Jump to content

SNF: Vikings at Seahawks


SotanKing

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

That model is trash. Let's say go for it was a .65 chance. Then you are putting the odds of a TD drive by the Seahawks with 4 downs a series at .02/.35 = .057. There was certainly over a 5.7% chance of a TD drive there. To switch the number up, if you thought you had a 75% chance of converting the 4th, to give the Seahawks a 2 percent chance means that TD was only 8% likely. So no, the WP was not 98% if they went for it. 

Kick the FG which is .85-.9 from that distance and you have to make the Seahawks complete 3 events: TD drive, 2point, not win a .5 OT. Much closer to a sure thing, but probably still not 97.8%. The 98% is BS. 

I don't even understand what those percentages mean. Are they trying to say that by kicking the field goal, the Seahawks, led by Russell effing Wilson, only had 2.2% chance of receiving the kickoff, driving the field in 2 minutes, getting the TD and 2 point conversion, and winning in overtime? That is absolute bull only 2 percent hahaha! Model means nothing if it doesn't take that stuff into account. If that was an 8 point game with two minutes left, Wilson had I bet an 80% chance of wining it and you can't convince me otherwise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DannyB said:

I'd just love if at some point he loses a big game, and goes on a huge Twitter meltdown rage-posting yelling at Jesus for betraying him, like a monumental existential crisis of faith. Would be so hilarious.

BarrenWelldocumentedFlea-size_restricted

Nah he'd do the opposite.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

That model is trash. Let's say go for it was a .65 chance. Then you are putting the odds of a TD drive by the Seahawks with 4 downs a series at .02/.35 = .057. There was certainly over a 5.7% chance of a TD drive there. To switch the number up, if you thought you had a 75% chance of converting the 4th, to give the Seahawks a 2 percent chance means that TD was only 8% likely. So no, the WP was not 98% if they went for it. 

Kick the FG which is .85-.9 from that distance and you have to make the Seahawks complete 3 events: TD drive, 2point, not win a .5 OT. Much closer to a sure thing, but probably still not 97.8%. The 98% is BS. 

Forget models. It didn't make sense to go for it to begin with. Take the points and put more pressure on the offense t have to make 2 critcial plays-- a TD AND a 2pt conversion-- AND still give your team a chance to win in OT.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rocky_rams said:

How is he a cornball? Because he doesn’t conform to the flavor of the day society is on? 

Dude has core principles and he sticks to them. That’s the definition of a man.

Apparently, you gotta act tough all the time or you're considered weak for some strange reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

 

Probably not a popular opinion, but I'd take the one in Kansas City before Jones or Thomas

I have him in a "GREAT" tier, which is next classification. He and Mike Evans are probably the next two guys who hold a chance to jump to Elite status.

But, it's all subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DannyB said:

f that was an 8 point game with two minutes left, Wilson had I bet an 80% chance of wining it and you can't convince me otherwise.

I mean... the odds of Wilson converting a 2 point play would certainly be less than 80%, taking away any chance of failing to drive down the field and any possibility of losing an OT game. But, since you can't be convinced, we can move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JAF-N72EX said:

Forget models. It didn't make sense to go for it to begin with. Take the points and put more pressure on the offense t have to make 2 critcial plays-- a TD AND a 2pt conversion-- AND still give your team a chance to win in OT.

Hell no. Pressure is the reason Wilson marched down the field. You have to make it literally impossible for him to come back given the time left on the clock. Giving the ball back at one point left him enough time for one drive, and he was getting it no matter what. In fact he probably would've had better field position after the kickoff. But needing two drives? That's where it might have gotten tough for him, and that was their only shot.

Dude have people seriously like, not watched this guy before?? He's done this his WHOLE career it's infuriating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DannyB said:

Hell no. Pressure is the reason Wilson marched down the field. You have to make it literally impossible for him to come back given the time left on the clock. Giving the ball back at one point left him enough time for one drive, and he was getting it no matter what. In fact he probably would've had better field position after the kickoff. But needing two drives? That's where it might have gotten tough for him, and that was their only shot.

Dude have people seriously like, not watched this guy before?? He's done this his WHOLE career it's infuriating.

They didn't convert the 2 PT conversion when they tried it and even if they converted it, if the Vikes got the ball in the OT they probably score. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

I mean... the odds of Wilson converting a 2 point play would certainly be less than 80%, taking away any chance of failing to drive down the field and any possibility of losing an OT game. But, since you can't be convinced, we can move on.

Yeah pretty much that last part. Seen him do it too many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JAF-N72EX said:

They didn't convert the 2 PT conversion when they tried it and even if they converted it, if the Vikes got the ball in the OT they probably score. 

Again, he didn't convert because he didn't HAVE to. If he need it to tie it up, I have zero doubt he would've.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, rocky_rams said:

How is he a cornball? Because he doesn’t conform to the flavor of the day society is on? 

Dude has core principles and he sticks to them. That’s the definition of a man.

No. Because he's super lame and might be an android.

And yes I'm fine with this core principles and sticking to them blah blah blah, it's not about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...