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

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Onsides kicks have had their rules changed where it is much harder to recover the kick. Starting the season off with a play that has a 5% or less chance of success is just dumb.

You may not recover but that is far from making it "just dumb". A surprise gives you the best chance you will have and the downside is pretty minimal at that point in the game. Having a low success rate does not necessarily equate to being a dumb choice.

5% success rate means you do it only when it is a last choice. Starting a game off with a desperate play is dumb.

I completely disagree. Trying an onside kick to start a season is based on seeing something or trying to surprise which skews the 5% success rate based on the defending team knowing it is coming. The risk is also not game ending as you have 59 minutes left to play of game clock to recover if you didn't succeed. It's a calculated risk.....not a blanketly dumb choice.

If you want or feel the need to play aggressively there are a ton other spots in a game to do it that have higher success rates. Onsides kick first game, first kick is a vanity play. Again, the opponent was the McDaniel's Raiders. It was a Broncos home game. Season opener.

 

[Instinctive]

Here's a decent explanation that jives with all my thoughts: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2024/...hip-hot-read-detroit-lions-kansas-city-chiefs

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

All 3 choices. 2/3 correct. And the opposite of what people are harping on.

What does it say about running on 3rd down and wasting a timeout?

I wasn't debating that point, but I think universally that was a horrible decision. Haven't seen anything to justify otherwise.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Here's a decent explanation that jives with all my thoughts: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2024/...hip-hot-read-detroit-lions-kansas-city-chiefs

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

All 3 choices. 2/3 correct. And the opposite of what people are harping on.

What does it say about running on 3rd down and wasting a timeout?

I wasn't debating that point, but I think universally that was a horrible decision. Haven't seen anything to justify otherwise.

I didn’t think you were debating it. Just seeing if any analytics on it exist.

 

[JoeKappBudGrant]

Also, if the analytics say go for it in that spot up 24-10......maybe the analytics for that are....... wrong????
Maybe???

I was not debating Campbell's decision making. I was responding to a post on momentum. If Detroit had completed a 60 pass from their 37 yard line leaving 3 seconds on the clock, kicking the field goal keeps their momentum because no one was expecting them to score. Not scoring a touchdown after first and goal at the 7 may have cost them the momentum. The after the fact argument is San Fran scored the next 27 points.

 

[ghostguy123]

Also, if the analytics say go for it in that spot up 24-10......maybe the analytics for that are....... wrong????
Maybe???

I was not debating Campbell's decision making. I was responding to a post on momentum. If Detroit had completed a 60 pass from their 37 yard line leaving 3 seconds on the clock, kicking the field goal keeps their momentum because no one was expecting them to score. Not scoring a touchdown after first and goal at the 7 may have cost them the momentum. The after the fact argument is San Fran scored the next 27 points.

I posted how dumb it was right when it happened. No hindsight needed

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Also, if the analytics say go for it in that spot up 24-10......maybe the analytics for that are....... wrong????
Maybe???

If only there was some way to... do analysis? To validate or refute "the analytics?" Alas, I guess there's just literally no way to know.

 

[Instinctive]

Here's a decent explanation that jives with all my thoughts: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2024/...hip-hot-read-detroit-lions-kansas-city-chiefs

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

All 3 choices. 2/3 correct. And the opposite of what people are harping on.

What does it say about running on 3rd down and wasting a timeout?

I wasn't debating that point, but I think universally that was a horrible decision. Haven't seen anything to justify otherwise.

I didn’t think you were debating it. Just seeing if any analytics on it exist.

yeah I mean...

You can kick deep and have enough time to get the ball back if you didn't burn the timeout. The likelihood of doing that is higher than converting a known onside kick.

Did I do the exact math on it? No. But I'm sure somebody has and I'd be pretty confident that's how it plays out.

 

[ghostguy123]

Also, if the analytics say go for it in that spot up 24-10......maybe the analytics for that are....... wrong????
Maybe???

If only there was some way to... do analysis? To validate or refute "the analytics?" Alas, I guess there's just literally no way to know.

If only the analysis took into account the dozen other factors that it doesn't.
Analytics is a tool. Use the tool, but one tool doesn't do every job.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Also, if the analytics say go for it in that spot up 24-10......maybe the analytics for that are....... wrong????
Maybe???

If only there was some way to... do analysis? To validate or refute "the analytics?" Alas, I guess there's just literally no way to know.

If only the analysis took into account the dozen other factors that it doesn't.
Analytics is a tool. Use the tool, but one tool doesn't do every job.

I sincerely doubt you guys even understand what "the analytics" means when you make these hand-wavy dismissals. In the real world if you come across an anaylsis - of anything - that you think is wrong, you do another analysis and either prove it was wrong or confirm it was right. You don't just go "maybe??? it's... wrong???" as if that's a refutation in itself.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Also, if the analytics say go for it in that spot up 24-10......maybe the analytics for that are....... wrong????
Maybe???

If only there was some way to... do analysis? To validate or refute "the analytics?" Alas, I guess there's just literally no way to know.

If only the analysis took into account the dozen other factors that it doesn't.
Analytics is a tool. Use the tool, but one tool doesn't do every job.

I sincerely doubt you guys even understand what "the analytics" means when you make these hand-wavy dismissals. In the real world if you come across an anaylsis - of anything - that you think is wrong, you do another analysis and either prove it was wrong or confirm it was right. You don't just go "maybe??? it's... wrong???" as if that's a refutation in itself.

I feel like we've made so much progress in these types of discussions in recent years, and then a day like yesterday comes along and everyone's back to "Can these so-called 'analytics' account for the fact that a southwesterly wind was blowing 2mph? If not then it's completely invalid!"

In the majority of these cases, people start with the fact that the decision felt wrong because it goes against what they grew up believing, and then the fact that it didn't work, and construct arguments as to why it was dumb (often relying on the crutch of "momentum", which can be twisted to mean whatever you want it to mean).

 

[Tau837]

I thought the regular posters in this thread would be collectively smarter about how analytic models for 4th down decisions work and are (should be) applied by coaches. This tangent of discussion in this thread has proven me wrong about that.

 

[BassNBrew]

I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

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

A call that worked out but I think was poor was going for it on 4th and goal down 10. Should have taken the easy FG and then the onside kick. After the timeout was taken the onside kick was needed either way.

Disagree 1000%. You're going to need to score a TD at some point, and the odds that you will get a better opportunity than one play from the 2 yard line are extremely slim. In fact, you'd most likely be trying to score on a Hail Mary. Plus, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to win the game, not tie it. Scoring the TD there preserves the slim possibility that you could score a second TD and win in regulation.

In fact, I thought that Baltimore's decision in a similar situation to kick a FG on 4th and 5 from the 25 with 2:34 remaining was questionable, but it's a much closer decision. The Lions one was a no-brainer

Disagree. Need the onside kick either way. Recovering with 1:45 and two timeouts around mid field probably is a better chance of scoring a TD and a fourth and goal conversion.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Analytics is a tool. Use the tool, but one tool doesn't do every job.

Your periodic reminder that literally no one relies on this strawman argument

 

[JohnnyU]

Same thread as the other one.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Dan Campbell explains late third-and-goal run that forced Detroit to burn timeout

Based on San Francisco's defensive package, Campbell believed David Montgomery would score an easy touchdown. But a blown block blew up the play, and the Lions were forced to burn a costly timeout.

www.mlive.com

The one thing I would have liked to see him address is why they had to call the timeout. Obviously, they should have passed, but even after the run was stuffed, they would have been better off rushing to the line (ideally, if they were going to run on third they should have had the fourth-down call already in). The onside kick was recovered with 56 seconds left. Even if they had lost another 15 seconds, it would have been possible to do a regular kick off, stuff them three times, and get the ball back with ~25 seconds left and no TOs, probably at around their own 30. That means they would need to gain around 40 yards in three or four plays and then attempt a FG. Hardly an optimal situation, but still doable. Once they burned the timeout the only chance they had was the onside kick

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

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

A call that worked out but I think was poor was going for it on 4th and goal down 10. Should have taken the easy FG and then the onside kick. After the timeout was taken the onside kick was needed either way.

Disagree 1000%. You're going to need to score a TD at some point, and the odds that you will get a better opportunity than one play from the 2 yard line are extremely slim. In fact, you'd most likely be trying to score on a Hail Mary. Plus, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to win the game, not tie it. Scoring the TD there preserves the slim possibility that you could score a second TD and win in regulation.

In fact, I thought that Baltimore's decision in a similar situation to kick a FG on 4th and 5 from the 25 with 2:34 remaining was questionable, but it's a much closer decision. The Lions one was a no-brainer

Disagree. Need the onside kick either way. Recovering with 1:45 and two timeouts around mid field probably is a better chance of scoring a TD and a fourth and goal conversion.

First of all, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The onside kick occurred with 56 seconds left, not 1:45. (Unless you're talking about Baltimore, which also doesn't make sense since the Ravens scored with 2:34 remaining and did not attempt an onsides kick).

Second, if you believe that a team is more likely to drive 56 yards in under a minute than it is to gain two yards on a single play, I'm honestly not sure what to tell you other than that I question your overall understanding of football.

And finally, if you actually believe they're more likely to score in that situation, then it would be an argument in favor of going for it on fourth down. Fourth and goal from the 2 is the same thing as a two-point conversion, which means you have a better than 50% chance of converting (maybe even slightly higher for the Lions). If the Lions were 50%+ to score in both scenarios, then they should try to do both and win the game in regulation rather than going to OT, where as a road underdog their odds would be below 50%

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

https://x.com/DenAck31/status/1752323122206851125?s=20

This is a good point. In terms of coaches, Monken had a far worse day than Campbell, who had two coin-flip decisions go against him and screwed up a play in a situation where his WP% was already less than 1%. Monken called a horrible, head-scratchingly bad game

 

[BassNBrew]

I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

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

A call that worked out but I think was poor was going for it on 4th and goal down 10. Should have taken the easy FG and then the onside kick. After the timeout was taken the onside kick was needed either way.

Disagree 1000%. You're going to need to score a TD at some point, and the odds that you will get a better opportunity than one play from the 2 yard line are extremely slim. In fact, you'd most likely be trying to score on a Hail Mary. Plus, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to win the game, not tie it. Scoring the TD there preserves the slim possibility that you could score a second TD and win in regulation.

In fact, I thought that Baltimore's decision in a similar situation to kick a FG on 4th and 5 from the 25 with 2:34 remaining was questionable, but it's a much closer decision. The Lions one was a no-brainer

Disagree. Need the onside kick either way. Recovering with 1:45 and two timeouts around mid field probably is a better chance of scoring a TD and a fourth and goal conversion.

First of all, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The onside kick occurred with 56 seconds left, not 1:45. (Unless you're talking about Baltimore, which also doesn't make sense since the Ravens scored with 2:34 remaining and did not attempt an onsides kick).

Second, if you believe that a team is more likely to drive 56 yards in under a minute than it is to gain two yards on a single play, I'm honestly not sure what to tell you other than that I question your overall understanding of football.

And finally, if you actually believe they're more likely to score in that situation, then it would be an argument in favor of going for it on fourth down. Fourth and goal from the 2 is the same thing as a two-point conversion, which means you have a better than 50% chance of converting (maybe even slightly higher for the Lions). If the Lions were 50%+ to score in both scenarios, then they should try to do both and win the game in regulation rather than going to OT, where as a road underdog their odds would be below 50%

You are correct on the timing.

You need a TD and a FG to stay alive. Order doesn't matter. I'm passing into the end zone on 3rd down and kicking the FG if I don't succeed to check off one of those boxes. I would have 3 TOs and one minute left. Even if the onside kick fails I'm getting the ball back. Yes driving 80+ yards in 45 seconds with no timeouts is a tall order. Generally with prevent defenses, these situation usually result in the trailing team at least having a shot or two at the end zone. If I was the coach, I'm taking the highest percentage option to get the game to within a possession and getting that pucker factor working for the other team.

 

[nysfl2]

Dan Campbell explains late third-and-goal run that forced Detroit to burn timeout

Based on San Francisco's defensive package, Campbell believed David Montgomery would score an easy touchdown. But a blown block blew up the play, and the Lions were forced to burn a costly timeout.

www.mlive.com

The one thing I would have liked to see him address is why they had to call the timeout. Obviously, they should have passed, but even after the run was stuffed, they would have been better off rushing to the line (ideally, if they were going to run on third they should have had the fourth-down call already in). The onside kick was recovered with 56 seconds left. Even if they had lost another 15 seconds, it would have been possible to do a regular kick off, stuff them three times, and get the ball back with ~25 seconds left and no TOs, probably at around their own 30. That means they would need to gain around 40 yards in three or four plays and then attempt a FG. Hardly an optimal situation, but still doable. Once they burned the timeout the only chance they had was the onside kick

Yup, agree here. When the run is called, they should have had a second play ready if they didn't make it. Failing that, rush into a quick call to save the TO. Stopping the clock with the TO saves you 15-20 seconds, but if SF has the ball, it saves you the full 40.

I'm sure that they viewed it as absolutely critical to get their best play in for 4th down, since the game's over if they don't make it, but the time was far more important.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

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

A call that worked out but I think was poor was going for it on 4th and goal down 10. Should have taken the easy FG and then the onside kick. After the timeout was taken the onside kick was needed either way.

Disagree 1000%. You're going to need to score a TD at some point, and the odds that you will get a better opportunity than one play from the 2 yard line are extremely slim. In fact, you'd most likely be trying to score on a Hail Mary. Plus, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to win the game, not tie it. Scoring the TD there preserves the slim possibility that you could score a second TD and win in regulation.

In fact, I thought that Baltimore's decision in a similar situation to kick a FG on 4th and 5 from the 25 with 2:34 remaining was questionable, but it's a much closer decision. The Lions one was a no-brainer

Disagree. Need the onside kick either way. Recovering with 1:45 and two timeouts around mid field probably is a better chance of scoring a TD and a fourth and goal conversion.

First of all, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The onside kick occurred with 56 seconds left, not 1:45. (Unless you're talking about Baltimore, which also doesn't make sense since the Ravens scored with 2:34 remaining and did not attempt an onsides kick).

Second, if you believe that a team is more likely to drive 56 yards in under a minute than it is to gain two yards on a single play, I'm honestly not sure what to tell you other than that I question your overall understanding of football.

And finally, if you actually believe they're more likely to score in that situation, then it would be an argument in favor of going for it on fourth down. Fourth and goal from the 2 is the same thing as a two-point conversion, which means you have a better than 50% chance of converting (maybe even slightly higher for the Lions). If the Lions were 50%+ to score in both scenarios, then they should try to do both and win the game in regulation rather than going to OT, where as a road underdog their odds would be below 50%

You are correct on the timing.

You need a TD and a FG to stay alive. Order doesn't matter. I'm passing into the end zone on 3rd down and kicking the FG if I don't succeed to check off one of those boxes. I would have 3 TOs and one minute left. Even if the onside kick fails I'm getting the ball back. Yes driving 80+ yards in 45 seconds with no timeouts is a tall order. Generally with prevent defenses, these situation usually result in the trailing team at least having a shot or two at the end zone. If I was the coach, I'm taking the highest percentage option to get the game to within a possession and getting that pucker factor working for the other team.

The goal isn't to stay alive, the goal is to win the game by scoring more points than the other team, so obviously, scoring more points when you have the chance does matter. And as I pointed out, if you think it's so easy to put together a TD drive when you get the ball back, then it's even more important to score on the first drive so you can win in regulation.

But I still can't get past the fact that you think a team has a better chance of driving the length of the field in under a minute than of advancing the ball two yards on a single play. Do you honestly believe that? I don't even have to look up the numbers to tell you it couldn't possibly be true.

 

[BassNBrew]

I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

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

A call that worked out but I think was poor was going for it on 4th and goal down 10. Should have taken the easy FG and then the onside kick. After the timeout was taken the onside kick was needed either way.

Disagree 1000%. You're going to need to score a TD at some point, and the odds that you will get a better opportunity than one play from the 2 yard line are extremely slim. In fact, you'd most likely be trying to score on a Hail Mary. Plus, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to win the game, not tie it. Scoring the TD there preserves the slim possibility that you could score a second TD and win in regulation.

In fact, I thought that Baltimore's decision in a similar situation to kick a FG on 4th and 5 from the 25 with 2:34 remaining was questionable, but it's a much closer decision. The Lions one was a no-brainer

Disagree. Need the onside kick either way. Recovering with 1:45 and two timeouts around mid field probably is a better chance of scoring a TD and a fourth and goal conversion.

First of all, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The onside kick occurred with 56 seconds left, not 1:45. (Unless you're talking about Baltimore, which also doesn't make sense since the Ravens scored with 2:34 remaining and did not attempt an onsides kick).

Second, if you believe that a team is more likely to drive 56 yards in under a minute than it is to gain two yards on a single play, I'm honestly not sure what to tell you other than that I question your overall understanding of football.

And finally, if you actually believe they're more likely to score in that situation, then it would be an argument in favor of going for it on fourth down. Fourth and goal from the 2 is the same thing as a two-point conversion, which means you have a better than 50% chance of converting (maybe even slightly higher for the Lions). If the Lions were 50%+ to score in both scenarios, then they should try to do both and win the game in regulation rather than going to OT, where as a road underdog their odds would be below 50%

You are correct on the timing.

You need a TD and a FG to stay alive. Order doesn't matter. I'm passing into the end zone on 3rd down and kicking the FG if I don't succeed to check off one of those boxes. I would have 3 TOs and one minute left. Even if the onside kick fails I'm getting the ball back. Yes driving 80+ yards in 45 seconds with no timeouts is a tall order. Generally with prevent defenses, these situation usually result in the trailing team at least having a shot or two at the end zone. If I was the coach, I'm taking the highest percentage option to get the game to within a possession and getting that pucker factor working for the other team.

The goal isn't to stay alive, the goal is to win the game by scoring more points than the other team, so obviously, scoring more points when you have the chance does matter. And as I pointed out, if you think it's so easy to put together a TD drive when you get the ball back, then it's even more important to score on the first drive so you can win in regulation.

But I still can't get past the fact that you think a team has a better chance of driving the length of the field in under a minute than of advancing the ball two yards on a single play. Do you honestly believe that? I don't even have to look up the numbers to tell you it couldn't possibly be true.

I'm seeing about a 30% chance of scoring a TD in the two minute drive.

4th and 2 is 57%, but 4th and 2 at the goal is probably lower due to less field to defend.

a 20 yard FG attempt is better than 95%

95% x 30% = 28% (assuming recovering the onside kick needed in both instances)

57% x X% = 28% X = 49%

I don't know how 49% stacks up in reality to driving into FG range and converting a FG.

You may be right that it's better to trying for the 4th and goal, but it's not a clear cut lock.

 

[bryhamm]

you guys have some goofy % going on in here. it either happens or it doesn't. 50/50

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

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

A call that worked out but I think was poor was going for it on 4th and goal down 10. Should have taken the easy FG and then the onside kick. After the timeout was taken the onside kick was needed either way.

Disagree 1000%. You're going to need to score a TD at some point, and the odds that you will get a better opportunity than one play from the 2 yard line are extremely slim. In fact, you'd most likely be trying to score on a Hail Mary. Plus, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to win the game, not tie it. Scoring the TD there preserves the slim possibility that you could score a second TD and win in regulation.

In fact, I thought that Baltimore's decision in a similar situation to kick a FG on 4th and 5 from the 25 with 2:34 remaining was questionable, but it's a much closer decision. The Lions one was a no-brainer

Disagree. Need the onside kick either way. Recovering with 1:45 and two timeouts around mid field probably is a better chance of scoring a TD and a fourth and goal conversion.

First of all, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The onside kick occurred with 56 seconds left, not 1:45. (Unless you're talking about Baltimore, which also doesn't make sense since the Ravens scored with 2:34 remaining and did not attempt an onsides kick).

Second, if you believe that a team is more likely to drive 56 yards in under a minute than it is to gain two yards on a single play, I'm honestly not sure what to tell you other than that I question your overall understanding of football.

And finally, if you actually believe they're more likely to score in that situation, then it would be an argument in favor of going for it on fourth down. Fourth and goal from the 2 is the same thing as a two-point conversion, which means you have a better than 50% chance of converting (maybe even slightly higher for the Lions). If the Lions were 50%+ to score in both scenarios, then they should try to do both and win the game in regulation rather than going to OT, where as a road underdog their odds would be below 50%

You are correct on the timing.

You need a TD and a FG to stay alive. Order doesn't matter. I'm passing into the end zone on 3rd down and kicking the FG if I don't succeed to check off one of those boxes. I would have 3 TOs and one minute left. Even if the onside kick fails I'm getting the ball back. Yes driving 80+ yards in 45 seconds with no timeouts is a tall order. Generally with prevent defenses, these situation usually result in the trailing team at least having a shot or two at the end zone. If I was the coach, I'm taking the highest percentage option to get the game to within a possession and getting that pucker factor working for the other team.

The goal isn't to stay alive, the goal is to win the game by scoring more points than the other team, so obviously, scoring more points when you have the chance does matter. And as I pointed out, if you think it's so easy to put together a TD drive when you get the ball back, then it's even more important to score on the first drive so you can win in regulation.

But I still can't get past the fact that you think a team has a better chance of driving the length of the field in under a minute than of advancing the ball two yards on a single play. Do you honestly believe that? I don't even have to look up the numbers to tell you it couldn't possibly be true.

I'm seeing about a 30% chance of scoring a TD in the two minute drive.

4th and 2 is 57%, but 4th and 2 at the goal is probably lower due to less field to defend.

a 20 yard FG attempt is better than 95%

95% x 30% = 28% (assuming recovering the onside kick needed in both instances)

57% x X% = 28% X = 49%

I don't know how 49% stacks up in reality to driving into FG range and converting a FG.

You may be right that it's better to trying for the 4th and goal, but it's not a clear cut lock.

I don't understand your numbers at all, but here's what the 4th Down Bot said. I'd say that's pretty clear (I was wrong about the ball being on the 2. It was on the 3)

---> DET (24) @ SF (34) <---DET has 4th & 3 at the SF 3, Q4 00:56
Recommendation (STRONG): Go for it (+1.7 WP)
Actual play: (Shotgun) J.Goff pass short middle to J.Williams for 3 yards, TOUCHDOWN. M.Badgley extra point is GOOD

Before the play, the model said that going for it gave the Lions a 3% chance of winning. After it succeeded, their WP% went up to 7%. The key point is that if they had kicked the FG, even if it was successful, their WP% would have remained 1%. That's actually slightly better than in some other cases I've seen, where kicking the FG actually caused the WP% to go down. I'm assuming that was probably situations where the ball was on the 1, which meant the team would be giving up more potential points by not going for it

 

[ghostguy123]

you guys have some goofy % going on in here. it either happens or it doesn't. 50/50

Huh?

 

[JohnnyU]

I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

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

A call that worked out but I think was poor was going for it on 4th and goal down 10. Should have taken the easy FG and then the onside kick. After the timeout was taken the onside kick was needed either way.

Disagree 1000%. You're going to need to score a TD at some point, and the odds that you will get a better opportunity than one play from the 2 yard line are extremely slim. In fact, you'd most likely be trying to score on a Hail Mary. Plus, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to win the game, not tie it. Scoring the TD there preserves the slim possibility that you could score a second TD and win in regulation.

In fact, I thought that Baltimore's decision in a similar situation to kick a FG on 4th and 5 from the 25 with 2:34 remaining was questionable, but it's a much closer decision. The Lions one was a no-brainer

Disagree. Need the onside kick either way. Recovering with 1:45 and two timeouts around mid field probably is a better chance of scoring a TD and a fourth and goal conversion.

First of all, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The onside kick occurred with 56 seconds left, not 1:45. (Unless you're talking about Baltimore, which also doesn't make sense since the Ravens scored with 2:34 remaining and did not attempt an onsides kick).

Second, if you believe that a team is more likely to drive 56 yards in under a minute than it is to gain two yards on a single play, I'm honestly not sure what to tell you other than that I question your overall understanding of football.

And finally, if you actually believe they're more likely to score in that situation, then it would be an argument in favor of going for it on fourth down. Fourth and goal from the 2 is the same thing as a two-point conversion, which means you have a better than 50% chance of converting (maybe even slightly higher for the Lions). If the Lions were 50%+ to score in both scenarios, then they should try to do both and win the game in regulation rather than going to OT, where as a road underdog their odds would be below 50%

You are correct on the timing.

You need a TD and a FG to stay alive. Order doesn't matter. I'm passing into the end zone on 3rd down and kicking the FG if I don't succeed to check off one of those boxes. I would have 3 TOs and one minute left. Even if the onside kick fails I'm getting the ball back. Yes driving 80+ yards in 45 seconds with no timeouts is a tall order. Generally with prevent defenses, these situation usually result in the trailing team at least having a shot or two at the end zone. If I was the coach, I'm taking the highest percentage option to get the game to within a possession and getting that pucker factor working for the other team.

The goal isn't to stay alive, the goal is to win the game by scoring more points than the other team, so obviously, scoring more points when you have the chance does matter. And as I pointed out, if you think it's so easy to put together a TD drive when you get the ball back, then it's even more important to score on the first drive so you can win in regulation.

But I still can't get past the fact that you think a team has a better chance of driving the length of the field in under a minute than of advancing the ball two yards on a single play. Do you honestly believe that? I don't even have to look up the numbers to tell you it couldn't possibly be true.

I'm seeing about a 30% chance of scoring a TD in the two minute drive.

4th and 2 is 57%, but 4th and 2 at the goal is probably lower due to less field to defend.

a 20 yard FG attempt is better than 95%

95% x 30% = 28% (assuming recovering the onside kick needed in both instances)

57% x X% = 28% X = 49%

I don't know how 49% stacks up in reality to driving into FG range and converting a FG.

You may be right that it's better to trying for the 4th and goal, but it's not a clear cut lock.

I don't understand your numbers at all, but here's what the 4th Down Bot said. I'd say that's pretty clear (I was wrong about the ball being on the 2. It was on the 3)

---> DET (24) @ SF (34) <---DET has 4th & 3 at the SF 3, Q4 00:56
Recommendation (STRONG): Go for it (+1.7 WP)
Actual play: (Shotgun) J.Goff pass short middle to J.Williams for 3 yards, TOUCHDOWN. M.Badgley extra point is GOOD

Before the play, the model said that going for it gave the Lions a 3% chance of winning. After it succeeded, their WP% went up to 7%. The key point is that if they had kicked the FG, even if it was successful, their WP% would have remained 1%. That's actually slightly better than in some other cases I've seen, where kicking the FG actually caused the WP% to go down. I'm assuming that was probably situations where the ball was on the 1, which meant the team would be giving up more potential points by not going for it

Models are only as good as those who program them and are often flawed.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

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

A call that worked out but I think was poor was going for it on 4th and goal down 10. Should have taken the easy FG and then the onside kick. After the timeout was taken the onside kick was needed either way.

Disagree 1000%. You're going to need to score a TD at some point, and the odds that you will get a better opportunity than one play from the 2 yard line are extremely slim. In fact, you'd most likely be trying to score on a Hail Mary. Plus, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to win the game, not tie it. Scoring the TD there preserves the slim possibility that you could score a second TD and win in regulation.

In fact, I thought that Baltimore's decision in a similar situation to kick a FG on 4th and 5 from the 25 with 2:34 remaining was questionable, but it's a much closer decision. The Lions one was a no-brainer

Disagree. Need the onside kick either way. Recovering with 1:45 and two timeouts around mid field probably is a better chance of scoring a TD and a fourth and goal conversion.

First of all, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The onside kick occurred with 56 seconds left, not 1:45. (Unless you're talking about Baltimore, which also doesn't make sense since the Ravens scored with 2:34 remaining and did not attempt an onsides kick).

Second, if you believe that a team is more likely to drive 56 yards in under a minute than it is to gain two yards on a single play, I'm honestly not sure what to tell you other than that I question your overall understanding of football.

And finally, if you actually believe they're more likely to score in that situation, then it would be an argument in favor of going for it on fourth down. Fourth and goal from the 2 is the same thing as a two-point conversion, which means you have a better than 50% chance of converting (maybe even slightly higher for the Lions). If the Lions were 50%+ to score in both scenarios, then they should try to do both and win the game in regulation rather than going to OT, where as a road underdog their odds would be below 50%

You are correct on the timing.

You need a TD and a FG to stay alive. Order doesn't matter. I'm passing into the end zone on 3rd down and kicking the FG if I don't succeed to check off one of those boxes. I would have 3 TOs and one minute left. Even if the onside kick fails I'm getting the ball back. Yes driving 80+ yards in 45 seconds with no timeouts is a tall order. Generally with prevent defenses, these situation usually result in the trailing team at least having a shot or two at the end zone. If I was the coach, I'm taking the highest percentage option to get the game to within a possession and getting that pucker factor working for the other team.

The goal isn't to stay alive, the goal is to win the game by scoring more points than the other team, so obviously, scoring more points when you have the chance does matter. And as I pointed out, if you think it's so easy to put together a TD drive when you get the ball back, then it's even more important to score on the first drive so you can win in regulation.

But I still can't get past the fact that you think a team has a better chance of driving the length of the field in under a minute than of advancing the ball two yards on a single play. Do you honestly believe that? I don't even have to look up the numbers to tell you it couldn't possibly be true.

I'm seeing about a 30% chance of scoring a TD in the two minute drive.

4th and 2 is 57%, but 4th and 2 at the goal is probably lower due to less field to defend.

a 20 yard FG attempt is better than 95%

95% x 30% = 28% (assuming recovering the onside kick needed in both instances)

57% x X% = 28% X = 49%

I don't know how 49% stacks up in reality to driving into FG range and converting a FG.

You may be right that it's better to trying for the 4th and goal, but it's not a clear cut lock.

I don't understand your numbers at all, but here's what the 4th Down Bot said. I'd say that's pretty clear (I was wrong about the ball being on the 2. It was on the 3)

---> DET (24) @ SF (34) <---DET has 4th & 3 at the SF 3, Q4 00:56
Recommendation (STRONG): Go for it (+1.7 WP)
Actual play: (Shotgun) J.Goff pass short middle to J.Williams for 3 yards, TOUCHDOWN. M.Badgley extra point is GOOD

Before the play, the model said that going for it gave the Lions a 3% chance of winning. After it succeeded, their WP% went up to 7%. The key point is that if they had kicked the FG, even if it was successful, their WP% would have remained 1%. That's actually slightly better than in some other cases I've seen, where kicking the FG actually caused the WP% to go down. I'm assuming that was probably situations where the ball was on the 1, which meant the team would be giving up more potential points by not going for it

Models are only as good as those who program them and are often flawed.

OK, tell me how it’s flawed in this case.

In any event, I only posted the numbers in response to @BassNBrew’s estimates. I initially didn’t make a quantitative argument because I think it’s qualitatively obvious that if you’re going to need to score a TD, a play from the three yard line will almost certainly be the best chance you will have to get one. Do you disagree?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...everyone's back to "Can these so-called 'analytics' account for the fact that...

Analytics are too static as opposed to "by the book".

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

https://twitter.com/PFF_Moo/status/1757042630758699286

https://twitter.com/PFF_Moo/status/1757042738883612765

https://twitter.com/PFF_Moo/status/1757042954189828270

Andy Reid had his shining moment in overtime and it looks like the narrative that will be told is that Shanahan busted it (he did not, the Chiefs just made more plays in the end), but it's notable that Reid himself made two crucial clock management mistakes in thte 4th quarter.

[Referring to Chiefs' 4th-quarter drive to make it 16-all]
With only two timeouts left, the Chiefs have to hurry up near the goal line mid 4th quarter. Almost 3 minutes elapsed after getting to the 12. I was screaming at the TV that they are about to hand a game-winning field goal drive to the 49ers.

[Referring to 49ers' 2nd-and-1 call from the KC 43]
it's pretty standard to jump offsides to save 40 seconds here nowadays. A blunder.