Take that to the "when GM's do something you disagree with" threadI disagree with Mike McCarthy coaching the Dallas Cowboys for another season.
Take that to the "when GM's do something you disagree with" threadI disagree with Mike McCarthy coaching the Dallas Cowboys for another season.
I mean I could do without the 12-2 record against us, or whatever Dak currently has... for all the smack we talk, he still owns us more then not.This eagles fan thinks it’s fineI disagree with Mike McCarthy coaching the Dallas Cowboys for another season.
LII, LVIII mean I could do without the 12-2 record against us, or whatever Dak currently has... for all the smack we talk, he still owns us more then not.This eagles fan thinks it’s fineI disagree with Mike McCarthy coaching the Dallas Cowboys for another season.
I thought it was 48 yarder up 14.Dan Campbell not kicking about a 45 yard FG up 24-10.
Idiot.
Talk about ruining momentum, not to mention duh, three score game
Totally agree. The Lions got this far because of Campbell’s risky style. I have no issue with keeping it going.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.
Well, I don't see that style as sustainable to win a super bowl.Totally agree. The Lions got this far because of Campbell’s risky style. I have no issue with keeping it going.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.
They were one half away from the superbowl. As a Lions fan, I’m perfectly fine with Cambell’s risk taking.Well, I don't see that style as sustainable to win a super bowl.Totally agree. The Lions got this far because of Campbell’s risky style. I have no issue with keeping it going.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.
Situations matter sometimes
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.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.
The most indefensible call was the run on 3rd and goal in the final minute that forced Detroit to burn a timeout
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
Only in hindsight.
Totally disagree.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.
Only in hindsight.
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.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.
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.Totally disagree.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.
Only in hindsight.
What are you in here saying if they kick it and the guy is wide right?
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.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?
Sometimes the right decision doesn't work out. Sound familiar?Totally disagree.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.
Only in hindsight.
What are you in here saying if they kick it and the guy is wide right?
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.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?
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.
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.
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.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.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?
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.
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.
(the evidence is last night)
...
Last night Campbell made the wrong decisions as we know the outcome.
I can make two countering statements that are both true.(the evidence is last night)
...
Last night Campbell made the wrong decisions as we know the outcome.
You're still doing it.
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?
What does it say about running on 3rd down and wasting a timeout?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.
Agree with this.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.
That has nothing to do with the conversation, but we can absolutely quantify the probability of completing a long pass there.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?
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.
That has nothing to do with the conversation, but we can absolutely quantify the probability of completing a long pass there.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?
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.
Sorry for your loss.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
I have no idea what sort of point you are trying to make here. "Pinning them deep", what? We're not punting...
Analytics may say go for it, but does it take into account stadium atmosphere and momentum shifts?