Week Fourteen: Green Bay Packers (9-3) @ Detroit Lions (11-1)

[lordstanley]

1 hour ago, Jason_R said:

Vikings fans are delusional too. Just heard on NFL Radio: “I’m not afraid of Detroit. They are teetering.” Well, their fourth string defense just beat the Packers. If that is teetering, I’ll take it. 

And if that is teetering, what does that make the Vikings? Their past 8 games:

- beat Jets at home by 6

- lost to Lions at home by 2

- lost to LA Rams on road by 10

- beat Indy at home by 8

- beat Jacksonville on road by 5

- beat Tennessee on road by 10

- beat Chicago on road by 3

- beat Arizona at home by 1

Is there one impressive win in there? Except for winning in Chicago, the Vikings’ other 5 wins in the past 8 games arguably would be poorer than the Lions’ worst win of the year. I’d say 11 of the 12 of Lions’ wins have been either by big margins of victory or against good opponents.  Only beating 4-8 Chicago at home by 3 being the only outlier (maybe only beating the Rams at home in OT being another, if you have impossibly high standards)  

 

Edited December 6, 2024 by lordstanley

[Motown Bombers]

Vikings strength of victory is .390, and the Lions is .507. 

[romad1]

Sheesh, the pitiful Cowboys are on MNF!? After having to play on Thanksgiving the week before.  What a kind and benevolent league Jerry Jones has found.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[holygoat]

17 hours ago, romad1 said:

Sheesh, the pitiful Cowboys are on MNF!? After having to play on Thanksgiving the week before.  What a kind and benevolent league Jerry Jones has found.

 

[RandyMarsh]

On 12/6/2024 at 10:02 PM, romad1 said:

Sheesh, the pitiful Cowboys are on MNF!? After having to play on Thanksgiving the week before.  What a kind and benevolent league Jerry Jones has found.

I guess the league was considering flexing them out of this game a few weeks ago but the excuse given was that the game will have a simulcast on Disney centered around a Simpsons theme and all the drawings of the "characters"(assume that means players) and teams along with voiceovers were already done and they wouldn't be able to replicate that with new teams in time. 

[RandyMarsh]

Finally got around to watching some of the National pundits views about the game and most notably Campbell's decision and I got a kick out of what most of the naysayers had to say about it. To sum it up they essentially said if he didn't convert then the Packers would've just went down the field and won the game with a FG. That may or may not have happened but what I find funny is that if they genuinely believe that then you have to be willing to concede that if the Lions kicked the FG then the Packers would've went right down and tied the game with a FG since they would've gotten the ball at basically the same spot with the same amount of time.

So if you believe that would you rather take your chances in OT with an exhausted defense with 2nd and 3rd stringers or gain a half yard running behind the best run blocking RG and RT in the league? I'd side with Campbell's decision. 

On a similar note I saw a couple people bring up how the analytics said to kick in that situation as a reason to go against Campbell's decision yet some of the same folks said "hell with the analytics" when the 4th down decisions agreed with Campbell in the Championship Game. 

BTW of the 5 offensive TDs the Lions have scored against GB this season 4 of them have been on 4th down. They easily could've lost both those games if Campbell "played by the book" and kicked FGs instead of being aggressive so the haters have to keep that in mind anytime those decisions backfire. 

[ben9753]

It really comes down to a single factor, what do you think is more likely:

1. Lions fail to convert the 4th down

 2. Packers drive 35 yards and kick a FG in 40 seconds. 
 

You can have your own opinion, but either choice is completely defensible. 

[RandyMarsh]

7 minutes ago, ben9753 said:

It really comes down to a single factor, what do you think is more likely:

1. Lions fail to convert the 4th down

 2. Packers drive 35 yards and kick a FG in 40 seconds. 
 

You can have your own opinion, but either choice is completely defensible. 

It's not quite that simple. There is also the option that Bates misses the initial FG meaning a Packers FG wins. Also the chance that the Packers drive the entire length of the field for the game winning TD. By converting it on 4th down not only do you obviously guarantee GB can't come back to beat you with a TD you also insure that if Bates does miss you are atleast guaranteed OT.

 

[RandyMarsh]

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you don't convert and GB gets the ball, with the game being tied they likely aren't going to be as aggressive. Like if you were to sack them on 1st down there's a good chance they just run out the clock and go to OT vs. risking a disaster turnover. Now if they are down by 3 and KNOW it is 4 down territory that isn't an option. 

[lordstanley]

19 minutes ago, ben9753 said:

It really comes down to a single factor, what do you think is more likely:

1. Lions fail to convert the 4th down

 2. Packers drive 35 yards and kick a FG in 40 seconds. 
 

You can have your own opinion, but either choice is completely defensible. 

Right. 35 yards in 40 seconds. I heard some pundits say 50 yards in 30 seconds and that’s wrong and might have been enough to impact the decision if correct. It’s 40 seconds because a FG attempt with 43 seconds to go would take 3 seconds and a touchback would take 0. It’s 35 yards because a touchback places the ball at the 30 and 35 yards gained from there makes it a 53 yard attempt. So even 25-30 yards gained would have led to a FG being attempted in today’s NFL. 39 seconds before a FG attempt with 1 second to go, even without timeouts, is time for a good 4 plays (unless you’re the Bears), any one of which could be a spot call on Arnold. I wanted the Lions to go for it even before Campbell called it. 

[RandyMarsh]

10 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

Right. 35 yards in 40 seconds. I heard some pundits say 50 yards in 30 seconds and that’s wrong and might have been enough to impact the decision if correct. It’s 40 seconds because a FG attempt with 43 seconds to go would take 3 seconds and a touchback would take 0. It’s 35 yards because a touchback places the ball at the 30 and 35 yards gained from there makes it a 53 yard attempt. So even 25-30 yards gained would have led to a FG being attempted in today’s NFL. 39 seconds before a FG attempt with 1 second to go, even without timeouts, is time for a good 4 plays (unless you’re the Bears), any one of which could be a spot call on Arnold. I wanted the Lions to go for it even before Campbell called it. 

McManus has made one from 61 and has one of the strongest legs in the league so if they get the ball on the 30 the Pack probably only need 25 yards for an attempt. Given our banged up defense who lets not forget Branch left the previous series injured and Joseph was on the bench hitting the oxygen tank isn't that hard to do. 

If Campbell were to do this when either A. our defense was at near full strength or B. had shown they were consistently capable of stopping the opposition I would have been against it but that wasn't the case. The Packers had already scored 24 pts in the 2nd half on this defense so its not like they were playing great. 

[Jason_R]

9 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

BTW of the 5 offensive TDs the Lions have scored against GB this season 4 of them have been on 4th down. They easily could've lost both those games if Campbell "played by the book" and kicked FGs instead of being aggressive so the haters have to keep that in mind anytime those decisions backfire. 

Good stat. It brings into focus how demoralizing it is for a defense to try to stop this team. You get us on third and short? Now try again. 

With the strength of this offense, I assume that all of the generic analytics stats the networks display when MCDC is going for it on 4th down dramatically underestimate the team’s expected win percentage. A 4th down call that would be calculated as a 50/50 proposition based on all teams, all scenarios, all time, might be a 60 or 70% success rate based on the skill and execution of this offense. I presume MCDC has proprietary data on this. And I presume if the national pundits could see it they wouldn’t be having so many conniptions. But then again that is what they get paid for. 

[Sports_Freak]

Most watched streamed game....ever!!

 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Sports_Freak]

On 12/7/2024 at 11:39 PM, ben9753 said:

It really comes down to a single factor, what do you think is more likely:

1. Lions fail to convert the 4th down

 2. Packers drive 35 yards and kick a FG in 40 seconds. 
 

You can have your own opinion, but either choice is completely defensible. 

And every active NFL coach and every coach in the history of the NFL would have kicked the FG. 🤣🤣

[ben9753]

3 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

And every active NFL coach and every coach in the history of the NFL would have kicked the FG. 🤣🤣

Because they don’t coach to win. They coach to not get fired. 

[Jimbo]

I actually think Campbell is a trend setter with going for it on 4th down.  So if you asked me 3 years ago, who would go for it on 4th down (instead of kicking the field goal), at the 30ish, 40 secs left, and a tied game.  I would say no one would go for it.  Although I think Campbell opened up other coaches to go for it on 4th down in unusual situations and multiple coaches would of done the same thing.  I think going for it on 4th down is going to be like the 3 in the NBA.  Its nice to have a team finally that sets the trends instead of getting on the trend too late.

[RandyMarsh]

12 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

I actually think Campbell is a trend setter with going for it on 4th down.  So if you asked me 3 years ago, who would go for it on 4th down (instead of kicking the field goal), at the 30ish, 40 secs left, and a tied game.  I would say no one would go for it.  Although I think Campbell opened up other coaches to go for it on 4th down in unusual situations and multiple coaches would of done the same thing.  I think going for it on 4th down is going to be like the 3 in the NBA.  Its nice to have a team finally that sets the trends instead of getting on the trend too late.

Yep, same with "giving up outs" by bunting in baseball. Not too long ago there were situations where every coach would bunt or risk getting chastised for not doing so, now it almost flipped where coaches are questioned any time they do bunt.

[Jimbo]

Just like the bunt or the 3, the 4th down play in unusual situations will only work for certain teams.  First you have to have a good to great offensive line, second you have to have a creative play caller, and third you need to have a team (and organization) that buys into it.  This is why you want to be a trend setter.  Teams that don't have the right team will still try and go for it and fail.

[Tigeraholic1]

MLB has been losing their mind over the Tigers using basically two starting pitchers to get into the playoffs. I guess trend setting is what Detroit is known for now. I like it!

Edited December 11, 2024 by Tigeraholic1

[Motown Bombers]

This going for it on 4th down trend has been picked up by the league more than taking the wind in overtime. 

[Shinzaki]

In going for Campbell put his money on his offense instead of his defense.  Given the personnel at his disposal, it was the smart move

[MichiganCardinal]

The real possibility in my mind if you kick it there is that your offense doesn’t see the ball again. If the game goes to OT tied at 34, whoever wins the toss is marching down, scoring 6, and winning the game 40-34.

So you’re either kicking it and asking your defense to prevent 30 yards in 40 seconds, or you’re asking your offense to gain a half yard. And if your choosing the latter, and your offense doesn’t get it, you’re just asking your defense to prevent 40 yards in 40 seconds to force OT, with what would likely be a slightly more conservative Green Bay offense.

I like the defense’s odds to force OT in the latter scenario. I don’t love the defense’s odds to prevent OT in the former.

That being said though, I wouldn’t be all that surprised if the Dan Campbell calculus here is a little different in the playoffs, where both teams are guaranteed a possession in OT regardless if a TD is scored.

Of course, then he’ll just go for two in OT of the NFC Championship Game. Probably with a run up the middle.

Edited December 11, 2024 by MichiganCardinal

[lordstanley]

It has some similarities to going for 2 to try to win the game with a late TD instead of kicking the extra point for a tie. Time left makes a big difference. Campbell made his decision because there was 40 seconds left and 0 timeouts. He may well have made a different decision if 30 seconds and 0 timeouts. What about 25 seconds and 1 timeout? And to re-iterate, the touchbacks to the 30 yard line and the way that FG attempts of 55+ are now so common will make coaches in Campbell’s position more likely to try to ice the game with a 1st down. 

So I agree with Jimbo. If Campbell’s decision truly had been reckless, it would not set a trend. But it was a logical decision. Simply against conventional wisdom. What’s unconventional today can become conventional pretty quickly. 

Edited December 11, 2024 by lordstanley