It's official.........

[Wasabiak]

The Vikings have mailed it in for the season. Congrats to the Green Bay Packers on another NFC North Division title. Good luck in the playoffs.

And any of you that think i'm jumping the gun here.......lol, well, you have not been a Viking fan your whole life, so you don't know the routine. I have been used to it for years, so think what you will, they are done.

[Easy Mac]

What was Tice thinking? You have 42 seconds left, down 10 on the 15 or so. Why go for the TD on 4th down when you can kick a FG and go for an onside kick? You have to onside kick it anyway if you get a TD. I know it may be easier to go 25 yards later rather than 55, but to me you make sure you have the shot to tie now, then take a shot later. Don't blow it all at once.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
What was Tice thinking? You have 42 seconds left, down 10 on the 15 or so. Why go for the TD on 4th down when you can kick a FG and go for an onside kick? You have to onside kick it anyway if you get a TD. I know it may be easier to go 25 yards later rather than 55, but to me you make sure you have the shot to tie now, then take a shot later. Don't blow it all at once.

I agree 100%. Why does it seem like almost all coaches are unable to figure this out?

[scc27]

I agree also because the Packers only have to play 1 team over 500 and the Vikings have to play the Chiefs, Rams and Seattle which will mean at least 2-3 losses which will enable the Packers to take the division.

[sabotai]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
What was Tice thinking? You have 42 seconds left, down 10 on the 15 or so. Why go for the TD on 4th down when you can kick a FG and go for an onside kick? You have to onside kick it anyway if you get a TD. I know it may be easier to go 25 yards later rather than 55, but to me you make sure you have the shot to tie now, then take a shot later. Don't blow it all at once.

With 42 seconds left, minus 3 or 4 for the FG and then a couple more for the onside kick, you're not going to drive 55 yards (or have a very small chance to). Maybe if there was over a minute, it'd be a good decision to just kick the FG (that's what I'd probably do), but with that little time left, with no more timeouts left, you have to take the shot at the TD while you're there.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by sabotai
With 42 seconds left, minus 3 or 4 for the FG and then a couple more for the onside kick, you're not going to drive 55 yards (or have a very small chance to). Maybe if there was over a minute, it'd be a good decision to just kick the FG (that's what I'd probably do), but with that little time left, with no more timeouts left, you have to take the shot at the TD while you're there.

Let's be clear - they only had a small chance to tie that game anyway. So just because one chain of events is a longshot doesn't necessarily make it a throwout.

If you take the FG, and you get within 7 points, then you have the onside kick (which you will have to execute anyway, so that's a wash). Get the ball around midfield, and you will have maybe 30 seconds to score a TD. Right - it's not an easy chore, but from the 15 yard line, scoring a TD on fourth down isn't either, and you still have far to go afterward.

I'd definitely have kicked.

[Wasabiak]

Also consider that Elling had missed 2 FG's earlier. But it really doesn't merit disscusion anyway.......Good teams that win games don't put themselves into a position where they are down by 10 late in the game.

[sabotai]

QS,

If there was more time on the clock, I would agree. But with such little time left, with 0 timeouts left, you're not going to drive the 55-60 yards. You have to try to get the TD while you are there. It was only 4th and 5, so they didn't HAVE to go for the TD right then. That was poor execution by the offense.

"Why does it seem like almost all coaches are unable to figure this out?"

Maybe because they know more about it than any of us?

[Craptacular]

Which is more pathetic? The AFC North or NFC North?? I certainly would not be surprised to see an 8-8 division winner in one or both of them. Maybe the league should just take the top two teams from all of the other divisions for the playoffs this year.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Craptacular
Which is more pathetic? The AFC North or NFC North?? I certainly would not be surprised to see an 8-8 division winner in one or both of them. Maybe the league should just take the top two teams from all of the other divisions for the playoffs this year.

The AFC North. Even the Steelers are still in it (if they win tomorrow). The whole division may be within 1 game of each other 10 games through the season.

I really think one of the AFC North teams will win the division at 8-8.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by sabotai
QS,

If there was more time on the clock, I would agree. But with such little time left, with 0 timeouts left, you're not going to drive the 55-60 yards. You have to try to get the TD while you are there. It was only 4th and 5, so they didn't HAVE to go for the TD right then. That was poor execution by the offense.

"Why does it seem like almost all coaches are unable to figure this out?"

Maybe because they know more about it than any of us?

Why does how much time you have on the clock matter? The less time you have, the more obvious it is you need to kick the field goal.

I commented on something similar when the Bills played the Dolphins earlier in the year. You are in a bad position, you have little chance or odds of winning the game. You make the most of those odds. To break it down more simply, when there is that little time on the clock, you can play it to where you need THREE miracles to tie the game or TWO miracles to tie the game.

1) Throwing the ball for a TD on a fourth and long when the defense knows the pass has to go to the end zone.

2) Recovering an onside kick.

3) Hail mary if you chose to kick the field goal. 15-20 yard pass completion while getting out of bounds if you chose the TD option and converted.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather play for two miracles than three. Kick the field goal. Go for the onside kick. Go for the hail mary.

IMO, that's the play you must make. Maybe Billy B. will make it sometime and I can read for five days how he made the greatest call in the history of mankind.

TroyF

[MIJB#19]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
What was Tice thinking? You have 42 seconds left, down 10 on the 15 or so. Why go for the TD on 4th down when you can kick a FG and go for an onside kick? You have to onside kick it anyway if you get a TD. I know it may be easier to go 25 yards later rather than 55, but to me you make sure you have the shot to tie now, then take a shot later. Don't blow it all at once.

Because the Lions where in the same situation (with 92 seconds left) at the Vikings in week 3, the Lions went for it, failed and lost by 10?

[Darkiller]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I agree 100%. Why does it seem like almost all coaches are unable to figure this out?

That's right.
Incredible how sometimes obvious decisions, that really seem like no brainers, actually turn out to achieved differently, and wronfully by the coaches -people who know what they're talking about football wise-

Same yesterday when I was following the Bears/Rams game with my brother who is a huge Chicago fan..and I was rooting against the Rams obviously.
8 secondes left in the game, the Bears down by 2.
4th down and 8 on the Rams 39 yard line (no timeouts left).

knowing that Chandler (and Bears quarterbacks in general are NOT GOOD in calling pass plays) what do you do in this situation ?
(also, for the record, Chandler's completion percentage on the day was awful).
Attempt a pass for first down knowing if the guy can't get out of bounds the game is over ? or do you put Paul Edinger (a pretty reliable kicker) in position to attempt a potential 54 yard winning FG ?

I would have put Edinger in.
Of course the Bears elected to attempt the 4th down pass with 8 seconds left. Incomplete. thank you.

[HornedFrog Purple]

In what league is attempting a fieldgoal an automatic success?

Would you rather take your chances scoring a touchdown from 15 yards out or most likely 30+ if you happened to get the ball back. For that to happen you have to gain lets say 25 yards over the next 30 seconds, then go for essentially a 4th down and 30+ play no matter what down it actually is.

I take the 4th down and 15 over a 4th and 30ish. It is the lesser of two bad situations.

[Ksyrup]

The other common blown decision I'd put in this category is going for the 2-point conversion. Way too many coaches do this too early in the game. However, the combination of 3's, 6's and 7's makes going for 2 too big of a gamble to use until your team is either (a) down 24 points mid-way through the 3rd quarter(where 3 scores and 3 2-pt conversions would tie the game); (b) down 16 points with 12-14 minutes to go; or under 7-10 minutes to go in the 4th quarter (depending on score and flow of the game).

Until then, going for 2 is too risky. Consider a team down 21-13 with a couple of minutes left in the 1st half. They score a TD at the end of the half and want to tie it up, so they go for 2. And fail. It's now 21-19. In the 2nd half, the other team scores 2 field goals and holds the trailing team to no points until under 5 minutes to go, with the score 27-19. The trailing team scores, but has to go for 2 to tie, and they miss again. They lose 27-25, but had they just kicked the extra point on both TDs, they would have tied the game.

I see this kind of scenario played out way too often. That stupid chart gives you the correct calculations on what scores you should go for 2, but has nothing to do with when you should go for 2. It burns me up to see anyone go for 2 earlier than the 10 minute mark of the 4th quarter, unless they are down by a bunch or have serious kicking issues, where even an extra point is no better than a 50/50 proposition.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
In what league is attempting a fieldgoal an automatic success?

Would you rather take your chances scoring a touchdown from 15 yards out or most likely 30+ if you happened to get the ball back. For that to happen you have to gain lets say 25 yards over the next 30 seconds, then go for essentially a 4th down and 30+ play no matter what down it actually is.

I take the 4th down and 15 over a 4th and 30ish. It is the lesser of two bad situations.

It has nothing (or very little) to do with what the better chances are or how many yards are needed. It has everything to do with preserving the 1-score margin. You should almost always take the points to cut it to a 1-score game - I'd say unless you're within the 3 yard line (essentially, a 2-pt conversion), you should take the FG; if you are at or beyond your kicker's range, then you can consider the TD. Otherwise, if you're down by 9, 10 or 11, the field goal preserves the 1-score margin. You go for the TD and fail, the game is over; you get the FG, you've still got a chance. And that's the best position you can put your team in. You've got a better shot at hitting the FG (depending on your kicking situation, obviously) then you do of scoring the TD. So, you take the odds and hope for a miracle to get you in a position to try for the tying TD.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
In what league is attempting a fieldgoal an automatic success?

It does not have to be automatic to make kicking the right play. Compare the percentage in the NFL for making a 31 yd FG with converting 4th and 8. You kick.

EDIT: comverting is not a word.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I disagree, decisions in football are made consistantly based on field position. They have to score a touchdown in the equation.

If I score the touchdown (this whole thing would not have been brought up in the first place but that is another story) then I recover the onside kick, I only have to move around 25 yards in the allotted time left to attempt a reasonable fieldgoal.

If I kick a fieldgoal, then I recover the onside kick, I have to move 50ish yards in the time left.

My point being if I have to score a touchdown, I take my gamble on a sure thing knowing that I am 15 yards out over the chance I might luck out and end up closer when I have to try and score it anyways.

[HornedFrog Purple]

dola.. basically ask yourself this since it has to be a given that you score either way and have to recover the onside kick.

Is it more likely for me to move 25-30 yards in 30 seconds or 50+ yards in 30 seconds? Time is my enemy here and that is why I would take my chances on going for the touchdown that close (in relative terms).

[Ksyrup]

You're thinking too far ahead, though. I understand the field position and yardage needed argument, but that pre-supposes you score. If you don't score, it is irrelevant. You have to take the best percentage scoring opportunity you can, and in the vast majority of scenarios, that is the FG. If you are in a position to score a TD, then absolutely, take it. I just don't think anywhere outside of the 10 (I'll even expand my initial thought on this) or inside of the 40 gives you a better chance of scoring a TD then a FG. It's a sliding scale, obviously. And if you go for the TD often enough in the scenario, you're bound to make it - and certainly, someone's bound to miss a gimme FG in the same scenario. But chances are, in the rest of the games, you've lost the opportunity to even try to win if you go for the TD instead of the FG.

Bottom line - you take the surer score, and worry about how to score the next one later.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
dola.. basically ask yourself this since it has to be a given that you score either way and have to recover the onside kick.

Is it more likely for me to move 25-30 yards in 30 seconds or 50+ yards in 30 seconds? Time is my enemy here and that is why I would take my chances on going for the touchdown that close (in relative terms).

Well, technically, you would have to do a compound calcualation. You need to figure out the probability of:

(converting 4th and 5)*(scoring a TD on that drive)*(recovering the onside kick)*(going 25 yds in 30 secs)*(making the resulting 40-45 yd FG)

vs

(making a 31 yd FG)*(recovering the onside kick)*(going 50 yds for a TD in 30 secs)

Since the onside kick is in both equations, it can essentially be removed, but is there in the interest of completeness.

The second one looks to me to be a higher probability, but since we don't know the percentages of many of the factors, it is difficult to prove, and the argument could obviously be made either way.

One thing that is obvious to me after writing that: Either way, the probability of scoring 10 points in those 40 seconds is very low. Thus, making this decision did not cost the Vikings the game. Even those of us arguing kick must surely realize that leaves maybe a 5% chance of tying the game. I think that being down 10 with 30 seconds left is what cost them the game, and not what they did once there.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Samdari
One thing that is obvious to me after writing that: Either way, the probability of scoring 10 points in those 40 seconds is very low. Thus, making this decision did not cost the Vikings the game. Even those of us arguing kick must surely realize that leaves maybe a 5% chance of tying the game. I think that being down 10 with 30 seconds left is what cost them the game, and not what they did once there.

Absolutely. The only real argument I'm making is that the FG, in most cases, gives you the better chance to KEEP HOPE ALIVE! If all you are trying to do is extend the game on the off-chance that you get a miracle, you have to take the FG in almost every instance.

[HornedFrog Purple]

heh I understand what you all are saying, I am just offering a different perspective offering the idea that it is as not as farfetched as said previously.

The odds of either way being done successfully are pretty small. I just believe I can dig up a 15 yard play I can run with a relative chance of success instead of forcing my offense to move much much farther afterwards in that short amount of time.

[RendeR]

I have to say Ia gree with the comments about the bears game.

WTF were they thinking, 54 is a makable field goal, not probable, but its a better chance than relying on Chris "I can't feel my brain" Chandler trying a hail mary.

Give Edinger a shot to win one for you. thats what you pay the man for!!!!

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Absolutely. The only real argument I'm making is that the FG, in most cases, gives you the better chance to KEEP HOPE ALIVE! If all you are trying to do is extend the game on the off-chance that you get a miracle, you have to take the FG in almost every instance.

Agreed. Herman Edwards has made this mistake with the Jets twice this season, so I've gotten to really refine my thinking on this (as well as scream at the TV before the coach makes the wrong decision). When things are getting desperate, you shouldn't brazenly "go for it" when he should be playing to keep hope alive. When you need 2 scores no matter what, you have to take the first score however you get it. We all know the odds of the Vikings making the kick were better than the odds of them scoring or converting the first down (and getting out of bounds).

you have to keep your team in the game for as long as possible.

[Radii]

Originally posted by RendeR
I have to say Ia gree with the comments about the bears game.

WTF were they thinking, 54 is a makable field goal, not probable, but its a better chance than relying on Chris "I can't feel my brain" Chandler trying a hail mary.

Give Edinger a shot to win one for you. thats what you pay the man for!!!!

I agree on chandler, but, from what I read on espn(I saw this replay but I didn't see any of the game or the setup for the final play) the Bears were on the 40 yard line... isn't that a 57 yard field goal?

How much time was left going into that hail mary? Was it possible that they were trying for a short pass and get out of bounds and then when the play broke down Chandler went for it all?