Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Vikings vs Seahawks - SNF - Week 5 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Insein
- Start date
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
lol
whatever
whatever
The Claymaker
Footballguy
Zimmer is a good coach but he made some weird choices in this game.
PennStater77
Footballguy
Yeah, looked like he was losing control as he was going back.. I think that is the right call
barackdhouse
Footballguy
Lol
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Terrible
themeistersinger
Footballguy
That was definitely and incomplete pass and not a fumble. Would not have mattered but that's a bad call.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Game over. Everyone’s tired.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I don’t care what the math says. Kick the FG. Make it an 8 point game.
At worst they're in OT right now.
terrible decision.
At worst they're in OT right now.
terrible decision.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Well, he did just hit Lockett on the hands at the 1 a play before that & he didn’t catch it, so...
The reason they lost was the asinine 2-point play in the 3rd quarter.
NEVER go for two until the 4th quarter when you are losing, there’s just too many things that can happen.
Play to win, don't play not to lose.
Vikings were averaging about 5 YPC. Bad decision to go heavy and stack the line. Spread them out a bit, actually have running lanes. If you go heavy, you are screwed if anybody loses their block, which is exactly what happened.
Dinkle Heimer
Footballguy
As a Hawks fan I was hoping Minnesota went for the FG. I figured it was at least 50/50 wilson leads his team a TD. Those are tough choices. Minnesota only needed a half yard.
skol asylum
Footballguy
The outcome sucked but I'm encouraged by what I've seen the last couple of weeks from MN for the future. They could have just given up on the season but they are still battling. At least makes for entertaining football. I can't believe conservative Zim didn't go for the FG though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Last I checked, part of winning the game is “not losing the game”.
if you make it 8, you can’t lose even if the Seahawks score.
The flip side of “playing to win the game” is “playing to not lose the game”. These are synonymous.
Kick the FG. Play defense. Just like in real football.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
If they kick the FG, Seattle needs both a TD & a 2PAT. That’s harder to do than just a TD.
if you go for it and fail, well, go back and watch what happens.
Zow
Footballguy
But if you get it the game is over. Odds of getting it were very high. I’m a Vikings fan and that was painful to watch - but that was the right call.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Correct or not the Vikings were being aggressive with these decisions the whole game. So doing it there was just being consistent with that. They were in the game because of winning those 4th downs earlier in the game.
They played well for the most part aside from that Cousins throw that I cannot make any excuses for. He wasn't even under pressure.
They played well for the most part aside from that Cousins throw that I cannot make any excuses for. He wasn't even under pressure.
The Narrator
Footballguy
Dinkle Heimer
Footballguy
That's all true. But putting the game into Russell Wilson's hands; almost always works into Russell Wilson's favor. Zimmer was 6 inches away from keeping it out of Wilson's hands.
And it still took 2 different 4th down conversions from Wilson.
Last edited by a moderator:
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
I think there's a huge difference between playing to win and playing not to lose.
Playing to win is aggressive and confident (sometimes to a fault). Playing not to lose is careful and hesitatnt (often to a fault).
Playing for overtime is playing not to lose. Playing for a tie is playing not to lose. Neither of those scenarios are playing to win.
Prevent defense is playing not to lose. If you're down by seven, and you score at the end of a game, and you go for two...that's playing to win.
I'm not saying that's a smarter or better decision. I'm saying there's a big difference between playing to win and playing not to lose. Not synonymous at all imo.
I think most NFL coaches would have gone for 4th down in that scenario. I also see the value in making it impossible for them to take the lead on the next drive (kick the FG). Not sure what I would have done, but I won't knock the coach for trusting his team to get six inches on a play.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
In general, I agree.
In the context of this game, in that exact scenario, playing to not lose was the exact flip side of playing to win.
They had a choice: take a risk that you’ll be up 5 with 2+ mins to go knowing your D has struggled to contain the Seahawks.
or
Kick the FG (also a very high % play) and be up 8, forcing the Seahawks to drive the field, and get not just a TD, but a 2 PAT.
And bonus: even if the Seahawks managed to do BOTH of those things, which is much harder to do than jjuat score a TD/PAT) then the absolute worst thing that happens is OT.
So again: I disagree. We can all have an opinion about this & that’s ok. Mine is that they should have kicked the FG.
They didn’t, and instead of maybe winning by stopping the TD or 2PAT; or at worst, playing in an OT period with a chance to win, they simply lost as a result.
I understand everything everyone has said to the contrary, and I continue to disagree. If we were talking about a FG putting them up 7, maybe I have a different opinion about it. But making an opponent also successfully get a 2 PAT changes the equation for me. That’s almost like making it a 2-score game, because they execution is the same.
For that specific reason in that specific scenario, they should have kicked the FG.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Also, go this specific point, kicking the FG isn’t automatically playing for a tie.
It is putting your team up 8, forcing an opponent to do more than just drive down and get a TD.
and also giving yourself a more comfortable lead with a chance for a defensive stop with less pressure.
So a case can be made that it is playing to win.
to be clear, I’m not knocking the coach for it either. Just saying what I think he should have done.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
I agree. I wasn't talking about that scenario. I meant when teams play for a tie (not aggressive in OT at the end) that's playing not to lose, but not playing to win. I see them as very different.
I think there's a psychological factor there as well. Do you not trust your guys to get six inches for a win? The team will know if you don't. Even if it works out, you're not showing confidence in your team. That could play into chemistry during the year.
I remember in the Jaguars first season, in week 1, they scored a late TD down by seven. They went for two and didn't make it. I don't know anything else about that season for Jacksonville. But that was a gutsy call, and the coach was trying to set the tone for the year. They were playing to win. Whatever else happend, a guy who doesn't live near Jacksonville remembers it and respects it 25 years later.
Last edited by a moderator:
