The All-Encompassing Minnesota Pro Sports Thread VI
View Single Post
12-03-2012, 01:20 PM
dun worry he's cool
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Originally Posted by
Worst case scenario in going for a TD is you turn the ball over and lose the game, at that point int he game Frazer had more faith in Walsh then in vikings getting 3 yards.
Either way they needed two scores, if they did go for a TD they would need a fast touch down, if they take anything over 15 seconds on that TD drive they HAVE to onside kick. the onside kick in this situation is a given, no way could they punt the ball back.
You sit here and say go for it on 4-3, 1: you could fail (game over) 2: you eat up a ton of the clock use up your timeouts to keep the clock alive you cannot punt it back. you leave your self less time to get a FG and eliminate the option to punt. 3: they get 1st down but get stopped again and are looking at 4th and long now they kick FG and have 30 seconds to onside kick and go for TD
in this case best option was kick the FG, leave your self 2 minutes to attempt onside and have 2 time outs to get a TD.
Also you miss the point about how the Vikings D had been abused int he 2nd half, out of the 30 minutes in the 2nd half on one drive GB ate up 12 minutes of that clock, that just one drive, they had multiple long drives while our O didn't do anything of note.
So we held them to a 3 and out early on, there is no guarantee that we could do it again.
You simply don't understand, and are unwilling to actually challenge the incredibly inaccurate "common knowledge" you've learned.
Losing by 6 points is absolutely no different from losing by 1 point or 9 points or 16 points or 23 points. A loss is a loss is a loss. Unless you start getting into extremely deep tiebreakers (the first one this affects is the 6th tiebreaker) there's literally no difference between losing by one score and losing by four. The only thing that matters is if you lose the game or if you win the game.
You keep trying to say "well Ponder probably wouldn't be able to gain 3 yards." If the offense cannot be trusted to gain 3 yards (AP averaged over 3 yards per carry even after taking away all his big runs) with the entire playbook open to them and a guaranteed stoppage of the clock (2 minute warning), how the hell do you even begin to think it's remotely possible Ponder could manufacture a 50+ yard drive? You are literally saying "the offense cannot gain 3 yards, so we'll choose the option that requires gaining 50+ yards instead of the one that requires 35 to 40 yards." There is literally no way to justify that claim.
But furthermore, you keep insisting somehow that an onside kick after a field goal somehow has better odds than an onside kick after a touchdown. You're not making a coherent argument, you're just trying to falsify evidence to support a claim you decided was right without ever considering reality. It is far easier to recover an onside kick, then attempt a field goal than it is to recover an onside kick and score a touchdown.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by squidz*