Should The Vinkings Have Punted?

[pbmax]

They were on their own 36 yard line with 3 TOs and 2:37 to play.

I thought they were kidding themselves, but Advanced NFL Stats says it was nearly a wash.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/10/should-vikings-have-punted.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya, a punt is the right call. you can't analyse just with stats, you have to look at how offense and defense are playing in particular game.

[pbmax]

ya, a punt is the right call. you can't analyse just with stats, you have to look at how offense and defense are playing in particular game.

If you are right, then a punt is nuts, so to speak. Packers offense offers much more resistance to Viking win than the D during this game.

[Upnorth]

I would have went for it. Who do you fear, pack o or pack d? Glad they punted!

[Harlan Huckleby]

The question is, do they have a better chance of getting 10 yards, or holding the packer offense to under 5 plays.

In my gut, going on defense sounds better, but maybe you are right.

[Joemailman]

Probably the right call. Up until that drive, the Packers were 1-7 on 3rd down. They probably figured they could stop the run and force the Packers into a 3rd down situation. They just couldn't stop Starks when they needed to.

[CaliforniaCheez]

NEVER, EVER, UNDERESTIMATE THE viklings CAPACITY TO SCREW UP.

[Gunakor]

4th and 10 is a low probability scenario. The Vikings defense didn't perform terrible up to that point, so with 3 TO's left I think the right call was made. They knew we were going to run, which puts thier defensive strength against our offensive weakness. The alternative was to put the ball in a rookie's hands on 4th and 10 on their own side of the field with the game on the line. And Ponder wasn't all that great today leading up to that punt in the first place. Punting was the right decision IMO.

[woodbuck27]

They were on their own 36 yard line with 3 TOs and 2:37 to play.

I thought they were kidding themselves, but Advanced NFL Stats says it was nearly a wash.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/10/should-vikings-have-punted.html

GB 33 - MIN 27 Final ... too close for comfort.

NO 62 - INDY 7 Final .... The SAINTS ran up 62 POINTS I got that prediction right. That they would score the most points this week but 62 Points. Unreal !!!

[woodbuck27]

GB 33 - MIN 27 Final ... too close for comfort.

NO 62 - INDY 7 Final .... The SAINTS ran up 62 POINTS I got that prediction right. That they would score the most points this week but 62 Points. Unreal !!!

** GB 33 - MIN 27 Final

** That six point margin of win puts us statistically at 2 points under an average seven (7) point win, for OUR 7-0 2011 season start.

GO PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

The question is, do they have a better chance of getting 10 yards, or holding the packer offense to under 5 plays.

In my gut, going on defense sounds better, but maybe you are right.

Harlan you answered the question in an earlier post (this thread). You do not as that gae was going punt the ball to the Green Bay Packers Offense with Aaron Rodgers looking for his 7th win this season. You take the shot. All the book say PUNT but not in that case. The Packers seem much better at clock control. What if they had a consistent running game. Just how great would OUR Packers be^ We can <ONL" imagine as that never seemed a high priority since TT tok control. He wants still to showcase AR it seems to me.

W need a fricken' running game to spare our defense. If we don't get that we are not going to repeat. E need to protect AR and we need to run the ball to help out there.









t get that we are not going to repeat folks.

[hoosier]

Agree with Gunakor, 4th and 10 is tough to pick up. I wonder how much the psychology of starting a rookie QB in his first game factored into that decision. It's not just that by going for it they would be putting Ponder in an especially difficult situation, it's that if you fail you would rather that it be on the defense and not on the rookie QB, who until that point had acquitted himself fairly well.

[bobblehead]

As I said to my friends as it occurred. The fact that I was desperately hoping they punt tells me that going for it is the right call. I wanted our offense to have the ball with game on the line, only needing to burn clock to end it. I didn't want out D to have to make yet another stop.

[mmmdk]

Agree with Gunakor, 4th and 10 is tough to pick up. I wonder how much the psychology of starting a rookie QB in his first game factored into that decision. It's not just that by going for it they would be putting Ponder in an especially difficult situation, it's that if you fail you would rather that it be on the defense and not on the rookie QB, who until that point had acquitted himself fairly well.

Yup, punt was right call. Besides, Packers offense was in a limbo. Thank you Starks & Sitton.

[Cheesehead Craig]

The Packers had -2 yds rushing in the 4th Q up to that last drive. The Vikes made the right call but it simply blew up in their faces.

[mraynrand]

ya, a punt is the right call. you can't analyse just with stats, you have to look at how offense and defense are playing in particular game.

The Vikings knew how horrible the Packers run game is and that it couldn't possibly finish the game. They made the correct call.

[mraynrand]

GB 33 - MIN 27 Final ... too close for comfort.

NO 62 - INDY 7 Final .... The SAINTS ran up 62 POINTS I got that prediction right. That they would score the most points this week but 62 Points. Unreal !!!

can't you find a more appropriate thread in which to pat yourself on the back?

[ThunderDan]

can't you find a more appropriate thread in which to pat yourself on the back?

The really funny thing is that 11 out of the 21 people still active in pick-'em chose the Saints to score the most points.

[3irty1]

It didn't matter what they did. They'd choke away any lead at any time, it's just what they do.

[Harlan Huckleby]

As I said to my friends as it occurred.

http://www.sequelsolutions.biz/cats.jpg

[MadScientist]

Given their QB was 13-32, the odds were not great on him converting, and I don't think they wanted to put a 'you lose the game play' on the rookie when they had a reasonable chance of getting the ball back with enough time to score. The punt was the right call; glad Starks made it not work out for them.

[SkinBasket]

No.

[Lurker64]

Punting was the correct call at the time, I'd just like to know where the Packers found a running game in that situation...

[denverYooper]

Given their QB was 13-32, the odds were not great on him converting, and I don't think they wanted to put a 'you lose the game play' on the rookie when they had a reasonable chance of getting the ball back with enough time to score. The punt was the right call; glad Starks made it not work out for them.

After the game I was surprised to see Ponder as 13/32. Maybe it seemed much better because 7 of those were conversions on 3rd, 6 of them on 3rd and 6+. He also scrambled for 12 yards on another.

His other 6 completions, 72 yards (1st), 2 yd TD, 13 yds (1st), 15 yds(1st), 24 yd TD, 0 yds

Talk about making the most of his 13 completions: 10 first downs, 2 TD, and only 1 meaningless dumpoff to AP (0 yards).

[Guiness]

I think they had to. Not because it was necessarily the correct decision for the situation, but because they had a rookie QB out there in a heck of a situation.

If McNabb was in the game, the decision might have been different. Not because he's better, but because he's a vet who wouldn't be rattled.

[Fritz]

I think you decide on third down that you're all in, then try for a five or six yard completion on third so as to make fourth manageable.

[KYPack]

You have to punt in that situation.

Do you have a D and ST unit?

If so, let them chip in and make the win with the rest of the boys.

[hoosier]

Kevin Kelley says "Hell, no, not even if they were facing 4th and goal on their own one-yard line."

[BobDobbs]

What Fritz said. The decision was made on third down. Also, If you don't make it we're already in field goal range even if the Vikes D holds us to 0 yards. A FG puts us up by nine and essentially ends the game. As a Packer fan do you feel more confident with Mason Crosby lining up for a fifty yarder or James Starks breaking off his longest runs of the day, when they know we're going to run it?

Down by 4 or even 5 I'd go for it, but not 6.

[sharpe1027]

They were on their own 36 yard line with 3 TOs and 2:37 to play.

I thought they were kidding themselves, but Advanced NFL Stats says it was nearly a wash.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/10/should-vikings-have-punted.html

Given Crosby is on the Packer's team, the punt was the right option. Regardless of whether they go for it and fail to convert or punt, they still need to stop the Packers from getting a first down. If they do that, they get the ball back in either situation...unless you have a kicker that thinks a 50 yard field goal in a dome is automatic.

[mission]

What Fritz said. The decision was made on third down. Also, If you don't make it we're already in field goal range even if the Vikes D holds us to 0 yards. A FG puts us up by nine and essentially ends the game. As a Packer fan do you feel more confident with Mason Crosby lining up for a fifty yarder or James Starks breaking off his longest runs of the day, when they know we're going to run it?

Down by 4 or even 5 I'd go for it, but not 6..

9 points and I wouldn't have lost my ass betting the Pack!!!

I say go for it! :lol:

[smuggler]

Their biggest mistake came on 3rd down when they took-a-shot instead of working something underneath.

[Gunakor]

If McNabb was in the game, the decision might have been different. Not because he's better, but because he's a vet who wouldn't be rattled.


He's been rattled ever since being traded to the Redskins...