Should Dan Campbell have kicked a FG in the 2nd Half of the NFCC? (1 Viewer)

[Football Jones]

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.

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.

It's almost like momentum = points.

Momentum has played a key role in victories in every sport there is. It's a thing.

Surely that's not something we need to debate here. When you add in a very makable FG to go up 3 scores (which is huge), you start to get the feel of just how much risk was involved in going for it on 4th down.

 

[MAC_32]

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.

This may have been covered already, but numbers dictate a ~75% probability he makes the kick and a ~60% probability of converting the 4th down. That said, the Lions probability on 4th & 3 and under this year (small sample size warning!) was ~85%. Even if you're a believer in momentum the numbers justify either decision with a slight lean towards go for it, especially when considering the quality of the Detroit defense (notably vs the pass) vs the SF offense. To that point they were fortunate Shanahan took such a run heavy approach (why???) in the first half, but as we saw that wasn't going to hold. More points were going to be needed to win this game; field goals alone weren't going to do it.

 

[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.

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.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

 

[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.

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.

Discredited by who, YOU?

 

[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.

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.

It's almost like momentum = points.

If that was true it would be easy to prove. Can’t wait to see your results.

 

[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.

Discredited by who, YOU?

No, by decades of people whose careers depend on being able to figure these things out. Try to keep up pops.

 

[Football Jones]

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.

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.

It's almost like momentum = points.

If that was true it would be easy to prove. Can’t wait to see your results.

The 9ers proved it.

 

[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.

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.

It's almost like momentum = points.

If that was true it would be easy to prove. Can’t wait to see your results.

The 9ers proved it.

In other words, you can’t and never will. Boring.

The Lions had the momentum for most of the game. Why didn’t they win?

 

[Football Jones]

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.

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.

It's almost like momentum = points.

If that was true it would be easy to prove. Can’t wait to see your results.

The 9ers proved it.

In other words, you can’t and never will. Boring.

The Lions had the momentum for most of the game. Why didn’t they win?

Campbell made a poor decision.

 

[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.

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.

Discredited by who, YOU?

No, by decades of people whose careers depend on being able to figure these things out. Try to keep up pops.

Please list these people. You know, those whose careers depend on figuring out momentum swings and it’s affect on a game. I never knew they did a study on that and would love to hear what you have learned and from whom.

 

[Bankerguy]

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.

I would simply like to see the math that go into calculating these probabilities.

I’m confident there would be interesting things omitted or over stated. Just my opinion.

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

Really? How much data can you generate over 17 games.

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

I would simply like to see the math that go into calculating these probabilities.

I’m confident there would be interesting things omitted or over stated. Just my opinion.

I suspect it doesn't factor the teams involved otherwise you should call tails at the Super Bowl....

For the first 57 Super Bowls the flip has landed on tails 31 times and heads 26 times.

 

[Football Jones]

To have a decent debate, some things have to be understood by all parties. When they're not understood (like big momentum swings being a factor in winning football games), you get the type of debate we have now, LOL.

No offense to anyone, but I don't see a way to continue this responsibly (with certain parties, anyway).

 

[JohnnyU]

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.

I would simply like to see the math that go into calculating these probabilities.

I’m confident there would be interesting things omitted or over stated. Just my opinion.

I suspect it doesn't factor the teams involved otherwise you should call tails at the Super Bowl....

For the first 57 Super Bowls the flip has landed on tails 31 times and heads 26 times.

The way the math works, over millions of flips it should be close to 50%

 

[Bankerguy]

I simply want to know how Detroit (or how this perfectly “accurate math”) calculates their probability of converting the FD on that first passed FG. Pass to Reynolds.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'd still be thinking it was unnecessarily risky.

And that would still be an opinion based on the outcome.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

To have a decent debate, some things have to be understood by all parties. When they're not understood (like big momentum swings being a factor in winning football games), you get the type of debate we have now, LOL.

No offense to anyone, but I don't see a way to continue this responsibly (with certain parties, anyway).

Agreed. One should have a basic understanding of probability, data science, etc. to add anything to this discussion. Otherwise it gets muddied up by people making vague generalizations based on their gut, which is useless for all involved.

 

[JohnnyU]

To have a decent debate, some things have to be understood by all parties. When they're not understood (like big momentum swings being a factor in winning football games), you get the type of debate we have now, LOL.

No offense to anyone, but I don't see a way to continue this responsibly (with certain parties, anyway).

Agreed. One should have a basic understanding of probability, data science, etc. to add anything to this discussion. Otherwise it gets muddied up by people making vague generalizations based on their gut, which is useless for all involved.

Sorry if you’ve already posted this, because reading over this thread is painful, but do you believe analytics played an actual role in his decisions? I mean, do you think someone was in his ear telling him the model says we should do this or that?

 

[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.

Discredited by who, YOU?

No, by decades of people whose careers depend on being able to figure these things out. Try to keep up pops.

Please list these people. You know, those whose careers depend on figuring out momentum swings and it’s affect on a game. I never knew they did a study on that and would love to hear what you have learned and from whom.

Here are a few examples:

Loading…

www.wsj.com

No such thing as game-winning momentum in sports, researchers say - UPI.com

Economic researchers at Cornell says game-winning "momentum" in sports doesn't exist.

www.upi.com

Loading…

labs.la.utexas.edu

Of course if it had any value at all it would show up in sports betting markets, which are the true test of these things (since your money literally depends on being right) and it doesn’t.

But anyway the burden of proof isn’t even on the naysayers to begin with. The people claiming it’s so important should easily be able to prove it but for some reason they never 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.

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.

Discredited by who, YOU?

No, by decades of people whose careers depend on being able to figure these things out. Try to keep up pops.

Please list these people. You know, those whose careers depend on figuring out momentum swings and it’s affect on a game. I never knew they did a study on that and would love to hear what you have learned and from whom.

Here are a few examples:

Loading…

www.wsj.com

No such thing as game-winning momentum in sports, researchers say - UPI.com

Economic researchers at Cornell says game-winning "momentum" in sports doesn't exist.

www.upi.com

Loading…

labs.la.utexas.edu

Of course if it had any value at all it would show up in sports betting markets, which are the true test of these things (since your money literally depends on being right) and it doesn’t.

But anyway the burden of proof isn’t even on the naysayers to begin with. The people claiming it’s so important should easily be able to prove it but for some reason they never do…

It’s like porn, you know it when you see it

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

One good way to settle this debate:

You’re playing Madden.

Do you kick the FG or go for it?

I think the answers to this question will overwhelmingly favor going for it.

I rest my case, your honor.

 

[JohnnyU]

One good way to settle this debate:

You’re playing Madden.

Do you kick the FG or go for it?

I think the answers to this question will overwhelmingly favor going for it.

I rest my case, your honor.

You are sentenced to die by hanging. May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[jon_mx]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

 

[Football Jones]

To have a decent debate, some things have to be understood by all parties. When they're not understood (like big momentum swings being a factor in winning football games), you get the type of debate we have now, LOL.

No offense to anyone, but I don't see a way to continue this responsibly (with certain parties, anyway).

Agreed. One should have a basic understanding of probability, data science, etc. to add anything to this discussion. Otherwise it gets muddied up by people making vague generalizations based on their gut, which is useless for all involved.

Sorry if you’ve already posted this, because reading over this thread is painful, but do you believe analytics played an actual role in his decisions? I mean, do you think someone was in his ear telling him the model says we should do this or that?

The way Bosa explained it, he looked over at Campbell right after the 3rd down play and saw him say "we're going for it". I'd put good money down he didn't find out what analytics said (at least before he made his decision).

Like I said earlier, much like the Dallas game, when you make those types of calls consistently, it's your mindset. Whether he thought he was outclassed in talent, or playing on the road, or just the way he likes to play, or some combo of those, he had already decided to be aggressive. It's who Dan Campbell is.

I'm of the opinion he's going to have to tone it down at least a notch. It'll be interesting to see how his career develops.

 

[Bankerguy]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

I’ve listened and watched his PC’s, it was obvious after the Cowboys game he didn’t even knew the rules about tackle eligible plays.

I can guarantee that unless someone is telling him in his ear, no way DC knew these purported numbers.

Again, can anyone please tell or show me how the Lion’s would calculate their percentage chance to convert that first down.

Edit-I’m not even convinced his decisions are based on analytics. He just his gut or he thought it was best. He never explains his thought process.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

To have a decent debate, some things have to be understood by all parties. When they're not understood (like big momentum swings being a factor in winning football games), you get the type of debate we have now, LOL.

No offense to anyone, but I don't see a way to continue this responsibly (with certain parties, anyway).

Agreed. One should have a basic understanding of probability, data science, etc. to add anything to this discussion. Otherwise it gets muddied up by people making vague generalizations based on their gut, which is useless for all involved.

Sorry if you’ve already posted this, because reading over this thread is painful, but do you believe analytics played an actual role in his decisions? I mean, do you think someone was in his ear telling him the model says we should do this or that?

Can't remember where I saw this, but I believe it's against the rules for coaches to have some number cruncher up in the booth running on-the-fly analyses (or even looking at 4th Down Bot on Twitter) and telling the coach, "In this specific case, the numbers suggest going for it will boost your WP% by 2.3%." Which is why the notion that coaches like Campbell are slaves to analytics is such a strawman.

Instead, they usually come up with some general rules of thumb: "When the ball is in such and such area of the field and it's fourth and three or less, the numbers suggest you go for it." Within those relatively vague guidelines, obviously the coach is going to have to use his own discretion in determining whether there are other factors that might influence the decision

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I'm of the opinion he's going to have to tone it down at least a notch. It'll be interesting to see how his career develops.

Worked out well for Staley.

(Tbf I don't think Staley's initial aggressiveness, or subsequent passivity, ultimately had much to do with the fact that he just wasn't a very good coach.)

 

[jon_mx]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

One good way to settle this debate:

You’re playing Madden.

Do you kick the FG or go for it?

I think the answers to this question will overwhelmingly favor going for it.

I rest my case, your honor.

You are sentenced to die by hanging. May God have mercy on your soul.

You know it’s true though. That’s why you mad.

 

[JohnnyU]

One good way to settle this debate:

You’re playing Madden.

Do you kick the FG or go for it?

I think the answers to this question will overwhelmingly favor going for it.

I rest my case, your honor.

You are sentenced to die by hanging. May God have mercy on your soul.

You know it’s true though. That’s why you mad.

I’ve never played Madden. I don’t play any video games. Not my thing. I can see where coaches today do, especially the younger ones.

 

[Bankerguy]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

Nope, I like Dan Campbell the man, the general leader of getting grown men to buy into a vision. Top notch even.

I question his smarts. That’s not trolling.

I again, just want an opportunity to see the math that seems to be supportive of Dan’s decision (whether he used it not).

I will wait for that response.

 

[Football Jones]

I'm of the opinion he's going to have to tone it down at least a notch. It'll be interesting to see how his career develops.

Worked out well for Staley.

(Tbf I don't think Staley's initial aggressiveness, or subsequent passivity, ultimately had much to do with the fact that he just wasn't a very good coach.)

I never saw Staley passive, myself, but reckless decisions will eventually get you fired. In fact, it’s the easiest way to get fired as far as decision-making goes.

Campbell is interesting to me because I think he might be massively overrated. Can’t say for sure yet (obviously), but some traits are there. I wonder if he’s one of those guys who’ll need strong coordinators to be successful. He’s got them now, but how much longer?

 

[Bankerguy]

I'm of the opinion he's going to have to tone it down at least a notch. It'll be interesting to see how his career develops.

Worked out well for Staley.

(Tbf I don't think Staley's initial aggressiveness, or subsequent passivity, ultimately had much to do with the fact that he just wasn't a very good coach.)

I never saw Staley passive, myself, but reckless decisions will eventually get you fired. In fact, it’s the easiest way to get fired as far as decision-making goes.

Campbell is interesting to me because I think he might be massively overrated. Can’t say for sure yet (obviously), but some traits are there. I wonder if he’s one of those guys who’ll need strong coordinators to be successful. He’s got them now, but how much longer?

Ben Johnson returning.

 

[JohnnyU]

I'm of the opinion he's going to have to tone it down at least a notch. It'll be interesting to see how his career develops.

Worked out well for Staley.

(Tbf I don't think Staley's initial aggressiveness, or subsequent passivity, ultimately had much to do with the fact that he just wasn't a very good coach.)

I never saw Staley passive, myself, but reckless decisions will eventually get you fired. In fact, it’s the easiest way to get fired as far as decision-making goes.

Campbell is interesting to me because I think he might be massively overrated. Can’t say for sure yet (obviously), but some traits are there. I wonder if he’s one of those guys who’ll need strong coordinators to be successful. He’s got them now, but how much longer?

A lot can change In the NFL and quickly.

 

[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.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

This sounds like a comment from someone that has never played a competitive sport. Momentum matters. How to quantify it is impossible and varies from sport to sport and person to person. Football is a very emotional game. Momentum is a factor, but just because it's impossible to quantify doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the course of a game.

 

[JohnnyU]

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.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

This sounds like a comment from someone that has never played a competitive sport. Momentum matters. How to quantify it is impossible and varies from sport to sport and person to person. Football is a very emotional game. Momentum is a factor, but just because it's impossible to quantify doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the course of a game.

Anyone who has watched sports knows that momentum swings is real. We’re not making this up.

 

[jon_mx]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

Nope, I like Dan Campbell the man, the general leader of getting grown men to buy into a vision. Top notch even.

I question his smarts. That’s not trolling.

I again, just want an opportunity to see the math that seems to be supportive of Dan’s decision (whether he used it not).

I will wait for that response.

Lol...it is not a math problem. It is a complex model based on millions of data points and millions of calculations. But taking an 86% chance at continuing going for 7 points a d eating up more clock versus a 73% chance at trying for 3 seems like there is a good chance going for it could be advantageous.

 

[JohnnyU]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

Nope, I like Dan Campbell the man, the general leader of getting grown men to buy into a vision. Top notch even.

I question his smarts. That’s not trolling.

I again, just want an opportunity to see the math that seems to be supportive of Dan’s decision (whether he used it not).

I will wait for that response.

Lol...it is not a math problem. It is a complex model based on millions of data points and millions of calculations. But taking an 86% chance at continuing going for 7 points a d eating up more clock versus a 73% chance at trying for 3 seems like there is a good chance going for it could be advantageous.

….until it isn’t

 

[Football Jones]

I'm of the opinion he's going to have to tone it down at least a notch. It'll be interesting to see how his career develops.

Worked out well for Staley.

(Tbf I don't think Staley's initial aggressiveness, or subsequent passivity, ultimately had much to do with the fact that he just wasn't a very good coach.)

I never saw Staley passive, myself, but reckless decisions will eventually get you fired. In fact, it’s the easiest way to get fired as far as decision-making goes.

Campbell is interesting to me because I think he might be massively overrated. Can’t say for sure yet (obviously), but some traits are there. I wonder if he’s one of those guys who’ll need strong coordinators to be successful. He’s got them now, but how much longer?

Ben Johnson returning.

He’ll probly get a job in ‘25 if their offense has a similar season, but definitely good news for them.

 

[jon_mx]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

Nope, I like Dan Campbell the man, the general leader of getting grown men to buy into a vision. Top notch even.

I question his smarts. That’s not trolling.

I again, just want an opportunity to see the math that seems to be supportive of Dan’s decision (whether he used it not).

I will wait for that response.

Lol...it is not a math problem. It is a complex model based on millions of data points and millions of calculations. But taking an 86% chance at continuing going for 7 points a d eating up more clock versus a 73% chance at trying for 3 seems like there is a good chance going for it could be advantageous.

….until it isn’t

Sure. Hitting a 13 against a 10 in blackjack is the optimal play, but just because you win by staying in one case, does not change that.

 

[Bankerguy]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

Nope, I like Dan Campbell the man, the general leader of getting grown men to buy into a vision. Top notch even.

I question his smarts. That’s not trolling.

I again, just want an opportunity to see the math that seems to be supportive of Dan’s decision (whether he used it not).

I will wait for that response.

Lol...it is not a math problem. It is a complex model based on millions of data points and millions of calculations. But taking an 86% chance at continuing going for 7 points a d eating up more clock versus a 73% chance at trying for 3 seems like there is a good chance going for it could be advantageous.

So, the projection model is not a math problem??? Dizzying logic.

 

[dgreen]

How are we defining "momentum"?

 

[JohnnyU]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

Nope, I like Dan Campbell the man, the general leader of getting grown men to buy into a vision. Top notch even.

I question his smarts. That’s not trolling.

I again, just want an opportunity to see the math that seems to be supportive of Dan’s decision (whether he used it not).

I will wait for that response.

Lol...it is not a math problem. It is a complex model based on millions of data points and millions of calculations. But taking an 86% chance at continuing going for 7 points a d eating up more clock versus a 73% chance at trying for 3 seems like there is a good chance going for it could be advantageous.

….until it isn’t

Sure. Hitting a 13 against a 10 in blackjack is the optimal play, but just because you win by staying in one case, does not change that.

I agree. You don’t have any argument with me on that. It’s just there are a lot of variables at play here that a computer model doesn’t account for.

 

[Stoneworker]

The ironic thing about this entire conversation is that Dan Campbell is about as far from an "analytics" guy as you can get.

I'm sure it helps him that his ultra-aggressive nature is validated by some of the self-anointed analytics left-brained types, but it's far from the basis of his decision-making. That comes from his own intuition and years coaching/playing under guys like Sean Payton.

And yes, momentum is a real thing as it relates to Campbell's decision-making.

"I just felt really good about us converting, getting our momentum, and not letting them play long ball,” Campbell said. “They were bleeding the clock out. That’s what they do, and I wanted to get the upper hand back.

 

[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.

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.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

This sounds like a comment from someone that has never played a competitive sport. Momentum matters. How to quantify it is impossible and varies from sport to sport and person to person. Football is a very emotional game. Momentum is a factor, but just because it's impossible to quantify doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the course of a game.

Played sports my whole life. My career is in sports data. If momentum was quantifiably predictive of success it would make me rich. I would happily be proven wrong if you or anyone else wants to do it. No one ever does…

 

[Bankerguy]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

Nope, I like Dan Campbell the man, the general leader of getting grown men to buy into a vision. Top notch even.

I question his smarts. That’s not trolling.

I again, just want an opportunity to see the math that seems to be supportive of Dan’s decision (whether he used it not).

I will wait for that response.

Lol...it is not a math problem. It is a complex model based on millions of data points and millions of calculations. But taking an 86% chance at continuing going for 7 points a d eating up more clock versus a 73% chance at trying for 3 seems like there is a good chance going for it could be advantageous.

….until it isn’t

Sure. Hitting a 13 against a 10 in blackjack is the optimal play, but just because you win by staying in one case, does not change that.

I agree. You don’t have any argument with me on that. It’s just there a lot of variables at play here that a computer model doesn’t account for.

Yet, here we are being told definitively by some ESPN bot made by an intern living in his parents basement, that it was ABSOLUTELY the right call, because of “math”.

 

[jon_mx]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

Nope, I like Dan Campbell the man, the general leader of getting grown men to buy into a vision. Top notch even.

I question his smarts. That’s not trolling.

I again, just want an opportunity to see the math that seems to be supportive of Dan’s decision (whether he used it not).

I will wait for that response.

Lol...it is not a math problem. It is a complex model based on millions of data points and millions of calculations. But taking an 86% chance at continuing going for 7 points a d eating up more clock versus a 73% chance at trying for 3 seems like there is a good chance going for it could be advantageous.

….until it isn’t

Sure. Hitting a 13 against a 10 in blackjack is the optimal play, but just because you win by staying in one case, does not change that.

I agree. You don’t have any argument with me on that. It’s just there a lot of variables at play here that a computer model doesn’t account for.

Certainly. Figuring out a simple game like blackjack took years and much modeling, and that does not even come remotely close to the numbers of variables with football and which are also much more complex human performance.. It is very easy to second-guess a call after the fact. It is hard to make real-time decisions and be held accountable. That is why most coaches kick. If it fails, all the blame goes on the kicker.

 

[Bankerguy]

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.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

This sounds like a comment from someone that has never played a competitive sport. Momentum matters. How to quantify it is impossible and varies from sport to sport and person to person. Football is a very emotional game. Momentum is a factor, but just because it's impossible to quantify doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the course of a game.

Played sports my whole life. My career is in sports data. If momentum was quantifiably predictive of success it would make me rich. I would happily be proven wrong if you or anyone else wants to do it. No one ever does…

…and one is providing the methodology of this perfect bot. With where the data comes from.

It’s not blackjack. It’s football

 

[Football Jones]

I'm of the opinion he's going to have to tone it down at least a notch. It'll be interesting to see how his career develops.

Worked out well for Staley.

(Tbf I don't think Staley's initial aggressiveness, or subsequent passivity, ultimately had much to do with the fact that he just wasn't a very good coach.)

I never saw Staley passive, myself, but reckless decisions will eventually get you fired. In fact, it’s the easiest way to get fired as far as decision-making goes.

Campbell is interesting to me because I think he might be massively overrated. Can’t say for sure yet (obviously), but some traits are there. I wonder if he’s one of those guys who’ll need strong coordinators to be successful. He’s got them now, but how much longer?

A lot can change In the NFL and quickly.

Fo sho