Ah, Greg Olsen. Oh how the former Seahawks tight end and current Fox announcer divides opinion. Some think he’s the best in the business, others not so much. The truth is probably somewhere in-between.

I have mixed views on Greg. I found his early-season take on how teams attack the Seattle’s offense by setting out to defend the run (and why that was a mistake) fascinating and insightful. I also find his views on ‘going for two’ and ‘never taking the points’ frustrating enough to want to boil my own head.

Today’s broadcast particularly irked me though.

Olsen and his colleague Joe Davis didn’t seem to be picking up on what actually happened in the first half. Every drop-back made by Sam Darnold was an adventure. The Brian Flores-guided Vikings defense was doing an exceptional job making Darnold’s life thoroughly miserable. Each play there was the threat of a sack-fumble, tip-drill interception or a Darnold injury.

Equally, the Vikings had nothing on offense. They weren’t going to score unless the Seahawks turned the ball over and offered them a gift.

Once the Seahawks had established any form of lead, they could run three times and punt on every possession and still win this game.

Faced with these facts, the sensible thing to do in order to get a comfortable win — which is surely the aim — was to play conservatively on offense and let the rest take care of itself. There’s no reward for style points. In a season filled with upset wins, there was no reason to give Minnesota any chance to claim another.

Yet with a 10-0 lead at the end of the first half, Olsen and Davis were bemoaning Seattle’s lack of urgency and play-calling on their final possession. ‘They should be throwing, they should be attacking!’

Why?

Every week in the NFL is a separate entity. An exclusive, unique ‘test match’. Get the win and move on. If you can do it with a complete performance that earns rave reviews on the shouty TV shows for the rest of the week, that’s a bonus. The key though is to win. In that moment before half-time, there was absolutely nothing suggesting it would be wise for the Seahawks to try and unlock their passing game in the final 60 seconds of the half.

Get into position to kick the field goal, lead 13-0, adjust and regroup at half-time.

None of these points were raised. Instead we had accusations of overt conservatism. After half-time, when the Seahawks proceeded to claim another three points via a second successful field goal, Davis exclaimed, “It’s only six points from two drives!” — as if this were some kind of problem.

Olsen added this killer line: “Field goals are going to get you beat.”

He was speaking about future bigger tests against superior opponents. Yet he contradicted himself moments later when he noted, “You have to find multiple avenues to win.”

The second line is true, the first is not. There is nothing to suggest the Seahawks won’t find themselves in a tight defensive battle in the playoffs. In that scenario, conservatism might be necessary on offense (field goals might be too).

The Eagles, after all, kicked three field goals against the Packers and Rams in two tight playoff games a year ago. They kicked four more in the Super Bowl. So while they battered the Commanders with a flurry of touchdowns in the NFC Championship game, there were moments in their four games where the 10 completed post-season field goals were useful.

For some reason it’s the trendy belief to sneer at a field goal as some kind of Jurassic age concept.

Last week Olsen complained about the phrase ‘take the points’, saying:

“I hate when commentators say it, I hate when coaches say it, I hate when the media says it. I don’t know what ‘take the points means,’ it doesn’t make sense to me.”

I’m confused by Olsen’s confusion. If you go for it on fourth down, there is at least some chance you will not convert and could come up with zero points. Occasionally, in certain situations, kicking a field goal to take three points might be useful. There is something to be said for not coming away empty handed from drives — particularly in low-scoring or close games.

The Detroit Lions snubbed two field goal opportunities on Thanksgiving against Green Bay and ended up turning the ball over on downs. They lost by seven points. On what ended up being their final possession, they had to kick a quick field goal just to make it a one-score game to have any shot. Had they kicked their field goals earlier, they could’ve put everything on that drive to potentially win the game — instead of hoping to stay in it. I refuse to accept there’s a 0% possibility that would’ve have had an impact on Green Bay too — knowing their opponent was driving for the lead.

I also appreciate any counter anyone would present saying they could’ve or should’ve gone for it on those fourth downs. Yet that’s not what you get from Olsen or his acolytes though. To them, there is only one answer. No debate, no discussion. You’re stupid for thinking otherwise. Thus you get, “I don’t know what ‘take the points means,’ it doesn’t make sense to me.”

It’s frustrating. It’s tapping into the ‘very online’ culture of the day. Never give an inch. Act like the other side is stupid or unhinged for disagreeing. Or in this case, see them as a footballing dinosaur.

There’s a definite ‘smartest guy in the room’ energy around some NFL fans and media currently.

In the Seahawks vs Vikings game, Seattle’s conservatism was seen as a case study for future failure. I’d argue it was a sign of restraint, clear thinking and awareness — things that can be important in high-pressure games down the line.

What would Olsen or Davis had said if, in an act of frustration, the Seahawks instead tried to throw the ball to lead 17-0 instead of 13-0. Darnold is hit, injured, the ball’s turned over and returned for a touchdown. It’s now 10-7 and the Seahawks are starting Drew Lock for the rest of the season.

Sure, it’s a worst case scenario (although one that didn’t exactly feel unlikely given the way the first half went). Seattle’s actions eliminated it as a possibility and helped avoid any back-breaking drama at the end of the half.

Olsen even admitted as much later on by effectively saying there are many ways to win — just as not every single fourth down decision is a straight forward ‘go for it’ scenario.

I feel sometimes people like Olsen act like every game is basically the same and if you abide by a set-list of rules (when to go for it, what plays to call, how aggressive to be, what formations to use, how to treat the running game etc) then you’ll win every time. Or maybe not — but at least the cool kids online and in the media will highlight what a brilliant new-age mind you are.

Only recently Olsen was trying to convince people that the McShay and Shanahan coaches only want you to ‘think’ they want to feature the running game. They actually don’t. I read that take and wasn’t sold on that at all. I’ve listened to enough interviews with McVay over the years to believe he sincerely values the run — and you see it in the way his teams have played. There’s always been a significant commitment to a strong running attack and a physical edge to the McVay Rams.

I doubt Mike Macdonald’s persistent reference to the run’s importance is just a clever ruse, played out through countless press conferences for the purpose of leading other coaches down the garden path.

It does all get a bit tiring. It’s the same with the dull comments about running the ball on 2nd and 10 that you see constantly on Twitter. Or ‘running backs don’t matter’. Or the latest obsession with point differential (even though teams play easier or harder schedules throughout the league, meaning it’s never an apples to apples comparison).

There’ll be something else next. It feels like we’ve lost the ability to just watch a game of football, enjoy it for what it is and root for a win. Someone, somewhere, is always making the wrong decision and must be pointed at and laughed at.

For what it’s worth, I’m not anti-analytics in the slightest. I think any right-minded coach has to be aware of analytics, data and it should form a significant part of game-planning and in-game decision making. Nor do I think every coach or team gets everything right or shouldn’t be challenged.

We don’t have to demonise running the ball and field goals though — or lose the ability to acknowledge that what the Seahawks did today was the right call.

In 2013 — the greatest season in Seahawks history — there were ugly, conservative wins against the Panthers (12-7), Titans (20-13) and Rams (14-9). We don’t often remember those games when there’s a Super Bowl pasting to enjoy instead. NFL regular seasons are long, 17-stage battles. Every game is different.

Today, the Seahawks saw what this contest was and acted accordingly. This was a day when the defenses ruled. Get ahead, cut off any chance of a response, control the game.

Sometimes you’ve just got to accept the situation and get out with a win. Never take a 26-0 victory for granted. Don’t linger on pointless things like a great Flores defense being a great Flores defense or Jaxon Smith-Njigba having a setback on a potentially record-breaking run.

The Rams lost and the Seahawks capitalised today. That’s all that matters.