Dan Campbell has no regrets

[Maelstrom787]

Whoever made that graphic is stretching the definition of the chance of success. The sample size is too small to use the Lion's historical performance. If you use league-wide data, it's closer to a 57% success rate on 4th and two vs. a 79% success rate on a 45-yard FG.

I didn't mind Campbell's decision. But it seems like a valid point of concern, given how the Lions try to maximize win probability more than any other team in the league. And, in this case, the risk associated with that style of play caught up to them.

I don't think we should use league wide data, especially in terms of the probability of the field goal attempt.

It's a small sample, but considering that it's Badgley and they'd been generally above average at converting, plus the fact that the entire ethos of the team is built around this philosophy of taking teams on... I really find the decisions hard to fault on a logical level. The result makes it feel awful.

 

[NoGain]

Dan Campbell effed up. No two ways about it. Not going for that first FG to put the Lions up by three scores almost midway through the 3rd quarter was almost negligent for a playoff game of this caliber. He had the 9ers on the ropes and didn't even seem to know it.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Dan Campbell effed up. No two ways about it. Not going for that first FG to put the Lions up by three scores almost midway through the 3rd quarter was almost negligent for a playoff game of this caliber. He had the 9ers on the ropes and didn't even seem to know it.

That one is the more questionable decision to me. The long field goal is almost inarguably the worse choice compared to going for it, but that one... yeah, that was all attitude. The models say go for it, but yeah, I would've kicked that shit considering the situation. Especially in hindsight.

That said, the Niners did come back. They were trying to keep their foot on the gas. Most people want that sort of thing, you just don't expect to fail each attempt against the odds.

 

[NoGain]

That one is the more questionable decision to me. The long field goal is almost inarguably the worse choice compared to going for it, but that one... yeah, that was all attitude. The models say go for it, but yeah, I would've kicked that shit considering the situation. Especially in hindsight.

That said, the Niners did come back. They were trying to keep their foot on the gas. Most people want that sort of thing, you just don't expect to fail each attempt against the odds.

I can't think of a top NFL coach of the last 30 years or so who would have not given his team the best chance to win the game and attempted the FG. You go up three scores there and the 9ers are still in deep shyt. The 9ers were counting their lucky stars that they went for it. It got them back in the game.

 

[Maelstrom787]

I can't think of a top NFL coach of the last 30 years or so who would have not given his team the best chance to win the game and attempted the FG. You go up three scores there and the 9ers are still in deep shyt. The 9ers were counting their lucky stars that they went for it. It got them back in the game.

Most of the bigger analytics wonks would, I figure. The pencil necks. All the models give a slight edge to going for it. Situationally, I think its subpar, but...

 

[NoGain]

Most of the bigger analytics wonks would, I figure. The pencil necks. All the models give a slight edge to going for it. Situationally, I think its subpar, but...

Analytics almost always say go for it. But analytics don't take into account the SITUATION! They don't take into account Bosa blowing fire out of his nostrils to get after Goff and either sack him or make him hurry that throw. Analytics only go so far. Analytics are wrong all the time. But all you hear is "go for it".

 

[Maelstrom787]

Analytics almost always say go for it. But analytics don't take into account the SITUATION! They don't take into account Bosa blowing fire out of his nostrils to get after Goff and either sack him or make him hurry that throw. Analytics only go so far. Analytics are wrong all the time. But all you hear is "go for it".

Agreed. It's swung out of balance and almost always in favor of the riskier plays. Kind of reeks of confirmation bias when thinking of a bunch of edgy guys who grew up on Madden never punting and whatnot making models that justify the way they think about the game.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

You don't chase points on the road when they are right in front of you. Plus, it slows the momentum. They would have been up 17 and kicking off with much of the 3rd quarter gone. Not taking the points twice was just ridiculous. Playing add on against a very good team is a good thing and would have been the smart thing. And would have won that game, imo. They gave the Niners hope, and they pounced.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

He is lying like a Persian rug. And he's going to really understand what a numbskull he was starting next year as Green Bay retakes that division again for years.

 

[themunn]

This is hardly even a matter of analytics or win probability, these decisions are wholly defensible lol

But Badgley is 12/15 on 40+ FG attempts under the same period that you're looking at (i.e. Dan Campbell's tenure).

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yep, he can have REGURTS all he wants, it was flat out stupid to not take those two kicks.

 

[Maelstrom787]

But Badgley is 12/15 on 40+ FG attempts under the same period that you're looking at (i.e. Dan Campbell's tenure).

Yes that decision is worse. The one I can't fault is the one from the Niners 28 yard line.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

why? It's a 45-yard FG from there. Take the damn points.

 

[Maelstrom787]

why? It's a 45-yard FG from there. Take the damn points.

Michael Badgley in his career from that distance has a lower success rate than the Lions had converting on fourth down from that distance. It wouldn't be "taking the points," it'd be a risk.

Michael Badgley is 11-17 from that distance in his career. They were 14-20 converting third down. Going for it was the LESS risky thing to do in that position, believe it or not, just going off of the established information they had.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Agree to disagree.