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.
But the point is he doesn't need to lead the team down the field. Just needs 24 yards from where he's standing plus maybe 10-15 to get into Walsh's field goal range. If you're relying on an onside kick, you've got two time outs and the 2 minute warning (it was 2:01 remaining) so you can still put the ball in AP's hands. Ponder's not going to march it 50+ yards down the field, but if you play to your team's strengths, he doesn't have to.
Fine, his decision making is solid, he just has no arm, bad footwork, and can't make his reads quick enough. You win. Happy?
Bolded for truth. Ponder is just a step to slow. Maybe its a confidence thing but i don't know how you go into next season with him as your starting QB. At the very least they need to go get a vet to put pressure on him and provide a 'leadership' role. Probably wouldn't hurt to draft a QB in the later rounds to put pressure on him too.
He also needs to start throwing the ball with some authority. These lame duck passes are just killing the offense.
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."
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.
Fine, his decision making is solid, he just has no arm, bad footwork, and can't make his reads quick enough. You win. Happy?
foot work is fine
arm does seem a bit weak
decision making is a toss up atm
making his reads is a 3 piece pie, 1: QB (duh) 2: WR 3: OL, if you have `1.5 sec to make a read, your pocket is collapsing and your WR aren't open what do you do? (clone peterson is the answer)
i'm not saying ponder is elite, he's not but he's better then what people here say, if you have ~1.5 sec and no one is open while at the same time your pocked is gone its going to lead to bad plays.
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.
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.
no you don't get it, even if vikes get the 1st down they are fighting the clock, how much time do you think would be taken for the vikings to go for that TD? either they use their Time outs or they let the clock run down. In either case they are going to have to on side kick and hope for it.
you seem to think that going for it is going to be an instant score, sure you have 2 time outs and 2 min warning but plays take time and time was not on their side. Kicking a FG would have taken them to the 2 min warnning, then following a successful on side kick they would have 1min 50 ish seconds to go 50 yards and score a TD.
but no going for a TD would have left the vikings plenty of time to kick it to the packers am i rite? Vikes defense was worn out and on multiple 3rd downs int he 2nd half let the packers get the 1st down, there was very little chance that you could kick it off to the packers and have anything other then game be over.
in either case Vikings could not give the ball back to the packers, saying that packers wouldn't be able to get 10 yards with a top 3 QB in the NFL is like saying Zidlicky is a top 2 dman.... Vikings could in no way kick the ball to the packers and expect to win.
but no cling on to yours go for it on the 4th down (risk a Turn over and game over, and even if you convert eat up time or your TO) then you have to onside kick anyway and have even less time to score a FG.
you might hate it or what ever but that was the right call to go for the filed goal, in a real world the coach cannot kick it back to the packers and expect to get the ball back, because your tired D can hold one of the best offensive weapons from getting 10 yards in a crucial division game.....
fyi 27/35 for 288 yards and 1td 1 int for Rodgers, he would get 10 yards in his sleep.
Last edited by forthewild: 12-03-2012 at 04:01 PM.
My memory might be hazy but.... I thought Webb was pretty impressive in the chances that he's got. Yeah he's rough, but so is Ponder. Both seemed like "project" QB's. And hell, say neither of them can throw, at least Webb can run.
The problem I have with Webb is that I get all nervous when he drops back to pass. And not when he runs. Sometimes his handoffs make me wince. Shouldn't be that way with a QB.
The problem I have with Webb is that I get all nervous when he drops back to pass. And not when he runs. Sometimes his handoffs make me wince. Shouldn't be that way with a QB.
The problem I have with Webb is that I get all nervous when he drops back to pass. And not when he runs. Sometimes his handoffs make me wince. Shouldn't be that way with a QB.
in all honesty tho when Webb played it was his rookie year and he was the 6th round pick who was supposed to be a WR and not a QB.
I still think Ponder can be a solid QB for this team, he is more nervous then he was at start but that could be his O line being leaky and his WR not being able to get open.
