Posted:
#1
I have read a lot about this and I have reconsidered. After reading this article, I now think Campbell was right.
0
Lion's coach Dan Campbell eschewing "makeable" field goals
Posted:
#5
I have read a lot about this and I have reconsidered. After reading this article, I now think Campbell was right.
https://theathletic.com/5234650/2024/01/29/dan-campbell-lions-fourth-down-49ers-playoffs/
2. Dan Campbell’s fourth-down decisions cost the Lions a berth in the Super Bowl … unless they did not do that at all. Put up your dukes and let’s hash it out.
Campbell went for it twice on fourth down and failed when his Lions were in field-goal range, generating all sorts of discussion regarding his strategy after the 49ers overcame a 17-point halftime deficit for a 34-31 victory.
The first time, Detroit faced fourth-and-2 from the San Francisco 28-yard line while leading by 14 points with 7:03 left in the third quarter. Instead of trying a 46-yard field goal for a potential 17-point lead, the Lions passed incomplete to Josh Reynolds, who dropped the ball beyond the first-down marker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YL7RIHj1tc
(me: watched this 10 times. It was an easy catch. The receiver was turning upfield. Why? The play call was perfect. The pass was perfect. You gotta catch that. Who cares about running upfield?)
The second time, Detroit faced fourth-and-3 from the San Francisco 30 while trailing by three with 7:38 left in the fourth quarter. Instead of trying a 48-yard field goal for a potential tie, the Lions threw incomplete. This time, the pass was not close to being caught.
Dan Campbell: 'I don't regret' fourth-down decisions
After the game, I asked two in-game strategists and a former head coach for their opinions on the decisions. It’s probably a good thing they were not all in the same room. A fired-up exec weighed in by text unsolicited. The coach at one point used the word “ignorant” to describe one strategist’s justification for the decisions.
“I agree with all of Campbell’s calls,” one of the strategists said. “(Kicker Michael) Badgley is a below-average, journeyman kicker and not automatic. (Jake) Moody (of the 49ers) already missed one. (Buffalo’s) Tyler Bass missed last week. Fourth-and-2 to 3 is more than 50 percent make. The second decision is more palatable for a field goal to tie if you have a stud kicker you feel good about. On the first one, Reynolds needs to make that catch.”
That last comment set off the former head coach.
“To say the guy might miss the kick is ridiculous,” the coach said. “The guy might drop the ball, and the ball might get batted, and a defensive lineman might beat a guard and hit the quarterback. Whatever you do, you have to execute. If you decide to kick the field goal, you have to make it. The 49ers’ first field-goal miss was fourth-and-10. Guys have been making or missing field goals forever. But the percentages of kicking the field goal are good.”
The Lions signed Badgley off the practice squad in December after waiving previous kicker Riley Patterson. They didn’t ask Badgley to attempt a kick longer than 41 yards in the final four games of the regular season. He made a 54-yarder in the wild-card game against the Rams (indoors) but entered Sunday 13 of 24 in his career (including playoffs) from 45 to 50 yards, including 8 of 16 outdoors.
(me: that's a horrible %. If he had Adam Vinateri, would he have kicked it? Maybe so, but I haven't heard the question to Campbell - he would probably defend his player, but sheesh.)
0
Posted:
#6
A second in-game strategist also sided with Campbell.
“Detroit has a system for what they are doing; they are really disciplined on their yards to go, and they have plays that work,” this strategist said. “Take their game against Dallas. They scored on the trick play with the failed-to-report call. Then they had a guy open and had a foul on the second play. On the third play, the guy is going to score again. These two-point tries are all like a proxy for fourth down — you gotta get it.
“They have a more robust process than anyone. I like what Campbell does better than people doing it from the seat of their pants and bullsh—ing their way through the press conference after the game.”
The Lions had Reynolds wide open for a high-percentage play on the first go-for-it. Reynolds dropped the ball. Is that bad process, or simply bad execution?
ESPN’s fourth-down model suggested the Lions’ win probability would improve slightly by going for it in both cases, as these tweets from analytics writer Seth Walder explain.
An executive who considers himself an embracer of analytics saw these narrow margins and texted after the game to suggest Campbell might have cost Detroit a trip to the Super Bowl by stubbornly adhering to his reputation instead of doing what made the most sense Sunday.
“I am clearly well on the side of aggressive fourth-down decisions 95 percent of the time,” this exec texted. “But when the analytics are talking about 0.2 percent gains, to me that says other factors can override them. But my perception was Campbell simply says to himself, ‘We go for it on fourth down, that’s who we are.’ Sadly, there were other factors that should have controlled the decision.”
The exec also challenged the in-game strategist’s contention that Detroit’s offensive coordinator, Ben Johnson, might give the Lions an edge in these fourth-down situations through superior play calling.
Before Sunday, the Lions had gone for it an NFL-high 23 times on fourth down with 2-3 yards to go over the last two seasons (including playoffs). They had converted 70 percent of the time (16 of 23), well above the 52 percent average for the rest of the league. That supports the idea that Detroit could have an edge in these situations.
Badgley’s shaky record as a kicker also could factor. The Lions also would have evaluated Badgley in warmups to get a feel for how he might perform. The make rate from 45-50 yards at Levi’s Stadium was 73 percent over the past five seasons, the same as the average for all stadiums, but the Lions are a dome team, which could affect their thinking outdoors in a late-afternoon game played in wet conditions.
If Reynolds catches the pass on the first one, Detroit probably doesn’t even encounter the second fourth-down decision later in the half. In that case, critics blasting Campbell as an undue taker of risks might be lauding him as the coach whose unwavering belief in his players sent Detroit to its first Super Bowl and would be critical to the team upsetting Kansas City. We can talk all we want about process, but as Campbell knows, the NFL is a results-oriented business, and the results were not on his side Sunday.
0
Posted:
#7
It's still his fault for having a crappy kicker why not find a better one. This is the nfl if you're on the opponent's 28 yd line and youre worried that your pro kicker can't make a 45 yarder not 46, (it's typically 7 yards for the spot and the 10 yards for the endzone, but you can even make it 6 yards instead of 7). My high school was kicking fgs from the 28 and beyond. Imagine me being a coach and punting and not going for it on 4th and inches three times during the game when we were on the opponent's 40 and my excuse was our running back usually only gets and inch and not inches or our o-line usually doesnt get a push that far uhh ok then those players need to be replaced.
0
Posted:
#14
@Irisheric777
No it was not. Gaining a first down on either 4th down scenario, does not guarantee the Lions a TD. It simply guarantees the Lions one more offensive play (a fresh 1st down).
The real fault in this logic to “go for it” on 4th down as opposed to attempting a FG, lies in the assumption that if you convert the 4th down, you will then score a TD.
Also, the decision to go for it on either of those 4th downs in Game 1 of the season, or Game 8 of the season, or even Game 15 of the season produce a much different set of variables in reaching that decision than Game 20 of the season, where there is no guarantee of a future game.
In game 1, you have a record of 0-0 with 16 guaranteed games remaining and roughly 1,000+ offensive plays ahead of you. In Game 8, you have a record based on the previous 7 games, with 9 guaranteed games remaining and roughly 550-600 offensive plays remaining. In Game 16, you have a record based on the previous 15 games, with 1 guaranteed game remaining and roughly 60-75 offensive plays remaining.
IN GAME 20, you have 0 guaranteed games remaining and between 5-20 offensive plays remaining (3rd Qtr - 4th Qtr). That’s it. Finite and do or die.
It’s imperative that these coaches employ variable decision making based on the situation. Nothing is more maddening than hearing someone reason that “Well at least he’s being consistent with what he’s done all year”. It’s like a Blackjack player that plays the same way every time, you MUST vary your play based on the situation (what’s already been played, and what is remaining to be played). Same principle applies with game management and decision making in a football game.
Campbell (and the rest of these coaches) need to learn variable dynamic decision making to maximize their teams success.
AS
1
Posted:
#15
@ATLSHARP
Quote Originally Posted by ATLSHARP:
@Irisheric777 No it was not. Gaining a first down on either 4th down scenario, does not guarantee the Lions a TD. It simply guarantees the Lions one more offensive play (a fresh 1st down). The real fault in this logic to “go for it” on 4th down as opposed to attempting a FG, lies in the assumption that if you convert the 4th down, you will then score a TD. Also, the decision to go for it on either of those 4th downs in Game 1 of the season, or Game 8 of the season, or even Game 15 of the season produce a much different set of variables in reaching that decision than Game 20 of the season, where there is no guarantee of a future game. In game 1, you have a record of 0-0 with 16 guaranteed games remaining and roughly 1,000+ offensive plays ahead of you. In Game 8, you have a record based on the previous 7 games, with 9 guaranteed games remaining and roughly 550-600 offensive plays remaining. In Game 16, you have a record based on the previous 15 games, with 1 guaranteed game remaining and roughly 60-75 offensive plays remaining. IN GAME 20, you have 0 guaranteed games remaining and between 5-20 offensive plays remaining (3rd Qtr - 4th Qtr). That’s it. Finite and do or die. It’s imperative that these coaches employ variable decision making based on the situation. Nothing is more maddening than hearing someone reason that “Well at least he’s being consistent with what he’s done all year”. It’s like a Blackjack player that plays the same way every time, you MUST vary your play based on the situation (what’s already been played, and what is remaining to be played). Same principle applies with game management and decision making in a football game. Campbell (and the rest of these coaches) need to learn variable dynamic decision making to maximize their teams success. AS
@Irisheric777 No it was not. Gaining a first down on either 4th down scenario, does not guarantee the Lions a TD. It simply guarantees the Lions one more offensive play (a fresh 1st down). The real fault in this logic to “go for it” on 4th down as opposed to attempting a FG, lies in the assumption that if you convert the 4th down, you will then score a TD. Also, the decision to go for it on either of those 4th downs in Game 1 of the season, or Game 8 of the season, or even Game 15 of the season produce a much different set of variables in reaching that decision than Game 20 of the season, where there is no guarantee of a future game. In game 1, you have a record of 0-0 with 16 guaranteed games remaining and roughly 1,000+ offensive plays ahead of you. In Game 8, you have a record based on the previous 7 games, with 9 guaranteed games remaining and roughly 550-600 offensive plays remaining. In Game 16, you have a record based on the previous 15 games, with 1 guaranteed game remaining and roughly 60-75 offensive plays remaining. IN GAME 20, you have 0 guaranteed games remaining and between 5-20 offensive plays remaining (3rd Qtr - 4th Qtr). That’s it. Finite and do or die. It’s imperative that these coaches employ variable decision making based on the situation. Nothing is more maddening than hearing someone reason that “Well at least he’s being consistent with what he’s done all year”. It’s like a Blackjack player that plays the same way every time, you MUST vary your play based on the situation (what’s already been played, and what is remaining to be played). Same principle applies with game management and decision making in a football game. Campbell (and the rest of these coaches) need to learn variable dynamic decision making to maximize their teams success. AS
You are right. It does not guarantee a td but it's way more than one offensive play. They get at least 3 plays and the clock ticks which is what they wanted. In those 3 plays they can also get more yards for a closer field goal. So its not all about getting the td.
0
Posted:
#16
rosswin97: just because I flip heads 5 times in a row doesn’t mean the 6th time gonna be heads
Actually, that's a bad analogy.
You have a 50-50 chance of flipping a head or tail and the prior flips have no bearing on the next flip.
But if the Lions were 17 out of 20 on 4th down of three yards or less during the regular season, that's far, far from a 50-50 proposition. Furthermore, because humans are involved, the high percentage of prior successes could indeed come into play. (Confidence factor, etc.)
Your post seems to imply going for it ob 4th down, with a prior 17/20 successful percentage was not the right call. If that's the case, how high does the prior percentage have to be before you do think it's the right call?
0
Posted:
#17
Quote Originally Posted by Ed-Collins:
rosswin97: just because I flip heads 5 times in a row doesn’t mean the 6th time gonna be heads Actually, that's a bad analogy. You have a 50-50 chance of flipping a head or tail and the prior flips have no bearing on the next flip. But if the Lions were 17 out of 20 on 4th down of three yards or less during the regular season, that's far, far from a 50-50 proposition. Furthermore, because humans are involved, the high percentage of prior successes could indeed come into play. (Confidence factor, etc.) Your post seems to imply going for it ob 4th down, with a prior 17/20 successful percentage was not the right call. If that's the case, how high does the prior percentage have to be before you do think it's the right call?
my analogy was spot on it wasnt meant in terms of percentages it was meant in terms of simply, past performance/results is no guarantee nor an indicator of future performance/results, thats all.
rosswin97: just because I flip heads 5 times in a row doesn’t mean the 6th time gonna be heads Actually, that's a bad analogy. You have a 50-50 chance of flipping a head or tail and the prior flips have no bearing on the next flip. But if the Lions were 17 out of 20 on 4th down of three yards or less during the regular season, that's far, far from a 50-50 proposition. Furthermore, because humans are involved, the high percentage of prior successes could indeed come into play. (Confidence factor, etc.) Your post seems to imply going for it ob 4th down, with a prior 17/20 successful percentage was not the right call. If that's the case, how high does the prior percentage have to be before you do think it's the right call?
0
Posted:
#18
If they had made it 17 out of 20 times in a similar situation, I would have asked myself if I thought my kicker had an over 85% chance of making the kick from the 48.
Not many kickers would have that high of a success percentage..............Justin Tucker has been 115-128 in his career 40-49 yards out and then if you have Tucker you take the kick as it is a 90% certainty he makes it.
I thought the Lions outplayed the 49ers,.....if Reynolds doesn't make his two drops the Lions probably win.
0
Posted:
#20
Quote Originally Posted by rosswin97:
Quote Originally Posted by Ed-Collins: rosswin97: just because I flip heads 5 times in a row doesn’t mean the 6th time gonna be heads Actually, that's a bad analogy. You have a 50-50 chance of flipping a head or tail and the prior flips have no bearing on the next flip. But if the Lions were 17 out of 20 on 4th down of three yards or less during the regular season, that's far, far from a 50-50 proposition. Furthermore, because humans are involved, the high percentage of prior successes could indeed come into play. (Confidence factor, etc.) Your post seems to imply going for it ob 4th down, with a prior 17/20 successful percentage was not the right call. If that's the case, how high does the prior percentage have to be before you do think it's the right call?my analogy was spot on it wasnt meant in terms of percentages it was meant in terms of simply, past performance/results is no guarantee nor an indicator of future performance/results, thats all.
Quote Originally Posted by Ed-Collins: rosswin97: just because I flip heads 5 times in a row doesn’t mean the 6th time gonna be heads Actually, that's a bad analogy. You have a 50-50 chance of flipping a head or tail and the prior flips have no bearing on the next flip. But if the Lions were 17 out of 20 on 4th down of three yards or less during the regular season, that's far, far from a 50-50 proposition. Furthermore, because humans are involved, the high percentage of prior successes could indeed come into play. (Confidence factor, etc.) Your post seems to imply going for it ob 4th down, with a prior 17/20 successful percentage was not the right call. If that's the case, how high does the prior percentage have to be before you do think it's the right call?my analogy was spot on it wasnt meant in terms of percentages it was meant in terms of simply, past performance/results is no guarantee nor an indicator of future performance/results, thats all.
It's not? So having one the best offensive lines in the NFL, a great offense and maybe some great plays called had nothing to do with converting 17/20? I beg to differ.
0
Posted:
#21
Sorry rosswin97 and bigred84
Irisheric777 gave you and me completely false information: Irisheric777 wrote above: "They were 17 out of 20 on 4rth down of 3 or less all season."
That's complete bullshit. They were anywhere from 44% to at best 52.8%. Here are the facts, supported by the source:
Dan Campbell 4th down conversion rates: How successful is Lions coach's approach?
The Lions have gone for it on fourth down 123 times since 2021, most in the league, with the Cardinals (109) and Browns (108) the next closest, according to Stathead. In 2023, only the 2-15 Panthers went for it more on fourth down than Detroit (48 to 40).
When Detroit faced a fourth-down on offense, it went for it on 34 percent of the time, the highest rate of any team since 2000, topping the previous record of 31 percent held by the 2021 Chargers, per Stathead.In those attempts, the Lions were successful 52.8 percent dating back to 2021. The team converted 52.5 percent of its first-down attempts in 2023. But Campbell's aggressiveness comes out in more than just his overall willingness to go for it. It's Campbell's willingness to take chances in his own territory that make his decisions so daring.
Own territory
In 2023, the Lions went for it on fourth down in their own territory nine times. Only the Texans (11) and Chiefs (nine) had as many or more similar attempts among teams that finished the season with a winning record. On those attempts, the Lions were successful 44.4 percent of the time.
And overall since 2021, the Lions have gone for it in their own territory 29 times with a success rate of 51.7 percent.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/lions-dan-campbell-4th-down-conversion-rates-diaper/20790af46dab6a16d8889449
0
Posted:
#22
@Stress
They are not guaranteed 3 offensive plays after picking up a first down. They’re guaranteed ONE. If on first down, they fumble the ball or throw an interception, they do not get a second offensive play (let alone a third offensive play). They’re simply guaranteed another play, or the next offensive play.
Risk / Reward…it’s a tricky relationship that is in constant dynamic flux, and I can assure you, Dan Campbell made massive mistakes in those calls to go for it on 4th down. Just massive.
AS
0
Posted:
#24
Campbell's Lions were the https://cbssports.com/nfl/ most aggressive fourth-down team throughout the regular season, going for it 33.9% of the time overall and 50.8% of the time in opponent territory. On fourth-and-3 or less in plus territory, they went for it on 18-of-21 opportunities, converting 15 of them. In the playoffs, there were 2 for 2 in those situations prior to the NFC title game.
0
Posted:
#25
I have no problem with him going for the first down earlier when they were up 24 -10 on the 4th and 2. When you're ahead that's the time to take risks. However when you're behind, and it's 4th and 3 yards halfway through the 4th quarter you have to be more conservative. He should have kicked the second field goal which of course would have tied the game up. You cannot take the same risks late in the game when you're down, no one will convince me otherwise or more importantly most every other coach in the NFL. Badgly was 18-21 the past 3 seasons on FGs from 40-49 and that would have been a 48 yard attempt. He also has a career long of 59 yards, clearly this is a field goal that he is most likely going to make. But remember they dropped passes, fumbled, SF made a semi miraculous catch, lot of other reasons they lost. The Lions had a great season and should be congratulated for it. Hate to see all this controversy cloud what was an otherwise successful and exciting year for the Lions and their fans and I fully expect they will once again be a force to be reckoned with next season.
"I'm afraid all we may have done is awakened a sleeping giant."
0
Hot Forum Topics
