Around the NFL. Sunday Gameday

[Chandemonium]

8 hours ago, Aussie Joe said:

Do you get the logic now where a FG puts them 8 up rather than 7?

No, because if minny kicked Seattle likely would’ve played for the tie whether it was 7 points or 8. If they had gone for 2 earlier and made it, the field goal would’ve made it a 2 score game. Of course this is all moot because the vikes went for it and got stuffed, but I still think trying to go up by 6 was the right play on minny’s last TD.

[mannc]

18 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That was my feeling too. I know the maths probably disagrees, likelihood of getting 1 yard etc... but in my head if I go for it I am giving myself one way to win the game. I have to get it. If I kick the FG I am giving myself a chance to win the game by stopping the 2 pointer and even if I fail both the worst I have is OT. Maybe that is playing not to lose, I don't know but it just felt instantly like the wrong call to me.

 

 

If @Mr. WEO, @eball and myself are all in agreement (I reckon that happens pretty rarely) then I think this proves they shoulda kicked the FG

Actually, it is by going for it that you give yourself two ways to win: (1) make the first down—game over, (2) keep the Seahawks from driving 95 yds for a TD—game over.  I’d also be willing to bet that the odds of making the first down there aren’t much worse than missing the FG; the Vikings had been running it down their throats. 

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, mannc said:

Actually, it is by going for it that you give yourself two ways to win: (1) make the first down—game over, (2) keep the Seahawks from driving 95 yds for a TD—game over.  I’d also be willing to bet that the odds of making the first down there aren’t much worse than missing the FG; the Vikings had been running it down their throats. 

 

I don't think they were stopping the touchdown drive in response in either scenario. To me if Seattle got the ball back they were scoring. So the question was make them score once to win or make them score twice to tie.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

42 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That was my feeling too. I know the maths probably disagrees, likelihood of getting 1 yard etc... but in my head if I go for it I am giving myself one way to win the game. I have to get it. If I kick the FG I am giving myself a chance to win the game by stopping the 2 pointer and even if I fail both the worst I have is OT. Maybe that is playing not to lose, I don't know but it just felt instantly like the wrong call to me.

 

 

If @Mr. WEO, @eball and myself are all in agreement (I reckon that happens pretty rarely) then I think this proves they shoulda kicked the FG

it is a very interesting analytics decision. You are weighing chance to convert against chance to make FG and Seattle’s chance to score a TD and get the 2-point, AND chances of losing in OT.

 

hindsight is 20-20, but I think the smart play is to kick the FG and “play to lose.” As you said, It would have required Seattle to basically jump through three hoops to win— score TD, convert 2, and win in OT. 

 

in any event, it would be cool to sort of work out all the probabilities to see what the analytics would say in that precise situation. 

[mannc]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think they were stopping the touchdown drive in response in either scenario. To me if Seattle got the ball back they were scoring. So the question was make them score once to win or make them score twice to tie.

If you assume Seattle is going to score a TD when they get the ball back, then you simply have to go for it to end the game.  Otherwise, you’re counting on stopping the 2-point conversion or winning in overtime, both of which are far less likely than picking up 6 inches for the first.

5 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

it is a very interesting analytics decision. You are weighing chance to convert against chance to make FG and Seattle’s chance to score a TD and get the 2-point, AND chances of losing in OT.

 

hindsight is 20-20, but I think the smart play is to kick the FG and “play to lose.” As you said, It would have required Seattle to basically jump through three hoops to win— score TD, convert 2, and win in OT. 

 

in any event, it would be cool to sort of work out all the probabilities to see what the analytics would say in that precise situation. 

I’m pretty sure analytics says you go for it there, but it’s probably a close call.

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

If you assume Seattle is going to score a TD when they get the ball back, then you simply have to go for it to end the game.  Otherwise, you’re counting on stopping the 2-point conversion or winning in overtime, both of which are far less likely than picking up 6 inches for the first.

 

I get it the maths says the most likely way of winning is picking up 6 inches. I don't care. I want to give myself the three hoops over the one. I appreciate the maths would be against me but football is played with humans not numbers. My gut instantly said "wrong call" before I even knew what play they were running.

[zow2]

My takeaways from yesterday are that

 

- Alex Smith is one tough MoFo.  He's not good anymore but just being on the field was fantastic to see.

 

- The Bills win over Miami and Las Vegas look pretty darn good.  People just assume both those teams are blah, but those were decent wins.  and the Rams was a very good win.  KC would be a GREAT win if we can pull it off.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

I’m pretty sure analytics says you go for it there, but it’s probably a close call.

was just reading this on ESPN this morning:

 

According to ESPN’s win-probability model, Zimmer’s decision to go for it on fourth-and-1 at the two-minute warning was a wash. The Vikings had a 98% chance to win by going for it and would have had a 97.8% chance to win had they elected to attempt a field goal.

 

(So, we are probably all debating over nothing— except maybe the fact that it wasn’t a bad decision to go for it). 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

was just reading this on ESPN this morning:

 

According to ESPN’s win-probability model, Zimmer’s decision to go for it on fourth-and-1 at the two-minute warning was a wash. The Vikings had a 98% chance to win by going for it and would have had a 97.8% chance to win had they elected to attempt a field goal.

 

(So, we are probably all debating over nothing— except maybe the fact that it wasn’t a bad decision to go for it). 

 

Interesting. Thanks.

[mannc]

21 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

was just reading this on ESPN this morning:

 

According to ESPN’s win-probability model, Zimmer’s decision to go for it on fourth-and-1 at the two-minute warning was a wash. The Vikings had a 98% chance to win by going for it and would have had a 97.8% chance to win had they elected to attempt a field goal.

 

(So, we are probably all debating over nothing— except maybe the fact that it wasn’t a bad decision to go for it). 

A poster up thread said that either decision by Zimmer would have been proper, and that seems to be the right way to look at it.
 

Looked at another way, their odds of losing would have increased by 10 percent if they had kicked the FG.

Edited October 12, 2020 by mannc

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That was my feeling too. I know the maths probably disagrees, likelihood of getting 1 yard etc... but in my head if I go for it I am giving myself one way to win the game. I have to get it. If I kick the FG I am giving myself a chance to win the game by stopping the 2 pointer and even if I fail both the worst I have is OT. Maybe that is playing not to lose, I don't know but it just felt instantly like the wrong call to me.

 

 

If @Mr. WEO, @eball and myself are all in agreement (I reckon that happens pretty rarely) then I think this proves they shoulda kicked the FG

 

I don't believe it is.  It's building an forbidding lead that will likely win the game, at worst allow a tie in regulation. 

 

It was an unnecessary risk  Kick it, they can at most tie you with 8 points, miss it they beat you with 7.  It wasted their best effort so far, I think.  Just dumb.

[wjag]

I know a lot is being made about the 4th and inches, but the reality is Minnesota has Seattle down to 4th down TWICE on that final drive and allowed a first down and then a TD.  Stop the first one and the decision looks a whole lot better.  

[Mr. WEO]

34 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

was just reading this on ESPN this morning:

 

According to ESPN’s win-probability model, Zimmer’s decision to go for it on fourth-and-1 at the two-minute warning was a wash. The Vikings had a 98% chance to win by going for it and would have had a 97.8% chance to win had they elected to attempt a field goal.

 

(So, we are probably all debating over nothing— except maybe the fact that it wasn’t a bad decision to go for it). 

 

98% chance to get the first down?  98% of scoring a TD on 4th down?  98% to subsequently score a TD after 1st down? 98% chance if they go up by 8 they would stop Seattle from scoring 8 in under 2 minutes with?

 

 

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

98% chance to get the first down?  98% of scoring a TD on 4th down?  98% to subsequently score a TD after 1st down? 98% chance if they go up by 8 they would stop Seattle from scoring 8 in under 2 minutes with?

 

 

I was going to say something similar. These stats stop short. I may be a total math dunce— but are the stats different to figure out the odds of Seattle winning if minn is up by 8 at that point? 

[bobobonators]

No one in their right mind watching that game yesterday felt Russel Wilson had a 2% chance of winning that game when they got the ball back. Thats where all these analytic numbers fall short. 
 

Maybe the Jets wouldve had a 2% chance of winning. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by bobobonators

[mannc]

2 minutes ago, bobobonators said:

No one in their right mind watching that game yesterday felt Russel Wilson had a 2% chance of winning that game when they got the ball back. Thats where all these analytic numbers fall short. 
 

Maybe the Jets wouldve had a 2% chance of winning. 

That not what the analytics said.  Perfect example of a “straw man” argument.

[bobobonators]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

That not what the analytics said.  Perfect example of a “straw man” argument.

My apologies. I was going by the post a few above mine that referenced that number. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

“ESPN’s win probability model”; perhaps not analytics per se. 

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That was my feeling too. I know the maths probably disagrees, likelihood of getting 1 yard etc... but in my head if I go for it I am giving myself one way to win the game. I have to get it. If I kick the FG I am giving myself a chance to win the game by stopping the 2 pointer and even if I fail both the worst I have is OT. Maybe that is playing not to lose, I don't know but it just felt instantly like the wrong call to me.

 

 

If @Mr. WEO, @eball and myself are all in agreement (I reckon that happens pretty rarely) then I think this proves they shoulda kicked the FG

 

I totally agree and will take it a step further.  What was the point of kicking the extra point on the previous drive - if not to give yourself this exact scenario to go up by 8.  
 

The earlier TD - the Vikings had a choice.  Up 4 do you go for 2 or 1.  1 puts you in a position to kick a field goal and go up by 8 and you are playing for at worst a tie. 
 

Going for 2 puts you either up by 6 or based upon earlier attempts - most likely up by 4.  If 6 - the FG wins.  If 4 - you have still have a shot at a loss.

 

For me the scenarios unfold as:

Up by 4 - failed 2 point - I am going for it like The Vikings did because the Seahawks have a history of scoring and not being afraid to go for 2.  I do not want them to have the ball and 7 points is not safe.

 

Up by 5 - kicked the XP - this is the scenario that played out and you kick the FG to go up by 8 - you ensure you can’t lose in regulation and you force Seattle to score and get the 2.  I am also playing more aggressive because if Seattle goes over the top and scores quickly - I may still have a shot to get the ball back with worse case being a tie and OT.

 

Up by 6 - converted the 2 pt - you again kick and go up by 2 scores.
 

The issue I have is the Vikings played middle ball earlier with the XP to create the tie scenario and then didn’t follow the same thought process later on and it cost them the game.  If you played for 1 earlier - you were playing for a FG and 8 points later on.

 

 

[Fan in Chicago]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I get it the maths says the most likely way of winning is picking up 6 inches. I don't care. I want to give myself the three hoops over the one. I appreciate the maths would be against me but football is played with humans not numbers. My gut instantly said "wrong call" before I even knew what play they were running.

Yep,  I agree with this. As you pointed out, Seattle would have had to score twice. Minny took the high risk-high reward option and paid for it. 

[Royale with Cheese]

So was Jimmy G legitimately benched or pulled because of his injury?