors that go into wins and losses in a football game. IMO the Vikings should never have been in that situation in the first place... once again.
Mattison missed the hole or it's game over. I know there are different opinions and personally either way I was fine with. Going for it was my preference in the moment so I would say it is still my preference now. Had they kicked the field goal I would also have been fine with it.
Fact is, there are so many different factors that go into wins and losses in a football game. IMO the Vikings should never have been in that situation in the first place... once again.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Hindsight is 20/20 but I think they should have kicked the FG and this is why. By kicking the FG you go up 8 and even if the Saints score a TD they still have to make the two point conversion. That is two things that have to happen. If you go for it and miss, and if the Saints score a TD you lose, which is what happened. Sure, if you go for it and make it you win, but to me, the safest and best odds move is to kick the FG and make the Saints score a TD and get the 2 point conversion. Even if they do that, you still go to overtime. So, in summary, by kicking the FG three things are in your favor, Saints must score, Saints must make two point conversion, and you can do no worse than overtime. By not kicking the FG and you don't make the first down, a Saints TD wins it and that is exactly what happened. The call they made was a wrong one for those reasons IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
No, had they kicked the FG, they would have had to drive ~75 yards AND hit the 2 point-conversion AND win the figurative OT coin flip.
Pipes
Footballguy
Agreed. People here are assuming the FG is automatic. The way they were running the ball Zimmer would be lambasted had they missed the FG and lost.
Pipes
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Only in a sense that they probably should have called a sneak rather than a slower developing hand-off.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
I agree, plus the RB ran up his own blockers back. I that situation you need a FB, hand it the FB and have the other RB pushing him from behind like all the teams do now.
BigJim®
Footballguy
The Vikes run that frequently, and it is the least effective play for them. They get no OL push at all. In fact, they get concaved. Anything up the middle is doomed in short yardage, including QB sneak. They need to run outside, just more outside than they ran that play.
The Vikings lost this game when they attempted to go for a two-point conversion in the 3rd quarter. Kick the PAT there and make it a 1-point game.
ALWAYS kick the PAT before the 4th quarter unless you are down by multiple scores, there's just too many things that can happen.
If they make the PAT they are kicking a FG on 4th down at the end of the game to go up by 9. Game over.
ALWAYS kick the PAT before the 4th quarter unless you are down by multiple scores, there's just too many things that can happen.
If they make the PAT they are kicking a FG on 4th down at the end of the game to go up by 9. Game over.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I actually think here it was Mattison who got caught being too conservative. He is likely thinking, "this play is super important, I just need to get 1 yard and not screw it up." So he just puts his head down and goes exactly where the play is drawn up to go full speed. If the play was ran on 2nd and 1 in the 3rd quarter, I bet he is less risk averse and has his head up looking for the hole to get a big gain.
Interesting more people here agree with me than on Twitter. I've always said y'all were smarter... 
https://twitter.com/Football_Guys/status/1315686636144013313?s=20
https://twitter.com/Football_Guys/status/1315686636144013313?s=20
For those of you saying that you kick the FG because you are afraid of Wilson, isn't that the exact reason why you go for it...…..to keep it out of his hands no matter what? If you are scared of Wilson marching the field it really doesn't matter if it is 5 or 8 pts. If you think he scored regardless then you are just postponing the inevitable. Go for it and take the ball away from him. The play call was terrible as they were running all over the left side of the line so why not go that side?
I believe the call to go for it was correct but the execution and actual play call left a lot to be desired. Regardless I would choose to go for it every time in that situation.
I believe the call to go for it was correct but the execution and actual play call left a lot to be desired. Regardless I would choose to go for it every time in that situation.
fightingillini
Footballguy
It's simple to me. You have 4th and (I believe) less than 1 yard. You have running the ball down SEA's throat the whole game. Why not keep it in your hands and not in the hottest QB in the NFL? You get that yard....YOU WIN 100% of the time.
Easy decision for me....I go for it, but I didn't like the playcall. Spread out the field and show that you could pass. Makes it easier to run.
Easy decision for me....I go for it, but I didn't like the playcall. Spread out the field and show that you could pass. Makes it easier to run.
