3 of the 5 worst decisions a coach made in Week 2 were Zims

[StumpHunter]

Let me check 2010 on...yep, no examples of a team winning by doing something different in those spots. You know, since they were already included in the results I posted above and there were no examples.


That wasn't one of the plays in the OP...

For that scenario, there isn't a single coach who has called a passing play on 1st, 2nd or 3rd down since 2010 and only 1 team passed in that spot since 1994 and that was to spike the ball.

Every team either ran the ball to kill the clock, took a knee, or kicked a FG. Every. Single. One.

I'd love to see your source and the parameters of how you're going about finding this. Because I honestly dont know how one could find a statistic like this in this exact scenario so please provide.

https://stathead.com/football/play_finder.cgi

To get full use of it you need to pay 8 bucks a month.

It is how everyone on twitter posts random situational stats to prove points no one ever made are wrong.

I included my parameters for the first one, and did something similar for the rest. I had to make a range of points down, yardage and time remaining to get a large enough sample size, but it was close enough that I am confident that 0 coaches would have done anything different if in the same position. One thing I didn't have to include in the parameters was number of timeouts remaining. Since no teams did anything different, and it is unlikely the Vikings were the first team in that situation to have a timeout remaining, that shouldn't matter.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I'd love to see your source and the parameters of how you're going about finding this. Because I honestly dont know how one could find a statistic like this in this exact scenario so please provide.

https://stathead.com/football/play_finder.cgi

To get full use of it you need to pay 8 bucks a month.

It is how everyone on twitter posts random situational stats to prove points no one ever made are wrong.

I included my parameters for the first one, and did something similar for the rest. I had to make a range of points down, yardage and time remaining to get a large enough sample size, but it was close enough that I am confident that 0 coaches would have done anything different if in the same position. One thing I didn't have to include in the parameters was number of timeouts remaining. Since no teams did anything different, and it is unlikely the Vikings were the first team in that situation to have a timeout remaining, that shouldn't matter.

Okay but having a timeout 1000% matters. Think about it, a simple 8 yard run makes that a 29 yard field goal. Even if you did two runs with Dalvin to gain 8 yards. You have a timeout and PLENTY of time to spike it. Again if the clock was winding down than that's one thing but the fact that Zimmer pis#ed so much time away with a timeout left and only 18 yards away from the endzone is inexcusable in not only my eyes, but the eyes of many, many fans. It's just one of many Mike Zimmer problems right now.

[StumpHunter]

https://stathead.com/football/play_finder.cgi

To get full use of it you need to pay 8 bucks a month.

It is how everyone on twitter posts random situational stats to prove points no one ever made are wrong.

I included my parameters for the first one, and did something similar for the rest. I had to make a range of points down, yardage and time remaining to get a large enough sample size, but it was close enough that I am confident that 0 coaches would have done anything different if in the same position. One thing I didn't have to include in the parameters was number of timeouts remaining. Since no teams did anything different, and it is unlikely the Vikings were the first team in that situation to have a timeout remaining, that shouldn't matter.

Okay but having a timeout 1000% matters. Think about it, a simple 8 yard run makes that a 29 yard field goal. Even if you did two runs with Dalvin to gain 8 yards. You have a timeout and PLENTY of time to spike it. Again if the clock was winding down than that's one thing but the fact that Zimmer pis#ed so much time away with a timeout left and only 18 yards away from the endzone is inexcusable in not only my eyes, but the eyes of many, many fans. It's just one of many Mike Zimmer problems right now.

Again, no coach has ever passed in that situation before. So what you are calling inexcusable is something 100% of coaches, including ones that had timeouts, have done. Just because I can't filter down to plays where a team had a timeout does not mean teams didn't have a timeout.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Okay but having a timeout 1000% matters. Think about it, a simple 8 yard run makes that a 29 yard field goal. Even if you did two runs with Dalvin to gain 8 yards. You have a timeout and PLENTY of time to spike it. Again if the clock was winding down than that's one thing but the fact that Zimmer pis#ed so much time away with a timeout left and only 18 yards away from the endzone is inexcusable in not only my eyes, but the eyes of many, many fans. It's just one of many Mike Zimmer problems right now.

Again, no coach has ever passed in that situation before. So what you are calling inexcusable is something 100% of coaches, including ones that had timeouts, have done. Just because I can't filter down to plays where a team had a timeout does not mean teams didn't have a timeout.

It also doesnt mean they did either. So it's an assumption. So no, it's technically not "including the ones that did have timeouts" because you do not know that.

But either way, you started off that paragraph with "no coach has ever passed before" when I literally said in the response prior that they could've ran Dalvin twice. You're just arguing to argue at this point. Zimmer did what a 1980 conservative coach does. He coaches not to lose, he doesnt coach to win or blow a team out for that matter. Again, this is why we are always in nail biters no matter the team we're playing. SETTLED for a FG before half and SETTLED for a FG at the end of the game. Coaching NOT TO LOSE 101

[StumpHunter]

Again, no coach has ever passed in that situation before. So what you are calling inexcusable is something 100% of coaches, including ones that had timeouts, have done. Just because I can't filter down to plays where a team had a timeout does not mean teams didn't have a timeout.

It also doesnt mean they did either. So it's an assumption. So no, it's technically not "including the ones that did have timeouts" because you do not know that.

But either way, you started off that paragraph with "no coach has ever passed before" when I literally said in the response prior that they could've ran Dalvin twice. You're just arguing to argue at this point. Zimmer did what a 1980 conservative coach does. He coaches not to lose, he doesnt coach to win or blow a team out for that matter. Again, this is why we are always in nail biters no matter the team we're playing. SETTLED for a FG before half and SETTLED for a FG at the end of the game. Coaching NOT TO LOSE 101

How could they have run Dalvin twice?

Teams run in that spot to make sure the opposition doesn't have any time left. Teams don't run in that spot hoping they will punch it into the end zone. Want to know how I know that? There has never been a TD scored in that spot. Ever.

Who is arguing to argue now? You have been proven 100% wrong on this take and you continue to argue Zimmer made the wrong choice.

[VikingLord]

Zimmer did what a 1980 conservative coach does. He coaches not to lose, he doesnt coach to win or blow a team out for that matter. Again, this is why we are always in nail biters no matter the team we're playing. SETTLED for a FG before half and SETTLED for a FG at the end of the game. Coaching NOT TO LOSE 101

I don't see what Zimmer did as coaching not to lose in that situation. The Vikings were already losing, so by definition he had to coach to win.

Could the Vikings have been more aggressive and taken one or two shots at the endzone on the final drive? Sure.

Would that have made a win more likely?

I'm not convinced of that at all. This was an away game. The crowd was loud and hostile, and the Cardinal defense was hyped up. You drop Cousins back and hope a deep route comes open you're taking a big risk IMHO, not only for a sack (remember, the Vikes had one TO left on that drive and had to save that for the field goal chance), but a turnover, holding penalty, or some other disaster could easily have befallen them had they been more aggressive.

Heck, I thought the final slant pass was super aggressive on that drive for the reasons listed above. I thought running there was more prudent and far less risky even after what happened to them against the Bengals the prior week.

The ire, if any particular person deserves it on that last drive, is on the kicker. It wasn't a difficult field goal in terms of distance or conditions. He was able get clean contact on it and the ball wasn't affected by a defensive player on the way out. He just missed it.

I know it's frustrating for the Vikings to be 0-2, and while its tempting to read more into that than is there, the farther I get away from the emotion of the results the more convinced I am that the Vikings aren't in that bad of a spot. I mean, for all intents and purposes they should have beaten the Bengals away despite playing one of the worst halves of football I've seen them play in a while. And then against the Cardinals, who everyone seems to be in awe of right now (and once again in an away game) they should have won that too.

The Vikings are as good as their record says they are, but looking at it objectively they are literally 4 points and some relatively rare occurrences away from being 2-0.

Yes, this type of result could continue all year. The 2021 Vikings might end up being the first winless team in history to lose all their games on flukey late plays and less than a field goal per game point difference. Odds say that won't happen.

No better team to get on the right track against than Seattle. Zimmer and Cousins are more than due to beat them. Might as well happen this Sunday at home.

[Pondering Her Percy]

It also doesnt mean they did either. So it's an assumption. So no, it's technically not "including the ones that did have timeouts" because you do not know that.

But either way, you started off that paragraph with "no coach has ever passed before" when I literally said in the response prior that they could've ran Dalvin twice. You're just arguing to argue at this point. Zimmer did what a 1980 conservative coach does. He coaches not to lose, he doesnt coach to win or blow a team out for that matter. Again, this is why we are always in nail biters no matter the team we're playing. SETTLED for a FG before half and SETTLED for a FG at the end of the game. Coaching NOT TO LOSE 101

How could they have run Dalvin twice?

Teams run in that spot to make sure the opposition doesn't have any time left. Teams don't run in that spot hoping they will punch it into the end zone. Want to know how I know that? There has never been a TD scored in that spot. Ever.

Who is arguing to argue now? You have been proven 100% wrong on this take and you continue to argue Zimmer made the wrong choice.

Dalvin was gouging that defense. It’s not out of the realm to gain 8 yards and make that a 29 yard field goal. To just completely waste 41 seconds with a timeout for no reason is a joke.

And I’ve been proven 100% wrong when you can’t even prove those teams had a timeout or not? Plenty of time to run plays, take a timeout, spike the ball, etc. They were at the 18 yard line, not the 40.

Guys can say a 37 yarder is a chip shot and yes Joseph should’ve made it but the nfl moved extra points back for a reason. To make it more difficult. And we’ve seen WAY more missed PATs than we did before. I’m not sure why Zim thought that was such a guarantee. Especially on the road and with the luck we’ve had at kicker. And the fact that he missed an XP earlier that game. It was pis# poor game management by Zim. Period. He settled then just like he did before half. His entire plan driving down the field before half was to play for a FG, not play for a TD. THAT is a problem and that is not going to get us to the next level. It was blatantly obvious when he ran dalvin twice in a row when there was plenty of time on the clock. And he once again pis#ed away 20+ seconds because of that. Hence why we’re constantly in nail biters. Zero aggressiveness

[StumpHunter]

Dalvin was gouging that defense. It’s not out of the realm to gain 8 yards and make that a 29 yard field goal. To just completely waste 41 seconds with a timeout for no reason is a joke.

And I’ve been proven 100% wrong when you can’t even prove those teams had a timeout or not? Plenty of time to run plays, take a timeout, spike the ball, etc. They were at the 18 yard line, not the 40.

Guys can say a 37 yarder is a chip shot and yes Joseph should’ve made it but the nfl moved extra points back for a reason. To make it more difficult. And we’ve seen WAY more missed PATs than we did before. I’m not sure why Zim thought that was such a guarantee. Especially on the road and with the luck we’ve had at kicker. And the fact that he missed an XP earlier that game. It was pis# poor game management by Zim. Period. He settled then just like he did before half. His entire plan driving down the field before half was to play for a FG, not play for a TD. THAT is a problem and that is not going to get us to the next level. It was blatantly obvious when he ran dalvin twice in a row when there was plenty of time on the clock. And he once again pis#ed away 20+ seconds because of that. Hence why we’re constantly in nail biters. Zero aggressiveness

If that was poor time management than every coach since 1994 has had poor time management. You are wrong about this, and should just admit it and move on.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Dalvin was gouging that defense. It’s not out of the realm to gain 8 yards and make that a 29 yard field goal. To just completely waste 41 seconds with a timeout for no reason is a joke.

And I’ve been proven 100% wrong when you can’t even prove those teams had a timeout or not? Plenty of time to run plays, take a timeout, spike the ball, etc. They were at the 18 yard line, not the 40.

Guys can say a 37 yarder is a chip shot and yes Joseph should’ve made it but the nfl moved extra points back for a reason. To make it more difficult. And we’ve seen WAY more missed PATs than we did before. I’m not sure why Zim thought that was such a guarantee. Especially on the road and with the luck we’ve had at kicker. And the fact that he missed an XP earlier that game. It was pis# poor game management by Zim. Period. He settled then just like he did before half. His entire plan driving down the field before half was to play for a FG, not play for a TD. THAT is a problem and that is not going to get us to the next level. It was blatantly obvious when he ran dalvin twice in a row when there was plenty of time on the clock. And he once again pis#ed away 20+ seconds because of that. Hence why we’re constantly in nail biters. Zero aggressiveness

If that was poor time management than every coach since 1994 has had poor time management. You are wrong about this, and should just admit it and move on.

I'm not because again, you cant prove who did and didnt have timeouts which is a huge factor in that situation. Just like it is in any game winning drive. Given OUR situation, not the situation of a coach back in 1994, with a timeout and 41 seconds to go and AFTER your kicker already missed an XP, that is far from a guarantee.

And again, what do you lose by running the ball? How often does Dalvin get tackled for loss? How often was he shredding the Arizona defense? Why would you not inch close when you HAD the time AND a timeout?

You wonder why this team is mediocre and you want to point the finger at anybody but Zimmer. The answer is right in front of your face and you refuse to see it. Then who are you blaming right now for the underwhelming results? It's nearly impossible to blame your usual whipping boy right now. Anything that has been said about Zimmer and you go to his defense. So who's the problem then Stump? There's a lot of shielding going on right now

[StumpHunter]

And again, what do you lose by running the ball? How often does Dalvin get tackled for loss? How often was he shredding the Arizona defense? Why would you not inch close when you HAD the time AND a timeout?

We just lost a game because of play where we were trying to pick up yards to get a closer FG when Cook was down and the refs called it a fumble. If Zimmer had run in that situation again and an injured Cook fumbled again you would have lost your mind and you know it.

All of that to do what has picked up an average of 1.29 yards per attempt of the teams that were forced to run trying to run out the clock because the other team called a timeout.

But keep sticking to me not knowing how many of those teams had timeouts. That really matters.

[Pondering Her Percy]

And again, what do you lose by running the ball? How often does Dalvin get tackled for loss? How often was he shredding the Arizona defense? Why would you not inch close when you HAD the time AND a timeout?

We just lost a game because of play where we were trying to pick up yards to get a closer FG when Cook was down and the refs called it a fumble. If Zimmer had run in that situation again and an injured Cook fumbled again you would have lost your mind and you know it.

All of that to do what has picked up an average of 1.29 yards per attempt of the teams that were forced to run trying to run out the clock because the other team called a timeout.

But keep sticking to me not knowing how many of those teams had timeouts. That really matters.

How is running cook and worrying about a fumble any different than kicking with Joseph who missed a 33 yard XP earlier that game (and on the road)? The chances of cook fumbling is MUCH smaller than Joseph missing a high pressure kick on the road. Like have you watched football before? I guess we should just never run dalvin cook because we’re worried he might fumble.

And yeah I’m going to keep sticking to having a timeout at the end of the game. When do timeouts at the end of games “not matter”? That’s the number one thing you want towards the end of close games.

I feel like you further embarrassed yourself with both of those comments. I’m wasting my time at this point with you. Good day

[VikingLord]

We just lost a game because of play where we were trying to pick up yards to get a closer FG when Cook was down and the refs called it a fumble. If Zimmer had run in that situation again and an injured Cook fumbled again you would have lost your mind and you know it.

All of that to do what has picked up an average of 1.29 yards per attempt of the teams that were forced to run trying to run out the clock because the other team called a timeout.

But keep sticking to me not knowing how many of those teams had timeouts. That really matters.

How is running cook and worrying about a fumble any different than kicking with Joseph who missed a 33 yard XP earlier that game (and on the road)? The chances of cook fumbling is MUCH smaller than Joseph missing a high pressure kick on the road. Like have you watched football before? I guess we should just never run dalvin cook because we’re worried he might fumble.

And yeah I’m going to keep sticking to having a timeout at the end of the game. When do timeouts at the end of games “not matter”? That’s the number one thing you want towards the end of close games.

I feel like you further embarrassed yourself with both of those comments. I’m wasting my time at this point with you. Good day

Bottom line for me is was the team in a position to win?

In both the Cook "fumble" case and late against Arizona, the answer is "yes".

Could they have been more aggressive in either or both cases? Probably. But that doesn't negate the fact that the offense and defense in both cases had the team in a position to win.

I'd like to see the Vikings be more aggressive on offense generally as I think they have the skill position players and QB to pull that off. At the same time, there is a big difference in my mind between lack of aggressiveness that keeps them out of a position to win and playcalling and execution that gets them into a position to win and they just fail to capitalize on it.

Also, the more aggressive the playcalling, the more likely it is that something bad will happen. Greater chance of a big play comes with greater risk of a bad result too. If you can put yourself into a good position to win with less risk, generally speaking that is a better strategy than trying to win outright at greater risk. I guess it depends on the relative levels of risk associated with both approaches and that ultimately comes down to the confidence the coach has in his players and the game conditions (i.e. loud away crowd versus favorable home crowd).

Let's face it - we all are tired of late game losses due to flukey plays. Had those games resulted in wins, nobody would be criticizing the playcalling.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Guess what, the Chargers were tied with the chiefs today at the end of the game with :41 seconds to go (ironically), a timeout and they were at the KC 20 (we were at the Arizona 18). The chargers don’t settle, throw a pass for 16 yards, then throw a TD to win the game

…..weird what can happen when you have an aggressive coach that doesnt settle

Wait didn’t someone say “NOBODY does this”?

[StumpHunter]

Guess what, the Chargers were tied with the chiefs today at the end of the game with :41 seconds to go (ironically), a timeout and they were at the KC 20 (we were at the Arizona 18). The chargers don’t settle, throw a pass for 16 yards, then throw a TD to win the game

…..weird what can happen when you have an aggressive coach that doesnt settle

Wait didn’t someone say “NOBODY does this”?

Are you really using an example where the HC gave Mahomes the ball back with a chance to win it when he could have easily ran the clock out as an example of what a coach should do?

[Pondering Her Percy]

Guess what, the Chargers were tied with the chiefs today at the end of the game with :41 seconds to go (ironically), a timeout and they were at the KC 20 (we were at the Arizona 18). The chargers don’t settle, throw a pass for 16 yards, then throw a TD to win the game

…..weird what can happen when you have an aggressive coach that doesnt settle

Wait didn’t someone say “NOBODY does this”?

Are you really using an example where the HC gave Mahomes the ball back with a chance to win it when he could have easily ran the clock out as an example of what a coach should do?

Nope, I’m using an example of what you said “coaches never do” just one week ago. That “truth” lasted a long time