Should Dan Campbell have kicked a FG in the 2nd Half of the NFCC? (3 Viewers)

[GregR]

Please enlighten us how Detroit’s 4th down success rate earlier in the year against a weak roster of D’s is good information to use?

Scored on 4 of 5 possessions, averaging 6.0 yards per play, were winning against the 49ers D-line, their previous short yardage plays had both resulted in first downs.

 

[Bankerguy]

Always amazes me how topics like this incite people to self-identify as being terrified of arithmetic.

Please enlighten us how Detroit’s 4th down success rate earlier in the year against a weak roster of D’s is good information to use?

You are sure the math accounts for:
Home/road
Quality of opponent stopping 4th downs

Math is just math. You have to understand where the math was “mathed”.

I am reading two ways to call critical plays in this thread, using statistical data based on gameplay execution over time and feels. I rather my coach understand the math first and the feels second.

So the Lion’s success rate on 4th downs earlier in the year against crap team is the best indicator?

Yikes

 

[Joe Schmo]

Please enlighten us how Detroit’s 4th down success rate earlier in the year against a weak roster of D’s is good information to use?

Scored on 4 of 5 possessions, averaging 6.0 yards per play, were winning against the 49ers D-line, their previous short yardage plays had both resulted in first downs.

That just means tails was due on the next flip. He shoulda attempted the fg. It's science.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Always amazes me how topics like this incite people to self-identify as being terrified of arithmetic.

Please enlighten us how Detroit’s 4th down success rate earlier in the year against a weak roster of D’s is good information to use?

You are sure the math accounts for:
Home/road
Quality of opponent stopping 4th downs

Math is just math. You have to understand where the math was “mathed”.

I'm not the one saying it was a terrible decision by Campbell to go for it there. There was a small edge to going for it instead of kicking, but close enough that I could probably defend a decision to kick there if I wanted to. Given the circumstances it seemed like a good call at the time to keep their foot on the gas, and as a Niners fan I was terrified when I saw them lining up to go for it.

I'm happy for anyone who does keep saying it was a huge mistake to show their own work and explain how they mathed that out. They won't, of course, they never do, but the invitation stands.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

At the time I thought yes. I opined as much in the game topic.

Upon reflection, I believe he made the right call both times. The playcall was perfect, too. That the receiver didn't execute doesn't count as a mark against DC. Playing aggressively got the Lions to the NFCC, and staying the course is the correct way to play.

As I mentioned in the game topic, the Cowboys played one defensive scheme all year. In the playoffs they got cute, changed their defensive scheme, and go boat-raced. The playoffs is not the time to be trying new things.

And based on the 49ers 5 straight scoring drives, being aggressive & going for the throat was absolutely justified. Either of those 1st downs basically puts a dagger in SF. Score a TD after either and it's lights out SF.

They didn't work out, but IMO they were the correct decisions at the time.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

That just means tails was due on the next flip. He shoulda attempted the fg. It's science.

That weeping sound you hear is millions of statistics teachers all committing seppuku en masse.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Always amazes me how topics like this incite people to self-identify as being terrified of arithmetic.

Arithmetic murdered my entire family, you insensitive monster!

 

[JohnnyU]

At the time I thought yes. I opined as much in the game topic.

Upon reflection, I believe he made the right call both times. The playcall was perfect, too. That the receiver didn't execute doesn't count as a mark against DC. Playing aggressively got the Lions to the NFCC, and staying the course is the correct way to play.

As I mentioned in the game topic, the Cowboys played one defensive scheme all year. In the playoffs they got cute, changed their defensive scheme, and go boat-raced. The playoffs is not the time to be trying new things.

And based on the 49ers 5 straight scoring drives, being aggressive & going for the throat was absolutely justified. Either of those 1st downs basically puts a dagger in SF. Score a TD after either and it's lights out SF.

They didn't work out, but IMO they were the correct decisions at the time.

What would Bill Cowher, Steve Mariucci, and Jimmy Johnson do compared to Sean McVay, Nick Siriani, Shane Steichen and Mike McDaniel? I’m thinking the latter go for it and the former kick the FG. Times have changed.

 

[popeye]

Always amazes me how topics like this incite people to self-identify as being terrified of arithmetic.

It was my Understanding that there Would be no Math……..

Classic Chevy Chase Line from SNL

www.youtube.com

 

[msudaisy26]

The better poll would have been to ask thus question before the game happened. I am sure at least half the answers would be different.

 

[Bankerguy]

Always amazes me how topics like this incite people to self-identify as being terrified of arithmetic.

Please enlighten us how Detroit’s 4th down success rate earlier in the year against a weak roster of D’s is good information to use?

You are sure the math accounts for:
Home/road
Quality of opponent stopping 4th downs

Math is just math. You have to understand where the math was “mathed”.

I'm not the one saying it was a terrible decision by Campbell to go for it there. There was a small edge to going for it instead of kicking, but close enough that I could probably defend a decision to kick there if I wanted to. Given the circumstances it seemed like a good call at the time to keep their foot on the gas, and as a Niners fan I was terrified when I saw them lining up to go for it.

I'm happy for anyone who does keep saying it was a huge mistake to show their own work and explain how they mathed that out. They won't, of course, they never do, but the invitation stands.

There is no “work” to be shown.

If the Lion’s had played SF 17 times and had some past numbers - I could see considering that. I also understand they were moving ball decently.

The problem for DC and his past decision making and acting like a kid playing Madden and then defending it with some marginal analytics that in my opinion are sketchy at best.

His strength is his passion.
His weakness is his passion.

It was a mistake. I can’t prove it, but I’m confident it was.

 

[msudaisy26]

At the time I thought yes. I opined as much in the game topic.

Upon reflection, I believe he made the right call both times. The playcall was perfect, too. That the receiver didn't execute doesn't count as a mark against DC. Playing aggressively got the Lions to the NFCC, and staying the course is the correct way to play.

As I mentioned in the game topic, the Cowboys played one defensive scheme all year. In the playoffs they got cute, changed their defensive scheme, and go boat-raced. The playoffs is not the time to be trying new things.

And based on the 49ers 5 straight scoring drives, being aggressive & going for the throat was absolutely justified. Either of those 1st downs basically puts a dagger in SF. Score a TD after either and it's lights out SF.

They didn't work out, but IMO they were the correct decisions at the time.

What would Bill Cowher, Steve Mariucci, and Jimmy Johnson do compared to Sean McVay, Nick Siriani, Shane Steichen and Mike McDaniel?

Who cares it is a different league from when those guys coached.

 

[JohnnyU]

At the time I thought yes. I opined as much in the game topic.

Upon reflection, I believe he made the right call both times. The playcall was perfect, too. That the receiver didn't execute doesn't count as a mark against DC. Playing aggressively got the Lions to the NFCC, and staying the course is the correct way to play.

As I mentioned in the game topic, the Cowboys played one defensive scheme all year. In the playoffs they got cute, changed their defensive scheme, and go boat-raced. The playoffs is not the time to be trying new things.

And based on the 49ers 5 straight scoring drives, being aggressive & going for the throat was absolutely justified. Either of those 1st downs basically puts a dagger in SF. Score a TD after either and it's lights out SF.

They didn't work out, but IMO they were the correct decisions at the time.

What would Bill Cowher, Steve Mariucci, and Jimmy Johnson do compared to Sean McVay, Nick Siriani, Shane Steichen and Mike McDaniel?

Who cares it is a different league from when those guys coached.

I agree it’s different now, but can you tell me what is different regarding this decision? Are the offenses that far ahead of the defenses?

 

[Gally]

My comment was surrounding the defense only. Getting a defensive stop on 4th down will give the defense confidence.

Having a 4th down converted on you when you thought you were getting off the field will demoralize the defense too.

Of course it does. There are definitely two sides to the coin based on the actual outcome. If Detroit converts it would be a big boost for sure. The trick is weighing the risk vs the reward and factoring in the current game situation into that equation. Analytics is part of that. So is current situations that aren't included in the straight analytics.

Maybe DC had a play that he knew had a great chance of success (may have been the case because without the drop it's a first down). Maybe he didn't have anything like that at all and was just going for it because....dang it.....I am a gambler and I will always go for it situation be damned. I don't know the answer to that question.

Based on his history (continuing to go for two even after that penalty) lends me to believe he is more of the I am going for it no matter what type of guy. I think that will be a problem in bigger games and something he needs to get better at to win big games. Just my opinion.

 

[menobrown]

Something I've never quite been able to understand.

Why do teams not go for it on say 4th and goal at the 2 when the conversion nets you essentially 7 points but then go for it on 4th and similar yardage when the conversion only gets you a first down? Would it not make more sense to take the 3 points in those cases?

I understand when you have more space to operate it's easier to pick up yardage as well as the FG odds decrease when you are farther away. Is that the reason? I guess I'm saying I am just more puzzled why DC would kick a FG when facing 4th and 2 and take the 3 over the potential 7 but then go for it on later similar down and distance when you are taking the first down over a potential 3 points and this is something I see coaches doing all the time.

 

[Gally]

The entire premise of just relying on analytics is what I am saying is faulty in Detroit’s position. Or just saying

This is my argument as well. Analytics is a piece to the puzzle. It is not the whole puzzle. Current game situation is also a piece to the puzzle. Both are needed to be factored in to come up with a completed puzzle. It is not one size fits all and the coaches that can sift through that by knowing their team, opponent, current situation, etc will win more often than coaches that can't do those things.

 

[Bankerguy]

My comment was surrounding the defense only. Getting a defensive stop on 4th down will give the defense confidence.

Having a 4th down converted on you when you thought you were getting off the field will demoralize the defense too.

Of course it does. There are definitely two sides to the coin based on the actual outcome. If Detroit converts it would be a big boost for sure. The trick is weighing the risk vs the reward and factoring in the current game situation into that equation. Analytics is part of that. So is current situations that aren't included in the straight analytics.

Maybe DC had a play that he knew had a great chance of success (may have been the case because without the drop it's a first down). Maybe he didn't have anything like that at all and was just going for it because....dang it.....I am a gambler and I will always go for it situation be damned. I don't know the answer to that question.

Based on his history (continuing to go for two even after that penalty) lends me to believe he is more of the I am going for it no matter what type of guy. I think that will be a problem in bigger games and something he needs to get better at to win big games. Just my opinion.

Bingo

 

[GregR]

My comment was surrounding the defense only. Getting a defensive stop on 4th down will give the defense confidence.

Having a 4th down converted on you when you thought you were getting off the field will demoralize the defense too.

Of course it does. There are definitely two sides to the coin based on the actual outcome. If Detroit converts it would be a big boost for sure. The trick is weighing the risk vs the reward and factoring in the current game situation into that equation. Analytics is part of that. So is current situations that aren't included in the straight analytics.

Maybe DC had a play that he knew had a great chance of success (may have been the case because without the drop it's a first down). Maybe he didn't have anything like that at all and was just going for it because....dang it.....I am a gambler and I will always go for it situation be damned. I don't know the answer to that question.

Based on his history (continuing to go for two even after that penalty) lends me to believe he is more of the I am going for it no matter what type of guy. I think that will be a problem in bigger games and something he needs to get better at to win big games. Just my opinion.

Ok but this is the part where I point out that I came into the thread saying, "People always say you have to apply the game situation" but then don't actually do so.

So I posted the result of a detailed look at the game situation, which heavily favored going for it.

 

[fantasycurse42]

One other point to make that I really haven't seen:

Converting the first down there doesn't even mean points, it simply means retaining possession for another 4 downs.

I'd like to thank the MVP of the 49ers season, Dan Campbell!

 

[dgreen]

Always amazes me how topics like this incite people to self-identify as being terrified of arithmetic.

Please enlighten us how Detroit’s 4th down success rate earlier in the year against a weak roster of D’s is good information to use?

You are sure the math accounts for:
Home/road
Quality of opponent stopping 4th downs

Math is just math. You have to understand where the math was “mathed”.

I'm not the one saying it was a terrible decision by Campbell to go for it there. There was a small edge to going for it instead of kicking, but close enough that I could probably defend a decision to kick there if I wanted to. Given the circumstances it seemed like a good call at the time to keep their foot on the gas, and as a Niners fan I was terrified when I saw them lining up to go for it.

I'm happy for anyone who does keep saying it was a huge mistake to show their own work and explain how they mathed that out. They won't, of course, they never do, but the invitation stands.

There is no “work” to be shown.

If the Lion’s had played SF 17 times and had some past numbers - I could see considering that. I also understand they were moving ball decently.

The problem for DC and his past decision making and acting like a kid playing Madden and then defending it with some marginal analytics that in my opinion are sketchy at best.

His strength is his passion.
His weakness is his passion.

It was a mistake. I can’t prove it, but I’m confident it was.

You're still using analytics. Your analytics is that you believe he would have increased his chances to win by attempting the FG. You have to use some information to make a decision. Whatever that information is that you are using, those are your analytics. Your analytics seems to be that the Lions didn't have enough data to properly calculate their chances of going for it so they should choose the option where they have better data (kicking the FG). Is that accurate?

 

[dgreen]

One other point to make that I really haven't seen:

Converting the first down there doesn't even mean points, it simply means retaining possession for another 4 downs.

I'd like to thank the MVP of the 49ers season, Dan Campbell!

Attempting the FG doesn't mean points either. It means a certain probability for points, or expected points. Going for it and converting also leads to a certain level of expected points (and the opportunity to run off more clock).

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There is no “work” to be shown.

You can’t possibly believe that. You’re aware, for example, that professional sports bettors exist, right? How do you think that works?

Just because you don’t have perfect information doesn’t mean you can’t do useful analyses of available data. Entire zillion dollar industries are built on the fact that we can.

It was a mistake. I can’t prove it, but I’m confident it was.

Exactly. Just say you’re not interested in doing any kind of analysis whatsoever and move on from the conversation.

 

[fantasycurse42]

One other point to make that I really haven't seen:

Converting the first down there doesn't even mean points, it simply means retaining possession for another 4 downs.

I'd like to thank the MVP of the 49ers season, Dan Campbell!

Attempting the FG doesn't mean points either. It means a certain probability for points, or expected points. Going for it and converting also leads to a certain level of expected points (and the opportunity to run off more clock).

If you have a 2 score lead and there is a probability of points which make it 3 scores, you take that. We know the outcome of this game. You can argue future situations all you would like, but you cannot argue the decisions made in this one were correct, they weren't, hence the outcome.

 

[JohnnyU]

Help me with a stat, are offenses further ahead of defenses than they were 20 years ago? Not 40 years, 20 years. It’s the only thing I can think of as to why coaches go for it on 4th down more often in today’s NFL.

 

[Bankerguy]

Always amazes me how topics like this incite people to self-identify as being terrified of arithmetic.

Please enlighten us how Detroit’s 4th down success rate earlier in the year against a weak roster of D’s is good information to use?

You are sure the math accounts for:
Home/road
Quality of opponent stopping 4th downs

Math is just math. You have to understand where the math was “mathed”.

I'm not the one saying it was a terrible decision by Campbell to go for it there. There was a small edge to going for it instead of kicking, but close enough that I could probably defend a decision to kick there if I wanted to. Given the circumstances it seemed like a good call at the time to keep their foot on the gas, and as a Niners fan I was terrified when I saw them lining up to go for it.

I'm happy for anyone who does keep saying it was a huge mistake to show their own work and explain how they mathed that out. They won't, of course, they never do, but the invitation stands.

There is no “work” to be shown.

If the Lion’s had played SF 17 times and had some past numbers - I could see considering that. I also understand they were moving ball decently.

The problem for DC and his past decision making and acting like a kid playing Madden and then defending it with some marginal analytics that in my opinion are sketchy at best.

His strength is his passion.
His weakness is his passion.

It was a mistake. I can’t prove it, but I’m confident it was.

You're still using analytics. Your analytics is that you believe he would have increased his chances to win by attempting the FG. You have to use some information to make a decision. Whatever that information is that you are using, those are your analytics. Your analytics seems to be that the Lions didn't have enough data to properly calculate their chances of going for it so they should choose the option where they have better data (kicking the FG). Is that accurate?

IMO - neither side can prove strictly through analytics alone - that in this scenario it was a good or bad decision.

I’ve been countering the argument about the one tweet saying Analytics supported the decision. If DC used this as his whole rationale - well, not good.

Based on other post game PC’s I’ve seen from him - I really question his decision making. The Cowboys game and post game PC is an example.

 

[menobrown]

One other point to make that I really haven't seen:

Converting the first down there doesn't even mean points, it simply means retaining possession for another 4 downs.

I'd like to thank the MVP of the 49ers season, Dan Campbell!

This is basically what I asked a few posts up and used the example of why kick a FG on 4th and 2 when the conversion equals a TD but not attempt a FG when the conversion just gets you a first down and the down and distance are similar.

Like I said in my post I do understand having more space to operate makes it easier to convert and the odds of the a successful FG attempt are higher from the goal line area, this just never made sense to me and it's a no DC issue, I see teams do this all the time.

 

[Joe Schmo]

At the time I thought yes. I opined as much in the game topic.

Upon reflection, I believe he made the right call both times. The playcall was perfect, too. That the receiver didn't execute doesn't count as a mark against DC. Playing aggressively got the Lions to the NFCC, and staying the course is the correct way to play.

As I mentioned in the game topic, the Cowboys played one defensive scheme all year. In the playoffs they got cute, changed their defensive scheme, and go boat-raced. The playoffs is not the time to be trying new things.

And based on the 49ers 5 straight scoring drives, being aggressive & going for the throat was absolutely justified. Either of those 1st downs basically puts a dagger in SF. Score a TD after either and it's lights out SF.

They didn't work out, but IMO they were the correct decisions at the time.

What would Bill Cowher, Steve Mariucci, and Jimmy Johnson do compared to Sean McVay, Nick Siriani, Shane Steichen and Mike McDaniel?

Who cares it is a different league from when those guys coached.

I agree it’s different now, but can you tell me what is different regarding this decision? Are the offenses that far ahead of the defenses?

Bill Belichick went on 4th and 2 at his own 28 yard line against the Colts based on time and game play. He correctly, imo, ascertained a a higher likelihood of winning by converting on fourth down than punting the ball and letting the Colts offense back on the field. Right play call, poor execution. Didn't change the calculus and Belichick comes from the same old school coaching line as these you mention. The other old timers were more concerned about the negative outcome of failure than the positive outcome of success which analytics and today's coaches take into account.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Unless your objective was to lose the game yesterday, you cannot argue it was the correct decision. The outcome is not an unknown variable at this juncture, we know the decisions made in this particular game were incorrect, that is factual.

Can you argue that you should go for it in the future? Obviously you can (I'd argue against, but there will be situations where it proves to be the right decision), but you cannot argue that Dan Campbell made the right decisions on 1/28 at Levi's Stadium.

 

[dgreen]

Something I've never quite been able to understand.

Why do teams not go for it on say 4th and goal at the 2 when the conversion nets you essentially 7 points but then go for it on 4th and similar yardage when the conversion only gets you a first down? Would it not make more sense to take the 3 points in those cases?

I understand when you have more space to operate it's easier to pick up yardage as well as the FG odds decrease when you are farther away. Is that the reason? I guess I'm saying I am just more puzzled why DC would kick a FG when facing 4th and 2 and take the 3 over the potential 7 but then go for it on later similar down and distance when you are taking the first down over a potential 3 points and this is something I see coaches doing all the time.

The FG at the end of the half was a different situation. One of the factors of going for it is estimating what happens afterwards. Going for it on the 30 yard line with 7 minutes left has the opportunity to get the ball back. From the 2 yard line with a few seconds left in the half doesn't have the variable of what happens next. We know what happens next in that situation.

 

[Football Jones]

My comment was surrounding the defense only. Getting a defensive stop on 4th down will give the defense confidence.

Having a 4th down converted on you when you thought you were getting off the field will demoralize the defense too.

Of course it does. There are definitely two sides to the coin based on the actual outcome. If Detroit converts it would be a big boost for sure. The trick is weighing the risk vs the reward and factoring in the current game situation into that equation. Analytics is part of that. So is current situations that aren't included in the straight analytics.

Maybe DC had a play that he knew had a great chance of success (may have been the case because without the drop it's a first down). Maybe he didn't have anything like that at all and was just going for it because....dang it.....I am a gambler and I will always go for it situation be damned. I don't know the answer to that question.

Based on his history (continuing to go for two even after that penalty) lends me to believe he is more of the I am going for it no matter what type of guy. I think that will be a problem in bigger games and something he needs to get better at to win big games. Just my opinion.

Exactly.

Maybe Campbell gets less aggressive once he feels he has a better shot in games from a pure talent standpoint, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. This might be who he is.

On a side note, I find it hard to believe nobody on a headset said, hey, we need to call 2 plays if we’re going to run the ball so we can keep all our timeouts. The idea of running the ball there should’ve dictated the need to have another play ready. That was strange.

 

[Mitchie]

Can definitely be hindsight bias here because both plays were unsuccessful (similar to the Marshayn Lynch play in the Super Bowl, not trying to throw the thread of course or revisit a play from 10 years ago, but the call was a lot closer than most people think),

anyway was totally fine with the first call, Detroit had momentum, 4th and 2, they ran a good play receiver should have caught it,

2nd time think they prob should've kicked, am sure the analytics was fairly close but there was a 4th and 3, sometimes 1 yard makes enough of a difference, takes away the threat of a run a little, also they hadn't scored the entire half momentum had totally swung and tying the game at that point seemed like the right call. Also with 7 minutes left and down by 3 felt going for tie made sense, if you miss it not much time to recover from it. i feel like Campbell was maybe being a little stubborn there to prove his previous call to go for it was the right one.

 

[JohnnyU]

At the time I thought yes. I opined as much in the game topic.

Upon reflection, I believe he made the right call both times. The playcall was perfect, too. That the receiver didn't execute doesn't count as a mark against DC. Playing aggressively got the Lions to the NFCC, and staying the course is the correct way to play.

As I mentioned in the game topic, the Cowboys played one defensive scheme all year. In the playoffs they got cute, changed their defensive scheme, and go boat-raced. The playoffs is not the time to be trying new things.

And based on the 49ers 5 straight scoring drives, being aggressive & going for the throat was absolutely justified. Either of those 1st downs basically puts a dagger in SF. Score a TD after either and it's lights out SF.

They didn't work out, but IMO they were the correct decisions at the time.

What would Bill Cowher, Steve Mariucci, and Jimmy Johnson do compared to Sean McVay, Nick Siriani, Shane Steichen and Mike McDaniel?

Who cares it is a different league from when those guys coached.

I agree it’s different now, but can you tell me what is different regarding this decision? Are the offenses that far ahead of the defenses?

Bill Belichick went on 4th and 2 at his own 28 yard line against the Colts based on time and game play. He correctly, imo, ascertained a a higher likelihood of winning by converting on fourth down than punting the ball and letting the Colts offense back on the field. Right play call, poor execution. Didn't change the calculus and Belichick comes from the same old school coaching line as these you mention. The other old timers were more concerned about the negative outcome of failure than the positive outcome of success which analytics and today's coaches take into account.

So you think today’s coaches are better? Interesting.

 

[fantasycurse42]

On a side note, I find it hard to believe nobody on a headset said, hey, we need to call 2 plays if we’re going to run the ball so we can keep all our timeouts. The idea of running the ball there should’ve dictated the need to have another play ready. That was strange.

I made this argument elsewhere on this forum already. This statement is 100% correct. You need another play ready to go. And knowing how ****ty a DC Steve Wilks is, he prob wouldn't have had his defense ready.

 

[Bankerguy]

There is no “work” to be shown.

You can’t possibly believe that. You’re aware, for example, that professional sports bettors exist, right? How do you think that works?

Just because you don’t have perfect information doesn’t mean you can’t do useful analyses of available data. Entire zillion dollar industries are built on the fact that we can.

It was a mistake. I can’t prove it, but I’m confident it was.

Exactly. Just say you’re not interested in doing any kind of analysis whatsoever and move on from the conversation.

I’m saying by looking at regular season stats to determine playoff decisions is not wise.

It really is not valuable information to base your math on.

Therefore, trying prove through math is a fools errand.

Up 3 scores would have worked for me. Also, if Campbell is also so Uber confident in his offense, then it doesn’t matter what SF does after you go up by 17. His offense is gonna keep out performing the defense. No??

 

[Instinctive]

He should have 100%

Detroit had the easiest cake walk schedule of all time. In big games where every point counts against teams that can make the stop....you take the points

He shouldn't have, 100%.

Detroit has the easiest cake walk schedule of all time. In big games where every point counts against teams that can make the stop...you have to maximize every opportunity to score more points than them. You can't settle for suboptimal decisions or EPA.

 

[fantasycurse42]

He shouldn't have, 100%.

Was the goal to lose? That is the concrete outcome, so yes, we can say 100% he should have. Would they have lost anyways, that is unknown, but we do know the decisions he made and we do know the outcome. So yes, we can say 100% he should have.

 

[Joe Schmo]

At the time I thought yes. I opined as much in the game topic.

Upon reflection, I believe he made the right call both times. The playcall was perfect, too. That the receiver didn't execute doesn't count as a mark against DC. Playing aggressively got the Lions to the NFCC, and staying the course is the correct way to play.

As I mentioned in the game topic, the Cowboys played one defensive scheme all year. In the playoffs they got cute, changed their defensive scheme, and go boat-raced. The playoffs is not the time to be trying new things.

And based on the 49ers 5 straight scoring drives, being aggressive & going for the throat was absolutely justified. Either of those 1st downs basically puts a dagger in SF. Score a TD after either and it's lights out SF.

They didn't work out, but IMO they were the correct decisions at the time.

What would Bill Cowher, Steve Mariucci, and Jimmy Johnson do compared to Sean McVay, Nick Siriani, Shane Steichen and Mike McDaniel?

Who cares it is a different league from when those guys coached.

I agree it’s different now, but can you tell me what is different regarding this decision? Are the offenses that far ahead of the defenses?

Bill Belichick went on 4th and 2 at his own 28 yard line against the Colts based on time and game play. He correctly, imo, ascertained a a higher likelihood of winning by converting on fourth down than punting the ball and letting the Colts offense back on the field. Right play call, poor execution. Didn't change the calculus and Belichick comes from the same old school coaching line as these you mention. The other old timers were more concerned about the negative outcome of failure than the positive outcome of success which analytics and today's coaches take into account.

So you think today’s coaches are better? Interesting.

I think today's coaches are using more of the available information to guide their strategy and not just by rote running of 1st and 2nd down and only passing on 3rd cuz “When you throw a pass three things can happen to it, and two of them are bad.” Thanks to Bill Walsh and his new fangled West Coast offense it turns out a short pass can be as effective as a run on every down. But of course Bud Grant and Chuck Knoll disagreed so phewey on the new age coaches.

 

[GregR]

Help me with a stat, are offenses further ahead of defenses than they were 20 years ago? Not 40 years, 20 years. It’s the only thing I can think of as to why coaches go for it on 4th down more often in today’s NFL.

Are MLB defenses further ahead of offenses than they were 20 years ago? If not, then why would they employ the Shift against other teams?

They didn't Shift because defenses are further ahead. They did it because they realized their 20 year old beliefs were less ideal when it came to placement of defenders.

Same thing here. The NFL's understanding of the impact (on ultimate chance of winning) of going for it on 4th down under different situations improved.

 

[dgreen]

Always amazes me how topics like this incite people to self-identify as being terrified of arithmetic.

Please enlighten us how Detroit’s 4th down success rate earlier in the year against a weak roster of D’s is good information to use?

You are sure the math accounts for:
Home/road
Quality of opponent stopping 4th downs

Math is just math. You have to understand where the math was “mathed”.

I'm not the one saying it was a terrible decision by Campbell to go for it there. There was a small edge to going for it instead of kicking, but close enough that I could probably defend a decision to kick there if I wanted to. Given the circumstances it seemed like a good call at the time to keep their foot on the gas, and as a Niners fan I was terrified when I saw them lining up to go for it.

I'm happy for anyone who does keep saying it was a huge mistake to show their own work and explain how they mathed that out. They won't, of course, they never do, but the invitation stands.

There is no “work” to be shown.

If the Lion’s had played SF 17 times and had some past numbers - I could see considering that. I also understand they were moving ball decently.

The problem for DC and his past decision making and acting like a kid playing Madden and then defending it with some marginal analytics that in my opinion are sketchy at best.

His strength is his passion.
His weakness is his passion.

It was a mistake. I can’t prove it, but I’m confident it was.

You're still using analytics. Your analytics is that you believe he would have increased his chances to win by attempting the FG. You have to use some information to make a decision. Whatever that information is that you are using, those are your analytics. Your analytics seems to be that the Lions didn't have enough data to properly calculate their chances of going for it so they should choose the option where they have better data (kicking the FG). Is that accurate?

IMO - neither side can prove strictly through analytics alone - that in this scenario it was a good or bad decision.

I’ve been countering the argument about the one tweet saying Analytics supported the decision. If DC used this as his whole rationale - well, not good.

Based on other post game PC’s I’ve seen from him - I really question his decision making. The Cowboys game and post game PC is an example.

I don't know exactly how it works for most teams, but here's how I hope it works...or how it will work soon. My guess is teams have analytics departments. They have meetings during the week with coaches to go over scenarios and how to approach them. They should be discussing the margin of error in their predictions and what they feel strongest about. Hopefully one of them is even in the ear of the coach during the game to provide him the decision. I think they have their own analytics/inputs that spit out their results and not everyone is using the same exact analytics. One area I think I agree with you is that there's no such thing as THE analytics as if everyone is using the same formula and inputs. Maybe they are. I could be wrong. But my guess is, while they all use a similar approach, they have some uniqueness in how they make their calculations.

 

[Mitchie]

Unless your objective was to lose the game yesterday, you cannot argue it was the correct decision. The outcome is not an unknown variable at this juncture, we know the decisions made in this particular game were incorrect, that is factual.

Can you argue that you should go for it in the future? Obviously you can (I'd argue against, but there will be situations where it proves to be the right decision), but you cannot argue that Dan Campbell made the right decisions on 1/28 at Levi's Stadium.

obviously the discussion is around process, not outcome

 

[Joe Schmo]

I miss the days of Paul Halas lining his men up and grinding for three yards and a cloud of dust then punting all the time on fourth down. Game was perfect back in the Good Old Days.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I miss the days of Paul Halas lining his men up and grinding for three yards and a cloud of dust then punting all the time on fourth down. Game was perfect back in the Good Old Days.

The question posed in the thread title and poll is:

Should Dan Campbell have kicked a FG in the 2nd Half of the NFCC?​

 

[Gally]

Ok but this is the part where I point out that I came into the thread saying, "People always say you have to apply the game situation" but then don't actually do so.

So I posted the result of a detailed look at the game situation, which heavily favored going for it.

I agree that the pure analytics states that in general going for it on 4th and three gives you a marginal better EV than kicking the FG (I am assuming those posting that information are posting correct information. I haven't looked into it myself). I believe that the marginally better EV would mean more if the game was played by robots that could play exactly like the other 1000 times this situation played out to contribute to the EV calculated.

Where it sways over to the other side for me is that this game isn't played by robots. Emotions, pressure, injuries, matchups, current momentum, weather, etc play a factor into the EV not being a perfect number. Because of this, I think not following it to a T every time is warranted and the better coaches will use their "gut" to factor in all the human factors to make the ultimate decision.

My "gut" told me that based on what I saw for two and a half quarters the Lions would be better off for this particular game situation to attempt the FG over risking not making the 4th down conversion. I am not saying this would have changed the outcome for sure, but I believe it would have. I would also say this if the Lions converted that 4th down play and went on to win the game. I am not basing my decision based on the outcome. I am basing it on the analytics I was told (EV says go for it), the way the game was played to that point, the score, and how much time was left in the game.

I think both sides can be argued to make the decision you think gives you the best chance to win. What I don't believe is that basing your decision solely on analytics or solely on gut is the right way to make the decision. Both need to be included into your decision and the right answer isn't the same every time.

 

[Bankerguy]

Always amazes me how topics like this incite people to self-identify as being terrified of arithmetic.

Please enlighten us how Detroit’s 4th down success rate earlier in the year against a weak roster of D’s is good information to use?

You are sure the math accounts for:
Home/road
Quality of opponent stopping 4th downs

Math is just math. You have to understand where the math was “mathed”.

I'm not the one saying it was a terrible decision by Campbell to go for it there. There was a small edge to going for it instead of kicking, but close enough that I could probably defend a decision to kick there if I wanted to. Given the circumstances it seemed like a good call at the time to keep their foot on the gas, and as a Niners fan I was terrified when I saw them lining up to go for it.

I'm happy for anyone who does keep saying it was a huge mistake to show their own work and explain how they mathed that out. They won't, of course, they never do, but the invitation stands.

There is no “work” to be shown.

If the Lion’s had played SF 17 times and had some past numbers - I could see considering that. I also understand they were moving ball decently.

The problem for DC and his past decision making and acting like a kid playing Madden and then defending it with some marginal analytics that in my opinion are sketchy at best.

His strength is his passion.
His weakness is his passion.

It was a mistake. I can’t prove it, but I’m confident it was.

You're still using analytics. Your analytics is that you believe he would have increased his chances to win by attempting the FG. You have to use some information to make a decision. Whatever that information is that you are using, those are your analytics. Your analytics seems to be that the Lions didn't have enough data to properly calculate their chances of going for it so they should choose the option where they have better data (kicking the FG). Is that accurate?

IMO - neither side can prove strictly through analytics alone - that in this scenario it was a good or bad decision.

I’ve been countering the argument about the one tweet saying Analytics supported the decision. If DC used this as his whole rationale - well, not good.

Based on other post game PC’s I’ve seen from him - I really question his decision making. The Cowboys game and post game PC is an example.

I don't know exactly how it works for most teams, but here's how I hope it works...or how it will work soon. My guess is teams have analytics departments. They have meetings during the week with coaches to go over scenarios and how to approach them. They should be discussing the margin of error in their predictions and what they feel strongest about. Hopefully one of them is even in the ear of the coach during the game to provide him the decision. I think they have their own analytics/inputs that spit out their results and not everyone is using the same exact analytics. One area I think I agree with you is that there's no such thing as THE analytics as if everyone is using the same formula and inputs. Maybe they are. I could be wrong. But my guess is, while they all use a similar approach, they have some uniqueness in how they make their calculations.

Agreed, great post.

 

[dgreen]

At the time I thought yes. I opined as much in the game topic.

Upon reflection, I believe he made the right call both times. The playcall was perfect, too. That the receiver didn't execute doesn't count as a mark against DC. Playing aggressively got the Lions to the NFCC, and staying the course is the correct way to play.

As I mentioned in the game topic, the Cowboys played one defensive scheme all year. In the playoffs they got cute, changed their defensive scheme, and go boat-raced. The playoffs is not the time to be trying new things.

And based on the 49ers 5 straight scoring drives, being aggressive & going for the throat was absolutely justified. Either of those 1st downs basically puts a dagger in SF. Score a TD after either and it's lights out SF.

They didn't work out, but IMO they were the correct decisions at the time.

What would Bill Cowher, Steve Mariucci, and Jimmy Johnson do compared to Sean McVay, Nick Siriani, Shane Steichen and Mike McDaniel?

Who cares it is a different league from when those guys coached.

I agree it’s different now, but can you tell me what is different regarding this decision? Are the offenses that far ahead of the defenses?

Bill Belichick went on 4th and 2 at his own 28 yard line against the Colts based on time and game play. He correctly, imo, ascertained a a higher likelihood of winning by converting on fourth down than punting the ball and letting the Colts offense back on the field. Right play call, poor execution. Didn't change the calculus and Belichick comes from the same old school coaching line as these you mention. The other old timers were more concerned about the negative outcome of failure than the positive outcome of success which analytics and today's coaches take into account.

Yeah, I thought of that example. There's also the Redskins going for it on 4th down in the 4th quarter of the SB. Luckily, Riggins busted loose for a go-ahead TD. I think all the analytics would point to that being the right decision, but Gibbs didn't have an analytics department. Here's what he said about that decision:

"John said before the playoffs that he wanted the ball. He said, 'Just hitch me up to that wagon, and I'll pull it.' I sure wasn't going to stop giving him the ball now." On the play call: "Basically, it's a play that goes right at the tight end's rear, and John reads it. It's really an option play for him, and it's a play that he runs very well." Finally, "There comes a time in a game there's a gut decision. You have to make it and live with it. If we lost the game, I wanted to lose it by being physical."

 

[JohnnyU]

Help me with a stat, are offenses further ahead of defenses than they were 20 years ago? Not 40 years, 20 years. It’s the only thing I can think of as to why coaches go for it on 4th down more often in today’s NFL.

Are MLB defenses further ahead of offenses than they were 20 years ago? If not, then why would they employ the Shift against other teams?

They didn't Shift because defenses are further ahead. They did it because they realized their 20 year old beliefs were less ideal when it came to placement of defenders.

Same thing here. The NFL's understanding of the impact (on ultimate chance of winning) of going for it on 4th down under different situations improved.

If offenses aren’t necessarily ahead of the defenses, what situations improved? Can you give examples?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Of course every analytical tool will have value and also limitations. Every NFL team has its own analytics guys and we have no access to that data, but decisions like this are more often made days before in the planning sessions not in the moment. I think its fine to say a coach should focus on the specific situation over broad-based analytics, but with that approach I think you have to defer to the coach who is there on the sideline with his team. Maybe there's an opportunity or something to exploit they are aware of that you haven't picked up on watching on television. There's no way your gut feeling from the couch a thousand miles away is better than the coach's instincts based on all the real time information he has that you don't. You can call it arrogance but he's got to dance with the girl what brung him.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Was the goal to lose? That is the concrete outcome, so yes, we can say 100% he should have. Would they have lost anyways, that is unknown, but we do know the decisions he made and we do know the outcome. So yes, we can say 100% he should have.

You could argue anything with this kind of nonsense logic.

I think the Lions should've punted on every first down and never run an offensive play last night. We don't know what would've happened if they did that, but we know they lost by not doing that, so obviously they made the wrong decision.

 

[Bankerguy]

Ok but this is the part where I point out that I came into the thread saying, "People always say you have to apply the game situation" but then don't actually do so.

So I posted the result of a detailed look at the game situation, which heavily favored going for it.

I agree that the pure analytics states that in general going for it on 4th and three gives you a marginal better EV than kicking the FG (I am assuming those posting that information are posting correct information. I haven't looked into it myself). I believe that the marginally better EV would mean more if the game was played by robots that could play exactly like the other 1000 times this situation played out to contribute to the EV calculated.

Where it sways over to the other side for me is that this game isn't played by robots. Emotions, pressure, injuries, matchups, current momentum, weather, etc play a factor into the EV not being a perfect number. Because of this, I think not following it to a T every time is warranted and the better coaches will use their "gut" to factor in all the human factors to make the ultimate decision.

My "gut" told me that based on what I saw for two and a half quarters the Lions would be better off for this particular game situation to attempt the FG over risking not making the 4th down conversion. I am not saying this would have changed the outcome for sure, but I believe it would have. I would also say this if the Lions converted that 4th down play and went on to win the game. I am not basing my decision based on the outcome. I am basing it on the analytics I was told (EV says go for it), the way the game was played to that point, the score, and how much time was left in the game.

I think both sides can be argued to make the decision you think gives you the best chance to win. What I don't believe is that basing your decision solely on analytics or solely on gut is the right way to make the decision. Both need to be included into your decision and the right answer isn't the same every time.

THIS.

Well said.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

There is no “work” to be shown.

You can’t possibly believe that. You’re aware, for example, that professional sports bettors exist, right? How do you think that works?

Just because you don’t have perfect information doesn’t mean you can’t do useful analyses of available data. Entire zillion dollar industries are built on the fact that we can.

It was a mistake. I can’t prove it, but I’m confident it was.

Exactly. Just say you’re not interested in doing any kind of analysis whatsoever and move on from the conversation.

I’m saying by looking at regular season stats to determine playoff decisions is not wise.

It really is not valuable information to base your math on.

Therefore, trying prove through math is a fools errand.

You keep saying that, but like I said, there are entire industries that make boatloads of money doing exactly what you say is impossible. (I would know, I work in one.)

Again, do any kind of analysis to show it was a bad decision. We're still waiting for that, since you and others are the ones making the claim that it was such a bad decision. Prove it (or don't and just keep arguing for no reason).