HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

The All-Encompassing Minnesota Pro Sports Thread VI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-02-2012, 09:57 PM
  #301
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
I have to question whether you watched the play then. Jenkins was wide open. While throwing the ball out of bounds would have been an acceptable decision, he had a wide open receiver in the end zone. Throw the ball actually to the receiver, or as we're constantly reminded by announcers "where only your guy can catch it" and you're fine. If you overthrow him, you're fine. But Ponder's throw was so underthrown that a 6'1" safety caught the ball despite being a good 5-10 feet in front of the 6'4" receiver who didn't move.
He wasn't wide open. Having a DB 5 feet in front of you is covered.

An inaccurate QB, rolling to his right and throwing a cross his body, to a covered receiver, on 1st down (I believe it was 1st down) is not a good decision. He wasn't going to put the ball in the 4 sqare foot space necessary to complete the pass. He ****ed up, and it cost us.

Dr Jan Itor is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:07 PM
  #302
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
and if you don't make the 1st down you turn the ball over and don't get it back. kicking the field goal was the absolute right decision, you are going for a score and you get the ball control, sure the onside might fail but its not like the Vikes were getting the packer offense off the field the whole day.

because Walsh missed the kick didn't make it a wrong decision just a cap to a bad day.
It was the wrong decision before the kick, and the fact that he missed had absolutely no bearing on the decision.

You people need to stop echoing ridiculous cliches from announcers and actually think about the scenario for half a second.

At that point in the game, the Vikings had had two drives of more than 3 plays. One of those drives was 5 plays long only because of Peterson breaking off a long run. Essentially in 58 minutes of football, the Vikings had only once managed to move the ball. Yet you're going to claim that they'll just easily kickoff, regain possession, and march all the way down the field with only 2 timeouts? Onside kicks succeed 26% of the time, and the vast majority of those are "surprise" onside kicks. If the kick is unsuccessful, the Vikings lose. Even if it is successful, you're looking at trying to move the ball the length of the field on Ponder's arm. But just 20 seconds ago you didn't have any faith that they'd be able to gain a measly 3 yards with every play in the book available to them (as the 2 minute warning would stop the clock no matter what).

Instead of kicking a 41 yard field goal, you try to gain 3 yards, then what's left of your original 24 yards. You kick the ball off and hold the packers to 3 and out (which should be likely because they're not going to risk passing) and you'll get the ball back around mid field with around 40 seconds left. You need somewhere between 10 and 20 yards to get into reasonable field goal range, and you have the option of any play in the book to do it because you have enough time.



There is one reason, and only one reason to kick the field goal in that scenario, because the head coach wants to be able to say "well we only lost by one score." The odds of winning after kicking a field goal there approach zero. If you attempt the 4th down and are successful (which has happened 62.5% of the time for the Vikings this year, and the long term league average for 4th and 3 is just a shade under 60%) the odds of winning are quite reasonable. So, 3 times out of 5 you end up with a good chance to win the game while 2 times out of 5 you are almost guaranteed to lose, versus 5 times out of 5 you end up with a very poor chance to win the game. If you want to win, you go for the touchdown. If you want to say "we almost beat the Packers" you go for the field goal.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:13 PM
  #303
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
He wasn't wide open. Having a DB 5 feet in front of you is covered.

An inaccurate QB, rolling to his right and throwing a cross his body, to a covered receiver, on 1st down (I believe it was 1st down) is not a good decision. He wasn't going to put the ball in the 4 sqare foot space necessary to complete the pass. He ****ed up, and it cost us.
Burnett ended 5-10 feet in front of Jenkins. That's not where he started. Jenkins didn't really move. If the ball had been thrown to where Jenkins was standing, overthrown to where Jenkins was standing, thrown to Jenkins' right, overthrown to Jenkins' right, underthrown to Jenkins' right, or overthrown to Jenkins' left, it's either a touchdown or incompletion. Only in situations where it's underthrown to Jenkins or underthrown to his left is there even the risk of an interception. Given 100 rethrows of that exact play, fewer than 10 would result in interceptions.

If you want Ponder to only throw when he's likely to be accurate, we might as well not have any WR at all because he would never throw a single pass.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:18 PM
  #304
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
To elaborate on an earlier comment I made about Ponder:

If you swapped Ponder for Rodgers, this would be a borderline playoff team. A truly elite, in his prime QB paired with AP in the backfield could overcome the WR on the field. But, on the other hand, if you replaced our receiver corps with a team like Green Bay's, Ponder would be adequate to get this team to the playoffs as well. If you swapped Ponder for a middling QB (like a Flacco, Palmer, or Dalton) you'd end up with more or less the same results as we have.

The Vikings passing offense has zero playmakers when Harvin is out. Ponder's not good enough to overcome his receivers, and his receivers aren't good enough to offer him support.
+1, fully agree very well said

forthewild is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:23 PM
  #305
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
It was the wrong decision before the kick, and the fact that he missed had absolutely no bearing on the decision.

You people need to stop echoing ridiculous cliches from announcers and actually think about the scenario for half a second.

At that point in the game, the Vikings had had two drives of more than 3 plays. One of those drives was 5 plays long only because of Peterson breaking off a long run. Essentially in 58 minutes of football, the Vikings had only once managed to move the ball. Yet you're going to claim that they'll just easily kickoff, regain possession, and march all the way down the field with only 2 timeouts? Onside kicks succeed 26% of the time, and the vast majority of those are "surprise" onside kicks. If the kick is unsuccessful, the Vikings lose. Even if it is successful, you're looking at trying to move the ball the length of the field on Ponder's arm. But just 20 seconds ago you didn't have any faith that they'd be able to gain a measly 3 yards with every play in the book available to them (as the 2 minute warning would stop the clock no matter what).

Instead of kicking a 41 yard field goal, you try to gain 3 yards, then what's left of your original 24 yards. You kick the ball off and hold the packers to 3 and out (which should be likely because they're not going to risk passing) and you'll get the ball back around mid field with around 40 seconds left. You need somewhere between 10 and 20 yards to get into reasonable field goal range, and you have the option of any play in the book to do it because you have enough time.



There is one reason, and only one reason to kick the field goal in that scenario, because the head coach wants to be able to say "well we only lost by one score." The odds of winning after kicking a field goal there approach zero. If you attempt the 4th down and are successful (which has happened 62.5% of the time for the Vikings this year, and the long term league average for 4th and 3 is just a shade under 60%) the odds of winning are quite reasonable. So, 3 times out of 5 you end up with a good chance to win the game while 2 times out of 5 you are almost guaranteed to lose, versus 5 times out of 5 you end up with a very poor chance to win the game. If you want to win, you go for the touchdown. If you want to say "we almost beat the Packers" you go for the field goal.
or the pack gets the 1st down which they have been doing all damn day against the vikings and game is over.

Vikings needed two scores and their best option was to NOT give the ball to the guy who's been beating them all day.

yes odds this odds that, at the end of it it was a bad performance from everyone except 28

forthewild is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 10:57 PM
  #306
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
or the pack gets the 1st down which they have been doing all damn day against the vikings and game is over.

Vikings needed two scores and their best option was to NOT give the ball to the guy who's been beating them all day.

yes odds this odds that, at the end of it it was a bad performance from everyone except 28
The Vikings D actually had held them to a number of 3 and outs, and that was with the full playbook available to them. With less than 2 minutes in the game, limited time outs, and an anemic passing offense from the Vikings, the Packers would not likely risk throwing the ball. Three running plays and a punt burns both remaining Vikings time outs and around a minute of clock. If they throw the ball incomplete and fail to get the first down, the Vikings have about twice as much time left on the clock. Besides, if you don't like relying on the D for the 3 and out, you're still taking an onside kick with the same odds of recovery as in the field goal scenario, but you only need a fraction of the yardage, and now have time outs to line up an easier, more organized kick.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 11:04 PM
  #307
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
Vikings needed two scores and their best option was to NOT give the ball to the guy who's been beating them all day.

yes odds this odds that, at the end of it it was a bad performance from everyone except 28
Didn't really acknowledge this in the other post but:

Even after taking away AP's 23, 48, and 82 yard runs, he averaged 3.2 yards per carry. On 4th and 3, you still can put the ball into AP's hands instead of Ponder's. Alternatively to all of this, why not run a fake field goal? Those plays generally earn either 5-7 yards or are a touchdown unless they're completely botched. There's plenty of options in this scenario, but Frazier chose the one that makes it most likely he can say "the Packers only beat us by one score" at the end of the year when he's trying to convince the team to keep him as coach.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 11:26 PM
  #308
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Burnett ended 5-10 feet in front of Jenkins. That's not where he started. Jenkins didn't really move.
Of course he wasn't standing in front of him the entire time. He made a play on the ball while it was in the air, which has to considered when Ponder threw it. He was obviously close enough to make a play on the ball.

Quote:
If the ball had been thrown to where Jenkins was standing, overthrown to where Jenkins was standing, thrown to Jenkins' right, overthrown to Jenkins' right, underthrown to Jenkins' right, or overthrown to Jenkins' left, it's either a touchdown or incompletion. Only in situations where it's underthrown to Jenkins or underthrown to his left is there even the risk of an interception.
And when you are throwing on the run, across the body, the accuracy of an already inaccurate quarterback drops dramatically. The inaccurate pass stems from the poor decision to even attempt it in the first place.

Quote:
Given 100 rethrows of that exact play, fewer than 10 would result in interceptions.
Disagree. Less than 5 would result in a TD; probably 20-25 in an INT.

Quote:
If you want Ponder to only throw when he's likely to be accurate, we might as well not have any WR at all because he would never throw a single pass.
Probably would've helped us today.

Dr Jan Itor is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 11:30 PM
  #309
Dee Oh Cee
Registered User
 
Dee Oh Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Farmington
Country: United States
Posts: 6,195
vCash: 500
Woah, and I thought I was the last on the Ponder bandwagon. I'm done...there is no reason whatsoever he should be starting next Sunday. When someone is singlehandedly losing you games they need to be taken out.

Plus, a good quarterback makes good receivers. The lack of weapons excuse is valid, but it can't excuse this amount of ineptitude. Take a look at what some other QBs are able to do with their 'weapons'. Hell look what Andrew Luck is able to do with his options...outside of Reggie Wayne who does he have? Just like the rest of us I wanted Ponder to do great...to rebound and show signs of greatness. At this point I've lost that hope...I just don't see it.

Dee Oh Cee is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 11:31 PM
  #310
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Alternatively to all of this, why not run a fake field goal? Those plays generally earn either 5-7 yards or are a touchdown unless they're completely botched.
I doubt there is any historical data to back this up. It's not like GB was going to go all out for the block anyway. You'd be asking either Kluwe to throw a pass or Walsh to turn into a RB, both would seem to have a high likelihood of failure, even perfectly executed.

Dr Jan Itor is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 11:47 PM
  #311
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
Of course he wasn't standing in front of him the entire time. He made a play on the ball while it was in the air, which has to considered when Ponder threw it. He was obviously close enough to make a play on the ball.
Your claim was that Jenkins was covered. He wasn't covered because if the ball had been thrown within a range where Jenkins could have possibly reached it, Burnett would not have been able to reach it. If you're standing 50 feet away from me, and someone else throws a ball so poorly to me that it goes to you, that doesn't somehow make me covered. Simpson was open on two routes down the sideline that Ponder missed, but both throws ended up hitting the DB in the back because of how desperately they were underthrown. That doesn't make Simpson covered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
And when you are throwing on the run, across the body, the accuracy of an already inaccurate quarterback drops dramatically. The inaccurate pass stems from the poor decision to even attempt it in the first place.



Disagree. Less than 5 would result in a TD; probably 20-25 in an INT.
An "inaccurate pass" has an equal likelihood of being inaccurate in any direction (otherwise adjustments would be made to correct for that inaccuracy). There's only two directions (out of nine) where the pass could be inaccurate in where an interception is even possible. Factor in the fact that not all of those potential interceptions will be completed and you're down around 10% or lower likelihood of an interception.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 11:58 PM
  #312
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
I doubt there is any historical data to back this up. It's not like GB was going to go all out for the block anyway. You'd be asking either Kluwe to throw a pass or Walsh to turn into a RB, both would seem to have a high likelihood of failure, even perfectly executed.
Going all out for the block would make it more likely the fake would fail. Look at the Bears fake from last week for a perfect example of that. Fakes with passes are generally a mistake (unless you have your backup QB as the holder and a genuine receiver to throw to, and even then...) and convert at a much lower rate than rushes.

Quick google search gave me just this for relevant data:



So the probability on fakes seems lower than I expected, although they acknowledge that there are only 17 data points.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2012, 11:58 PM
  #313
Victorious Secret
Need home, pls adopt
 
Victorious Secret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Arkansas
Country: Ireland
Posts: 10,478
vCash: 5973
My claim is find a quarterback. This could be a decent team with a quarterback.

Victorious Secret is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 12:05 AM
  #314
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victorious Secret View Post
My claim is find a quarterback. This could be a decent team with a quarterback.
My claim is that finding a QB isn't going to fix this team. While the one we have is bad, we wouldn't win with a Cam Newton or RG3 either, and we're not picking high enough to find either of those. Considering our options for acquiring and developing a franchise QB, we need to focus on fixing the supporting cast before we try putting someone new into Ponder's spot.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 12:09 AM
  #315
tomgilbertfan
gifs on gifs on gifs
 
tomgilbertfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 7,679
vCash: 500
Also the QB class in this next draft is weak.

tomgilbertfan is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 01:51 AM
  #316
elnewby
We got em'!
 
elnewby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,301
vCash: 212
I agree, QB does need to be addressed, just not now. There are too many holes on the O-line and on defense. Wide receivers who can catch would also be a great addition. Ponder does not have a great supporting cast(minus AP) although I do not think he will ever be a top 20qb in this league which doesn't get you far unless you have a great defense.

I fear Peterson may waste his career here and never see a good playoff run.

elnewby is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 01:53 AM
  #317
tomgilbertfan
gifs on gifs on gifs
 
tomgilbertfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 7,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnewby View Post
I agree, QB does need to be addressed, just not now. There are too many holes on the O-line and on defense. Wide receivers who can catch would also be a great addition. Ponder does not have a great supporting cast(minus AP) although I do not think he will ever be a top 20qb in this league which doesn't get you far unless you have a great defense.

I fear Peterson may waste his career here and never see a good playoff run.
I dunno, that 09 run was pretty good.

But I'm not sure if there'll be another one again.

tomgilbertfan is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 05:31 AM
  #318
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
The Vikings D actually had held them to a number of 3 and outs, and that was with the full playbook available to them. With less than 2 minutes in the game, limited time outs, and an anemic passing offense from the Vikings, the Packers would not likely risk throwing the ball. Three running plays and a punt burns both remaining Vikings time outs and around a minute of clock. If they throw the ball incomplete and fail to get the first down, the Vikings have about twice as much time left on the clock. Besides, if you don't like relying on the D for the 3 and out, you're still taking an onside kick with the same odds of recovery as in the field goal scenario, but you only need a fraction of the yardage, and now have time outs to line up an easier, more organized kick.
except in the 2nd half of the game by which point the D was gassed and had failed to get the packers off the field, hell the packers had a 11 minute scoring drive.

there is no way to know if the packers were going to run it 3 times, and even if they did there is no guarantee that our D which was gassed by that point would stop them.

As i said vikings best chance of winning was to keep the ball away from the pack, so even if they tried to go and fail to convert everyone and their mother would be screaming as to why they didn't kick a FG and try a onside kick.

forthewild is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 05:34 AM
  #319
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Ponder isn't the biggest problem, its WR we need to get a few of those who can get open and break man coverage.

1st round we should be taking a WR, 2nd round we should be taking a CB to help with passing offense (hopefully the weed smoking honey badger is there)

also there is good QB's that might be available in the 2-3rd rounds we could try taking. too early to tell who's going to be there for this draft.

forthewild is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 07:38 AM
  #320
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,801
vCash: 500
Last week it was on the WR's who were dropping balls that Ponder threw well. This week it's all on Ponder. Look at the throws he made to both Peterson and Gerhart when they went deep...underthrown by several yards. First interception was a bad decision and throw...he needed to put it to the outside, not the inside. Second interception was a hesitation on his part which gave enough time for the defender to cut and make the catch. Not to mention the bad mechanics and staring down receivers again.

There's two things that bug me that get thrown around a lot:

1. Why bother putting in Webb because he's clearly not the answer at QB. Well, we don't know that, and Webb probably is not the answer at that position, but we've seen enough close games that by not turning the ball over could have been W's. Not to mention the goal is to win games, not to make one player feel better.

2. We have six wins on the season, therefore it's a success. Bad thinking. We were going into the season really with two aims: first to identify what holes still exist and need to be fixed, and second to evaluate Christian Ponder as a QB. Well it's pretty clear the guy is in over his head.


Watching guys like Rodgers, Cutler, and even Romo...man you just miss having a guy who slings the ball.

Jarick is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 08:30 AM
  #321
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Last week it was on the WR's who were dropping balls that Ponder threw well. This week it's all on Ponder. Look at the throws he made to both Peterson and Gerhart when they went deep...underthrown by several yards. First interception was a bad decision and throw...he needed to put it to the outside, not the inside. Second interception was a hesitation on his part which gave enough time for the defender to cut and make the catch. Not to mention the bad mechanics and staring down receivers again.

There's two things that bug me that get thrown around a lot:

1. Why bother putting in Webb because he's clearly not the answer at QB. Well, we don't know that, and Webb probably is not the answer at that position, but we've seen enough close games that by not turning the ball over could have been W's. Not to mention the goal is to win games, not to make one player feel better.

2. We have six wins on the season, therefore it's a success. Bad thinking. We were going into the season really with two aims: first to identify what holes still exist and need to be fixed, and second to evaluate Christian Ponder as a QB. Well it's pretty clear the guy is in over his head.


Watching guys like Rodgers, Cutler, and even Romo...man you just miss having a guy who slings the ball.
This week like last it was on WR again, Simpson cannot catch a ball to save his life, Jenkins isn't much better and Wright is just too inexperienced to be the go to guy. The whole game it was WR who couldn't beat man coverage.

Ponder did throw some bad balls, but what do you do when you have no WR? Ponder was trying to force the ball too much and his WR are not the type to play up to that, the only guy who does that is injured.

First we need to get some good WR in addition to Harvin, give Ponder some options to throw to. Then we need to address the o-line a bit more, still leaky. then ponder is going to get a fair evaluation.

From his end tho, he needs to be more calm, and learn to throw it away rather then try to force it.

forthewild is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 08:44 AM
  #322
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,801
vCash: 500
His WR's have nothing to do with his poor mechanics, lack of power, and bad decision making.

Jarick is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 09:53 AM
  #323
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
except in the 2nd half of the game by which point the D was gassed and had failed to get the packers off the field, hell the packers had a 11 minute scoring drive.

there is no way to know if the packers were going to run it 3 times, and even if they did there is no guarantee that our D which was gassed by that point would stop them.

As i said vikings best chance of winning was to keep the ball away from the pack, so even if they tried to go and fail to convert everyone and their mother would be screaming as to why they didn't kick a FG and try a onside kick.
Quote:
1st and 10 at GB 32 J.Starks left guard to GB 35 for 3 yards (K.Williams; A.Winfield).
Timeout #2 by MIN at 01:51.
2nd and 7 at GB 35 J.Starks left tackle to GB 38 for 3 yards (J.Allen).
Timeout #3 by MIN at 01:45.
3rd and 4 at GB 38 J.Starks right tackle to GB 41 for 3 yards (J.Brinkley).
Timeout #2 by GB at 01:01.
4th and 1 at GB 41 T.Masthay punts 33 yards to MIN 26, Center-B.Goode, downed by GB-J.Bush. PENALTY on GB-J.Bush, Illegal Touch Kick, 5 yards, enforced at GB 41 - No Play.
4th and 6 at GB 36 T.Masthay punts 41 yards to MIN 23, Center-B.Goode, fair catch by M.Sherels.
They did hold them to 3 and out, that's not in question.

But the bigger point you keep missing is that the worst case scenario for trying for the TD is the best case scenario for trying for the field goal. As I said, if they go for a TD and score, they can still onside kick if they want to, but they don't have to. If they kick a field goal then try for the TD they pretty much have to onside kick. Expected onside kicks have a worse than 1 in 4 success rate (overall success is 26% but "unexpected" onsides kicks are at 62%). The worst case scenario after a TD is a failed onside kick, but then if the Vikings get a 3 and out, they have around 40 seconds to go around 45 yards. The best case scenario for going for a field goal is a recovered onside kick, which leaves the team needing to go 50 yards (albeit with a little more time). The best case scenario after a TD is a kickoff + 3 and out, then needing around 10 yards to get into field goal range. If you insist that it's impossible for the team to get a 3 and out, the best scenario is a recovered onside kick where the team then needs a mere 15 yards to move into field goal range.


As for the bolded, that's the point. The decision the team made (I'm assuming it's Frazier who makes this decision, but it could be Musgrave) wasn't made on what gives the best opportunity to win. He chose the one that keeps the game as close as possible because actually trying to win risks a larger margin of defeat. Furthermore, by actually trying to win the game, failure would be seen by fans as the coach's failure. By kicking the field goal, it's the "players' fault" when the onside kick fails (as happens almost every time) and the team loses. The same thing happens on fourth and short all the time. The coach will punt from the opponent's 40 yard line on 4th and 1, despite around a 70% success rate there and the fact that the punt will likely be a touchback and therefore an exchange of only 20 yards of field position for the opposing team. These decisions aren't made to improve the chance the team wins, they're made so the coach can best argue in post-season reviews that he should keep his job because "he kept it close."

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 10:02 AM
  #324
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 22,801
vCash: 500
It really doesn't matter when you have Ponder in the game. 9 points with under five minutes to go is impossible if you don't have a QB who can lead the team down the field.

I'd also argue that, due to Ponder's poor play, the right call was to go for the field goal. If you make the field goal and get a stop, you can hope for AP to break loose again. If you try and throw down the field for a TD, you risk Ponder turning over the ball again. Especially if it's the last minute of the game and he's going to start throwing up those floaters.

Jarick is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 10:03 AM
  #325
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
His WR's have nothing to do with his poor mechanics, lack of power, and bad decision making.
Ponder's deficiencies are made so clear only because of how awful his WR are. If a healthy Harvin had played this game, it's likely the Vikings would have won. Yes, they would have been winning despite Ponder, but the point is that Ponder is only a small part of the problem. But there's the decision making claim again. The only "bad decision" people seem able to lay on him from the last game is a contestable play that people would be praising if the throw had been accurate. He had a ton of awful throws, but wasn't making these bad decisions people keep ragging on. Rodgers made more bad decisions than Ponder did this game (interception on the trick play should have never ever ever been thrown and not taking the sack on another play risked losing 20+ yards [instead of around 5] and put Rodgers in a very very risky position where he was lucky not to be seriously injured).

squidz* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.