Dan Campbell’s in-game decisions and clock management ranked top 3

[socko]

You have to have thick skin to break with tradition and go for it more often like the math says you should. Because you’re going to fail a lot and hear it from the old timers. But I don’t really think Dan cares.

[QBHATER90]

I have been saying this all year.

[QBHATER90]

@CuriousHusker

NFL coaches do dumb shit all the time. I’ve seen the hoodie make questionable decisions. There’s a lot going on for them. It’s different than us making the decision from the calmness of our living rooms.

John harbaugh has cost his team 2-3 wins this year

[Mr.Peabody]

@socko

I generally would agree that coaches in the NFL are over conservative and data would likely support going for it more often. So I can see Dan ranked high. But I thought he was going on his gut feeling for a while there and not really data. And that led to a few crazy decisions.

The analytics largely backed his aggressive decisions. When he used his gut rather than analytics it was generally a more conservative call than the analytics said. Like the time he kicked the field goal when the analytics said he should go for it.

[BigNatty]

@SchemeTheDream

I thought so!

Think back. Even when Campbell was getting excoriated by armchair QBs, the talk show guys would toss in a line that “the analytics were on his side but…”

I sincerely think fans overestimated Lions’ talent following Hard Knocks. Campbell often made go-for-it choices and ran clock because our D simply couldn’t stop anyone - and he knew it. Those looked like bad choices because they didn’t work but, statistically, they were the better option to win.

There are people on the Internet who actually think Campbell is a meathead, but here’s the newsflash. He’s not.

1. He wasn’t distracted watching fans do the wave when the Penei Sewell pass play was called.
2. He didn’t mishear Dave Fipp when they called for a fake punt on our own 27.
3. He didn’t just accidentally see through Green Bay’s intentional offsides in the last game.
4. And he didn’t magically just start doing better in-game calls when those calls started working.

We’re going to have to start accepting that our HC who is turning around a bereft franchise in record time might actually be highly competent, tough and smarter than us at his job.

I wouldn’t trade him for any coach - for real. Best in NFL.

@JerseyJungle

Not surprised in the least, and have been saying it all along.

Dan plays to win. It may be an unfamiliar concept to some.

Also, consider this statement:
“the calculations here are only about the in-game decisions on timeouts, fourth downs and play calls. It doesn’t deal with talent and perceived achievement relative to the talent on the team”

And then consider only the Eagles and Bills ranked higher in the in-game stuff. So, if talent is taken into account, I bet Dan is #1.

YES!!!

[Snags]

@CuriousHusker

NFL coaches do dumb shit all the time. I’ve seen the hoodie make questionable decisions. There’s a lot going on for them. It’s different than us making the decision from the calmness of our living rooms.

Yeah like Green Bay going for it on 4th down on their own 30 or 40 or wherever it was in the first quarter against us…or the Giants punting yesterday on 4th and 6 down by 21 with like under 10 minutes to go.

[Snags]

@Mr.Peabody

@socko

I generally would agree that coaches in the NFL are over conservative and data would likely support going for it more often. So I can see Dan ranked high. But I thought he was going on his gut feeling for a while there and not really data. And that led to a few crazy decisions.

The analytics largely backed his aggressive decisions. When he used his gut rather than analytics it was generally a more conservative call than the analytics said. Like the time he kicked the field goal when the analytics said he should go for it.

I think people are giving way too much credit to MCDC saying he was following the analytics, he said in many post-game pressers that he was going with his gut.

[checkmate260]

@Snags

I think people are giving way too much credit to MCDC saying he was following the analytics, he said in many post-game pressers that he was going with his gut.

Maybe analytics are are learning to go by Dan’s gut.

[Woot]

Wuuuutt?!!! Sean McVay, Boy Genius, isn’t in the top-15?

Ya don’t say.

[WestCoastLionsFan]

@Snags

I think people are giving way too much credit to MCDC saying he was following the analytics, he said in many post-game pressers that he was going with his gut.

Listening to people that actually know Dan, he’s a really smart guy. An intelligent person listening to their “gut” is often right because their intelligence is able to process large amount of information quickly and their “gut feeling” is just their intelligence shining through.

[Weaselpuppy]

[appeasethefblgods]

Mcvay had a record of 45 straight wins when leading at halftime. His in game decision making is good. I question where these numbers come from. Brandon Staley is top 5 two years in a row… yet the chargers seemed to manage to lose so many games they were poised to win.

[Woot]

@SchemeTheDream

And he didn’t magically just start doing better in-game calls when those calls started working.

I wanna double-underline this point, BN. Not everyone does this, to be sure, but I find extraordinary that so many fans (and pundits!) assess the wisdom of a decision according to how it works out. Classic “hindsight is 20-20” stuff. Whether the decision is about which player to draft, FA to sign, play to call, whether to go for it on 4th, got for the FG or punt, etc. etc. The fact that some decisions don’t work out doesn’t mean that they were bad decisions.

[BigNatty]

@Woot

decisions.

100% - in conjunction with talent dictates how you call a game as well.

[Woot]

@BigNatty

100% - in conjunction with talent dictates how you call a game as well.

Yep. Which is one reason why there’ll always be a proper place for “gut” feelings alongside analytics in coaching decisions. I’m with those who say that some of Dan’s aggressive down-distance play calling was dictated by the very poor play of the defense. IMO he was absolutely right to take a high-risk-high-reward approach to putting points on the board. Later in the season, once the defense came on nicely, he throttled back the aggressiveness even in some situations where the analytics might have said otherwise.

Perfectly sensible IMO.

[BigNatty]

@Woot

-risk-high-reward approach to putting points on the board. Later in the season, once the defense came on nicely, he throt

100%

[ThePuke]

I don’t think it was just the defensive improvement.

I thought he was a bit more gun shy and more judicious after the Patriots game. That game really appeared change his approach. We were woeful that day but his over aggressive approach killed us - he learned the lessons from it

[Mr.Peabody]

@Snags

@Mr.Peabody

@socko

I generally would agree that coaches in the NFL are over conservative and data would likely support going for it more often. So I can see Dan ranked high. But I thought he was going on his gut feeling for a while there and not really data. And that led to a few crazy decisions.

The analytics largely backed his aggressive decisions. When he used his gut rather than analytics it was generally a more conservative call than the analytics said. Like the time he kicked the field goal when the analytics said he should go for it.

I think people are giving way too much credit to MCDC saying he was following the analytics, he said in many post-game pressers that he was going with his gut.

If you have listened to MCDC you know he knows the analytics. He is a meathead who is highly aware of the data. It reminds me of “dumb” bodybuilders who are insanely versed on the human body and every single part, piece and function. Dan has said that analytics are important but he will trust his gut. And just because he trusted his gut, doesn’t mean he bucked the analytics. Dan’s aggressiveness lines up with the analytics more times than not. As I said earlier, Dan is different because he doesn’t hide behind the analytics. He will make a call that doesn’t work out and say he trusted his gut to go for it in that situation. Then later we find out that the analytics lined up with his decision. But Dan doesn’t shrug his shoulders and say “derp analytics made me do it derp.”

[Woot]

@ThePuke

I thought he was a bit more gun shy and more judicious after the Patriots game. That game really appeared change his approach. We were woeful that day but his over aggressive approach killed us - he learned the lessons from it

Probably fair.

[JadedLionsFan]

@checkmate260

@Snags

I think people are giving way too much credit to MCDC saying he was following the analytics, he said in many post-game pressers that he was going with his gut.

Maybe analytics are are learning to go by Dan’s gut.

Or maybe his gut is filled with Analytics?