WTF were you thinking

[PurpleKoolaid]

I did notice the players slipping on the field and saw some changing out on the sidelines..

A good team would have that all set up ahead of time and have the players test their equipment
in warm up i thought ..

Did Erin Henderson play this week I didn't see him make a single tackle ..

He played...unfortunately. I think Bishop was in for 2 plays. Why Mitchell and Erin are playing and Bishop isn't makes me wonder even more about our coaches.

[Eli]

Did Erin Henderson play this week I didn't see him make a single tackle ..

Five tackles, according to a stat sheet that I just looked at.

How about Sharrif Floyd? Credited with one assist. Did he do anything else? QB pressure, batted balls, step on anyone's ankle?

[Mothman]

That whole series was stupid and cowardly. They didn't have the BALLS to stick with a winning strategy. 4 run plays or 4 passes is a winner's strategy there for different reasons but run pass run field goal punt they get it on the 40 is a losing strategy.

I think their strategy was probably to score a TD. They just didn't get it done. I hardly think it's cowardly to try throwing a TD pass to Rudolph on second down. Maybe they were hoping the Bears would think like you (and some other fans) that a run on first down would mean a run on second down and they thought they could catch them off guard. As I said above, there's no way for a coach in that situation to avoid criticism and a flood of second-guessing unless the team actually scores a TD. Any other strategy will be questioned and criticized.

I did think squib kicking the ball after the FG and conceding good field position to the Bears was a questionable strategy but I realize that's subject to the same second-guessing as the previous series of plays. I know Hester was killing them on returns but I would have either kicked it away from him or just had Walsh kick it as hard as he could and told the special teams unit to make damn sure they didn't allow another big return. If Hester had made a big return, at least the Bears would have earned the good field position instead of the Vikes handing it to them. If he'd returned it for a TD... well, the Vikes would have had time on the clock to engineer their own game-winning drive.

It's all very easy to criticize in hindsight but in the end, the only decisions in those crucial late game situations that don't get criticized and second-guessed are the ones that work.

[CalVike]

It's all very easy to criticize in hindsight but in the end, the only decisions in those crucial late game situations that don't get criticized and second-guessed are the ones that work.

I agree with you. I think the more questionable call was running on 2nd and 23 on the previous drive when the game was tied that also ended in FG. It is very easy to second guess. But I also agree with you that this was a fun game to watch, now that I watched it on NFL game rewind condensed, I love that feature (other than the parts of the broadcast that cut out altogether and were not available on game rewind, very strange to have that happen).

[mansquatch]

I agree with going for it on 4th down. What I don't get is why they passed on 2nd down. If they were worried about the clock, then run it 3 times and then pass on 4th down since the clock stops on a change of possession.

Been discussed though...

[Mothman]

I agree with going for it on 4th down. What I don't get is why they passed on 2nd down.

I don't think it's a mystery. They called a play they thought would work for a TD. If not for an excellent job by Anderson, it probably would have worked.

If they were worried about the clock, then run it 3 times and then pass on 4th down since the clock stops on a change of possession.

I think they were probably more concerned with scoring than with the clock. In all likelihood, they were trying to go against the very tendencies people are reinforcing in this thread. They faked a run, thinking they could catch Chicago thinking "run" and tried to catch the Bears off guard. if it had worked, I doubt anybody would have second-guessed the call or wondered why they passed at all.

[J. Kapp 11]

Not to beat a dead horse, but my take also was that the Vikings played ultra-conservatively on their last drive. One pass play with exactly one receiver in the pattern is not exactly aggressive. Yes, the Bears' linebacker covered it well. But that was the only attempt to do anything but hope Adrian would somehow move the pile I to the end zone.

What is the downside to throwing on third down? A stopped clock? The lead still would have been six points, and the Bears still would have needed a touchdown. Who know? We might have actually had more time left on the clock if/when the Bears scored.

I know there are arguments on both sides. But it really reeked of playing not to lose, or at least of hoping your rather porous defense could get a stop. I'm not ready to fire the coaching staff over it, but I do disagree with the strategy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Crax]

I know there are arguments on both sides. But it really reeked of playing not to lose, or at least of hoping your rather porous defense could get a stop. I'm not ready to fire the coaching staff over it, but I do disagree with the strategy.

Completely agree. If there's over 3 minutes left and you have 1st and goal, you shouldn't even be worrying about the clock. Chicago completely screwed up the 2 minute warning and still had plenty of time.

[Mothman]

Completely agree. If there's over 3 minutes left and you have 1st and goal, you shouldn't even be worrying about the clock. Chicago completely screwed up the 2 minute warning and still had plenty of time.

I think it's fair to question if they were running Peterson because they were worried about the clock or if they were running him because they score a lot of TDs that way. It did seem like a conservative call on third down.

[mansquatch]

Moth my objection to that play call is based in the fact they played the clock game on 3rd down. That was stupid IMO. If you want to burn their TO, then run it all three downs and burn them.

Regardless, the FG was the more agregious call IMO. If they had planned to do the squib kick to Hester, then why go for 3 since you are conceding the filed position battle? That is the biggest blunder. Logic would seem to indicate that pinning them on the 4yd line would be hte better tactic even if you come away with zero points. Obviously that has been beaten, but they are not above the criticism IMO. That is the WTF moment for me.

[Crax]

I think it's fair to question if they were running Peterson because they were worried about the clock or if they were running him because they score a lot of TDs that way. It did seem like a conservative call on third down.

It just felt like they were more worried about running the clock than scoring on that last set of downs. I could go along with Mondry's strategy as well. Do one or the other. They seemed to end up doing a half assed job of both.

[mosscarter]

they ran peterson because we have a high school qb. allow me to ask, what good will 6-10 or 7-9 do us when we have no franchise qb? we need draft position, we are easily the worst team in our division a win here or there won't do us much good long term.

[Mothman]

Moth my objection to that play call is based in the fact they played the clock game on 3rd down. That was stupid IMO. If you want to burn their TO, then run it all three downs and burn them.

Well, as I said above, I think it's fair to ask if they ran Peterson to "play the clock game" or because they thought he gave them a good chance to score. Like the previous play, it arguably goes against what the Bears might have expected on that down.

Regardless, the FG was the more agregious call IMO. If they had planned to do the squib kick to Hester, then why go for 3 since you are conceding the filed position battle? That is the biggest blunder. Logic would seem to indicate that pinning them on the 4yd line would be hte better tactic even if you come away with zero points. Obviously that has been beaten, but they are not above the criticism IMO. That is the WTF moment for me.

That doesn't make sense to me.

If they run on 4th down and don't score, they might pin the Bears at the 4 yard line but the Bears have to drive 5-10 yards less to get into FG range and send it to OT than they did after the squib kick. I understand why Frazier would opt for the 2 score lead in that situation but I also understand why a coach might go for it and try to put the game out of reach on 4th down. I guess I just don't see a WTF moment in the whole series. I think there were lots of options, many of which could have worked. The wrong choice is the one that fails but at the time the coach makes it, he has no way of knowing it's the wrong choice. After the fact, we do. I would have been more aggressive on the first 3 downs but I still would have kicked the FG on 4th down.

Suppose the Vikes had run the ball on 4th down, failed to gain anything, given the ball to Chicago at the 4, and then let them march into FG range as easily as they ended up letting them score that final TD. Then suppose the Bears kick the FG and go on to win in OT. Do you think anybody would be second guessing the choice to pass on an almost certain 3 points in that scenario?

Let's face it: the right call is the one that wins the game. Anything else is going to be second-guessed.

[Mothman]

It just felt like they were more worried about running the clock than scoring on that last set of downs. I could go along with Mondry's strategy as well. Do one or the other. They seemed to end up doing a half assed job of both.

But I think it only seems that way because they failed.

If Peterson takes that last carry into the endzone, are we questioning the call now? No way. We've seen him run it in from 4 yards out too many times. Nobody would even think twice about it. They'd just rejoice in the win.

Heck, I doubt we'd even be talking about it if the defense had just done their job on that final Bears drive.

[Crax]

If Peterson takes that last carry into the endzone, are we questioning the call now? No way. We've seen him run it in from 4 yards out too many times. Nobody would even think twice about it. They'd just rejoice in the win.

I'd prefer just going for the TD or going for the clock wasting. The vikings ended up with neither. I felt it was already likely the Bears had a great chance to score a TD with over 2 minutes left. Ignoring whether they scored or not, what do YOU feel is the correct strategy in this situation? You say that maybe that run by Peterson was trying for the score on 3rd down, but it didn't really seem that way to me.

It's first and goal from the 6 with 3:33 left in the game. What strategy do you employ? If you pass on 2nd down, you aren't running the clock correctly. If you're going for the TD, is running on 3rd and 4 really the right call?

Heck, I doubt we'd even be talking about it if the defense had just done their job on that final Bears drive.

Well, that seems even less likely than hoping for the offense to get a TD there at 1st and goal from the 6.