What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (5 Viewers)

ghostguy123 said:
Dan Campbell not kicking about a 45 yard FG up 24-10.
Idiot.
Talk about ruining momentum, not to mention duh, three score game
Click to expand...
I thought it was 48 yarder up 14.
44 yarder when down 3.
I think the 48 yarder was probably the bigger gaffe since it wasn't as high pressure a kick. Bagley is a 77% career kicker from 40-49 yards, but I bet the 2nd one was a 50/50 ball at best for an inexperienced kicker on the road in a huge moment in the game/season. Just a week ago every one was criticizing the bills for playing for the 45 yard FG instead of being more aggressive.
 
I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

The most indefensible call was the run on 3rd and goal in the final minute that forced Detroit to burn a timeout.
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

The most indefensible call was the run on 3rd and goal in the final minute that forced Detroit to burn a timeout.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. The Lions got this far because of Campbell’s risky style. I have no issue with keeping it going.
 
kutta said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

The most indefensible call was the run on 3rd and goal in the final minute that forced Detroit to burn a timeout.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. The Lions got this far because of Campbell’s risky style. I have no issue with keeping it going.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't see that style as sustainable to win a super bowl.
Situations matter sometimes
 
ghostguy123 said:
kutta said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

The most indefensible call was the run on 3rd and goal in the final minute that forced Detroit to burn a timeout.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. The Lions got this far because of Campbell’s risky style. I have no issue with keeping it going.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't see that style as sustainable to win a super bowl.
Situations matter sometimes
Click to expand...
They were one half away from the superbowl. As a Lions fan, I’m perfectly fine with Cambell’s risk taking.
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

The most indefensible call was the run on 3rd and goal in the final minute that forced Detroit to burn a timeout.
Click to expand...
The run on 3rd and goal was absolutely idiotic. Any kid who has ever played Tecmo or Madden and understands clock mgmt immediately knew that was stupid.
 
Those 4 decisions by Campbell were pretty alarming as a whole.

I first saw a potential problem in the Dallas game. Nobody thinks about going for 2 from the 7, much less actually pulling the trigger and deciding it's a worthwhile venture. I believe Campbell had already decided to take chances before the Cowboys game started and he must've did the same thing against the 9ers.

Yes, you're the underdog, but going up 3 scores is huge in the NFL, especially halfway through the 3rd quarter. And you had one chance at the end of the game...throw 4 times into the EZ and take your chances. If you're successful, you have all your timeouts left. Making them punt at least gives you a shot to tie the game and send it to OT. It's like Campbell thinks he's the smartest guy in the room by running the ball. But if you ARE going to run the ball, have another play called in case it fails. Don't take a TO, LOL. A TO there is going to cost you the full 40 when the 9ers get the ball back. You can get off another play much quicker than that. There went what little chance they had.

Game awareness is a huge part of the job. We'll see how he develops, but Campbell is one of those guys who may have a hard time taking it down a notch & maturing as a HC.
 
Last edited:
Campbell is ahead of his time. A 48-yarder is about a 70 percent chance compounded by Detroit having a sub-par kicker. This year Detroit was 86% on 4th and 3 or less (18 for 21) in the opponents territory. This idea you 'take' the points, but going for it is a 'gamble' is backwards. The only thing playing overly conservative buys you is less criticism because the antiquated strategies are accepted as gospel. Anybody that follows the Lions is not upset at Campbell's aggressiveness.

Running the ball late in the game at the goal line on 3rd down was risky, but that was their bread and butter scoring method which they trusted the most. They were down to two chances and they had to score, so they went to a play they thought gave them the best chance to do so. Calling the TO was a mistake. Taking the 15 seconds to unpile and setup was a better alternative. Might have gotten the ball back with 10 or 15 seconds, but probably not enough. 30 seconds is usually the minimum to get the ball in FG range.
 
The 2nd 4th down when they could kick and tie the game, I’ll leave that alone, too obvious.

Middle of the 3rd, you’re up 14. SF drove and stalled and got 3. You came into the 3rd up 17. You have a chance to have now eaten away half the 3rd and exchanged equal points.

Beyond the fact that you’d be up 3 scores again, it would’ve been deflating for SF to burn half of the 3rd for a stalemate.

Most importantly, the ramifications of not getting the 1st down. You’re now giving them such a momentum swing and chance to make it a 1 score instead of 3 score game. That play was the moment this game changed.

It’s admirable that fans defend their guy, but those decisions cost them the game 100 percent.
 
fantasycurse42 said:
The 2nd 4th down when they could kick and tie the game, I’ll leave that alone, too obvious.

Middle of the 3rd, you’re up 14. SF drove and stalled and got 3. You came into the 3rd up 17. You have a chance to have now eaten away half the 3rd and exchanged equal points.

Beyond the fact that you’d be up 3 scores again, it would’ve been deflating for SF to burn half of the 3rd for a stalemate.

Most importantly, the ramifications of not getting the 1st down. You’re now giving them such a momentum swing and chance to make it a 1 score instead of 3 score game. That play was the moment this game changed.

It’s admirable that fans defend their guy, but those decisions cost them the game 100 percent.
Click to expand...
You do realize Detroit's success rate for going for it on 4th and 3 or less this season was higher than kicking the FG from that distance? And missing the FG even gives better FG position.
 
jon_mx said:
fantasycurse42 said:
The 2nd 4th down when they could kick and tie the game, I’ll leave that alone, too obvious.

Middle of the 3rd, you’re up 14. SF drove and stalled and got 3. You came into the 3rd up 17. You have a chance to have now eaten away half the 3rd and exchanged equal points.

Beyond the fact that you’d be up 3 scores again, it would’ve been deflating for SF to burn half of the 3rd for a stalemate.

Most importantly, the ramifications of not getting the 1st down. You’re now giving them such a momentum swing and chance to make it a 1 score instead of 3 score game. That play was the moment this game changed.

It’s admirable that fans defend their guy, but those decisions cost them the game 100 percent.
Click to expand...
You do realize Detroit's success rate for going for it on 4th and 3 or less this season was higher than kicking the FG from that distance? And missing the FG even gives better FG position.
Click to expand...
You can defend the calls until you’re blue in the face if it makes you feel better, those calls cost them the game. It’s so obvious, it’s really not even a debate.
 
fantasycurse42 said:
jon_mx said:
fantasycurse42 said:
The 2nd 4th down when they could kick and tie the game, I’ll leave that alone, too obvious.

Middle of the 3rd, you’re up 14. SF drove and stalled and got 3. You came into the 3rd up 17. You have a chance to have now eaten away half the 3rd and exchanged equal points.

Beyond the fact that you’d be up 3 scores again, it would’ve been deflating for SF to burn half of the 3rd for a stalemate.

Most importantly, the ramifications of not getting the 1st down. You’re now giving them such a momentum swing and chance to make it a 1 score instead of 3 score game. That play was the moment this game changed.

It’s admirable that fans defend their guy, but those decisions cost them the game 100 percent.
Click to expand...
You do realize Detroit's success rate for going for it on 4th and 3 or less this season was higher than kicking the FG from that distance? And missing the FG even gives better FG position.
Click to expand...
You can defend the calls until you’re blue in the face if it makes you feel better, those calls cost them the game. It’s so obvious, it’s really not even a debate.
Click to expand...

Only in hindsight. Dan plays the odds for better than most coaches. Sometimes the best plays don't work.
 
On another note, Lions should just cut their punter and kicker. Campbell seems like a guy who hates 3 and hates punting and Lions’ fans have his back. It would be exciting to watch a coach go all in on the no field goals and no punting strategy.
 
There was nothing wrong with the decision to go for it on 4th down the first time. Everyone who disagrees needs to really pay attention to the way they think and talk about it. It's always "you have to take the points" because [all the consequences of not picking up the first]. As if there are only two things that could've happened - they could've made the kick, or failed to pick up the first. Of course if those are the only two outcomes, it would make sense to kick, but they're not. You could:

A. Make the FG
B. Miss the FG
C. Pick up the 1st down
D. Not pick up the 1st down

People consistently overweight A and D in these conversations. It's the same as all the "should you go for 2 when down by 14" type discussions. If you put an appropriate amount of weight on all four possible outcomes, it's a much different calculus. What if they missed the kick? What if the WR caught the ball on 4th down? Why are we supposed to ignore those possibilities when considering whether or not it was a justifiable decision?
 
fantasycurse42 said:
On another note, Lions should just cut their punter and kicker. Campbell seems like a guy who hates 3 and hates punting and Lions’ fans have his back. It would be exciting to watch a coach go all in on the no field goals and no punting strategy.
Click to expand...
I really thought when they cut Patterson that would solve Campbell's fear/disgust/whatever thing he has against the position, as in his very limited opportunities the past month, Badgley had performed admirably, going 4/4 including a 54 yarder against LAR.

But clearly he hasn't come to terms yet with whatever is going on in his mind about the K position. Don't know how that bodes for the future.
 
Here's a decent explanation that jives with all my thoughts: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2024/...hip-hot-read-detroit-lions-kansas-city-chiefs

1. End of half - you kick because part of the value of going for it is pinning them deep if you miss. With 8 seconds left, thats not a factor, so kick. Model actually leans go for it here. 0/1.
2. Close, but go for it - 1/2.
3. Definitely go for it - 2/3.

All 3 choices. 2/3 correct. And the opposite of what people are harping on.
 
Instinctive said:
fantasycurse42 said:
jon_mx said:

Only in hindsight.
Click to expand...
I wish I could make all of my decisions in hindsight, then I’d never make a mistake. It was the wrong call. They’re a good team and he’s a good coach. Hopefully this is a learning experience.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree.

What are you in here saying if they kick it and the guy is wide right?
Click to expand...
We don’t know what I’m saying bc his newly signed veteran kicker who hasn’t missed in the last month didn’t get the chance.
 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
There was nothing wrong with the decision to go for it on 4th down the first time. Everyone who disagrees needs to really pay attention to the way they think and talk about it. It's always "you have to take the points" because [all the consequences of not picking up the first]. As if there are only two things that could've happened - they could've made the kick, or failed to pick up the first. Of course if those are the only two outcomes, it would make sense to kick, but they're not. You could:

A. Make the FG
B. Miss the FG
C. Pick up the 1st down
D. Not pick up the 1st down

People consistently overweight A and D in these conversations. It's the same as all the "should you go for 2 when down by 14" type discussions. If you put an appropriate amount of weight on all four possible outcomes, it's a much different calculus. What if they missed the kick? What if the WR caught the ball on 4th down? Why are we supposed to ignore those possibilities when considering whether or not it was a justifiable decision?
Click to expand...
While the net result is the same between a missed FG and failed 4th down attempt, a stop on 4th down is possibly the biggest momentum shifter in a game. When you fail on a 4th down attempt, you’re putting a massive shot of adrenaline into the other team. The only bigger momentum shifters in football (imo) is a pick/fumble 6 (or deep into the opponent’s territory), or a special teams TD.

Momentum is very real, so when doing the calculus in A to D, that should be considered.

That first 4th down was the turning point of this game.
 
Instinctive said:
fantasycurse42 said:
jon_mx said:

Only in hindsight.
Click to expand...
I wish I could make all of my decisions in hindsight, then I’d never make a mistake. It was the wrong call. They’re a good team and he’s a good coach. Hopefully this is a learning experience.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree.

What are you in here saying if they kick it and the guy is wide right?
Click to expand...
Sometimes the right decision doesn't work out. Sound familiar?

The point of the game is to win, not "win by as many points as possible".
 
fantasycurse42 said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
There was nothing wrong with the decision to go for it on 4th down the first time. Everyone who disagrees needs to really pay attention to the way they think and talk about it. It's always "you have to take the points" because [all the consequences of not picking up the first]. As if there are only two things that could've happened - they could've made the kick, or failed to pick up the first. Of course if those are the only two outcomes, it would make sense to kick, but they're not. You could:

A. Make the FG
B. Miss the FG
C. Pick up the 1st down
D. Not pick up the 1st down

People consistently overweight A and D in these conversations. It's the same as all the "should you go for 2 when down by 14" type discussions. If you put an appropriate amount of weight on all four possible outcomes, it's a much different calculus. What if they missed the kick? What if the WR caught the ball on 4th down? Why are we supposed to ignore those possibilities when considering whether or not it was a justifiable decision?
Click to expand...
While the net result is the same between a missed FG and failed 4th down attempt, a stop on 4th down is possibly the biggest momentum shifter in a game. When you fail on a 4th down attempt, you’re putting a massive shot of adrenaline into the other team. The only bigger momentum shifters in football (imo) is a pick/fumble 6 (or deep into the opponent’s territory), or a special teams TD.

Momentum is very real, so when doing the calculus in A to D, that should be considered.

That first 4th down was the turning point of this game.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's pretend that all the stuff you said about momentum is true, then fine - quantify it and add it into the calculation. Tell me how much it changes the math in that situation, and show me that it's enough to outweigh all the other considerations. (Spoiler alert: people have done this and it amounts to essentially zero).

Meanwhile you're doing exactly what I said people always do - you're talking about how bad it is to fail on 4th down, and what happened as a result of failing the conversion. Of course it's bad to fail to convert there. It always is. If Dan Campbell's decision was "should I make a FG or fail to pick up the 4th" and he chose the latter, that would obviously be a bad decision. But that wasn't his decision, so there's no reason to judge it by that criteria.
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

The most indefensible call was the run on 3rd and goal in the final minute that forced Detroit to burn a timeout.
Click to expand...

A call that worked out but I think was poor was going for it on 4th and goal down 10. Should have taken the easy FG and then the onside kick. After the timeout was taken the onside kick was needed either way.
 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
fantasycurse42 said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
There was nothing wrong with the decision to go for it on 4th down the first time. Everyone who disagrees needs to really pay attention to the way they think and talk about it. It's always "you have to take the points" because [all the consequences of not picking up the first]. As if there are only two things that could've happened - they could've made the kick, or failed to pick up the first. Of course if those are the only two outcomes, it would make sense to kick, but they're not. You could:

A. Make the FG
B. Miss the FG
C. Pick up the 1st down
D. Not pick up the 1st down

People consistently overweight A and D in these conversations. It's the same as all the "should you go for 2 when down by 14" type discussions. If you put an appropriate amount of weight on all four possible outcomes, it's a much different calculus. What if they missed the kick? What if the WR caught the ball on 4th down? Why are we supposed to ignore those possibilities when considering whether or not it was a justifiable decision?
Click to expand...
While the net result is the same between a missed FG and failed 4th down attempt, a stop on 4th down is possibly the biggest momentum shifter in a game. When you fail on a 4th down attempt, you’re putting a massive shot of adrenaline into the other team. The only bigger momentum shifters in football (imo) is a pick/fumble 6 (or deep into the opponent’s territory), or a special teams TD.

Momentum is very real, so when doing the calculus in A to D, that should be considered.

That first 4th down was the turning point of this game.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's pretend that all the stuff you said about momentum is true, then fine - quantify it and add it into the calculation. Tell me how much it changes the math in that situation, and show me that it's enough to outweigh all the other considerations. (Spoiler alert: people have done this and it amounts to essentially zero).

Meanwhile you're doing exactly what I said people always do - you're talking about how bad it is to fail on 4th down, and what happened as a result of failing the conversion. Of course it's bad to fail to convert there. It always is. If Dan Campbell's decision was "should I make a FG or fail to pick up the 4th" and he chose the latter, that would obviously be a bad decision. But that wasn't his decision, so there's no reason to judge it by that criteria.
Click to expand...
We can argue what the right decision is in these situations all day and everyone can make a case about what’s right or wrong, but we’re not pretending momentum isn’t real, it is. With that, when making a decision, it needs to be considered in the final outcome of the decision and I’d give it a heavy weighting (the evidence is last night). It’s tougher to quantify than they got the first or didn’t, since it’s more qualitative.

Last night Campbell made the wrong decisions as we know the outcome.
 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
fantasycurse42 said:
(the evidence is last night)

...

Last night Campbell made the wrong decisions as we know the outcome.
Click to expand...

You're still doing it.
Click to expand...
I can make two countering statements that are both true.

I don’t think you’re wrong and I don’t think I’m wrong.

I’m of the opinion situationally not knowing the outcome I’m correct, but I cannot say that definitively. Knowing the outcome, I can.
 
Posted in the game thread....

These are my thoughts on the 2 second half 4th down/FG plays

I don't agree they should have went for it on the first drop pass in the second half.... Fine you played aggressive all year ok. I don't agree but it's understandable.

You will not change my mind on the second time in that situation. That was absolute kick every time to me
 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
There was nothing wrong with the decision to go for it on 4th down the first time. Everyone who disagrees needs to really pay attention to the way they think and talk about it. It's always "you have to take the points" because [all the consequences of not picking up the first]. As if there are only two things that could've happened - they could've made the kick, or failed to pick up the first. Of course if those are the only two outcomes, it would make sense to kick, but they're not. You could:

A. Make the FG
B. Miss the FG
C. Pick up the 1st down
D. Not pick up the 1st down

People consistently overweight A and D in these conversations. It's the same as all the "should you go for 2 when down by 14" type discussions. If you put an appropriate amount of weight on all four possible outcomes, it's a much different calculus. What if they missed the kick? What if the WR caught the ball on 4th down? Why are we supposed to ignore those possibilities when considering whether or not it was a justifiable decision?
Click to expand...

What are the odds of an overthrown ball bouncing off a falling defenders facemask back to the WR for a 51 yard gain to the goal line? Some things can`t be explained.
 
Instinctive said:
Here's a decent explanation that jives with all my thoughts: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2024/...hip-hot-read-detroit-lions-kansas-city-chiefs

1. End of half - you kick because part of the value of going for it is pinning them deep if you miss. With 8 seconds left, thats not a factor, so kick. Model actually leans go for it here. 0/1.
2. Close, but go for it - 1/2.
3. Definitely go for it - 2/3.

All 3 choices. 2/3 correct. And the opposite of what people are harping on.
Click to expand...
What does it say about running on 3rd down and wasting a timeout?
 
fantasycurse42 said:
The 2nd 4th down when they could kick and tie the game, I’ll leave that alone, too obvious.

Middle of the 3rd, you’re up 14. SF drove and stalled and got 3. You came into the 3rd up 17. You have a chance to have now eaten away half the 3rd and exchanged equal points.

Beyond the fact that you’d be up 3 scores again, it would’ve been deflating for SF to burn half of the 3rd for a stalemate.

Most importantly, the ramifications of not getting the 1st down. You’re now giving them such a momentum swing and chance to make it a 1 score instead of 3 score game. That play was the moment this game changed.

It’s admirable that fans defend their guy, but those decisions cost them the game 100 percent.
Click to expand...
Agree with this.

We've all heard about in the NFL the teams are so close at this stage, but teams win on the margins. THIS is what they are talking about.

That three points is three possessions in a game where time will start being the factor. Detroit left open a crack and the niners seized it.
 
Da Guru said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
There was nothing wrong with the decision to go for it on 4th down the first time. Everyone who disagrees needs to really pay attention to the way they think and talk about it. It's always "you have to take the points" because [all the consequences of not picking up the first]. As if there are only two things that could've happened - they could've made the kick, or failed to pick up the first. Of course if those are the only two outcomes, it would make sense to kick, but they're not. You could:

A. Make the FG
B. Miss the FG
C. Pick up the 1st down
D. Not pick up the 1st down

People consistently overweight A and D in these conversations. It's the same as all the "should you go for 2 when down by 14" type discussions. If you put an appropriate amount of weight on all four possible outcomes, it's a much different calculus. What if they missed the kick? What if the WR caught the ball on 4th down? Why are we supposed to ignore those possibilities when considering whether or not it was a justifiable decision?
Click to expand...

What are the odds of an overthrown ball bouncing off a falling defenders facemask back to the WR for a 51 yard gain to the goal line? Some things can`t be explained.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with the conversation, but we can absolutely quantify the probability of completing a long pass there.

Sorry for your loss.
 
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
Da Guru said:
Ignoratio Elenchi said:
There was nothing wrong with the decision to go for it on 4th down the first time. Everyone who disagrees needs to really pay attention to the way they think and talk about it. It's always "you have to take the points" because [all the consequences of not picking up the first]. As if there are only two things that could've happened - they could've made the kick, or failed to pick up the first. Of course if those are the only two outcomes, it would make sense to kick, but they're not. You could:

A. Make the FG
B. Miss the FG
C. Pick up the 1st down
D. Not pick up the 1st down

People consistently overweight A and D in these conversations. It's the same as all the "should you go for 2 when down by 14" type discussions. If you put an appropriate amount of weight on all four possible outcomes, it's a much different calculus. What if they missed the kick? What if the WR caught the ball on 4th down? Why are we supposed to ignore those possibilities when considering whether or not it was a justifiable decision?
Click to expand...

What are the odds of an overthrown ball bouncing off a falling defenders facemask back to the WR for a 51 yard gain to the goal line? Some things can`t be explained.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with the conversation, but we can absolutely quantify the probability of completing a long pass there.

Sorry for your loss.
Click to expand...

I know..but strange things happen in these types of games.
 
Instinctive said:
1. End of half - you kick because part of the value of going for it is pinning them deep if you miss. With 8 seconds left, thats not a factor, so kick. Model actually leans go for it here. 0/1.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what sort of point you are trying to make here. "Pinning them deep", what? We're not punting...
 
jon_mx said:
fantasycurse42 said:
The 2nd 4th down when they could kick and tie the game, I’ll leave that alone, too obvious.

Middle of the 3rd, you’re up 14. SF drove and stalled and got 3. You came into the 3rd up 17. You have a chance to have now eaten away half the 3rd and exchanged equal points.

Beyond the fact that you’d be up 3 scores again, it would’ve been deflating for SF to burn half of the 3rd for a stalemate.

Most importantly, the ramifications of not getting the 1st down. You’re now giving them such a momentum swing and chance to make it a 1 score instead of 3 score game. That play was the moment this game changed.

It’s admirable that fans defend their guy, but those decisions cost them the game 100 percent.
Click to expand...
You do realize Detroit's success rate for going for it on 4th and 3 or less this season was higher than kicking the FG from that distance? And missing the FG even gives better FG position.
Click to expand...

Maybe they make them against the likes of the Bears or the Falcons, but the Niners are a top tier D okaying at home and fighting for their lives. Your numbers don’t factor in opponent or situation.
 
titusbramble said:
Instinctive said:
1. End of half - you kick because part of the value of going for it is pinning them deep if you miss. With 8 seconds left, thats not a factor, so kick. Model actually leans go for it here. 0/1.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what sort of point you are trying to make here. "Pinning them deep", what? We're not punting...
Click to expand...
If you go for it from the 3 yard line or whatever and don't get it, they have to go 97 yards. We say pinned deep after a punt. But whether you punt or miss a 4th down from the 3--the opponent getting the ball at the 3 yard line is generally a good outcome. A lot of the value in going for it on 4th down deep is giving the opponent terrible field position. Then if you stop them and force a punt early in that drive, you get the ball back around midfield.

With 8 seconds left, that really doesn't exist. I guess you can hope for the safety on the 1 snap, but the offense just need a tush push for 0 yards.
 
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Understand the argument that he's gone for it throughout the year with a high percentage rate, etc. But this isn't week 4 or 8 against the Falcons or Panthers. Playoffs are a different animal. This is winner goes to the SB, loser goes home, and you currently have momentum against a dangerous team and failing to get the first down completely shifts momentum in the biggest game of your team's careers.

Analytics may say go for it, but does it take into account stadium atmosphere and momentum shifts? Anyone who watches past superbowls and title games knows how games can snowball for one team that captures the spark.

Campbell didn't make Reynolds drop two first down balls, or make Gibbs fumble. No, but the result of his decision(s) may have caused his team to tighten up and tend to play 'not to lose'... fear of screwing up in front of a now rabid home crowd and rejuvenated SF team. Nick Bosa even said the failed 4th down changed the game.

Lots of unknowns and "ifs" to go around, but the reality is getting the FG there in the 3rd Q, he's up three (3) scores and half the quarter is gone. And the niners are still scratching their heads on how to stop the Lions offense. Instead, he gave ALL momentum to the home team and the rest is history.

Just an unnecessary gamble when you are in control of the game and the crowd, and time is on your side. :2cents:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spin
Down 14 with under 5 minutes and you score, do you go for 2?
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
Brunell4MVP
B
Hot Sauce Guy
Post Here When FF Coaches (AKA, You) Do Something You Disagree with
Replies
15
Views
618
Chaka
Chaka
P
Fantasy football owners: When do you stop blaming the coaching staff and start blaming the player?
Replies
21
Views
681
Instinctive
Instinctive

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top