Ok but this is the part where I point out that I came into the thread saying, "People always say you have to apply the game situation" but then don't actually do so.
So I posted the result of a detailed look at the game situation, which heavily favored going for it.
I agree that the pure analytics states that in general going for it on 4th and three gives you a marginal better EV than kicking the FG (I am assuming those posting that information are posting correct information. I haven't looked into it myself). I believe that the marginally better EV would mean more if the game was played by robots that could play exactly like the other 1000 times this situation played out to contribute to the EV calculated.
Where it sways over to the other side for me is that this game isn't played by robots. Emotions, pressure, injuries, matchups, current momentum, weather, etc play a factor into the EV not being a perfect number. Because of this, I think not following it to a T every time is warranted and the better coaches will use their "gut" to factor in all the human factors to make the ultimate decision.
My "gut" told me that based on what I saw for two and a half quarters the Lions would be better off for this particular game situation to attempt the FG over risking not making the 4th down conversion. I am not saying this would have changed the outcome for sure, but I believe it would have. I would also say this if the Lions converted that 4th down play and went on to win the game. I am not basing my decision based on the outcome. I am basing it on the analytics I was told (EV says go for it), the way the game was played to that point, the score, and how much time was left in the game.
I think both sides can be argued to make the decision you think gives you the best chance to win. What I don't believe is that basing your decision solely on analytics or solely on gut is the right way to make the decision. Both need to be included into your decision and the right answer isn't the same every time.