***2024 Minnesota Vikings***

What are you challenging? And why do the tv guys not understand a basic rule. He catches it, isn’t touched and his momentum carries him short of the line. That’s a Zim level dumbass challenge.
Couple weird coaching decisions this game
 
Why would you call that there? Run it up the middle, don't get it, Detroit takes their last timeout. Run it again, don't get it you take the clock down to like 15 seconds.... That was really stupid
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CloniesForLife
Why would you call that there? Run it up the middle, don't get it, Detroit takes their last timeout. Run it again, don't get it you take the clock down to like 15 seconds.... That was really stupid
Yeah just run it on first down and you either get a TD or make them burn a timeout. Such an obvious choice
 
Bad play call or not, still have to block, and hang on to the football.
You’re running a compacted box at the 2. There will be tons of pressure and disruption. In fact they are counting to run that dumbass play. It’s one thing if it was 3rd down.

Just a terrible call and decision. Minimum 3 pt swing, could’ve been a 10 point swing. It wasn’t one of those “great call if it works.” Just 100% terrible call for the situation.
 
As someone who's cheering for the Lions... why the hell are you going for 2 there?

These coaching decisions don't make any sense at all.
 
Why go for 2?

As someone who's cheering for the Lions... why the hell are you going for 2 there?

These coaching decisions don't make any sense at all.

Just coming to ask that.

What the **** is O'Connell doing today.
It's been a pretty popular decision analytics wise the last couple years, but usually don't see it til the 4th quarter. The thinking is you statistically you have roughly 50/50 shot of converting a 2 point attempt. If you're down 14 and score to get it to 8, go for 2 to cut it to 6 so that if you score again, you only need to kick the XP to go ahead. If you don't get it, obviously you have to get it the second time to tie it up. Basically it's playing to win instead of playing to tie.

 
  • Informative
Reactions: CloniesForLife
It's been a pretty popular decision analytics wise the last couple years, but usually don't see it til the 4th quarter. The thinking is you statistically you have roughly 50/50 shot of converting a 2 point attempt. If you're down 14 and score to get it to 8, go for 2 to cut it to 6 so that if you score again, you only need to kick the XP to go ahead. If you don't get it, obviously you have to get it the second time to tie it up. Basically it's playing to win instead of playing to tie.


From a pure analytics standpoint, the numbers may say it's a good idea. But what those analytics don't account for is stopping a 2-point conversion can reignite a defense that just allowed a TD, just like it's done for the Lions' defense. I know there's still 10 minutes left in the 4th, but the Vikings haven't sniffed the end zone since.

Sometimes convention is in place for a reason and analytics exist just to be a contrarian. To me going for "weird" 2-pt conversions is the latter.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron