Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (1 Viewer)

[ignatiusjreilly]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

 

[BobbyLayne]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

 

[Tau837]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

Seriously? What percentage of onside kicks are recovered under current rules? Much better off kicking it deep and playing defense. More likely to get a turnover than recover an onside kick.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

This thread is not solely about decisions that actually swung the outcome of a game. To the extent we put things in quantitative terms, the question is whether the decision increased or decreased a team's win probability. In fact, if you review the backpages you will find endless hours wasted debating plays that moved WP% from something like 0.1% to 0.05%. In this case, I have a hard time imagining how an announced onside kick with 12 minutes left could be EV+.

Speaking of which, here's a totally picayune decision that had absolutely zero impact on the game, but was IMO clearly suboptimal: Bills driving up 10 close to the two-minute warning. They couldn't run the clock all the way down to the 2MW before kicking the FG, but I felt like they might have at least been able to time it so the kick itself took them to it. But maybe I'm wrong about that; either way, the play with the FG kick ended at 2:03. At that moment, I turned to my son and explained to him that the BIlls would almost certainly kick off short of the end zone so that the Lions had to return it and waste at least three seconds. Instead, Bass booted it through the end zone and Detroit took over with 2:03 left, allowing them to squeeze out an extra play and preserve all their TOs.

Obviously, didn't affect the outcome, but imagine a scenario where Detroit recovers that final onside kick with 12 seconds left and then completes a Hail Mary. Those extra seconds that McDermott gifted the Lions could well have made the difference (OK, not really, since Goff's first pass of that drive was an incomplete pass. But you get the idea).

 

[irish eyes]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

Seriously? What percentage of onside kicks are recovered under current rules? Much better off kicking it deep and playing defense. More likely to get a turnover than recover an onside kick.

The current onside kick rule might be the worst rule in the history of sports.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

When you think your chances of recovering an onside kick are greater than getting a defensive stop..maybe you should just take a knee for the remainder of the game.

 

[Judge Smails]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

It was a stupid decision. Don’t care how he spins it. Basically saying you have zero faith in your defense to make a stop. You don’t go onsides kick when there is no surprise element down 10 with 12 minutes to go. Ever.

 

[Chaka]

When you think your chances of recovering an onside kick are greater than getting a defensive stop..maybe you should just take a knee for the remainder of the game.

Weird comment. Probably just being cheeky. The Lions offense clearly wasn't a cincern.

I'm not sure I agree with his decision but the Lions defense has been decimated with injury coming into the game, they hadn't been able to stop the Bills all game and they also lost Alim McNeil by that point.

There was no reason to believe the defense was up to the task.

I'm not necessarily defending the decision but the logic isn't entirely bizarre.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

When you think your chances of recovering an onside kick are greater than getting a defensive stop..maybe you should just take a knee for the remainder of the game.

Weird comment. Probably just being cheeky. The Lions offense clearly wasn't a cincern.

I'm not sure I agree with his decision but the Lions defense has been decimated with injury coming into the game, they hadn't been able to stop the Bills all game and they also lost Alim McNeil by that point.

There was no reason to believe the defense was up to the task.

I'm not necessarily defending the decision but the logic isn't entirely bizarre.

Nothing weird about it. Before today only three of 41 onside kick attempts this season have been recovered by the kicking team

There's every reason, statistically speaking, that you'd be way, WAY more likely to get a defensive stop than recover an inside kick.

No matter how bad your defense has been, if you don't think there's better than a 7 percent chance they can get a stop, it's better to call it a day.

 

[Zeppelin]

Basically saying you have zero faith in your defense to make a stop.

I certainly didn't have faith in the defense stopping them because they never did. I might be the only one that liked it.

 

[Insein]

Adding to this, Mike MacDonald inexplicably putting the game in the hands of Sam Howell when they just pulled to within 23-13 with 11:16 to go. Charbonet scored a 24 yd TD and then never got another carry. Their defense forced a 3 and out and a turnover on downs in back to back possessions for the Packers. Howell went 1-4 for 5 yards and pick that pretty much ended the game at 5:27. Weird way to lose.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

I thought Detroit was running some kind of trick play when they declared the onside - I was expecting some sort of Belichickian rulebook-exploiter taking advantage of the new onside kick rules somehow. I couldn't believe they would actually do an onside kick, for real, with 12 minutes left to. As a fan of the opposing team, that felt like a pure gift even without the runback.

Like you said though, it probably didn't change the outcome of the game. If Detroit kicks it off normally, the most likely outcome is that the Bills score anyway while taking a bunch more time off the clock. Neither defense was making any high-pressure stops.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Mike Tomlin punting with 10:29 left on the PIT 46 yard line, down 27-13, when your team hasn't been able to stop the other team. His team never got the ball back.

 

[Godsbrother]

Mike Tomlin punting with 10:29 left on the PIT 46 yard line, down 27-13, when your team hasn't been able to stop the other team. His team never got the ball back.

He also mismanaged the clock at the end of the first half, ultimately taking a timeout but waiting about 25 seconds to do it.

I also didn’t like his decision on declining the holding call that would have made it 1st and 30 but I understand the logic of that one.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

This thread is not solely about decisions that actually swung the outcome of a game. To the extent we put things in quantitative terms, the question is whether the decision increased or decreased a team's win probability. In fact, if you review the backpages you will find endless hours wasted debating plays that moved WP% from something like 0.1% to 0.05%. In this case, I have a hard time imagining how an announced onside kick with 12 minutes left could be EV+.

Speaking of which, here's a totally picayune decision that had absolutely zero impact on the game, but was IMO clearly suboptimal: Bills driving up 10 close to the two-minute warning. They couldn't run the clock all the way down to the 2MW before kicking the FG, but I felt like they might have at least been able to time it so the kick itself took them to it. But maybe I'm wrong about that; either way, the play with the FG kick ended at 2:03. At that moment, I turned to my son and explained to him that the BIlls would almost certainly kick off short of the end zone so that the Lions had to return it and waste at least three seconds. Instead, Bass booted it through the end zone and Detroit took over with 2:03 left, allowing them to squeeze out an extra play and preserve all their TOs.

Obviously, didn't affect the outcome, but imagine a scenario where Detroit recovers that final onside kick with 12 seconds left and then completes a Hail Mary. Those extra seconds that McDermott gifted the Lions could well have made the difference (OK, not really, since Goff's first pass of that drive was an incomplete pass. But you get the idea).

yeah I was surprised they didn't put it in the landing zone, too

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

Seriously? What percentage of onside kicks are recovered under current rules? Much better off kicking it deep and playing defense. More likely to get a turnover than recover an onside kick.

7%?

What percentage of Buffalo drives did Detroit get a stop? 8.3%

They got the big hop they needed, Mack Hollins made a play. Both Bates or Ezekiel Turner almost got the second one.

Better option to kick it deep? Sure. MUCH BETTER. IDK, needed to take a chance. Knowing how good of a ST coach Dave Fipp is and how much they practice these kind of contingencies, I’m honestly OK with the decision. Absent a turnover or semi-miracle they weren’t going to win.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Mike Tomlin punting with 10:29 left on the PIT 46 yard line, down 27-13, when your team hasn't been able to stop the other team. His team never got the ball back.

He also mismanaged the clock at the end of the first half, ultimately taking a timeout but waiting about 25 seconds to do it.

I also didn’t like his decision on declining the holding call that would have made it 1st and 30 but I understand the logic of that one.

Yeah, forgot about that penalty decline. That was bad, especially considering the next play the Eagles picked up a first down.

 

[ChiefD]

Andy Reid not running the ball when he had a 14 point lead the whole second half:

1. You didn't burn any clock.

2. Exposed Mahomes to get pummeled for no reason, which then got him hurt.

They showed an exchange between Nagy and Mahomes after that injury. Mahomes clearly said something to him to the effect of "run the ball you ****ing moron", to which Nagy started chewing Mahomes out behind his play calling sheet. All the while Mahomes is not looking at him at all.

Nagy needs to have play calling abilities taken away.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Andy Reid not running the ball when he had a 14 point lead the whole second half:

1. You didn't burn any clock.

2. Exposed Mahomes to get pummeled for no reason, which then got him hurt.

They showed an exchange between Nagy and Mahomes after that injury. Mahomes clearly said something to him to the effect of "run the ball you ****ing moron", to which Nagy started chewing Mahomes out behind his play calling sheet. All the while Mahomes is not looking at him at all.

Nagy needs to have play calling abilities taken away.

Sounds like Eagles fans circa early 2000s.

 

[Chaka]

When you think your chances of recovering an onside kick are greater than getting a defensive stop..maybe you should just take a knee for the remainder of the game.

Weird comment. Probably just being cheeky. The Lions offense clearly wasn't a cincern.

I'm not sure I agree with his decision but the Lions defense has been decimated with injury coming into the game, they hadn't been able to stop the Bills all game and they also lost Alim McNeil by that point.

There was no reason to believe the defense was up to the task.

I'm not necessarily defending the decision but the logic isn't entirely bizarre.

Nothing weird about it. Before today only three of 41 onside kick attempts this season have been recovered by the kicking team

There's every reason, statistically speaking, that you'd be way, WAY more likely to get a defensive stop than recover an inside kick.

No matter how bad your defense has been, if you don't think there's better than a 7 percent chance they can get a stop, it's better to call it a day.

I understand and mostly agree. But the Lions failed to stop the Bills 9 of 10 times and they lost both Alim McNeil & Carlton Davis, their two best remaining defenders. I think you can argue a relatively similar probability of getting the stop (10% not accounting for injuries) as recovering the kick (7%). Not a great decision but not an unreasonable one either.

 

[Tau837]

When you think your chances of recovering an onside kick are greater than getting a defensive stop..maybe you should just take a knee for the remainder of the game.

Weird comment. Probably just being cheeky. The Lions offense clearly wasn't a cincern.

I'm not sure I agree with his decision but the Lions defense has been decimated with injury coming into the game, they hadn't been able to stop the Bills all game and they also lost Alim McNeil by that point.

There was no reason to believe the defense was up to the task.

I'm not necessarily defending the decision but the logic isn't entirely bizarre.

Nothing weird about it. Before today only three of 41 onside kick attempts this season have been recovered by the kicking team

There's every reason, statistically speaking, that you'd be way, WAY more likely to get a defensive stop than recover an inside kick.

No matter how bad your defense has been, if you don't think there's better than a 7 percent chance they can get a stop, it's better to call it a day.

I understand and mostly agree. But the Lions failed to stop the Bills 9 of 10 times and they lost both Alim McNeil & Carlton Davis, their two best remaining defenders. I think you can argue a relatively similar probability of getting the stop (10% not accounting for injuries) as recovering the kick (7%). Not a great decision but not an unreasonable one either.

I disagree with this characterization. Not by much, but enough.

At the point in the game when Campbell made the decision in question, BUF had completed 9 possessions. Ignoring their possession at the end of the first half, they had scored points on 6 of those 8 possessions, meaning they did not score points on 25% of those possessions. They punted once and missed a FG. Most in this thread are treating the latter possession as the Lions not stopping the Bills, and I get that. But mistakes by the other team happen, even against teams with defenses playing badly. 25% dwarfs 7%.

It was a bad decision. Campbell said so himself, so I'm not sure why anyone here is disagreeing with him.

 

[dickey moe]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

Seriously? What percentage of onside kicks are recovered under current rules? Much better off kicking it deep and playing defense. More likely to get a turnover than recover an onside kick.

The current onside kick rule might be the worst rule in the history of sports.

I can't remember the justification for changing the rule, other than "No Fun League."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When you think your chances of recovering an onside kick are greater than getting a defensive stop..maybe you should just take a knee for the remainder of the game.

Weird comment. Probably just being cheeky. The Lions offense clearly wasn't a cincern.

I'm not sure I agree with his decision but the Lions defense has been decimated with injury coming into the game, they hadn't been able to stop the Bills all game and they also lost Alim McNeil by that point.

There was no reason to believe the defense was up to the task.

I'm not necessarily defending the decision but the logic isn't entirely bizarre.

Nothing weird about it. Before today only three of 41 onside kick attempts this season have been recovered by the kicking team

There's every reason, statistically speaking, that you'd be way, WAY more likely to get a defensive stop than recover an inside kick.

No matter how bad your defense has been, if you don't think there's better than a 7 percent chance they can get a stop, it's better to call it a day.

I understand and mostly agree. But the Lions failed to stop the Bills 9 of 10 times and they lost both Alim McNeil & Carlton Davis, their two best remaining defenders. I think you can argue a relatively similar probability of getting the stop (10% not accounting for injuries) as recovering the kick (7%). Not a great decision but not an unreasonable one either.

I disagree with this characterization. Not by much, but enough.

At the point in the game when Campbell made the decision in question, BUF had completed 9 possessions. Ignoring their possession at the end of the first half, they had scored points on 6 of those 8 possessions, meaning they did not score points on 25% of those possessions. They punted once and missed a FG. Most in this thread are treating the latter possession as the Lions not stopping the Bills, and I get that. But mistakes by the other team happen, even against teams with defenses playing badly. 25% dwarfs 7%.

It was a bad decision. Campbell said so himself, so I'm not sure why anyone here is disagreeing with him.

Yep. We all know why Campbell went for the onside kick. It's just bad reasoning. I get that the Bills have a good offense and we could all see that Detroit was having a hard time stopping them. But onside kicks are extremely hard to recover. I don't care if you're playing the 1995 49ers or the 2000 Rams. Your chances of getting a stop are much higher if you kick off and play defense than if you attempt an onside kick that sets up the other team in FG range immediately. Even if you don't trust your defense, there's always the random turnover, the backbreaking penalty, the missed FG, etc. Those are better (collectively) than 7%.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

Seriously? What percentage of onside kicks are recovered under current rules? Much better off kicking it deep and playing defense. More likely to get a turnover than recover an onside kick.

The current onside kick rule might be the worst rule in the history of sports.

I can't remember the justification for changing the rule, other than "No Fun League."

Once they passed the new kickoff alignment rules, you can't do an onside if the teams are that far away from the kicker. So you have to declare it ahead of time

 

[Spartans Rule]

Onside kick recovery rates have been trending down since they got rid of the running start for the kicking team. This year add in that you have to declare it and it should never be used except in total desperation.

I'm pretty much always on Campbell's side on 4th downs but that's because the math is on his side. It clearly was not here.

 

[BobbyLayne]

[Justin Rogers]

Over-the-top criticism

I didn’t have a problem with Campbell opting for an onside kick attempt with 12 minutes remaining in the game.

At that point in the contest, Buffalo had already put up nearly 500 yards of offense, had scored on seven of eight drives (not including the end of the first half), and Detroit was coming off a quick-strike, five-play series that used just two minutes off the game clock, giving a beat down and beaten up defense little time to catch its breath.

Yes, onside kicks are a low-percentage play, but so was getting a defensive stop in this one, especially a three-and-out.

Unintentionally proving the point with their next possession, the Bills netted three first downs and managed to kill six minutes off the clock.

On top of the decision, I thought Jake Bates’ kick was excellent, a high-bouncer that challenged the receiving team the way it was designed. Mack Hollins, a top-tier special teams player, simply made a great play. The receiver leaped, fully extended and got a hand on the bounding ball, tipping it to himself before his long return. The fact that he wasn’t able to snatch the ball cleanly shows the play worked as intended, the Lions' coverage group just wasn't able to finish.

 

[rick6668]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

This thread is not solely about decisions that actually swung the outcome of a game. To the extent we put things in quantitative terms, the question is whether the decision increased or decreased a team's win probability. In fact, if you review the backpages you will find endless hours wasted debating plays that moved WP% from something like 0.1% to 0.05%. In this case, I have a hard time imagining how an announced onside kick with 12 minutes left could be EV+.

Speaking of which, here's a totally picayune decision that had absolutely zero impact on the game, but was IMO clearly suboptimal: Bills driving up 10 close to the two-minute warning. They couldn't run the clock all the way down to the 2MW before kicking the FG, but I felt like they might have at least been able to time it so the kick itself took them to it. But maybe I'm wrong about that; either way, the play with the FG kick ended at 2:03. At that moment, I turned to my son and explained to him that the BIlls would almost certainly kick off short of the end zone so that the Lions had to return it and waste at least three seconds. Instead, Bass booted it through the end zone and Detroit took over with 2:03 left, allowing them to squeeze out an extra play and preserve all their TOs.

Obviously, didn't affect the outcome, but imagine a scenario where Detroit recovers that final onside kick with 12 seconds left and then completes a Hail Mary. Those extra seconds that McDermott gifted the Lions could well have made the difference (OK, not really, since Goff's first pass of that drive was an incomplete pass. But you get the idea).

This. McDermott makes these kind of mistakes WAY TOO often. It hurt them against the Rams, it ended up not hurting them this time, but in close games this happens with the Bills WAY more often than it should.

 

[CalBear]

You might not have been going anywhere with Sam Howell at QB anyway, but you did just have a TD drive, and now you're down by 10 with 9:52 to go. Fourth and 5 at your own 37. Punting seems 100% like giving up.

 

[Tau837]

[Justin Rogers]

Over-the-top criticism

I didn’t have a problem with Campbell opting for an onside kick attempt with 12 minutes remaining in the game.

At that point in the contest, Buffalo had already put up nearly 500 yards of offense, had scored on seven of eight drives (not including the end of the first half), and Detroit was coming off a quick-strike, five-play series that used just two minutes off the game clock, giving a beat down and beaten up defense little time to catch its breath.

Yes, onside kicks are a low-percentage play, but so was getting a defensive stop in this one, especially a three-and-out.

Unintentionally proving the point with their next possession, the Bills netted three first downs and managed to kill six minutes off the clock.

On top of the decision, I thought Jake Bates’ kick was excellent, a high-bouncer that challenged the receiving team the way it was designed. Mack Hollins, a top-tier special teams player, simply made a great play. The receiver leaped, fully extended and got a hand on the bounding ball, tipping it to himself before his long return. The fact that he wasn’t able to snatch the ball cleanly shows the play worked as intended, the Lions' coverage group just wasn't able to finish.

Unfortunate to get fundamental facts (bolded) wrong that matter to reasonable consideration of the situation.

 

[BobbyLayne]

[Justin Rogers]

Over-the-top criticism

I didn’t have a problem with Campbell opting for an onside kick attempt with 12 minutes remaining in the game.

At that point in the contest, Buffalo had already put up nearly 500 yards of offense, had scored on seven of eight drives (not including the end of the first half), and Detroit was coming off a quick-strike, five-play series that used just two minutes off the game clock, giving a beat down and beaten up defense little time to catch its breath.

Yes, onside kicks are a low-percentage play, but so was getting a defensive stop in this one, especially a three-and-out.

Unintentionally proving the point with their next possession, the Bills netted three first downs and managed to kill six minutes off the clock.

On top of the decision, I thought Jake Bates’ kick was excellent, a high-bouncer that challenged the receiving team the way it was designed. Mack Hollins, a top-tier special teams player, simply made a great play. The receiver leaped, fully extended and got a hand on the bounding ball, tipping it to himself before his long return. The fact that he wasn’t able to snatch the ball cleanly shows the play worked as intended, the Lions' coverage group just wasn't able to finish.

Unfortunate to get fundamental facts (bolded) wrong that matter to reasonable consideration of the situation.

Great catch!

They had only scored on 6 of 8 possessions, because they missed a FG from 24 yards. Punted once after picking up 3 first downs.

Stellar work, brother man.

Buffalo possessions

1. 73 yards TD
2. 78 yards TD
3. 70 yards TD
4. 64 yards FGA
5. N/A - end of half
6. 70 yards TD
7. 37 yards punt
8. 26 yards TD
9. 38 yards FGM

Boy, mistaking it by saying they scored on 7 of 8 really skews it - in fact it was only 6/8 at that point (the author discounted possessions #5, end of half.)

Buffalo went on to score on their last 2 possessions before kneel downs, so 8 or 10 overall, but by golly it wasn’t 7 of 8 like the beat writer wrote!

This kind of analysis is why we come to TSP, folks. WTG @Tau837.

 

[zoonation]

Any explanation from Dan Campbell as to why he kicked onside with 12 minutes left in the game and the Lions down 10? I could maybe see it under the old rules, where the receiving team might not be sure what type of kick you were doing, but now that you have to declare ahead of time, I really don't see the upside in a play with a ~10% success rate.

It ended up being pretty much the worst-case outcome: Mack Hollins caught it on the run and returned it to the Detroit 5. Bills scored on the next play to go up 17

Has to steal a possession somewhere. Bills had 12 possessions:

• 2 - end of half, end of game
• 6 - touchdowns, 4 on drives =>70 yards; + 26 yards after the lost fumble & 5 yards after the botched onside
• 3 - FGA, 2 made, last one was a 6 minute drive
• 1 - punt forced after they made 3 first downs

Lions scored on their last 4 possessions, 3 of them 2:02 or less, other drive was 3:49. But they were on their back foot the entire day.

Based on the result I guess it was a bad decision but do you really think it cost them the game? They literally could not stop Buffalo the entire game.

Kicking off and trying to stop them by holding them to a fg (or less) with 12 minutes left in the game would have given them a better chance than doing something with a 7% chance of success. They were only down 10. With 12 minutes left.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If I was going to steelman the Dan Campbell thing, it's not really that crazy. What could go right?

1) You recover the onside kick. Of course.
2) The Bills recover, but you get a three and out and get the ball back. That's roughly break-even from kicking it deep.
3) The Bills recover, and you force a FG attempt. The Lions actually sort of got themselves back into the game, sort of, by trading FGs for TDs. It could work.
4) The Bills recover and they score fast. That's what actually happened, and the net result is to reset the game to what it was about 90 seconds ago. Not awful.

Say the Bills recover, bleed a bunch of clock, and score a TD. Well, then they probably would bled a bunch of clock if you kicked it deep, no?

It wasn't a good decision, but if you squint at it the right way . . .

 

[zoonation]

If I was going to steelman the Dan Campbell thing, it's not really that crazy. What could go right?

1) You recover the onside kick. Of course.
2) The Bills recover, but you get a three and out and get the ball back. That's roughly break-even from kicking it deep.
3) The Bills recover, and you force a FG attempt. The Lions actually sort of got themselves back into the game, sort of, by trading FGs for TDs. It could work.
4) The Bills recover and they score fast. That's what actually happened, and the net result is to reset the game to what it was about 90 seconds ago. Not awful.

Say the Bills recover, bleed a bunch of clock, and score a TD. Well, then they probably would bled a bunch of clock if you kicked it deep, no?

It wasn't a good decision, but if you squint at it the right way . . .

Nah, you forgot the variable that they kick it away and get a stop. Wasn’t looking good but certainly possible. Far more likely than recovering an onside kick with a 7% chance of success.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If I was going to steelman the Dan Campbell thing, it's not really that crazy. What could go right?

1) You recover the onside kick. Of course.
2) The Bills recover, but you get a three and out and get the ball back. That's roughly break-even from kicking it deep.
3) The Bills recover, and you force a FG attempt. The Lions actually sort of got themselves back into the game, sort of, by trading FGs for TDs. It could work.
4) The Bills recover and they score fast. That's what actually happened, and the net result is to reset the game to what it was about 90 seconds ago. Not awful.

Say the Bills recover, bleed a bunch of clock, and score a TD. Well, then they probably would bled a bunch of clock if you kicked it deep, no?

It wasn't a good decision, but if you squint at it the right way . . .

Nah, you forgot the variable that they kick it away and get a stop. Wasn’t looking good but certainly possible. Far more likely than recovering an onside kick with a 7% chance of success.

No, I remember that. What I think Campbell might plausibly have believed is that "kick it deep and get a three and out" is about the same as "try and fail an onside but get a three and out." I can see why a person might believe that if you factor in the likelihood of a touchback on any punt following a failed onside.

 

[Tau837]

[Justin Rogers]

Over-the-top criticism

I didn’t have a problem with Campbell opting for an onside kick attempt with 12 minutes remaining in the game.

At that point in the contest, Buffalo had already put up nearly 500 yards of offense, had scored on seven of eight drives (not including the end of the first half), and Detroit was coming off a quick-strike, five-play series that used just two minutes off the game clock, giving a beat down and beaten up defense little time to catch its breath.

Yes, onside kicks are a low-percentage play, but so was getting a defensive stop in this one, especially a three-and-out.

Unintentionally proving the point with their next possession, the Bills netted three first downs and managed to kill six minutes off the clock.

On top of the decision, I thought Jake Bates’ kick was excellent, a high-bouncer that challenged the receiving team the way it was designed. Mack Hollins, a top-tier special teams player, simply made a great play. The receiver leaped, fully extended and got a hand on the bounding ball, tipping it to himself before his long return. The fact that he wasn’t able to snatch the ball cleanly shows the play worked as intended, the Lions' coverage group just wasn't able to finish.

Unfortunate to get fundamental facts (bolded) wrong that matter to reasonable consideration of the situation.

Great catch!

They had only scored on 6 of 8 possessions, because they missed a FG from 24 yards. Punted once after picking up 3 first downs.

Stellar work, brother man.

Buffalo possessions

1. 73 yards TD
2. 78 yards TD
3. 70 yards TD
4. 64 yards FGA
5. N/A - end of half
6. 70 yards TD
7. 37 yards punt
8. 26 yards TD
9. 38 yards FGM

Boy, mistaking it by saying they scored on 7 of 8 really skews it - in fact it was only 6/8 at that point (the author discounted possessions #5, end of half.)

Buffalo went on to score on their last 2 possessions before kneel downs, so 8 or 10 overall, but by golly it wasn’t 7 of 8 like the beat writer wrote!

This kind of analysis is why we come to TSP, folks. WTG @Tau837.

Facts are your friend. 25% > 7%. Hope that helps.

But if it doesn't, I'm very comfortable agreeing to disagree with you and Justin Rogers of the Detroit Football Network, especially since I am the only one of the three of us who isn't a Detroit homer.

But good for you that you can regurgitate data accurately, since that is more than we can say for Mr. Rogers.

 

[zoonation]

If I was going to steelman the Dan Campbell thing, it's not really that crazy. What could go right?

1) You recover the onside kick. Of course.
2) The Bills recover, but you get a three and out and get the ball back. That's roughly break-even from kicking it deep.
3) The Bills recover, and you force a FG attempt. The Lions actually sort of got themselves back into the game, sort of, by trading FGs for TDs. It could work.
4) The Bills recover and they score fast. That's what actually happened, and the net result is to reset the game to what it was about 90 seconds ago. Not awful.

Say the Bills recover, bleed a bunch of clock, and score a TD. Well, then they probably would bled a bunch of clock if you kicked it deep, no?

It wasn't a good decision, but if you squint at it the right way . . .

Nah, you forgot the variable that they kick it away and get a stop. Wasn’t looking good but certainly possible. Far more likely than recovering an onside kick with a 7% chance of success.

No, I remember that. What I think Campbell might plausibly have believed is that "kick it deep and get a three and out" is about the same as "try and fail an onside but get a three and out." I can see why a person might believe that if you factor in the likelihood of a touchback on any punt following a failed onside.

I get the thought process. However, it’s a 7% chance of recovery that has to be weighed against the fact that you are almost certainly giving up points if you’re not successful.

 

[eighsse2]

I'm still not a believer in "we haven't been stopping them, therefore we simply can't stop them".

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

Going for it on 4th right here instead of kicking the FG by the Vikings was the wrong call.

 

[Instinctive]

Without opining on the intelligence of the call, I'm not certain 7% is the right figure to use. Or 25%.

I get those are the averages for the NFL and the results to that point in the game, but what you're really comparing is the Lions specific chance with their kick team, and the Lions specific chance with their further injured defense.

As someone who thinks onsides COULD succeed far more often if kickers practice the kicks and teams are more creative, and the Lions do seem to be on the edge of that, I think it may be close to an even proposition. I'd have guessed either option was around 10-15% for them.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

Andy Reid not running the ball when he had a 14 point lead the whole second half:

1. You didn't burn any clock.

2. Exposed Mahomes to get pummeled for no reason, which then got him hurt.

They showed an exchange between Nagy and Mahomes after that injury. Mahomes clearly said something to him to the effect of "run the ball you ****ing moron", to which Nagy started chewing Mahomes out behind his play calling sheet. All the while Mahomes is not looking at him at all.

Nagy needs to have play calling abilities taken away.

As you probably remember, this is how Reid blew a big lead in the playoffs his first year with the Chiefs. He did it a few times with the Eagles, too. But in the last 5-ish years, the Chiefs have pretty consistently run to close out games, so it was weird to see them not do that this week.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Posted this is the game thread, but Raiders threw a Hail Mary at the end of last night’s game, had two seconds left on the clock, and then threw another one (which was picked off). I had never thought about this before the Commanders-Bears game, but if you throw a Hall Mary and still have time on the clock you’re doing it wrong. It’s such a low percentage play, you’re better off using that time for a quick sideline out to get a little closer

 

[Snotbubbles]

If I was going to steelman the Dan Campbell thing, it's not really that crazy. What could go right?

1) You recover the onside kick. Of course.
2) The Bills recover, but you get a three and out and get the ball back. That's roughly break-even from kicking it deep.
3) The Bills recover, and you force a FG attempt. The Lions actually sort of got themselves back into the game, sort of, by trading FGs for TDs. It could work.
4) The Bills recover and they score fast. That's what actually happened, and the net result is to reset the game to what it was about 90 seconds ago. Not awful.

Say the Bills recover, bleed a bunch of clock, and score a TD. Well, then they probably would bled a bunch of clock if you kicked it deep, no?

It wasn't a good decision, but if you squint at it the right way . . .

Nah, you forgot the variable that they kick it away and get a stop. Wasn’t looking good but certainly possible. Far more likely than recovering an onside kick with a 7% chance of success.

No, I remember that. What I think Campbell might plausibly have believed is that "kick it deep and get a three and out" is about the same as "try and fail an onside but get a three and out." I can see why a person might believe that if you factor in the likelihood of a touchback on any punt following a failed onside.

Except if you onside kick it, the Bill probably get the ball somewhere around the 45 yard line. If they get 7 yards, they're in FG range, even with a 3 & out. You're basically conceding points to Buffalo there for a 7% chance at a recovery.

If you kick it away and get a 3 & out, they don't get any points. Or you make the Bills run a bunch of plays, each one with the potential for Buffalo to turn it over or have a holding penalty which will put them in a bad down and distance.

I totally understand what Detroit is going through right now, they can't stop anyone and now the coach needs to make risky calls and put his team at a statistical disadvantage to try and win games. Not winning a title like that, I expect Detroit to end up as a WC team now and lose in the divisional round.

 

[Zeppelin]

When I was watching the game, I thought the chances of the Lions stopping the Bills was slim to none and slim was halfway out the door.

 

[titusbramble]

Posted this is the game thread, but Raiders threw a Hail Mary at the end of last night’s game, had two seconds left on the clock, and then threw another one (which was picked off). I had never thought about this before the Commanders-Bears game, but if you throw a Hall Mary and still have time on the clock you’re doing it wrong. It’s such a low percentage play, you’re better off using that time for a quick sideline out to get a little closer

Were the Raiders out of timeouts?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Posted this is the game thread, but Raiders threw a Hail Mary at the end of last night’s game, had two seconds left on the clock, and then threw another one (which was picked off). I had never thought about this before the Commanders-Bears game, but if you throw a Hall Mary and still have time on the clock you’re doing it wrong. It’s such a low percentage play, you’re better off using that time for a quick sideline out to get a little closer

Were the Raiders out of timeouts?

Yes I think so

 

[eighsse2]

Posted this is the game thread, but Raiders threw a Hail Mary at the end of last night’s game, had two seconds left on the clock, and then threw another one (which was picked off). I had never thought about this before the Commanders-Bears game, but if you throw a Hall Mary and still have time on the clock you’re doing it wrong. It’s such a low percentage play, you’re better off using that time for a quick sideline out to get a little closer

I guess that makes sense but it kind of depends on just how low percentage of a play it is. If it's, say 10% TD, 10% pick, 80% incomplete, then doing two hail mary's gives you 18%. Then if some generic sideline pass is, maybe 50%, and if successful makes the deep pass a 20% TD instead of 10%, then you get 15% by doing sideline followed by deep pass.

I have no idea what the real numbers would be, these are just placeholders, and of course it varies bases on what yard line you're at, and how deep the sideline pass is. Point is just that it depends on just how "low percentage" a hail mary is, which I don't know, maybe you do.

 

[Gally]

Posted this is the game thread, but Raiders threw a Hail Mary at the end of last night’s game, had two seconds left on the clock, and then threw another one (which was picked off). I had never thought about this before the Commanders-Bears game, but if you throw a Hall Mary and still have time on the clock you’re doing it wrong. It’s such a low percentage play, you’re better off using that time for a quick sideline out to get a little closer

Does getting a "little closer" vastly improve their hail mary chances? I would say it does not. So why not try two hail mary's? (assuming the first one doesn't get picked off). I see no reason to try and get a little closer in last nights scenario.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Campbell on the onside kick with 12 minutes left:

“Hindsight…probably should have tried it again with 8 minutes left.”



I love our coach.

Weekly phone interview on 97.1

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Posted this is the game thread, but Raiders threw a Hail Mary at the end of last night’s game, had two seconds left on the clock, and then threw another one (which was picked off). I had never thought about this before the Commanders-Bears game, but if you throw a Hall Mary and still have time on the clock you’re doing it wrong. It’s such a low percentage play, you’re better off using that time for a quick sideline out to get a little closer

Does getting a "little closer" vastly improve their hail mary chances? I would say it does not. So why not try two hail mary's? (assuming the first one doesn't get picked off). I see no reason to try and get a little closer in last nights scenario.

In the Commanders game, the quick out allowed Daniels to throw the Hail Mary within spitting distance of the end zone (as it was, the ball only reached the 5, and was then tipped to Brown in the end zone).

Last night, the Raiders actually threw the final pass from the Atlanta 35. I think getting 5-10 yards closer would have made a material difference in that they could have run something closer to a regular play.

But, more broadly, I take the points made by you and @eighsse2 that your decision in that situation probably depends on a number of different factors, and I probably shouldn't have made a broad brush statement that it's always preferable to run the quick out. But I do think teams don't do it enough.

The other factor to consider -- and this gets into game theory a little -- is that if the defense is expecting the Hail Mary and putting all their guys back, your chances of completing the quick out go way up (that definitely seemed to be the case in the Commanders game). Conversely, if you can keep them guessing about what you're going to do, maybe you can get a slightly more favorable alignment for the Hail Mary.

 

[Gally]

In the Commanders game, the quick out allowed Daniels to throw the Hail Mary within spitting distance of the end zone (as it was, the ball only reached the 5, and was then tipped to Brown in the end zone).

I think those were two different situations. I think Was needed the extra yards. I don't think Raiders did. It wasn't a long hail mary (I mean they did the first one in 6 or 8 seconds). I also think you might gain some info on how the defense is going to try and defend the hail mary and maybe you do something different as a WR based on that improving your chances on the second attempt.

I do think you complete the out if you are on the edge of a reasonable distance. But once you are in that distance getting an extra 10 yds probably doesn't do much for you and it compresses the field somewhat as well. I see your point about running a normal play vs a HM but a regular play isn't going to be defended like a regular play. You will still have 8 guys in the endzone defending which probably hurts a regular play even more.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

x.com

x.com

Thomas Brown on why the Bears opted to kick a 30-yard field goal after the offense got down to Detroit's 12 yard line when facing 4th/7."Those fourth downs, I think fourth-and-2,3,4 is a little different than fourth and 7. Our process is really simple: get points, stay in the game, trust the defense to get a stop and go back to score again."Brown added that "just going for it just to say you’re going to go for it for me is bad coaching."

I think trusting the defense that hadn't managed to get a stop all day was where he went off track