Which is what I said. Understanding this was a division game, and not wearing homer glasses, the Lions should’ve won by 20 at home against a team playing equipment managers at positions. A couple of fumbles killed 2 drives, and so did terrible game management. Our defense wasn’t even that good yesterday, but they at least got the job done.
Lions were coming off a bye against a team with major injury issues. We should not have struggled nearly as much as we did. Take the 3 points early, and you force GB to press, make mistakes and you can open the game up. Nope, we decide its better to score 0 and keep a bad team in the game.
Well, for the first time this year I liked the first quarter offense by Detroit.
We definitely left 10 to 14 points on the field. Should of scored 30 plus. Then again if the Packers make 2 easy field goals it is a very different game too.
Any hypotheticals have to be fairly one-sided for the outcome of that game to change hugely. It was ugly, and both teams had a bunch of crap go wrong.
Actually, the Defense played the best game so far this season. The backfield was impressive.
If neither team leaves meat on the bone due to egregious self-inflicted wounds, the final score would be 26-23.
Consider:
- Pack makes first field goal, +3 points.
- Pack settles for second field goal, +3 points.
- Lions don’t fumble end of half, +7 points.
At halftime, it’s 17-13.
- Lions don’t fumble beginning of half, +3 points minimum.
- Lions settle for field goal, +3 points.
At this point, it’s 23-20 when the Lions face 4th and 1 at the 24. They still go for it (the correct analytical decision), so they can have the ball to end the game. Pack makes the field goal, we get the ball and win on a last-second field goal.
Now, of course, it could have been even more – that second half fumble led to a short GB touchdown. If we put up a touchdown, and hold GB to a field goal instead, it’s 27-16 when we punt at 4th and 1 at the 24, and even if GB claws back a touchdown, we still get the ball back and run out the clock.
I understand what you are saying, and I know you already know this but I always try to argue points from both sides.
I will give you that the Pack should’ve scored 3 points on first drive. That’s a 90+ percent certainty in todays NFL. (Also, I love the stat that there have only been 3 missed kicks from inside 30 I believe this year, and Smack had 2 of the 3 yesterday.) 
I think it’s a big assumption to give the Lions the TD on the fumble before half. Lions had the ball on the 12, and it was 2nd and 10. Gibbs ran for 6 when he fumbled, so it was going to be 3rd and 4 from the 8. We could easily have been stuffed for no gain, or thrown an incompletion. Now, it’s FG time, or if you are Dan Gamble, you go for the TD or nothing. I will be generous and say Gamble says we are getting the ball out of half, take the 3. That makes it 13-13 at half.
Lions don’t fumble the ball coming out of half, but they were on their own 42. I am not ready to say the Lions get 3 minimum here, they could’ve easily just had the drive stall. How about Goff doesn’t fumble, but is sacked?
GB then gets a TD. Now you are staring down 20-13 (or 16). Lions get a TD, so its 20-20 (or 23). At this point, it’s either tied or a 3 point game, which is what the game really was at this time. Whether it’s 23-20 Lions, or 17-14 which was the actual score, the scenarios are still the same.
Now comes the first decision. The Lions drive down to the GB 6 yard line and it’s 3rd down. Score is either 23-20, or 20-20. Lions get stopped and it’s 4th down. You can either go up 6, or kick for the lead in either scenario. You’d have to get to the 1 yard line to get a first down, so really it’s a TD or nothing. The first decision is, there is no decision at all. You kick the damn ball, and you go up 3, or up 6. You should NEVER pass up a chance to take the lead. It doesn’t matter if you win by 1, 3, 6 or 30. A win is a win. You go for more points to try to force your opponent to press and limit their options, right? If it’s a tie game, I can still play the field position game. (passive aggression) If I am down 3, I need a FG to tie so I just need to get to the 40 (decent aggression). If I need 6, I have to play for a TD and that’s a MUCH tougher outcome to generate. (High aggression)
Teams are more likely to make mistakes in aggressive situations. Your goal should always be to put a team into an aggressive situation, even if it’s only slightly more aggressive. Worse, if you go for it and don’t convert, you just handed momentum to the other team. Congrats, not only did you not succeed, you just helped your opponent.
That was the first scenario we faced. We ended up being up 3, and Campbell decided ya know, being up 6 is ok, but being up 10? Hell ya!!! Oops, we blew it and we are still only up 3.
Packers get the ball, throw a pick on a desperation heave. Welcome back Brian Branch! Lions get the ball and immediate go 3 and out, gaining 1 whopping yard. Keep that in mind. Packers now kick a FG. In real life, it’s 17-17. In our 2 scenarios, it’s either 23-23 or 23-20. Packers just scored, so they have some momentum and the game within reach. Lions get the ball starting from their own 15 due to penalty. They get 9 yards, then get stuffed on 2nd down and incomplete pass on 3rd down. Whether you are up 3 points, or it’s tied like it really was, the ball is sitting on the 24 yard line. You went 3 and out on your last drive, gained 9 yards on 1st down but no more on 2nd or 3rd. So, offense isn’t exactly humming here. You can kick it away and play the field position game, with either a 3 point lead or a tie game. You’ve given your defense no rest for 2 drives. If you get a first down, you are still facing 75 plus yards, and you haven’t scored in 3 drives. If you don’t get it, Green Bay now has the ball already in FG range with a chance to tie or take the lead. All of these things being considered, your feel your best bet is to GO FOR IT?!!
In no world does that make any sense. If you truly feel that your defense that just got a pick 2 drives ago, just held them to a FG when they had to go the full length of the field last drive, cannot get a stop to get the ball back with 4 minutes to go against a team that has literally 4th string OL in the game, then that’s on you as a HC for employing a dogshit defensive coordinator that you have zero faith in. Dan says all the time, he wants to put it on the players. Well, way to absolutely put your team in a position to lose.
We know what ultimately happened. Green Bay slapped a “Return to Sender” sticker on the gift we gave them, and we did what they couldn’t. Got down the field and kicked a short FG to win. Oh, one more note, that last play before the kick, your superstar RB who carries your offense almost snapped his own knee/ankle off by intelligently and selflessly sliding.
There is no world where Dan Gamble’s decision making yesterday can be classified as smart, strategic or calculated risk. It was sheer stupidity, and he failed his way into success. A world exists where Smack kicks the FG and the Lions have to scramble to tie the game. A world also exists where Gibbs doesn’t just twist his ankle a bit, and something much worse happens. Then you win the game and lose everything else, hello pyrrhic victory.
Obviously, this is shit tons of hypotheticals. The idea in football, or any sport, is to put more pressure on your opponents. Pressure creates problems. Doesn’t matter the sport or the scenario. Creating a scenario that puts pressure on yourself instead of your opponent, is going to lead to a negative outcome more for you than it does your opponent. Even Napoleon said, “never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.” He’s right.
And yet all the analytical models suggested that going for it was by far the correct decision. So all the analytical models are wrong?
In a tie game, with 5 minutes to go, in your own territory, if you don’t convert, the other team is likely to score quickly enough that you have the opportunity to get the ball back and score as time expires. If GB gets the field goal, you play for the touchdown. If GB gets the touchdown, you play for the tuddy and the 2-pt conversion.
My point was that whether the teams were playing well or playing poorly, it was still going to be a close game at the end. In a close game at the end, you want to have the ball last, so the other team can’t come back.
I push back a little on the defense take. First the defense is the worst defense ever and Shep needs to be fired. Now they held an offense to 17 pointS…THAT’S an improvement.
Yes, I think the analytical models are wrong. Technically, analytical models say you should never punt the football and go for it every 4th down. There’s a reason we don’t see teams do that, because we know it’s wrong. Like you said in your post, there is nuance to it.
It’s like the whole deal of being down 14 points. Analytics tell you that if you get a TD, you should go for 2. If you miss it, it’s ok because you still can go for 2 next time you get a TD. If you get it, well now you can kick the extra point and be in a position to take the lead or win.
I get the concept, and disagree with the premise. Goal of football is to score more points than the other team. Well, why not go for 2 all the time? Because we know statistically speaking, kicking an XP is x% chance of success, and going for 2 is a lower percentage play. So if you keep going for 2 and missing, the team that opts to kick the XP could eventually outscore you.
For me, it’s like the Moneyball philosophy in baseball. I love the concept, and can nerd out with the stats. It works in chunks, but it’s still not foolproof. People treat numbers as foolproof, but numbers constantly change. The more people try to do something and fail at it, now all of a sudden numbers that said “You should go for this” skew and change to “you should not go for this”.
If a coach wants to make game calls based strictly on analytics, good luck with that. If a coach wants to make game calls strictly on vibes, good luck with that as well. It’s not to say they CAN’T be successful at times. There are HS coaches who refuse to punt, based on analytics. You don’t see it in either college or the pros, because the data doesn’t support that system working, and coaches know if trying that strategy doesn’t work, you’re done.
What I was trying to show was that even with evidence leading up to the decision to kick the FG, if the point of football is to score points, make that decision. If the point of football is to try to stop your opponent from scoring points, don’t make decisions that will give them the ball in a position to score points. The fact Smack blew it is an extremely low percentage outcome. It’s so low percentage, Smack missing those 2 kicks now has people questioning if he can do the job. People expect an NFL FG kicker to make kicks inside of 30 yards with 95+ percent accuracy. Those 5 percent guys are the ones who didn’t make it long as an NFL kicker, or faced an extremely unusual circumstance, like a block, hurricane winds, snow covered ground, etc.
The Lions dropped as many picks as the Packers did but the difference is the Packers actually scored points after one of ours and we punted and failed on 4th down when the Packers dropped ours or when they got overturned.
If Hutch catches that fairly easy pick, the game may have been way different for sure.
Or Abney. Or if the two fumbles didnt happen.
Officiating and MCDC decision making arent the reasons the Lions won or the Packers lost. Honestly i felt like we were the significantly better team and caught a lot of bad breaks.
Did GB get hit with some questionable calls, certainly, but it isnt new for us… this is all i got for them
Yes, that’s the way I see it. Gibbs does not fumble before half the lions take total control of that.
Amen brother. We really could have won that game by 20 points. We shot ourselves in the foot so many times. Gotta clean that shit up to beat the Vikes.
I pretty nearly nailed it, with what I thought the Packers would score
…. but I was off by 96 points, on what I thought the Lions would score
I am positive there at 2 distinct camps on this topic. And you and I will be on different sides. I think it was 4D chess move. Now if we had Minny defense then yes you punt every single time. But we have Detroit Lions Defense so you have to be creative at times.