Vikings 4th and 1 Sunday Night. What would you have done? (1 Viewer)

[btemp]

It's an easy answer to me to go for it. 

1) The data backs it up

2) The Vikings were running the ball down the Seahawks throat

3) Just the simple logic of it. Where would you put your money - stopping Russell Wilson from driving 90 yards with 4 down football or getting 1 yard vs the Seahawks D? I'd put my money on getting that 1 yard every day of the week. 

Process>Results. The Vikings had the right process, just unlucky with the result. It happens. 

 

[Cobbler1]

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.  

[Sean] This! You go for it every time there. Wouldn’t want their star Qb to have the ball in his hands with the game on the line.[Payton]. (Trots out Taysom Hill).

 

[zed2283]

To the 55% you are calling losers it does. 

How so?  That 55% lost the game.  Maybe the other 45% would have too, but we'll never know.

 

[Cobbler1]

How so?  That 55% lost the game.  Maybe the other 45% would have too, but we'll never know.

You really don’t understand what results oriented thinking means. It’s ok. Look it up if you want as I suggested. Or we’ll move on.

 

[zed2283]

You really don’t understand what results oriented thinking means. It’s ok. Look it up if you want as I suggested. Or we’ll move on.

I looked it up the first time you suggested it.  Since my decision was made before I knew the outcome, I was using logic (very sound logic, I might add) to make my decision.

 

[Cobbler1]

I looked it up the first time you suggested it.  Since my decision was made before I knew the outcome, I was using logic (very sound logic, I might add) to make my decision.

Sure but as I said you’re calling 55% of people losers based on the result of the one play rather than addressing the logic or looking at the situation more broadly.

 

[zed2283]

Sure but as I said you’re calling 55% of people losers based on the result of the one play rather than addressing the logic or looking at the situation more broadly.

I called them losing coaches, not losers.  They would have lost the game.

The logic has already been addressed on both sides.

 

[Cobbler1]

I called them losing coaches, not losers.  They would have lost the game.

The logic has already been addressed on both sides.

My bad. Losing coaches. You’re using the result of this singular play from this singular game as backing in your argument. That is results oriented thinking. Most of the other arguments on both sides have been very good.

 

[Gally]

I called them losing coaches, not losers.  They would have lost the game.

The logic has already been addressed on both sides.

I disagree with this statement.  I would have gone for it but I would not have run to the right side.  I thought the actual play call was terrible but the decision to go for it was correct.  There is no way to know if I would have been a losing coach because I did not get to run the play I wanted to run. 

 

[zed2283]

My bad. Losing coaches. You’re using the result of this singular play from this singular game as backing in your argument. That is results oriented thinking. Most of the other arguments on both sides have been very good.

Sure, I understand your point.  But I'm saying that kicking the FG is the correct call regardless.  Do you really need me to go back through the same logic that everyone has no doubt very eloquently expressed in order to support my position?  So I disagree that it is results oriented thinking.  Or is everyone else who's on my side of the argument guilty of the same thing?

 

[zed2283]

I disagree with this statement.  I would have gone for it but I would not have run to the right side.  I thought the actual play call was terrible but the decision to go for it was correct.  There is no way to know if I would have been a losing coach because I did not get to run the play I wanted to run. 

That's very true as well.  But we're only left with what happened, I guess.

 

[Cobbler1]

Sure, I understand your point.  But I'm saying that kicking the FG is the correct call regardless.  Do you really need me to back go through the same logic that everyone has no doubt very eloquently expressed in order to support my position?  So I disagree with it is results oriented thinking.  Or is everyone else who's on my side of the argument doing the same thing?

To my knowledge, and I haven’t read every post, most people aren’t using “see they lost the game going for it” as a reason why it’s the wrong call in that situation. As I said the arguments on both sides have generally been sound. It’s a very interesting and close call.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

There's only 1 right answer here, you kick the FG

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

There's only 1 right answer here, you kick the FG

Well then, that settles it. Topic over everyone, we win. close it up. Last one out be sure to hit the lights. 
 

 

 

[zed2283]

To my knowledge, and I haven’t read every post, most people aren’t using “see they lost the game going for it” as a reason why it’s the wrong call in that situation. As I said the arguments on both sides have generally been sound. It’s a very interesting and close call.

I didn't even say that, I don't think.  I was just saying that going for it was the wrong call and 55% of the participants in the poll would have lost if they had made the same decision.

All I have to support that RESULT is that the Vikings did, in fact, lose.  But that's all we have to go on in this particular situation.  It's like the old Choose Your Own Adventure books... turn to page 41 and you get eaten by the dragon.  You don't get to say you would have done it differently.  As far as the decision itself, the logic also says to kick the FG.  Like I said, I was staring at the TV saying "what are they doing?" because it was obviously the wrong call.

 

[Cobbler1]

I didn't even say that, I don't think.  I was just saying that going for it was the wrong call and 55% of the participants in the poll would have lost if they had made the same decision.

All I have to support that RESULT is that the Vikings did, in fact, lose.  But that's all we have to go on in this particular situation.  It's like the old Choose Your Own Adventure books... turn to page 41 and you get eaten by the dragon.  You don't get to say you would have done it differently.  As far as the decision itself, the logic also says to kick the FG.  Like I said, I was staring at the TV saying "what are they doing?" because it was obviously the wrong call.

You’re still way too hung up on the result of this particular play. I’m certain the question was asked about the strategy in a broader sense so the result of this one particular play isn’t a factor. 

 

[Deamon]

It really was not 4th and one yard.  It was 4th and about 2 inches.  Does that matter?

Yes that matters quite a bit.  It probably would significantly increase the odds of getting it.  I believe 4th an 1 for QB sneaks is converted around 80%.  @Ardbeg4ever, plug that 80% in, what do we get?

 

[zed2283]

You’re still way too hung up on the result of this particular play. I’m certain the question was asked about the strategy in a broader sense so the result of this one particular play isn’t a factor. 

I'm not hung up on it at all.  My final answer is it was the wrong decision.  I said it before the play and I'm saying it now.  If they had gotten the first down I would still say it was the wrong decision but it worked out.

 

[Gally]

I'm not hung up on it at all.  My final answer is it was the wrong decision.  I said it before the play and I'm saying it now.  If they had gotten the first down I would still say it was the wrong decision but it worked out.

I say it was the right decision to go for it but didn't work out.   The result doesn't necessarily make the process of going for it the wrong decision.  They could have still lost if they kicked the FG (which is what I truly believe would have happened).  For me, the best chance of winning was picking up the first down and not letting Wilson get the ball back. 

 

[zed2283]

I say it was the right decision to go for it but didn't work out.   The result doesn't necessarily make the process of going for it the wrong decision.  They could have still lost if they kicked the FG (which is what I truly believe would have happened).  For me, the best chance of winning was picking up the first down and not letting Wilson get the ball back. 

That's totally fair and I'm sure the way most people on that side think about it.

 

[Deamon]

Sure but as I said you’re calling 55% of people losers based on the result of the one play rather than addressing the logic or looking at the situation more broadly.

You're a logical dude @Cobbler1.  

I think if I could pick the #1 most annoying (or should I say the PC "thing I disagree with) thing that sports fans do is use the result in order to determine what was the right choice.  I'm actually pleasantly surprised at all those in here saying it was the right move but it didn't work.  It's quite easy to sit with nothing to lose and say "ya but I was right you would have lost the game"... had it gone the other way, that poster would not have agreed with the "well we won didn't we" logic they are presenting.

The more I look at the data and listen to people's arguments, the more this makes this a no brainer that going for it was by far the right decision.  Probably an 80% chance a QB sneak works and you won.  Otherwise you're counting on OT (since people on the other side are saying RW would have driven it down the field anyways).

Ask any coach in the league if they'd go for 4th and inches and if they make it they win, and if they don't make it they go to OT, and I bet most if not all would go for it.  It was the right move, that would be praised if it worked.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Anyone who says "there is only 1 right answer" in this situation.......well that tells me all I need to know     

 

[az_prof]

Watching the game it was obvious that kicking was the smart move. First, the kicker was kicking well and had kicked two long kicks already. Second, the Vikings had already failed once on fourth and short.  Third, Seattle was routinely busting into the Vikings backfield. Fourth, your stud RB Cook is out.  Fifth, Cousins is no Cam Newton or Lamar Jackson so you can't just go QB sneak and feel confident. 

Bottom line though is that you kick the FG and you cannot lose the game in regulation. Seattle has to both score TD AND score the two point conversion. And even if they do that, which they didn't, you still have a chance in overtime to score and win it.

 

[Gally]

Watching the game it was obvious that kicking was the smart move. First, the kicker was kicking well and had kicked two long kicks already. Second, the Vikings had already failed once on fourth and short.  Third, Seattle was routinely busting into the Vikings backfield. Fourth, your stud RB Cook is out.  Fifth, Cousins is no Cam Newton or Lamar Jackson so you can't just go QB sneak and feel confident. 

Bottom line though is that you kick the FG and you cannot lose the game in regulation. Seattle has to both score TD AND score the two point conversion. And even if they do that, which they didn't, you still have a chance in overtime to score and win it.

I guess we were watching a different game.  Minnesota was shoving it down the Seattle defenses throat in the second half with Mattison.  He was averaging over 5 ypc and the run blocking was doing quite well (pass blocking a different story).  My problem was the play call.  They had been gashing the defense to the left side the majority of the 2nd half.  Why run to the right side on your most critical play?  Keep to the left where you were dominating.  They didn't execute but that doesn't make it the wrong decision.  Ultimately the wrong "decision" was giving the ball back to Wilson.  That was the real issue.

 

[zed2283]

Watching the game it was obvious that kicking was the smart move. First, the kicker was kicking well and had kicked two long kicks already. Second, the Vikings had already failed once on fourth and short.  Third, Seattle was routinely busting into the Vikings backfield. Fourth, your stud RB Cook is out.  Fifth, Cousins is no Cam Newton or Lamar Jackson so you can't just go QB sneak and feel confident. 

Bottom line though is that you kick the FG and you cannot lose the game in regulation. Seattle has to both score TD AND score the two point conversion. And even if they do that, which they didn't, you still have a chance in overtime to score and win it.

At last, some actual logic in here.  "The math" doesn't take those things into account.

 

[dickey moe]

Maybe they should've punted.

 

[Ardbeg4ever]

At last, some actual logic in here.  "The math" doesn't take those things into account.

Logic is used in setting up the math.  What % chance do you think Minn had in converting?  What % chance in stopping SEA from scoring if they didn't convert?  What % chance do you think SEA had in making a  2 point conversion? Finally what % chance do you think SEA had of winning in OT?