Should Dan Campbell have kicked a FG in the 2nd Half of the NFCC? (1 Viewer)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

If the game was played by robots....then this would be true.

A lot of this is about statistical probabilities thought - I’m pretty sure the analytics don’t change because the win puts them in the SB vs a regular season win, no?

Math is robotic like that.

That is my exact point. The analytics doesn't factor in pressure and if the game was played by robots that weren't affected by pressure than the statistical probabilities being cited would be more accurate.

Related: I would totally watch robot football.

 

[jon_mx]

Earlier decisions by Campbell don't mean much of anything. He's using a "style" of coaching instead of adjusting to situation.

The Dallas game is a good example with the 2-point conversion, but the one in question here rivals it. No thought to anything else but being aggressive.

It's something he'll have to get over. It's ok to be aggressive in general, but Campbell definitely has some maturing to do as a HC. You can't out-tough you're way through the NFL.

Dan has nothing 'to get over'.

 

[AAABatteries]

I haven’t read the whole thread and while I voted he should have kicked, I don‘t think it was a horrible decision. The problem I had with it is I felt that was the single option which could have the most impact on the momentum of the game. If they kick and make it, they restore the 17 pt. lead and get a boost of confidence.

The thing I still don’t get is folks who think they should have gone for 1 or 2 of the 3 kicks.

 

[Spartans Rule]

The thing I still don’t get is folks who think they should have gone for 1 or 2 of the 3 kicks.

Well one of the kicks was a 21-yarder and the other two would've been 45 and 47. The abilities of Michael Badgley have been debated throughout the thread, but those last two are by no means automatic for him.

 

[Stoneworker]

The thing I still don’t get is folks who think they should have gone for 1 or 2 of the 3 kicks.

I like the FG attempt at the end of the first half a) to go up three scores and b) not risk giving up 30 minutes of momentum with one failed 4th down play

I like the FG attempt in the 3rd quarter a) to go up three scores, b) shorten the game significantly, c) not risk giving up 45 minute of momentum with one failed 4th down play, d) contrary to what many in here think a 45 yd field goal for an NFL kicker who had already made three 35yd XPs in the game and not missed a kick in the playoffs is not risky

I didn't like a FG attempt in the 4th quarter a) because the Lions defense had given up 4 straight scores so it was now a shootout, b) Lions were spiraling on both sides of the ball with negative momentum and needed a spark

 

[Football Jones]

Earlier decisions by Campbell don't mean much of anything. He's using a "style" of coaching instead of adjusting to situation.

The Dallas game is a good example with the 2-point conversion, but the one in question here rivals it. No thought to anything else but being aggressive.

It's something he'll have to get over. It's ok to be aggressive in general, but Campbell definitely has some maturing to do as a HC. You can't out-tough you're way through the NFL.

Dan has nothing 'to get over'.

That's exactly the danger.

Keep going after those kneecaps, Dan. It works against good teams on occasion...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

The NFCCG is not the same circumstance as the decisions he's made all year. Different circumstances, different strategies. If he's not capable of adjusting, that's a liability imo. On the road with a 14-point lead and the SB on the line isn't the same as a week 7 at home.

Plus, "past performance" and all that. Just because it worked before doesn't mean it's the right move in those circumstances. The Lions were great running the ball near the goal line, but it cost them a valuable time out. I agree Campbell was consistent. I'm just not sure that's to his credit here.

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

At home, on the road, with the SB on the line, with a regular season win on the line - it’s still a football game. The object of the game isn’t any different.

I’m not sure I completely agree, but I’ve seen that argument made.

I believe the game situation is far more relevant for those decisions - what’s the score, how much time is left, etc.

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL. It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

But that pressure NEVER makes a mediocre kicker who hadn't attempted an outdoor field goal over 41 yards in 14 months miss a 48 yard field goal.

 

[Football Jones]

I think the debacle in Dallas with the refs partially hid the ridiculous decision to go for 2 from the 7. He should’ve gotten more heat for that one, but the narrative got redirected.

I believe Campbell’s strengths are setting a culture and getting the team to play hard. Whether he ultimately has the knowledge to take them all the way, is a big question mark.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

The NFCCG is not the same circumstance as the decisions he's made all year. Different circumstances, different strategies. If he's not capable of adjusting, that's a liability imo. On the road with a 14-point lead and the SB on the line isn't the same as a week 7 at home.

Plus, "past performance" and all that. Just because it worked before doesn't mean it's the right move in those circumstances. The Lions were great running the ball near the goal line, but it cost them a valuable time out. I agree Campbell was consistent. I'm just not sure that's to his credit here.

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

At home, on the road, with the SB on the line, with a regular season win on the line - it’s still a football game. The object of the game isn’t any different.

I’m not sure I completely agree, but I’ve seen that argument made.

I believe the game situation is far more relevant for those decisions - what’s the score, how much time is left, etc.

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL. It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

But that pressure NEVER makes a mediocre kicker who hadn't attempted an outdoor field goal over 41 yards in 14 months miss a 48 yard field goal.

I have to disagree with you. It could, but I think that was your point. So then we have to ask, why was Campbell so poorly-prepared for the championship game that he'd go into it with a mediocre kicker who hasn't attempted a long FG in a while? Why not sign a better one during the playoffs?

If he was happy with Badgley, then it's on him, right?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL. It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

Did pressure actually cause all those things, or do we just decide that's what happened whenever someone underperforms in the postseason? Even if there was no such thing as pressure, some players would randomly have off nights in big games, and some would just struggle with the stronger competition. I'm not sure the Bills choked so much as the Redskins and Cowboys were really good.

Another thing with human elements - it's been said a few times in the thread that anyone who played sports knows these things are real. And probably all of us played sports, but at what level? Youth, rec league, high school, maybe college in some cases, few if any professional. At lower levels, you'll have kids who literally tremble in pressure situations, some who give up at the first sign of adversity, others who don't care in the first place, etc. Of course psychological factors play a large role in those games. By the time you get to the pro level, everyone's been in many big games and those who can't handle it have largely been filtered out. That's not to say NFL players never fail due to pressure, but I think we're way too quick to assume that's the reason.

I see what you're saying. I think the kids who can't handle the small pressure situations do get filtered out. But there's no litmus test for the Super Bowl. And even if there was, we don't know if they experienced it at the college level (only a coupe teams get to play in the title game).

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

The NFCCG is not the same circumstance as the decisions he's made all year. Different circumstances, different strategies. If he's not capable of adjusting, that's a liability imo. On the road with a 14-point lead and the SB on the line isn't the same as a week 7 at home.

Plus, "past performance" and all that. Just because it worked before doesn't mean it's the right move in those circumstances. The Lions were great running the ball near the goal line, but it cost them a valuable time out. I agree Campbell was consistent. I'm just not sure that's to his credit here.

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

At home, on the road, with the SB on the line, with a regular season win on the line - it’s still a football game. The object of the game isn’t any different.

I’m not sure I completely agree, but I’ve seen that argument made.

I believe the game situation is far more relevant for those decisions - what’s the score, how much time is left, etc.

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL. It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

But that pressure NEVER makes a mediocre kicker who hadn't attempted an outdoor field goal over 41 yards in 14 months miss a 48 yard field goal.

I have to disagree with you. It could, but I think that was your point. So then we have to ask, why was Campbell so poorly-prepared for the championship game that he'd go into it with a mediocre kicker who hasn't attempted a long FG in a while? Why not sign a better one during the playoffs?

If he was happy with Badgley, then it's on him, right?

I mean, that’s supply & demand. It’s not like they coulda signed Tucker and flown him in for the game.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL. It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

Did pressure actually cause all those things, or do we just decide that's what happened whenever someone underperforms in the postseason? Even if there was no such thing as pressure, some players would randomly have off nights in big games, and some would just struggle with the stronger competition. I'm not sure the Bills choked so much as the Redskins and Cowboys were really good.

Another thing with human elements - it's been said a few times in the thread that anyone who played sports knows these things are real. And probably all of us played sports, but at what level? Youth, rec league, high school, maybe college in some cases, few if any professional. At lower levels, you'll have kids who literally tremble in pressure situations, some who give up at the first sign of adversity, others who don't care in the first place, etc. Of course psychological factors play a large role in those games. By the time you get to the pro level, everyone's been in many big games and those who can't handle it have largely been filtered out. That's not to say NFL players never fail due to pressure, but I think we're way too quick to assume that's the reason.

I see what you're saying. I think the kids who can't handle the small pressure situations do get filtered out. But there's no litmus test for the Super Bowl. And even if there was, we don't know if they experienced it at the college level (only a coupe teams get to play in the title game).

Well the title of this thread is "should Dan Campbell have kicked a FG in the 2nd half", not "which kicker should the Lions GM have signed 2 months ago?". So I assume in answering the former we're operating within the bounds of the options at hand, and not some made-up scenario where he had prime Adam Vinatieri.

But regardless, the point is nothing is more synonymous with pressure than a "pressure kick". So it's extremely silly to say that we need to assume pressure would make the conversion more difficult on the offense than normal but not apply the same assumption to the kick.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I did cover the Tucker vs Badgley argument in the post, so I like to think I accounted for it. But no doubt which one is the more confidence-inspiring kicker.

Also, a very good lesson in why we shouldn’t let players have nicknames until they’ve achieved a certain level of success.

“Money badger” was cute and all, but man did that dude’s shine fade in a hurry.

Agreed. "Danny Dimes" comes to mind as well.

Or worse , given a nickname that is already claimed, ARod anyone?

Also “slim reaper”, KD’s long time nickname that’s being foisted on Davonte Smith.

LT has entered the chat

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I did cover the Tucker vs Badgley argument in the post, so I like to think I accounted for it. But no doubt which one is the more confidence-inspiring kicker.

Also, a very good lesson in why we shouldn’t let players have nicknames until they’ve achieved a certain level of success.

“Money badger” was cute and all, but man did that dude’s shine fade in a hurry.

Agreed. "Danny Dimes" comes to mind as well.

Or worse , given a nickname that is already claimed, ARod anyone?

Also “slim reaper”, KD’s long time nickname that’s being foisted on Davonte Smith.

LT has entered the chat

I believe Tomlinson went by “LT2”, and was dubbed such by his fans, not by himself (as Badgley did)

Also LT2 more than earned the right to a nickname.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Incidentally, one of the key plays of that game was also a question of risk tolerance. On the strip sack, Shanny dialed up a bomb and had a WR open behind the secondary for what would likely have been a game-icing TD, but Freeman whiffed on the blitz pickup and Hightower sacked Ryan before he could get the pass off. Was that play call an unnecessary risk or a smart attempt to deliver a kill shot that resulted in the worst-case scenario coming to pass? It's impossible to answer, other than to say that it didn't work out

I like the swiss cheese effect as an example for this and it corresponds to the risk tolerance you are talking about. By going for the long pass play call you are deciding to align your cheese slices in a way that gives a portion of holes to line up to allow the bad thing to happen. It may give less holes to get part way through but it gives more of a hole to get all the way through. The time in the game is the number of slices. The score the number of holes. Choosing to pass over run aligns 4 slices to give a path through them all. Choosing run over pass doesn't give a path to get through four slices but gives more holes to get to slice two and start over again. I like the analogy.

Right, and I get the argument that when up big you should err on the side of caution. But obviously you can take it too far. As I said in my earlier post, if the Lions came out in the second half and ran the ball on every play that wouldn't be prudent, it would be idiotic. Similarly, if the play had been 4th and goal from the 1 instead of 4th and 3 from the 30, I think "taking the points" would be a clearly suboptimal decision and a coach would deserve criticism for being too passive

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I did cover the Tucker vs Badgley argument in the post, so I like to think I accounted for it. But no doubt which one is the more confidence-inspiring kicker.

Also, a very good lesson in why we shouldn’t let players have nicknames until they’ve achieved a certain level of success.

“Money badger” was cute and all, but man did that dude’s shine fade in a hurry.

Agreed. "Danny Dimes" comes to mind as well.

Or worse , given a nickname that is already claimed, ARod anyone?

Also “slim reaper”, KD’s long time nickname that’s being foisted on Davonte Smith.

LT has entered the chat

I believe Tomlinson went by “LT2”, and was dubbed such by his fans, not by himself (as Badgley did)

Also LT2 more than earned the right to a nickname.

I have never heard "LT2" but I've heard people call him LT for years

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I have never heard "LT2" but I've heard people call him LT for years

Really? LT2 is the only nickname I’ve ever heard for him.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

The NFCCG is not the same circumstance as the decisions he's made all year. Different circumstances, different strategies. If he's not capable of adjusting, that's a liability imo. On the road with a 14-point lead and the SB on the line isn't the same as a week 7 at home.

Plus, "past performance" and all that. Just because it worked before doesn't mean it's the right move in those circumstances. The Lions were great running the ball near the goal line, but it cost them a valuable time out. I agree Campbell was consistent. I'm just not sure that's to his credit here.

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

At home, on the road, with the SB on the line, with a regular season win on the line - it’s still a football game. The object of the game isn’t any different.

I’m not sure I completely agree, but I’ve seen that argument made.

I believe the game situation is far more relevant for those decisions - what’s the score, how much time is left, etc.

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL. It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

But that pressure NEVER makes a mediocre kicker who hadn't attempted an outdoor field goal over 41 yards in 14 months miss a 48 yard field goal.

I have to disagree with you. It could, but I think that was your point. So then we have to ask, why was Campbell so poorly-prepared for the championship game that he'd go into it with a mediocre kicker who hasn't attempted a long FG in a while? Why not sign a better one during the playoffs?

If he was happy with Badgley, then it's on him, right?

Kickers are weird, man. I saw someone in one of these threads saying the Lions need to go out and make sure they get a good kicker next year. I think that would be the dumbest thing they could do. That mindset is how you end up drafting Aguayo in the third round or pulling whatever crazy **** Nagy did after the double doink. I mean, I'd love it if the Lions could improve their kicking game, but investing a lot of draft capital/FA money in the position is by no means a guarantee that they will do so

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Something that finally hit me reading through this thread: All discussions of stats in this context are pretty meaningless. "The numbers", which is to say the league averages, are mostly inconclusive. It's fine to make arguments as to why additional factors suggest Campbell should have erred one way or another, but any stats you cite -- in either direction -- are most likely cherry picked numbers to support your chosen position. They're not going to prove anything. Ultimately, it was a judgment call.

 

[DropKick]

Haven't read through everything but, yes, I kick the FG to go up 17 in the 3rd quarter. Context is everything and this game situation, not unlike the 2 point attempt from the seven yard line again Dallas, called for the kick. I think I also kick the FG to tie the game late, although that one was a little longer (49 vs. 45?) and there had been a major shift in momentum. A little more on the fence for the latter.

 

[DropKick]

Something that finally hit me reading through this thread: All discussions of stats in this context are pretty meaningless. "The numbers", which is to say the league averages, are mostly inconclusive. It's fine to make arguments as to why additional factors suggest Campbell should have erred one way or another, but any stats you cite -- in either direction -- are most likely cherry picked numbers to support your chosen position. They're not going to prove anything. Ultimately, it was a judgment call.

I find that 92% of all stats are just made up at the moment so can't put too much stock in them.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Anyway, back to my point: we weren't arguing about analytics or intuition. You were saying that momentum exists, and my point was that, even if it did, why would it argue in favor of one decision or another, since any decision you make could cause some sort of momentum swing?

I think the reason it matters is because the outcome doesn't provide equal momentum swings. Just as @Neil Beaufort Zod pointed out with his pizza example, the momentum gain by picking up the 4th down at that point in the game with that lead wasn't as big of a swing in overall momentum as the gain the 49ers would receive by stopping Detroit from picking up the first down. So part of the choice that should factor into the decision to go for it is what kind of swing in momentum could occur if we don't get the 1st down. Is that gain by your opponent worth the risk of going for it over attempting the FG?

Lets say momentum has a scale of 100% Detroit all the way to 100% SF and it's a sliding scale. So if at the point of the decision for the 4th down attempt I would estimate that the point of momentum on the scale was at 45% on the Detroit side of zero. SF had just kicked a FG after a decent drive to bring it to a two score game. Det still had control but SF was gaining ground on the MoScale. By my estimations going for the 4th down and getting it would slide the scale to 50% Det....a 5% gain. On the other hand, a 4th down stop would be a 40% gain by SF bringing the scale all the way down to 5% Det. They would still have the lead by two scores but a big ***** in the armor occurred as the SF defense showed they could hold the offense that gambles and wins at 75% on 4th and 3 on the year. Big Win for SF. As a coach the law of diminishing returns comes into play and while the analytics shows a slight advantage in EV to go for it, it gets outweighed by the downside of not making it as it gives SF a boost that I would want to stay away from.

Compare that the FG attempt. Det is at the same 45% on the scale and I would say making a FG increases the MoScale by 2% while missing it would be be bigger for SF but not as big as a 4th down spot. Because the defense did hold them....the didn't really stop them. So I would put that MoScale adjustment to a swing of 20% shifting the scale to Det at 25%.

Now in order to quantify these analytics we would need to go over play of every game and decide on an average percentage point gain/loss for every scenario there is. Bring in psychologists, ex players, coaches, fans (because fans do contribute to momentum) to figure out how this calculates out. You would need to know each players internal drive/emotion etc. It would be interesting if it could be done. I think this is what the analytics side is trying to get at. How do you quantify this swing for each outcome so it can go into a mathematical formula to come up with an ultimate "right" decision tree. But because there are 100's of humans involved in this it makes the variables incredibly hard to quantify. Each human's makeup is different so there isn't a way to know how much confidence (momentum) a stop gives to SF vs loss of confidence to Det. It's very complicated for sure. But it does exist.

NOTE: Percentages in the example are estimated based on nothing but my football viewing/playing experiences over the years. It did not include any actual historical data. No animals were harmed in these studies.

See, I think this is the difference in how we approach this. We both recognize (as everyone should) that there will always be factors you can't quantify. But you view momentum as unquantifiable but still very real. I view it as so undefinable that it's basically pointless to try to account for it in making decisions.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

The NFCCG is not the same circumstance as the decisions he's made all year. Different circumstances, different strategies. If he's not capable of adjusting, that's a liability imo. On the road with a 14-point lead and the SB on the line isn't the same as a week 7 at home.

Plus, "past performance" and all that. Just because it worked before doesn't mean it's the right move in those circumstances. The Lions were great running the ball near the goal line, but it cost them a valuable time out. I agree Campbell was consistent. I'm just not sure that's to his credit here.

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

At home, on the road, with the SB on the line, with a regular season win on the line - it’s still a football game. The object of the game isn’t any different.

I’m not sure I completely agree, but I’ve seen that argument made.

I believe the game situation is far more relevant for those decisions - what’s the score, how much time is left, etc.

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL. It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

But that pressure NEVER makes a mediocre kicker who hadn't attempted an outdoor field goal over 41 yards in 14 months miss a 48 yard field goal.

I have to disagree with you. It could, but I think that was your point. So then we have to ask, why was Campbell so poorly-prepared for the championship game that he'd go into it with a mediocre kicker who hasn't attempted a long FG in a while? Why not sign a better one during the playoffs?

If he was happy with Badgley, then it's on him, right?

Kickers are weird, man. I saw someone in one of these threads saying the Lions need to go out and make sure they get a good kicker next year. I think that would be the dumbest thing they could do. That mindset is how you end up drafting Aguayo in the third round or pulling whatever crazy **** Nagy did after the double doink. I mean, I'd love it if the Lions could improve their kicking game, but investing a lot of draft capital/FA money in the position is by no means a guarantee that they will do so

I'm a believer in kickers for real teams (and, to an extent, fantasy teams). The concept of "just get whoever" has burned so many teams by costing them a point or two, and then a game or two, and then they miss the playoffs by one game. It's like they never learn to just put some capital into the position.

I agree abut the draft, though. Just get a solid one in free agency. I know it doesn't guarantee anything, but maybe part of Campbell's "go for it" strategy would be affected by having a more-reliable guy. If they overpay for a kicker, so what? They don't get that third-string lineman they really wanted? Pretend it's an important position already. Vinatieri sure worked out well for the Patriots, and some of their three-point SB victories.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I have never heard "LT2" but I've heard people call him LT for years

Really? LT2 is the only nickname I’ve ever heard for him.

Me too. LT would be a direct comparison to Lawrence Taylor, and we know how Belichick feels about that...

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think it was earlier in this thread where someone asked whether we could measure Campbell's impact across the season, and I said I thought I had seen a study. This is what I was thinking of: https://x.com/ericeager_/status/1752716275707425116?s=20

Dan Campbell added 1.04 wins above the average coach on in-game decisions during the 2023 season, which was twice as much as any other coach in football. He was a big reason they were even there.

this is why I decided that going for it was the right move both times. Because it’s how he’s managed all year and it’s worked for him all year.

And were it not for a couple drops if would have worked for him in the NFCC as well.

The NFCCG is not the same circumstance as the decisions he's made all year. Different circumstances, different strategies. If he's not capable of adjusting, that's a liability imo. On the road with a 14-point lead and the SB on the line isn't the same as a week 7 at home.

Plus, "past performance" and all that. Just because it worked before doesn't mean it's the right move in those circumstances. The Lions were great running the ball near the goal line, but it cost them a valuable time out. I agree Campbell was consistent. I'm just not sure that's to his credit here.

One might argue that a football game is a football game.

At home, on the road, with the SB on the line, with a regular season win on the line - it’s still a football game. The object of the game isn’t any different.

I’m not sure I completely agree, but I’ve seen that argument made.

I believe the game situation is far more relevant for those decisions - what’s the score, how much time is left, etc.

I think the playoffs bring another kind of pressure. The Super Bowl caused Barret Robbins to go AWOL. It caused the Bills to consistently play below their capabilities (except the first one). It brought out the worst in Marty Schottenheimer. These games are different, and while you have to stay true to yourself, you can't treat them like week 3 when you're trying to prove "there's a new sheriff in town."

But that pressure NEVER makes a mediocre kicker who hadn't attempted an outdoor field goal over 41 yards in 14 months miss a 48 yard field goal.

I have to disagree with you. It could, but I think that was your point. So then we have to ask, why was Campbell so poorly-prepared for the championship game that he'd go into it with a mediocre kicker who hasn't attempted a long FG in a while? Why not sign a better one during the playoffs?

If he was happy with Badgley, then it's on him, right?

Kickers are weird, man. I saw someone in one of these threads saying the Lions need to go out and make sure they get a good kicker next year. I think that would be the dumbest thing they could do. That mindset is how you end up drafting Aguayo in the third round or pulling whatever crazy **** Nagy did after the double doink. I mean, I'd love it if the Lions could improve their kicking game, but investing a lot of draft capital/FA money in the position is by no means a guarantee that they will do so

I'm a believer in kickers for real teams (and, to an extent, fantasy teams). The concept of "just get whoever" has burned so many teams by costing them a point or two, and then a game or two, and then they miss the playoffs by one game. It's like they never learn to just put some capital into the position.

I agree abut the draft, though. Just get a solid one in free agency. I know it doesn't guarantee anything, but maybe part of Campbell's "go for it" strategy would be affected by having a more-reliable guy. If they overpay for a kicker, so what? They don't get that third-string lineman they really wanted? Pretend it's an important position already. Vinatieri sure worked out well for the Patriots, and some of their three-point SB victories.

To be fair, given the nature of this topic & HC, the DET K is less frequently used, so…

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Ol Mo is a real thing. There’s something to be said for what it does for your opponent when they stop you on 4th down vs what it does to them when you put points on the board imo

 

[Snotbubbles]

No. You stay true to what you've done all season.

 

[Bankerguy]

I think the debacle in Dallas with the refs partially hid the ridiculous decision to go for 2 from the 7. He should’ve gotten more heat for that one, but the narrative got redirected.

I believe Campbell’s strengths are setting a culture and getting the team to play hard. Whether he ultimately has the knowledge to take them all the way, is a big question mark.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I think the debacle in Dallas with the refs partially hid the ridiculous decision to go for 2 from the 7. He should’ve gotten more heat for that one, but the narrative got redirected.

I believe Campbell’s strengths are setting a culture and getting the team to play hard. Whether he ultimately has the knowledge to take them all the way, is a big question mark.

Like most gutsy calls, when they work, you look like a genius. When they don't work, you look like an idiot.

 

[gdub]

Can someone help me understand the thought process Campbell had going for that 2 point conversion from the 7 against the Cowboys. I’ve been following this thread and I hear about analytics and % of success on 4th downs etc.. Are his decisions rooted in analytics, emotions or both? That 2 point conversion seemed more about being pissed about how they got screwed by the refs. That 2 point try from the 7 was reckless imo. I am shocked people weren’t more outraged about that decision. There should have been some internal discussion within the organization about his aggressiveness moving forward.

 

[JohnnyU]

Can someone help me understand the thought process Campbell had going for that 2 point conversion from the 7 against the Cowboys. I’ve been following this thread and I hear about analytics and % of success on 4th downs etc.. Are his decisions rooted in analytics, emotions or both? That 2 point conversion seemed more about being pissed about how they got screwed by the refs. That 2 point try from the 7 was reckless imo. I am shocked people weren’t more outraged about that decision. There should have been some internal discussion within the organization about his aggressiveness moving forward.

Yeah, that was beyond dumb on Campbell’s part. I was like WTF is he doing? Stubborn? Insane?

 

[Bankerguy]

Can someone help me understand the thought process Campbell had going for that 2 point conversion from the 7 against the Cowboys. I’ve been following this thread and I hear about analytics and % of success on 4th downs etc.. Are his decisions rooted in analytics, emotions or both? That 2 point conversion seemed more about being pissed about how they got screwed by the refs. That 2 point try from the 7 was reckless imo. I am shocked people weren’t more outraged about that decision. There should have been some internal discussion within the organization about his aggressiveness moving forward.

I was all over calling this out at the time.

I also in general thought the whole idea of trying to trick Dallas by running 3 guys over to a ref fake reporting (only to have Allen run over and tell Dallas) who was eligible. All of this with the #2 seed on the line.

It was ill conceived. Also, in his post game PC it was clear DC was not clear on the rules.

His thought process is what is in question for me.

 

[jon_mx]

Can someone help me understand the thought process Campbell had going for that 2 point conversion from the 7 against the Cowboys. I’ve been following this thread and I hear about analytics and % of success on 4th downs etc.. Are his decisions rooted in analytics, emotions or both? That 2 point conversion seemed more about being pissed about how they got screwed by the refs. That 2 point try from the 7 was reckless imo. I am shocked people weren’t more outraged about that decision. There should have been some internal discussion within the organization about his aggressiveness moving forward.

That decision was more about Dan Campbell's character. He told the team before the drive they were going to score and go for two. On the road and with confidence in your offense to dial up a play from the 2 it makes sense from an analytical standpoint. After the penalty, it was not the percentage play. But Dan Campbell told his offense they were going for two and he was not going back on his word. He is not the kind of guy who backs off from his word because circumstance changes. You can say that is dumb and stubborn, but to Dan Campbell integrity is far more important.

 

[JohnnyU]

Can someone help me understand the thought process Campbell had going for that 2 point conversion from the 7 against the Cowboys. I’ve been following this thread and I hear about analytics and % of success on 4th downs etc.. Are his decisions rooted in analytics, emotions or both? That 2 point conversion seemed more about being pissed about how they got screwed by the refs. That 2 point try from the 7 was reckless imo. I am shocked people weren’t more outraged about that decision. There should have been some internal discussion within the organization about his aggressiveness moving forward.

That decision was more about Dan Campbell's character. He told the team before the drive they were going to score and go for two. On the road and with confidence in your offense to dial up a play from the 2 it makes sense from an analytical standpoint. After the penalty, it was not the percentage play. But Dan Campbell told his offense they were going for two and he was not going back on his word. He is not the kind of guy who backs off from his word because circumstance changes. You can say that is dumb and stubborn, but to Dan Campbell integrity is far more important.

Then perhaps he needs to not put himself in a position where he doesn’t feel he can adjust on the fly. Your response was pert near funny.

 

[Stoneworker]

But Dan Campbell told his offense they were going for two and he was not going back on his word. He is not the kind of guy who backs off from his word because circumstance changes. You can say that is dumb and stubborn, but to Dan Campbell integrity is far more important.

Dan Campbell is a great guy and coach, but your rationalization of his decision-making is bordering on comical.

A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances. -George S. Patton

 

[gdub]

That’s not a good look for a coach who makes up his mind and is not willing to change when the circumstances do. I agree that integrity is an important trait, but stubbornness and stupidity aren’t redeeming qualities for an nfl coach

 

[Gally]

Can someone help me understand the thought process Campbell had going for that 2 point conversion from the 7 against the Cowboys. I’ve been following this thread and I hear about analytics and % of success on 4th downs etc.. Are his decisions rooted in analytics, emotions or both? That 2 point conversion seemed more about being pissed about how they got screwed by the refs. That 2 point try from the 7 was reckless imo. I am shocked people weren’t more outraged about that decision. There should have been some internal discussion within the organization about his aggressiveness moving forward.

That decision was more about Dan Campbell's character. He told the team before the drive they were going to score and go for two. On the road and with confidence in your offense to dial up a play from the 2 it makes sense from an analytical standpoint. After the penalty, it was not the percentage play. But Dan Campbell told his offense they were going for two and he was not going back on his word. He is not the kind of guy who backs off from his word because circumstance changes. You can say that is dumb and stubborn, but to Dan Campbell integrity is far more important.

This is another brick in the wall for DC not being a good game coach. Again, really good motivator and leader but sometimes you have to adjust based on changing circumstances. It's great to say you are going for two and the win but when something changes good coaches change with it. It isn't a hit to their integrity it is a smart coach adjusting to circumstances.

 

[Gally]

No. You stay true to what you've done all season.

I think adjusting to that particular situation doesn't prevent you from being "true to what you've done all season". Circumstances dictate times you need aggression and times you need conservatism. It's not a one size fits all decision tree.

 

[Gally]

Anyway, back to my point: we weren't arguing about analytics or intuition. You were saying that momentum exists, and my point was that, even if it did, why would it argue in favor of one decision or another, since any decision you make could cause some sort of momentum swing?

I think the reason it matters is because the outcome doesn't provide equal momentum swings. Just as @Neil Beaufort Zod pointed out with his pizza example, the momentum gain by picking up the 4th down at that point in the game with that lead wasn't as big of a swing in overall momentum as the gain the 49ers would receive by stopping Detroit from picking up the first down. So part of the choice that should factor into the decision to go for it is what kind of swing in momentum could occur if we don't get the 1st down. Is that gain by your opponent worth the risk of going for it over attempting the FG?

Lets say momentum has a scale of 100% Detroit all the way to 100% SF and it's a sliding scale. So if at the point of the decision for the 4th down attempt I would estimate that the point of momentum on the scale was at 45% on the Detroit side of zero. SF had just kicked a FG after a decent drive to bring it to a two score game. Det still had control but SF was gaining ground on the MoScale. By my estimations going for the 4th down and getting it would slide the scale to 50% Det....a 5% gain. On the other hand, a 4th down stop would be a 40% gain by SF bringing the scale all the way down to 5% Det. They would still have the lead by two scores but a big ***** in the armor occurred as the SF defense showed they could hold the offense that gambles and wins at 75% on 4th and 3 on the year. Big Win for SF. As a coach the law of diminishing returns comes into play and while the analytics shows a slight advantage in EV to go for it, it gets outweighed by the downside of not making it as it gives SF a boost that I would want to stay away from.

Compare that the FG attempt. Det is at the same 45% on the scale and I would say making a FG increases the MoScale by 2% while missing it would be be bigger for SF but not as big as a 4th down spot. Because the defense did hold them....the didn't really stop them. So I would put that MoScale adjustment to a swing of 20% shifting the scale to Det at 25%.

Now in order to quantify these analytics we would need to go over play of every game and decide on an average percentage point gain/loss for every scenario there is. Bring in psychologists, ex players, coaches, fans (because fans do contribute to momentum) to figure out how this calculates out. You would need to know each players internal drive/emotion etc. It would be interesting if it could be done. I think this is what the analytics side is trying to get at. How do you quantify this swing for each outcome so it can go into a mathematical formula to come up with an ultimate "right" decision tree. But because there are 100's of humans involved in this it makes the variables incredibly hard to quantify. Each human's makeup is different so there isn't a way to know how much confidence (momentum) a stop gives to SF vs loss of confidence to Det. It's very complicated for sure. But it does exist.

NOTE: Percentages in the example are estimated based on nothing but my football viewing/playing experiences over the years. It did not include any actual historical data. No animals were harmed in these studies.

See, I think this is the difference in how we approach this. We both recognize (as everyone should) that there will always be factors you can't quantify. But you view momentum as unquantifiable but still very real. I view it as so undefinable that it's basically pointless to try to account for it in making decisions.

Interesting that you recognize momentum as real but since you can't define it you won't account for it. I think being in these moments and seeing how momentum does change throughout the course of the game should be something you learn to define/quantify through experience. Like someone said earlier that it's like the famous quote about porn......I know it when i see it. Experience should allow you to account for momentum when you see it. Experience will teach you how much to account for it for how you want to run your franchise. It's something that can differentiate coaches just as aggressiveness can be used to do that.

The best coaches will take it all in and base their decisions on all this information/experience. It all matters.

 

[Snotbubbles]

No. You stay true to what you've done all season.

I think adjusting to that particular situation doesn't prevent you from being "true to what you've done all season". Circumstances dictate times you need aggression and times you need conservatism. It's not a one size fits all decision tree.

I keep coming back to the 2017 Philadelphia Eagles. Doug Pedersen was probably one of the innovators in going for it and being aggressive. When he did the Philly Special instead of kicking a FG, it was that moment that won the Superbowl for Philly.

Honestly, Reynolds dropped two balls that should have been caught. The right call was made, the play was run and one guy just didn't execute. It happens. Campbell calls for a FG and the kicker misses, he's getting killed for not going for it. There's a difference between what he did against Dallas and what he did against SF.

 

[Gally]

There's a difference between what he did against Dallas and what he did against SF.

The two game situations were also vastly different. Going for two (before the penalty) is something an aggressively minded coach should be doing. Win it now as it was basically the ball game. You were down, you just drove the field on the road, win it now. I see it.

Against SF, you had the lead, you had dominated, and the only thing that might turn things around was a big stop by the defense. Why give them that chance? Totally different situation where the risk wasn't worth the reward (IMO). I love the aggressive approach of DC. If I was a Lions fan I wouldn't want that to change. But I think he needs to learn that you don't always have to be full pedal to the metal and when you have a game in hand you don't have to go for it all the time.

 

[Bankerguy]

No. You stay true to what you've done all season.

I think adjusting to that particular situation doesn't prevent you from being "true to what you've done all season". Circumstances dictate times you need aggression and times you need conservatism. It's not a one size fits all decision tree.

I keep coming back to the 2017 Philadelphia Eagles. Doug Pedersen was probably one of the innovators in going for it and being aggressive. When he did the Philly Special instead of kicking a FG, it was that moment that won the Superbowl for Philly.

Honestly, Reynolds dropped two balls that should have been caught. The right call was made, the play was run and one guy just didn't execute. It happens. Campbell calls for a FG and the kicker misses, he's getting killed for not going for it. There's a difference between what he did against Dallas and what he did against SF.

Biggest play of their season then if we embrace this mindset of this contestant aggression. The season changing play is a pass to their 3 WR.

It just doesn’t seem right to me.

 

[Gally]

I keep coming back to the 2017 Philadelphia Eagles. Doug Pedersen was probably one of the innovators in going for it and being aggressive. When he did the Philly Special instead of kicking a FG, it was that moment that won the Superbowl for Philly.

I don't think the Philly Special in the first half was the moment they won the game especially since the Patriots came back to take the lead in that game with 9 minutes left in the game.

 

[Joe Schmo]

A missed or blocked fg is also a defensive stop but one with even more ramifications for the Lions as they cede yards as well as the ball. That has to be at least as much of a momentum bump for the Niners as the unsuccessful conversion.

 

[Gally]

A missed or blocked fg is also a defensive stop but one with even more ramifications for the Lions as they cede yards as well as the ball. That has to be at least as much of a momentum bump for the Niners as the unsuccessful conversion.

I would agree a block would be more of a momentum swing (but less likely) while I think a missed FG is less of a momentum swing than a 4th down stop. A 4th stop by the defense is a huge lift for the defense. They stopped the other team. A missed FG doesn't have the same impact as you didn't really stop the other team. They got in a position for points. Different mental impact.

 

[Stoneworker]

A missed or blocked fg is also a defensive stop but one with even more ramifications for the Lions as they cede yards as well as the ball. That has to be at least as much of a momentum bump for the Niners as the unsuccessful conversion.

Nope. 4th down stops, goal line stands, turnovers. These are all greater momentum plays than a missed FG because they actively involve the defense and the crowd.

4th down plays are the ultimate macho showdown moments because one team is issuing a direct challenge to the other.

The added yards of a missed FG help the on-field situation, but not nearly as great a momentum swing.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Point being a fg attempt has it's perils and that has to be a part of the calculus when making a go or fg decision. Based on the kickers 22% fail rate from the distance it is not a factor to be tossed aside. Add in that a missed fg costs the Lions yds as well and that pushes the thinking toward going for it even further.

 

[Joe Schmo]

As to the momentum swing between a missed fg and a 4th down stop, I have no way of quantifying that and am not sure anyone else does so I'll take your word for it.

 

[Stoneworker]

Point being a fg attempt has it's perils and that has to be a part of the calculus when making a go or fg decision. Based on the kickers 22% fail rate from the distance it is not a factor to be tossed aside. Add in that a missed fg costs the Lions yds as well and that pushes the thinking toward going for it even further.

Agree that all ramifications of a potential missed FG should be taken into account in the calculus

 

[Gally]

Point being a fg attempt has it's perils and that has to be a part of the calculus when making a go or fg decision. Based on the kickers 22% fail rate from the distance it is not a factor to be tossed aside. Add in that a missed fg costs the Lions yds as well and that pushes the thinking toward going for it even further.

I completely agree that the FG miss ramifications need to be factored into the equation. I don't think anybody arguing for the FG attempt ignores the miss ramifications. It's part of the decision tree evaluation. For me those risks are less than the risk of the swing based on a 4th down stop.

What I hear from many of the go for it people is that since momentum isn't quantifiable they eliminate it from the equation. This is where I think the issue really falls between the two sides. Just because you can't quantify something that you know is real (to some level) doesn't mean it should be completely discounted. This is where game experience should be your guide. Good coaches will be better at accounting for this unquantifiable (but real) factor.