Should Dan Campbell have kicked a FG in the 2nd Half of the NFCC? (2 Viewers)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Every time I see this topic title, in my mind’s eye I picture Campbell trotting out onto the field to kick the FG and I am rolling.

Thank you for that, to whomever created this topic. Priceless.

I’m so easily entertained.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

At the end of the day, in order for there to be accountability, there is a correct decision and an incorrect decision.

While this is undoubtedly true, I do believe there’s some gray area here.

It’s certainly debatable as a question.

“Blame” implies that he definitively did something wrong.

I’m not sure that’s the case. There’s plenty of quality litigation in this topic. Not every is black and white.

Without a doubt there is gray area here. What you are describing isn’t gray vs black/white — it’s your ability to think of the world stochastically vs fantasycurse thinking deterministically. The idea that the only thing which matters is what happened — as opposed to a range of potential outcomes that could have reasonably happened — is to me the craziest idea of all. Action XYZ led to failure therefore it was dumb. Or if action XYZ led to success then be definition it was smart. This is why bozos who make foolish leveraged investment bets and win are lauded as geniuses. Most people in the world think deterministically. (Unfortunately)

 

[jon_mx]

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.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

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.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

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.

 

[JohnnyU]

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.

He gets it. Analytics is a tool, not an oracle.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

human factors

human element

human elements

human element

human factor

momentum

momentum

momentum

momentum

Feel like Eminem in the final 8 Mile battle. "I know everything he's about to say against me." We get it guys. There are "human elements" and "momentum" in football games. We're all familiar with the script you're reading from, it's the same one every time the boogeyman "analytics" gets brought up and has been for the 20+ years I've been here.

All you have to do now is demonstrate that those elements changed the numbers in this situation so drastically that it made the conversion attempt a terrible idea. It doesn't actually prove anything to just keep saying the words "humans" and "momentum" like some kind of magic spell - you have to demonstrate that they are so much more important than the data that it's worth ignoring the data. That's the part you all keep forgetting to do.

 

[JohnnyU]

It’s easy to point fingers after the fact. My argument isn’t whether he should have gone for it or try the field goal, but instead question the amount of times coaches go for it instead of kicking the field goal. It seems to be weighted towards going for it and IMO sometimes a FG is OK. The field goal is looked at as a failure when it shouldn’t.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It’s easy to point fingers after the fact. My argument isn’t whether he should have gone for it or try the field goal, but instead question the amount of times coaches go for it instead of kicking the field goal. It seems to be weighted towards going for it and IMO sometimes a FG is OK. The field goal is looked at as a failure when it shouldn’t.

Except in end-of-game scenarios where you're trailing by 2 or whatever, a field goal is a failure. It always has been since they made TDs worth more than FGs. Teams would always rather have a touchdown than a field goal. It's why teams don't ever kick field goals on any of the first three downs. You never want a field goal, you always settle for a field goal.

Obviously sometimes the expected value of attempting a field goal is higher than the EV of trying to convert a fourth down, and in those cases it makes sense to settle for the FG. The problem is that until recently, no one really paid much attention to the relative EV of kicking vs. going for it, so kicking was much more common. Now they do, and the game is changing accordingly.

 

[JohnnyU]

It’s easy to point fingers after the fact. My argument isn’t whether he should have gone for it or try the field goal, but instead question the amount of times coaches go for it instead of kicking the field goal. It seems to be weighted towards going for it and IMO sometimes a FG is OK. The field goal is looked at as a failure when it shouldn’t.

Except in end-of-game scenarios where you're trailing by 2 or whatever, a field goal is a failure. It always has been since they made TDs worth more than FGs. Teams would always rather have a touchdown than a field goal. It's why teams don't ever kick field goals on any of the first three downs. You never want a field goal, you always settle for a field goal.

Obviously sometimes the expected value of attempting a field goal is higher than the EV of trying to convert a fourth down, and in those cases it makes sense to settle for the FG. The problem is that until recently, no one really paid much attention to the relative EV of kicking vs. going for it, so kicking was much more common. Now they do, and the game is changing accordingly.

Why are you stating the obvious? Of course a TD is better than a FG. Why the statement “It’s why teams don’t kick field goals on the first three downs”?. It’s almost as if you’re trying to intentionally confuse the meaning of my post. Or you’re just confused by it.

 

[fantasycurse42]

human factors

human element

human elements

human element

human factor

momentum

momentum

momentum

momentum

Feel like Eminem in the final 8 Mile battle. "I know everything he's about to say against me." We get it guys. There are "human elements" and "momentum" in football games. We're all familiar with the script you're reading from, it's the same one every time the boogeyman "analytics" gets brought up and has been for the 20+ years I've been here.

All you have to do now is demonstrate that those elements changed the numbers in this situation so drastically that it made the conversion attempt a terrible idea. It doesn't actually prove anything to just keep saying the words "humans" and "momentum" like some kind of magic spell - you have to demonstrate that they are so much more important than the data that it's worth ignoring the data. That's the part you all keep forgetting to do.

The analytics were very close. So momentum and the human element should play no factor here and the decision should be made based off of a variance of 0.3%?

 

[Da Guru]

So many variables.

Watching in real time I wanted to kick the first FG. Defense just held SF to 3, Make the FG and we matched their opening drive and still up 17. Then kickoff and SF starts on the 25 with half the third over down by 3 scores. Dynamics of the game are changed, that bizarre ricochet play never happens.

Missing the FG is different than not making it on 4th down. The crowd will cheer missing the FG but they went wild after not making it on 4th, that is part of football. Just watching you could feel the energy shift. If the Lions were at home not making it would not have been as big as on the road.

That being said the play was there to be made. Goff side stepped the rush and put the ball right where it should be, Reynolds simply dropped a catch he makes all day. I have watched every game and Reynolds has made some unreal tough catches this year in traffic. It happens. Makes the catch and Lions get a possible 7 and for sure 3 on the drive and most likely win the game as everything after changes and the crowd is taken out of the game.

Sadly Reynolds who had "2 drops" in 19 games had 2 huge drops in one half, he catches either one and good chance it changes the outcome. Gibb had 2 fumbles in 19 games and fumbled deep in Lions zone. Those were both game changers.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

As someone rooting for the 49ers, I was absolutely rooting for the Lions to kick the FG there because I thought the Lions were going to convert on 4th and 3 and basically crush the 9ers soul, but I felt okay about their chances of missing a long field goal.

You obviously understand nothing about football. Everyone knows that momentum only goes in one direction: If a team attempts a fourth-down conversion and fails, it completely deflates them and causes them to fumble and bounce potential interceptions off of their facemasks, while inspiring the other team to make implausible catches and score multiple times. But if they convert, it has zero effect on either team.

I know what you're thinking: That doesn't make any rational sense. But what you're forgetting, Nerdlinger, is that your analytical models can't account for everything, including the concept of one-way momentum

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Feel like Eminem in the final 8 Mile battle. "I know everything he's about to say against me." We get it guys. There are "human elements" and "momentum" in football games. We're all familiar with the script you're reading from, it's the same one every time the boogeyman "analytics" gets brought up and has been for the 20+ years I've been here.

All you have to do now is demonstrate that those elements changed the numbers in this situation so drastically that it made the conversion attempt a terrible idea. It doesn't actually prove anything to just keep saying the words "humans" and "momentum" like some kind of magic spell - you have to demonstrate that they are so much more important than the data that it's worth ignoring the data. That's the part you all keep forgetting to do.

The analytics were very close. So momentum and the human element should play no factor here and the decision should be made based off of a variance of 0.3%?

Nppe, not what anyone is saying. But if the argument is that Dan Campbell made a mistake, you'd have to show that "momentum" and the "human element" moved the needle so far that the analytics were no longer close. That he should go against his nature and the way he's generally always coached, because the decision was no longer the coin flip that the analytics indicated, but much more in favor of kicking.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It’s easy to point fingers after the fact. My argument isn’t whether he should have gone for it or try the field goal, but instead question the amount of times coaches go for it instead of kicking the field goal. It seems to be weighted towards going for it and IMO sometimes a FG is OK. The field goal is looked at as a failure when it shouldn’t.

Except in end-of-game scenarios where you're trailing by 2 or whatever, a field goal is a failure. It always has been since they made TDs worth more than FGs. Teams would always rather have a touchdown than a field goal. It's why teams don't ever kick field goals on any of the first three downs. You never want a field goal, you always settle for a field goal.

Obviously sometimes the expected value of attempting a field goal is higher than the EV of trying to convert a fourth down, and in those cases it makes sense to settle for the FG. The problem is that until recently, no one really paid much attention to the relative EV of kicking vs. going for it, so kicking was much more common. Now they do, and the game is changing accordingly.

Why are you stating the obvious? Of course a TD is better than a FG. Why the statement “It’s why teams don’t kick field goals on the first three downs”?. It’s almost as if you’re trying to intentionally confuse the meaning of my post. Or you’re just confused by it.

Why are you asking me about stating the obvious when you posted "sometimes a FG is OK?"

I was just explaining modern football to you, as it seem the game has passed you by.

 

[JohnnyU]

It’s easy to point fingers after the fact. My argument isn’t whether he should have gone for it or try the field goal, but instead question the amount of times coaches go for it instead of kicking the field goal. It seems to be weighted towards going for it and IMO sometimes a FG is OK. The field goal is looked at as a failure when it shouldn’t.

Except in end-of-game scenarios where you're trailing by 2 or whatever, a field goal is a failure. It always has been since they made TDs worth more than FGs. Teams would always rather have a touchdown than a field goal. It's why teams don't ever kick field goals on any of the first three downs. You never want a field goal, you always settle for a field goal.

Obviously sometimes the expected value of attempting a field goal is higher than the EV of trying to convert a fourth down, and in those cases it makes sense to settle for the FG. The problem is that until recently, no one really paid much attention to the relative EV of kicking vs. going for it, so kicking was much more common. Now they do, and the game is changing accordingly.

Why are you stating the obvious? Of course a TD is better than a FG. Why the statement “It’s why teams don’t kick field goals on the first three downs”?. It’s almost as if you’re trying to intentionally confuse the meaning of my post. Or you’re just confused by it.

Why are you asking me about stating the obvious when you posted "sometimes a FG is OK?"

I was just explaining modern football to you, as it seem the game has passed you by.

I doubt it has passed me by.

 

[Football Jones]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

In your mind, the ONE thing you couldn’t do was give the ball back to the 49ers there without scoring points. That would’ve been possible whether they attempted the FG or the conversion. That’s common sense, which is why it’s weird you keep ignoring it.

 

[Joe Schmo]

When Detroit misses the fg they give the ball back to SF at the 35 yd line instead of the 28 yd line as happened when the conversion failed. Why give up seven yards and give SF a shorter field to work with when they get the ball back?

 

[dgreen]

I think we might have so much bias based on so many years of watching football and the way we expect things should be. We have prior data telling us what "should" happen in certain scenarios that that's our default and we need overwhelming evidence to change our mind. But, I wonder what the reaction would be if instead of asking "Should they go for it or kick the FG?" we asked "Should they do X or Y?" with no knowledge of what X and Y are. Because I'm not sure it really matters what X and Y are. I get the feeling that one side in this discussion don't really differentiate much between "go for it" and "kick the FG". They just see them as "X and Y", while the other sees them as "go for it" and "kick the FG" with a built-in bias of the value of each.

 

[Football Jones]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

In your mind, the ONE thing you couldn’t do was give the ball back to the 49ers there without scoring points. That would’ve been possible whether they attempted the FG or the conversion. That’s common sense, which is why it’s weird you keep ignoring it.

I didn't think I needed to explain, but there's a lot more at stake on the 4th down play for the 9ers than a missed FG attempt. For one, converting on 4th down means more time off the clock in a game you're behind 14 points and also a chance at a TD. A FG attempt ends there. Only 3 points are at stake and you get the ball back either way. Campbell gave the 9ers EXACTLY what they needed for a comeback. It doesn't take many years of watching football or sports in general to know a big momentum swing is a huge factor in outcomes.

The worst part of your argument is worrying about Badgley missing. He made one earlier in the game and had been kicking pretty well for them and no weather concerns. My guess is, like in the Dallas game, Campbell had already decided he was going to be aggressive come hell or high water and played it like he was down 14 instead of up 14. Dan Campbell screwed the pooch. Period.

It's not the end of the world, but you have to wonder if he's actually going to learn anything from this. If McCarthy had made the same decision, he'd be burned at the stake, LOL. It was a horrible decision and Campbell deserves all the criticism he gets.

 

[titusbramble]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

Ah, there are plays where we should ignore valuable information which might help guide us towards the correct play call, got you...

 

[Football Jones]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

Ah, there are plays where we should ignore valuable information which might help guide us towards the correct play call, got you...

Depends on what you call "valuable", LOL.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

In your mind, the ONE thing you couldn’t do was give the ball back to the 49ers there without scoring points. That would’ve been possible whether they attempted the FG or the conversion. That’s common sense, which is why it’s weird you keep ignoring it.

I didn't think I needed to explain, but there's a lot more at stake on the 4th down play for the 9ers than a missed FG attempt. For one, converting on 4th down means more time off the clock in a game you're behind 14 points and also a chance at a TD. A FG attempt ends there. Only 3 points are at stake and you get the ball back either way. Campbell gave the 9ers EXACTLY what they needed for a comeback. It doesn't take many years of watching football or sports in general to know a big momentum swing is a huge factor in outcomes.

The worst part of your argument is worrying about Badgley missing. He made one earlier in the game and had been kicking pretty well for them and no weather concerns. My guess is, like in the Dallas game, Campbell had already decided he was going to be aggressive come hell or high water and played it like he was down 14 instead of up 14. Dan Campbell screwed the pooch. Period.

It's not the end of the world, but you have to wonder if he's actually going to learn anything from this. If McCarthy had made the same decision, he'd be burned at the stake, LOL. It was a horrible decision and Campbell deserves all the criticism he gets.

I realize now you’re trolling, apologies for not picking up on it sooner.

 

[JohnnyU]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

In your mind, the ONE thing you couldn’t do was give the ball back to the 49ers there without scoring points. That would’ve been possible whether they attempted the FG or the conversion. That’s common sense, which is why it’s weird you keep ignoring it.

I didn't think I needed to explain, but there's a lot more at stake on the 4th down play for the 9ers than a missed FG attempt. For one, converting on 4th down means more time off the clock in a game you're behind 14 points and also a chance at a TD. A FG attempt ends there. Only 3 points are at stake and you get the ball back either way. Campbell gave the 9ers EXACTLY what they needed for a comeback. It doesn't take many years of watching football or sports in general to know a big momentum swing is a huge factor in outcomes.

The worst part of your argument is worrying about Badgley missing. He made one earlier in the game and had been kicking pretty well for them and no weather concerns. My guess is, like in the Dallas game, Campbell had already decided he was going to be aggressive come hell or high water and played it like he was down 14 instead of up 14. Dan Campbell screwed the pooch. Period.

It's not the end of the world, but you have to wonder if he's actually going to learn anything from this. If McCarthy had made the same decision, he'd be burned at the stake, LOL. It was a horrible decision and Campbell deserves all the criticism he gets.

I realize now you’re trolling, apologies for not picking up on it sooner.

No he isn’t.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

In your mind, the ONE thing you couldn’t do was give the ball back to the 49ers there without scoring points. That would’ve been possible whether they attempted the FG or the conversion. That’s common sense, which is why it’s weird you keep ignoring it.

I didn't think I needed to explain, but there's a lot more at stake on the 4th down play for the 9ers than a missed FG attempt. For one, converting on 4th down means more time off the clock in a game you're behind 14 points and also a chance at a TD. A FG attempt ends there. Only 3 points are at stake and you get the ball back either way. Campbell gave the 9ers EXACTLY what they needed for a comeback. It doesn't take many years of watching football or sports in general to know a big momentum swing is a huge factor in outcomes.

The worst part of your argument is worrying about Badgley missing. He made one earlier in the game and had been kicking pretty well for them and no weather concerns. My guess is, like in the Dallas game, Campbell had already decided he was going to be aggressive come hell or high water and played it like he was down 14 instead of up 14. Dan Campbell screwed the pooch. Period.

It's not the end of the world, but you have to wonder if he's actually going to learn anything from this. If McCarthy had made the same decision, he'd be burned at the stake, LOL. It was a horrible decision and Campbell deserves all the criticism he gets.

I realize now you’re trolling, apologies for not picking up on it sooner.

No he isn’t.

Reread what he wrote. No one is that dumb.

 

[titusbramble]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

Ah, there are plays where we should ignore valuable information which might help guide us towards the correct play call, got you...

Depends on what you call "valuable", LOL.

Well, you can still look at what actual data says, and then go with "crowd noise above 100dB", "wind has shifted ten degrees clockwise" or "tooth fairy says take the points" or other equally asinine points as more important, that's fine, ignoring it completely is just gross negligence on the part of the coaching staff

 

[Football Jones]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

In your mind, the ONE thing you couldn’t do was give the ball back to the 49ers there without scoring points. That would’ve been possible whether they attempted the FG or the conversion. That’s common sense, which is why it’s weird you keep ignoring it.

I didn't think I needed to explain, but there's a lot more at stake on the 4th down play for the 9ers than a missed FG attempt. For one, converting on 4th down means more time off the clock in a game you're behind 14 points and also a chance at a TD. A FG attempt ends there. Only 3 points are at stake and you get the ball back either way. Campbell gave the 9ers EXACTLY what they needed for a comeback. It doesn't take many years of watching football or sports in general to know a big momentum swing is a huge factor in outcomes.

The worst part of your argument is worrying about Badgley missing. He made one earlier in the game and had been kicking pretty well for them and no weather concerns. My guess is, like in the Dallas game, Campbell had already decided he was going to be aggressive come hell or high water and played it like he was down 14 instead of up 14. Dan Campbell screwed the pooch. Period.

It's not the end of the world, but you have to wonder if he's actually going to learn anything from this. If McCarthy had made the same decision, he'd be burned at the stake, LOL. It was a horrible decision and Campbell deserves all the criticism he gets.

I realize now you’re trolling, apologies for not picking up on it sooner.

LOL. You've been asking for an explanation all thread. I thought it was obvious, but I gave you what you wanted. It's the end of the story.

What Dan Campbell and anyone else who believes the nonsense about always going by analytics needs to know is sometimes you shouldn't. It's a painful lesson. It's almost like you should use common sense in coaching.

 

[Football Jones]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

In your mind, the ONE thing you couldn’t do was give the ball back to the 49ers there without scoring points. That would’ve been possible whether they attempted the FG or the conversion. That’s common sense, which is why it’s weird you keep ignoring it.

I didn't think I needed to explain, but there's a lot more at stake on the 4th down play for the 9ers than a missed FG attempt. For one, converting on 4th down means more time off the clock in a game you're behind 14 points and also a chance at a TD. A FG attempt ends there. Only 3 points are at stake and you get the ball back either way. Campbell gave the 9ers EXACTLY what they needed for a comeback. It doesn't take many years of watching football or sports in general to know a big momentum swing is a huge factor in outcomes.

The worst part of your argument is worrying about Badgley missing. He made one earlier in the game and had been kicking pretty well for them and no weather concerns. My guess is, like in the Dallas game, Campbell had already decided he was going to be aggressive come hell or high water and played it like he was down 14 instead of up 14. Dan Campbell screwed the pooch. Period.

It's not the end of the world, but you have to wonder if he's actually going to learn anything from this. If McCarthy had made the same decision, he'd be burned at the stake, LOL. It was a horrible decision and Campbell deserves all the criticism he gets.

I realize now you’re trolling, apologies for not picking up on it sooner.

No he isn’t.

Reread what he wrote. No one is that dumb.

LOL. Somebody doesn't like the answer to the question.

 

[Football Jones]

This might be for another thread, but I'm fascinated by how Campbell's decision is viewed as opposed to if it had been McCarthy or say, Brandon Staley (who is famous for pulling stuff like Campbell did).

The reaction would be MUCH different. It really would be a study in psychology. You'd need a bunch of popcorn...

 

[titusbramble]

This might be for another thread, but I'm fascinated by how Campbell's decision is viewed as opposed to if it had been McCarthy or say, Brandon Staley (who is famous for pulling stuff like Campbell did).

The reaction would be MUCH different. It really would be a study in psychology. You'd need a bunch of popcorn...

Indeed it would. If Fat Mike had have made such a call I would still be too stunned to comment on the internet

Edit - it's now actually a full decade since, on the main forum I visit, McCarthy's name has been in the title of the bad coaching thread, that's just how historically awful he is

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

In your mind, the ONE thing you couldn’t do was give the ball back to the 49ers there without scoring points. That would’ve been possible whether they attempted the FG or the conversion. That’s common sense, which is why it’s weird you keep ignoring it.

I didn't think I needed to explain, but there's a lot more at stake on the 4th down play for the 9ers than a missed FG attempt. For one, converting on 4th down means more time off the clock in a game you're behind 14 points and also a chance at a TD. A FG attempt ends there. Only 3 points are at stake and you get the ball back either way. Campbell gave the 9ers EXACTLY what they needed for a comeback. It doesn't take many years of watching football or sports in general to know a big momentum swing is a huge factor in outcomes.

The worst part of your argument is worrying about Badgley missing. He made one earlier in the game and had been kicking pretty well for them and no weather concerns. My guess is, like in the Dallas game, Campbell had already decided he was going to be aggressive come hell or high water and played it like he was down 14 instead of up 14. Dan Campbell screwed the pooch. Period.

It's not the end of the world, but you have to wonder if he's actually going to learn anything from this. If McCarthy had made the same decision, he'd be burned at the stake, LOL. It was a horrible decision and Campbell deserves all the criticism he gets.

I realize now you’re trolling, apologies for not picking up on it sooner.

No he isn’t.

Reread what he wrote. No one is that dumb.

LOL. Somebody doesn't like the answer to the question.

It’s not bad, as far as trolling attempts go, you just took it too far. I was on the hook until then but that first paragraph and a half is too obviously stupid to have been written by a sincere adult.

 

[Gally]

All you have to do now is demonstrate that those elements changed the numbers in this situation so drastically that it made the conversion attempt a terrible idea. It doesn't actually prove anything to just keep saying the words "humans" and "momentum" like some kind of magic spell - you have to demonstrate that they are so much more important than the data that it's worth ignoring the data. That's the part you all keep forgetting to do.

I am not saying going for it was a terrible idea. I have always said the analytics are close enough that I would factor in the game situation a bit more as well as the bigger downside (IMO) of missing the 4th down giving SF hope (which is what they needed to get back into the game). That to me was the "game situation" and "human factor" that would have swung the decision to attempting the FG for me. That is what I would have done. It's what I think DC should have done under those circumstances.

There is no way to quantify "human factor" but it doesn't mean it isn't part of the equation. It's the part that good coaches can evaluate in the moment. I do not think DC is a good game coach. His decision at the end of the game and his decision in Dallas to continue to go for 2 after the penalty are two examples that lead me to my belief. I think he is a gungho coach that is ultra aggressive. That will serve you well in many instances but in one and done games it can also get you in trouble. I thought it got him in trouble here. That is not to say going for it was the dumbest thing he could do, (that would be calling the TO) but I didn't think it did him any favors at the time.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

What Dan Campbell and anyone else who believes the nonsense about always going by analytics needs to know is sometimes you shouldn't. It's a painful lesson. It's almost like you should use common sense in coaching.

Your periodic reminder that literally no one actually holds this strawman position.

In fact, in the examples we've spent the past five pages arguing over, everyone agrees that the analytics show it as basically a coin-flip decision, so presumably Campbell made the decision based on other factors that he knew about his team, which is exactly what the anti-analytics folks are always saying coaches should do. And at the end of the first half when the numbers favored going for it, he kicked the FG.

You can disagree with his criteria, but he clearly didn't follow the numbers blindly

 

[Stoneworker]

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.

And so when Campbell went for the FG at the end of the first half on 4th and 3 instead of trying for a TD was he was being an antiquated simpleton hindsight strategist?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It’s also time to put to rest the argument that you “can’t quantify” things like momentum. You can, it just doesn’t matter as much as people think (or, at all). You think our machine learning models can’t look at a data feed of an NFL game and figure out which team “has the momentum?” We do things 1,000x harder than that routinely. If having momentum mattered it would jump right out of the data. It doesn’t. Otherwise one team would get momentum to start the game and never give it up, but obviously that’s not what happens. You have momentum until - suddenly - you don’t.

We’ve all played sports, we know what momentum feels like. It’s just a completely useless predictor of the future.

 

[Football Jones]

What Dan Campbell and anyone else who believes the nonsense about always going by analytics needs to know is sometimes you shouldn't. It's a painful lesson. It's almost like you should use common sense in coaching.

Your periodic reminder that literally no one actually holds this strawman position.

In fact, in the examples we've spent the past five pages arguing over, everyone agrees that the analytics show it as basically a coin-flip decision, so presumably Campbell made the decision based on other factors that he knew about his team, which is exactly what the anti-analytics folks are always saying coaches should do. And at the end of the first half when the numbers favored going for it, he kicked the FG.

You can disagree with his criteria, but he clearly didn't follow the numbers blindly

We're mostly talking about the 24-10 FG situation in this thread and all I've noticed is people mentioning analytics for the reasons they thought Campbell made the right call. I'm simply cautioning against that line of thinking.

I do have a strong opinion on this, but I'm beginning to get more interested in the dynamics revolving around Campbell. Does he get a pass because he's easy to root for? Or is it because the Lions are new up-and-comers and they don't get the "hate" other teams do? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the reaction would be totally different for McCarthy or Staley had they made the same decision.

I'm wondering if Campbell isn't being pumped up beyond his capabilities. I saw where he mentioned the run play was a mistake in hindsight, but then doubled down saying it forced him to take a TO. Evidently, it hasn't dawned on him he also shouldn't have called a TO there. Are people anointing this guy too early? I'm wait and see on Campbell, myself, due to some concerns, but many people are sky-high on him.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm beginning to get more interested in the dynamics revolving around Campbell. Does he get a pass because he's easy to root for? Or is it because the Lions are new up-and-comers and they don't get the "hate" other teams do. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the reaction would be totally different for McCarthy or Staley had they made the same decision.

75% of people here seem to think Campbell screwed up. How much different do you think the reaction would be if it was someone else?

 

[JohnnyU]

It appears this thread has hit a dead end.

 

[Football Jones]

I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle when I see someone proudly stating the advanced analytical model said to go for it.

No, you did the ONE thing you couldn't do. Campbell failed to see why analytics shouldn't be applied to every situation.

This is common sense stuff. It's not hard, at all.

In your mind, the ONE thing you couldn’t do was give the ball back to the 49ers there without scoring points. That would’ve been possible whether they attempted the FG or the conversion. That’s common sense, which is why it’s weird you keep ignoring it.

I didn't think I needed to explain, but there's a lot more at stake on the 4th down play for the 9ers than a missed FG attempt. For one, converting on 4th down means more time off the clock in a game you're behind 14 points and also a chance at a TD. A FG attempt ends there. Only 3 points are at stake and you get the ball back either way. Campbell gave the 9ers EXACTLY what they needed for a comeback. It doesn't take many years of watching football or sports in general to know a big momentum swing is a huge factor in outcomes.

The worst part of your argument is worrying about Badgley missing. He made one earlier in the game and had been kicking pretty well for them and no weather concerns. My guess is, like in the Dallas game, Campbell had already decided he was going to be aggressive come hell or high water and played it like he was down 14 instead of up 14. Dan Campbell screwed the pooch. Period.

It's not the end of the world, but you have to wonder if he's actually going to learn anything from this. If McCarthy had made the same decision, he'd be burned at the stake, LOL. It was a horrible decision and Campbell deserves all the criticism he gets.

I realize now you’re trolling, apologies for not picking up on it sooner.

No he isn’t.

Reread what he wrote. No one is that dumb.

LOL. Somebody doesn't like the answer to the question.

It’s not bad, as far as trolling attempts go, you just took it too far. I was on the hook until then but that first paragraph and a half is too obviously stupid to have been written by a sincere adult.

You've been using the "you can't prove it" line all thread. Not liking the answer doesn't mean anyone is trolling.

In fact, I don't believe you're trolling, either. It's not a crime to be ill-informed. It's ok.

 

[Football Jones]

I'm beginning to get more interested in the dynamics revolving around Campbell. Does he get a pass because he's easy to root for? Or is it because the Lions are new up-and-comers and they don't get the "hate" other teams do. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the reaction would be totally different for McCarthy or Staley had they made the same decision.

75% of people here seem to think Campbell screwed up. How much different do you think the reaction would be if it was someone else?

Way higher than 75%.

A big part of the 25% is due to team loyalty & I totally get it. Campbell is the HC who brought them a division title and a playoff win.

 

[Gally]

Otherwise one team would get momentum to start the game and never give it up, but obviously that’s not what happens. You have momentum until - suddenly - you don’t.

I think this is a key point for this exact situation. "you have momentum until - suddenly you don't". At the time SF needed a momentum jolt. The best way they could get this is to get a 4th down stop. By going for it DC is risking SF getting the jolt of momentum they needed to turn the game around. By attempting the FG he is keeping the momentum at status quo. A miss isn't as big of a momentum swing as a 4th down stop. It's good for SF but not as good as a 4th down stop. A blocked FG could rival that swing but that is much less likely than anything else in this scenario.

This is the main reason why I think the FG attempt would have been far and away the correct choice. The downside of not getting the 4th down conversion and subsequent momentum shift was the biggest risk to Detroit it leading to SF getting back into the game. It's not a risk I would have taken.

 

[Football Jones]

It appears this thread has hit a dead end.

It might have run its course.

 

[Football Jones]

Otherwise one team would get momentum to start the game and never give it up, but obviously that’s not what happens. You have momentum until - suddenly - you don’t.

I think this is a key point for this exact situation. "you have momentum until - suddenly you don't". At the time SF needed a momentum jolt. The best way they could get this is to get a 4th down stop. By going for it DC is risking SF getting the jolt of momentum they needed to turn the game around. By attempting the FG he is keeping the momentum at status quo. A miss isn't as big of a momentum swing as a 4th down stop. It's good for SF but not as good as a 4th down stop. A blocked FG could rival that swing but that is much less likely than anything else in this scenario.

This is the main reason why I think the FG attempt would have been far and away the correct choice. The downside of not getting the 4th down conversion and subsequent momentum shift was the biggest risk to Detroit it leading to SF getting back into the game. It's not a risk I would have taken.

Agreed. Basic risk/reward assessment.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

At the time SF needed a momentum jolt.

This is a common misconception. They didn’t need momentum, they needed points. If momentum was predictive of points it would be easy to prove. But it’s not.

 

[JohnnyU]

It appears this thread has hit a dead end.

It might have run its course.

Kind of like Jack Torrance in the maze when he freezes to death.

 

[Gally]

It’s easy to point fingers after the fact. My argument isn’t whether he should have gone for it or try the field goal, but instead question the amount of times coaches go for it instead of kicking the field goal. It seems to be weighted towards going for it and IMO sometimes a FG is OK. The field goal is looked at as a failure when it shouldn’t.

Except in end-of-game scenarios where you're trailing by 2 or whatever, a field goal is a failure. It always has been since they made TDs worth more than FGs. Teams would always rather have a touchdown than a field goal. It's why teams don't ever kick field goals on any of the first three downs. You never want a field goal, you always settle for a field goal.

Obviously sometimes the expected value of attempting a field goal is higher than the EV of trying to convert a fourth down, and in those cases it makes sense to settle for the FG. The problem is that until recently, no one really paid much attention to the relative EV of kicking vs. going for it, so kicking was much more common. Now they do, and the game is changing accordingly.

There are times when kicking a FG is not settling. Game situation matters. Time & Score matter. There are times when you a TD isn't any better than a FG. For example, about 2 Minute warning. You have a 7 pt lead and the ball. First down and the other team has 2 TO's. You are on the opponents 20 yd line. If a TD is always preferred you would be mixing pass and run just like you would in the first quarter because a TD is the best outcome. In this scenario keeping the clock moving and using up their TO's is the most important thing. You are going to run three times to use up the TO's and minimize the clock. On 4th down you kick a FG. That is the preferred outcome. A TD is not ideal because you give the ball back with more time on the clock. "Settling" for a FG is not a failure here.

In the SF/Det scenario, settling for a FG attempt half way through the 3rd quarter to possibly put you up by 3 scores is better than risking a momentum shift by getting stopped on 4th down for that game scenario. You have control of the game. If it keeps going this way it's in your favor. Why risk giving the SF hope with a 4th down stop? Settling for a FG here is not failure.

 

[MAC_32]

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.

And so when Campbell went for the FG at the end of the first half on 4th and 3 instead of trying for a TD was he was being an antiquated simpleton hindsight strategist?

No- the probability of converting a 4th & 3 at the goal line is vastly different than the middle of the field. Since it was the end of the half, there is no field advantage since the 9ers would have just knelt on the ball instead of likely giving the Lions the ball back in scoring position (or getting a safety).

 

[Gally]

At the time SF needed a momentum jolt.

This is a common misconception. They didn’t need momentum, they needed points. If momentum was predictive of points it would be easy to prove. But it’s not.

It's not a misconception at all. I have been in games where nothing is going your way and you just need something to turn that around. Getting the opportunity for a big turn in momentum is what you are grasping for. Keeping the game status quo is good for the team leading....bad for the team losing. Even though it's a movie it perfectly illustrates the phenomenon.........Drago's been cut!. Drago's been cut! We finally stopped Detroit! We finally stopped Detroit! We can get back in this thing!

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It’s easy to point fingers after the fact. My argument isn’t whether he should have gone for it or try the field goal, but instead question the amount of times coaches go for it instead of kicking the field goal. It seems to be weighted towards going for it and IMO sometimes a FG is OK. The field goal is looked at as a failure when it shouldn’t.

Except in end-of-game scenarios where you're trailing by 2 or whatever, a field goal is a failure. It always has been since they made TDs worth more than FGs. Teams would always rather have a touchdown than a field goal. It's why teams don't ever kick field goals on any of the first three downs. You never want a field goal, you always settle for a field goal.

Obviously sometimes the expected value of attempting a field goal is higher than the EV of trying to convert a fourth down, and in those cases it makes sense to settle for the FG. The problem is that until recently, no one really paid much attention to the relative EV of kicking vs. going for it, so kicking was much more common. Now they do, and the game is changing accordingly.

There are times when kicking a FG is not settling. Game situation matters. Time & Score matter. There are times when you a TD isn't any better than a FG. For example, about 2 Minute warning. You have a 7 pt lead and the ball. First down and the other team has 2 TO's. You are on the opponents 20 yd line. If a TD is always preferred you would be mixing pass and run just like you would in the first quarter because a TD is the best outcome. In this scenario keeping the clock moving and using up their TO's is the most important thing. You are going to run three times to use up the TO's and minimize the clock. On 4th down you kick a FG. That is the preferred outcome. A TD is not ideal because you give the ball back with more time on the clock. "Settling" for a FG is not a failure here.

I already addressed this entire paragraph in the first sentence of my reply that you quoted.

As for the rest about “risking momentum shifts” and whatnot, I just can’t keep responding to the same discredited nonsense.