If anybody tells you lucky win?

[massari]

I know I'm a little late to the party but can someone tell me why the Hawks chose to punt two times when they were in field goal range?

I'm thinking it has to do with the weather but am not sure exactly.

I believe they were going against the wind and prior to the game they determined that that area was four down territory. Plus their punter had a broken nose.

Oh, so the Vikings got a little bit lucky too, eh?

Makes sense, thanks.

 

[captSE]

We didn't get lucky. It wasn't something we did. Nope.

The Viking's are Unlucky. They missed the field goal so it's on them.

:snack:

 

[zhawk]

Ask the Super Bowl champs patriots if they were lucky... They were...but they still won.

:thirishdrinkers: this!

 

[Boom84]

It doesn't matter lucky or not, the team is moving on and Minnesota is staying home. This team learned all about "lucky wins" in Arizona last year. The only goal is to move on and keep winning until the final game of the NFL season. Period.

 

[hawkfan1975]

And a laces in scenario where the kicker shanks it...at that distance? Luck is involved. Sorry.
On to Carolina

No, that's just failed execution. And it was hardly a shank; he was on the left hash and just shaved it left. If he's in the middle of the field, it's a FG.

'Luck' winning or losing a game for a team is as plausible as 'God' winning or losing a game for a team. I think 'fortunate' is the word people are looking for.

Failed execution = the game. Vikes failed to put the game away, to score more points, to stop the hawks from a comeback in the 4th.

The topic of luck applies to the minutes of Hawk hope as they waited to see how the FG would go. A FG where blame not only falls on the kicker but the holder as well (maybe even more as a kick on the laces DOES increase risk of pull or push at that DISTANCE. And yes, distance is also affected "on the laces" but at that distance it's a combo of laces, timing, and foot plant. A bad kick).
* I don't want to hear about wind either because that wasn't even a nominal factor that day.

A series of factors happening at the precise moment to aid a missed FG to secure the lead for the Hawks with seconds left.
AKA: "Some luck".

The game however, luck had nothing to do with.

We're talking about the same thing believe it or not (but we aren't gonna do it in circles).

ON TO CAROLINA!!

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Or just own up to the fact it was 100% lucky?

Amazingly enough its actually okay to win a game with a little bit of luck

100% luck?...not even close. Limiting them to 9 pts and scoring 10 is called giving yourself a chance to win. Yes, we were lucky at the end, but 100 percent is pure hyperbole.

 

[Russell4Prez]

I have a friend who has hit three "lucky" hole-in-ones. I've hit zero. zilch. nada. But you know what? I'm just as lucky as he is, but when I'm lucky, I hit the green. My point is, EVERY team that played last weekend was lucky at times. Vikings had plenty of luck on Sunday -- they just didn't have themselves in a position where that luck mattered. The only teams that didn't get lucky last weekend were the teams watching the playoffs from their couch.

 

[253hawk]

 

[Overseasfan]

If the holder holds the ball with the laces towards the kicker and that causes the kick to go wide, that's not us being lucky, that's a botched FG attempt.

 

[Uncle Si]

If the holder holds the ball with the laces towards the kicker and that causes the kick to go wide, that's not us being lucky, that's a botched FG attempt.

Word from the Vikings is the holder was instructed not to spin the ball laces in because of the cold weather...

 

[Popeyejones]

If the holder holds the ball with the laces towards the kicker and that causes the kick to go wide, that's not us being lucky, that's a botched FG attempt.

Word from the Vikings is the holder was instructed not to spin the ball laces in because of the cold weather...

The other thing is that laces don't even matter for a chip shot like that.

I think a lot of people misunderstand why kickers prefer the laces to be 180 degrees from the kick:

If the laces are "in" it's bad for distance because you can't get a clean kick on the ball, and if the laces are 90 degrees in either direction it can make the ball slightly drift that direction on really long kicks.

Neither of these things matter AT ALL for a chip shot.

If we're going to blame the holder, the blame would be over the ball being angled rather than perpendicular to the ground.

Still though, regardless, we're talking about something going wrong that only goes right 99 out of 100 times.

 

[Uncle Si]

If the holder holds the ball with the laces towards the kicker and that causes the kick to go wide, that's not us being lucky, that's a botched FG attempt.

Word from the Vikings is the holder was instructed not to spin the ball laces in because of the cold weather...

The other thing is that laces don't even matter for a chip shot like that.

I think a lot of people misunderstand why kickers prefer the laces to be 180 degrees from the kick:

If the laces are "in" it's bad for distance because you can't get a clean kick on the ball, and if the laces are 90 degrees in either direction it can make the ball slightly drift that direction on really long kicks.

Neither of these things matter AT ALL for a chip shot.

If we're going to blame the holder, the blame would be over the ball being angled rather than perpendicular to the ground.

Still though, regardless, we're talking about something going wrong that only goes right 99 out of 100 times.

on the season he was basically 51 of 57 from 35 yards in...high percentage, but not perfect.

Guy just pulled it. Weather, Sherman, pressure... whatever.

It happens.

One thing with Walsh though is he did have a rather concerning year, despite leading the league in field goals made. He was almost cut during the preseason after missing 5 of 10 field goals, including 3 in a game. He was prone to a miss. Honestly, Haush hasn't had the strongest year either and while it would have been a stomach punch if he had missed that kick, it would not have surprised me in the least.

Zimm took a rather direct (and I believe correct) tone in his end of season presser yesterday, saying he expects Walsh to make that kick, but also that he expected alot of his players to make plays over the season and in the last game that they did not. Fired his o-line coach and made it clear noone's job is safe.

Took the training wheels of his young football team going into the off season. Good coach.

 

[Popeyejones]

Took the training wheels of his young football team going into the off season. Good coach.

Yep. Absolutely agreed.

He's kind of the anti-Carroll in a lot of ways, and the two of them together are a great example of how good coaching can come in really different flavors.

 

[Uncle Si]

Took the training wheels of his young football team going into the off season. Good coach.

Yep. Absolutely agreed.

He's kind of the anti-Carroll in a lot of ways, and the two of them together are a great example of how good coaching can come in really different flavors.

Very similar expectations, very different approaches.

 

[CANHawk]

If the kick hit a wayward bird on its way to splitting the uprights then we could say it was luck. But they failed to execute on a routine football play. That's not luck, that's bad football.

 

[Hawknballs]

Vikings had to execute a play in a game in which they were trailing.

They did not do that.

They weren't struck by lightning, trampled by a crowd of powerball winners, or hit in the ass with a horse shoe. They failed to execute a play they needed to take the lead and win the game.

Something caused the kick to be inaccurate and miss, and it wasn't divine intervention, leprechauns, or a mystical twist of fate. It wasn't random chance, it was humans failing to execute in a difficult environment.

 

[Popeyejones]

Something caused the kick to be inaccurate and miss, and it wasn't divine intervention, leprechauns, or a mystical twist of fate. It wasn't random chance, it was humans failing to execute in a difficult environment.

The part of this I disagree with is it completely divorces probability and random variation from human action, and that's just simply not how the world works. The very existence of all percentage based sports statistics is predicated on these things, and to just brush them away means to brush away a whole swath of things: calculating insurance rates, good or bad stock market bets, if its more or less safe to drive on icy roads, etc., etc. etc.

I generally don't like the use of the word "luck" as I think it suggests a form of intervention on random chance that does not actually exist, but accepting how people generally talk, "unlucky" doesn't mean ANYTHING if it's not shorthand for "a very low probability negative outcome at a much-more-than-average high stakes time."

 

[beaumaris]

I think how close Sherman came to blocking the previous attempt played a factor in that miss, he was trying to influence that kick to the left for a little insurance, it didn't work out.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[fenderbender123]

If Minnesota would have missed a 27 yard FG in the 1st quarter, and then just simply didn't have a chance to kick one at the end of the game and lost 10-9, nobody would be saying Seattle got lucky and only won because of a missed FG in the 1st quarter....even though it's exactly the same thing.

 

[Popeyejones]

If Minnesota would have missed a 27 yard FG in the 1st quarter, and then just simply didn't have a chance to kick one at the end of the game and lost 10-9, nobody would be saying Seattle got lucky and only won because of a missed FG in the 1st quarter....even though it's exactly the same thing.

Nobody would have said it because it's absolutely under no circumstances the same thing.

The same play in the first quarter would swing a team's win probability by 5-10% or so, whereas that play with 20 second left in the 4th quarter swung the Vikings win probability by about 99% or so.