What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Post here when coaches do something you disagree with (3 Viewers)

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

I have no idea what sort of point you are trying to make here. "Pinning them deep", what? We're not punting...

He is saying that in a game situation with more clock remaining, part of the calculus of going for it on 4th down near the goal line is that if you fail to score, the other team gets the turnover on downs but is pinned deep near their own goal line. With 8 seconds remaining that wasn't a factor.
 
Analytics may say go for it, but does it take into account stadium atmosphere and momentum shifts?

Analytics wouldn't consider things that only exist in the heads of aging commentators, no
Well, they certainly do exist whether some think they do or not. If analytics do not take into consideration identified risks to potential outcomes, then it is only part of the equation that coaches need to take into account.

He coaches as if he's behind or the under dog, which works great sometimes and probably more effective vs a lesser talented team. He had control of that game and gave it away because he didn't perform a risk analysis. "We've done it with success from time to time this year."

I'm not a huge fan of either team (and don't dislike either) but I feel bad for the Detroit fans who had the team and the increasing chances, at the time, to make it to their first ever SB. For the situation, and solely in my opinion (everyone has one), he made some poor decisions. You disagree, fine.
 
1. End of half - you kick because part of the value of going for it is pinning them deep if you miss. With 8 seconds left, thats not a factor, so kick. Model actually leans go for it here. 0/1.

I have no idea what sort of point you are trying to make here. "Pinning them deep", what? We're not punting...

He is saying that in a game situation with more clock remaining, part of the calculus of going for it on 4th down near the goal line is that if you fail to score, the other team gets the turnover on downs but is pinned deep near their own goal line. With 8 seconds remaining that wasn't a factor.

Right, that kind of makes sense now, although I would guess that the actual EV of future drives starting within the five rather than after a touchback (in the event we're making this decision with more time on the clock) is minuscule compared to the EV you're gaining directly here and now by going for it
 
Out of curiosity, does anyone agree with coach Campbell’s decision to go for it the 2nd time when the Lions could have tied it up. That decision ultimately cost them the game IMO.
It's hard to know how the game would have played out had they kicked and made it. I think a lot of people assume that if we just change one play then everything else happens just as it actually happened, but that's not correct.
 
1. End of half - you kick because part of the value of going for it is pinning them deep if you miss. With 8 seconds left, thats not a factor, so kick. Model actually leans go for it here. 0/1.

I have no idea what sort of point you are trying to make here. "Pinning them deep", what? We're not punting...

He is saying that in a game situation with more clock remaining, part of the calculus of going for it on 4th down near the goal line is that if you fail to score, the other team gets the turnover on downs but is pinned deep near their own goal line. With 8 seconds remaining that wasn't a factor.

Right, that kind of makes sense now, although I would guess that the actual EV of future drives starting within the five rather than after a touchback (in the event we're making this decision with more time on the clock) is minuscule compared to the EV you're gaining directly here and now by going for it
I believe starting a drive with 1st and 10 inside your own 10 has negative expected points, which would mean your opponent is actually more likely to be the next team to score. Starting 1st and 10 from your own 1 is probably like negative 3 or 4 expected points...but it's possible I'm not remember those numbers correctly.
 
Out of curiosity, does anyone agree with coach Campbell’s decision to go for it the 2nd time when the Lions could have tied it up. That decision ultimately cost them the game IMO.
It's hard to know how the game would have played out had they kicked and made it. I think a lot of people assume that if we just change one play then everything else happens just as it actually happened, but that's not correct.
Of course we don’t know how the game would have played it but do you think it was the right decision to go for it in that situation? That call seemed more controversial than the first one.
 
I might could live with not trying to tie the game and going for it at that point, but people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness if they're backing the FG decision that would've put them 3 scores up. I see percentages quoted for the success of them going for it on 4th down versus kicking from there, but that doesn't take into account opponent or the new K. The 9ers have a good D & Badgley had been kicking well for them. No reason not to trust him with the kick given the upside of going 3 scores up. You could feel the momentum swing as it happened. You did the one thing you couldn't do. Game-changer.

The end of the game was basic playing football from behind. You CAN'T run the ball there. Why??? You have 4 downs to get a TD through the air with several good playmakers. If you think you need to run the ball to get it in, save it for 4th down. The timeout was just brutal.

While he's the type of guy who's easy to root for, Campbell has a ways to go before he should be considered a quality HC. That's ok, but I wonder if this is simply who Dan Campbell is.
 
Out of curiosity, does anyone agree with coach Campbell’s decision to go for it the 2nd time when the Lions could have tied it up. That decision ultimately cost them the game IMO.
It's hard to know how the game would have played out had they kicked and made it. I think a lot of people assume that if we just change one play then everything else happens just as it actually happened, but that's not correct.
Of course we don’t know how the game would have played it but do you think it was the right decision to go for it in that situation? That call seemed more controversial than the first one.
I'm personally fine with trusting whatever their analytics said to do in that situation.
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
The percentages I see people quoting. Forget what you've done in the past. New opponent, new K.

Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

There's such a thing as being overly aggressive and Dan Campbell is the poster child right now. He made a decision like he was down 14 instead of up 14. The scary part is I'm not sure he learned anything.
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

Do you think they should have kicked the field goal if Reynolds had caught the pass?
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

Do you think they should have kicked the field goal if Reynolds had caught the pass?
If I remember right, it wasn't exactly an accurate pass. Like I said, assuming you can get a few yards anytime you want is a problem, especially against a good D.

Risk versus reward...it's something Campbell needs to make a huge leap in.
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
The percentages I see people quoting. Forget what you've done in the past. New opponent, new K.

Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

There's such a thing as being overly aggressive and Dan Campbell is the poster child right now. He made a decision like he was down 14 instead of up 14. The scary part is I'm not sure he learned anything.

No one's assuming they can get a few yards. It's a calculated risk. On the contrary, everyone else seems to be assuming that the kicker would have made the FG.

It's is mind-numbing to have to keep pointing out the same logical flaws in every single post about this. Campbell didn't pass up 3 points. He passed up an opportunity to kick a FG for an opportunity to pick up a first down. He didn't hand the 9ers anything on a silver platter. If the WR caught the ball that hit him in the hands, it would've been a huge dagger in the heart of SF. If the kicker had missed the FG, SF would've had all the same "momentum" that everyone says is so important by making the 4th down stop. Stop focusing on what happened and consider the entire universe of possible outcomes.

I would hope that if faced with that same situation 1,000 more times Campbell would make the same decision 1,000 times. There's nothing for him to learn from that one. It just didn't work out this time, which is a thing that happens when you take a calculated risk.
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

Do you think they should have kicked the field goal if Reynolds had caught the pass?
If I remember right, it wasn't exactly an accurate pass. Like I said, assuming you can get a few yards anytime you want is a problem, especially against a good D.

Risk versus reward...it's something Campbell needs to make a huge leap in.

I watched the replay of the pass and it's one he should pull in a huge amount of the time, it was slightly underthrown but still accurate enough that an NFL wide receiver should catch that at least as often as an NFL kicker should make a 45 yarder
 
I thought the 4th down calls were defensible. Wasn’t in love with the one down 3, especially the play call. The other one he had Reynolds and he dropped it. But Campbell was aggressive all year, I don’t see why he should suddenly change in the Championship Game.

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

A call that worked out but I think was poor was going for it on 4th and goal down 10. Should have taken the easy FG and then the onside kick. After the timeout was taken the onside kick was needed either way.
Disagree 1000%. You're going to need to score a TD at some point, and the odds that you will get a better opportunity than one play from the 2 yard line are extremely slim. In fact, you'd most likely be trying to score on a Hail Mary. Plus, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to win the game, not tie it. Scoring the TD there preserves the slim possibility that you could score a second TD and win in regulation.

In fact, I thought that Baltimore's decision in a similar situation to kick a FG on 4th and 5 from the 25 with 2:34 remaining was questionable, but it's a much closer decision. The Lions one was a no-brainer
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
The percentages I see people quoting. Forget what you've done in the past. New opponent, new K.

Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

There's such a thing as being overly aggressive and Dan Campbell is the poster child right now. He made a decision like he was down 14 instead of up 14. The scary part is I'm not sure he learned anything.

No one's assuming they can get a few yards. It's a calculated risk. On the contrary, everyone else seems to be assuming that the kicker would have made the FG.

It's is mind-numbing to have to keep pointing out the same logical flaws in every single post about this. Campbell didn't pass up 3 points. He passed up an opportunity to kick a FG for an opportunity to pick up a first down. He didn't hand the 9ers anything on a silver platter. If the WR caught the ball that hit him in the hands, it would've been a huge dagger in the heart of SF. If the kicker had missed the FG, SF would've had all the same "momentum" that everyone says is so important by making the 4th down stop. Stop focusing on what happened and consider the entire universe of possible outcomes.

I would hope that if faced with that same situation 1,000 more times Campbell would make the same decision 1,000 times. There's nothing for him to learn from that one. It just didn't work out this time, which is a thing that happens when you take a calculated risk.
Your post is why I'm leery of Campbell improving his decision-making.

The only mind-numbing thing is believing it was the right decision. Poll the 32 HCs and Dan Campbell might be the only guy who goes for it there (would've been 2, but Brandon Staley got fired). It's ok to be wrong, but you've got to learn from it.

If this is who Dan Campbell really is and is unwilling to change, he'll be joining Staley at some point.
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
The percentages I see people quoting. Forget what you've done in the past. New opponent, new K.

Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

There's such a thing as being overly aggressive and Dan Campbell is the poster child right now. He made a decision like he was down 14 instead of up 14. The scary part is I'm not sure he learned anything.

No one's assuming they can get a few yards. It's a calculated risk. On the contrary, everyone else seems to be assuming that the kicker would have made the FG.

It's is mind-numbing to have to keep pointing out the same logical flaws in every single post about this. Campbell didn't pass up 3 points. He passed up an opportunity to kick a FG for an opportunity to pick up a first down. He didn't hand the 9ers anything on a silver platter. If the WR caught the ball that hit him in the hands, it would've been a huge dagger in the heart of SF. If the kicker had missed the FG, SF would've had all the same "momentum" that everyone says is so important by making the 4th down stop. Stop focusing on what happened and consider the entire universe of possible outcomes.

I would hope that if faced with that same situation 1,000 more times Campbell would make the same decision 1,000 times. There's nothing for him to learn from that one. It just didn't work out this time, which is a thing that happens when you take a calculated risk.
Your post is why I'm leery of Campbell improving his decision-making.

The only mind-numbing thing is believing it was the right decision. Poll the 32 HCs and Dan Campbell might be the only guy who goes for it there (probably would've been 2, but Brandon Staley got fired). It's ok to be wrong, but you've got to learn from it.

If this is who Dan Campbell really is and is unwilling to change, he'll be joining Staley at some point.
Unsurprisingly, you haven’t done anything to demonstrate that it was the wrong decision.
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
The percentages I see people quoting. Forget what you've done in the past. New opponent, new K.

Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

There's such a thing as being overly aggressive and Dan Campbell is the poster child right now. He made a decision like he was down 14 instead of up 14. The scary part is I'm not sure he learned anything.

No one's assuming they can get a few yards. It's a calculated risk. On the contrary, everyone else seems to be assuming that the kicker would have made the FG.

It's is mind-numbing to have to keep pointing out the same logical flaws in every single post about this. Campbell didn't pass up 3 points. He passed up an opportunity to kick a FG for an opportunity to pick up a first down. He didn't hand the 9ers anything on a silver platter. If the WR caught the ball that hit him in the hands, it would've been a huge dagger in the heart of SF. If the kicker had missed the FG, SF would've had all the same "momentum" that everyone says is so important by making the 4th down stop. Stop focusing on what happened and consider the entire universe of possible outcomes.

I would hope that if faced with that same situation 1,000 more times Campbell would make the same decision 1,000 times. There's nothing for him to learn from that one. It just didn't work out this time, which is a thing that happens when you take a calculated risk.
Your post is why I'm leery of Campbell improving his decision-making.

The only mind-numbing thing is believing it was the right decision. Poll the 32 HCs and Dan Campbell might be the only guy who goes for it there (probably would've been 2, but Brandon Staley got fired). It's ok to be wrong, but you've got to learn from it.

If this is who Dan Campbell really is and is unwilling to change, he'll be joining Staley at some point.
Unsurprisingly, you haven’t done anything to demonstrate that it was the wrong decision.
mOMeNtuM!!!!!!!!!
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
The percentages I see people quoting. Forget what you've done in the past. New opponent, new K.

Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

There's such a thing as being overly aggressive and Dan Campbell is the poster child right now. He made a decision like he was down 14 instead of up 14. The scary part is I'm not sure he learned anything.

No one's assuming they can get a few yards. It's a calculated risk. On the contrary, everyone else seems to be assuming that the kicker would have made the FG.

It's is mind-numbing to have to keep pointing out the same logical flaws in every single post about this. Campbell didn't pass up 3 points. He passed up an opportunity to kick a FG for an opportunity to pick up a first down. He didn't hand the 9ers anything on a silver platter. If the WR caught the ball that hit him in the hands, it would've been a huge dagger in the heart of SF. If the kicker had missed the FG, SF would've had all the same "momentum" that everyone says is so important by making the 4th down stop. Stop focusing on what happened and consider the entire universe of possible outcomes.

I would hope that if faced with that same situation 1,000 more times Campbell would make the same decision 1,000 times. There's nothing for him to learn from that one. It just didn't work out this time, which is a thing that happens when you take a calculated risk.
Your post is why I'm leery of Campbell improving his decision-making.

The only mind-numbing thing is believing it was the right decision. Poll the 32 HCs and Dan Campbell might be the only guy who goes for it there (would've been 2, but Brandon Staley got fired). It's ok to be wrong, but you've got to learn from it.

Polling all the head coaches who, almost without exception:

a) haven't got a clue about analytics
b) make risk averse decisions because being risky and going wrong is a quick way to get fired by equally clueless owners

And having the result of said poll favour taking the points isn't the endorsement you think it is, it is the textbook definition of groupthink
 
Your post is why I'm leery of Campbell improving his decision-making.

The only mind-numbing thing is believing it was the right decision. Poll the 32 HCs and Dan Campbell might be the only guy who goes for it there (probably would've been 2, but Brandon Staley got fired). It's ok to be wrong, but you've got to learn from it.

If this is who Dan Campbell really is and is unwilling to change, he'll be joining Staley at some point.

Could've said the same thing about the aggressive 4th down decisions of Belichick, Urban Meyer, Nick Saban in the past. Or whomever the first coach was to go for 2 when down 14 (McVay?). Or a thousand other things that coaches now do all the time.

Teams used to punt on 4th and 2 from the opposing teams 44 yard line and the guy that went for it was wild and irresponsible. And people actually ripped them for it. Obviously you punt from the other teams 40. Obvious you take the field goal on 4th and goal from the 1. Obviously you punt on 4th and 5 when trailing by 14 with 7 minutes left. And people made the same kind of ridiculous "it's obviously the wrong decision to go for it there and anyone that believes otherwise is insane".

The coaches have trended more and more to the +EV analytics over the last 10-20 years and it's been refreshing to see. Did Campbell take it too far? Maybe, but the stats say in the long run making decisions like these will win you more games than they will lose you. It's like splitting 8's when the dealer is showing a face card in blackjack. Some people won't do it, and any time they see someone lose both hands on it they say "see, this is why you don't do that, obviously".
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
The percentages I see people quoting. Forget what you've done in the past. New opponent, new K.

Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

There's such a thing as being overly aggressive and Dan Campbell is the poster child right now. He made a decision like he was down 14 instead of up 14. The scary part is I'm not sure he learned anything.

No one's assuming they can get a few yards. It's a calculated risk. On the contrary, everyone else seems to be assuming that the kicker would have made the FG.

It's is mind-numbing to have to keep pointing out the same logical flaws in every single post about this. Campbell didn't pass up 3 points. He passed up an opportunity to kick a FG for an opportunity to pick up a first down. He didn't hand the 9ers anything on a silver platter. If the WR caught the ball that hit him in the hands, it would've been a huge dagger in the heart of SF. If the kicker had missed the FG, SF would've had all the same "momentum" that everyone says is so important by making the 4th down stop. Stop focusing on what happened and consider the entire universe of possible outcomes.

I would hope that if faced with that same situation 1,000 more times Campbell would make the same decision 1,000 times. There's nothing for him to learn from that one. It just didn't work out this time, which is a thing that happens when you take a calculated risk.
Your post is why I'm leery of Campbell improving his decision-making.

The only mind-numbing thing is believing it was the right decision. Poll the 32 HCs and Dan Campbell might be the only guy who goes for it there (probably would've been 2, but Brandon Staley got fired). It's ok to be wrong, but you've got to learn from it.

If this is who Dan Campbell really is and is unwilling to change, he'll be joining Staley at some point.
Unsurprisingly, you haven’t done anything to demonstrate that it was the wrong decision.
I'm not the one who needs to tell you why it was wrong...it's Campbell.

It seems he might continue to make reckless decisions like the one in Dallas & the FG in question yesterday, not to mention butchering the end of the game. The play yesterday is very simple to analyze...the risk didn't outweigh the one thing you couldn't do to get the 9ers back in the game (even if you forget about all the other stuff).

One of the more puzzling decisions I've ever seen in my long history of watching the NFL.
 
The play yesterday is very simple to analyze...the risk didn't outweigh the one thing you couldn't do to get the 9ers back in the game (even if you forget about all the other stuff).

You say it's simple to analyze and use words like "risk" and yet you repeatedly refuse to actually... analyze the risks and rewards present in that situation. In your head, the only bad thing that could possibly have happened was for Detroit to give the ball back to the 49ers and the only way they could possibly do that was by going for it on 4th down. I guess if you look at it that way, you're right! Of course that's the completely wrong way to look at it.
 
Disagree 1000%. You're going to need to score a TD at some point, and the odds that you will get a better opportunity than one play from the 2 yard line are extremely slim. In fact, you'd most likely be trying to score on a Hail Mary. Plus, keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to win the game, not tie it. Scoring the TD there preserves the slim possibility that you could score a second TD and win in regulation.
While you need a TD at some point.......you also need a second score at some point. Going for it on 4th down and missing ends the game. Kicking a FG or scoring a TD gives virtually the same chance to win.........both hinging on getting an onside kick (since the TO was taken for both scenarios). The odds of that are so slim that the difference between needing a hail mary or a FG to tie doesn't really move the needle.
 
people just aren't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness

...

The 9ers have a good D

The 9ers hadn't stopped them all day. Who isn't looking at all the dynamics of game awareness?
The percentages I see people quoting. Forget what you've done in the past. New opponent, new K.

Assuming you can get a few yards on a good D anytime you want is kinda the problem here. Passing up the FG that would've put them 3 scores up was a terrible decision, regardless of the outcome. The 9ers needed something to happen and he handed it to them on a silver platter.

There's such a thing as being overly aggressive and Dan Campbell is the poster child right now. He made a decision like he was down 14 instead of up 14. The scary part is I'm not sure he learned anything.

No one's assuming they can get a few yards. It's a calculated risk. On the contrary, everyone else seems to be assuming that the kicker would have made the FG.

It's is mind-numbing to have to keep pointing out the same logical flaws in every single post about this. Campbell didn't pass up 3 points. He passed up an opportunity to kick a FG for an opportunity to pick up a first down. He didn't hand the 9ers anything on a silver platter. If the WR caught the ball that hit him in the hands, it would've been a huge dagger in the heart of SF. If the kicker had missed the FG, SF would've had all the same "momentum" that everyone says is so important by making the 4th down stop. Stop focusing on what happened and consider the entire universe of possible outcomes.

I would hope that if faced with that same situation 1,000 more times Campbell would make the same decision 1,000 times. There's nothing for him to learn from that one. It just didn't work out this time, which is a thing that happens when you take a calculated risk.
Your post is why I'm leery of Campbell improving his decision-making.

The only mind-numbing thing is believing it was the right decision. Poll the 32 HCs and Dan Campbell might be the only guy who goes for it there (would've been 2, but Brandon Staley got fired). It's ok to be wrong, but you've got to learn from it.

Polling all the head coaches who, almost without exception:

a) haven't got a clue about analytics
b) make risk averse decisions because being risky and going wrong is a quick way to get fired by equally clueless owners

And having the result of said poll favour taking the points isn't the endorsement you think it is, it is the textbook definition of groupthink
Groupthink isn't the problem here. The problem is Campbell being overly aggressive. It's a thing.

It's not surprising given his mental makeup, but he's got to take the emotion out of his decisions. Easier said than done, which is why I'm not sure he can do it. The one in Dallas was the epitome of an emotional decision. I don't know what was going through his head when he passed up the FG in question yesterday, but maybe more emotion. It's kinda like he's got a prominent "I'll show you" gene.

Will he make a good, long-term HC? Maybe...maybe not. Too early to tell.
 
Last edited:
The play yesterday is very simple to analyze...the risk didn't outweigh the one thing you couldn't do to get the 9ers back in the game (even if you forget about all the other stuff).

You say it's simple to analyze and use words like "risk" and yet you repeatedly refuse to actually... analyze the risks and rewards present in that situation. In your head, the only bad thing that could possibly have happened was for Detroit to give the ball back to the 49ers and the only way they could possibly do that was by going for it on 4th down. I guess if you look at it that way, you're right! Of course that's the completely wrong way to look at it.
Simple can be good, LOL.

Campbell could use some "simple".
 
The problem with analytics is that they take into account what has already happened. Not what is likely to happen.

Someone here may know more about how these team's analytics departments set up decision making situations, but do they factor:

1. Weather at the time those decisions were made previously?
2. What type of game those decisions were made previously?
3. Exact score of when those decisions were made previously?
4. Exact time of game when those decisions were made previously?
5. Etc.........

Because just saying Detroit was 18-21 (or whatever it is) on 4th down decisions all year does not dictate what happens HERE. Each one of those decisions has it's own variables based on what was happening during the game at that time.

Campbell seems to be coaching just based on the percentages. But with zero variables in mind. In the playoffs you HAVE to think of possessions and momentum. He could have made this a 3 possession game. Not only a three possession game but one where TWO of those possessions had to be touchdowns and two point conversions.

Hell, Andy Reid did the same damn thing early on when he went for it on 4th down and failed. And got away with it.

But Campbell did not in the Cowboys game and did not in this past game. Of all the games where you have to coach situation and game-feel he failed.
 
The play yesterday is very simple to analyze...the risk didn't outweigh the one thing you couldn't do to get the 9ers back in the game (even if you forget about all the other stuff).

You say it's simple to analyze and use words like "risk" and yet you repeatedly refuse to actually... analyze the risks and rewards present in that situation. In your head, the only bad thing that could possibly have happened was for Detroit to give the ball back to the 49ers and the only way they could possibly do that was by going for it on 4th down. I guess if you look at it that way, you're right! Of course that's the completely wrong way to look at it.
Simple can be good, LOL.

Campbell could use some "simple".

I can tell you're a fan of simple.
 
The problem with analytics is that they take into account what has already happened. Not what is likely to happen.

Someone here may know more about how these team's analytics departments set up decision making situations, but do they factor:

1. Weather at the time those decisions were made previously?
2. What type of game those decisions were made previously?
3. Exact score of when those decisions were made previously?
4. Exact time of game when those decisions were made previously?
5. Etc.........

1) Of course you can tweak things such as the likelihood of hitting a field goal in bad weather, playing in a dome etc
2) No clue what you mean here
3/4) Apart from really fringe situations where the defence is in prevent mode and doesn't care if you get 15 yards for a first down as long as you don't actually score/get into FG range, these things have negligible relevance
 
The coaches have trended more and more to the +EV analytics over the last 10-20 years and it's been refreshing to see. Did Campbell take it too far? Maybe, but the stats say in the long run making decisions like these will win you more games than they will lose you. It's like splitting 8's when the dealer is showing a face card in blackjack. Some people won't do it, and any time they see someone lose both hands on it they say "see, this is why you don't do that, obviously".
The only thing with this bolded is that you aren't in the long run here. This is a one off play for your season. If you are running a simulation where you get a 10,000 chances and whatever happens the most is your outcome then sure go with that route. But for a single game where you have dominated the entire time attempting to go up by three scores to keep the status quo of the game is the right decision. It doesn't give a huge spark to the other team on the missed 4th down (which I believe is a better motivator for the defense than a kicker missing a FG).

Even though Campbell was a gambler all season it doesn't mean that in this exact situation with the way was being played means gambling is the right thing to do. I think blindly folloiwng analytics in an emotional game without taking into account the current emotions/play/injuries/game flow/etc is a problem. Good coaches mesh these two things together and aren't all one way or the other. I think being old school all the time is bad just as I think going straight analytics all the time is bad. You need to mesh these two things for ultimate success and I don't think Campbell does this part well.
 
The coaches have trended more and more to the +EV analytics over the last 10-20 years and it's been refreshing to see. Did Campbell take it too far? Maybe, but the stats say in the long run making decisions like these will win you more games than they will lose you. It's like splitting 8's when the dealer is showing a face card in blackjack. Some people won't do it, and any time they see someone lose both hands on it they say "see, this is why you don't do that, obviously".
Good coaches mesh these two things together and aren't all one way or the other. I think being old school all the time is bad just as I think going straight analytics all the time is bad. You need to mesh these two things for ultimate success and I don't think Campbell does this part well.

You don't think Campbell has the players bought into his methods, and that if he decides to abandon them just because it's a championship game you wouldn't get the sort of "current emotions" you quote and the players thinking the coach has lost his mind?
 
The problem with analytics is that they take into account what has already happened. Not what is likely to happen.

Someone here may know more about how these team's analytics departments set up decision making situations, but do they factor:

1. Weather at the time those decisions were made previously?
2. What type of game those decisions were made previously?
3. Exact score of when those decisions were made previously?
4. Exact time of game when those decisions were made previously?
5. Etc.........

1) Of course you can tweak things such as the likelihood of hitting a field goal in bad weather, playing in a dome etc
2) No clue what you mean here
3/4) Apart from really fringe situations where the defence is in prevent mode and doesn't care if you get 15 yards for a first down as long as you don't actually score/get into FG range, these things have negligible relevance
So, for #2: when those 4th down decisions were made earlier in the season, what was the tone of the game at the time. Were they down? Were they up? Who were they playing? Was it a must win game or was it early in the season?

As for 3/4, these are hugely important in my opinion. Were they up 7? Up 10? Down 14? What was happening in that game at that time that led to that decision? Was it early in the first quarter? The end of a half? Late in the 4th?

All of these things always lead to those types of decisions.
 
The coaches have trended more and more to the +EV analytics over the last 10-20 years and it's been refreshing to see. Did Campbell take it too far? Maybe, but the stats say in the long run making decisions like these will win you more games than they will lose you. It's like splitting 8's when the dealer is showing a face card in blackjack. Some people won't do it, and any time they see someone lose both hands on it they say "see, this is why you don't do that, obviously".
The only thing with this bolded is that you aren't in the long run here. This is a one off play for your season. If you are running a simulation where you get a 10,000 chances and whatever happens the most is your outcome then sure go with that route. But for a single game where you have dominated the entire time attempting to go up by three scores to keep the status quo of the game is the right decision. It doesn't give a huge spark to the other team on the missed 4th down (which I believe is a better motivator for the defense than a kicker missing a FG).

Even though Campbell was a gambler all season it doesn't mean that in this exact situation with the way was being played means gambling is the right thing to do. I think blindly folloiwng analytics in an emotional game without taking into account the current emotions/play/injuries/game flow/etc is a problem. Good coaches mesh these two things together and aren't all one way or the other. I think being old school all the time is bad just as I think going straight analytics all the time is bad. You need to mesh these two things for ultimate success and I don't think Campbell does this part well.

Right, but my point was not repeating this play dozens or hundreds of times, but rather this general scenario dozens of times throughout his career where he goes with the +EV analytics over the traditional thinking. If you assume that taking +EV analytics is going to be better for you over the long run, you don't really just pick and choose some to take out based on the stakes because then you're losing that edge. And even beyond that, this is a common fallacy that the stakes should change an individual decision.

It's very common for people to fall victim to this. A blackjack player may sit down at a table and play every hand by the book because they know that statistically that gives them the best chance of winning the most hands over the long run. But then if on their last hand they push all their chips in and bet $600 and flop a 16 against a dealer's face card they are MUCH more likely to decide to stand on that 16 even if the book says otherwise, even though all throughout their playing they've been following the book and they know that statistically it is the wrong decision. Because it is safer and that feels better when the stakes are higher. But it's still the wrong play.
 
He could have made this a 3 possession game.

He could have ATTEMPTED to make it a 3 possession game, with a kicking game that has not been reliable.

Not only a three possession game but one where TWO of those possessions had to be touchdowns and two point conversions.

Huh? Why would they have needed two point conversions if down by 17?

Two TD's and two two-point conversions gets the niners 16. So they would need the third possession to get over 17 and beat the Lions.

Edit: I'm going at this from the perspective of: What the niners would have to do to beat the Lions with time dwindling in the second half?
 
The play yesterday is very simple to analyze...the risk didn't outweigh the one thing you couldn't do to get the 9ers back in the game (even if you forget about all the other stuff).

You say it's simple to analyze and use words like "risk" and yet you repeatedly refuse to actually... analyze the risks and rewards present in that situation. In your head, the only bad thing that could possibly have happened was for Detroit to give the ball back to the 49ers and the only way they could possibly do that was by going for it on 4th down. I guess if you look at it that way, you're right! Of course that's the completely wrong way to look at it.
Simple can be good, LOL.

Campbell could use some "simple".

I can tell you're a fan of simple.
LOL. I'm definitely a fan of simple when it's the obvious solution to your problem.

You just gotta know when to apply simple. It's not like it takes a rocket scientist.
 
The problem with analytics is that they take into account what has already happened. Not what is likely to happen.

Someone here may know more about how these team's analytics departments set up decision making situations, but do they factor:

1. Weather at the time those decisions were made previously?
2. What type of game those decisions were made previously?
3. Exact score of when those decisions were made previously?
4. Exact time of game when those decisions were made previously?
5. Etc.........

1) Of course you can tweak things such as the likelihood of hitting a field goal in bad weather, playing in a dome etc
2) No clue what you mean here
3/4) Apart from really fringe situations where the defence is in prevent mode and doesn't care if you get 15 yards for a first down as long as you don't actually score/get into FG range, these things have negligible relevance
So, for #2: when those 4th down decisions were made earlier in the season, what was the tone of the game at the time. Were they down? Were they up? Who were they playing? Was it a must win game or was it early in the season?

As for 3/4, these are hugely important in my opinion. Were they up 7? Up 10? Down 14? What was happening in that game at that time that led to that decision? Was it early in the first quarter? The end of a half? Late in the 4th?

All of these things always lead to those types of decisions.

The analytics that said that deciding to go for it rather than kicking on the first 4th down increased the chances of the Lions winning by 5% and the second time increased the chances of the Lions winning by 2% were not just some rudimentary thing that said "Lions are 18-21 so they have a 86% chance of making this".

They actually only gave the Lions a 53% chance of converting that 4th and 3 and STILL put out that making the decision increased their chance of winning.
 
You don't think Campbell has the players bought into his methods, and that if he decides to abandon them just because it's a championship game you wouldn't get the sort of "current emotions" you quote and the players thinking the coach has lost his mind?
I don't think attempting to kick a FG in that situation at that juncture of the game to possibly go up three scores in a game that you have controlled would cause the players to think the coach has lost his mind.

Blindly following one thing or the other is the problem. Using current information and situation to factor into your decisions makes you a good decision maker. So if there was 1:30 left with SF having all three time outs left and Detroit up 7 pts would the right decision have been to go for it because Campbell is a "gambler" and he is staying true to form? No......everyone would say kick the FG. There are times when you gamble and times when you shouldn't. This was a time that he shouldn't have gambled. and I don't think the players would have thought any different of him.
 
The problem with analytics is that they take into account what has already happened. Not what is likely to happen.

Someone here may know more about how these team's analytics departments set up decision making situations, but do they factor:

1. Weather at the time those decisions were made previously?
2. What type of game those decisions were made previously?
3. Exact score of when those decisions were made previously?
4. Exact time of game when those decisions were made previously?
5. Etc.........

1) Of course you can tweak things such as the likelihood of hitting a field goal in bad weather, playing in a dome etc
2) No clue what you mean here
3/4) Apart from really fringe situations where the defence is in prevent mode and doesn't care if you get 15 yards for a first down as long as you don't actually score/get into FG range, these things have negligible relevance
So, for #2: when those 4th down decisions were made earlier in the season, what was the tone of the game at the time. Were they down? Were they up? Who were they playing? Was it a must win game or was it early in the season?

As for 3/4, these are hugely important in my opinion. Were they up 7? Up 10? Down 14? What was happening in that game at that time that led to that decision? Was it early in the first quarter? The end of a half? Late in the 4th?

All of these things always lead to those types of decisions.

Is the defence going to defend (insert down and distance of your choice here) hugely differently if they're up 7? Up 10? Down 14? Are we going to playcall hugely differently in those different spots? Right at the end of a half is an outlier which I've already highlighted (although that only seems applicable in long yards to go situations, if we have fourth and goal on the 1 with one second to play it's probably going to be called much the same way on both sides of the ball if we have fourth and 1 on midfield in the first quarter). You're never going to get the exact same play twice - the purpose is to get a large dataset from which we can compare the results of things within relevant, tangible variables as best as possible
 
Onsides kicks have had their rules changed where it is much harder to recover the kick. Starting the season off with a play that has a 5% or less chance of success is just dumb.
You may not recover but that is far from making it "just dumb". A surprise gives you the best chance you will have and the downside is pretty minimal at that point in the game. Having a low success rate does not necessarily equate to being a dumb choice.
5% success rate means you do it only when it is a last choice. Starting a game off with a desperate play is dumb.
 
2019 Divisional Round, Texans at Chiefs. Houston races out to a 21-0 lead, then drives down and faces 4th and 1 from the KC 13. BOB plays it safe and kicks the FG to make it effectively a four-score game with 10:54 left in the first half. Obviously, having not suffered the crushing indignity of a missed 4th-down conversion, the Texans maintained their momentum and went on to pull off the mega-upset of the Chiefs, then went on to win the franchise's first-ever Super Bowl.

Oh wait, what actually happened is that the Chiefs scored 41 unanswered points and won 51-31.

The issue with momentum is not that it doesn't exist. It's that it doesn't exist in any way that can be factored into decision-making processes. It's always ex-post facto.

And by the way, when people remember that game now, no one attributes it to O'Brien kicking the FG. They remember Houston's complete collapse. Which is exactly why so many coaches err on the side of caution in those situations. Coaches very rarely get criticized for playing it safe (although fortunately that's changing)

Dan Campbell's decisions aren't the main reason Detroit lost. But they're the thing that everyone can point to as a sliding doors moment, even if that requires a bit of "yada yada momentum" hocus pocus to prove the point.
 
It's very common for people to fall victim to this. A blackjack player may sit down at a table and play every hand by the book because they know that statistically that gives them the best chance of winning the most hands over the long run. But then if on their last hand they push all their chips in and bet $600 and flop a 16 against a dealer's face card they are MUCH more likely to decide to stand on that 16 even if the book says otherwise, even though all throughout their playing they've been following the book and they know that statistically it is the wrong decision. Because it is safer and that feels better when the stakes are higher. But it's still the wrong play.
Blackjack is not really an equivalent comparison. Blackjack is 100% straight statistics. Nothing changes those statistics at all. It's not like this dealer is better at getting small cards than the dealer you played against last week. Or this dealer is really good at getting blackjacks. The cards are what they are and are always 52 in a deck and there percentages don't change because of anything.

Football has differing opponents, differing people running the play this time vs last 100 times, it has a different impact if it's first quarter vs the two minute warning. It is different if the defense is down to their 4th string CB or the left tackle is injured and can't move so the QB will have a second less time to throw. Analytics is a piece of the information that the coach needs to factor into his decision making but he also has to factor all the other current game situations/scenarios which will skew the analytics for that single play.

The best coaches know how to utilize all that information and right now I don't think Campbell does that. He is a gambler and wants to always do the aggressive play. That isn't always the right decision because of current game factors that can't be in the historical analytical model.
 
Onsides kicks have had their rules changed where it is much harder to recover the kick. Starting the season off with a play that has a 5% or less chance of success is just dumb.
You may not recover but that is far from making it "just dumb". A surprise gives you the best chance you will have and the downside is pretty minimal at that point in the game. Having a low success rate does not necessarily equate to being a dumb choice.
5% success rate means you do it only when it is a last choice. Starting a game off with a desperate play is dumb.
I don't have a strong opinion on that specific decision, but I assume the 5% number is mostly situations where the team is required to attempt an onside kick and the defense is expecting it. Surprise attempts are completely different. I would also guess that in most of those situations, the team sees something in coverage that leads them to think they could get away with it. That was definitely the case with the Saints' onside kick in the Super Bowl. I think they saw something on tape with Hank Baskett.
 
There was nothing wrong with the decision to go for it on 4th down the first time. Everyone who disagrees needs to really pay attention to the way they think and talk about it. It's always "you have to take the points" because [all the consequences of not picking up the first]. As if there are only two things that could've happened - they could've made the kick, or failed to pick up the first. Of course if those are the only two outcomes, it would make sense to kick, but they're not. You could:

A. Make the FG
B. Miss the FG
C. Pick up the 1st down
D. Not pick up the 1st down

People consistently overweight A and D in these conversations. It's the same as all the "should you go for 2 when down by 14" type discussions. If you put an appropriate amount of weight on all four possible outcomes, it's a much different calculus. What if they missed the kick? What if the WR caught the ball on 4th down? Why are we supposed to ignore those possibilities when considering whether or not it was a justifiable decision?
While the net result is the same between a missed FG and failed 4th down attempt, a stop on 4th down is possibly the biggest momentum shifter in a game. When you fail on a 4th down attempt, you’re putting a massive shot of adrenaline into the other team. The only bigger momentum shifters in football (imo) is a pick/fumble 6 (or deep into the opponent’s territory), or a special teams TD.

Momentum is very real, so when doing the calculus in A to D, that should be considered.

That first 4th down was the turning point of this game.
San Fran missed a 48 yard FG in the first half. That gave the Lions the momentum for almost the rest of the first half. Momentum is hard to quantify. Detroit had a first and goal from the 7 late in the first half. The only time Campbell blinked the entire game was when he "settled" for the field goal at the end of the half. It can be argued that the Niners holding Detroit to that field goal was the biggest momentum changer of the whole game.
 
2019 Divisional Round, Texans at Chiefs. Houston races out to a 21-0 lead, then drives down and faces 4th and 1 from the KC 13. BOB plays it safe and kicks the FG to make it effectively a four-score game with 10:54 left in the first half. Obviously, having not suffered the crushing indignity of a missed 4th-down conversion, the Texans maintained their momentum and went on to pull off the mega-upset of the Chiefs, then went on to win the franchise's first-ever Super Bowl.

Oh wait, what actually happened is that the Chiefs scored 41 unanswered points and won 51-31.
Well, dum-dum Bill O'Brien did try a fake punt after the Chiefs went up 24-7. And failed.
 
I think Shanahan made a huge mistake when he had Moody attempt a 48-yard field goal at the end of the 49ers' first drive. Apparently you don't have to actually have a human being kick the ball through the uprights from far away in that situation. You can just "take the points". He should've just gone to the officials and said "We're taking the points. Please add 3 to our score" like Campbell is allowed to do in everyone's calculations.
 
2019 Divisional Round, Texans at Chiefs. Houston races out to a 21-0 lead, then drives down and faces 4th and 1 from the KC 13. BOB plays it safe and kicks the FG to make it effectively a four-score game with 10:54 left in the first half. Obviously, having not suffered the crushing indignity of a missed 4th-down conversion, the Texans maintained their momentum and went on to pull off the mega-upset of the Chiefs, then went on to win the franchise's first-ever Super Bowl.

Oh wait, what actually happened is that the Chiefs scored 41 unanswered points and won 51-31.
Well, dum-dum Bill O'Brien did try a fake punt after the Chiefs went up 24-7. And failed.
You're right. Clearly that shifted the momentum and was the reason they gave up 51 points to Mahomes
 
I think Shanahan made a huge mistake when he had Moody attempt a 48-yard field goal at the end of the 49ers' first drive. Apparently you don't have to actually have a human being kick the ball through the uprights from far away in that situation. You can just "take the points". He should've just gone to the officials and said "We're taking the points. Please add 3 to our score" like Campbell is allowed to do in everyone's calculations.
Biggest mistake was trying to beat the Lions with a UM grad. He should have cut Moody last week and signed someone who went to Ohio State
 
Onsides kicks have had their rules changed where it is much harder to recover the kick. Starting the season off with a play that has a 5% or less chance of success is just dumb.
You may not recover but that is far from making it "just dumb". A surprise gives you the best chance you will have and the downside is pretty minimal at that point in the game. Having a low success rate does not necessarily equate to being a dumb choice.
5% success rate means you do it only when it is a last choice. Starting a game off with a desperate play is dumb.
I completely disagree. Trying an onside kick to start a season is based on seeing something or trying to surprise which skews the 5% success rate based on the defending team knowing it is coming. The risk is also not game ending as you have 59 minutes left to play of game clock to recover if you didn't succeed. It's a calculated risk.....not a blanketly dumb choice.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top