Official Week 3 Lions at Packers Game Day Thread

[pbmax]

Neither "Success Rate" or "Expected Points Added" of run vs. pass under this analysis considers the score, time remaining, defensive/special teams impacts, or many other variables. This failure also undermines/nullifies the conclusion that coaches are only thinking one play at a time and not at the "game level."

Much of the work being done focuses on the first and third quarters. When game plan is likely to be a higher priority than game situation. Or at least, as high as it will be.

Expected Points are based on that situation, when the game is within 10 points. That removes time as a factor. EPA definitely takes into account field position.

I would argue that a focus on the clock in the 3rd Quarter is counter productive if you have the lead. If you are not having success (failure to secure first downs) or EPA (increasing chances of scoring), then you are at best thinking three plays ahead, either causing an opponent to call timeouts. At worst, you have chosen very early to engage in a low variability strategy when your opponent will be engaged in a high variability one. If you are trying to milk clock that early, you will give your opponent more opportunities from better field position, making the high variability approach more successful.

There are simply too many variables to think of clock mainly in the third quarter. You do better by your defense if you move the ball and score.

[vince]

That's inarguable but uncertain conclusion until after the fact. There are multiple facets to helping the defense when they're struggling.
Playing up tempo and risking clock mismanagement isn't generally considered the best - unless it works with the benefit of hindsight.

[gbgary]

The first half. In the second half the Packers defense/lions offense combined with being ahead by multiple scores, dictated a change in strategy. Other than the holding call in the 3rd, dropped pass by Davis on first down which stopped the clock in the 4th, and the miss by cobb/rodgers on third down it worked well.
It's seemingly surprising to some that playing "not to lose" when up multiple scores results in "not losing" almost all the time - unless you want to argue that teams play "to win" when they win but "not to lose" when they lose. One notable and highly unlikely exception notwithstanding.

not moving the chains and staying on the field left the Packers d on the field a lot...11 more minutes than detroit's d to be exact.
Packers temp fate with this tactic too often and it got stupid for no reason on sunday.

[ThunderDan]

not moving the chains and staying on the field left the Packers d on the field a lot...11 more minutes than detroit's d to be exact.

I think this is a misrepresentation of the 2nd half. We had the ball for 5 minutes during the 1st 18 minutes of the 2nd half. That 5 minute drive was our longest of the game. Our longest drive in the 1st half was a little under 4 minutes. We went 47 yards and holding penalty stopped us from scoring a TD most likely. Instead we kicked a FG. Our D couldn't stop DET in the 2nd half but didn't let DET get any quick strike points until 4 minutes left in the game.