Nothing is 100%. A ball could have been tipped at the LOS and intercepted very easily.I actually think the fairer way to ask this question is "Assuming there is a 100% chance Wilson can lead Seattle to a TD in 2 minutes, what do you do?" Because, let's be honest, that's not in doubt.
How does that assumption = fair?I actually think the fairer way to ask this question is "Assuming there is a 100% chance Wilson can lead Seattle to a TD in 2 minutes, what do you do?" Because, let's be honest, that's not in doubt.
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
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 actually think the fairer way to ask this question is "Assuming there is a 100% chance Wilson can lead Seattle to a TD in 2 minutes, what do you do?" Because, let's be honest, that's not in doubt.
Apologies, that was the dry humor of a Vike fan who has already seen that movie, say a few dozen times.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.
I'm Kinda rethinking my take now.I go for the first down here and it's not really even close for me.
You end the game right there if you can. And if you can't, you trust your Defense not to let them go 94 yards for a touchdown.
Sure, but why would it change the decision?He didn't say what that was. It's why I asked him.
And that's why you kick the FG. Best they can do is tie. Instead best they can do is beat you.Football is a game of momentum....by going for it and missing you give Seattle a boost of momentum.
Kick the fg and give your defense the confidence that they can be aggressive and at worst go to overtime.
i don't think there is a wrong answer here. Just different philosophies.Maybe there is no wrong answer?
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.And that's why you kick the FG. Best they can do is tie. Instead best they can do is beat you.
It wouldn't change the decision. He just never said what his decision was.Sure, but why would it change the decision?
To the 2nd bolded point, you're assuming it goes to OT.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.
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.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 IT, but they'd be giving up a tie, at worst.
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.
Ah, ok. That lends context.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.
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!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.
Pretty much my thought.Kick the FG. You are up 8. You trust your D to stop them or stop the 2 pt conversion. they basically have to score twice to TIE.
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.
It really was not 4th and one yard. It was 4th and about 2 inches. Does that matter?Deamon said:I think you should bump convert 4th and 1 to 70%. I know the historical number is 65% but it's been trending upwards.... I do remember reading somewhere it's close to 70% last year but I can't find that data anywhere past 2015.
4th-and-1 Runs (non-QB)
2009 11775 64.1%
2010 9966 66.7%
2011 7732 41.6%
2012 7549 65.3%
2013 10873 67.6%
2014 8555 64.7%
2015 7953 67.1%
How do the numbers work if you plug in this data (which is simply my thoughts on what the percentages should be):
FG 95%
Convert 4th and 1 = 67.5%
Sea Scores TD after missed FG or failed 4th down 40%
Sea Scores TD after made FG 50%
Seattle 2 pt conversion 60% (with how their offense was looking and I'm sure they had a few great plays ready, I put this at 60%)
Seattle win in OT 60%
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.I think a lot of you are not taking into consideration that Seattle had to drive 94 yards to win the game. If they kicked the field goal they only have to go 75 yards minimum. The way Mattison was running it was a no brainer for me. He got stuffed, it happens, it still was correct call.
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.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.
IF he made the FG. Based on the weather conditions that was not a given.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.
Only in a sense that they probably should have called a sneak rather than a slower developing hand-off.It really was not 4th and one yard. It was 4th and about 2 inches. Does that matter?
he’d just drilled one from 52, after missing a PAT earlier in the game.IF he made the FG. Based on the weather conditions that was not a given.
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.Only in a sense that they probably should have called a sneak rather than a slower developing hand-off.
Look up the concept of results oriented thinking.zed2283 said:Looks like 54% losing coaches in here.
I was yelling at the TV "what are they doing?" so I guess that doesn't apply.Look up the concept of results oriented thinking.
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.
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.
To the 55% you are calling losers it does.I was yelling at the TV "what are they doing?" so I guess that doesn't apply.