True but an additional question posed to me was whether today's coaches are better than the old timers and my conclusion is that it is a different style of coaching not to be equated with better or worse. Halas was successful yesteryear, Shanahan, Campbell et al are successful today in using different tools at their disposal, namely data and analytics. The game grows and changes, not a big thought.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Should Dan Campbell have kicked a FG in the 2nd Half of the NFCC? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ministry of Pain
- Start date
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I blame Tex Schramm.
You keep saying that, but like I said, there are entire industries that make boatloads of money doing exactly what you say is impossible. (I would know, I work in one.)
Again, do any kind of analysis to show it was a bad decision. We're still waiting for that, since you and others are the ones making the claim that it was such a bad decision. Prove it (or don't and just keep arguing for no reason).
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
What nonsense? The poll posed a question, I answered the question definitively. He made the wrong decision, multiple times.
To your second point, your argument isn't even strawman. Without scoring any offensive points, the probabilities of beating one of the highest scoring teams in the league is extremely low. So while we can't say for 100% they would lose in your scenario, we can say with a high degree of certainty they would.
Bankerguy
Footballguy
You keep saying that, but like I said, there are entire industries that make boatloads of money doing exactly what you say is impossible. (I would know, I work in one.)
Again, do any kind of analysis to show it was a bad decision. We're still waiting for that, since you and others are the ones making the claim that it was such a bad decision. Prove it (or don't and just keep arguing for no reason).
Huh?
Where is proof it was the right decision? I’m still waiting for that?
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
You're right that there's not a single source of truth for "THE ANALYTICS," and rather there are lots of different models built by different people for different purposes using different datasets, etc. Inevitably they all end up in some kind of similar-ish range, of course. One model won't say the chances of converting there were 95% while another say it was 5%. One might say 45% while another says 35% or something. Some models might be better than others, none of them will be perfect.
What I'd challenge someone - anyone - to do, then, is do some kind of analysis that shows it was a bad decision to go for it there. Find a reasonable model of that situation that shows it was clearly a mistake to go for it. No one has and I suspect no one will. They'll just keep saying "oh you can't just rely on the analytics, you have to also blah blah blah" but then they won't do any of those things anyway.
Da Franchise
Footballguy
The answer is so obviosuly “yes” that it’s not even worth asking the question.
The biggest crime though was calling a time out with one minute left.
If you want to run the ball, fine. Call two plays in the huddle and go hurry up on 4th down. The moment they called timeout, the game was over.
The biggest crime though was calling a time out with one minute left.
If you want to run the ball, fine. Call two plays in the huddle and go hurry up on 4th down. The moment they called timeout, the game was over.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
You keep saying that, but like I said, there are entire industries that make boatloads of money doing exactly what you say is impossible. (I would know, I work in one.)
Again, do any kind of analysis to show it was a bad decision. We're still waiting for that, since you and others are the ones making the claim that it was such a bad decision. Prove it (or don't and just keep arguing for no reason).
Huh?
Where is proof it was the right decision? I’m still waiting for that?
The onus is on you and everyone else claiming he made a mistake to prove it. The Lions ran 60+ offensive plays last night, why aren't you arguing about the other 60 of them? This is the one you think he got blatantly wrong, then it's on you to make a case that he did.
"What I'd challenge someone - anyone - to do, then, is do some kind of analysis that shows it was a bad decision to go for it there. Find a reasonable model of that situation that shows it was clearly a mistake to go for it. No one has and I suspect no one will. They'll just keep saying "oh you can't just rely on the analytics, you have to also blah blah blah" but then they won't do any of those things anyway."
Uh, the magic eight ball clearly said "Outlook Not So Good". Tempting fate bit the Lions in the azz.
Uh, the magic eight ball clearly said "Outlook Not So Good". Tempting fate bit the Lions in the azz.
massraider
Footballguy
They lost by 10, so clearly it didn't matter. If they lost by 3, I could see it.
Bankerguy
Footballguy
You keep saying that, but like I said, there are entire industries that make boatloads of money doing exactly what you say is impossible. (I would know, I work in one.)
Again, do any kind of analysis to show it was a bad decision. We're still waiting for that, since you and others are the ones making the claim that it was such a bad decision. Prove it (or don't and just keep arguing for no reason).
Huh?
Where is proof it was the right decision? I’m still waiting for that?
The onus is on you and everyone else claiming he made a mistake to prove it. The Lions ran 60+ offensive plays last night, why aren't you arguing about the other 60 of them? This is the one you think he got blatantly wrong, then it's on you to make a case that he did.
…because no one can. We both know that.
However, the direct impact of this decision was poor. I said it before the play as well.
If I was Lion’s fan - I would not be happy with my coach. His track record of key decisions is not great (although, since no one can really prove that either, I shouldn’t say that, right???)
I would say that the analytics side can't say it was clearly correct to go for it either. This decision can be argued both ways with reasonable reasons as to why you are on one side or the other. The biggest hit against the analytics to go for it is that it resulted in a loss. It may not have been a direct result of not getting the first down but it was a contributing factor to the loss. Since the only ultimate measure of success with the decision is to win that is a big hit to the "it was 100% the correct decision to go for it because analytics". That is different than saying the process was wrong but ultimately losing means that kicking may have been the better choice in that particular game situation
Bottom line there is no definitive right answer. Detroit could have won by going for it. They could have won by kicking the FG. They could have one if 5 other things go differently. It's why we argue on the message board. It's close enough to be a discussion.
That really worked out for them...they are going to win the superbowl
titusbramble
Footballguy
By that rationale I shouldn't have taken the +120 bet someone offered me on the coinflip because I guessed wrong
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
His track record is taking a historically inept franchise to the NFC championship game. Seems like he might have some idea what he's doing.
You keep saying that, but like I said, there are entire industries that make boatloads of money doing exactly what you say is impossible. (I would know, I work in one.)
Again, do any kind of analysis to show it was a bad decision. We're still waiting for that, since you and others are the ones making the claim that it was such a bad decision. Prove it (or don't and just keep arguing for no reason).
Huh?
Where is proof it was the right decision? I’m still waiting for that?
The onus is on you and everyone else claiming he made a mistake to prove it. The Lions ran 60+ offensive plays last night, why aren't you arguing about the other 60 of them? This is the one you think he got blatantly wrong, then it's on you to make a case that he did.
…because no one can. We both know that.
However, the direct impact of this decision was poor. I said it before the play as well.
If I was Lion’s fan - I would not be happy with my coach. His track record of key decisions is not great (although, since no one can really prove that either, I shouldn’t say that, right???)
If it was a terrible decision to go for it, you could absolutely prove it. But you can't prove it, because it wasn't a terrible decision. That's the point.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
The poll tells A story. I don't think it's the same one you're thinking of though.
Spartans Rule
Footballguy
Not true. I have yet to see a Lions fan who thinks they should've run on 3rd and goal and burned a timeout with a minute left.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I don't think the debate is about whether or not "it was 100% the correct decision to go for it because analytics." No one believes that, it's a strawman. The debate is between the people who think it was a big mistake, and people who don't. The latter have nothing to prove.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
I work heavily with data at a large tech company and externally deal with Senior Execs at F100 companies who do nothing but look at data.
You keep saying that, but like I said, there are entire industries that make boatloads of money doing exactly what you say is impossible. (I would know, I work in one.)
Again, do any kind of analysis to show it was a bad decision. We're still waiting for that, since you and others are the ones making the claim that it was such a bad decision. Prove it (or don't and just keep arguing for no reason).
A lot of people who collect data don't fully understand how to analyze it and a lot of those who analyze it don't know how to collect it. There are numerous ways to collect and analyze data depending on what you're end goal is. If you work with data, I'm sure I don't need to go down this rabbit hole. My point is, it can be misleading or misunderstood very easily, and often is.
When looking to respond to the questions you have posed to Bankerguy, I went on a quick hunt for data. Interestingly enough, ESPN published an article on this just 4 days ago, it was the first result I found.
No, NFL analytics models don't always recommend going for it on fourth down: Here's the method
Do NFL analytics models always recommend going for it on fourth down? No. Here's how the decisions actually are made.
That's the article. You can actually dive deeper on it into this particular game here: https://espnanalytics.com/decision
A few assumptions have to be made here, and I won't just grant these assumptions bc it's ESPN so it has to be right.
Anyways, if you were to simply analyze the data as a whole in the graph from the article, it says GO on any 4th & 4 or shorter from your 30 and out. That graph or something likewise is prob used by NFL coaches and their analytics guys across the board. And to my earlier point, I guarantee there are some using the data improperly. You need very specific data for specific situations (and it can be compiled, it's just challenging) to always make the right call based on data. There are plenty of situations where going for it on 4th and 4 on your 31 yard line would be wildly incorrect, even if the data says GO, according to ESPN.
And FTR, I can manipulate the data sets I'm collecting (based on collection methods and chosen inputs) to justify most decisions I make.
How many teams did X when Y was Z? Okay, that doesn't get me my desired outcome.
What about How many teams did Y when Z was X, okay this data looks good. Just a simple example.
This is not apples to apples. If the game was played by robots where emotions, weather, injuries, matchups, game flow, humans, etc weren't a factor then I would agree. But that is not the case. Humans are involved with the outcomes and those things matter and skew the analytics in a way that can't be factored. It's why there is a margin of error associated with the analytics.
titusbramble
Footballguy
I do wonder if all the people saying take the points on the Reynolds play would still be saying take the points if Purdy threw a pick six the next play. Or if Goff threw a pass on the second fourth down that was actually catchable and is converted. Or if Detroit recovers the onside kick and they take it to overtime anyway. Or if they'd actually gone for it in the first half, scored a TD, and it's already a three score game. Or if it's all results oriented thinking rather than looking at what decision gives you the best chance to win the game on that individual play
edit - or, for that matter, if Reynolds had have just ****ing caught the ball
edit - or, for that matter, if Reynolds had have just ****ing caught the ball
titusbramble
Footballguy
No, it's not, but it's a demonstration of the point I made in the post above. Thinking that way would be nothing but results oriented thinking. Which is bad.
dgreen
Footballguy
I think that was probably true 10, or even 5, years ago. But, I don't think that's true for most teams today. "Their analytics guys" are doing their own analytics. They aren't just using something created by ESPN.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I don't disagree with anything you said. And I doubt any NFL coach is just blindly following a table of numbers spat out by their analytics team. But if you're going to say something like the bit I quoted, you have to actually show it. Most models seemed to slightly favor going for it instead of kicking there, but it was close. What I'm waiting for someone to do is make the case that it was "wildly incorrect" for Campbell to go for it there. I agree that sometimes it's possible for "the analytics" to be wrong about a situation, but no one has explained why this particular play would be one of those situations. Because the fact is, it wasn't. It was a perfectly reasonable, rational decision to take the calculated risk to pick up the first down there. It just didn't work out this time, just like sometimes pocket aces get cracked. Doesn't mean it was a bad decision.
massraider
Footballguy
Of course they wouldn't.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Of course they aren't using the ESPN graphs. They have their own analytics guys. A lot of the smartest guys aren't as smart as they think. Data is tricky and even the smartest guys can mess it up. Furthermore, as I stated, you can manipulate it until you get your desired outcome. Dan Campbell can def compile data to justify his decision, and someone else can compile data to make that null. This goes into a much deeper than 4th down conversation where there needs to be a human element and machines shouldn't make all of these decisions, that's a much more serious conversation.
But since we arrived here, I will just pose this to anyone who wants to think about it: Elon Musk is going to create a billion robots, a gazillion times smarter and more capable than human beings. And these super capable robots and machines are just going to be our slaves? Think about that, we're creating our own downfall, Doomsday clock doesn't strike midnight in our lifetimes, but it's at 11:58 right now.
Results are part of the equation. They have to be otherwise how do you know if any decision is the correct decision? Analytic analysis is based on the results. You must factor that in at some point to make a conclusion of what is the correct answer. The problem with human influenced factors is that you cannot get a big enough sample of those exact human factors to make an absolute conclusion (unlike in your coin flip example or blackjack). It's why there is a margin of error
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
I'd argue the 2nd decision was "wildly incorrect"... You tie the game. The analytics are close on both and the argument can be made on either, hence the human decision element. Not sure how much data there is on "we were winning by 17 at halftime, we're now down 3 with 7:30 to go in field goal range and given up 20 unanswered points" Candidly, I don't even know if you can find statistically significant data for that situation. This is the human element. You need to stop the bleeding and tie the game. No data needed in that scenario, just situational awareness. Instead of going for a tie and forcing SF's hand, the stop there deflated them, SF marched down the field and punched them in the face.
titusbramble
Footballguy
Ok, let's go with the hypothetical that they chose to kick the field goal, it is blocked, Niners recover at the line of scrimmage, and the game plays out the exact same way. Is it then the "correct" decision to have gone for it, in the same way that people are saying that the "correct" decision is to take the points as the game actually played out? You cannot predict the future, you can only make what you believe to be the best decision at any given point in time. What happens afterwards is just details, and this works exactly the same way in football as knowing to split 99 against a dealer's 8 in blackjack is the correct call, regardless of whether we then get nothing but sevens or a couple of aces
Yes, I would be saying that I would have kicked a FG instead of going for it on 4th down regardless of getting the first down or not. Based on the way the game was played to that point and the time left in the game, I believe that kicking the FG was the best option at that time.
Football Jones
Footballguy
Reynolds catching the ball wouldn’t have made it the right call…the only difference is people wouldn’t be talking about it.
If you had described the 24-10 FG situation before the game and asked people to vote, the results would swing even more in favor of kicking the FG. After the fact, we have team loyalty and analytics enthusiasts skewing the numbers (despite kicking the FG still as the preferred option).
The bottom line is the 9ers needed a huge break to get back in the game and they got exactly that, not to mention that’s a very makeable FG in today’s NFL, especially in good weather, by a K who had been performing pretty well for them.
Game analysis should’ve clearly taken precedent over statistical analysis in this situation, thus, why many people are saying Campbell needs to improve his game awareness.
If you had described the 24-10 FG situation before the game and asked people to vote, the results would swing even more in favor of kicking the FG. After the fact, we have team loyalty and analytics enthusiasts skewing the numbers (despite kicking the FG still as the preferred option).
The bottom line is the 9ers needed a huge break to get back in the game and they got exactly that, not to mention that’s a very makeable FG in today’s NFL, especially in good weather, by a K who had been performing pretty well for them.
Game analysis should’ve clearly taken precedent over statistical analysis in this situation, thus, why many people are saying Campbell needs to improve his game awareness.
Last edited:
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Badgely is a career 77% kicker from 40-49 yards. 0% of Detroit's FG attempts in the last 2 seasons have been blocked. No reason to debate this.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
I agree with most of what you are saying, but also to answer Johnny's question, I think that it is almost certainly easier to gain yards now than it was 30+ years ago, so the EV is positive in more situations now. Part of it is certainly approach and part of it is that the calculus is different. And today's coaches don't have nearly as much experience in a world where this kind of strategy was not common. If you live and coach your whole life in one paradigm, it is very sensible that your past experiences would make it challenging for you to change that.
Long Ball Larry
"I agree with most of what you are saying, but also to answer Johnny's question, I think that it is almost certainly easier to gain yards now than it was 30+ years ago, so the EV is positive in more situations now. Part of it is certainly approach and part of it is that the calculus is different. And today's coaches don't have nearly as much experience in a world where this kind of strategy was not common. If you live and coach your whole life in one paradigm, it is very sensible that your past experiences would make it challenging for you to change that."Yes and I agree that it is not a matter of better/worse, it's just a passing the torch to a new generation. But it is never wrong to seek and add More information on which to plan, strategize and game plan.
dgreen
Footballguy
Don't forget to factor in the human element.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Sure, I'll factor that in. Field goals rarely blocked, guy makes a lot of field goals. Intuition; kick field goal.
GregR
Footballguy
MLB defenses going to the shift was nothing to do with changed SITUATION. It was about changed UNDERSTANDING.
The same with the NFL.
NFL coaches felt like going for it on 4th and X from midfield was a worse choice than punting.
Then they learned they are more likely to come out ahead if they go from it. Situation didn't have to change, they realized their conclusion about the odds involved was wrong.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I don’t believe I ever mentioned MLB defenses, but was it you that did further up this thread? Or was that someone else?
titusbramble
Footballguy
I'm not concerned if anyone's mind is changed - I clearly would have gone for it on both the occasions they did go for it, as well as when they kicked at the end of the first half, but while I go for it without a second's thought, it's at least somewhat defensible to take the points. Where I am concerned is the thought process of many, which seems entirely separated from a logical "does this decision give us the best chance to win at this point in time" idea, instead going "well we know Detroit goes on to lose so it must be wrong", almost to say it doesn't matter how idiotic a decision you make is as long as it works out
JohnnyU
Footballguy
A lot of doubling down come hell or high water
I have no real problem with Campbell choosing to go for it. They've had tons of success with it all year, and its not realistic to ask a zebra to change its stripes, when its the stripes that got them to that stage in the first place. I might have done it differently, but I don't think its what cost them the game at all. SF just dominated the entire second half. Far bigger issues than the FGs were Josh Reynolds hands going full Venus De Milo, dropping a 4th down conversion, and a 3rd down conversion both of which were good throws in open space, Jahmyr Gibbs unfortunate fumble, the defense forgetting QBs are allowed to run, and having an interception bounce off a guys facemask for a game changing 50+ yard gain.
Worth noting, the Lions were 15 of 20 (75%) converting 4th and 3 or less this season, and the NFL average for Kickers from 40-49 yards is 76%. Michael Badgely isn't exactly Justin Tucker, or if Lions fans would prefer Jason Hanson. Neither team in that game really trusts their kicker. Also worth noting, in the 2nd half, Brock Purdy had over 150 passing yards, 45 rushing yards, 80% completions, 10 yards per carry, and 0 turnovers. Complete defensive collapse, after Aaron Glenn did a great job in the 1st half.
I think this was simply a case (somewhat like last week against GB) of the better team won, it just took a little longer than it should have for them to get going.
Worth noting, the Lions were 15 of 20 (75%) converting 4th and 3 or less this season, and the NFL average for Kickers from 40-49 yards is 76%. Michael Badgely isn't exactly Justin Tucker, or if Lions fans would prefer Jason Hanson. Neither team in that game really trusts their kicker. Also worth noting, in the 2nd half, Brock Purdy had over 150 passing yards, 45 rushing yards, 80% completions, 10 yards per carry, and 0 turnovers. Complete defensive collapse, after Aaron Glenn did a great job in the 1st half.
I think this was simply a case (somewhat like last week against GB) of the better team won, it just took a little longer than it should have for them to get going.
eighsse2
Footballguy
People keep saying "the aggressive play-calling is what got the Lions this far" as support for the decisions. I'm not claiming to know any better, but does anyone have specific data on cases where opting to go for a TD/first down versus a FG attempt created wins out of losses or losses out of wins for the Lions this year? Otherwise you can't really say it's "what got them here", only "they've been aggressive and they made it here, whether because of, in spite of, or unaffected by it".
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Yes, every single non-American soccer fan
JohnnyU
Footballguy
They certainly have a point.
TampaMike19
Footballguy
This team won't win **** with the talent they have unless this coach takes this long off-season to learn from these mistakes. If he does learn from these mistakes, this team is a Super Bowl contender the way it is constructed. Game management is such a lost art. The Playoffs...there is absolutely no room for error. Everyone is locked in.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Can’t remember where I saw it, but IIRC there was some study showing Campbell had created a high amount of EPA over the course of the season. Anyone else see this? I probably saw it in a tweet from some stat nerd
I believe they call it hand egg
JohnnyU
Footballguy
The hidden joke was less field goals and more going for it on 4th down.
Similar threads
