WTF were you thinking

[J. Kapp 11]

Of course there are options. And of course we'll second-guess any choice that fails. The key for me is what the coach's mindset is.

I remember a game early in Mike Tice's tenure where the Vikings had just scored to pull within a point with only seconds to play. A normal extra point would have forced overtime, but Tice took the huge gamble of going for two. The Vikings converted and won.

Obviously Tice looked like a genius because they were successful. But it was more than that. Sink or swim, there was no doubt he was diving in.

Can any of us tell what Frazier and his staff were thinking Sunday against the Bears? I sure couldn't.

For me, the correct mindset, especially when you're ahead late on the road, is to step on the opponent's neck and break it. Put them away. Leave no doubt.

Frazier did not look like be was doing that. Not to me, at least. It appeared to be a mindset of hoping you don't lose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Crax]

Of course there are options. And of course we'll second-guess any choice that fails. The key for me is what the coach's mindset is.

I remember a game early in Mike Tice's tenure where the Vikings had just scored to pull within a point with only seconds to play. A normal extra point would have forced overtime, but Tice took the huge gamble of going for two. The Vikings converted and won.

Obviously Tice looked like a genius because they were successful. But it was more than that. Sink or swim, there was no doubt he was diving in.

Exactly. I won't complain if a coach is playing for the win. I would have been fine seeing them go for it on 4th down there. Play to win the game.

[Mothman]

I'd prefer just going for the TD or going for the clock wasting. The vikings ended up with neither.

I guess I just don't see how they weren't going for the touchdown. AD has 78 career rushing TDs. He's perfectly capable of scoring from 4 yards out or even from 7 yards out. We've all seen him do it and if I recall correctly, his second TD last week came on a 4 yard run. The Vikes didn't take a knee to waste clock on that last 3rd down against the Bears. They handed the ball to a player who has 78 career rushing TDs.

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.

That's probably because it was stopped. If Peterson had scored or come within inches of the goal line, would it have seemed more like an attempt to score a TD? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just attempting to point out how much perception of the play after the fact, with the outcome in mind, impacts the way it's viewed.

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?

It is if it works. My strategy would have been to try the play fake and throw to the endzone on first down. If that failed, I'd probably give it to Peterson on second down and from there, it would depend on the remaining yardage to the endzone. I wouldn't have worried about the clock one way or the other, just the TD.

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

LOL! Touché.

[jackal]

I will give Floyd some leeway he is a rookie and sometimes they have to learn leverage
hand movements, and assignments to make a difference in the NFL ..

We will see how he progresses this season

[Mothman]

Of course there are options. And of course we'll second-guess any choice that fails. The key for me is what the coach's mindset is.

I remember a game early in Mike Tice's tenure where the Vikings had just scored to pull within a point with only seconds to play. A normal extra point would have forced overtime, but Tice took the huge gamble of going for two. The Vikings converted and won.

Obviously Tice looked like a genius because they were successful. But it was more than that. Sink or swim, there was no doubt he was diving in.

Can any of us tell what Frazier and his staff were thinking Sunday against the Bears? I sure couldn't.

I couldn't either. We can only guess.

For me, the correct mindset, especially when you're ahead late on the road, is to step on the opponent's neck and break it. Put them away. Leave no doubt.

Frazier did not look like be was doing that. Not to me, at least. It appeared to be a mindset of hoping you don't lose.

But why did it appear that way? I think it's simply because the plays they called failed. Think about it: is there any reason to believe they called that pass to Rudolph with an objective other than scoring a TD to seal the game? As I just pointed out to Crax, Peterson has 78 career rushing TDs and he just scored from 4 yards out a week ago. Was Frazier playing not to lose on third down or putting the ball into the hands of his best player and trying to win?

When Tice went for the 2 point conversion in the game game you mentioned (by the way, it was @NO in Tice's first season as head coach, I remember it well!), he also showed faith in his o-line and his offense, belief that they could get the job done. Did Frazier do any less by trusting AD and company on third down?

You can certainly argue that by kicking the FG Frazier settled instead of attempting to "step on the opponent's neck and break it". I think that's absolutely valid. However, I also think there's validity in extending the lead from one FG to two and forcing the Bears to drive for a TD instead of leaving them in position to send the game to OT with a FG.

[Crax]

As I just pointed out to Crax, Peterson has 78 career rushing TDs and he just scored from 4 yards out a week ago.

That was in the 2nd quarter when they were already ahead with loads of time left. It was also 1st down. You still have multiple downs after if that doesn't go in. That isn't even really in the same ballpark.

[Mothman]

That was in the 2nd quarter when they were already ahead with loads of time left. It was also 1st down. You still have multiple downs after if that doesn't go in. That isn't even really in the same ballpark.

Why? It's a 4 yard TD run. Is that inherently easier in the second quarter? is it harder to run for a 4 yard TD on third down than on first down?

Throw that particular TD out if you'd like. The point is that we all know Adrian Peterson is perfectly capable of scoring a TD from 4 yards out. We've all seen him do it, more than once. Why not there, on 3rd down in Chicago?

[Crax]

Why? It's a 4 yard TD run. Is that inherently easier in the second quarter? is it harder to run for a 4 yard TD on third down than on first down?

Are you seriously arguing that there is no difference between a run play on 1st down and a run play on 3rd down? Having 3 downs to get 4 yards is a lot different than a single down to get all 4 in the compressed space at the goal line.

The point is that we all know Adrian Peterson is perfectly capable of scoring a TD from 4 yards out. We've all seen him do it, more than once. Why not there, on 3rd down in Chicago?

Using that logic, Adrian Peterson is also perfectly capable of running over 10 yards on a single carry. If it was 3rd and 10 and you really needed a first down, would you be calling a run play?

I saw a stat today that Peterson so far is has ran for negative yards outside the tackles and 200 yards inside. I can't recall that 3rd down run exactly. Only thing I see online is it was to the left. Do you recall if it was outside or inside?

[Mothman]

Are you seriously arguing that there is no difference between a run play on 1st down and a run play on 3rd down?

The basic circumstances are obviously different because of the down but I thought you implied a significant difference. What is it? Is it inherently more difficult to run for a 4 yard TD on third down and if so, why?

Using that logic, Adrian Peterson is also perfectly capable of running over 20 yards on a single carry. If it was 3rd and 20 and you really needed a first down, would you be calling a run play?

No, but that's a straw man argument. 3rd and 20 is obviously a significantly different situation than 3rd and 4. We're not talking about 3rd and 20, we're talking about 3rd and 4.

[Crax]

The basic circumstances are obviously different because of the down but I thought you implied a significant difference. What is it? Is it inherently more difficult to run for a 4 yard TD on third down and if so, why?
No, but that's a straw man argument. 3rd and 20 is obviously a significantly different situation than 3rd and 4. We're not talking about 3rd and 20, we're talking about 3rd and 4.

3rd and 4 is significantly different than 1st and 4 and you know it.

[dead_poet]

3rd and 4 is significantly different than 1st and 4 and you know it.

Is it? With a running back that has a career average of 5 yards/carry? Just asking.

[Crax]

Is it? With a running back that has a career average of 5 yards/carry? Just asking.

You tell me. Is it harder to try and get 4 yards in a single play or 4 yards in 3 plays? He averaged less than 4 yards a carry against the bears.

[dead_poet]

You tell me. Is it harder to try and get 4 yards in a single play or 4 yards in 3 plays?

Well, this is the Vikings. It's pretty hard all of the time.

[Crax]

Well, this is the Vikings. It's pretty hard all of the time.

You don't have to go there

[Mothman]

3rd and 4 is significantly different than 1st and 4 and you know it.

Why?

I really don't know what difference you're talking about. I honestly don't see it beyond the obvious differences. The down is different so an unsuccessful play on 1st and 4 leaves 2-3 more downs and an unsuccessful play on 3rd and 4 leaves 4th down. I see that difference. What I don't see is why a 1st and 4 run is somehow inherently easier than a 3rd and 4 run (in goal line situations). For all I know there may be stats to back that up but what I want to know is why the 3rd and 4 run supposedly has less chance of success. If I'm not mistaken, that's what you're implying, correct?

The yards to go are the same in both instances and it seems to me that in both situations, it really just comes down to which team executes best. What am I missing? I'm not trying to be difficult or sarcastic. I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.