Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="adambr2" data-source="post: 526288" data-attributes="member: 7277">I can see the logic in going for it, and I don't think something should be simply dismissed just because it isn't conventional wisdom.  Consider more than just the obvious points.  26-23 does not end the game, only 29-23 does.  So if you go for it, 2 major possibilities:  You win, or Minnesota gets the ball on their own 1.  That's a huge field position disadvantage for them that limits their playcalling and could easily lead to a 3 and out after which you could end up kicking for the win.  They still need 70 yards to go to win the game, which they would need anyway after a kickoff to score a TD and win.  You also don't risk a return TD from Patterson after the FG (you know you were worried about that).On the flip side of it, you have the intangible value of momentum which some put more weight on than others.  Huge momentum shift if you get stopped on 4th and goal. Also, if you do stop them from going anywhere from their own 1, you could just as easily argue that you could have won the game if you would have kicked the FG all the same trusting that you also would have stopped them at a different spot on the field.  That's the approach MM used and I can't fault him for it.  Defense just needed to stop them from going 50+ yards.  Didn't happen.</blockquote>

Total: 376 (members: 2, guests: 374)