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

[Stoneworker]

Another interesting stat to consider. Detroit's kicker Badgley is only 62 percent from beyond 40 yards in an outdoor stadium. The idea of 'taking the points' is utter BS. Shaq shot 62 percent in 2002 from the free throw line.

Check out this stat

Detroit has a 0% make percentage in NFC championship games going for it on 4th down and 3 or less.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Another interesting stat to consider. Detroit's kicker Badgley is only 62 percent from beyond 40 yards in an outdoor stadium. The idea of 'taking the points' is utter BS. Shaq shot 62 percent in 2002 from the free throw line.

Check out this stat

Detroit has a 0% make percentage in NFC championship games going for it on 4th down and 3 or less.

Good data point to add to the analysis for the next similar situation.

 

[Stoneworker]

Another interesting stat to consider. Detroit's kicker Badgley is only 62 percent from beyond 40 yards in an outdoor stadium. The idea of 'taking the points' is utter BS. Shaq shot 62 percent in 2002 from the free throw line.

Check out this stat

Detroit has a 0% make percentage in NFC championship games going for it on 4th down and 3 or less.

Good data point to add to the analysis for the next similar situation.

Right up there with 48+ FG attempts

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Ravens proved SF can collapse at home, and they beat them kicking four FGs (they took the points over and over again).

Not to detract from your otherwise comprehensive post, but 1 small nit to pick here.

The Ravens have arguably the best kicker in the NFL (and one of the best in NFL history)

Lions had Badgley, who (whom?) they plucked off the scrap heap a couple weeks prior.

Not exactly apples to apples here.

ETA: reading through all the new responses to this topic, I now see the Badgley issue was addressed by no fewer than 1,379,482 other posters.

Carry on.

 

[Stoneworker]

Anyway, back to my point: we weren't arguing about analytics or intuition. You were saying that momentum exists, and my point was that, even if it did, why would it argue in favor of one decision or another, since any decision you make could cause some sort of momentum swing?

I think the reason it matters is because the outcome doesn't provide equal momentum swings. Just as @Neil Beaufort Zod pointed out with his pizza example, the momentum gain by picking up the 4th down at that point in the game with that lead wasn't as big of a swing in overall momentum as the gain the 49ers would receive by stopping Detroit from picking up the first down. So part of the choice that should factor into the decision to go for it is what kind of swing in momentum could occur if we don't get the 1st down. Is that gain by your opponent worth the risk of going for it over attempting the FG?

Lets say momentum has a scale of 100% Detroit all the way to 100% SF and it's a sliding scale. So if at the point of the decision for the 4th down attempt I would estimate that the point of momentum on the scale was at 45% on the Detroit side of zero. SF had just kicked a FG after a decent drive to bring it to a two score game. Det still had control but SF was gaining ground on the MoScale. By my estimations going for the 4th down and getting it would slide the scale to 50% Det....a 5% gain. On the other hand, a 4th down stop would be a 40% gain by SF bringing the scale all the way down to 5% Det. They would still have the lead by two scores but a big ***** in the armor occurred as the SF defense showed they could hold the offense that gambles and wins at 75% on 4th and 3 on the year. Big Win for SF. As a coach the law of diminishing returns comes into play and while the analytics shows a slight advantage in EV to go for it, it gets outweighed by the downside of not making it as it gives SF a boost that I would want to stay away from.

Compare that the FG attempt. Det is at the same 45% on the scale and I would say making a FG increases the MoScale by 2% while missing it would be be bigger for SF but not as big as a 4th down spot. Because the defense did hold them....the didn't really stop them. So I would put that MoScale adjustment to a swing of 20% shifting the scale to Det at 25%.

Now in order to quantify these analytics we would need to go over play of every game and decide on an average percentage point gain/loss for every scenario there is. Bring in psychologists, ex players, coaches, fans (because fans do contribute to momentum) to figure out how this calculates out. You would need to know each players internal drive/emotion etc. It would be interesting if it could be done. I think this is what the analytics side is trying to get at. How do you quantify this swing for each outcome so it can go into a mathematical formula to come up with an ultimate "right" decision tree. But because there are 100's of humans involved in this it makes the variables incredibly hard to quantify. Each human's makeup is different so there isn't a way to know how much confidence (momentum) a stop gives to SF vs loss of confidence to Det. It's very complicated for sure. But it does exist.

NOTE: Percentages in the example are estimated based on nothing but my football viewing/playing experiences over the years. It did not include any actual historical data. No animals were harmed in these studies.

This is a phenomenal post

 

[Gally]

Incidentally, one of the key plays of that game was also a question of risk tolerance. On the strip sack, Shanny dialed up a bomb and had a WR open behind the secondary for what would likely have been a game-icing TD, but Freeman whiffed on the blitz pickup and Hightower sacked Ryan before he could get the pass off. Was that play call an unnecessary risk or a smart attempt to deliver a kill shot that resulted in the worst-case scenario coming to pass? It's impossible to answer, other than to say that it didn't work out

I like the swiss cheese effect as an example for this and it corresponds to the risk tolerance you are talking about. By going for the long pass play call you are deciding to align your cheese slices in a way that gives a portion of holes to line up to allow the bad thing to happen. It may give less holes to get part way through but it gives more of a hole to get all the way through. The time in the game is the number of slices. The score the number of holes. Choosing to pass over run aligns 4 slices to give a path through them all. Choosing run over pass doesn't give a path to get through four slices but gives more holes to get to slice two and start over again. I like the analogy.

 

[jon_mx]

Another interesting stat to consider. Detroit's kicker Badgley is only 62 percent from beyond 40 yards in an outdoor stadium. The idea of 'taking the points' is utter BS. Shaq shot 62 percent in 2002 from the free throw line.

Check out this stat

Detroit has a 0% make percentage in NFC championship games going for it on 4th down and 3 or less.

Good data point to add to the analysis for the next similar situation.

Right up there with 48+ FG attempts

I am pretty certain outdoor kicks beyond 40 yards by said kicker is exactly the stat thst is relevant. Instead of accepting it, you use laughing emojis and snarky comments which make zero sense. Awesome dude you are.

 

[dgreen]

Ravens proved SF can collapse at home, and they beat them kicking four FGs (they took the points over and over again).

Not to detract from your otherwise comprehensive post, but 1 small nit to pick here.

The Ravens have arguably the best kicker in the NFL (and one of the best in NFL history)

Lions had Badgley, who (whom?) they plucked off the scrap heap a couple weeks prior.

Not exactly apples to apples here.

ETA: reading through all the new responses to this topic, I now see the Badgley issue was addressed by no fewer than 1,379,482 other posters.

Carry on.

Ravens' field goals in that game also came on 4th-and-6, 4th-and-13, last play of first half from the 11 yard line, and 4th-and-goal from the 6.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Here's an interesting question: Regardless of what you think Campbell should have done in the two fourth-down situations, which of the two do you think had a stronger case to go for it?

I actually like going for it on the 2nd one more.

One reason is that the first FG was 45 and the second was 47. I know that's not a huge difference, but Badgley is close to automatic under 40 and pretty bad over 50, so somewhere in the upper 40s is probably where he starts to fall off. Also, if you believe pressure will affect him, it's a bigger factor on the 4th quarter kick to tie vs. 3rd quarter to extend lead.

The other reason is that in the 2nd situation, I don't feel at all good about tying the game at 27. The 49ers are the better team, at home, their offense hasn't been stopped in the 2nd half, and they're either going to get the same number of possessions as the Lions the rest of the game or one more. I don't like that at all. I'm willing to take a risk, within reason, to keep moving toward a TD that would make it 31-27. I feel like that's a huge increase in win probability. Maybe it's not as big as I think, but that's the point of analytics. If I'm the coach, the numbers can guide me a little there as to whether I'm being too pessimistic about our chances to win a tie game or too optimistic about what a 4-point lead means.

 

[Stoneworker]

I am pretty certain outdoor kicks beyond 40 yards by said kicker is exactly the stat thst is relevant. Instead of accepting it, you use laughing emojis and sparky comments which make zero sense. Awesome dude you are.

Baloney. Anyone with a football brain knows that a 40 yd attempt is not in the same probability range as a 59 yd attempt (Badgley's career long).

If you're going to use a Badgley FG%, use career 40-49, for which Badgley was 37-48 in his career (78%).

He was also 9-11 from 40-49 the last two years in a Lions uniform (82%)

 

[jon_mx]

I am pretty certain outdoor kicks beyond 40 yards by said kicker is exactly the stat thst is relevant. Instead of accepting it, you use laughing emojis and sparky comments which make zero sense. Awesome dude you are.

Baloney. Anyone with a football brain knows that a 40 yd attempt is not in the same probability range as a 59 yd attempt (Badgley's career long).

If you're going to use a Badgley FG%, use career 40-49, for which Badgley was 37-48 in his career (78%).

He was also 9-11 from 40-49 the last two years in a Lions uniform (82%)

Badgley kicks 50 yard plus FGs once in a blue moon. Most of those kicks which make up that stat was from inside the 45.

 

[Stoneworker]

I am pretty certain outdoor kicks beyond 40 yards by said kicker is exactly the stat thst is relevant. Instead of accepting it, you use laughing emojis and sparky comments which make zero sense. Awesome dude you are.

Baloney. Anyone with a football brain knows that a 40 yd attempt is not in the same probability range as a 59 yd attempt (Badgley's career long).

If you're going to use a Badgley FG%, use career 40-49, for which Badgley was 37-48 in his career (78%).

He was also 9-11 from 40-49 the last two years in a Lions uniform (82%)

Badgley kicks 50 yard plus FGs once in a blue moon. Most of those kicks which make up that stat was from inside the 45.

Lol. If you're going to cherry pick, then at least be consistent.

What's the Lions 4th down conversion % in away games in outdoor stadiums against Top 10 defenses?

Hint: It's much lower than their season average that is consistently used to support the go-for-it narrative

 

[jon_mx]

I am pretty certain outdoor kicks beyond 40 yards by said kicker is exactly the stat thst is relevant. Instead of accepting it, you use laughing emojis and sparky comments which make zero sense. Awesome dude you are.

Baloney. Anyone with a football brain knows that a 40 yd attempt is not in the same probability range as a 59 yd attempt (Badgley's career long).

If you're going to use a Badgley FG%, use career 40-49, for which Badgley was 37-48 in his career (78%).

He was also 9-11 from 40-49 the last two years in a Lions uniform (82%)

Badgley kicks 50 yard plus FGs once in a blue moon. Most of those kicks which make up that stat was from inside the 45.

Lol. If you're going to cherry pick, then at least be consistent.

What's the Lions 4th down conversion % in away games in outdoor stadiums against Top 10 defenses?

Hint: It's much lower than their season average that is consistently used to support the go-for-it narrative

A top 10 defense the Lions walked over in the first half and only failed because the reciever dropped it. Analytics and game performance supported it. It is only a bad decision because of hindsight. Nothing else.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

 

[Football Jones]

Earlier decisions by Campbell don't mean much of anything. He's using a "style" of coaching instead of adjusting to situation.

The Dallas game is a good example with the 2-point conversion, but the one in question here rivals it. No thought to anything else but being aggressive.

It's something he'll have to get over. It's ok to be aggressive in general, but Campbell definitely has some maturing to do as a HC. You can't out-tough you're way through the NFL.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Earlier decisions by Campbell don't mean much of anything. He's using a "style" of coaching instead of adjusting to situation.

The Dallas game is a good example with the 2-point conversion, but the one in question here rivals it. No thought to anything else but being aggressive.

It's something he'll have to get over. It's ok to be aggressive in general, but Campbell definitely has some maturing to do as a HC. You can't out-tough you're way through the NFL.

Worth noting that the Lions got completely screwed by the refs on that 2PAT call, or that would have worked as well.

I didn’t mind going for the win there at all. I wish more coaches would go for the W instead of the tie.

 

[JohnnyU]

Earlier decisions by Campbell don't mean much of anything. He's using a "style" of coaching instead of adjusting to situation.

The Dallas game is a good example with the 2-point conversion, but the one in question here rivals it. No thought to anything else but being aggressive.

It's something he'll have to get over. It's ok to be aggressive in general, but Campbell definitely has some maturing to do as a HC. You can't out-tough you're way through the NFL.

Worth noting that the Lions got completely screwed by the refs on that 2PAT call, or that would have worked as well.

I didn’t mind going for the win there at all. I wish more coaches would go for the W instead of the tie.

The old saying is go for the W on the road and the T at home.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

I knew he was better than average because of his aggressive decisions, but had no idea he was the best.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Earlier decisions by Campbell don't mean much of anything. He's using a "style" of coaching instead of adjusting to situation.

The Dallas game is a good example with the 2-point conversion, but the one in question here rivals it. No thought to anything else but being aggressive.

It's something he'll have to get over. It's ok to be aggressive in general, but Campbell definitely has some maturing to do as a HC. You can't out-tough you're way through the NFL.

Worth noting that the Lions got completely screwed by the refs on that 2PAT call, or that would have worked as well.

I didn’t mind going for the win there at all. I wish more coaches would go for the W instead of the tie.

The old saying is go for the W on the road and the T at home.

Yep. That’s what I grew up hearing as well.

 

[Gally]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

But how many times was his aggressiveness in situations where Detroit had control? Not all 4th down decisions are created equal based on score/time left/etc. Blanket aggressiveness isn't a good method for continued success. Part of being a coach is making adjustments based on game play.


I also wonder how they come up with "wins above average coach". Seems like an impossible thing to calculate.

 

[Gally]

I didn’t mind going for the win there at all. I wish more coaches would go for the W instead of the tie.

I didn't mind going for it initially but not after the penalty. That is where the adjustment needs to take place.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I didn’t mind going for the win there at all. I wish more coaches would go for the W instead of the tie.

I didn't mind going for it initially but not after the penalty. That is where the adjustment needs to take place.

I can see that argument. Honestly though, was it that much more difficult on the 2nd or 3rd attempt? (IIRC, there was a DAL penalty giving them yet another shot)

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

But how many times was his aggressiveness in situations where Detroit had control? Not all 4th down decisions are created equal based on score/time left/etc. Blanket aggressiveness isn't a good method for continued success. Part of being a coach is making adjustments based on game play.

I understand what you’re saying, but it does seem like DC has exhibited continued success by being aggressive.

And I hate to sound repetitive, but were it not for 2 dropped bunny passes, he would have been successful here as well.

And if either are converted, I believe the Lions win that game.

That all said, I do agree that adjustments to one’s style are also a necessary part of football. I saw his taking the FG at the end of the 1st half as one such adjustment.

 

[JohnnyU]

But how many times was his aggressiveness in situations where Detroit had control? Not all 4th down decisions are created equal based on score/time left/etc. Blanket aggressiveness isn't a good method for continued success. Part of being a coach is making adjustments based on game play.

I understand what you’re saying, but it does seem like DC has exhibited continued success by being aggressive.

And I hate to sound repetitive, but were it not for 2 dropped bunny passes, he would have been successful here as well.

And if either are converted, I believe the Lions win that game.

That all said, I do agree that adjustments to one’s style are also a necessary part of football. I saw his taking the FG at the end of the 1st half as one such adjustment.

Always a risk of dropping a bunny pass when you go for it. Just as there is at missing a chip shot FG, probably more.

 

[Gally]

And I hate to sound repetitive, but were it not for 2 dropped bunny passes, he would have been successful here as well.

And if the defense covered better it would have been knocked down. I agree that the play "worked" but you still need to execute and that is in the equation also. The If's don't matter. It didn't work. That goes into the equation to adjust the future probabilities. I am guessing the analytics don't factor in the "he shoulda caught it" aspects and just the actual results.

 

[JohnnyU]

And I hate to sound repetitive, but were it not for 2 dropped bunny passes, he would have been successful here as well.

And if the defense covered better it would have been knocked down. I agree that the play "worked" but you still need to execute and that is in the equation also. The If's don't matter. It didn't work. That goes into the equation to adjust the future probabilities. I am guessing the analytics don't factor in the "he shoulda caught it" aspects and just the actual results.

I’ve seen many 4th down plays fail due to dropping an easy catch or getting run stuffed. More often than kickers missing easy FGs it seems.

 

[Joe Schmo]

And I hate to sound repetitive, but were it not for 2 dropped bunny passes, he would have been successful here as well.

And if the defense covered better it would have been knocked down. I agree that the play "worked" but you still need to execute and that is in the equation also. The If's don't matter. It didn't work. That goes into the equation to adjust the future probabilities. I am guessing the analytics don't factor in the "he shoulda caught it" aspects and just the actual results.

I’ve seen many 4th down plays fail due to dropping an easy catch or getting run stuffed. More often than kickers missing easy FGs it seems.

But have you ever seen a field goal be worth 7 pts? Or advance the game clock by 3 minutes? Those are also end goal possibilities when going for a 4th down conversion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

And I hate to sound repetitive, but were it not for 2 dropped bunny passes, he would have been successful here as well.

And if the defense covered better it would have been knocked down. I agree that the play "worked" but you still need to execute and that is in the equation also. The If's don't matter. It didn't work. That goes into the equation to adjust the future probabilities. I am guessing the analytics don't factor in the "he shoulda caught it" aspects and just the actual results.

I’ve seen many 4th down plays fail due to dropping an easy catch or getting run stuffed. More often than kickers missing easy FGs it seems.

But have you ever seen a field goal be worth 7 pts? Or advance the game clock by 3 minutes? Those are also end goal possibilities when going for a 4th down conversion.

Solid point.

 

[Football Jones]

Earlier decisions by Campbell don't mean much of anything. He's using a "style" of coaching instead of adjusting to situation.

The Dallas game is a good example with the 2-point conversion, but the one in question here rivals it. No thought to anything else but being aggressive.

It's something he'll have to get over. It's ok to be aggressive in general, but Campbell definitely has some maturing to do as a HC. You can't out-tough you're way through the NFL.

Worth noting that the Lions got completely screwed by the refs on that 2PAT call, or that would have worked as well.

I didn’t mind going for the win there at all. I wish more coaches would go for the W instead of the tie.

Well, I was talking about the subsequent call for going for 2 on the 7. I get being aggressive, but 7 yards down there is tough, especially with a QB who can’t play off schedule and can’t run out of his shoes in case he needs to take off.

Guys like Campbell can be their own worst enemy. Looks great when it works, but there was simply no reason to push the envelope in the 9ers game. Very likely cost them a Super Bowl appearance.

 

[JohnnyU]

And I hate to sound repetitive, but were it not for 2 dropped bunny passes, he would have been successful here as well.

And if the defense covered better it would have been knocked down. I agree that the play "worked" but you still need to execute and that is in the equation also. The If's don't matter. It didn't work. That goes into the equation to adjust the future probabilities. I am guessing the analytics don't factor in the "he shoulda caught it" aspects and just the actual results.

I’ve seen many 4th down plays fail due to dropping an easy catch or getting run stuffed. More often than kickers missing easy FGs it seems.

But have you ever seen a field goal be worth 7 pts? Or advance the game clock by 3 minutes? Those are also end goal possibilities when going for a 4th down conversion.

Sometimes a FG is good.

 

[Football Jones]

And I hate to sound repetitive, but were it not for 2 dropped bunny passes, he would have been successful here as well.

And if the defense covered better it would have been knocked down. I agree that the play "worked" but you still need to execute and that is in the equation also. The If's don't matter. It didn't work. That goes into the equation to adjust the future probabilities. I am guessing the analytics don't factor in the "he shoulda caught it" aspects and just the actual results.

I’ve seen many 4th down plays fail due to dropping an easy catch or getting run stuffed. More often than kickers missing easy FGs it seems.

But have you ever seen a field goal be worth 7 pts? Or advance the game clock by 3 minutes? Those are also end goal possibilities when going for a 4th down conversion.

Sometimes a FG is good.

Especially when it would put you up 3 scores midway through the 3rd. The dynamics change then.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Ravens proved SF can collapse at home, and they beat them kicking four FGs (they took the points over and over again).

Not to detract from your otherwise comprehensive post, but 1 small nit to pick here.

The Ravens have arguably the best kicker in the NFL (and one of the best in NFL history)

Lions had Badgley, who (whom?) they plucked off the scrap heap a couple weeks prior.

Not exactly apples to apples here.

ETA: reading through all the new responses to this topic, I now see the Badgley issue was addressed by no fewer than 1,379,482 other posters.

Carry on.

I did cover the Tucker vs Badgley argument in the post, so I like to think I accounted for it. But no doubt which one is the more confidence-inspiring kicker.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

The NFCCG is not the same circumstance as the decisions he's made all year. Different circumstances, different strategies. If he's not capable of adjusting, that's a liability imo. On the road with a 14-point lead and the SB on the line isn't the same as a week 7 at home.

Plus, "past performance" and all that. Just because it worked before doesn't mean it's the right move in those circumstances. The Lions were great running the ball near the goal line, but it cost them a valuable time out. I agree Campbell was consistent. I'm just not sure that's to his credit here.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I did cover the Tucker vs Badgley argument in the post, so I like to think I accounted for it. But no doubt which one is the more confidence-inspiring kicker.

Also, a very good lesson in why we shouldn’t let players have nicknames until they’ve achieved a certain level of success.

“Money badger” was cute and all, but man did that dude’s shine fade in a hurry.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Earlier decisions by Campbell don't mean much of anything. He's using a "style" of coaching instead of adjusting to situation.

The Dallas game is a good example with the 2-point conversion, but the one in question here rivals it. No thought to anything else but being aggressive.

It's something he'll have to get over. It's ok to be aggressive in general, but Campbell definitely has some maturing to do as a HC. You can't out-tough you're way through the NFL.

Worth noting that the Lions got completely screwed by the refs on that 2PAT call, or that would have worked as well.

I didn’t mind going for the win there at all. I wish more coaches would go for the W instead of the tie.

I don't think we can say that with confidence. Perhaps the guy was open because the Cowboys weren't told he was eligible. You can't be expected to cover a guy who isn't allowed to catch a pass, right? So if you take that misinformation away from Dallas, they have a better chance of covering the play.

I do like coaches going for the win when they're the inferior team. In an even situation (or they're better), no sense risking the loss when over time (and in overtime) you should prevail. But perhaps I'm more risk-averse than a coach paid millions to produce.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

The NFCCG is not the same circumstance as the decisions he's made all year. Different circumstances, different strategies. If he's not capable of adjusting, that's a liability imo. On the road with a 14-point lead and the SB on the line isn't the same as a week 7 at home.

Plus, "past performance" and all that. Just because it worked before doesn't mean it's the right move in those circumstances. The Lions were great running the ball near the goal line, but it cost them a valuable time out. I agree Campbell was consistent. I'm just not sure that's to his credit here.

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

At home, on the road, with the SB on the line, with a regular season win on the line - it’s still a football game. The object of the game isn’t any different.

I’m not sure I completely agree, but I’ve seen that argument made.

I believe the game situation is far more relevant for those decisions - what’s the score, how much time is left, etc.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I did cover the Tucker vs Badgley argument in the post, so I like to think I accounted for it. But no doubt which one is the more confidence-inspiring kicker.

Also, a very good lesson in why we shouldn’t let players have nicknames until they’ve achieved a certain level of success.

“Money badger” was cute and all, but man did that dude’s shine fade in a hurry.

Agreed. "Danny Dimes" comes to mind as well.

 

[Gally]

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

If the game was played by robots....then this would be true.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don't think we can say that with confidence.

From the replays I’ve seen, DC’s comments about instructing the refs about the play *before the game*, and the players reactions / comments, I’m pretty confident that the Lions got screwed on that play.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

The NFCCG is not the same circumstance as the decisions he's made all year. Different circumstances, different strategies. If he's not capable of adjusting, that's a liability imo. On the road with a 14-point lead and the SB on the line isn't the same as a week 7 at home.

Plus, "past performance" and all that. Just because it worked before doesn't mean it's the right move in those circumstances. The Lions were great running the ball near the goal line, but it cost them a valuable time out. I agree Campbell was consistent. I'm just not sure that's to his credit here.

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

At home, on the road, with the SB on the line, with a regular season win on the line - it’s still a football game. The object of the game isn’t any different.

I’m not sure I completely agree, but I’ve seen that argument made.

I believe the game situation is far more relevant for those decisions - what’s the score, how much time is left, etc.

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL. It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

If the game was played by robots....then this would be true.

A lot of this is about statistical probabilities thought - I’m pretty sure the analytics don’t change because the win puts them in the SB vs a regular season win, no?

Math is robotic like that.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL.

Technically speaking bipolar disorder & an addiction to drugs/alcohol caused Barrett Robbins to go awol.

It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

Obviously the players on the field feel more pressure in certain context.

But we aren’t really arguing that in this topic. We’re arguing whether it was the correct decision by the HC.

 

[JohnnyU]

I did cover the Tucker vs Badgley argument in the post, so I like to think I accounted for it. But no doubt which one is the more confidence-inspiring kicker.

Also, a very good lesson in why we shouldn’t let players have nicknames until they’ve achieved a certain level of success.

“Money badger” was cute and all, but man did that dude’s shine fade in a hurry.

Agreed. "Danny Dimes" comes to mind as well.

Or worse , given a nickname that is already claimed, ARod anyone?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I don't think we can say that with confidence.

From the replays I’ve seen, DC’s comments about instructing the refs about the play *before the game*, and the players reactions / comments, I’m pretty confident that the Lions got screwed on that play.

They definitely got screwed in the sense that they declared someone eligible and the ref assigned it to the wrong person. The ref messed up, no doubt. But when you declare someone eligible (meaning the others are ineligible) how could anyone expect the Cowboys to cover an ineligible guy?

I meant we can't say with any confidence that the play would have worked if Dallas knew the guy who caught the pass was eligible. They were told something different. But the refs messed up the assignment, which wasted the play they wanted.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I did cover the Tucker vs Badgley argument in the post, so I like to think I accounted for it. But no doubt which one is the more confidence-inspiring kicker.

Also, a very good lesson in why we shouldn’t let players have nicknames until they’ve achieved a certain level of success.

“Money badger” was cute and all, but man did that dude’s shine fade in a hurry.

Agreed. "Danny Dimes" comes to mind as well.

Or worse , given a nickname that is already claimed, ARod anyone?

Also “slim reaper”, KD’s long time nickname that’s being foisted on Davonte Smith.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL.

Technically speaking bipolar disorder & an addiction to drugs/alcohol caused Barrett Robbins to go awol.

It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

Obviously the players on the field feel more pressure in certain co text.

But we aren’t really arguing that in this topic. We’re arguing whether it was the correct decision by the HC.

Of course you're right about Robbins, but the pressure of the regular season didn't get to him, or at least was kept in check. It didn't happen in week 9. It happened before the biggest game of his life. I'm not sure that's a coincidence.

I think the HC has to take into account the moment, and how that could impact the decisions he makes. He can't foresee the drops, of course. But he can understand the import of every decision considering what was on the line.

I think they were the wrong decisions, and (as much as humanly possible) I'm not factoring in whether they worked or not. I just don't think you take unnecessary risks when you hold all the cards, and you certainly try to tie when you're in a position of weakness (losing by 3 with half a quarter left). I'd feel differently about the latter if it was in the second quarter, but there was only about 7-ish min left.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL. It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

Did pressure actually cause all those things, or do we just decide that's what happened whenever someone underperforms in the postseason? Even if there was no such thing as pressure, some players would randomly have off nights in big games, and some would just struggle with the stronger competition. I'm not sure the Bills choked so much as the Redskins and Cowboys were really good.

Another thing with human elements - it's been said a few times in the thread that anyone who played sports knows these things are real. And probably all of us played sports, but at what level? Youth, rec league, high school, maybe college in some cases, few if any professional. At lower levels, you'll have kids who literally tremble in pressure situations, some who give up at the first sign of adversity, others who don't care in the first place, etc. Of course psychological factors play a large role in those games. By the time you get to the pro level, everyone's been in many big games and those who can't handle it have largely been filtered out. That's not to say NFL players never fail due to pressure, but I think we're way too quick to assume that's the reason.

 

[Gally]

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

If the game was played by robots....then this would be true.

A lot of this is about statistical probabilities thought - I’m pretty sure the analytics don’t change because the win puts them in the SB vs a regular season win, no?

Math is robotic like that.

That is my exact point. The analytics doesn't factor in pressure and if the game was played by robots that weren't affected by pressure than the statistical probabilities being cited would be more accurate.

 

[Gally]

But we aren’t really arguing that in this topic. We’re arguing whether it was the correct decision by the HC.

But factoring in pressure into the equation is part of the argument in this topic. Many on the momentum side are saying that the pressure/human/momentum wasn't factored in when you are using just the straight analytics and since the analytics were close and momentum wasn't factored that made going for it the wrong decision.