During Detroit’s Week 3 win at Baltimore, ESPN’s Troy Aikman praised Lions coach Dan Campbell for his “[big onions](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/1no76nu/highlight_troy_aikman_on_dan_campbell_just_before/).” On Sunday night, those onions came up empty.
The Lions went for it five times on fourth down against the Eagles. They failed to convert a single one of them.
Last night, a predictable habit of aggressiveness wasn’t necessary. In a low-scoring game, engaging in a field-position battle makes more sense. Taking three in lieu of rolling the dice on seven becomes more prudent.
It’s the water’s edge of analytics. For some games, it makes sense to throw caution to the wind. In some games, it makes more sense to play it safe.
In some games, the bigger picture must be considered.
The Philadelphia offense had been the top NFL story of the week. From A.J. Brown’s comments on a Tuesday night Twitch stream to coach Nick Sirianni’s shortening fuse on the topic to Brown’s remarks to the media on Wednesday that highlighted a fundamental disagreement with quarterback Jalen Hurts on the question of whether winning a given game excuses offensive struggles to the news that Brown and owner Jeffrey Lurie met on Thursday to hash out Brown’s frustrations, the Eagles’ offense was on the ropes. The Lions’ strategy for Sunday night should have been to set the stage for them to fall through.
Punt the ball to them. Pin them deep. Force them to get the sputtering lawnmower started, while under the scrutiny of a fan base that would have made their displeasure with ongoing sluggishness known, loudly.
And blanket A.J. Brown. Everyone knew they’d be targeting him. Bait Hurts into thinking he was single covered. Get a safety in position to maybe get a pick, like the Bears did when it was obvious the Vikings would be trying to over-target Justin Jefferson.
The analytics aficionados will respond to any and every point made about the limitations of basing fourth-down decisions on the statistical success rate generated by hundreds if not thousands of iterations by claiming that the formula takes all relevant factors into account. But there’s no way that the mathematical equation considers whether and to what extent a conservative offensive approach by the Lions could have sparked a potential implosion of the Philly attack.
Instead, the Eagles have regained their swagger. They’re 8-2, with a defense that is on the verge of becoming dominant. That will be the story this week, as the Eagles prepare to face the Cowboys in Dallas, to host the Bears on Black Friday, and to visit the Chargers the following Monday night.
Offensively, the Eagles were on the brink. Instead of standing back and letting them potentially fall off the cliff, the Lions gave them a lifeline
Here’s the deeper question. Did the time Campbell spent preparing for the micro task of calling plays against the Eagles dilute his ability to focus on the macro strategy against the Eagles? Did he spend less time working with defensive coordinator Kelvin Sheppard to fine tune tactics for countering the expected effort to feed the frustrated Brown?
Regardless, the Lions have become too predictable in their commitment to “big onions.” Opposing defenses now expect to be on the field for four downs, not three. And the Eagles stifled them, five out of five times.
It’s far better to be unpredictable. And it’s far better to consider factors beyond conversion percentages and other numbers tied to down, distance, and field position.
Last night, the commitment to being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive didn’t work. Sometimes, it makes more sense to be passive aggressive. Given the status of the Eagles’ offense entering the Sunday night contest, it would have made far more effective to force the Eagles to get out of their own quicksand.