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

[Ilov80s]

Momentum doesn't need to be quantifiable nor predictable to be real. It's an emotion that determines performance. How on earth would you expect to quantify it? I thought we ended this with the great baseball SABR arguments of the late nineties/early aughts. I think even the leading proponents of baseball sabermetrics agreed that saying things like clutch hitting and momentum didn't exist were counterproductive and likely not fruitful arguments.

What if I think momentum is real and that Dan Campbell should have gone for it anyway? Is that going to make heads explode? Because I do. In both cases, his win probability went up, so you do that. Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

Right, if momentum is real and he goes for it and gets it. Doesn't that shift the momentum back in your direction? Aren't big plays like that the way change momentum?

Of course it keeps momentum in Det's favor. However, IMO a conversion would not be as big of a swing as a 4th down stop at that point of the game. Not every play is created equal and not every outcome is an equal momentum swing.

I believe a 4th down conversion is a good thing there but it ultimately doesn't change much in an of itself. Det doesn't automatically get points because of it, etc. Because of that the momentum increase is not that big. It gives them further opportunity to get a much bigger momentum increase but that one conversion by itself doesn't do that.

On the other hand a 4th down stop is a big influx of momentum to SF. It is an immediate jolt. That difference in outcome momentum of the single play is why I kick the FG. It's not predictive or quantifiable but it is the first domino that needs to take place for SF to start a comeback. I wouldn't give them that chance with a 14 pt lead at that point in the game.

And what’s the momentum on a missed FG?

 

[need2know]

Momentum doesn't need to be quantifiable nor predictable to be real. It's an emotion that determines performance. How on earth would you expect to quantify it? I thought we ended this with the great baseball SABR arguments of the late nineties/early aughts. I think even the leading proponents of baseball sabermetrics agreed that saying things like clutch hitting and momentum didn't exist were counterproductive and likely not fruitful arguments.

What if I think momentum is real and that Dan Campbell should have gone for it anyway? Is that going to make heads explode? Because I do. In both cases, his win probability went up, so you do that. Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

Right, if momentum is real and he goes for it and gets it. Doesn't that shift the momentum back in your direction? Aren't big plays like that the way change momentum?

Of course it keeps momentum in Det's favor. However, IMO a conversion would not be as big of a swing as a 4th down stop at that point of the game. Not every play is created equal and not every outcome is an equal momentum swing.

I believe a 4th down conversion is a good thing there but it ultimately doesn't change much in an of itself. Det doesn't automatically get points because of it, etc. Because of that the momentum increase is not that big. It gives them further opportunity to get a much bigger momentum increase but that one conversion by itself doesn't do that.

On the other hand a 4th down stop is a big influx of momentum to SF. It is an immediate jolt. That difference in outcome momentum of the single play is why I kick the FG. It's not predictive or quantifiable but it is the first domino that needs to take place for SF to start a comeback. I wouldn't give them that chance with a 14 pt lead at that point in the game.

And what’s the momentum on a missed FG?

about the same as not getting a 4th down try imo. should have gone for the fg

 

[Ilov80s]

Momentum doesn't need to be quantifiable nor predictable to be real. It's an emotion that determines performance. How on earth would you expect to quantify it? I thought we ended this with the great baseball SABR arguments of the late nineties/early aughts. I think even the leading proponents of baseball sabermetrics agreed that saying things like clutch hitting and momentum didn't exist were counterproductive and likely not fruitful arguments.

What if I think momentum is real and that Dan Campbell should have gone for it anyway? Is that going to make heads explode? Because I do. In both cases, his win probability went up, so you do that. Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

Right, if momentum is real and he goes for it and gets it. Doesn't that shift the momentum back in your direction? Aren't big plays like that the way change momentum?

Of course it keeps momentum in Det's favor. However, IMO a conversion would not be as big of a swing as a 4th down stop at that point of the game. Not every play is created equal and not every outcome is an equal momentum swing.

I believe a 4th down conversion is a good thing there but it ultimately doesn't change much in an of itself. Det doesn't automatically get points because of it, etc. Because of that the momentum increase is not that big. It gives them further opportunity to get a much bigger momentum increase but that one conversion by itself doesn't do that.

On the other hand a 4th down stop is a big influx of momentum to SF. It is an immediate jolt. That difference in outcome momentum of the single play is why I kick the FG. It's not predictive or quantifiable but it is the first domino that needs to take place for SF to start a comeback. I wouldn't give them that chance with a 14 pt lead at that point in the game.

And what’s the momentum on a missed FG?

about the same as not getting a 4th down try imo. should have gone for the fg

All I can say as a Lions fan who has seen our kicker all year, I was never confident in him. He’s missing like 30% of the time on that kick.

 

[Gally]

Momentum doesn't need to be quantifiable nor predictable to be real. It's an emotion that determines performance. How on earth would you expect to quantify it? I thought we ended this with the great baseball SABR arguments of the late nineties/early aughts. I think even the leading proponents of baseball sabermetrics agreed that saying things like clutch hitting and momentum didn't exist were counterproductive and likely not fruitful arguments.

What if I think momentum is real and that Dan Campbell should have gone for it anyway? Is that going to make heads explode? Because I do. In both cases, his win probability went up, so you do that. Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

Right, if momentum is real and he goes for it and gets it. Doesn't that shift the momentum back in your direction? Aren't big plays like that the way change momentum?

Of course it keeps momentum in Det's favor. However, IMO a conversion would not be as big of a swing as a 4th down stop at that point of the game. Not every play is created equal and not every outcome is an equal momentum swing.

I believe a 4th down conversion is a good thing there but it ultimately doesn't change much in an of itself. Det doesn't automatically get points because of it, etc. Because of that the momentum increase is not that big. It gives them further opportunity to get a much bigger momentum increase but that one conversion by itself doesn't do that.

On the other hand a 4th down stop is a big influx of momentum to SF. It is an immediate jolt. That difference in outcome momentum of the single play is why I kick the FG. It's not predictive or quantifiable but it is the first domino that needs to take place for SF to start a comeback. I wouldn't give them that chance with a 14 pt lead at that point in the game.

And what’s the momentum on a missed FG?

Quite a bit less than a 4th down stop. With a missed FG the defense still didn't stop the other team. They drove into FG range so they didn't really stop them. Just not the same as actually getting a 4th down stop. A blocked FG would be better than a 4th down stop especially if it led to a TD return.

 

[need2know]

Momentum doesn't need to be quantifiable nor predictable to be real. It's an emotion that determines performance. How on earth would you expect to quantify it? I thought we ended this with the great baseball SABR arguments of the late nineties/early aughts. I think even the leading proponents of baseball sabermetrics agreed that saying things like clutch hitting and momentum didn't exist were counterproductive and likely not fruitful arguments.

What if I think momentum is real and that Dan Campbell should have gone for it anyway? Is that going to make heads explode? Because I do. In both cases, his win probability went up, so you do that. Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

Right, if momentum is real and he goes for it and gets it. Doesn't that shift the momentum back in your direction? Aren't big plays like that the way change momentum?

Of course it keeps momentum in Det's favor. However, IMO a conversion would not be as big of a swing as a 4th down stop at that point of the game. Not every play is created equal and not every outcome is an equal momentum swing.

I believe a 4th down conversion is a good thing there but it ultimately doesn't change much in an of itself. Det doesn't automatically get points because of it, etc. Because of that the momentum increase is not that big. It gives them further opportunity to get a much bigger momentum increase but that one conversion by itself doesn't do that.

On the other hand a 4th down stop is a big influx of momentum to SF. It is an immediate jolt. That difference in outcome momentum of the single play is why I kick the FG. It's not predictive or quantifiable but it is the first domino that needs to take place for SF to start a comeback. I wouldn't give them that chance with a 14 pt lead at that point in the game.

And what’s the momentum on a missed FG?

about the same as not getting a 4th down try imo. should have gone for the fg

All I can say as a Lions fan who has seen our kicker all year, I was never confident in him. He’s missing like 30% of the time on that kick.

you know better than me

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The strange thing about the whole *momentum* discussion is that any of us would think we have a better feel for that aspect of this game situation than the coach of the team who is standing on the sidelines. You're on the couch a thousand miles away cracking your 8th beer purporting to sit in judgment on this guy who's played the game for a decade, has coached this team for three years and is there living in the moment. Its just really a very bizarre point of discussion for me.

 

[socrates]

The strange thing about the whole *momentum* discussion is that any of us would think we have a better feel for that aspect of this game situation than the coach of the team who is standing on the sidelines. You're on the couch a thousand miles away cracking your 8th beer purporting to sit in judgment on this guy who's played the game for a decade, has coached this team for three years and is there living in the moment. Its just really a very bizarre point of discussion for me.

Defending a poor decision with "he has coached for x number of years" does not transform it into any less of a bad coaching decision. DC blew it, IMO. Others may support his decision. I was confused by several of his coaching decisions in real-time, and we now have the hindsight to know that they were bad coaching calls. Live and learn, I guess. Do we know what the outcome would have been had he kicked the FG? No. The one that especially boggled my mind was running the ball on third down. IF you are going to run the ball in that situation, have two plays called for the contingency that the runner is stopped short. Using a valuable TO in that situation is inexcusable and suggests that the guys sitting on their couches guzzling beer #8 might actually have a better grasp of what is going on in the game. Just sayin'.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The strange thing about the whole *momentum* discussion is that any of us would think we have a better feel for that aspect of this game situation than the coach of the team who is standing on the sidelines. You're on the couch a thousand miles away cracking your 8th beer purporting to sit in judgment on this guy who's played the game for a decade, has coached this team for three years and is there living in the moment. Its just really a very bizarre point of discussion for me.

Defending a poor decision with "he has coached for x number of years" does not transform it into any less of a bad coaching decision. DC blew it, IMO. Others may support his decision. I was confused by several of his coaching decisions in real-time, and we now have the hindsight to know that they were bad coaching calls. Live and learn, I guess. Do we know what the outcome would have been had he kicked the FG? No. The one that especially boggled my mind was running the ball on third down. IF you are going to run the ball in that situation, have two plays called for the contingency that the runner is stopped short. Using a valuable TO in that situation is inexcusable and suggests that the guys sitting on their couches guzzling beer #8 might actually have a better grasp of what is going on in the game. Just sayin'.

Trust me when I say I'm not trying to re-open the right/wrong call decision which is obviously pointless. I tried to make it clear that my comment was limited to addressing the issue of "momentum" - a part of the discussion which struck me as odd.

 

[socrates]

The strange thing about the whole *momentum* discussion is that any of us would think we have a better feel for that aspect of this game situation than the coach of the team who is standing on the sidelines. You're on the couch a thousand miles away cracking your 8th beer purporting to sit in judgment on this guy who's played the game for a decade, has coached this team for three years and is there living in the moment. Its just really a very bizarre point of discussion for me.

Defending a poor decision with "he has coached for x number of years" does not transform it into any less of a bad coaching decision. DC blew it, IMO. Others may support his decision. I was confused by several of his coaching decisions in real-time, and we now have the hindsight to know that they were bad coaching calls. Live and learn, I guess. Do we know what the outcome would have been had he kicked the FG? No. The one that especially boggled my mind was running the ball on third down. IF you are going to run the ball in that situation, have two plays called for the contingency that the runner is stopped short. Using a valuable TO in that situation is inexcusable and suggests that the guys sitting on their couches guzzling beer #8 might actually have a better grasp of what is going on in the game. Just sayin'.

Trust me when I say I'm not trying to re-open the right/wrong call decision which is obviously pointless. I tried to make it clear that my comment was limited to addressing the issue of "momentum" - a part of the discussion which struck me as odd.

Fair point

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The strange thing about the whole *momentum* discussion is that any of us would think we have a better feel for that aspect of this game situation than the coach of the team who is standing on the sidelines. You're on the couch a thousand miles away cracking your 8th beer purporting to sit in judgment on this guy who's played the game for a decade, has coached this team for three years and is there living in the moment. Its just really a very bizarre point of discussion for me.

Yeah, I am very often critical of coaches' decisions, but I also try to limit my criticisms to cases where they're indisputably in the wrong. When Dan Quinn, as coach of the Falcons, kicks a FG on 4th and goal from the 1 while down 4 in the fourth quarter, there is simply no context in which that decision makes sense. Furthermore, it was pretty clear, given the behavior of most coaches at the time, that the process that led him to that decision was not some unique factor that caused him to ignore the (giant flashing) numbers, but rather the inherent conservatism of NFL coaches. Similarly, when for 25 years after the advent of the two-point conversion, no coaches ever went for two after scoring to make it an 8-point game, that wasn't due to game situation. It was due to the fact that they didn't even consider that as an option.

But if we're talking about 50/50 (or even 52/48) decisions, I'm going to give the coach a lot of leeway in knowing his own team. That's why the posts that have bothered me the most in this thread were the ones that declared it was obviously the wrong choice to go for it and brought into question Campbell's fitness as a coach. If you want to say that he can get too aggressive with his decision-making, that's a legit criticism (although I suspect one that also reflects, to a degree, the conservatism and loss-aversion that years of watching football have indoctrinated us into). But if you insist it wasn't even a close call, that's where we part company.

It's also why the Jimmy Johnson argument that of course Campbell should have known how his decision would affect the game's momentum rings hollow to me. I don't think any of us know the answer to that question, but if it comes down to it, I'm going to trust the guy on the sideline over anyone else, including a Super Bowl-winning coach (who's been out of the game for two decades)

 

[Da Guru]

Momentum doesn't need to be quantifiable nor predictable to be real. It's an emotion that determines performance. How on earth would you expect to quantify it? I thought we ended this with the great baseball SABR arguments of the late nineties/early aughts. I think even the leading proponents of baseball sabermetrics agreed that saying things like clutch hitting and momentum didn't exist were counterproductive and likely not fruitful arguments.

What if I think momentum is real and that Dan Campbell should have gone for it anyway? Is that going to make heads explode? Because I do. In both cases, his win probability went up, so you do that. Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

Right, if momentum is real and he goes for it and gets it. Doesn't that shift the momentum back in your direction? Aren't big plays like that the way change momentum?

Of course it keeps momentum in Det's favor. However, IMO a conversion would not be as big of a swing as a 4th down stop at that point of the game. Not every play is created equal and not every outcome is an equal momentum swing.

I believe a 4th down conversion is a good thing there but it ultimately doesn't change much in an of itself. Det doesn't automatically get points because of it, etc. Because of that the momentum increase is not that big. It gives them further opportunity to get a much bigger momentum increase but that one conversion by itself doesn't do that.

On the other hand a 4th down stop is a big influx of momentum to SF. It is an immediate jolt. That difference in outcome momentum of the single play is why I kick the FG. It's not predictive or quantifiable but it is the first domino that needs to take place for SF to start a comeback. I wouldn't give them that chance with a 14 pt lead at that point in the game.

And what’s the momentum on a missed FG?

about the same as not getting a 4th down try imo. should have gone for the fg

All I can say as a Lions fan who has seen our kicker all year, I was never confident in him. He’s missing like 30% of the time on that kick.

Badgley was 4-4 since Patterson was cut, but they still did not have faith in him. That is a team issue. After last 2 seasons I really thought the kicker spot would be addressed last off season like they finally addressed the backup QB spot.

 

[Gally]

It's also why the Jimmy Johnson argument that of course Campbell should have known how his decision would affect the game's momentum rings hollow to me. I don't think any of us know the answer to that question, but if it comes down to it, I'm going to trust the guy on the sideline over anyone else, including a Super Bowl-winning coach (who's been out of the game for two decades)

I come at it from a slightly different approach. I think the decision to go for it was wrong (not obviously wrong, but wrong nonetheless) because IMO the risk of giving SF a spark of hope by missing on 4th down play outweighed the benefit of picking it up. Whether that "momentum" could be sustained by SF after the stop or not is not relevant to my decision point because as most have said, there is no way to know what happens next. Will that momentum keep or not etc. But I wouldn't want to even give them the start of a positive momentum surge that a 4th down stop would get them at that juncture and situation of the game. That risk outweighed the other factors that went into that decision for me.

So while "knowing your team" has merit as part of the decision tree it appears based on multiple decisions DC has made that he just wants to be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive because that's who he is. To me that isn't knowing your team or factoring in game situation (time left & score). That is just being stubborn.

 

[Instinctive]

It's also why the Jimmy Johnson argument that of course Campbell should have known how his decision would affect the game's momentum rings hollow to me. I don't think any of us know the answer to that question, but if it comes down to it, I'm going to trust the guy on the sideline over anyone else, including a Super Bowl-winning coach (who's been out of the game for two decades)

I come at it from a slightly different approach. I think the decision to go for it was wrong (not obviously wrong, but wrong nonetheless) because IMO the risk of giving SF a spark of hope by missing on 4th down play outweighed the benefit of picking it up. Whether that "momentum" could be sustained by SF after the stop or not is not relevant to my decision point because as most have said, there is no way to know what happens next. Will that momentum keep or not etc. But I wouldn't want to even give them the start of a positive momentum surge that a 4th down stop would get them at that juncture and situation of the game. That risk outweighed the other factors that went into that decision for me.

So while "knowing your team" has merit as part of the decision tree it appears based on multiple decisions DC has made that he just wants to be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive because that's who he is. To me that isn't knowing your team or factoring in game situation (time left & score). That is just being stubborn.

I still can't logically follow why they'd have hope from a dropped pass but not from a missed FG and ten extra yards of field position. Blows my mind.

And how totally crushing must it have been then if they gave up the 4th down conversion? The game totally and completely ends right there if Reynolds catches the pass, right?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

It's also why the Jimmy Johnson argument that of course Campbell should have known how his decision would affect the game's momentum rings hollow to me. I don't think any of us know the answer to that question, but if it comes down to it, I'm going to trust the guy on the sideline over anyone else, including a Super Bowl-winning coach (who's been out of the game for two decades)

I come at it from a slightly different approach. I think the decision to go for it was wrong (not obviously wrong, but wrong nonetheless) because IMO the risk of giving SF a spark of hope by missing on 4th down play outweighed the benefit of picking it up. Whether that "momentum" could be sustained by SF after the stop or not is not relevant to my decision point because as most have said, there is no way to know what happens next. Will that momentum keep or not etc. But I wouldn't want to even give them the start of a positive momentum surge that a 4th down stop would get them at that juncture and situation of the game. That risk outweighed the other factors that went into that decision for me.

So while "knowing your team" has merit as part of the decision tree it appears based on multiple decisions DC has made that he just wants to be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive because that's who he is. To me that isn't knowing your team or factoring in game situation (time left & score). That is just being stubborn.

Could be, but what if the aggressiveness is part of knowing his team? He's going to challenge them to make big plays, and although they won't succeed every time, they'll do it enough that it will be a net positive, and also, by showing his confidence in them, he'll cement their bond even further.

Is that actually his approach? I don't know. If it is, is that a smart strategy to employ? I don't know that either. Is it overall a smart strategy, but sometimes he takes it too far? Also possible. I probably would have drawn the line at the 2PC in the Dallas game, but I can understand why others would draw it elsewhere.

By the way, this isn't directed at you, but I've never understood why people react so viscerally to coaches who are aggressive. Even when they're not fans of the team, they get legit mad when teams don't "take the points" or make the safer choice. Fourth-down plays and two-point conversions and fake punts are exciting! We should all want more of them in football!

My hypothesis is that it's a combination of loss aversion -- when these plays fail, we over-fixate on what they cost the team -- and overall conservatism. The football we were raised on says you do certain things, and coaches that don't do that are bad and should be scorned. The latter factor should definitely change over time, but the former will probably always be there to an extent

 

[Gally]

I still can't logically follow why they'd have hope from a dropped pass but not from a missed FG and ten extra yards of field position. Blows my mind.

I am not saying a missed FG isn't hope building but i do believe that a stop (yes, even with a dropped pass) builds more confidence for the defense. It's not a difficult concept to understand, but I understand where you may not think it's a huge difference. There is no way to quantify it.

And how totally crushing must it have been then if they gave up the 4th down conversion? The game totally and completely ends right there if Reynolds catches the pass, right?

Have you not read what I have posted? My entire point has always been that SF needed a string of things to happen to get back in the game. That string needed to start with a huge stop. It's not to say that alone turns the game around for sure but it was needed to start the turnaround. So why give them the chance? That's my belief. Feel free to think otherwise.

 

[titusbramble]

It's also why the Jimmy Johnson argument that of course Campbell should have known how his decision would affect the game's momentum rings hollow to me. I don't think any of us know the answer to that question, but if it comes down to it, I'm going to trust the guy on the sideline over anyone else, including a Super Bowl-winning coach (who's been out of the game for two decades)

I come at it from a slightly different approach. I think the decision to go for it was wrong (not obviously wrong, but wrong nonetheless) because IMO the risk of giving SF a spark of hope by missing on 4th down play outweighed the benefit of picking it up. Whether that "momentum" could be sustained by SF after the stop or not is not relevant to my decision point because as most have said, there is no way to know what happens next. Will that momentum keep or not etc. But I wouldn't want to even give them the start of a positive momentum surge that a 4th down stop would get them at that juncture and situation of the game. That risk outweighed the other factors that went into that decision for me.

So while "knowing your team" has merit as part of the decision tree it appears based on multiple decisions DC has made that he just wants to be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive because that's who he is. To me that isn't knowing your team or factoring in game situation (time left & score). That is just being stubborn.

I still can't logically follow why they'd have hope from a dropped pass but not from a missed FG and ten extra yards of field position. Blows my mind.

And how totally crushing must it have been then if they gave up the 4th down conversion? The game totally and completely ends right there if Reynolds catches the pass, right?

It's typically the sort of approach you see from people who know they are fighting a losing battle - they'll just ignore the point completely and go off on a tangent. See also the complete lack of replies from team "momentum" to my previous post, which is saying more or less the same thing as you are

 

[Da Guru]

It's also why the Jimmy Johnson argument that of course Campbell should have known how his decision would affect the game's momentum rings hollow to me. I don't think any of us know the answer to that question, but if it comes down to it, I'm going to trust the guy on the sideline over anyone else, including a Super Bowl-winning coach (who's been out of the game for two decades)

I come at it from a slightly different approach. I think the decision to go for it was wrong (not obviously wrong, but wrong nonetheless) because IMO the risk of giving SF a spark of hope by missing on 4th down play outweighed the benefit of picking it up. Whether that "momentum" could be sustained by SF after the stop or not is not relevant to my decision point because as most have said, there is no way to know what happens next. Will that momentum keep or not etc. But I wouldn't want to even give them the start of a positive momentum surge that a 4th down stop would get them at that juncture and situation of the game. That risk outweighed the other factors that went into that decision for me.

So while "knowing your team" has merit as part of the decision tree it appears based on multiple decisions DC has made that he just wants to be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive because that's who he is. To me that isn't knowing your team or factoring in game situation (time left & score). That is just being stubborn.

I still can't logically follow why they'd have hope from a dropped pass but not from a missed FG and ten extra yards of field position. Blows my mind.

And how totally crushing must it have been then if they gave up the 4th down conversion? The game totally and completely ends right there if Reynolds catches the pass, right?

Pretty much. Lions might get 7, for sure 3 and taken a couple more minutes off the clock. Dynamics also change as the ricochet play never happens.

 

[Gally]

It's also why the Jimmy Johnson argument that of course Campbell should have known how his decision would affect the game's momentum rings hollow to me. I don't think any of us know the answer to that question, but if it comes down to it, I'm going to trust the guy on the sideline over anyone else, including a Super Bowl-winning coach (who's been out of the game for two decades)

I come at it from a slightly different approach. I think the decision to go for it was wrong (not obviously wrong, but wrong nonetheless) because IMO the risk of giving SF a spark of hope by missing on 4th down play outweighed the benefit of picking it up. Whether that "momentum" could be sustained by SF after the stop or not is not relevant to my decision point because as most have said, there is no way to know what happens next. Will that momentum keep or not etc. But I wouldn't want to even give them the start of a positive momentum surge that a 4th down stop would get them at that juncture and situation of the game. That risk outweighed the other factors that went into that decision for me.

So while "knowing your team" has merit as part of the decision tree it appears based on multiple decisions DC has made that he just wants to be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive because that's who he is. To me that isn't knowing your team or factoring in game situation (time left & score). That is just being stubborn.

I still can't logically follow why they'd have hope from a dropped pass but not from a missed FG and ten extra yards of field position. Blows my mind.

And how totally crushing must it have been then if they gave up the 4th down conversion? The game totally and completely ends right there if Reynolds catches the pass, right?

It's typically the sort of approach you see from people who know they are fighting a losing battle - they'll just ignore the point completely and go off on a tangent. See also the complete lack of replies from team "momentum" to my previous post, which is saying more or less the same thing as you are

I am not fighting any battle. It's a coin toss of a decision as you analytics guys have already said. That coin toss swings to the FG attempt for me because I don't want to do anything that could pump up the other team to give them more hope. You make your decision and I will make mine. Neither is grossly wrong. It seems you are ignoring the point completely that even though you can't quantify momentum it does exist. It is very fickle for sure and can change hundreds of times in a game. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is another piece in the decision making tree and how much sway you want to give it is up to you. That is all.

 

[Gally]

Is anyone saying "but momentum" also denying that SF would gain "momentum" by the very fact they would have held Detroit to a three point gain rather than continuing the drive and scoring seven? Or even more "momentum" if he missed the FG? Heck, they'd get even greater "momentum" than failing to convert on fourth, as they have better field position, right "momentum" guys? Or is it the case that as SF would have 7-8 yards less to drive, they accumulate 7-8 yards less "momentum" on the subsequent possession so it's all a wash?

Momentum can change every single play. It is two teams of humans battling each other. It is 100 guys with different mental makeups that get affected by confidence in different ways. Some it's a big deal. Others it doesn't matter. Collectively it is there. The boost SF gets from allowing a FG attempt is there for sure. It's likely not as big as a 4th down stop. If he makes the FG it is fairly demoralizing as SF just wasted 25% of the remaining game (half a quarter) making up no ground at all. Hard to see that as a big win and confidence inducing for SF.

Ultimately, it's just a piece of the decision tree. Big analytics guys will completely disregard it because you can't quantify it in any meaningful way. That doesn't mean it isn't there it just means they can't mathematically account for it so they don't put in in their model. That just increases the margin of error of the results of the model. How much it increases the error is a guess but it is non-zero.

The entire point I have always tried to make is that momentum is a piece of the puzzle. Coaches that have a feel for the ebb and flow of a game account for it in their decision making to some degree. For me, game situation (score, time left, possessions available, how is the game going thus far, etc) would dictate how much I would factor things like momentum into the equation. I think good coaches have a feel for this kind of thing. They should be aggressive and move into what straight analytics is telling them more often than not based on their knowledge of their team but they shouldn't just always go for it because "I'm aggressive and this is my identity".

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

To the City of Detroit | By Alex Anzalone

We want to make history next season. Anything less is failure.

www.theplayerstribune.com

Dear Detroit,

We were all behind Dan on the 4th down call. Let’s get that out of the way first. If you could rewind time, we’d all do it again. A hundred times out of a hundred. The offense. The defense. Everybody. If you have been following this team’s journey for the last three years, then you know how we play football. You know the mentality that got us here.

It was the right decision — and I’m not talking about the right decision for analytics or talk radio or whatever. It was the right call for us, especially in that moment. When you’re in that situation, 20 games into an NFL season, it’s not like a video game. You’re not playing Madden. You had guys out there playing with bum ankles. Guys playing with MCL sprains. Guys taking nerve injections and toradol. Guys who could barely get out of bed that morning. It’s a battle of wills at that point in the season. You’re just running on pure belief and adrenaline. I feel like if you shy away from your identity in that moment, then you’re betraying the very thing that got you there.

On 4th down, in that situation, we’re always going for the kill. That mentality took us from 0–10–1 to the NFC Championship game in just a few seasons. Honestly, if anything, when we decided to kick the field goal in the first half, I was more surprised then.

When the chips are down, Detroit is always going to bet on Detroit.

To a man, I think we’d all do it again.

Rest of the piece is good, too

 

[Gally]

To the City of Detroit | By Alex Anzalone

We want to make history next season. Anything less is failure.

www.theplayerstribune.com

Dear Detroit,

We were all behind Dan on the 4th down call. Let’s get that out of the way first. If you could rewind time, we’d all do it again. A hundred times out of a hundred. The offense. The defense. Everybody. If you have been following this team’s journey for the last three years, then you know how we play football. You know the mentality that got us here.

It was the right decision — and I’m not talking about the right decision for analytics or talk radio or whatever. It was the right call for us, especially in that moment. When you’re in that situation, 20 games into an NFL season, it’s not like a video game. You’re not playing Madden. You had guys out there playing with bum ankles. Guys playing with MCL sprains. Guys taking nerve injections and toradol. Guys who could barely get out of bed that morning. It’s a battle of wills at that point in the season. You’re just running on pure belief and adrenaline. I feel like if you shy away from your identity in that moment, then you’re betraying the very thing that got you there.

On 4th down, in that situation, we’re always going for the kill. That mentality took us from 0–10–1 to the NFC Championship game in just a few seasons. Honestly, if anything, when we decided to kick the field goal in the first half, I was more surprised then.

When the chips are down, Detroit is always going to bet on Detroit.

To a man, I think we’d all do it again.

Rest of the piece is good, too

I get it from a player's perspective for sure. Especially a D-guy that is all aggressive and pumped. I totally see that mentality and belief. Makes sense. Coaches do have to see the total picture though and sometimes make a tough decision. I am not saying either decision was definitely right or wrong. I am saying coaches have to take more into account for the decision making process than players.

I am guessing that the SF side is all about being happy Det went for it on 4th down because it was what they needed and they believed they would stop them and turn the game around.

 

[Instinctive]

To the City of Detroit | By Alex Anzalone

We want to make history next season. Anything less is failure.

www.theplayerstribune.com

Dear Detroit,

We were all behind Dan on the 4th down call. Let’s get that out of the way first. If you could rewind time, we’d all do it again. A hundred times out of a hundred. The offense. The defense. Everybody. If you have been following this team’s journey for the last three years, then you know how we play football. You know the mentality that got us here.

It was the right decision — and I’m not talking about the right decision for analytics or talk radio or whatever. It was the right call for us, especially in that moment. When you’re in that situation, 20 games into an NFL season, it’s not like a video game. You’re not playing Madden. You had guys out there playing with bum ankles. Guys playing with MCL sprains. Guys taking nerve injections and toradol. Guys who could barely get out of bed that morning. It’s a battle of wills at that point in the season. You’re just running on pure belief and adrenaline. I feel like if you shy away from your identity in that moment, then you’re betraying the very thing that got you there.

On 4th down, in that situation, we’re always going for the kill. That mentality took us from 0–10–1 to the NFC Championship game in just a few seasons. Honestly, if anything, when we decided to kick the field goal in the first half, I was more surprised then.

When the chips are down, Detroit is always going to bet on Detroit.

To a man, I think we’d all do it again.

Rest of the piece is good, too

I get it from a player's perspective for sure. Especially a D-guy that is all aggressive and pumped. I totally see that mentality and belief. Makes sense. Coaches do have to see the total picture though and sometimes make a tough decision. I am not saying either decision was definitely right or wrong. I am saying coaches have to take more into account for the decision making process than players.

I am guessing that the SF side is all about being happy Det went for it on 4th down because it was what they needed and they believed they would stop them and turn the game around.

The place these thoughts fall short is, if they kick a FG and SF turns it around anyway, or kick a FG and miss, all the SF guys are saying "Man can't believe they kicked a FG that was all we needed to know we could get these guys" or "when they missed the FG, we knew we had em. They were afraid, they couldn't hold onto their identity, and we were coming fast. It was the final boost we needed."

That's why this whole argument is silly. You haven't been in a professional sports locker room if you think there's a difference. We find anything to latch onto.

It only ever makes sense looking backwards. It's a ridiculous thing to consider. Think, in the moment, if you asked every member of SF "would you rather they kick a FG and miss, or go for it on 4th down and drop it?" they'd probably all say the former!

 

[Ministry of Pain]

The strange thing about the whole *momentum* discussion is that any of us would think we have a better feel for that aspect of this game situation than the coach of the team who is standing on the sidelines. You're on the couch a thousand miles away cracking your 8th beer purporting to sit in judgment on this guy who's played the game for a decade, has coached this team for three years and is there living in the moment. Its just really a very bizarre point of discussion for me.

Not trying to tie the football game down 27-24 was the wrong move
You can't bypass an opportunity in the 4th Q of an NFCC to tie the game up and in the end
34-31 Final, lose by 3 points

OMC - How Bizarre (Official Music Video)

Music video by OMC performing How Bizarre. (C) 1996 Universal Music NZ Ltd.Listen to more: https://umusicNZ.lnk.to/OMC Lyrics: Brother Pele's in the back Sw...

www.youtube.com

How Bizarre

 

[Instinctive]

The strange thing about the whole *momentum* discussion is that any of us would think we have a better feel for that aspect of this game situation than the coach of the team who is standing on the sidelines. You're on the couch a thousand miles away cracking your 8th beer purporting to sit in judgment on this guy who's played the game for a decade, has coached this team for three years and is there living in the moment. Its just really a very bizarre point of discussion for me.

Not trying to tie the football game down 27-24 was the wrong move
You can't bypass an opportunity in the 4th Q of an NFCC to tie the game up and in the end
34-31 Final, lose by 3 points

OMC - How Bizarre (Official Music Video)

Music video by OMC performing How Bizarre. (C) 1996 Universal Music NZ Ltd.Listen to more: https://umusicNZ.lnk.to/OMC Lyrics: Brother Pele's in the back Sw...

www.youtube.com

How Bizarre

Sure you can. It's the difference in goals of playing to actually win vs playing to be perceived as though you could win for longer.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

The strange thing about the whole *momentum* discussion is that any of us would think we have a better feel for that aspect of this game situation than the coach of the team who is standing on the sidelines. You're on the couch a thousand miles away cracking your 8th beer purporting to sit in judgment on this guy who's played the game for a decade, has coached this team for three years and is there living in the moment. Its just really a very bizarre point of discussion for me.

Not trying to tie the football game down 27-24 was the wrong move
You can't bypass an opportunity in the 4th Q of an NFCC to tie the game up and in the end
34-31 Final, lose by 3 points

OMC - How Bizarre (Official Music Video)

Music video by OMC performing How Bizarre. (C) 1996 Universal Music NZ Ltd.Listen to more: https://umusicNZ.lnk.to/OMC Lyrics: Brother Pele's in the back Sw...

www.youtube.com

How Bizarre

Sure you can. It's the difference in goals of playing to actually win vs playing to be perceived as though you could win for longer.

They play this extra period that some call Overtime.
Now a few years ago they made some changes, I think they only play 10 minutes and something about each team should touch the ball
Now in the Playoffs, I'm not sure if those 10 minutes expire...they just play another 10 minutes or do they go back to the old days and play a full 15 minute quarter, who knows?
The Lons would have been entitled to a win should they have prevailed in overtime, winning is the goal and sometimes you don't accomplish that goal in the time frame you'd prefer.
But a win is a win

 

[Instinctive]

The strange thing about the whole *momentum* discussion is that any of us would think we have a better feel for that aspect of this game situation than the coach of the team who is standing on the sidelines. You're on the couch a thousand miles away cracking your 8th beer purporting to sit in judgment on this guy who's played the game for a decade, has coached this team for three years and is there living in the moment. Its just really a very bizarre point of discussion for me.

Not trying to tie the football game down 27-24 was the wrong move
You can't bypass an opportunity in the 4th Q of an NFCC to tie the game up and in the end
34-31 Final, lose by 3 points

OMC - How Bizarre (Official Music Video)

Music video by OMC performing How Bizarre. (C) 1996 Universal Music NZ Ltd.Listen to more: https://umusicNZ.lnk.to/OMC Lyrics: Brother Pele's in the back Sw...

www.youtube.com

How Bizarre

Sure you can. It's the difference in goals of playing to actually win vs playing to be perceived as though you could win for longer.

They play this extra period that some call Overtime.
Now a few years ago they made some changes, I think they only play 10 minutes and something about each team should touch the ball
Now in the Playoffs, I'm not sure if those 10 minutes expire...they just play another 10 minutes or do they go back to the old days and play a full 15 minute quarter, who knows?
The Lons would have been entitled to a win should they have prevailed in overtime, winning is the goal and sometimes you don't accomplish that goal in the time frame you'd prefer.
But a win is a win

I think you kind of just proved my exact point.

Unless you think you're likely to win in OT, playing for it is just playing to feel like you could win for longer, but not actually maximizing your chances to win. If you're of the opinion that you got some lucky breaks early and now are at a point where the talent gap has caught up, the way to maximize your chances is likely not to play to make it to an OT period which you not only may not make it to, but will likely lose in.

That's the point. It's similar to the down by 15, score a TD, go for two or kick the XP scenario. You need to go for it right away to maximize chances of winning (so you know if you need two more possessions or one more), but you feel (wrongly) like you still have a better chance if you're down 8, "one score", even though that 8 is only one score like half the time.

 

[Gally]

That's the point. It's similar to the down by 15, score a TD, go for two or kick the XP scenario. You need to go for it right away to maximize chances of winning (so you know if you need two more possessions or one more), but you feel (wrongly) like you still have a better chance if you're down 8, "one score", even though that 8 is only one score like half the time.

I think this scenario is different than the Det/SF kick to tie scenario. In the 15 pt scenario you will have to make a 2 pt attempt to get to a tie. If you don't get it at the end you have no time/opportunity to recover from that so it is much better to know you have to recover from the miss earlier. In the kick to tie late in the 4th you are in a different situation. It is basically a coin flip analytically so either option can be argued. I would rather put my team even on the scoreboard and play from there (and I understand your underdog vs favorite argument but at this point I thought the teams were fairly even on that day so it wouldn't be a factor in my decision). Add a little pressure to the SF team of a now tie game and put the onus on my defense to get us the ball back to win the game.

 

[Instinctive]

That's the point. It's similar to the down by 15, score a TD, go for two or kick the XP scenario. You need to go for it right away to maximize chances of winning (so you know if you need two more possessions or one more), but you feel (wrongly) like you still have a better chance if you're down 8, "one score", even though that 8 is only one score like half the time.

I think this scenario is different than the Det/SF kick to tie scenario. In the 15 pt scenario you will have to make a 2 pt attempt to get to a tie. If you don't get it at the end you have no time/opportunity to recover from that so it is much better to know you have to recover from the miss earlier. In the kick to tie late in the 4th you are in a different situation. It is basically a coin flip analytically so either option can be argued. I would rather put my team even on the scoreboard and play from there (and I understand your underdog vs favorite argument but at this point I thought the teams were fairly even on that day so it wouldn't be a factor in my decision). Add a little pressure to the SF team of a now tie game and put the onus on my defense to get us the ball back to win the game.

Yeah, I get it. I just think it's wrong. I don't think anyone is convincing anyone here.

For the most part, this feels like it's devolved into a typical conservative approach vs an improved understanding that isn't widely held as belief yet. Will be interesting to see where it goes in ten years. Not that different from 10-15 years ago and pushing to shoot way more 3's in basketball, and all the "you can't do that for momentum reasons" style arguments back then too.

I'm just never going to pretend like my team is better today or the other team is bad today. Talent is talent, and luck is luck. In the end, I'll go to the grave making decisions on the basis that luck is unrelated to the prior lucky thing, and I can't assume Ill continue to be lucky or unlucky.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The strange thing about the whole *momentum* discussion is that any of us would think we have a better feel for that aspect of this game situation than the coach of the team who is standing on the sidelines. You're on the couch a thousand miles away cracking your 8th beer purporting to sit in judgment on this guy who's played the game for a decade, has coached this team for three years and is there living in the moment. Its just really a very bizarre point of discussion for me.

Not trying to tie the football game down 27-24 was the wrong move
You can't bypass an opportunity in the 4th Q of an NFCC to tie the game up and in the end
34-31 Final, lose by 3 points

OMC - How Bizarre (Official Music Video)

Music video by OMC performing How Bizarre. (C) 1996 Universal Music NZ Ltd.Listen to more: https://umusicNZ.lnk.to/OMC Lyrics: Brother Pele's in the back Sw...

www.youtube.com

How Bizarre

Yeah sure, but as I think is made clear in my post, I was only addressing the "momentum" argument which struck me as strange. I've long ago given up discussing whether the decision was 'right or wrong' in here for what I think are pretty obvious reasons.

 

[kutta]

I really wonder how different this thread would look if the Lions had converted on those fourth down plays and won the game. I bet it wouldn’t be more than two pages long.

 

[titusbramble]

I really wonder how different this thread would look if the Lions had converted on those fourth down plays and won the game. I bet it wouldn’t be more than two pages long.

It wouldn't exist

 

[kutta]

I really wonder how different this thread would look if the Lions had converted on those fourth down plays and won the game. I bet it wouldn’t be more than two pages long.

It wouldn't exist

Which says a lot.

 

[Instinctive]

I really wonder how different this thread would look if the Lions had converted on those fourth down plays and won the game. I bet it wouldn’t be more than two pages long.

It wouldn't exist

Which says a lot.

It probably doesn't even exist if they fail to convert and win anyway

 

[gdub]

The 2 point conversion attempt from the 7 against Dallas was more egregious than the play being discussed here. More was at stake against the 49ers, but from a probability standpoint I imagine it’s not even close. He told his players he was going for the win against Dallas and he’s a players coach, so he can’t go back on his word no matter what. I’m not a lions fan so I do enjoy watching him take chances. The Lions have been bad for so long and DC is part of the reason for their recent success, so he gets a pass for that 2 point conversion by the fan base, right?

 

[Steeler]

and we now have the hindsight to know that they were bad coaching calls

I haven't followed this thread at all but saw it was 14 pages ( ) and decided to read the last page. Anyway, you can't look at the outcome and say the decision was wrong. DET used analytics all year to be super-aggressive so the analytics say going for it either increased their chances to win or not - the outcome is irrelevant.

 

[Steeler]

I really wonder how different this thread would look if the Lions had converted on those fourth down plays and won the game. I bet it wouldn’t be more than two pages long.

It wouldn't exist

Which says a lot.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The 2 point conversion attempt from the 7 against Dallas was more egregious than the play being discussed here. More was at stake against the 49ers, but from a probability standpoint I imagine it’s not even close. He told his players he was going for the win against Dallas and he’s a players coach, so he can’t go back on his word no matter what. I’m not a lions fan so I do enjoy watching him take chances. The Lions have been bad for so long and DC is part of the reason for their recent success, so he gets a pass for that 2 point conversion by the fan base, right?

Here's my take on the 2PC (and I freely admit that this may just reflect me being totally in the tank for Campbell). Analytically, going for it from the 7 was clearly the wrong decision, and probably from the 3 1/2 as well. I think Campbell knew that. But in that context, I think he was willing to take a calculated risk that telling his team at the beginning of the drive that they were going to score a TD, convert the two pointer and win the game right there -- and then following through on all of that -- would give them a boost heading into the playoffs that made it worth the lower WP%. I'm sure he wanted to win the game and clinch the No. 2 seed, but he was willing to risk it for the even bigger payoff.

I can totally see why people would view that as a bad bet, but I don't think it was an irrational one. And when you consider how things worked out, you could certainly make the case that in the long run, the bet paid off. Losing the 2 seed didn't hurt them, and they won two playoff games for the first time in forever.

(Also, to head off any gotchas, when I talk about a "psychological boost" I view that as different from momentum. A coach taking an action because he thinks it will cement the bond he has with his players is not the same thing as "we had a bad result on one play and now that will turn the other team into Supermen while my team is so depressed they completely melt down").

Now, if you ask me about the decision to run on third down and then burn a timeout, even a simp like me isn't willing to defend that one. He completely blew it

 

[Gally]

(Also, to head off any gotchas, when I talk about a "psychological boost" I view that as different from momentum. A coach taking an action because he thinks it will cement the bond he has with his players is not the same thing as "we had a bad result on one play and now that will turn the other team into Supermen while my team is so depressed they completely melt down").

You read my mind. I am glad you addressed it. While I agree that it's not the exact same think it is still in the same touchy feely world that can't really be quantified. Did throwing caution to the wind on that 2 pt conversion give such a big boost it carried them three games down the road? That's a bit of a stretch even for us momentum guys to believe.

I do believe setting a culture is important and DC has definitely done that. It is his best quality as a coach, but you still have to manage a team to win and do the right things to do so. Going for 2 in that situation does not do that no matter how much of a "psychological boost" it gives his team. These are the things DC has to learn from to get to the next level. So far I haven't seen him be able to adjust.

 

[jon_mx]

(Also, to head off any gotchas, when I talk about a "psychological boost" I view that as different from momentum. A coach taking an action because he thinks it will cement the bond he has with his players is not the same thing as "we had a bad result on one play and now that will turn the other team into Supermen while my team is so depressed they completely melt down").

You read my mind. I am glad you addressed it. While I agree that it's not the exact same think it is still in the same touchy feely world that can't really be quantified. Did throwing caution to the wind on that 2 pt conversion give such a big boost it carried them three games down the road? That's a bit of a stretch even for us momentum guys to believe.

I do believe setting a culture is important and DC has definitely done that. It is his best quality as a coach, but you still have to manage a team to win and do the right things to do so. Going for 2 in that situation does not do that no matter how much of a "psychological boost" it gives his team. These are the things DC has to learn from to get to the next level. So far I haven't seen him be able to adjust.

People in Detroit do not want Campbell to adjust. The players who play for him don't want Dan to change. Outside of the 7-yard 2-point conversion, Dan is the most analytical advantaged HC there is. I certainly don't want Dan to become more conservative. Not in a million years. Keep your foot on the gas and let the players win the game. Wimpy football where you play not to loose is the absolutely worst form of football. Love Dan EXACTLY the way he is.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

(Also, to head off any gotchas, when I talk about a "psychological boost" I view that as different from momentum. A coach taking an action because he thinks it will cement the bond he has with his players is not the same thing as "we had a bad result on one play and now that will turn the other team into Supermen while my team is so depressed they completely melt down").

You read my mind. I am glad you addressed it. While I agree that it's not the exact same think it is still in the same touchy feely world that can't really be quantified. Did throwing caution to the wind on that 2 pt conversion give such a big boost it carried them three games down the road? That's a bit of a stretch even for us momentum guys to believe.

I do believe setting a culture is important and DC has definitely done that. It is his best quality as a coach, but you still have to manage a team to win and do the right things to do so. Going for 2 in that situation does not do that no matter how much of a "psychological boost" it gives his team. These are the things DC has to learn from to get to the next level. So far I haven't seen him be able to adjust.

I think the difference comes down to process vs. results. I don't actually believe that a decision Campbell made in Week 17 led directly to playoff wins a few weeks later, but to the extent it helped the Lions it wasn't the mere fact of a successful 2PC, but the whole process of communicating a message that he believed in them and then following through. You can see from the quotes from players like Anzalone and Ragnow that they're all bought in. I think the benefits of a coach having the locker room completely on his side are, yes, unquantifiable but pretty obvious.

Anyway, you and I have been back and forth on this enough, and I don't really have a problem with your definition of momentum. It's the crutch argument of "This bad thing happened and then the team lost so I'm going to blame it all on 'momentum' to suit my narrative" that sets me off

 

[Gally]

(Also, to head off any gotchas, when I talk about a "psychological boost" I view that as different from momentum. A coach taking an action because he thinks it will cement the bond he has with his players is not the same thing as "we had a bad result on one play and now that will turn the other team into Supermen while my team is so depressed they completely melt down").

You read my mind. I am glad you addressed it. While I agree that it's not the exact same think it is still in the same touchy feely world that can't really be quantified. Did throwing caution to the wind on that 2 pt conversion give such a big boost it carried them three games down the road? That's a bit of a stretch even for us momentum guys to believe.

I do believe setting a culture is important and DC has definitely done that. It is his best quality as a coach, but you still have to manage a team to win and do the right things to do so. Going for 2 in that situation does not do that no matter how much of a "psychological boost" it gives his team. These are the things DC has to learn from to get to the next level. So far I haven't seen him be able to adjust.

People in Detroit do not want Campbell to adjust. The players who play for him don't want Dan to change. Outside of the 7-yard 2-point conversion, Dan is the most analytical advantaged HC there is. I certainly don't want Dan to become more conservative. Not in a million years. Keep your foot on the gas and let the players win the game. Wimpy football where you play not to loose is the absolutely worst form of football. Love Dan EXACTLY the way he is.

I am not saying he has to lose his aggressiveness. I am saying he has to adapt so he doesn't screw up the 2 Pt conversion situation in the future. Big difference in adapting and changing.

 

[Gally]

Anyway, you and I have been back and forth on this enough, and I don't really have a problem with your definition of momentum. It's the crutch argument of "This bad thing happened and then the team lost so I'm going to blame it all on 'momentum' to suit my narrative" that sets me off

Yep. I agree although I don't believe I have every used your crutch argument at all.

 

[kutta]

Bump for @BobbyLayne

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Well looks like we know which side of this Kyle Shanahan would be on

 

[titusbramble]

Bump for people saying just level the game in the fourth quarter

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Wonder what the net momentum swing of that sequence was: SF converts the 4th down, scores a TD, but KC blocks the extra point.

(This is mostly me realizing I forgot to start my “momentum prediction” thread like I promised the other day)

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Kyle should be fired for not "taking the points "

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

FYI numbers had it as a total coin flip. I wasn’t sure what he should have done, but I was genuinely surprised that he went for it. Shanny is usually pretty conservative

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Shanahan kicked on 4th and goal in OT and it cost them the game, but at least he didn’t give KC a momentum boost.

(Sorry, @Gally , couldn’t resist)

 

[jon_mx]

Kyle should be fired for not "taking the points "

But he made up for it by taking the sure extra point.