NFL (2024 Season)

[bing101]

https://www.chiefs.com/news/remembering-joe-montana-and-the-kansas-city-chiefs-1993-season-14616866
The last time the 49ers fans paid attention to the Chiefs was when Joe Montana was sent there before he retired from the NFL.

[Hunty2022]

Both the "logo script" and the "first game rematch" super bowl "scripts" got proven wrong today.

[JayhawkCO]

That run call on 3rd down was one of the historically bad calls in the history of the NFL.

Bested by the two historically bad 4th down calls.

I didn't get to watch the whole game, but I'm completely okay with not going for the FG. Wasting a timeout that essentially dropped their chances of winning from maybe 10% to 0.2% was football malpractice.

It wouldn't have been that 10% (or whatever is was) if they had gone for the safer options earlier.  The 1st 4th down in the 3rd Quarter was where they were well within FG range.  After they didn't convert, SF fairly quickly scored two TDs to tie the score, then eventually kicked their own FG to take the lead.  In the 4th quarter, when DET was down by 3, they could've kicked a FG to tie it, but instead went for it on 4th down and again failed to convert. 

Sometimes you take a risk.  This was probably not the game to risk it when they had the momentum and a decent lead.

4th and 2 are converted 57.2% of the time. 4th and 3 are converted 47.4% of the time

They get at least one of the two 77.5% of the time. These were not unreasonable risks given the field position.

Not to mention the kicks aren't guaranteed either.

Edit: looks like the worst call of all of them was NOT going for it at the end of the first half and kicking the field goal instead. Looks like Campbell should have been more aggressive.

[thspfc]

^What is overrated about Campbell if not for the situational decision making?

My final point on that is that the right balance of aggressive/conservative is absolutely different in the playoffs, especially deep in the playoffs. I agree with sticking to what got you here to a certain point, but when the stakes are that high, with a trip to the Super Bowl on the line, situational awareness matters more, and with those decisions Campbell's stubbornness (and lack of big game experience) got in the way of maximizing their chance of winning.

I'm not saying he's bad, but the perception of him is extremely inflated among fans, probably for a few reasons: 1) it's the lovable loser Lions, 2) he's quirky, and 3) the team has improved drastically two years in a row.

Their front office has hit home run after home run after home run in the draft. Last 3 years: Gibbs, La Porta, Branch, Hutchinson, Joseph, Sewell, St. Brown. That's nuts. The Stafford/Goff trade was a total steal for Detroit - they very marginally downgraded at QB, but only in the short term as Goff is much younger, and picked up a load of draft picks. They've also hit home runs with cheap but highly productive free agents like Montgomery, Reynolds, Raymond, and Anzalone. As plagued as the franchise has been over its history, that team is stacked right now, and I'm confident that at least 20 current head coaches could have gone 12-5 or better.

Their playoff run was nice, but let's be honest, drawing the 9-8 Buccaneers in the divisional is about as light as it gets. The stars will likely never align for them the way they did this year - most often, that divisional game will be either at home against a team much better than that Tampa team at best, or on the road against the Super Bowl favorites at worst.

His background also doesn't offer anything convincing. He was never an OC, only a TE coach and an "assistant head coach" under Payton in New Orleans. His current OC is an attractive head coaching candidate, and there must be a reason for that in terms of the influence Ben Johnson has over the offense. Nobody hired Eric Bienemy away from KC, despite him "coordinating" a perennially elite offense, because everyone knew he was in Reid's shadow. And Campbell's defenses have been downright bad. Bottom 5 in '21 and '22, bottom 10-12 this year.

Point being, I think he gets too much credit for supposedly taking a bottom of the barrel team and making them NFC contenders. The front office and personnel departments did that. Campbell has more or less been along for the ride. There's a perception that the team is poverty and therefore it must be the coach that's pulling them up. Not true.



. . . oh, the fourth down decisions. I understand both sides, I don't know how the numbers are there. But the twist in those two scenarios (7:03 3Q 24-10 and 7:42 4Q 24-27) is this: not only are you betting on yourself to get the first down, you're also betting on yourself to score a touchdown thereafter when you're still 25 yards from the end zone at that point. Otherwise, you might as well have kicked it without risking coming away with nothing by failing on 4th.

Doing some nonscientific exploration, it's roughly like this:

% of 4th down conversion * % expected points of the drive given the 4th down has been converted (which probably falls between 4 and 6)
or
% of FG from that distance * 3 points from field goal. FGs from that range are converted at about 75%, so call it 2.25 XP.


4th and 2 is converted at a 57% clip, 4th and 3 at 47%. We'll meet in the middle and say 52%. So according to my armchair analytics:
2.25 = .52(XP) ; 2.25/.52 = XP given the 4th down has been converted must be at least 4.3

So do analytics support it? Probably. Can you reduce football to raw numbers the same way you can poker or blackjack? No, that's fundamentally flawed. There are always outside factors because there are humans involved, not just cards. In this case, outside factors as blatant as the numbers on the scoreboard. 27-10 is a three possession lead, 24-10 is a two possession lead. 27-27 is a tied game, 24-27 is losing. In both cases, those 3 points would functionally have been worth more than 3 points, and that was known at the time.

At the end of the day, a coach will be called a genius when it works and an idiot when it doesn't, so when it's close like this, I've come to refrain from one side or the other. Except the one in Dallas, because that was not close. That was raw stupidity.

The one right at the end (0:56 24-34) was the correct decision. They had a far better chance of scoring the one TD they needed with one play from the 3 yard line than with a rushed miracle drive starting from their own territory. Burning the timeout was awful though, at that point you've just gotta snap the ball and throw it to your best receiver somewhere in the end zone. Whatever benefit the timeout provided did not outweigh the cost of needing an onside recovery to have a chance.

[Max Rockatansky]

Dan Campbell is got out coached during the second half of all three Lions playoff games.  It worked out against the Rams and Bucs, not so much with the 49ers.  Hopefully it doesn't take another 32 years to get back to the NFC Championship Game.

Leaving Levi's Stadium was wild.  Basically followed a bunch of high clearance vehicles through a community college to escape the Green Lot and get to US 101.  Lots of intoxicated people were wandering through Great America Parkway.  Crowd control left something to be desired.

[epzik8]

The Lions are an incredible story and it's a bummer they couldn't hold on to a 17 point lead... but the Shanahan era 49ers deserve a chip too IMO. Was shaping up to be a brutal loss but they didn't fold and they have never been more battle tested than they are now. With big second half comebacks in both of their playoff victories, I think that experience matters too facing a Chiefs team known for comebacks themselves (as the 49ers know all too well).

My roommate is all-in on the 49ers because he wants Shanahan to have a ring.

[thspfc]

One thing regarding the decision to kick it at the end of the second quarter: the half was about to be over, so the 49ers field position on their ensuing drive was not going to be a factor. Normally, a major benefit of going for it on 4th and goal is that if you miss, your opponent has terrible field position.

[jeffandnicole]

That run call on 3rd down was one of the historically bad calls in the history of the NFL.

Bested by the two historically bad 4th down calls.

I didn't get to watch the whole game, but I'm completely okay with not going for the FG. Wasting a timeout that essentially dropped their chances of winning from maybe 10% to 0.2% was football malpractice.

It wouldn't have been that 10% (or whatever is was) if they had gone for the safer options earlier.  The 1st 4th down in the 3rd Quarter was where they were well within FG range.  After they didn't convert, SF fairly quickly scored two TDs to tie the score, then eventually kicked their own FG to take the lead.  In the 4th quarter, when DET was down by 3, they could've kicked a FG to tie it, but instead went for it on 4th down and again failed to convert. 

Sometimes you take a risk.  This was probably not the game to risk it when they had the momentum and a decent lead.

4th and 2 are converted 57.2% of the time. 4th and 3 are converted 47.4% of the time

They get at least one of the two 77.5% of the time. These were not unreasonable risks given the field position.

Not to mention the kicks aren't guaranteed either.

Edit: looks like the worst call of all of them was NOT going for it at the end of the first half and kicking the field goal instead. Looks like Campbell should have been more aggressive.

. . . oh, the fourth down decisions. I understand both sides, I don't know how the numbers are there. But the twist in those two scenarios (7:03 3Q 24-10 and 7:42 4Q 24-27) is this: not only are you betting on yourself to get the first down, you're also betting on yourself to score a touchdown thereafter when you're still 25 yards from the end zone at that point. Otherwise, you might as well have kicked it without risking coming away with nothing by failing on 4th.

Doing some nonscientific exploration, it's roughly like this:

% of 4th down conversion * % expected points of the drive given the 4th down has been converted (which probably falls between 4 and 6)
or
% of FG from that distance * 3 points from field goal. FGs from that range are converted at about 75%, so call it 2.25 XP.


4th and 2 is converted at a 57% clip, 4th and 3 at 47%. We'll meet in the middle and say 52%. So according to my armchair analytics:
2.25 = .52(XP) ; 2.25/.52 = XP given the 4th down has been converted must be at least 4.3

So do analytics support it? Probably. Can you reduce football to raw numbers the same way you can poker or blackjack? No, that's fundamentally flawed. There are always outside factors because there are humans involved, not just cards. In this case, outside factors as blatant as the numbers on the scoreboard. 27-10 is a three possession lead, 24-10 is a two possession lead. 27-27 is a tied game, 24-27 is losing. In both cases, those 3 points would functionally have been worth more than 3 points, and that was known at the time.

At the end of the day, a coach will be called a genius when it works and an idiot when it doesn't, so when it's close like this, I've come to refrain from one side or the other. Except the one in Dallas, because that was not close. That was raw stupidity.

The one right at the end (0:56 24-34) was the correct decision. They had a far better chance of scoring the one TD they needed with one play from the 3 yard line than with a rushed miracle drive starting from their own territory. Burning the timeout was awful though, at that point you've just gotta snap the ball and throw it to your best receiver somewhere in the end zone. Whatever benefit the timeout provided did not outweigh the cost of needing an onside recovery to have a chance.

Perfect summary.

I'll add:

The stats themselves don't tell the whole story.  When they converted 4th downs, was that to keep drives alive at the end of the game?  Where were they on the field?  What was the opponent's success rate in stopping 4th down conversions (are the 49ers better than, say, the Jaguars)?  Going for 4th down with a 17 point lead is different than going for it trying to win the game late in the 4th quarter when you're down by 4 or more.  It can be argued that it's the same, but defenses set up differently depending on what they're trying to accomplish.

The Lions were 52.5% in 4th down conversion this year.  Honestly, not great.  Sure, more than 50%, but barely.  And that barely shows itself in raw numbers:  They were 21 for 40. One above halfway.  (Their opponents were actually better: 57.5% of 4th downs converted; 15 for 26).  In fact, they kinda sucked - they were only 12th in the league in successful conversions.  Only one team had more successful conversions - the Panthers - but their percentage sucked even more since they tried more often.

I also get intrigued when it's mentioned "kicks aren't guaranteed either"...

The first one would've been about a 45 yard attempt. The 2nd would've been about a 47 yard attempt.  The Lions FG success average for the season between 40-49 yards?  100%.  Now granted, the Lions actually kicked very few FGs during the season:  Just 21. 19 were converted. And somehow they only kicked 3 between 40-49 yards.   But on the road in a game where they had the momentum - take the points.  Not only do you likely have 3 additional points, but you kick the ball, and more often than not, the 49ers would be starting from their 25.  Instead, they started from their 28 & 30, respectively, and with the extra momentum of stopping the opponent when they should have likely scored.

When you added that they should've gone for it on 4th down at the end of the 1st half, I started wondering if this was just a post to trigger.  49ers get the ball to start the 3rd quarter.  Go for the (almost) sure 3 rather than risking ending the half with no points when deep in the red zone. 

[JayhawkCO]

Momentum is a myth.

[LM117]

Super Bowl LVIII: San Francisco 49ers vs Taylor Swift

[webny99]

Their playoff run was nice, but let's be honest, drawing the 9-8 Buccaneers in the divisional is about as light as it gets. The stars will likely never align for them the way they did this year - most often, that divisional game will be either at home against a team much better than that Tampa team at best, or on the road against the Super Bowl favorites at worst.

I think they know that too. A clip of Campbell literally telling the players postgame it would be twice as hard next year.. and he's probably right. You never know, but with the Packers on the rise again, they could easily be underdogs in their own division for much of the next decade. And that does make the loss hurt even worse, but I think the ability to be honest about it in the moment is, ironically, part of Campbell's charm.

Point being, I think he gets too much credit for supposedly taking a bottom of the barrel team and making them NFC contenders. The front office and personnel departments did that. Campbell has more or less been along for the ride. There's a perception that the team is poverty and therefore it must be the coach that's pulling them up. Not true.

He doesn't deserve all the credit, certainly, but there is something to be said for a culture change, and Campbell is at least partially responsible for that. The GM + coach + team combination led to one of the most impressive turnarounds in recent memory*, and that does account for a lot beyond strictly talent... even though the front office deserves a ton of credit too.

*We need a way to measure this. Most impressive this century are probably Bengals, Lions, Bills? I can't think of any other single regime changes that took a team that was either moribund or mired in decades of mediocrity to a conference championship or beyond.

[webny99]

Momentum is a myth.

If that 4th down stop in the 3rd quarter followed by a 49ers TD, Lions fumble, and 49ers TD doesn't convince you that it's not a myth, then nothing ever will. The only "myth" is that we don't know for a fact how it would have played out had they kicked the FG, but no matter how you look at it, there is simply no way their win probability would have tumbled that precipitously and in that fashion with a three score lead... and even if it did, it's tumbling from a higher baseline to likely still above 50% even if you give up a two TD's and a fumble.

[JayhawkCO]

Momentum is a myth.

If that 4th down stop in the 3rd quarter followed by a 49ers TD, Lions fumble, and 49ers TD doesn't convince you that it's not a myth, then nothing ever will. The only "myth" is that we don't know for a fact how it would have played out had they kicked the FG, but no matter how you look at it, there is simply no way their win probability would have tumbled that precipitously and in that fashion with a three score lead... and even if it did, it's tumbling from a higher baseline to likely still above 50% even if you give up a two TD's and a fumble.

Anecdotal. There are far more examples where one team goes for it on fourth, misses, and no such series of effects happens. Hell, it happened in the Chiefs game yesterday. IIRC, KC went for it on fourth and missed and Baltimore promptly scored no points on their next drive and punted.

Heck, in the Lions game, how come the Lions didn't get momentum when they were passive and kicked the field goal at the end of the first half instead of going for it?

[webny99]

Momentum is a myth.

If that 4th down stop in the 3rd quarter followed by a 49ers TD, Lions fumble, and 49ers TD doesn't convince you that it's not a myth, then nothing ever will. The only "myth" is that we don't know for a fact how it would have played out had they kicked the FG, but no matter how you look at it, there is simply no way their win probability would have tumbled that precipitously and in that fashion with a three score lead... and even if it did, it's tumbling from a higher baseline to likely still above 50% even if you give up a two TD's and a fumble.

Anecdotal. There are far more examples where one team goes for it on fourth, misses, and no such series of effects happens. Hell, it happened in the Chiefs game yesterday. IIRC, KC went for it on fourth and missed and Baltimore promptly scored no points on their next drive and punted.

There are not, however, far more such examples in the NFC title game, with the opportunity to take a three score lead. That context absolutely matters against a great opponent that's no doubt feeling great about preserving a two score deficit coming off a big stop.

[JayhawkCO]

Momentum is a myth.

If that 4th down stop in the 3rd quarter followed by a 49ers TD, Lions fumble, and 49ers TD doesn't convince you that it's not a myth, then nothing ever will. The only "myth" is that we don't know for a fact how it would have played out had they kicked the FG, but no matter how you look at it, there is simply no way their win probability would have tumbled that precipitously and in that fashion with a three score lead... and even if it did, it's tumbling from a higher baseline to likely still above 50% even if you give up a two TD's and a fumble.

Anecdotal. There are far more examples where one team goes for it on fourth, misses, and no such series of effects happens. Hell, it happened in the Chiefs game yesterday. IIRC, KC went for it on fourth and missed and Baltimore promptly scored no points on their next drive and punted.

There are not, however, far more such examples in the NFC title game, with the opportunity to take a three score lead. That context absolutely matters against a great opponent that's no doubt feeling great about preserving a two score deficit coming off a big stop.

Do you have evidence to suggest that they play better because of "feeling great" though? Would Baltimore not having been "feeling great" after they stopped KC on downs? How come their great feelings only allowed them to run five plays for 19 yards before they punted? Its there some kind of difference between the AFC and NFC Championship Games that makes the outcomes of decisions different?

[thspfc]

*We need a way to measure this. Most impressive this century are probably Bengals, Lions, Bills? I can't think of any other single regime changes that took a team that was either moribund or mired in decades of mediocrity to a conference championship or beyond.

Yeah this is literally my point though, the Lions turnaround was not due that single regime change at all, and for that matter neither were the Bills or Bengals or any other team ever. In all those cases, the team became good because first and by far foremost, they found a way to put good players on the field. Going back to my take on why I thought Vrabel was getting too much benefit of the doubt: historically unsuccessful and irrelevant franchise, always played at noon on Sundays, people don't watch and figure the team is bad, so if they're good, it must be the coach. Nope. DET, BUF, and CIN built great rosters over a short period of time. Coaching is a distant second on the list of reasons why they got good. The narrative with Campbell is that coaching is a distant first.

If we're using your logic, Reid, McVay, Shanahan, Arians, Carroll, LaFleur, Payton in New Orleans, Pederson in Philly, and maybe more inherited bad teams and have been more successful than Campbell. "Decades" doesn't matter because what happened decades ago is not relevant to what kind of team the new coach inherited.

You're incorrectly using "mediocrity", because "decades of mediocrity" should mean one Super Bowl on average and a handful of trips to the conference championship game in that timeframe. What the Lions have been going through is decades of being god awful, and it's really just them, the Browns, and maybe the Jets in that category.

[webny99]

Momentum is a myth.

If that 4th down stop in the 3rd quarter followed by a 49ers TD, Lions fumble, and 49ers TD doesn't convince you that it's not a myth, then nothing ever will. The only "myth" is that we don't know for a fact how it would have played out had they kicked the FG, but no matter how you look at it, there is simply no way their win probability would have tumbled that precipitously and in that fashion with a three score lead... and even if it did, it's tumbling from a higher baseline to likely still above 50% even if you give up a two TD's and a fumble.

Anecdotal. There are far more examples where one team goes for it on fourth, misses, and no such series of effects happens. Hell, it happened in the Chiefs game yesterday. IIRC, KC went for it on fourth and missed and Baltimore promptly scored no points on their next drive and punted.

There are not, however, far more such examples in the NFC title game, with the opportunity to take a three score lead. That context absolutely matters against a great opponent that's no doubt feeling great about preserving a two score deficit coming off a big stop.

Do you have evidence to suggest that they play better because of "feeling great" though? Would Baltimore not having been "feeling great" after they stopped KC on downs? How come their great feelings only allowed them to run five plays for 19 yards before they punted?

Of course not, but that's missing the point which is that the context around the decision, including the relative best and worse case scenarios has to be considered.

We saw the (pretty much) worst case scenario, we didn't see the best case scenario which was a TD on that drive, which is a three score lead - same as if they just kicked the FG.The relative value of a TD to a FG in that scenario, when a FG also prevents the worst case scenario, isn't worth the risk of failure to convert.

[jeffandnicole]

Momentum is a myth.

If that 4th down stop in the 3rd quarter followed by a 49ers TD, Lions fumble, and 49ers TD doesn't convince you that it's not a myth, then nothing ever will. The only "myth" is that we don't know for a fact how it would have played out had they kicked the FG, but no matter how you look at it, there is simply no way their win probability would have tumbled that precipitously and in that fashion with a three score lead... and even if it did, it's tumbling from a higher baseline to likely still above 50% even if you give up a two TD's and a fumble.

Anecdotal. There are far more examples where one team goes for it on fourth, misses, and no such series of effects happens. Hell, it happened in the Chiefs game yesterday. IIRC, KC went for it on fourth and missed and Baltimore promptly scored no points on their next drive and punted.

There are not, however, far more such examples in the NFC title game, with the opportunity to take a three score lead. That context absolutely matters against a great opponent that's no doubt feeling great about preserving a two score deficit coming off a big stop.

Do you have evidence to suggest that they play better because of "feeling great" though? Would Baltimore not having been "feeling great" after they stopped KC on downs? How come their great feelings only allowed them to run five plays for 19 yards before they punted?

Of course not, but that's missing the point which is that the context around the decision, including the relative best and worse case scenarios has to be considered.

We saw the (pretty much) worst case scenario, we didn't see the best case scenario which was a TD on that drive, which is a three score lead - same as if they just kicked the FG.The relative value of a TD to a FG in that scenario, when a FG also prevents the worst case scenario, isn't worth the risk of failure to convert.

They're also based it off general percentages and analytics, which at best are a marginally better option, sometimes, but without more precise detail. 

In this game, even if percentages said go for it on 4th down (again, Lions were 21 for 40...not exactly a sure thing), after the failed conversion attempt in the 3rd quarter, in the 4th quarter, don't just go for it again.  Even if the Lions did convert the 4th down, they would likely have been using more time to eventually socre a FG to tie or a TD to take the lead.  Then SF gets the ball with a better opportunity to control the clock, reducing the amount of time Lions would've had to get the ball back - if any time at all.

So looking at just one sole factor - the 4th down conversion rate - ignores other factors - like the time clock.

[JayhawkCO]

Momentum is a myth.

If that 4th down stop in the 3rd quarter followed by a 49ers TD, Lions fumble, and 49ers TD doesn't convince you that it's not a myth, then nothing ever will. The only "myth" is that we don't know for a fact how it would have played out had they kicked the FG, but no matter how you look at it, there is simply no way their win probability would have tumbled that precipitously and in that fashion with a three score lead... and even if it did, it's tumbling from a higher baseline to likely still above 50% even if you give up a two TD's and a fumble.

Anecdotal. There are far more examples where one team goes for it on fourth, misses, and no such series of effects happens. Hell, it happened in the Chiefs game yesterday. IIRC, KC went for it on fourth and missed and Baltimore promptly scored no points on their next drive and punted.

There are not, however, far more such examples in the NFC title game, with the opportunity to take a three score lead. That context absolutely matters against a great opponent that's no doubt feeling great about preserving a two score deficit coming off a big stop.

Do you have evidence to suggest that they play better because of "feeling great" though? Would Baltimore not having been "feeling great" after they stopped KC on downs? How come their great feelings only allowed them to run five plays for 19 yards before they punted?

Of course not, but that's missing the point which is that the context around the decision, including the relative best and worse case scenarios has to be considered.

We saw the (pretty much) worst case scenario, we didn't see the best case scenario which was a TD on that drive, which is a three score lead - same as if they just kicked the FG.The relative value of a TD to a FG in that scenario, when a FG also prevents the worst case scenario, isn't worth the risk of failure to convert.

They're also based it off general percentages and analytics, which at best are a marginally better option, sometimes, but without more precise detail. 

In this game, even if percentages said go for it on 4th down (again, Lions were 21 for 40...not exactly a sure thing), after the failed conversion attempt in the 3rd quarter, in the 4th quarter, don't just go for it again.  Even if the Lions did convert the 4th down, they would likely have been using more time to eventually socre a FG to tie or a TD to take the lead.  Then SF gets the ball with a better opportunity to control the clock, reducing the amount of time Lions would've had to get the ball back - if any time at all.

So looking at just one sole factor - the 4th down conversion rate - ignores other factors - like the time clock.

I only gave the 4th down conversion rate as a simplistic stat to explain my point. If you look at any of the "fourth down bots" out there, they consider score, time remaining, down and distance timeouts remaining, etc. in calculating whether to go for it or not. All three of their 4th downs increased their winning by two percentage points or greater according to the one I looked at.

Edit: Here are the three decisions we're discussing:





In any other business, seemingly other than sports, if you could gain a 2% edge on your competition, you'd be fired as a CEO if you didn't take advantage of it.

Again, there is no such thing as momentum; things regress to the mean. If a bad team is playing great, eventually they'll play shitty. If a great team is playing poorly, eventually they'll play better. Given that I think that the 49ers are ostensibly a better team than the Lions, the likelihood was always high that the 49ers would come back to some degree against the Lions. What the Lions could have done to mitigate this, however, is to play as optimally as possible given the scenario. To play optimally, in these three cases, would be to go for it every single time. Yeah, sucks they didn't convert two of them. But, in poker, 72o beats AA 12% of the time, too.

[triplemultiplex]

Just watching as a general fan without a dog in the fight, it really felt like Detroit left the door wide open every time they failed to convert on 4th down in the second half instead of taking points.  That's what I felt at the time, not just looking back after it was over.

In the other game, Baltimore's offense disappointed.  They stopped the bleeding on defense to give themselves a shot, but never got going.  Deadly turnovers, man.  That's why they're going home and Mahomes gets to put another notch on the bedpost.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I've waited for several years (basically since the Tennessee beatdown in the 2019 divisional) for Lamar Jackson to win a game like this one, with the season in the balance, with his arm. Once again he was unable to do so. The other Baltimore dumbs didn't help, but they have tried to give him weapons to throw to and he still can't make it happen. They gave him Zay Flowers and OBJ in addition to Mark Andrews. Flowers had the one nice TD but arguably cost the team the game with the other mistakes, and OBJ's name wasn't heard until the middle of the 3rd quarter.

[jgb191]

Why couldn't the Ravens have played like that last weekend instead of waiting until Yesterday to have a off-day.

And if the Texans are smart, they'll go after free agent Derrick Henry.....offer him a good deal way too good to pass up, they have a cap space.  Texans are in a dire need of help with more talent, especially upgrading their running game.

[jeffandnicole]

Why couldn't the Ravens have played like that last weekend instead of waiting until Yesterday to have a off-day.

So, you would have rather seen them lose in the Divisional round instead?

[webny99]

I only gave the 4th down conversion rate as a simplistic stat to explain my point. If you look at any of the "fourth down bots" out there, they consider score, time remaining, down and distance timeouts remaining, etc. in calculating whether to go for it or not. All three of their 4th downs increased their winning by two percentage points or greater according to the one I looked at.

Another reason I am suspect that the decision bots are taking enough context into account: the 4th down right before halftime. One big advantage of going for it in goal to go scenarios is that if you fail, the opponent is pinned deep in their own territory. That's irrelevant with just seven seconds left in the half, as I'm sure Campbell knew or had someone on staff that knew. If that was factored in properly, the bot wouldn't have recommended "go for it" as strongly.

In any other business, seemingly other than sports, if you could gain a 2% edge on your competition, you'd be fired as a CEO if you didn't take advantage of it.

It's never exactly a 2% edge though - it's either more than 2% if you convert, or less than 2% - sometimes a negative percentage - if you fail. That's why you have to consider all of the four numbers on the far right of each fourth down bot decision graph - and some of those "Win % if fail" numbers are probably too high for the real life scenarios.

[tmoore952]

https://www.chiefs.com/news/remembering-joe-montana-and-the-kansas-city-chiefs-1993-season-14616866
The last time the 49ers fans paid attention to the Chiefs was when Joe Montana was sent there before he retired from the NFL.

Uh ,,,, Super Bowl LIV (54)???

Aside - am I the only one who sees "LIV" and (now) thinks of golf?