I would have done something that was guaranteed to work instead, and other useless arguments
By 
In the midst of the collapse of the Detroit Lions in the second half yesterday, Dan Campbell went for it twice on fourth down and failed to get the first down. (On the first play, a receiver got open but failed to bring in an imperfect but catchable ball; the second play the Lions not-easily-explicably went with an empty backfield and misread the defense, leading to a situation in which Goff was under pressure with no good targets and ultimately underthrew his top receiver.) It was inevitable that the decisions not to settle for field goal attempts would generate lazy criticism from people always looking to take rote shots at “analytics,” and it doesn’t get much lazier than this.
Before we get into it, let’s look at the plays that actually had the biggest win impact for the 49ers. I said yesterday that you need to turn some of the bad passes Brock Purdy throws up almost every game into turnovers if you’re going to win. I hadn’t really considered a “The Luckiest QB in the World heaves an atrocious pass that somehow pinballs into a 50-yard gain” scenario but here we are:
AIYUK UNBELIEVABLE!
: #DETvsSF on FOX
: Stream on #NFLPlus pic.twitter.com/gm8L5xwa9D— NFL (@NFL) January 29, 2024
[For those who didn’t see it, this was not DPI and the flag was picked up.]
Unlike the many drops by the Green Bay secondary the previous week, I would say this is as much or more bad luck than bad execution on the part of the Lions. And Aiyuk, unlike Purdy, is genuinely elite and made a great play here. But if this is turned into the INT it should have been, the Lions are almost certainly going to the Super Bowl and nobody cares about the first failed 4th down conversion.
Even after that, the Lions were still up by a TD and their offense had moved the ball well up to that point. This was their next play from scrimmage:
That's our #WPMOY! @arikarmstead#DETvsSF on FOX
NFL+ // https://t.co/KTh0i4oaLh pic.twitter.com/V5KTm8zwNO— San Francisco 49ers (@49ers) January 29, 2024
If my jurisdiction had live mobile sports betting, I would have put down about five mortgage payments on the Niners at this point, so LEGALIZE IT. [Ed. Note — Washington should not legalize mobile sports betting and in-game bets are for suckers even if this one would have sent me to Europe.] These two plays represent nearly a 9-point swing in favor of San Francisco, and are exactly the kind of bad breaks/unforced errors an underdog just can’t afford.
Making this game about Campbell not settling for field goals is therefore weird on its face, but talking about bad fumbles doesn’t allow you to engage in rote rants about NERDS like, ah, noted poindexter Dan Campbell:
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.
The sharp people in the audience will have already noticed the two huge begged questions here. With respect to the last graph, settling for a FG might have had a negative effect on the Niners, or they could have just quickly moved the ball down the field like they did most of the second half. Even more problematic is the yadda-yaddaing of “the kick, if good.” People who admire the tactical genius of Mike McCarthy like to call going for it “taking points off the board” is if field goals are made 100% of the tine. Obviously, any alternate strategy to a failed fourth down attempt is preferable if you assume it would work, but this is a transparently silly argument: “rather than a play that was not executed, I would simply have chosen a play that was executed.”
You guys are right. I hear you. There's a time and a place to start getting conservative. The time? When it doesnt work. The place? Wherever it doesn't work. https://t.co/dTsvMAFIzn— Kevin Clark (@bykevinclark) January 29, 2024
If the Lions had a great placekicker, perhaps you could just assume that the 45 and 48-yard kicks Campbell passed up would be made. Only they don’t:
New column ($) on the two big questions from yesterday's games: How did the Chiefs slow down the Ravens? And did Dan Campbell blow the game by getting too aggressive on fourth down? I don't think he did https://t.co/UgbxyU2emc pic.twitter.com/YfNuJnu0Ul— Bill Barnwell (@billbarnwell) January 29, 2024
Indeed, the Lions had a better rate of converting on fourth down that Badgley has on 40-9 field goals, even before we adjust for the fact that Lions basically don’t let him kick anything but chip shots outdoors.
So while in terms of general probabilities Campbell’s decisions were sound, I agree 100% that you need to take particular contingencies of the specific situation into account. (Note that, as with so many anti-“analytics” arguments, Florio doesn’t actually do this, he just makes bare, purely hindsight-based assertions that a more conservative strategy would worked.) If John Harbaugh decided to kick with his placekicker and his defense, I wouldn’t be particularly inclined to argue with it. Campbell, though, has 1)a poor defense that got absolutely shredded in the second half, 2)a very shaky placekicker, and 3)a strong running and short passing game. The contingencies here, in other words, work strongly in favor of Campbell’s decision, which is exactly why Campbell’s critics don’t actually engage with them and just do a bunch of “I would have done something that worked”
hand-waving.
Campbell didn’t have a flawless game — he and Johnson got outfoxed on that last 4th down play, and the essentially game-conceding run on their last drive was an awful decision (although I doubt it would have proven material in the end.) But the decisions to go on 4th down were fine. The Lions lost on bad execution, not bad tactics.
I’d argue a bigger issue for today is an INT bouncing off a DB’s head leading to a 50-yard bomb, an RB fumble in their own territory, Josh Reynolds’ hands and Jameson Willams having a TD float thru his arms. https://t.co/5Dh9WJjujs— Dugar, Michael-Shawn (@MikeDugar) January 29, 2024