Does anybody else see how the coaching staff cost us this game?

[slanidrac16]

With the score 31-19 with !0:08 to play we elected to go for two pts. Why?
An extra point would have got the game 11 pts. One field goal, 1 td and a 2 pt conversion from a tie.
Onward.
The failed attempt left us 12 pt's behind, either 3 possessions with 2 fg's or 2 possesion with 2 td's.
Onward.
We got the ball back with 6:56 to play. Being down 31-19 we were now forced to go for a td where as if we had kicked the extra pt we could have settled for 3. That would allow us to kick a field goal and( assuming we make it) we would now be down by 8 pts. by a score of 31-23.
Onward.
The Vikings get the ball with 3:08 to play and we force a 3 and out and we get the ball back with 1:49 left to play needing 8 pts.
Onward.
We proceed to move down and scored with :58 left to play now making the score 31-29. We go for 2. If we make it, we're now tied. If we don't we attempt an onside kick, which we did successfully. Now being down 31-29 we would only be needing a fg to win. Instead our final drive ends on the Viking 36 yard line.

Call me crazy, but I don't see it any other way. This staff, especially Green are not very bright.

 

[Renz]

Hindsight's 20/20. Turnovers cost us this game.

 

[slanidrac16]

Hindsight's 20/20. Turnovers cost us this game.

Ah, my freind, but we are not talking about hindsight. This is looking back at a decision that was made with 10:08 left to play. At that point it's called foresight.

 

[sunsfan76]

This staff has not been very bright all year it all came as no surprise to me. I was telling my wife to watch that we would get close to winning it but the coaching would in the end cost us the game much like others this and past seasons. Denny Greens era here will hopefully be forgotten soon, this has been one of the worst seasons I can remember. And the talent on this team is much greater than years past but our inept coaching staff has found a way to make us a worse team...unbeleivable really!

 

[Scot1]

Slanidrac, I certainly don't want to defend the current coaching staff about anything, but I don't follow your reasoning. Down 31-19, we need 12 points to tie. Figuring on 2 more scoring drives, that can be 2-pt-conversion + 3 + 7, or 1-pt-kick + 3 + 8. Either way, we need a risky 2-point conversion, now or later. For me, it makes sense to do it now, so we know where we're at and can plan. (Not that our coaching staff would plan successfully)

So either going for 2 at 10:08 was slightly better call, or I'm missing something--which is not at all impossible.

 

[CtCardinals78]

I can believe it, DG is the Arizona Cardinals Ray Handley.

 

[Assface]

Slanidrac, I certainly don't want to defend the current coaching staff about anything, but I don't follow your reasoning. Down 31-19, we need 12 points to tie. Figuring on 2 more scoring drives, that can be 2-pt-conversion + 3 + 7, or 1-pt-kick + 3 + 8. Either way, we need a risky 2-point conversion, now or later. For me, it makes sense to do it now, so we know where we're at and can plan. (Not that our coaching staff would plan successfully)

So either going for 2 at 10:08 was slightly better call, or I'm missing something--which is not at all impossible.

Totally agree. We had to go for 2 at some point and better to do it early so you know what to plan for.

 

[SuperSpck]

In fact, I'd noticed a couple of adjustments that I wasn't used to seeing.

Both on D

1) after halftime the DB's stepped closer to the WR's.

2) the A gaps were wide open in the first half, they tightened that up a couple of times in the second half, but it reared it's ugly head in the fourth for a while.

The scheme today seemed to have one DE on an island and to be kind, it didn't work all that well. Neither did the 5 man front, which I do dig.
The 3 man front needs to go away.


Now...

I need to go over the game (I was there live) on my TIVO but I was thinking I was seeing a lot of Griff/Fransico playing S and some Adrian in the box at WS, which I've heard much clammoring for. Maybe it's wishful thinking.

Wilson's not very good in the slot.

In person I give this team some more credit than on TV. Aside from mostly rookie errors by the QB they looked fresh (considering just how often they passed).

Tighten up the D and eliminate an early James fumble and it's a different ball game.

Also*

Saw Clancy leave during the second half on a cart, any word?

 

[ajcardfan]

Going for two was far from off-the-wall. I believe the majority of coaches would've tried it at that point.

 

[HeavyB3]

Or we don't get the phantom crackback block and score on that drive or Rackers makes the field goal, we would have been able to try for a field goal at the end instead of a hail mary

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I thought we should've kicked the PAT. You usually get all the sure pints and go for two only when you have to.But the Cards didn't deserve to win this game anyway. I do think that DG doesn't really care if they win or not and he coaches like it. THe play that bothered me the most was not challenging Bergen's fumble. He didn't catch that ball and,if you're trying to win,that's a play you always challenge.

 

[PACardsFan]

Totally agree. We had to go for 2 at some point and better to do it early so you know what to plan for.

It has been proven time & again, that you NEVER go for two until you absolutely have to. I was screaming at the TV when we went for 2, absolutely STUPID. With 10 minutes to go, you NEVER, NEVER go for 2.

 

[ajcardfan]

It has been proven time & again, that you NEVER go for two until you absolutely have to. I was screaming at the TV when we went for 2, absolutely STUPID. With 10 minutes to go, you NEVER, NEVER go for 2.

He would've been second-guessed just as hard if he hadn't gone for two there.

 

[Russ Smith]

I had the same debate on the game thread, either way you have to get 2 to make it work, it's not more of a sure thing at the end of the game than it was then.

I honestly think the hindsight mistake was not kicking the FG instead of going on 4th down. If we get that and then the td it's 31-29, not 26, and now we just need a FG on the last drive. That's just as much hindsight of course since you don't expect to get 2 more possessions and scores with just about 3:30 to play, and that's why Green went for it.

I don't think in that case there's a clear cut right or wrong answer, it only becomes clear later when you know the outcome at the time I think a lot of NFL coaches would have gone for 2 and do so quite regularly.

 

[jmt]

So either going for 2 at 10:08 was slightly better call, or I'm missing something--which is not at all impossible.

It's not the right call - you have to extend the game. Being down 11 and not 12 means you can still kick a fg to go down 8 and keep yourself alive for a tie with one TD.

 

[BullheadCardFan]

Saw Clancy leave during the second half on a cart, any word?

Injury report
NT Kendrick Clancy (sprained ankle).

 

[Billy Flynt]

Totally agree. We had to go for 2 at some point and better to do it early so you know what to plan for.

I just didn't like the play call. Also, Matt has to remember to try to throw it to anybody - out of the endzone does us no good. Even if they pick it off, they play is dead.

 

[Pariah]

I thought going for two then was the right call, or at least, an acceptable call.

 

[Russ Smith]

I just didn't like the play call. Also, Matt has to remember to try to throw it to anybody - out of the endzone does us no good. Even if they pick it off, they play is dead.

Yeah that's the problem there, the play call and Matt throwing it away.

FWIW in my local(Bay area) paper today there's a blurb about Dennis Green going for 2 down 12 and then it says someone buy him a playstation please. Note, the same paper earlier this year ripped Mike Nolan for NOT going for 2 in a fairly similar situation.

There are times when it's an absolute yes or no, this was not one of them, if you get it, you don't need a 2 later, if you kick the PAT, you still need a 2 later and it's not a given you get it.

I can understand both sides of the argument my only issue is people saying it's proven or it's a fact etc that you should kick the PAT, it's a 50/50 argument.

 

[JeffGollin]

Perhaps the coaches may have cost us the game, but not for the decision on the extra point - and maybe not at all.

I was really disturbed by the ease by which Minnesota ran the ball - particularly on their first drive. It seemed to me that our LB's were nowhere near their appropriate gaps, so that Taylor would cut back through the hole untouched by human hands. Was this a matter of improper execution? Or did Clancy outsmart himself by stunting and blitzing his LB's so much that they were continually out of position. (Remember too, that the QB we were facing was not a rookie who figured to be rattled. Johnson's been around a long time and pretty good at sniffing out stunts and blitzes before the snap).

And I also have not been happy with the huge cushion Antrel Rolle tends to give any receiver he faces. Has he been instructed to play that way? Or is he just not playing the technique properly?

Scheme? Or poor execution? It's hard to tell. But if it was the scheme, then the coaches should be held accountable.

 

[Duckjake]

was really disturbed by the ease by which Minnesota ran the ball - particularly on their first drive. It seemed to me that our LB's were nowhere near their appropriate gaps, so that Taylor would cut back through the hole untouched by human hands. Was this a matter of improper execution? Or did Clancy outsmart himself by stunting and blitzing his LB's so much that they were continually out of position. (Remember too, that the QB we were facing was not a rookie who figured to be rattled. Johnson's been around a long time and pretty good at sniffing out stunts and blitzes before the snap).

It looked to me like the Vikings were getting Offensive linemen on our LBers on almost every play. No way our guys are going to win those battles.

 

[ajcardfan]

It looked to me like the Vikings were getting Offensive linemen on our LBers on almost every play. No way our guys are going to win those battles.

Our DTs had their worst game of the season yesterday. In fact, they were easily the worst part of the team yesterday IMO.

 

[JasonKGME]

With the score 31-19 with !0:08 to play we elected to go for two pts. Why?
An extra point would have got the game 11 pts. One field goal, 1 td and a 2 pt conversion from a tie.
Onward.
The failed attempt left us 12 pt's behind, either 3 possessions with 2 fg's or 2 possesion with 2 td's.
Onward.
We got the ball back with 6:56 to play. Being down 31-19 we were now forced to go for a td where as if we had kicked the extra pt we could have settled for 3. That would allow us to kick a field goal and( assuming we make it) we would now be down by 8 pts. by a score of 31-23.
Onward.
The Vikings get the ball with 3:08 to play and we force a 3 and out and we get the ball back with 1:49 left to play needing 8 pts.
Onward.
We proceed to move down and scored with :58 left to play now making the score 31-29. We go for 2. If we make it, we're now tied. If we don't we attempt an onside kick, which we did successfully. Now being down 31-29 we would only be needing a fg to win. Instead our final drive ends on the Viking 36 yard line.

Call me crazy, but I don't see it any other way. This staff, especially Green are not very bright.

You have to have a 2 point conversion at 10:08 left or when we were on the final TD drive. So question becomes which is better?

Option #1 - 10:08 score a TD, go for 2-point conversion miss it and know your down by 2 full TD's now, and have 10:08 in time to know how you have to play for those 2 TD's.

Option #2 - 10:08 score a TD, go for 2-point conversion make it and know you need a TD and FG to tie the game with 10:08 and again know how you have to play to get that TD/FG.

Option #3 - 10:08 score a TD, go for extra point obviously make it and know you need a TD w/2-point conversion and FG. Now do you play for a TD and a FG option? Lets say the game happens almost the exact same way as before except we score the extra point, so we end up with 4th and 13 at the Min 15 with 3:17 to go, we kick the field goal. So now down by a TD + 2 point conversion. questions now abound on how you play and where your at, do you kickoff and hope your defense stops them, go for the onside kick and since Minnesota knows the game is now alot closer with 3 minutes on the game do they do better on the onside coverage? And knowing the percentages of 2-point conversions anyways how much time do you really have to get the ball back to score that TD and 2-pointer? I mean lets assume we go ahead and kick the onsides then, do we take more time going down to score the TD and miss the 2-point then thinking all we need is the 1 score and then no time on the clock to try to get another score?

Conventional wisdom in the NFL states when you get into the 4th quarter you take the shot at the 2-points so you know exactly where you stand as opposed to having it hanging over your head. I was all for the 2-point attempt, just wish we had made it.

 

[traveler]

With the score 31-19 with !0:08 to play we elected to go for two pts. Why?
An extra point would have got the game 11 pts. One field goal, 1 td and a 2 pt conversion from a tie.
Onward.
The failed attempt left us 12 pt's behind, either 3 possessions with 2 fg's or 2 possesion with 2 td's.
Onward.
We got the ball back with 6:56 to play. Being down 31-19 we were now forced to go for a td where as if we had kicked the extra pt we could have settled for 3. That would allow us to kick a field goal and( assuming we make it) we would now be down by 8 pts. by a score of 31-23.
Onward.
The Vikings get the ball with 3:08 to play and we force a 3 and out and we get the ball back with 1:49 left to play needing 8 pts.
Onward.
We proceed to move down and scored with :58 left to play now making the score 31-29. We go for 2. If we make it, we're now tied. If we don't we attempt an onside kick, which we did successfully. Now being down 31-29 we would only be needing a fg to win. Instead our final drive ends on the Viking 36 yard line.

Call me crazy, but I don't see it any other way. This staff, especially Green are not very bright.

You are completely correct. This is an example of an out of touch staff.

 

[slanidrac16]

If you kick the extra point, you KNOW we are down 11 pts. A fg, atd and a 2 pt conversion. By NOT kicking the extra point makes it mandatory to go for 2 td's .
Down only 11 pts our next possesion would have meant that we had an option to kick a field goal to make it an 8 pt game instead of going for the td, failing and coming away with no pts which is exactly what happened. HAd we kicked the extra point we WOULD have kicked a fg with 3:08 left to play to make it an 8 pt game. AT the :58 mark we scored and would have THEN been forced to go for the 2 pts. Make it we're tied. Miss it we go onside which we happened to recover and would have only needed a FG to win.
Call me crazy, but with 10 minutes to play I would rather have my team in a 2 possession situation, with 1 of those possessions only needing to be a fg.
This is not hindsight on my part . I was screaming at the tv when we went for the 2 pts.