Skip to content

Childress talks about curious late-game call

We explained earlier today our concern regarding the decision made by the Vikings to throw a deep pass in the closing minutes of Monday night’s game in lieu of churning another 45 seconds or so off the clock with a running play.

Coach Brad Childress talked about the move on Monday.

It was a shot to take a chance,” Childress said.  “Thinking that they are playing the run
and they had no timeouts at that point and time.  We could have run it
and taken more seconds off the clock and we had discussion on how to do
that.  We thought that we would get after that guy and we did in fact
complete it.  But unfortunately [it was] a long foul ball.”

The problem, however, is that the guy who had Bernard Berrian covered tightly didn’t bite on the half-hearted (hoof hearted) play-action fake, and quarterback Brett Favre decided to chuck it anyway and hope for the best.

Fortunately for the Vikings, it all worked out in the end.  Hopefully for the Vikings, they learned the lesson that comes with making a major screw-up without having to suffer its consequences.

Permalink 27 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
27 Responses to “Childress talks about curious late-game call”
  1. Mactator says: Oct 6, 2009 10:14 PM

    This was just another childish attempt to “stick it to the Packers.” I would have loved to see that Favre bonehead play picked off for a TD. That said, I’m sure the media would have blamed it on the WR not running his route since the media whore never does anything wrong.

  2. Sammy says: Oct 6, 2009 10:25 PM

    Speaking of curious late-game calls, check out Champ Bailey’s right arm. And I’m not one to bitch about the officials unless it’s the last play of the game and it affects the outcome (see Ed Hochuli in Denver last year):
    http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m179/mealwarm99/ChampHold1.jpg
    http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m179/mealwarm99/ChampHold4.jpg
    http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m179/mealwarm99/ChampHold3.jpg

  3. briano29 says: Oct 6, 2009 10:26 PM

    Vikes almost gave that one away. Man that would’ve sucked . . .

  4. Sarge says: Oct 6, 2009 10:32 PM

    Brad Childress > Don Coryell

  5. Gary says: Oct 6, 2009 10:33 PM

    Who cares?

  6. SmackMyVickUp says: Oct 6, 2009 10:37 PM

    “It was a shot to take a chance,”
    ———————
    A chance to run up the score to fluff up Favre is what he actually means.

  7. Vikingsfaninpa says: Oct 6, 2009 10:53 PM

    Fluffing the score are you an idiot?
    Did you watch the game?
    Greenbay was close to winning. In the end it was a 7 point game. And when your QB is on for the day as a coach I say go for it and increase the buffer in the score, but it was definitely not fluffing or running up the score.
    If one of the onside kicks would have gone GB’s way they could have won.
    And in defense of the play, had they intercepted it would have been at there own goal line with no timeouts.
    On the other hand if the Vikes make that touchdown it would have sealed the deal.
    But calling it fluff is ridiculous.
    2 score game is not hard to over come by a QB that is throwing the ball as good as Rogers was throwing.

  8. leatherneck says: Oct 6, 2009 11:07 PM

    You play to win the game. Not to run time off the clock.

  9. Wonderlic---myballs says: Oct 6, 2009 11:23 PM

    Don’t you know the real deal? Father Chilly wanted to please his new son(and job saver) and help him twist the knife in his quest for vengeance.

  10. CornFlorio says: Oct 7, 2009 12:08 AM

    SmackMyVickUp says:
    October 6, 2009 10:37 PM
    “It was a shot to take a chance,”
    ———————
    A chance to run up the score to fluff up Favre is what he actually means.
    _________
    Run up the score? You mean like Belichick constantly did in 2007 to fluff up Tom Brady?
    GFY, FOOL.

  11. ryanmc says: Oct 7, 2009 12:37 AM

    You’re making way to big a deal of this. The game was always going to come down to whether the Packers could recover an onside kick or not. Yes, more seconds could have been run off the clock with a run, but then picking up the first down is also less likely than if you pass, so that’s the tradeoff. To call this a “major screw-up” is way, way over the top; there are arguments on both sides.

  12. footballisfun says: Oct 7, 2009 2:50 AM

    Childress has never been known for his clock management or game management skills.
    With the Vikings getting 8 sacks, multiple turnovers, and a safety, the game shouldn’t have been close. And giving up the continual pass over the middle is allowing teams to negate any good the offense may be doing.
    As a Vikings fan, those were the glaring issues that stuck out with me. Glad to be 4-0, but no way, with those sacks, turnovers and a safety, that a good coach would have allowed that game to be that close.

  13. dr4iz says: Oct 7, 2009 4:11 AM

    Umm, did any of you morons see how the Vikes beat the niners? 80 yard drive, 90 seconds (no timeouts), miracle touchdown?
    Imagine the Packers recover their second onside kick and score another touchdown.
    Now if the Vikes scored on that “stick it to the Packers” play, then the game would have been signed, sealed and delivered.
    I can’t believe how stupid people are to have a problem with a team trying to go up by 17 pts with over three minutes left.
    It’s the NFL, fools, anything can happen.

  14. Joe in Toronto, Canada says: Oct 7, 2009 6:10 AM

    It was just an aggressive call, nothing more.

  15. Bwa Ha Ha says: Oct 7, 2009 6:14 AM

    Sammy, please keep the whining Cowboy fan posts in the whiney Cowboy fan section,
    Thank you

  16. ATLien says: Oct 7, 2009 8:21 AM

    @Sammy,
    Maybe it’s because Champ Bailey is a future HOF defensive back and he was covering a bum!

  17. sand0 says: Oct 7, 2009 8:27 AM

    The only pass play safe enough in that situation is a fade down the sideline. A run ain’t gonna get you 11. So you can either take the 45 seconds or take a shot at winning the game with a first down. In my opinion any other passing route capable of picking up 11 yards is too risky in that situation so the deep fade was, if you are going to go for the first down, the safest play.
    Just because something doesn’t work doesn’t make it the wrong play. Had they run a draw play, gotten a yard, ran the time off, then lost to a miracle finish by Green Bay we’d be sitting here questioning why they didn’t go for it.
    It was an aggressive play. Nothing more. Nothing less. The Vikings were still over 95% chance to win the game at the end despite Green Bay making great late drives against the soft zones.

  18. Vikes Fan in CT says: Oct 7, 2009 8:30 AM

    Just more hindsight 20/20 BS to make something out of nothing. If the pass is complete and they score it’s a great “aggressive” play but since it didn’t it’s a “dumb” call.
    Same can be said for the Pack going for it on 4th and goal rather than kicking a field goal. If they made it it’s “gutsy” call. Since they didn’t and it may have impacted their strategy at the end, it’s “questionable”.

  19. Fidelito says: Oct 7, 2009 9:44 AM

    An incomplete play when you’re trying to kill the clock is a “major” screwup? AP’s fumble was a major screwup. Colledge’s every single attempt at a block was a major screwup. A bomb while you’re trying to run out the clock is just…nothing. If you had been coaching them from the future I’m sure they’d won by a hundred points. Childress screws up as a coach enough to not have to make up shit. Every NFL game has a dozen situations like that. Of course, consistency isn’t really your strong point.

  20. Sterling says: Oct 7, 2009 11:48 AM

    Footballisfun,
    You are so right. The game was not nearly as close as the score would seem to indicate. The Packers were outplayed all night, managing just one offensive TD in 3 1/2 quarters of play. Then Chilly went ultra-conservative (except for this one play call), and nearly cost the Vikings the game.
    If you want to run out the clock, the best way to do it is to keep moving the chains. And they needed to stick with what had worked all night, which was Favre passing the ball. The Pack had contained AP all night, so continuing to run him up the middle was a sure way to go three-and-out. Which they did. And then they went into prevent D – geez, the corners were playing 10 yards off the WRs, there’s no way Jennings, Driver, etc., aren’t going to burn you when you do that. A monkey could have made the throws Rodgers made at that point, b/c there was no one near any of his WRs. No needle to thread, no coverage to worry about. It looked easy because it WAS easy.

  21. Ambrose says: Oct 7, 2009 4:08 PM

    Yes, it was a great effort on the part of the Vikings. And yes, your quarterback put on a great MNF performance.
    But anybody that thinks that Favre was only following orders when he threw that late game deep ball is FOS. Childress is covering for him. Favre is a narcissistic ego-maniac that was trying to rub the Packers noses in it……. and nobody was fooled.
    With the turnovers and penalties and crappy O-line and pathetic pass coverage, the Vikings should have won 48-10. The Vikings played as well as they could…the Packers did not. The Packers can only get better. The Vikings are already at the top of their game. (just ask ‘em!) They only came away with a seven point victory…..including a dropped end-zone pass. I am already looking forward to the rematch at Lambeau, a real football environment…not the Hefty Bag Stench Bowl.
    And just to confuse you all….GO TWINS!

  22. Chickenfoot says: Oct 7, 2009 4:49 PM

    Ambrose:
    10 of said packer points came when the Vikings went into soft coverage.
    30-16 better reflects the ass whipping they got.
    If you watched, and you’re honest, it wasn’t that close.

  23. Beer Cheese Soup says: Oct 7, 2009 4:58 PM

    Ambrose-
    Come on man, it would have been 48-13 at least.. Give us SOME credit…
    Interesting theory on Favre. Another one of those “we’ll never know” stories, I fear.
    You’re right, the Vikings are at the top of their game. Which is exactly where they SHOULD be. After all, they’re a professional football team. All 32 should be at the top of their game.
    You’re also right that the Packers can only get better. They have to. It’s pretty hard to get worse with the talent they have.
    Now… Any idea when that “getting better” will finally happen?!!

  24. Fan of Football says: Oct 7, 2009 6:05 PM

    When idiots post…

  25. luigiboy says: Oct 7, 2009 9:11 PM

    How many options did he have if he didn’t throw it? I don’t think he was going to take a sack in that situation or try to run. Did the play have contingencies? Do you know anything?

  26. Ambrose says: Oct 8, 2009 3:33 PM

    Chickenfoot….you expect me to believe that the Vikings went into a soft prevent with 25:40 left in the game??? That is how confident they were with a fourteen point lead? I don’t think so. Rodgers moved the ball from the opening drive, and would likely have led them to an opening drive score until a great D-rush stripped him of the ball…..within scoring range. Rodgers performed great, and matched Favre’s performance. But he can’t do it alone anymore than Favre can. Rodgers did (does) not have the surrounding cast of characters that the Vikings have. Rodgers kept the Packers in it despite the poor O-line, despite the pathetic pass coverage, despite the turnovers and penalties, and despite the dropped pass in the end zone. The Vikings going soft on him was not part of the equation. What game were you watching?

  27. Chickenfoot says: Oct 9, 2009 2:52 PM

    25:40?
    WTF?
    It was 30-14 with 8 minutes to go numbnuts!!
    Check that 7 minutes 25 seconds!!
    (7:25) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked at GB 1 for 0 yards (69-J.Allen). FUMBLES (69-J.Allen), RECOVERED by MIN-69-J.Allen at GB 1. 69-J.Allen to GB 2 for -1 yards. Green Bay challenged the fumble ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacked in End Zone for -1 yards, SAFETY (69-J.Allen).
    You sir have earned the title of ASSHAT!
    Lest you think I’m lying, check for yourself:
    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009100500/2009/REG4/packers@vikings#tab:analyze/analyze-channels:cat-post-playbyplay
    Do you even watch football? let alone knowwhat one is?
    Jesus, some of you guys on here are complete tools!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!