What would you have done if you were Coach Zimmer? Vikings leading 26-21 with 2:00 left in the game on SEA 6 yard line. 4th and 1. FG makes it an 8 point lead. What do you do?
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
sho nuff
Footballguy
Multiple situations to draw from here. YEs...statistically to increase win percentage, you go for it to try end the game. Especially with Wilson on the other side.
Conversely...without Cook, and the wet weather...I probably still kick the FG making sure I cannot lose in regulation. Still force Seattle to go 80ish yards and get a TD and 2 point conversion to even tie.
Then again, in such a situation, perhaps I am more risk averse.
If they had Cook...I think its a no brainer go for it. Not to knock Mattison...but he isn't Cook.
Conversely...without Cook, and the wet weather...I probably still kick the FG making sure I cannot lose in regulation. Still force Seattle to go 80ish yards and get a TD and 2 point conversion to even tie.
Then again, in such a situation, perhaps I am more risk averse.
If they had Cook...I think its a no brainer go for it. Not to knock Mattison...but he isn't Cook.
Foosball God
Foos
You can't (until OT) lose if you make the FG.
AndrewClark
Footballguy
I'm kicking the field goal here. Seahawks still have a lot of work to do just to get out with a tie score.
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.
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.
YoUnG GuNz
Footballguy
Mattison is blind. That should have been an easy 1st down.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
Go for it and end it. Just as happened, Seattle drove down and a got a TD.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
You run the ball and get the first down. Game over.
So torn on this. Statistically you go for it. Over the years I've seen the Vikings play not to lose and have that bite them too many times to count, so I like the aggressive attitude. But if you kick the FG, Seattle needs a TD and 2 point conversion to win. Ultimately, I'm a little risk averse, so I think I'd have attempted the FG.
ericttspikes
Footballguy
I think you go for the first down IF Cook wasn't hurt AND the Vikings have a good D. Neither was the case. Take the FG chance and make them get a TD and 2pts to tie.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer
Footballguy
With 2 minutes left in the game (with Seattle having 1 timeout left), I go for it.
2 minutes is just too much time for Russell Wilson.
2 minutes is just too much time for Russell Wilson.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
farfromforgotten
Footballguy
Go for the 1st. Without a doubt.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’ve said it on 2 topics now: kick the FG. Go up 2 scores (e.g. Seahawks have to score and convert a 2PAT)
Added benefit: defense can stay aggressive in an 8-point game as compared to playing scared to get a DPI or allow a big play when only up 5.
it’s a gamble. I get all the pros of going for it & ending the game. But in that scenario, because it puts them up 8, I kick the FG.
I don’t think it was an egregious call. I just disagree that it was the correct call.
Added benefit: defense can stay aggressive in an 8-point game as compared to playing scared to get a DPI or allow a big play when only up 5.
it’s a gamble. I get all the pros of going for it & ending the game. But in that scenario, because it puts them up 8, I kick the FG.
I don’t think it was an egregious call. I just disagree that it was the correct call.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
17-18!
Close.
Close.
Bobcat10
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’m surprised to see it at 50-50
i woulda thought “go for it” would be winning in a landslide.
Going for it was 100% the right call. They should have spread the field more though, and not used a heavy set that telegraphed exactly what they were doing.
Lineup 3-wide and the gaps will be wider, if they stack like did despite the 3 wide alignment, then you throw a quick hitter for 2-3 yards to a basically uncovered WR.
I also don't think Cook's presence matters in the decision at all.
Lineup 3-wide and the gaps will be wider, if they stack like did despite the 3 wide alignment, then you throw a quick hitter for 2-3 yards to a basically uncovered WR.
I also don't think Cook's presence matters in the decision at all.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Exactly. Every factor you add changes the % of Seattle winning.
and again; if you kick the FG, the defense can play fearlessly/aggressively.
That, in my opinion, is the most underrated factor of making it an 8 point game.
zamboni
Footballguy
I don't think the defense was going to stop Wilson no matter how they played it, and were probably sitting ducks even if it went to OT. Which is why I don't blame the Vikings for trying to put it away.
Ardbeg4ever
Footballguy
If you use the following assumptions:
FG 95%
Convert 4th and 1 = 65%
Sea Scores TD after missed FG or failed 4th down 60%
Sea Scores TD after made FG 65%
Seattle 2 pt conversion 50%
Seattle win in OT 60%
It comes out to 79% chance to win by going for it vs 78.5% chance to win by kicking FG
If you use the following assumptions:
FG 95%
Convert 4th and 1 = 65%
Sea Scores TD after missed FG or failed 4th down 55%
Sea Scores TD after made FG 60%
Seattle 2 pt conversion 50%
Seattle win in OT 50%
It comes out to 81% chance to win by going for it vs 83% chance to win by kicking FG
Pretty close either way. My percentages for SEA scoring TD are just WAGs but the rest are based in stats.
FG 95%
Convert 4th and 1 = 65%
Sea Scores TD after missed FG or failed 4th down 60%
Sea Scores TD after made FG 65%
Seattle 2 pt conversion 50%
Seattle win in OT 60%
It comes out to 79% chance to win by going for it vs 78.5% chance to win by kicking FG
If you use the following assumptions:
FG 95%
Convert 4th and 1 = 65%
Sea Scores TD after missed FG or failed 4th down 55%
Sea Scores TD after made FG 60%
Seattle 2 pt conversion 50%
Seattle win in OT 50%
It comes out to 81% chance to win by going for it vs 83% chance to win by kicking FG
Pretty close either way. My percentages for SEA scoring TD are just WAGs but the rest are based in stats.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
That's because I don't think there is a single correct answer in this case. Obviously a strong case could be made for either decision (just based on the input you're receiving in this thread). I suspect the majority of coaches would have selected to go for it in that situation.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Maybe, but there’s no question a defense plays differently in different end-game scenarios.
Game on the line, DBs play off the receivers to avoid DPI chunk penalties. 8 point game is completely different.
Because the Vikes defense has been so bad is the exact reason you go for the first down. If you get the first down you do not have to rely on the defense at all.
Also, Mattison was over 5 ypc and the line was dominating (on the left side for runs). I had no problem with the going for it but I would rather they went with a different play call (to the left).
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
This is a really good point. Even if it only slightly increases their win probability, there is no harm in trying it. I'm not sure why they didn't do that actually.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Solid point. The only negative here is that it also adds a chance that MIN gets hit with a false start or delay if someone screws up (not at all unprecedented).
....in which case they kick the FG & make it 8, so yeah. I agree they should have tried this for sure.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
in the In-game topic is said they should kick the FG before they went for it.
So for me at least it’s not a post hoc eval.
Possibly but that's just delaying a decision likely. For this, let's assume that didn't work.
Then what do you do? Kick or go for it?
Last edited by a moderator:
It is easy to say kick a FG was the right call based on the results.
With how bad the Vikes defense has been I think it was the correct call to try and eliminate them from the equation. If you cannot get half a yard you don't deserve to win. Execute and you win.
The process was correct......the execution was lacking
Yep, I agree plenty of people were saying in real time to kick the FG.
As a Pats fan I'll never forget 4th and 2. That was the right call too. (But they should have run it on 3rd down if they were going to to treat it as a four down situation!)
This one was an even easier call. It just so happened the RB couldn't get it done. But that's on him, not the coach.
Deamon
Footballguy
It doesn't work that often. Also then what do you do after the time out? Probably kick.
I think this exact scenario is close, but I say you go for it.
Deamon
Footballguy
Don't think you go for it after a time out. The defense is set and ready.
They had that 1st down
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Gain one yard and you beat possibly the best team in the conference on the road?
Go for it.
Go for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deamon
Footballguy
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%
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
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.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Maybe so but also factoring in weather conditions probably keeps it the same if not lowering it a little.
To be accurate you’d have to look at % of conversions in rainy condition. Wet ball, less traction on the field, possibly greater chance of ball exchange issues.
Also when needing only a couple of inches, might a QB sneak have been a higher % play? I’m not sure how good Cousins is at sneaks, but eliminating that hand-off to the RB gives the defense less time to swarm. With a yard to go the RB makes more sense, but that wasn’t even a foot IIRC.
The defense played lights out the first half. And forced Wilson into two 4th down conversions, the first one being a long pass with low probability of completion. The first play of the drive, the 20 yard run from the 5 yard line, was also a key play in the drive.
ericttspikes
Footballguy
I do understand the decision. The Vikings are a bad team with a bottom 3 defense. They aren't going anywhere this year so if they could get the yard there they could win a game. From an odds perspective; the play with the the best chance of success would be the FG and the Seahawks had much tougher odds getting a TD and 2pt just to tie.
zamboni
Footballguy
Agreed - they did play well in the first half, but looked gassed by the end of the game. A lot to ask of the defense to keep Wilson out of the end zone and then turn around and get back out there for OT. Have to imagine their ability to hold Wilson & Co. down again in OT weighed into the decision to go for it.
