billjohnson
Footballguy
I say the odds of missing a 29 yard FG in middle of field is very small. Give up TD, leave yourself some time, and try and get it done in the two minute drill.
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.
Should Saints let Viking score TD at game's end? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter billjohnson
- Start date
thecardiackid
Footballguy
IIRC Holmgren employed this theroy in a SB vs. the Broncos - and it didn't work out.
I understand where you're going, but MN would have to take advantage vs. falling down and bleeding clock for the FG.
I understand where you're going, but MN would have to take advantage vs. falling down and bleeding clock for the FG.
billjohnson
Footballguy
No way a guy with clear shot at endzone falls down at the one to "run some clock". That has to go against every instinct AND contract incentive out there.......
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
League really frowns upon this kind of play. Very slippery slope and it encourages cheating...
:wetrag:
:wetrag:
I'm pretty sure Westbrook did something similar last season, when he went down at the 1 instead of going in for the TD.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Yeah! Just ask Brian Westbrook!!!!
billjohnson
Footballguy
Knowing Westbrook..he probably injured something on the play and just fell over.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Only to get back up and go for 145 and 2TDs.
Dragon1952
Footballguy
I had the Aints -6 2nd H. That would have probably been the most bizarre way I have ever lost a wager but, considering the football gods hate me anyway, I wouldn't even have batted an eye. They do #### like that all the time just to get a rise out of me. But you know what.....I DON'T CARE ANYMORE! I,m NUMB! Go ahead....miss that FG......blow coverage on 3rd and forever as often as you like....fumble all you want.....why? Because I DON'T CARE!
billjohnson
Footballguy
yeah, it's not like he's Steve Slaton or anything...but definitely a stud. But let's face guys....tie game and your opponent is about to run the clock down and kick a 20 something yard FG from middle of the field. That has to be like a 98% success rate...Give up that TD with about 1:50 left....decent return...and you're chances of scoring HAVE to be better........Only to get back up and go for 145 and 2TDs.
Pnishthm
Footballguy
Well it would have been more like 1:10 left but I'd much rather take my chances with that offense down 7 with 1:10 and two timeouts left than down 3 with 15 seconds left and no timeouts. Sucks being a Saints fan!yeah, it's not like he's Steve Slaton or anything...but definitely a stud. But let's face guys....tie game and your opponent is about to run the clock down and kick a 20 something yard FG from middle of the field. That has to be like a 98% success rate...Give up that TD with about 1:50 left....decent return...and you're chances of scoring HAVE to be better........Only to get back up and go for 145 and 2TDs.
Maik Jeaunz
Footballguy
always has...
billjohnson
Footballguy
Ok, based on the poll and the game results...I think Sean Payton should be fired and replaced with Lee Corso.
sjacksonfan
Footballguy
Absolutely. Also, teams should always do it when the other team is up one. I would have done it tonight for sure. The first time someone does this and then gets the ball back and scores and rties it back up/winds up winning the game in OT, coaches will snuff it out by telling their players to pull a Westbrook and just fall down. The first few teams who do it will be the last. No idea why nobody has really done it yet though. How about just tell players to go balls out swiping at the ball and don't tackle the guy, just swat at the thing like Bruce Lee for ten yards trying to force a fumble as the guy goes in for the score? Allowing/helping the other team to bleed the clock for a chip shot at the gun is the worst thing the defense can do IMO. Tough to expect any coach to have the cajones/brains to pull this off though as so many are just horrible at clock management.
gregjcross
Footballguy
I personally dont see how it is cheating if it actually gives NOR a better chance to tie or win but i get why the league has that rule. Its a risky play any way you cut it as pressure FGs are often missed.
JKL
Footballguy
I would think of a) the Vikings not turning the ball over while running up the middle, and then b) making the field goal were about 90%. This would mean, roughly, the Saints chances of winning the game were about 5%.
If the Saints' chances of scoring a tying touchdown with about a minute left and 2 timeouts was significantly greater than 10% (because a tie still only sends the game to overtime), then they should have let the Vikings score. I don't know the answer to that one, and I don't think there was necessarily a strong right or wrong answer. Once the pass interference occurred, there chances weren't high either way. Now, me personally, I would have let them score, because I would rather have some more control over the outcome and put it in the hands of my best player where he has some time to make some plays.
For those suggesting that Peterson could have voluntarily gone down before the goal, of course he could have. I don't think that changes the decision. The Saints chances of winning the game while employing the "burn the timeouts, play defense" strategy were almost entirely based on a missed field goal or turnover by the Vikings and winning the game in overtime, and not on the extremely small chance of winning the game in regulation with a td in the final 15 seconds with no timeouts. If Peterson would have the quick thinking to both pick up the first down but not score the touchdown, all the Saints lose is that extremely small chance of winning in regulation with a fluke Cal Band type touchdown (plus a small increase in the chance of making the fg), and they would still be depending on a fg miss.
If the Saints' chances of scoring a tying touchdown with about a minute left and 2 timeouts was significantly greater than 10% (because a tie still only sends the game to overtime), then they should have let the Vikings score. I don't know the answer to that one, and I don't think there was necessarily a strong right or wrong answer. Once the pass interference occurred, there chances weren't high either way. Now, me personally, I would have let them score, because I would rather have some more control over the outcome and put it in the hands of my best player where he has some time to make some plays.
For those suggesting that Peterson could have voluntarily gone down before the goal, of course he could have. I don't think that changes the decision. The Saints chances of winning the game while employing the "burn the timeouts, play defense" strategy were almost entirely based on a missed field goal or turnover by the Vikings and winning the game in overtime, and not on the extremely small chance of winning the game in regulation with a td in the final 15 seconds with no timeouts. If Peterson would have the quick thinking to both pick up the first down but not score the touchdown, all the Saints lose is that extremely small chance of winning in regulation with a fluke Cal Band type touchdown (plus a small increase in the chance of making the fg), and they would still be depending on a fg miss.
Kleck
Footballguy
You're correct. Mike Holmgren did do this in Super Bowl XXXII, telling the defense to let Denver (Terrell Davis) score late in the 4th so Green Bay could get the ball back with 2 timeouts left. Leroy Butler talked about it later on, stating he agreed with the decision at the time. Another tidbit from that play, Holmgren thought it was 1st and goal, when actually it was 2nd and goal.Along with other decisions made/not made during the game, Ron Wolf still blames Holmgren for the loss that day.
Last edited by a moderator:
bro1ncos
IBL Representative
You see something similar to this occasionaly when a team will take an intentional safety instead of trying to punt out of their endzone. They risk the chance of having a punt blocked for a TD. Then the team gets a free kick from the 20 and makes a team drive further to tie or win the game.
I can't recall the team but someone did this against the Broncos a few years ago and it worked out perfectly.
I can't recall the team but someone did this against the Broncos a few years ago and it worked out perfectly.
Pip's Invitation
Footballguy
I think it was the Pats. Definitely something Belichick would do.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
That depends on your definition of "work out". Denver had a 1st down at the 18-yard-line with 1:55 left on the clock. Green Bay had 1 timeout. Green Bay's options amounted to:A- down by 3, 1:05 left, no timeoutsB- down by 7, 1:45 left, 1 timeoutHolmgren played the percentages and lost, but that doesn't mean he made the wrong decision.
cheese
Footballguy
The weird part about the Saints not doing that, is that Payton is exactly the type of coach you'd think would do it. He goes for an onsides kick at a random time earlier in the game, but won't take a chance on letting them score a TD to get more time?
The only problem is with doing it outside the 10. What if Peterson somehow picks up the 1st down but refuses to go in the end zone? That extra down will mean the game is over. Inside the 10 this would be a no brainer.
The only problem is with doing it outside the 10. What if Peterson somehow picks up the 1st down but refuses to go in the end zone? That extra down will mean the game is over. Inside the 10 this would be a no brainer.
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
Holmgren didn't make the call at the 18, he made it on the next play when it was 2nd-and-goal from the 1. Except that he thought it was 1st-and-goal. So, he thought the Broncos could run the clock down to :32 seconds and then kick the FG.
I believe that I saw a stat that Longwell is over 96% from FGs inside of 35 yards. Teams almost never employ this strategy but I have to think that it would be the smart % play. I agree with some earlier poster who said that it seems like Payton would be the coach to do this. I think it's probably not natural for a DEF to just give up and let someone run in, no matter how good you make it look. For what it's worth, I voted "for". I definitely would rather try to tie using my potent offense then hope for a missed FG.
Lash
Footballguy
coaches dont have the ______ or the brains to do this
similar situation with TWO choices that makes me sick to watch: team has first down, down by 10, with 30 seconds left, in FG range, and no timeouts left
1) coaches will run the entire clock out trying to score a TD leaving no time left
2) kick an immediate FG on first down and then trying an onsides and subsequent hail mary
these guys get paid millions and will choose option 1 every single time - makes absolutely no sense
"you play to win the game" - it doesn't matter that it is out of the box, DO IT!!! if it is your only chance
similar situation with TWO choices that makes me sick to watch: team has first down, down by 10, with 30 seconds left, in FG range, and no timeouts left
1) coaches will run the entire clock out trying to score a TD leaving no time left
2) kick an immediate FG on first down and then trying an onsides and subsequent hail mary
these guys get paid millions and will choose option 1 every single time - makes absolutely no sense
"you play to win the game" - it doesn't matter that it is out of the box, DO IT!!! if it is your only chance
They should have allowed it, but only if Peterson was the guy running it in. A Peterson TD would have put me over the top in my FFOC matchup. As it was, I lost by two points because the Vikings couldn't help Peterson get more than 28 yards or whatever it was (Well, that and my flex player Schaub being benched due to illness while I was away last weekend).
tomarken
Footballguy
First off, I wouldn't do this in a tie game. You don't voluntarily give the other team points when you're tied. Sure, the odds that the Vikes would make the short FG were pretty good, but they're not 100%.
Obviously if the Saints were leading, or were down by 2+ points you can't give up the TD on purpose.
So the only reasonable scenario to do this would be if the Saints were down by 1. In that case, the short FG makes it a 4-point game, so they'd need a TD either way. The problem, as some have mentioned already, is that a smart player/coach will recognize the situation (like Westy did last year), and fall down after picking up the first down. In which case the Saints, by trying to concede the TD, would only have succeeded in running more time off the clock and making the FG that much easier for the Vikes.
Obviously if the Saints were leading, or were down by 2+ points you can't give up the TD on purpose.
So the only reasonable scenario to do this would be if the Saints were down by 1. In that case, the short FG makes it a 4-point game, so they'd need a TD either way. The problem, as some have mentioned already, is that a smart player/coach will recognize the situation (like Westy did last year), and fall down after picking up the first down. In which case the Saints, by trying to concede the TD, would only have succeeded in running more time off the clock and making the FG that much easier for the Vikes.
You must have just started watching football this year.
