Dan Campbell's fourth-down decision in third quarter opened door for 49ers
Dan Campbell is a great head coach. But there's always a capacity to improve.
For Campbell, the next level becomes finding a way to properly regulate his tendency to be aggressive.
Aggressive. It's the buzzword that now stuffs all critics in a locker.
There was a time, not that long ago, when coaches faced with a key decision opted for conventional over unconventional. If they did the unconventional thing and it didn't work, they'd be criticized and scrutinized. If they did the conventional thing and it didn't work, what could anyone say?
Enter analytics, the effort by mathematicians to infiltrate NFL front offices (and to get NFL paychecks) without possessing traditional football skills. It worked in baseball, so they decided to move it to football. Even if it doesn't work nearly as well in football as the mathematicians insist.
With formulas that can't ever consider all factors relevant to an 11-on-11 dance played out under unique circumstances and with wildly varying consequences, analytics experts try to quantify the unquantifiable. By introducing a new way of thinking about well-settled football norms regarding punting and kicking field goals and going for one not two after scoring a touchdown, the unconventional started to become conventional. Coaches who did the unconventional thing simply could say, when questioned about it, that they were guided by the analytics.
At some point, analytics and "aggressive" became synonymous, even if the words absolutely aren't. Eventually, coaches who otherwise would have attributed the decision to go for it to analytics started to say they were just being aggressive.
Now when they roll the dice and it doesn't work and they get asked about it, they just say they were being aggressive and that's the end of it.
It shouldn't be. Coaches should be strategic, not aggressive. Sometimes, sound strategic considerations point to being wifully aggressive. Sometimes, they point to being deliberately passive.
On Sunday, Campbell's blind commitment to being aggressive resulted in the Lions squandering a golden opportunity to restore the margin from two scores to three scores with 22 minutes left in the game.
That's the mistake that opened the door for the 49ers. And that's the mistake that ultimately ended Detroit's season.
The 49ers started the second half with a drive that ended at the Lions' 25. They took the three points, cutting the margin from 17 to 14 and, more importantly, converting a three-score game to a two-score game.
Next, the Lions moved the ball into field-goal range. On fourth and three from the San Francisco 28, Campbell went for the first down.
The kick, if good, would have given the Lions a three-score lead again. It would have created greater pressure on the 49ers to close the gap. They would have needed enough time to score two touchdowns and a field goal — assuming they could stop the Detroit offense multiple times.
The urgency to score three times could have made the 49ers more one dimensional. It could have prompted quarterback Brock Purdy to throw the ball a little earlier than he should have. It could have prompted other players to make mistakes.
It's not about points. It's about scores. The Lions easily could have forced the 49ers to need three scores.
What do the analytics say they should have done in that situation? I don't know, and I don't care. I'm certain that no formula could take into account everything that Campbell needed to consider when deciding to pass on the field goal and to instead throw the pass in that specific situation.
The issue never should be framed as the analytics recommending anything. The analytics should be, at most, a factor in the broader decision-making process entrusted to a coach who has the knowledge, skill, and experience to make the right decision.
Again, these decisions are about strategic thinking, not blind aggression. What is the best thing to do in that situation? Most coaches would have kicked the field goal. Campbell didn't.
If it had worked, that wouldn't have made the decision any more reckless. Last Sunday, when Campbell inexplicably left too much time on the clock for the Buccaneers, the circumstances (and Tampa Bay coach Todd Bowles) bailed him out. If Campbell's roll of the dice had worked against the 49ers, he wouldn't have been right. He just would have gotten away with being reckless, again.
That's the irony of analytics. In many situations, a word that implies intellect encourages a mindless, reflexive effort to be aggressive — and to ignore whatever a much more careful, thoughtful, and objective analysis of the situation would require.
Analytics. Root word, analysis. Net effect with analytics? True analysis often gives way to knee-jerk decisions.
The good news is that Campbell has a chance to learn from this. And to make a better decision the next time he can try a 45-yard field goal in order to take a three-score lead with 22 minutes left in a conference championship game.
For all coaches, the broader lesson is clear. Don't check your own instincts and experiences at the door. Don't blindly accept what the analytics expert tell you, even when they're telling you what you'd like to hear. And don't hesitate to push back against them, no matter how smitten the owner might be by the diplomas and supposed brilliance of those who insist the game of football is something it most definitely is not.
