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?
Yeah. Good call, poor execution.
Agree those factor in.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.
And the 2pt attempt was unsuccessful... (just sayin')...Go for it and end it. Just as happened, Seattle drove down and a got a TD.
I’m surprised to see it at 50-5017-18!
Close.
Exactly. Every factor you add changes the % of Seattle winning.And the 2pt attempt was unsuccessful...
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.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.
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.17-18!
Close.
Maybe, but there’s no question a defense plays differently in different end-game scenarios.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.
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.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.
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.Shouldn’t there be a third option to try and draw the defense offsides? Minnesota had two timeouts, and they could have at least tried to draw the defense offsides before committing to go for it on fourth down.
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).Shouldn’t there be a third option to try and draw the defense offsides? Minnesota had two timeouts, and they could have at least tried to draw the defense offsides before committing to go for it on fourth down.
in the In-game topic is said they should kick the FG before they went for it.Unanswerable question, but I really wonder what proportion of the people voting FG are judging the result instead of the thought process.
Possibly but that's just delaying a decision likely. For this, let's assume that didn't work.Shouldn’t there be a third option to try and draw the defense offsides? Minnesota had two timeouts, and they could have at least tried to draw the defense offsides before committing to go for it on fourth down.
It is easy to say kick a FG was the right call based on the results.Unanswerable question, but I really wonder what proportion of the people voting FG are judging the result instead of the thought process.
Get a yard, win the game. It was the right call.
Yep, I agree plenty of people were saying in real time to kick the FG.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.
It doesn't work that often. Also then what do you do after the time out? Probably kick.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.
Don't think you go for it after a time out. The defense is set and ready.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?
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.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.
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.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?
Maybe so but also factoring in weather conditions probably keeps it the same if not lowering it a little.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.
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.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.
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.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).
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.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.
You had some compensating factors but going for it 82.1%, FG = 80.9%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%