Advanced analytics which looks at huge amount of data and models them say Campbell did the right thing. Simpleton hindsight analysis using antiquated strategies says otherwise.
If either / both of those conversions had succeeded, this isn’t even a conversation.
That’s how you know the dissent is based on gut feels and fairy dust.
Every argument against using hypotheticals (momentum loss, taking points off the board, risk/reward) can be equally argued for using the opposite hypotheticals (momentum gain, time burned, putting up 7 instead of 3, possibility of a MFG).
I believe DC made the correct calls in the context of the moments in which he made them.
I don't think so. If they had succeeded, and people would have been talking about how gutsy Campbell is, and how it's the team's identity...I'd still be thinking it was unnecessarily risky.
Early in the year, the Chargers went for a silly 4th down against the Vikings, failed to convert, and gift-wrapped a chance for Minnesota to somehow win the game. Instead, they came up short and the Chargers escaped with a win. It was still a dumb move. If they had converted the 4th down, it was a dumb move.
Analytics would be flawless if robots played football. Instead, it's humans. My dissent is not based on gut feels. It's on the knowledge that regaining a three-score lead is demoralizing to an opponent that had mustered just 10 points at home in more than a half of football. Because even if they converted and scored a TD...it's still a three-score game.
It's knowing that, with half a quarter left in the championship game, the safer move is to erase your deficit. Converting doesn't guarantee a touchdown, and no matter what happens, the other team will have the ball back with time left. So why take unnecessary risk? For the chance you might take a lead a few minutes later? I think the risk/reward doesn't justify it. There's a time to play reckless and a time to play smart. They didn't have the 49ers on their heels, with a chance to put a dagger in them. They A. needed to counter a second-half score that cut the lead to 14, and B. needed to tie the game so they would be in less danger of losing in regulation.
I get what people are saying about not using the results to condemn or justify. There's a good argument that Pete Carroll did the right thing (or at least didn't make a dumb decision) by throwing the ball at the end of the Super Bowl. But in reality, with humans like Lynch carrying the ball, and a deflated human defense watching their championship hopes fade, you run the ball there. You kick after the SF field goal and make it a three-score game. You tie the score with half a quarter left in the conference championship. Or you at least try to do that.
When Washington tied Philadelphia at the end of the game this past season, I have no idea what analytics would have suggested, but I know you go for two to win. You don't give Jalen Hurts the ball again. The humans in Washington uniforms were not as good as the humans in Philly uniforms. If you can beat them by gaining two yards on one play, you take that chance and try to steal a win.
Analytics is a tool, not an oracle. There's a human factor to football that analytics cannot quantify. Ignoring it can be costly.