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

[Joe Schmo]

Good coaches put their players and teams in positions to succeed. They can't throw a pass, catch a ball, kick a fg or block but they can call a good play and get their player open for an easy reception.

 

[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.

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.

Dan Campbell is a top 5 head coach in the NFL. And by metrics is was the #1 Head Coach in game management with a win above replacement of over 1 which is twice as much as the second plave coach. This antiquated logic which favors punting and taking field goals and never going for 2 is not the optimal game strategy. Oh if you live in fear of the peanut gallery, you kick. If you want to put your team in the best position to win, you emulate Dan Campbell.

 

[Snotbubbles]

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.

It was at that moment that you knew, Pedersen was playing to win and not to lose. It's one of those energizing moments.

 

[Synthesizer]

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.

IMO Campbell knew that a win had already been taken away, so he didn't want to just play it safe and try for overtime. He wanted everyone to focus on the blown call by the ref, and he could use that in many ways over the following weeks. Extra motivation for his team, extra motivation for some home cooking by the refs in a home playoff game.

 

[Gally]

This antiquated logic which favors punting and taking field goals and never going for 2 is not the optimal game strategy.

I completely agree with this statement. I think being aggressive in more situations is the right answer but I think there are situations where kicking is still the right answer. Just blindly being aggressive no matter the game situation is an issue and will cost games.......especially in playoff games where the pressure is increased and the stakes are much higher. I think you can still be true to yourself (aggressive most of the time) and still account for game situation and adjust when necessary.

I would like to understand the metric better on why DC was the "best coach" in the league as far as wins earned goes. So far I have just seen the statement but haven't seen the math that makes this true. I don't blindly accept stats as they can be manipulated to the answer you are looking for. I would like to see what the assumptions, data, etc go into that metric.

 

[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.

It was at that moment that you knew, Pedersen was playing to win and not to lose. It's one of those energizing moments.

Oh so, momentum is a thing that affects how a game plays out.

 

[Gally]

Good coaches put their players and teams in positions to succeed. They can't throw a pass, catch a ball, kick a fg or block but they can call a good play and get their player open for an easy reception.

Good coaches should also know whether or not their WR3 can handle the pressure of a playoff game and execute the plays just like it was game 3 of the regular season and design plays accordingly.

Not nearly the same stakes at all, but I coached HS baseball for 15 years. Knowing what players can handle the pressure in a big spot is part of what makes a coach successful. It is more than just calling a good play or putting a player in a position to succeed. You also need to know what players will succeed in those positions when the pressure increases.

 

[Synthesizer]

Good coaches put their players and teams in positions to succeed. They can't throw a pass, catch a ball, kick a fg or block but they can call a good play and get their player open for an easy reception.

Good coaches should also know whether or not their WR3 can handle the pressure of a playoff game and execute the plays just like it was game 3 of the regular season and design plays accordingly.

That WR3 was handling playoff pressure pretty well up to that point. He had 5 catches for 80 yards in their first playoff game, and a touchdown in their second playoff game.

 

[Gally]

Good coaches put their players and teams in positions to succeed. They can't throw a pass, catch a ball, kick a fg or block but they can call a good play and get their player open for an easy reception.

Good coaches should also know whether or not their WR3 can handle the pressure of a playoff game and execute the plays just like it was game 3 of the regular season and design plays accordingly.

That WR3 was handling playoff pressure pretty well up to that point. He had 5 catches for 80 yards in their first playoff game, and a touchdown in their second playoff game.

Yep, and then he dropped a huge 4th down play followed by a bigger 3rd down play after that. Pressure? Just a routine drop? Loss of confidence? I have no idea.

 

[nysfl2]

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.

In a vacuum, going for it on the 7 is a bad decision. In the playoffs, or a game that they needed to win to make the playoffs, I think he would absolutely kick the extra point.

In that game, they were only playing for potentially getting the 2 vs 3 seed, and maybe getting an extra home playoff game depending on how things shook out, so he was willing to sacrifice a few percentage points of expected win percentage to avoid going to overtime and risking injuries during the extra period. I don't think he'd ever admit to it, but it was probably part of the equation. In retrospect, it was absolutely the right decision, since they got two home playoff games anyway.

Plus, he was pissed off.

 

[nysfl2]

Good coaches put their players and teams in positions to succeed. They can't throw a pass, catch a ball, kick a fg or block but they can call a good play and get their player open for an easy reception.

Good coaches should also know whether or not their WR3 can handle the pressure of a playoff game and execute the plays just like it was game 3 of the regular season and design plays accordingly.

That WR3 was handling playoff pressure pretty well up to that point. He had 5 catches for 80 yards in their first playoff game, and a touchdown in their second playoff game.

And several of those catches were very difficult. Reynolds is a guy that Goff has trusted for years - he's not a superstar, but he's reliable.

 

[Joe Schmo]

A kicker with a 22% failure rate from distance might succumb to pressure in a big spot as well.

Analytics, based on stats posted earlier in this thread, showed that either a fg attempt or conversion attempt offered similar value toward the end goal of winning the game. There is no wrong decision in this instance because it was a coinflip and Campbell chose the way he has all season which was go for it when the opportunity presents itself. Attempting the fg would be a fine decision but so was going for it, so to declare either the "right" call misstates the choice. The data includes opportunity lost by adding probabilities of missing the fg or failing to convert so that is baked into the cake.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Good coaches put their players and teams in positions to succeed. They can't throw a pass, catch a ball, kick a fg or block but they can call a good play and get their player open for an easy reception.

Good coaches should also know whether or not their WR3 can handle the pressure of a playoff game and execute the plays just like it was game 3 of the regular season and design plays accordingly.

That WR3 was handling playoff pressure pretty well up to that point. He had 5 catches for 80 yards in their first playoff game, and a touchdown in their second playoff game.

Also, the week before he iced the game on a 4th and goal run by his RB3. If it had failed we would all have said, “Why didn’t he hand it off to Monty?”

I have no idea if this was part of the equation, but if Campbell’s philosophy is that everyone on the roster should be prepared to step up in a key moment I don’t think that’s the worst thing.

BTW on the second 4th down attempt Goff missed that DPJ was open. Maybe the problem wasn’t that he targeted the WR3 but that he didn’t target the WR4

 

[JohnnyU]

 

[Football Jones]

The Lions were very likely one reckless decision away from a Super Bowl appearance. The good news it’s more than they possibly could’ve expected.

I’m curious how far they’ll go next season with Campbell, what looks to be a big extension for Goff, a first place schedule, and Green Bay looming with a possible franchise QB.

Interesting stuff.

 

[Instinctive]

The Lions were one unlucky bounce away from a Super Bowl appearance. The good news is that it's more than anyone outside the team expected.

I'm curious to see how far they'll go next season with Campbell steering through a possible big extension for Goff, a first place schedule, and Green Bay looming with a possible franchise QB.

Interesting stuff indeed!

 

[Instinctive]

The momentum thing blows my mind. It actually reminds me of a thread I pulled on with Kirk Goldsberry while I worked for the Spurs down in San Antonio. We came up with a definition of things that change momentum that everyone could agree on, and what impacts we expected to see and stuff, and then we tracked when those things happened and what happened in the games.

I won't belabor it too much (and it's not like we could publish it, technically the results belong to the Spurs), but the main takeaway was: momentum is a nonsense, meaningless thing with no correlation whatsoever to outcomes. It is purely a backwards-looking way to explain what happened that people want to emotionally understand, and for which the real answer is almost always "yeah sometimes **** happens and that was crazy lucky or unlucky." There's no predictive value at all.

It's not because the 49ers got a 4th down stop that a 50 yard pass took the unluckiest bounce ever off a guy who had a great chance to catch it and 999 times out of 1,000 ends up deflecting it into the ground. It's because a corner didn't quite make a play and it took a crazy (un)lucky bounce.

Jahmyr Gibbs didn't fumble it because they were up 7 instead of 10 points. He fumbled it because he's a rookie and he cut the wrong direction. It happens. Of the dozens times rookies made a slight wrong direction cut, I bet 5-10 of the plays actually had real impact and most of them nobody but the coaching staff ever noticed.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

One thing analytics does not take into account is momentum. The Lions had the momentum to start the second half. The 9ers opened the second half with a long drive, ending in a FG. That was a victory for the Lions because the 9ers desperately wanted to score a TD. The Lions then drove down the field to a position where a FG had a high probability of success. Had the Lions kicked the FG it would have put them up by 17 again.

When the 9ers held the Lions on 4th down it was a huge momentum shift. The 9ers subsequently drove down the field to score a TD.

Had the Lions gone up by 17 late in the 3rd quarter the 9ers likely had 3 more possessions in the game, requiring them to run a pass-heavy offense. This would have made the 9ers more predictable and play right into their weakness of playing from behind.

Absolutely no question in my mind that the Lions should have attempted the FG, regardless of what their approach was during the regular season.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

As a Lions fan there was no point where I wanted Badgley to take those kicks

 

[Hatch]

As a Lions fan there was no point where I wanted Badgley to take those kicks

I haven't found a Lions fan yet that disagrees with you... You guys are proud of your team and you're enjoying the aggressiveness and the wins it brought this season... I'll check back with Lions fans when the expectations are there to win and the aggressiveness costs you otherwise winnable games...Prime example is the L.A. Chargers...

 

[Gally]

I won't belabor it too much (and it's not like we could publish it, technically the results belong to the Spurs), but the main takeaway was: momentum is a nonsense, meaningless thing with no correlation whatsoever to outcomes. It is purely a backwards-looking way to explain what happened that people want to emotionally understand, and for which the real answer is almost always "yeah sometimes **** happens and that was crazy lucky or unlucky." There's no predictive value at all.

I completely understand this concept and would agree that trying to mathematically put a predictive value on momentum plays is impossible. But I also don't think it is meaningless to consider. I think the reason why it is impossible to assign a value is because every single play moves the needle so predictively how can you account for that. I can guarantee that the Spurs take timeouts to stop the other team's momentum build even though your analytics guys decided that "momentum is a nonsense, meaningless thing with no correlation whatsoever to outcomes"

In this particular instance, the fluky catch likely doesn't happen if there wasn't a 4th down stop. The stop didn't lead to the fluky play directly in a way that you could say if SF stops Det on 4th down they will be more likely to complete a 50 yd pass that deflected off the head of the DB when he should have intercepted it. But I am fairly confident that if they attempted the FG that fluky catch doesn't happen. It's not predictive but it is contributary. The fluky catch also added momentum to SF. You can't quantify it but I believe everyone can agree that it did give SF more life and lowered the life of Det.

In my mind, coaches should factor in the negative aspects of any given choice and weigh that against the game situation. Good coaches do this and appear "luckier" than bad coaches. This is the consideration I think momentum should be given. in other words, do we have the other team subdued enough based on the score and time left where they need a boost to start a comeback. Will a 4th down failure give them that boost? What is the likelihood they get that stop? What does a made FG do? What does a missed FG do? All of those should factor into the decision. There is some art into this decision making. It isn't a purely statistical decision because humans are involved.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

As a Lions fan there was no point where I wanted Badgley to take those kicks

Until they got inside 40 yards there was no way they weren't going for it. It's not like he's Justin Tucker.

 

[jon_mx]

As a Lions fan there was no point where I wanted Badgley to take those kicks

Until they got inside 40 yards there was no way they weren't going for it. It's not like he's Justin Tucker.

I really was not excited about Badgley kicking the 54-yarder against the Rams, but he did. He hadn't kicked one that long since 2017.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

As a Lions fan there was no point where I wanted Badgley to take those kicks

I haven't found a Lions fan yet that disagrees with you... You guys are proud of your team and you're enjoying the aggressiveness and the wins it brought this season... I'll check back with Lions fans when the expectations are there to win and the aggressiveness costs you otherwise winnable games...Prime example is the L.A. Chargers...

Look if i had Tucker or Butker or a league average kicker I’d probably take the field goal. But you give me a choice between an offense that I believe was 18 for 21 on fourth and three or less or a guy that’s gonna be sitting on his couch next year. I’m taking my offense.

 

[Instinctive]

I won't belabor it too much (and it's not like we could publish it, technically the results belong to the Spurs), but the main takeaway was: momentum is a nonsense, meaningless thing with no correlation whatsoever to outcomes. It is purely a backwards-looking way to explain what happened that people want to emotionally understand, and for which the real answer is almost always "yeah sometimes **** happens and that was crazy lucky or unlucky." There's no predictive value at all.

In this particular instance, the fluky catch likely doesn't happen if there wasn't a 4th down stop. The stop didn't lead to the fluky play directly in a way that you could say if SF stops Det on 4th down they will be more likely to complete a 50 yd pass that deflected off the head of the DB when he should have intercepted it. But I am fairly confident that if they attempted the FG that fluky catch doesn't happen. It's not predictive but it is contributary. The fluky catch also added momentum to SF. You can't quantify it but I believe everyone can agree that it did give SF more life and lowered the life of Det.

How can this possibly be related? Most everything else you said at least has some logic, and I've seen you think through NBA stuff. But this just sounds absolutely insane.

 

[Gally]

I won't belabor it too much (and it's not like we could publish it, technically the results belong to the Spurs), but the main takeaway was: momentum is a nonsense, meaningless thing with no correlation whatsoever to outcomes. It is purely a backwards-looking way to explain what happened that people want to emotionally understand, and for which the real answer is almost always "yeah sometimes **** happens and that was crazy lucky or unlucky." There's no predictive value at all.

In this particular instance, the fluky catch likely doesn't happen if there wasn't a 4th down stop. The stop didn't lead to the fluky play directly in a way that you could say if SF stops Det on 4th down they will be more likely to complete a 50 yd pass that deflected off the head of the DB when he should have intercepted it. But I am fairly confident that if they attempted the FG that fluky catch doesn't happen. It's not predictive but it is contributary. The fluky catch also added momentum to SF. You can't quantify it but I believe everyone can agree that it did give SF more life and lowered the life of Det.

How can this possibly be related? Most everything else you said at least has some logic, and I've seen you think through NBA stuff. But this just sounds absolutely insane.

It isn't causal in nature at all and definitely not predictive either. It's more in the realm of SF needed a bunch of stuff to go right to get back into the game. They needed a stop, they needed a big play, they needed a turnover, etc. Dominos had to fall to win. This was one of the dominos. That is all I am saying. I wasn't really attempting for that statement to be anything of significance or meaning. It was just a dumb matter of fact statement that many things change if they don't go for it on 4th down. It wasn't meant to be anything other than that...hahaa

 

[Stoneworker]

Super Bowl-bound Nick Bosa confirming that Dan Campbell's 4th down decisions shifted momentum (0:28 of clip)

Reporter: It really seemed like, when Dan Campbell decided to really challenge you guys, and go for it on 4th down, passing up very makeable field goals, that he gave you guys the opportunity to seize momentum."

Bosa (nodding and smiling): "That definitely bit them in the butt. I feel like going for it on 4th down a lot kind of...will come back to bite you."

Nick Bosa believes Lions' 4th down gambles 'bit them in the butt'

 

[Hatch]

As a Lions fan there was no point where I wanted Badgley to take those kicks

I haven't found a Lions fan yet that disagrees with you... You guys are proud of your team and you're enjoying the aggressiveness and the wins it brought this season... I'll check back with Lions fans when the expectations are there to win and the aggressiveness costs you otherwise winnable games...Prime example is the L.A. Chargers...

Look if i had Tucker or Butker or a league average kicker I’d probably take the field goal. But you give me a choice between an offense that I believe was 18 for 21 on fourth and three or less or a guy that’s gonna be sitting on his couch next year. I’m taking my offense.

I guess in that same note ... if you had a receiver that could catch a ball it would have been a good decision... The receiver and kicker are both professional players getting paid to do a job that they are hired to do... Hindsight is 20/20.
Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did. You and every Lions fan I know say the same thing, "give me the aggressiveness". I believe it isn't a one size fits all model and I don't know if the kicker would have made the kick or not, but I do believe "IF" the FG was good and made it a 17 point game that it probably would have shortened the game enough for the Lions to hang on. I have the hindsight to say that going for it didn't work. I don't know if the FG would have and it's easy to 2nd guess it now.
What I don't understand is why every Lions fan I have encountered all believe the right decision was made and if given the same choice today, would make the same decision. Being that aggressive and blindly following analytics literally cost the LA Chargers coach his job.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

As a Lions fan there was no point where I wanted Badgley to take those kicks

I haven't found a Lions fan yet that disagrees with you... You guys are proud of your team and you're enjoying the aggressiveness and the wins it brought this season... I'll check back with Lions fans when the expectations are there to win and the aggressiveness costs you otherwise winnable games...Prime example is the L.A. Chargers...

Look if i had Tucker or Butker or a league average kicker I’d probably take the field goal. But you give me a choice between an offense that I believe was 18 for 21 on fourth and three or less or a guy that’s gonna be sitting on his couch next year. I’m taking my offense.

I guess in that same note ... if you had a receiver that could catch a ball it would have been a good decision... The receiver and kicker are both professional players getting paid to do a job that they are hired to do... Hindsight is 20/20.
Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did. You and every Lions fan I know say the same thing, "give me the aggressiveness". I believe it isn't a one size fits all model and I don't know if the kicker would have made the kick or not, but I do believe "IF" the FG was good and made it a 17 point game that it probably would have shortened the game enough for the Lions to hang on. I have the hindsight to say that going for it didn't work. I don't know if the FG would have and it's easy to 2nd guess it now.
What I don't understand is why every Lions fan I have encountered all believe the right decision was made and if given the same choice today, would make the same decision. Being that aggressive and blindly following analytics literally cost the LA Chargers coach his job.

And if badgely missed, every armchair QB would be saying they should have gone for it

The decision he should be getting more heat for was the 3rd down run at the end that made them burn a timeout

 

[Hatch]

As a Lions fan there was no point where I wanted Badgley to take those kicks

I haven't found a Lions fan yet that disagrees with you... You guys are proud of your team and you're enjoying the aggressiveness and the wins it brought this season... I'll check back with Lions fans when the expectations are there to win and the aggressiveness costs you otherwise winnable games...Prime example is the L.A. Chargers...

Look if i had Tucker or Butker or a league average kicker I’d probably take the field goal. But you give me a choice between an offense that I believe was 18 for 21 on fourth and three or less or a guy that’s gonna be sitting on his couch next year. I’m taking my offense.

I guess in that same note ... if you had a receiver that could catch a ball it would have been a good decision... The receiver and kicker are both professional players getting paid to do a job that they are hired to do... Hindsight is 20/20.
Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did. You and every Lions fan I know say the same thing, "give me the aggressiveness". I believe it isn't a one size fits all model and I don't know if the kicker would have made the kick or not, but I do believe "IF" the FG was good and made it a 17 point game that it probably would have shortened the game enough for the Lions to hang on. I have the hindsight to say that going for it didn't work. I don't know if the FG would have and it's easy to 2nd guess it now.
What I don't understand is why every Lions fan I have encountered all believe the right decision was made and if given the same choice today, would make the same decision. Being that aggressive and blindly following analytics literally cost the LA Chargers coach his job.

And if badgely missed, every armchair QB would be saying they should have gone for it

The decision he should be getting more heat for was the 3rd down run at the end that made them burn a timeout

Leave it to the Lions fans to be happy about a loss...I know the GB fans had a waaayyyyy different outlook after losing to the same team by the same margin with the same possible upward trajectory with a young team...
and looking at Badgely's numbers with the Lions in 2022 and 2023 ... 27 -31 overall 87% (including playoffs) ... 9 - 11 from 40-49 yds 81.8% .... not too shabby...

 

[Dan Lambskin]

As a Lions fan there was no point where I wanted Badgley to take those kicks

I haven't found a Lions fan yet that disagrees with you... You guys are proud of your team and you're enjoying the aggressiveness and the wins it brought this season... I'll check back with Lions fans when the expectations are there to win and the aggressiveness costs you otherwise winnable games...Prime example is the L.A. Chargers...

Look if i had Tucker or Butker or a league average kicker I’d probably take the field goal. But you give me a choice between an offense that I believe was 18 for 21 on fourth and three or less or a guy that’s gonna be sitting on his couch next year. I’m taking my offense.

I guess in that same note ... if you had a receiver that could catch a ball it would have been a good decision... The receiver and kicker are both professional players getting paid to do a job that they are hired to do... Hindsight is 20/20.
Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did. You and every Lions fan I know say the same thing, "give me the aggressiveness". I believe it isn't a one size fits all model and I don't know if the kicker would have made the kick or not, but I do believe "IF" the FG was good and made it a 17 point game that it probably would have shortened the game enough for the Lions to hang on. I have the hindsight to say that going for it didn't work. I don't know if the FG would have and it's easy to 2nd guess it now.
What I don't understand is why every Lions fan I have encountered all believe the right decision was made and if given the same choice today, would make the same decision. Being that aggressive and blindly following analytics literally cost the LA Chargers coach his job.

And if badgely missed, every armchair QB would be saying they should have gone for it

The decision he should be getting more heat for was the 3rd down run at the end that made them burn a timeout

Leave it to the Lions fans to be happy about a loss...I know the GB fans had a waaayyyyy different outlook after losing to the same team by the same margin with the same possible upward trajectory with a young team...

Im 44 years old and thought my team was going to a Super Bowl for the first time in my lifetime and then had it ripped away from me, so no, im not happy, but im not going to sit and second guess the decision. there’s plenty of other stuff that went wrong, 1 or 2 of those go the other way and I doubt we’re having this conversation

And yeah, the NFC North is probably going to be the toughest division in football over the next few years, so getting back is no guarantee, but this team should continue to compete for the NFC championship for the next 2-3 years

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The momentum thing blows my mind. It actually reminds me of a thread I pulled on with Kirk Goldsberry while I worked for the Spurs down in San Antonio. We came up with a definition of things that change momentum that everyone could agree on, and what impacts we expected to see and stuff, and then we tracked when those things happened and what happened in the games.

I won't belabor it too much (and it's not like we could publish it, technically the results belong to the Spurs), but the main takeaway was: momentum is a nonsense, meaningless thing with no correlation whatsoever to outcomes. It is purely a backwards-looking way to explain what happened that people want to emotionally understand, and for which the real answer is almost always "yeah sometimes **** happens and that was crazy lucky or unlucky." There's no predictive value at all.

It's not because the 49ers got a 4th down stop that a 50 yard pass took the unluckiest bounce ever off a guy who had a great chance to catch it and 999 times out of 1,000 ends up deflecting it into the ground. It's because a corner didn't quite make a play and it took a crazy (un)lucky bounce.

Jahmyr Gibbs didn't fumble it because they were up 7 instead of 10 points. He fumbled it because he's a rookie and he cut the wrong direction. It happens. Of the dozens times rookies made a slight wrong direction cut, I bet 5-10 of the plays actually had real impact and most of them nobody but the coaching staff ever noticed.

Yes, but what about the incontrovertible scientific evidence that, after a 4th down stop, defenders have increased levels of momentumchlorians in their bloodstream?

 

[Football Jones]

Sometimes losses are hard to come to grips with, but you're in the tank deep when you start coming up with the crazy notion that everything in sports is played straight and there's no such thing as momentum or the like. That said, momentum isn't why Detroit lost. They lost because they went for it on 4th down. The dropped pass by Reynolds doesn't forgive the decision to pass up the FG attempt.

And Campbell didn't pass up the 24-10 FG because he didn't have Justin Tucker. Make no mistake, he was going for it, regardless. His actual explanation mentioned something akin to momentum, but his main goal was trying to kneecap the 9ers right then and there. Problem is, he got so sidetracked with trying to put the nail in the coffin, he forgot to realize a makeable FG would give his team a huge advantage midway through the 3rd quarter.

It's one thing to be down 14...it's another to be up 14. Campbell plays like he's always down. It's the right strategy for comebacks, not so much for holding a lead, especially against good teams.

 

[Bankerguy]

As a Lions fan there was no point where I wanted Badgley to take those kicks

I haven't found a Lions fan yet that disagrees with you... You guys are proud of your team and you're enjoying the aggressiveness and the wins it brought this season... I'll check back with Lions fans when the expectations are there to win and the aggressiveness costs you otherwise winnable games...Prime example is the L.A. Chargers...

Look if i had Tucker or Butker or a league average kicker I’d probably take the field goal. But you give me a choice between an offense that I believe was 18 for 21 on fourth and three or less or a guy that’s gonna be sitting on his couch next year. I’m taking my offense.

I guess in that same note ... if you had a receiver that could catch a ball it would have been a good decision... The receiver and kicker are both professional players getting paid to do a job that they are hired to do... Hindsight is 20/20.
Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did. You and every Lions fan I know say the same thing, "give me the aggressiveness". I believe it isn't a one size fits all model and I don't know if the kicker would have made the kick or not, but I do believe "IF" the FG was good and made it a 17 point game that it probably would have shortened the game enough for the Lions to hang on. I have the hindsight to say that going for it didn't work. I don't know if the FG would have and it's easy to 2nd guess it now.
What I don't understand is why every Lions fan I have encountered all believe the right decision was made and if given the same choice today, would make the same decision. Being that aggressive and blindly following analytics literally cost the LA Chargers coach his job.

And if badgely missed, every armchair QB would be saying they should have gone for it

The decision he should be getting more heat for was the 3rd down run at the end that made them burn a timeout

Leave it to the Lions fans to be happy about a loss...I know the GB fans had a waaayyyyy different outlook after losing to the same team by the same margin with the same possible upward trajectory with a young team...
and looking at Badgely's numbers with the Lions in 2022 and 2023 ... 27 -31 overall 87% (including playoffs) ... 9 - 11 from 40-49 yds 81.8% .... not too shabby...

It’s like Stockholm Syndrome for the Lion’s with Campbell.

Enjoy him, because there is nothing anyone can say that will change it.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

You guys remember how Tyler Bass hit that chip shot 44 yarder to tie the chiefs and send it to OT

 

[dutch]

You guys remember how Tyler Bass hit that chip shot 44 yarder to tie the chiefs and send it to OT

huge momentum swing

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Sometimes losses are hard to come to grips with, but you're in the tank deep when you start coming up with the crazy notion that everything in sports is played straight and there's no such thing as momentum or the like. That said, momentum isn't why Detroit lost. They lost because they went for it on 4th down. The dropped pass by Reynolds doesn't forgive the decision to pass up the FG attempt.

And Campbell didn't pass up the 24-10 FG because he didn't have Justin Tucker. Make no mistake, he was going for it, regardless. His actual explanation mentioned something akin to momentum, but his main goal was trying to kneecap the 9ers right then and there. Problem is, he got so sidetracked with trying to put the nail in the coffin, he forgot to realize a makeable FG would give his team a huge advantage midway through the 3rd quarter.

It's one thing to be down 14...it's another to be up 14. Campbell plays like he's always down. It's the right strategy for comebacks, not so much for holding a lead, especially against good teams.

You're conflating two totally separate issues. As a Lions fan, my feeling is that I still think Campbell is an excellent coach. I think the two decisions were essentially coin flips where you could make an argument either way. I think he definitely screwed up the sequence on Detroit's final drive. But I'm not willing to say that makes him a bad coach. If you think that means I'm in the tank for him, fine.

The reason I'm skeptical of all the claims being made in this thread regarding momentum has zero to do with the Lions. It's because momentum -- as a prospective factor that can be applied in decision making -- is one of those things that seems obvious at first glance, but when you think about it, completely falls apart.

For example, we were discussing earlier the fact that the Aiyuk catch came right after the first failed attempt. Obviously, no one thinks that the swing in momentum was a direct cause of Vigdor letting the ball bounce off his facemask. So imagine for a second that he had brought in the INT. Now Detroit has the ball back and they're still up by 14. If that had happened, what would have become of all the momentum the Niners gained on the 4th-down stop? Would it have completely dissipated? Would it have transferred back to Detroit? And if momentum can change on a single play, how can you claim it has any predictive power?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did.

That is ... not how regression works.

If the Lions had recovered 18 of their previous 21 fumbles, they would be very likely to regress. Because fumble recoveries are random.

But if Tom Brady had kept playing football for another 20 years, his winning percentage would not regress to .500. Because Tom Brady's win percentage was not random. It was a result of his superior skill. (OK, I suppose if Brady kept playing for 20 years, his win percentage would go down because the dude would be 65 years old. But that's still not regression.)

A team's fourth-down conversion rate is due to a bunch of non-random factors. For one thing, a team with a good offense is more likely to go for it on fourth down, so they're going to have more attempts and a higher rate. Or maybe, in addition to the offense's overall skill level, they have a creative play caller who can scheme up good fourth-and-short plays to get the necessary yardage.

Furthermore, even if conversion success was random, two attempts are way too small of a sample size to label anything regression. They were just two attempts that didn't go Detroit's way. There's no reason to think Detroit couldn't hit 18 of their next 21 attempts (indeed, on their final drive, they converted a 4th and short for a TD.)

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Interesting that you recognize momentum as real but since you can't define it you won't account for it.

Maybe I should have phrased that differently. I think we understand a lot less about momentum than we think we do, and therefore we should be very wary about factoring it into prospective decision making. If you want to argue that, on a coin-flip decision, Campbell should have erred on the side of caution to maintain the lead, that's a totally reasonable argument. It's when you start saying he should have factored in how one potential outcome of the play would have affected the SF defense's psyche that we part ways. "If we do this, there is a 45% chance that something could happen which would get SF so pumped up that they would play better, at least until something bad happens to them and then they stop playing better."

 

[Football Jones]

Sometimes losses are hard to come to grips with, but you're in the tank deep when you start coming up with the crazy notion that everything in sports is played straight and there's no such thing as momentum or the like. That said, momentum isn't why Detroit lost. They lost because they went for it on 4th down. The dropped pass by Reynolds doesn't forgive the decision to pass up the FG attempt.

And Campbell didn't pass up the 24-10 FG because he didn't have Justin Tucker. Make no mistake, he was going for it, regardless. His actual explanation mentioned something akin to momentum, but his main goal was trying to kneecap the 9ers right then and there. Problem is, he got so sidetracked with trying to put the nail in the coffin, he forgot to realize a makeable FG would give his team a huge advantage midway through the 3rd quarter.

It's one thing to be down 14...it's another to be up 14. Campbell plays like he's always down. It's the right strategy for comebacks, not so much for holding a lead, especially against good teams.

You're conflating two totally separate issues. As a Lions fan, my feeling is that I still think Campbell is an excellent coach. I think the two decisions were essentially coin flips where you could make an argument either way. I think he definitely screwed up the sequence on Detroit's final drive. But I'm not willing to say that makes him a bad coach. If you think that means I'm in the tank for him, fine.

The reason I'm skeptical of all the claims being made in this thread regarding momentum has zero to do with the Lions. It's because momentum -- as a prospective factor that can be applied in decision making -- is one of those things that seems obvious at first glance, but when you think about it, completely falls apart.

For example, we were discussing earlier the fact that the Aiyuk catch came right after the first failed attempt. Obviously, no one thinks that the swing in momentum was a direct cause of Vigdor letting the ball bounce off his facemask. So imagine for a second that he had brought in the INT. Now Detroit has the ball back and they're still up by 14. If that had happened, what would have become of all the momentum the Niners gained on the 4th-down stop? Would it have completely dissipated? Would it have transferred back to Detroit? And if momentum can change on a single play, how can you claim it has any predictive power?

What is it about this so called momentum are you denying? Are you saying the 9ers players weren’t pumped they got a HUGE break there? What happens physiologically when people get pumped?

People who deny “momentum” or whatever you want to call it are essentially saying big situational swings in sports have no possible way to influence human performance. That’s a stretch to say the least. Humans are a complex machine and the thought situational play doesn’t affect performance is a little whack. You can call it momentum, you can call it hope, whatever, but decades of playing and watching sports tells me it’s a thing.

All that said, I’m not sure how much momentum had to do with Detroit losing. I’m sure it helped some, but the simple act of needlessly taking a gamble and passing up a good chance to go 3 scores up was the main culprit.

 

[JohnnyU]

Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did.

That is ... not how regression works.

If the Lions had recovered 18 of their previous 21 fumbles, they would be very likely to regress. Because fumble recoveries are random.

But if Tom Brady had kept playing football for another 20 years, his winning percentage would not regress to .500. Because Tom Brady's win percentage was not random. It was a result of his superior skill. (OK, I suppose if Brady kept playing for 20 years, his win percentage would go down because the dude would be 65 years old. But that's still not regression.)

A team's fourth-down conversion rate is due to a bunch of non-random factors. For one thing, a team with a good offense is more likely to go for it on fourth down, so they're going to have more attempts and a higher rate. Or maybe, in addition to the offense's overall skill level, they have a creative play caller who can scheme up good fourth-and-short plays to get the necessary yardage.

Furthermore, even if conversion success was random, two attempts are way too small of a sample size to label anything regression. They were just two attempts that didn't go Detroit's way. There's no reason to think Detroit couldn't hit 18 of their next 21 attempts (indeed, on their final drive, they converted a 4th and short for a TD.)

Think BABIP in baseball. Pitchers who have allowed a high percentage of hits on balls in play will typically regress to the mean, and vice versa. In other words, over time, they'll see fewer (or more) balls in play fall for hits, and therefore experience better (or worse) results in terms of run prevention.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Advanced analytics which looks at huge amount of data and models them say Campbell did the right thing. Simpleton hindsight analysis using antiquated strategies says otherwise.

Do you think teams should fire the coaches and put computers on the sidelines?

 

[JohnnyU]

Advanced analytics which looks at huge amount of data and models them say Campbell did the right thing. Simpleton hindsight analysis using antiquated strategies says otherwise.

Do you think teams should fire the coaches and put computers on the sidelines?

They will be like Bishop in Aliens.

 

[jon_mx]

Advanced analytics which looks at huge amount of data and models them say Campbell did the right thing. Simpleton hindsight analysis using antiquated strategies says otherwise.

Do you think teams should fire the coaches and put computers on the sidelines?

No, but when you play blackjack you should probably hit 13 against a 10 most every time.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

https://twitter.com/awfulannouncing/status/1749565895364444618?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1749565475422408935%7Ctwgr%5E8ff03bc9052b0a5d4db45bfe2972684dc2ca9fd1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-2844419798901188107.ampproject.net%2F2401191523000%2Fframe.html

Preach Michael

 

[Da Guru]

Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did.

That is ... not how regression works.

If the Lions had recovered 18 of their previous 21 fumbles, they would be very likely to regress. Because fumble recoveries are random.

But if Tom Brady had kept playing football for another 20 years, his winning percentage would not regress to .500. Because Tom Brady's win percentage was not random. It was a result of his superior skill. (OK, I suppose if Brady kept playing for 20 years, his win percentage would go down because the dude would be 65 years old. But that's still not regression.)

A team's fourth-down conversion rate is due to a bunch of non-random factors. For one thing, a team with a good offense is more likely to go for it on fourth down, so they're going to have more attempts and a higher rate. Or maybe, in addition to the offense's overall skill level, they have a creative play caller who can scheme up good fourth-and-short plays to get the necessary yardage.

Furthermore, even if conversion success was random, two attempts are way too small of a sample size to label anything regression. They were just two attempts that didn't go Detroit's way. There's no reason to think Detroit couldn't hit 18 of their next 21 attempts (indeed, on their final drive, they converted a 4th and short for a TD.)

The first one was a dropped pass at the most inopportune time. Should have been an easy conversion and most likely have changed the result of the game. As I stated earlier Reynolds had 2 drops all season, and then had 2 in one half. Like he said after the game "Chit happens"

 

[Football Jones]

It’s interesting that Shanny mentioned the possibility of being 3 scores down when he talked about Campbell’s decision. The more I look at this, the crazier it is. The 9ers come out in the 2nd half and get held to a FG, still down 14. Detroit drives down to what, the 31? Everything in the world points FG. Just match them, lol. You’ll be back up 17 with time a big factor if Badgley hits a makeable FG and nothing that day suggested he didn’t have a good shot to hit it (good weather to boot, no pun intended).

It was just bizarre.

 

[Bankerguy]

Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did.

That is ... not how regression works.

If the Lions had recovered 18 of their previous 21 fumbles, they would be very likely to regress. Because fumble recoveries are random.

But if Tom Brady had kept playing football for another 20 years, his winning percentage would not regress to .500. Because Tom Brady's win percentage was not random. It was a result of his superior skill. (OK, I suppose if Brady kept playing for 20 years, his win percentage would go down because the dude would be 65 years old. But that's still not regression.)

A team's fourth-down conversion rate is due to a bunch of non-random factors. For one thing, a team with a good offense is more likely to go for it on fourth down, so they're going to have more attempts and a higher rate. Or maybe, in addition to the offense's overall skill level, they have a creative play caller who can scheme up good fourth-and-short plays to get the necessary yardage.

Furthermore, even if conversion success was random, two attempts are way too small of a sample size to label anything regression. They were just two attempts that didn't go Detroit's way. There's no reason to think Detroit couldn't hit 18 of their next 21 attempts (indeed, on their final drive, they converted a 4th and short for a TD.)

The first one was a dropped pass at the most inopportune time. Should have been an easy conversion and most likely have changed the result of the game. As I stated earlier Reynolds had 2 drops all season, and then had 2 in one half. Like he said after the game "Chit happens"

He was also targeted 3 or less times in almost 50% of the Lion’s games.

 

[ChiefD]

Travis Kelce is dating Taylor Swift.

In case you were wondering.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

https://twitter.com/awfulannouncing/status/1749565895364444618?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1749565475422408935%7Ctwgr%5E8ff03bc9052b0a5d4db45bfe2972684dc2ca9fd1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-2844419798901188107.ampproject.net%2F2401191523000%2Fframe.html

Preach Michael

It's ironic that Wilbon is calling other people lazy when he's been making the same lazy strawman argument for years. Maybe if he weren't so lazy he would find an argument that people are actually making and respond to that