First one to end half, I can go either way. Either way is a fine decision. The benefits of going for it that far down the field is forcing the opposition to go 97/98/99 yards if you are stopped. That goes out the window when its the end of the half, so kicking and taking the points is a perfectly fine option. That isn't him forgetting his aggressive nature. It is him understanding one of the main factors in that risk is the nature of pinning the offense back, and without that benefit, the risk makes the reward much less desirable.
Badgley is a bad kicker. He probably shouldn't be on a team this good, but to ask him to kick a 46 yard FG on the road outdoors? He is 77% from 40-49 in his career -- and half those games he was on a dome team, and the other half in San Diego. It was 4th and 2, momentum completely in your favor, in plus territory. Go for that and the kill on the road every time. 77% is a very real number at this point in his career, coupled with probably a 60% conversion rate at 4th and 2 from there, and this isn't even a close decision. Factor in the Lions success this year at 4th and 2+ yards, and I don't really see the other side of this argument.
The last one is the easiest decision of the 3. Kick it and you give yourself probably a 50-50 at best chance to tie. Badgley is still the same shitty kicker from that distance, and its even close to 50 yards where he is 5/13 on his career. So at best, we are looking at a tie game, and giving the ball back to an offense that is humming, with all the momentum, vs a defense who has already given up 20 points in the half. They were another 10 yards from me thinking they should kick it -- though I still wouldnt have hated going -- and 20 yards away from me saying they need to tie the game here.
The only real thing I thought he did poorly and actively hurt the Lions chance of winning was running in the goal to go at the end of the game. IF you are going to design a run play, you have to have a 2nd play dialed up and immediately hurry to the line and try and snap it within 10 seconds of being tackled. Using a timeout ended the game, pending an onside recovery. That was abysmal coaching. Frankly, all run plays at that point should have been lit on fire. All plays needed to go into the endzone. If you wanted to have the option, they needed to burn the timeouts as the marched up the field, so they would've been scoring on the other side of the 2-minute warning, potentially significantly so. That would still allow for a 3 and out and getting the ball back should the onside be unsuccessful. I actually just went back and did the math. They could've saved almost an entire minute 19 + 17 + 16 seconds between the kickoff and score if they used timeouts on offense. You have to do that, or use none. Using one of them after that run was coaching malpractice and ended the game.
