Detroit committed a 10 yard holding penalty on the subsequent series. You simply can’t project things like this. Had there been a muffed exchange, a holding penalty or some other negative play on 2nd and 1, Campbell looks like a complete idiot. You’re now facing 3rd and long and Green Bay gets the ball on the good side of the 2-minute warning.
If you’re arguing that going for it on 2nd and 1 is wise because they had been successful running the ball so far, then you need to apply the same logic to the other scenario where they accept the penalty and have 4 chances to gain 10 yards from inside the 20 on the next series.
By running the extra play on 2nd and 1, the Lions were STILL in a situation with a 4th and 1 decision with 1:15 to play. If Chark drops that pass Green Bay gets the ball with 1:15 left. You’re pretending like by gaining that 2nd and 1 play they locked the game up, they didn’t, they risked giving them the ball back before the 2-minute warning in exchange for simply burning a whopping extra 10 seconds. It’s a stupid trade.
If that strategy were so galaxy-brained, then they should have gone all-in on it and had Goff kneel it twice in order to convert on 4th and 1. It’s the exact same logic.
Yes. So declining the penalty gives you five plays instead of four. Or possibly six if the 2nd & 1 gets stuffed and you have to run third down. But in order to gain that extra play or two, you have to risk losing one play.
Seems like a good trade-off. What’s the league average converting “and 1” situations? I bet it’s pretty high. Realistically you’re risking one play to gain one play. If the percentage is over 50%, then it’s a smart bet.
Correct. But if they had accepted the penalty, and everything else had played out the same, there would have been about 1:50 on the clock. Which is the point that I made in post #120 and #126, and the point that @EllisDee just made as well.
I’m not going to argue it, but you all keep assuming the positive outcome and ignoring the negative one. This is how confirmation bias works. They took a medium sized risk for a small reward.
But then again, they took a huge risk on that lateral, and a reckless risk throwing the ball on any of those downs. They were fortunate none were incomplete. The outcome was a success so you’ll never convince anyone that the Lions played this stupidly, that’s just the way this works unfortunately.
You may want to look up the definition of confirmation bias. Arguing if a football decision was right or wrong is most certainly not confirmation bias.
I don’t disagree. Had it been thrown poorly, it could have been returned for a Packers touchdown.
Really? You think they should have done nothing but run the ball after the interception?
In the end, isn’t that how each and every coaching decision is judged?
I don’t believe I ignored the negative outcome. I explicitly said you risk losing a play in order to gain a play. The price? Converting 2nd & 1. Because you’re risking one play to gain one play, it only makes sense if converting second and one has a greater than 50% success rate. If you factor in getting to run again on third down if the second down gets stuffed, I believe it is higher than 50%. But I technically have no idea what the actual percentage is. Two-point conversions hover around 50%, so I have to think it’s higher if you get two chances and only have to go half the distance.
Nowhere in that am I ignoring the negative outcome. In fact, it’s baked right into my analysis.
He means that we only agree with the decision because it worked. If it had failed, we would be criticizing the decision. It’s a pretty disingenuous way to paint your opponents in a debate.
Yeah, you’re right. Wrong fallacy, but the fact that it worked out doesn’t mean it was the best course of action.
If you’re consistent with the logic, yeah. If you believe that running a play on 2nd and 1 was wise because it was one extra snap (setting aside the risk of failure), that means the operating idea is that you want to take every single opportunity to ensure that you burn the most seconds off the clock, right?
If your priority is maximizing the amount of time you burn, running the ball 5 times in a row does the best job of that. Additionally, the idea is that the Lions are really good at running the ball (which is why the 2nd and 1 play is a low risk formality), so again that implies they ought to convert the first down on the ground with 4 plays.
Its intellectually inconsistent to take that gamble on 2nd and 1 only to turn around and risk stopping the clock with 2 throws and a lateral.
What I’d like to understand is why the Packers accepted the holding penalty on 2nd and 7. It would have been 3rd and 5 with 2:12 to go. One stop and they are getting the ball back after the 2-minute warning.
If you’ve watched any amount of football, you will know that when a team tries to burn the clock by only running the ball, when the other team has all its timeouts, it rarely works. I would argue that running the ball 3 times on first and ten is most decidedly not the same as running the ball 2 or 3 times on second and one.
Well, the first throw after the gamble, which included the lateral, was on the 2nd and 17 play. Running the ball isn’t exactly the best option there. And the second throw after the gamble was on 4th down, which really isn’t a huge risk.
Exactly right. Instead, after the pass/lateral, it was 3rd and 3 AFTER the two-minute warning.
They threw on 2nd and 7 which caused the holding call. The clock stopped before the 2 minute warning. This is a big reason why there was time left on 4th down. Had they run it they probably gain 3-4 yards and the clock goes down to 2:00. They then run on 3rd and 4th down. Worst case the Packers get the ball back with about 1:10 left. No heroic laterals needed.
It’s like the Lions were schizophrenic, no game plan at all for a 4 minute drill.
No argument from me that it was a clown show with the playcalling after the 2nd & 1. If you want to argue that the subsequent plays call into question any kind of 3D chess in regards to declining the penalty, I won’t fight you there.
In a vacuum, I think declining the penalty is a good bet in that spot.
I think it’s more similar to putting 100k on Red and 100k on Black and spinning the wheel. Chances are you end up in about the same spot either way, with a small chance you pull 00s. Better off not gambling.
You mean if you fumble or something? That risk isn’t removed by accepting the penalty.
Remember, the basic risk is one single play. Instead of running it four times in a row, if it goes poorly you can only run it three times in a row. That hardly seems like losing it all.
It’s the exact same logic to give yourself one chance to get a yard as it is to give yourself three chances? Come on, that’s hard to take seriously.
Look at it this way - the large majority of analysts I’ve seen have said it was the right call to decline the penalty. The Packers apparently committed the infraction on purpose, so they wanted the Lions to take the penalty. Now maybe everyone else is wrong and you’re the only person analyzing this correctly. But please consider that you might be wrong instead.
The risk of not converting the 2nd and 1. Let’s assume someone on the Packers shoots the gap and stuffs Williams for a 3 yard loss. Or maybe the Center steps on Goff in the drop and he falls down. Not a turnover, since that’s catastrophic under any circumstance, but a bad play that puts them in a 3rd and medium. Now they have to consider throwing the ball to convert, and let’s assume they throw it incomplete. This means it’s 4th down before the 2 minute warning and the Packers still have a time out. That’s a nightmare scenario. If instead they accept the penalty and the same thing happens on 1st down, you’re still good to go. You’ve still got 2 downs to burn clock and get it below the 2 minute warning and waste all their time outs.
Show me one person who actually analyzed it. So far all I’ve seen are talking heads who regularly make shit up for clicks. If someone rolls out some data that proves me wrong, so be it, but this is the kind of thing that happens rarely and everyone assumes it’s good because it panned out this one time.
Where is this assumption coming from? I thought you were saying they should accept the penalty and run it four times and turn it over on downs. I’m saying if they decline the penalty and fail to get a single yard, the only difference vs your scenario is they run it three times and turn it over on downs. A difference of exactly one play.
That hardly seems the equivalent of betting 100K on red and black and losing both because 00 comes up. Losing everything is not the same thing as going from four plays to three plays. Losing everything is throwing a pick six.
The situation is essentially you bet one play to gain one play. The chance this bet wins is the same as the chance to convert 2nd & 1 without having to worry about the clock, plus you get to go for it on 4th down. That’s gotta be way over 50%.
And again, assuming you run it every down to kill the clock, you are only risking one play.
They literally threw it on 2nd and 7 two downs later…not a wild hypothetical. They should have accepted the penalty and run it 4 times. The fact they didn’t is the issue. That one play difference you cite is a big difference.
There were effectively 3 possible outcomes (assuming no turnovers, and they ultimately fail to run out the clock).
Decline the penalty, fail to get the first down and run 3 plays.
Accept the penalty, get the first down and run 4 plays.
Decline the penalty, get the first down and run 5 plays.
They could have guaranteed themselves 4 plays. They essentially bet a play by declining the penalty. My position is that ending up with only 3 plays is more costly than ending up with 5 plays is beneficial. You disagree, I can’t prove it, but neither can you.