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

[Ministry of Pain]

Campbell did kick a FG to go up 3 scores 24-7 at halftime so he showed an ability to extend the game to 3 scores

In the 2nd Half though DC decided not to kick a 45 yd FG to go up 27-10 and again go up 3 scores

DC also decided NOT to try a FG down 27-24 later in the 2nd Half as the Niners erased a 17 point lead. This one baffled me

-The Josh Reynolds drop should be factored into this somewhere so it's not pinning the loss on Dan Campbell, it was a team effort
But DC could have changed the outcome of the football game by opting for a couple FGs in the 2nd Half of the NFCC

 

[kface]

He should have 100%

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

 

[Grahamburn]

Going for it on 4th down has been their identity all season, and I don't think you're beating that 49ers team with field goals anyway.

That loss is more on a couple flukey bounces, the fumble by Gibbs, and a pair of very untimely drops by Reynolds.

 

[titusbramble]

That isn't even the most interesting half to ask the question about

 

[Boston]

He has done an amazing job and he had his team ready to play...but you don't coach NFC championship games on the road the way you do a regular season game at home against the Bears...it is not one-size-fits-all.

 

[kface]

Going for it on 4th down has been their identity all season, and I don't think you're beating that 49ers team with field goals anyway.

That loss is more on a couple flukey bounces, the fumble by Gibbs, and a pair of very untimely drops by Reynolds.

Actually yes two fgs would have indeed beat the 49ers

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Going for it on 4th down has been their identity all season, and I don't think you're beating that 49ers team with field goals anyway.

That loss is more on a couple flukey bounces, the fumble by Gibbs, and a pair of very untimely drops by Reynolds.

Actually yes two fgs would have indeed beat the 49ers

Assuming he makes both kicks, and that the rest of the final 1.5 quarters otherwise plays out exactly the same, sure. Of course those are ridiculous assumptions.

 

[kface]

Going for it on 4th down has been their identity all season, and I don't think you're beating that 49ers team with field goals anyway.

That loss is more on a couple flukey bounces, the fumble by Gibbs, and a pair of very untimely drops by Reynolds.

Actually yes two fgs would have indeed beat the 49ers

Assuming he makes both kicks, and that the rest of the final 1.5 quarters otherwise plays out exactly the same, sure. Of course those are ridiculous assumptions.

Sure we don't know how it turns out because it gives detroit momentum and takes away the 49ers momentum so it's fair to speculate.

And we know what going for cost them - the superbowl

Again play around all you want against terrible opponents. It was a terrible decision to go for it.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Going for it on 4th down has been their identity all season, and I don't think you're beating that 49ers team with field goals anyway.

That loss is more on a couple flukey bounces, the fumble by Gibbs, and a pair of very untimely drops by Reynolds.

Actually yes two fgs would have indeed beat the 49ers

Assuming he makes both kicks, and that the rest of the final 1.5 quarters otherwise plays out exactly the same, sure. Of course those are ridiculous assumptions.

Sure we don't know how it turns out because it gives detroit momentum and takes away the 49ers momentum so it's fair to speculate.

Again play around all you want against terrible opponents. It was a terrible decision to go for it.

It was a fine decision. Not a no-brainer in either direction. The WR dropped a pass that hit him in the hands, and that's convinced everyone it was a bad decision.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

 

[SwampDawg]

Yes, a good coach needs to adjust based on the situation. San Fran comes away with only 3 points and you go right down the field and take that 3 points back they now need to really start pressing and taking chances. Instead that 3 point swing really became a 6 point swing.

That said I don't think anyone in Detroit should be complaining about Dan Campbell and the job he has done this year. Hopefully he learns from it, there is being aggressive and then there is being over aggressive which is what happened here.

 

[jm192]

That isn't even the most interesting half to ask the question about

I thought the 1st half was the right call. Some of the value in going for it in the opponent's territory is that they're backed way up in their own territory if you don't get it. You then stop them and get the ball back around midfield.

With 8 seconds to go, you don't really get the favorable defensive situation.

 

[Stoneworker]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

 

[BobbyLayne]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

4th Down Decision Bot

1st 4th down (up 24-10)

2nd 4rh down (down 24-27)

 

[titusbramble]

That isn't even the most interesting half to ask the question about

I thought the 1st half was the right call

I only say the first half was the more interesting one as that's the most egregiously bad decision, and making the correct decision twice in the second half didn't make up for what they lost on that one play. I say it's the more interesting half as Campbell made a clearly worse call than either of the other two

---> DET (21) @ SF (7) <---
DET has 4th & 3 at the SF 3, Q2 00:07
Recommendation (STRONG): Go for it (+4.4 WP)
Actual play: M.Badgley 21 yard field goal is GOOD

---> DET (24) @ SF (10) <---
DET has 4th & 2 at the SF 28, Q3 07:03
Recommendation (MEDIUM): Go for it (+2.2 WP)
Actual play: (Shotgun) J.Goff pass incomplete short left to J.Reynolds.

---> DET (24) @ SF (27) <---
DET has 4th & 3 at the SF 30, Q4 07:32
Recommendation (MEDIUM): Go for it (+2 WP)
Actual play: (Shotgun) J.Goff pass incomplete deep right to A.St. Brown.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I didn't like it but not going to blame someone for making a decision that is +EV according to the analytics.

The 3rd down running play followed by timeout at the end was the only really bad decision. They should've had a chance to get the ball back with ~40 seconds, needing only a field goal at the end. And we've seen teams make good on that several times in the playoffs lately, so that decision was giving away a real chance they had to claw their way back into OT.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

4th Down Decision Bot

1st 4th down (up 24-10)

2nd 4rh down (down 24-27)

The Decision Bot had a "Recommendation (STRONG)" rating for going for the touchdown at the end of the first half as well - when he opted for the FG attempt from the 3 yd line. The analytics favored going for it in all three situations. I think it is an interesting discussion and the only thing that bothers me is seeing comments like, "It isn't even a debate" or similar. Of course its a close call, and that leads to my main point -- none of us are on the sidelines in the moment, nor have any of us attended the coaches prep meetings, been in the locker room, etc. We don't know the reasons for the coach's decisions and most likely never will, but one thing we do know for certain is that we don't have access to all the real-time information coach had when he made the call. What this tells me is it will be interesting to pontificate about for a few days but criticism of the coach is out of bounds because it comes from a position of ignorance.

 

[babydemon90]

Running the ball on the goalline so they had to burn a TO though...that was stupid.

 

[JohnnyU]

Running the ball on the goalline so they had to burn a TO though...that was stupid.

Probably worse than not kicking a FG, considering the league success rate for an onside kick is 4%

 

[Bankerguy]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Based on results they achieved against weaker teams and in games that mattered less.

 

[kface]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Based on results they achieved against weaker teams and in games that mattered less.

People do conviently leave out those points...being a good coach you know your situation. You don't just blindly do it because it worked week 2 against the bears

 

[JohnnyU]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Based on results they achieved against weaker teams and in games that mattered less.

People do conviently leave out those points...being a good coach you know your situation. You don't just blindly do it because it worked week 2 against the bears

Campbell aside, most of the league goes for it on 4th down between the 40s and certainly even closer, compared to the past. Right or wrong, or just more arrogance, especially from younger coaches. Or am I wrong about the younger coaches angle? Sure seems that way to me.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

Missed fg's are turnovers with the added negative of additional field position given to the opposing team based on the spot of the hold. Missing the fg would have cost Detroit more than not piccking up the 4th.

 

[Terpman22]

100% he should have. 2 games in a row where the team has a lead on the Niners and the opponent acts as if they are facing Prime Brady and need to score every single touchdown. Has cost both teams for failing to just take the points, 2 games running.

Andy Reid will not make the mistake again for the 3rd time.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Running the ball on the goalline so they had to burn a TO though...that was stupid.

Probably worse than not kicking a FG, considering the league success rate for an onside kick is 4%

It was absolutely a dumb decision (actually two dumb decisions, because even after the run got stuffed they could have rushed up to the line instead of burning the TO). But it was also a decision that probably moved their WP% from like 1% to 0.01%. Certainly wasn't what cost them the game

 

[Max Power]

The thing that kills me about arguing for DC is that if he's treating these situations like they are 4 down territory, keep pounding the ball with Monty. The guy was hitting it for 5 yards constantly. You don't have to pass on second and long when you're willing to use all 4 downs.

 

[Bankerguy]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

4th Down Decision Bot

1st 4th down (up 24-10)

2nd 4rh down (down 24-27)

Based on what math?

Their success rate earlier in the year against Minny, Chicago?? Home/road. Does it factor SF’s def rates. Etc etc etc. I doubt it.

I also assume the math said to throw it to your 3 WR too?

The best Math and Analytical minds will also tell you garbage in - garbage out.

 

[Pipes]

Voted no. Campbell has been aggressive all year and typically when teams are, going against the favorite, people complain that "FG's arent enough" and generally that's true. Campbell didn't drop 2 catchable balls on 4th down and later on that 3rd down. Campbell didn't fumble the ball deep in his own territory. Campbell didn't have a terribly thrown ball bounce off his facemask into the arms of Aiyuk for a long gain. Plays on the field cost the Lions not coaching decisions.

 

[Gally]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

Missed fg's are turnovers with the added negative of additional field position given to the opposing team based on the spot of the hold. Missing the fg would have cost Detroit more than not piccking up the 4th.

I do think a defense stopping a team on 4th down does give added confidence to the defense moving forward that a team missing a FG does not. The outcome (no points) is the same but mentally there is a difference.

 

[GregR]

In a moment like this there's usually a thunderous chorus of "you have to apply the game situation". But then rarely does anyone do that. So let's do it. I'm cribbing heavily from Barnwell here as he dug deep into this. Talking just the 3rd quarter decision:

• The analytics difference in the 3rd quarter choice to go for it, was 0.3%, not taking other factors into account.
• The Lions strength is their offense, not their defense.
• Barnwell argues going by how things have gone previously in the game is a base rate fallacy. But evaluates that for sake of argument. Scored on 4 of 5 possessions, averaging 6.0 yards per play, were winning against the 49ers D-line, their previous short yardage plays had both resulted in first downs. Though he argues you shouldn't apply those as a factor, if you do (as most of us do) it pretty overwhelmingly sides with going for it.
• Backup Kicker had low confidence from the team with 2 missed PATS in last 6 games. 77% career between 40-49 yards so he'll miss this 46 yarder about 1 time in 4.

So digging into the game situation turns a coin flip from the analytics, into a stronger case for going for it.

 

[JohnnyU]

The thing that kills me about arguing for DC is that if he's treating these situations like they are 4 down territory, keep pounding the ball with Monty. The guy was hitting it for 5 yards constantly. You don't have to pass on second and long when you're willing to use all 4 downs.

You do when the extra time out is the difference between being able to kickoff and play defense and a 4% prayer on the onside kick.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

In a moment like this there's usually a thunderous chorus of "you have to apply the game situation". But then rarely does anyone do that. So let's do it. I'm cribbing heavily from Barnwell here as he dug deep into this. Talking just the 3rd quarter decision:

• The analytics difference in the 3rd quarter choice to go for it, was 0.3%, not taking other factors into account.
• The Lions strength is their offense, not their defense.
• Barnwell argues going by how things have gone previously in the game is a base rate fallacy. But evaluates that for sake of argument. Scored on 4 of 5 possessions, averaging 6.0 yards per play, were winning against the 49ers D-line, their previous short yardage plays had both resulted in first downs. Though he argues you shouldn't apply those as a factor, if you do it pretty overwhelmingly sides with going for it.
• Backup Kicker had low confidence from the team with 2 missed PATS in last 6 games. 77% career between 40-49 yards so he'll miss this 46 yarder about 1 time in 4.

So digging into the game situation turns a coin flip from the analytics, into a stronger case for going for it.

yes but have you considered polling all the men who coached in the nfl in the 1970s to find out what they would've done??

 

[Stoneworker]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

Missed fg's are turnovers with the added negative of additional field position given to the opposing team based on the spot of the hold. Missing the fg would have cost Detroit more than not piccking up the 4th.

Assuming a make is far more realistic than assuming a miss. The league avg for making a 45-yd field goal is nearly 80%.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

Missed fg's are turnovers with the added negative of additional field position given to the opposing team based on the spot of the hold. Missing the fg would have cost Detroit more than not piccking up the 4th.

Assuming a make is far more realistic than assuming a miss. The league avg for making a 45-yd field goal is nearly 80%.

Why would you assume either? That's the point. We have reasonable estimates of the probabilities of making/missing in that situation. Use them, instead of just saying inane things like "you gotta take the points"

 

[Gally]

Voted no. Campbell has been aggressive all year and typically when teams are, going against the favorite, people complain that "FG's arent enough" and generally that's true. Campbell didn't drop 2 catchable balls on 4th down and later on that 3rd down. Campbell didn't fumble the ball deep in his own territory. Campbell didn't have a terribly thrown ball bounce off his facemask into the arms of Aiyuk for a long gain. Plays on the field cost the Lions not coaching decisions.

but it's not the first quarter when teams will have plenty of possessions to score and time left to do more. Situation does matter. Having a possible 3 score lead with minimal possessions left doesn't dictate that "FG's aren't enough". In fact, in that situation FG's could be enough.

Just because you have been "aggressive all year" doesn't mean that game situation should be thrown out the window. If it was that exact situation with 1:30 left in the game and the Lions up 7 would you go for it because Campbell "has been aggressive all year" or do you change because the game situation dictates to do so?

 

[Joe Schmo]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

Missed fg's are turnovers with the added negative of additional field position given to the opposing team based on the spot of the hold. Missing the fg would have cost Detroit more than not piccking up the 4th.

I do think a defense stopping a team on 4th down does give added confidence to the defense moving forward that a team missing a FG does not. The outcome (no points) is the same but mentally there is a difference.

That somewhat discounts the material difference of aiding the opponent by giving up additional field position. I would rather my team experience the confidence boost of gaining yards without effort so as to enjoy a shorter field toward our own score.

 

[Stoneworker]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

Missed fg's are turnovers with the added negative of additional field position given to the opposing team based on the spot of the hold. Missing the fg would have cost Detroit more than not piccking up the 4th.

Assuming a make is far more realistic than assuming a miss. The league avg for making a 45-yd field goal is nearly 80%.

Why would you assume either? That's the point. We have reasonable estimates of the probabilities of making/missing in that situation. Use them, instead of just saying inane things like "you gotta take the points"

Buzz off w/ your "inane" BS

 

[JohnnyU]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

Missed fg's are turnovers with the added negative of additional field position given to the opposing team based on the spot of the hold. Missing the fg would have cost Detroit more than not piccking up the 4th.

Assuming a make is far more realistic than assuming a miss. The league avg for making a 45-yd field goal is nearly 80%.

Why would you assume either? That's the point. We have reasonable estimates of the probabilities of making/missing in that situation. Use them, instead of just saying inane things like "you gotta take the points"

Buzz off w/ your "inane" BS

Be careful, he will play the gramps and lawn card again.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

yOu GoTtA tAkE tHe PoInTs

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

Missed fg's are turnovers with the added negative of additional field position given to the opposing team based on the spot of the hold. Missing the fg would have cost Detroit more than not piccking up the 4th.

Assuming a make is far more realistic than assuming a miss. The league avg for making a 45-yd field goal is nearly 80%.

Why would you assume either? That's the point. We have reasonable estimates of the probabilities of making/missing in that situation. Use them, instead of just saying inane things like "you gotta take the points"

Buzz off w/ your "inane" BS

Be careful, he will play the gramps and lawn card again.

hit a nerve there pops?

 

[Gally]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

Missed fg's are turnovers with the added negative of additional field position given to the opposing team based on the spot of the hold. Missing the fg would have cost Detroit more than not piccking up the 4th.

I do think a defense stopping a team on 4th down does give added confidence to the defense moving forward that a team missing a FG does not. The outcome (no points) is the same but mentally there is a difference.

That somewhat discounts the material difference of aiding the opponent by giving up additional field position. I would rather my team experience the confidence boost of gaining yards without effort so as to enjoy a shorter field toward our own score.

Does your team really gain confidence by gaining yards without effort? I would think just getting the ball back without scoring is the bulk of the benefit. My comment was surrounding the defense only. Getting a defensive stop on 4th down will give the defense confidence. A missed FG is good but not as good for defensive morale as the stop on 4th down. Which will hopefully carry over to the next defensive stand. Hey we are back as we stopped those guys on 4th down last time. Plus it can demoralize the offense a bit by failing on 4th down. One side going up and one side going down. I missed FG just pisses the offense off and maybe incentivizes them to keep it out of the kicker's hands.

These are all touchy feely things that do have an impact. I have no idea how much. I just know from my perspective of playing and how these things affected my teams morale

 

[JohnnyU]

Kick it.

By far the two most contributing factors to blowing a big lead are 1) turnovers and 2) not taking all available points when presented the oppty

The Lions contributed to their own demise in both ways

Missed fg's are turnovers with the added negative of additional field position given to the opposing team based on the spot of the hold. Missing the fg would have cost Detroit more than not piccking up the 4th.

Assuming a make is far more realistic than assuming a miss. The league avg for making a 45-yd field goal is nearly 80%.

Why would you assume either? That's the point. We have reasonable estimates of the probabilities of making/missing in that situation. Use them, instead of just saying inane things like "you gotta take the points"

Buzz off w/ your "inane" BS

Be careful, he will play the gramps and lawn card again.

hit a nerve there pops?

No Francis. You’re easy.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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

 

[NutterButter]

I would've but it probably doesn't matter. Detroit got controlled on both sides of the ball in the 2nd half. I do think that if you're on the road against a superior team, you've got to stay aggressive.

 

[Joe Schmo]

I am at a loss on how to quantify touchy feely morale boost differentiations between two styles of stopping your opponent from scoring. All I know is its a gigantic morale boost of confidence when my offense converts a fourth down so I'll take that boost.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I am at a loss on how to quantify touchy feely morale boost differentiations between two styles of stopping your opponent from scoring. All I know is its a gigantic morale boost of confidence when my offense converts a fourth down so I'll take that boost.

you must have missed the memo, converting the 4th down was apparently not one of the options

 

[GregR]

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

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

 

[Bankerguy]

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

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

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

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

 

[Joe Schmo]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dgreen]

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

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

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

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

Who do you think is calculating these things for the teams? What do you think their qualifications are?