2023-24 NFL Playoffs thread

[Outlander]

9 hours ago, young guns said:

Ironically, if the det player doesn't go after that on the fly, there's a chance that the sf player sliding in could have it bounce off of him as he wasn't in great position to catch that easily.

Has not really been talked about much but that would have been interesting if the Lions player let it go and nailed the 49er the instant he touched it.

[MrTPlush]

10 hours ago, HarryDoyle said:

Much like Atlanta not getting a better shot at a Lombardi Trophy than in 2016. I feel the Lions will not get a better opportunity to even play for one. They absolutely blew it tonight.

I would agree...and still somewhat do but:

The NFC is literal garbage at the QB position. It came down to Brock Purdy, Jared Goff, Jordan Love, and Baker Mayfield. That is pretty sad. If Mahomes, Allen, and Jackson were all in their conference I would be like yup...they just blew their chance. However, with the QB play on the NFC these days, it is anyone's for the taking. 

They really weren't that good though...and benefitted greatly playing the Vikings twice at the end of the year when Cousins wasn't on the field. Life isn't going to be as easy next year if Cousins returns, the Packers are stronger out of the gate., and they have the schedule of a divisional winner. They best keep drafting really well. They will have to waste a lot of cap space signing back their good but not great players (their WRs, guards, etc.) and they have some mega contracts close on the horizon. They probably have a few decent shots left before their cap situation really starts to weigh on them.

[adambr2]

I thought the only time Campbell absolutely needed to just take points was right before the half to go up 17.  And he did. 

Other than that...going for 4th and shorts in otherwise a long FG range situation is hard for me to second guess. 

[yourout]

1 hour ago, Outlander said:

Has not really been talked about much but that would have been interesting if the Lions player let it go and nailed the 49er the instant he touched it.

How many successful on side kicks were there this year?

I bet it wasn't many.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Just now, adambr2 said:

I thought the only time Campbell absolutely needed to just take points was right before the half to go up 17.  And he did. 

Other than that...going for 4th and shorts in otherwise a long FG range situation is hard for me to second guess. 

That 1st 4th and short was in gimme fg range in the 2nd half, and the drop/failure to convert absolutely boosted San Frans chances to get right back into the game.  That was a wasted chance to take points and go back up 3 scores midway through the 3rd quarter.  Had they converted, yes it probably just about seals the game for the Lions- but the risk of turning it over on downs there easily outweighed the reward.  Going up 3 scores in that spot turns the 49ers more into a pass only hurry up approach and takes McCaffrey out of the focal point - making that offense much easier to defend.  When teams have a big lead it's OK to just keep taking 3 points, especially if it keeps turning the game to going up 3 scores.

[homer]

8 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

That 1st 4th and short was in gimme fg range in the 2nd half, and the drop/failure to convert absolutely boosted San Frans chances to get right back into the game.  That was a wasted chance to take points and go back up 3 scores midway through the 3rd quarter.  Had they converted, yes it probably just about seals the game for the Lions- but the risk of turning it over on downs there easily outweighed the reward.  Going up 3 scores in that spot turns the 49ers more into a pass only hurry up approach and takes McCaffrey out of the focal point - making that offense much easier to defend.  When teams have a big lead it's OK to just keep taking 3 points, especially if it keeps turning the game to going up 3 scores.

I don't know the math on it but if the boldface is true then it seems to me that going for it and potentially sealing the game on a single play was worth the risk.

 

[HarryDoyle]

7 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I thought the only time Campbell absolutely needed to just take points was right before the half to go up 17.  And he did. 

Other than that...going for 4th and shorts in otherwise a long FG range situation is hard for me to second guess. 

I agree with the 100%. The same people criticizing Campbell are the same people that criticize ouches for playing not to lose by settling for field goals. What’s the point in playing for the tie when your defense can’t stop a nosebleed? On the first try the play was there. You gotta catch the ball though. Similar to a basketball team down by two on the road and with possession with three seconds left you shoot the three.

[homer]

No one roasted Andy Reid for going for it on 4th and 1 from Baltimore's 13. I'm sure had Baltimore won people would have. Which is why coaches are reluctant to do it. Had the Lions converted one of those 4th down attempts and won, I doubt anyone would point to that play as a turning point in the game. But because they didn't convert and ultimately lost everyone points to those specific plays as huge missteps..

[Jimbo]

10 hours ago, HarryDoyle said:

Much like Atlanta not getting a better shot at a Lombardi Trophy than in 2016. I feel the Lions will not get a better opportunity to even play for one. They absolutely blew it tonight.

Better than 2010?  :)

Yeah, I'm thinking this may have been Detroit's one opportunity this generation (or next).  I don't think many Lions fans slept well last night.  They had the game in hand at halftime.  Like the Packers against Seattle.

Different note, the sport that coaches are most risk adverse is football.  Like Gregg Olson said, the high risk/reward is what got Detroit to this point, cannot criticize it now.

 

[adambr2]

36 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

That 1st 4th and short was in gimme fg range in the 2nd half, and the drop/failure to convert absolutely boosted San Frans chances to get right back into the game.  That was a wasted chance to take points and go back up 3 scores midway through the 3rd quarter.  Had they converted, yes it probably just about seals the game for the Lions- but the risk of turning it over on downs there easily outweighed the reward.  Going up 3 scores in that spot turns the 49ers more into a pass only hurry up approach and takes McCaffrey out of the focal point - making that offense much easier to defend.  When teams have a big lead it's OK to just keep taking 3 points, especially if it keeps turning the game to going up 3 scores.

A 45-46 yard FG is not a "gimmee", and I'm surprised that anyone who had Anders Carlson as his kicker this year would suggest that. 

If Reynolds just catches the pass this isn't even being second guessed. 

You can't just "take" 3 points. Your kicker has to earn them for you. If it was as easy as just adding 3 points to the scoreboard it would probably change these decisions. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

3 hours ago, adambr2 said:

A 45-46 yard FG is not a "gimmee", and I'm surprised that anyone who had Anders Carlson as his kicker this year would suggest that. 

If Reynolds just catches the pass this isn't even being second guessed. 

You can't just "take" 3 points. Your kicker has to earn them for you. If it was as easy as just adding 3 points to the scoreboard it would probably change these decisions. 

From a FG length perspective - it's a much higher percentage play yielding points that makes it a 3 score game than what it takes to convert that 4th and short and then actually continuing the drive for a TD or successful shorter FG that would at best still make it a 3 score game.

That Reynolds play on 4th down was a highly contested difficult catch - definitely not the one I'd call a blatant drop on his part (he had a terrible drop a bit later in the game that would've extended a drive for another scoring opportunity).  While  I agree that a kicker has to earn those 3 points, at some point you've got to let your kicker go out and actually do exactly that in a playoff football game.  Just because the Packers stuck with a struggling rookie kicker doesn't mean the Lions should just pretend they're playing Madden any time they've got a 4th and manageable situation outside of a 35 yard FG attempt in a game they were either winning by multiple scores or trailing by a FG - particularly against a pretty darn good defense that made some halftime adjustments and was making it much more difficult for the Lions to march up and down the field on it as the game progressed.

[Fear The Chorizo]

3 hours ago, HarryDoyle said:

I agree with the 100%. The same people criticizing Campbell are the same people that criticize ouches for playing not to lose by settling for field goals. What’s the point in playing for the tie when your defense can’t stop a nosebleed? On the first try the play was there. You gotta catch the ball though. Similar to a basketball team down by two on the road and with possession with three seconds left you shoot the three.

My problem with even the first 4th and short that failed was that it was already halfway into the 3rd quarter, and making a ~45 yard field goal in that spot would have forced the 49ers to score three times over the next 5 total possessions (3 for San Fran, 2 for the Lions) while holding the Lions scoreless to tie or take the lead - the decision to go for it there is carelessly aggressive considering the spot in the game the Lions were in, and failing to convert in that spot changed the direction of the game whether people believe in momentum or not.  Making a very makeable FG in that spot forces 2 extra possessions needed before the Lions were potentially tied or losing, and that's a huge deal when there's only 22 minutes left of game clock on the scoreboard in that spot.

Had they converted, sure Campbell would be lauded for his aggressive decision making....but even converting wouldn't guarantee that the next time Goff dropped back to pass around the 20 yard line wouldn't have led to a strip sack turnover and no points scored that possession, either.

[Team Canada]

5 hours ago, homer said:

I don't know the math on it but if the boldface is true then it seems to me that going for it and potentially sealing the game on a single play was worth the risk.

 

The math is that both decisions were basically a tossup. Barnwell's ESPN+ article dives into it, but TLDR, it's very hard to argue that it clearly was the wrong decision.

[adambr2]

1 hour ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

My problem with even the first 4th and short that failed was that it was already halfway into the 3rd quarter, and making a ~45 yard field goal in that spot would have forced the 49ers to score three times over the next 5 total possessions (3 for San Fran, 2 for the Lions) while holding the Lions scoreless to tie or take the lead - the decision to go for it there is carelessly aggressive considering the spot in the game the Lions were in, and failing to convert in that spot changed the direction of the game whether people believe in momentum or not.  Making a very makeable FG in that spot forces 2 extra possessions needed before the Lions were potentially tied or losing, and that's a huge deal when there's only 22 minutes left of game clock on the scoreboard in that spot.

Had they converted, sure Campbell would be lauded for his aggressive decision making....but even converting wouldn't guarantee that the next time Goff dropped back to pass around the 20 yard line wouldn't have led to a strip sack turnover and no points scored that possession, either.

But again, you don't have a guarantee of a kicker making a 45-46 yard FG.  It's kind of like in baseball when people say "why don't they just bunt him to 3rd?", like it's a sure thing. 

Say what you will about Campbell but analytics support the position that over the course of the season his decisions have added more points than they've lost and he's been among the best in that area. 

Obviously things can be situational but there's no analytics to support that he made the wrong decisions last night. The only time I thought he went completely unreasonably rogue this year is not kicking the XP after the penalty in Dallas.

[Fear The Chorizo]

But again, you don't have a guarantee of a kicker making a 45-46 yard FG. 

I didn't say it did - what I do firmly think is in that situation of the game, opting to kick a field goal that likely has around an 85-90% probability of adding 3 points to your score and going up by 3 scores against your opponent is well worth the risk of missing it in that spot, compared to the potential reward of going for it on 4th down and eventually scoring a TD to still only go up 3 scores.

Obviously things can be situational but there's no analytics to support that he made the wrong decisions last night.

This isn't a game in the 3rd week in October - at some point "playing the percentages" has to be weighed against score/situation/magnitude of the opportunity to tack points onto your score, especially when doing so gives your team an additional score lead well into the second half of a playoff game.

[jerichoholicninja]

The Lions gave up 27 unanswered points the last 2 quarters. I'm pretty sure that is the key to their loss.

[adambr2]

33 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

But again, you don't have a guarantee of a kicker making a 45-46 yard FG. 

I didn't say it did - what I do firmly think is in that situation of the game, opting to kick a field goal that likely has around an 85-90% probability of adding 3 points to your score and going up by 3 scores against your opponent is well worth the risk of missing it in that spot, compared to the potential reward of going for it on 4th down and eventually scoring a TD to still only go up 3 scores.

Obviously things can be situational but there's no analytics to support that he made the wrong decisions last night.

This isn't a game in the 3rd week in October - at some point "playing the percentages" has to be weighed against score/situation/magnitude of the opportunity to tack points onto your score, especially when doing so gives your team an additional score lead well into the second half of a playoff game.

FG success rate drops pretty drastically once you start getting into the 40s. At 45-46 yards it is roughly 75.8% since 2010, or about 3 in 4.

If if is truly 85-90% you are talking 35-40 yards and I'm probably in agreement on the 3 then. 

The extra kicker on failing the FG is also losing 7-8 yards in field position versus failing on 4th. 

In most cases I have a really hard time second guessing coaches if the percentages were probably played, or at least not clearly improperly played. 

Some of the situations in which coaches go for it now would have been highly critiqued in the 90s. It's good that they're not anymore, and it's good that they're able to make smart decisions that use the data that we've learned without the threat of losing their job from being second guessed because in any sport you can make a good decision and still get a bad result. 

My only issue with analytics is that I'm not sure it can weigh the value of momentum which is a hard phenomenon to properly value. 

[tmwiese55]

Wouldn't surprise if the expected points goes up slightly by going for that first one.  But does it properly weigh the 3 score lead with your opponent only having 4-5 possession remaining in the game?    No turnovers, and essentially one more stop or one more score by you and the game is basically over. 

That said, I did look up later and saw they do not have the most reliable kicker situation. So could be a factor move things a bit but 45 yds in todays NFL is nothing

[young guns]

Just heard that Badgley was only 50% from 45-50 for his career.  First one would have been about 43 and second 48.  I don't have much of a problem with the second one, but that first one in that situation I kick the fg.  If made, it erases what San Francisco just did and puts them back down 17, but now half the 3rd is gone and it tightens the screws a little more.

[adambr2]

56 minutes ago, young guns said:

Just heard that Badgley was only 50% from 45-50 for his career.  First one would have been about 43 and second 48.  I don't have much of a problem with the second one, but that first one in that situation I kick the fg.  If made, it erases what San Francisco just did and puts them back down 17, but now half the 3rd is gone and it tightens the screws a little more.

From the box score the first one said 28 yard line if I'm not mistaken which would be 45 or 46. And the second 47 or 48 as you said. 

If your kicker is only a 50/50 proposition from 45+ that definitely needs to be weighed. That's basically the 4th down conversion odds.

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The first field goal he didn't kick was from the 28. Their guy is not strong legged, but I still kick that one to regain a 3 possession lead, on the road in the second half. I don't think it's an absolutely crazy decision but I definitely would have kicked it.  

I would have made the same call he did on the second one. I don't think a FG does much of anything for you in that situation. So you tie the game and give the ball back to SF, who you haven't stopped once all half. If you do convert and go up 4, there's maybe a chance you keep them out of the end zone and they settle for 3 or you get the ball back by way of a fumble or whatever and you're ahead. It forces them to remain aggressive though because they're losing. Higher chance of mistake, and less comfort in running those 7 minutes off when there's no guarantee of getting a touchdown. It keeps the pressure on them. So I totally get that call. 

 

 

[HarveysWBs]

Assuming Badgley is indeed a coin flip from that distance, I would go every time for that first 4th down.

Odds of converting the 1st down can't be much worse than 50/50, I'd imagine, and considering the upshot if you do convert is at worst you've run more time off the clock and slightly better field position, mid outcome of a shorter FG attempt, and best outcome is 21 point lead with just over a quarter left to go? All gas, no brakes, baby.

Peppers giving the stop sign lost the 2014 NFC Championship game. I wouldn't ever want to lose that way again (though I'll note that, as a Packers fan, I have no shortage of interesting ways to lose from which to choose from in my memory). Deliver the kill shot when it is available and let the chips fall where they may. Play that game again with the Lions still getting stopped on that 4th down and I bet they win eight or nine times out of ten. It was the right call.

[HarryDoyle]

9 hours ago, HarveysWBs said:

Assuming Badgley is indeed a coin flip from that distance, I would go every time for that first 4th down.

Odds of converting the 1st down can't be much worse than 50/50, I'd imagine, and considering the upshot if you do convert is at worst you've run more time off the clock and slightly better field position, mid outcome of a shorter FG attempt, and best outcome is 21 point lead with just over a quarter left to go? All gas, no brakes, baby.

Peppers giving the stop sign lost the 2014 NFC Championship game. I wouldn't ever want to lose that way again (though I'll note that, as a Packers fan, I have no shortage of interesting ways to lose from which to choose from in my memory). Deliver the kill shot when it is available and let the chips fall where they may. Play that game again with the Lions still getting stopped on that 4th down and I bet they win eight or nine times out of ten. It was the right call.

The moment I saw Burnett go down I knew we were in trouble.

[OldHeidelberg]

18 hours ago, adambr2 said:

 

Say what you will about Campbell but analytics support the position that over the course of the season his decisions have added more points than they've lost and he's been among the best in that area. 

 

How many of those extra points he ran up in the regular season were against poor defenses? Someone posted here a while back that statistics show over time you will score more points going for 2 every time but obviously if you go 0-4 in a playoff game and lose because of it you will look stupid. One of the guys on NFL network was ripping on Campbell pretty bad yesterday, not really for the decisions but his postgame explanation of "that's who we are and will do it every time". He called it meathead talk and I agree, you have to adjust to the situation and quality of the team you are facing. It's the main reason I soured on MM in the end, he seemed to call everything off his chart without any real feel for the flow of the game. Of course that is probably tougher than we think, it's the sort of thing that separates the great coaches from the good ones.

 

     

[adambr2]

1 hour ago, OldHeidelberg said:

How many of those extra points he ran up in the regular season were against poor defenses? Someone posted here a while back that statistics show over time you will score more points going for 2 every time but obviously if you go 0-4 in a playoff game and lose because of it you will look stupid. One of the guys on NFL network was ripping on Campbell pretty bad yesterday, not really for the decisions but his postgame explanation of "that's who we are and will do it every time". He called it meathead talk and I agree, you have to adjust to the situation and quality of the team you are facing. It's the main reason I soured on MM in the end, he seemed to call everything off his chart without any real feel for the flow of the game. Of course that is probably tougher than we think, it's the sort of thing that separates the great coaches from the good ones.

 

     

Campbell may have said that, but I don't think he just blindly calls it aggressively every time with no regard to the opponent or situation.

Wouldn't him kicking the FG before half be an example of that? Why does no one mention the other side of the coin there when critiquing him? Could easily argue that if Detroit gets into the endzone there and go up 28-7 at half instead of 24-7, they win, right?

Fact of the matter is there are so many decisions in the NFL that are basically a coin flip as to which decision is correct and sometimes your decision will make you look good and sometimes it'll make you look stupid. So as long as the decisions have some basis in logic, whether I agree with the logic or not, I have a hard time second guessing them.

You can almost write the article of the opposite critique if he goes for the FG on 4th and 2, Badgley misses wide right and the 49ers get the ball at the 35 and march right down and score 7.

"With the Super Bowl within their grasp and facing a very manageable 4th and 2 in iffy field goal territory, Dan Campbell had a chance to seize the moment and give Detroit their first Super Bowl. Instead, he got away from what worked for the Lions all year and got them there. Coach Campbell went conservative in the moment and it backfired on him in a big way."