***2024 NFL Season***
- Thread starter BigJCy
- Start date
Unless the 4th downs were converted. Then it would have clearly been the right call.
I could see it either way, but I think it was a good pick up, the defender had his eyes on the ball trying to make a play and the contact wasn't egregious, just my opinion.
This is how they’ve played all season. If that mindset has got you to this point, why change?
"If they did one thing in one situation why didn't they do the same thing in a completely different situation?" Check mate.
"That's ridiculous"
-Ravens OC that decided to turn the league's best rushing offense into a drop back passing offense in the AFC championship game
Well, I think it's a relevant point when the most common comment seems to be "That's what they've done all season." The rebuttal is.... no it's not.
The argument isn't "the Lions never kick field goals", it's "the Lions have been one of the more aggressive teams in the league, especially when it comes to 4th downs".
How many Lions games did you watch this season? How they played this game was exactly how they played all season long. The coaches make a lot of decisions based on momentum and feeling rather than analytics. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it ends badly. But I’ll take this over a math nerd thinking a game of football can come down to percentages and things like momentum in a game don’t exist.
They weren’t. And if they were, they may have been forced to kick a field goal anyway.
Going up 17 in the 3rd would have been huge. Tying the game in the 4th would have been huge. Those decisions were mistakes.
It’s actually the opposite. It’s the math nerds that have determined it’s more valuable to go for it because it will return more points over a large sample size. You can see the argument in this thread.
Because going to the Suoer Bowl is more important than stubbornly sticking to a mindset?
Well yeah, if you assume success the decision looks a lot better. That works either way, not really a good argument for one or the other.
Sure. But An NFL kicker should be able to hit 40 yard field goals 90% of the time. And assuming success on subsequent plays is also inherent in any decision to go for it. My argument is not based on assumption of success anymore than yours is.
I love to see teams go for it. Aggression wins in the NFL. But you have to pick your spots and these were the wrong spots in my opinion.
I watched the lions quite a bit actually, and I know they went for it a lot. Thats the trend in the whole league. From what I've seen the analytics say the decision was pretty much a wash either way. Momentum is exactly the reason I disagreed with it. Making it a 3 possession game late in the third quarter is huge, and going for it provides a huge opportunity for the 9ers to grab the momentum and for the crowd to go nuts, which is exactly what happened. Obviously a field goal is not a guarantee, but I bet the percentages are a hell of a lot better than converting 4th and 3.
I would like to hear the explanation of why they decided to take the points at the half. If you convert there you are guaranteed a touchdown, unlike the others where you could have been putting so much on the line just to get in a little better position for a field goal.
Detroit's kicker is 77% from 40-49, so a quarter of the time you give up the ball in the same place as a failed conversion. I'm not assuming success on subsequent plays, but obviously it gets more and more likely.
It's an ESPN+ article but it's an interesting breakdown of the decisions
Barnwell: The truth behind Detroit's disastrous second half and Baltimore's botched Super Bowl chance
The Lions surrendered a 17-point second-half lead, while the vaunted Ravens scored just 10 points. Here's how the 49ers and Chiefs won.
www.espn.com
There may be benefit to going for it so much every time over a season. The individual downside of failing the conversion is greater than taking the field goal. You shouldn't play an elimination game following statistics that maximize points over a season. You don't have all season with against which to balance the risk of failure- you have to win that game or you're done.
Part of the risk-mitigation of going for it so close to the goal line is that if you are stopped, the other team is pinned inside their own 5 (you are more likely to get the ball back with little lost compared to a drive starting at the 20). At the end of a half, you lose that and it becomes more reasonable to take the points.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
The second one I think I agree with - you need to just tie up the game at that point. The first one, I could see going for it and keeping the pedal down.