Week 17 Saturday Night Football Cowboys-Lions: Advanced Review

Officiating focus mares an otherwise thrilling finish, and the Cowboys are still live to potentially win the NFC East

The adjusted scores quantify team play quality, with emphasis on stable metrics (success rate) and downplaying higher variance events (turnovers, special team, penalties, fumble luck, etc). Adjusted expected points added (EPA), in conjunction with opportunity-based metrics like total plays and drives, projects adjusted points. Adjusted scores have been tested against actual scores and offer slightly better predictive ability, though their primary benefit is explanatory.

All 2023 & 2022 and historical Adjusted Scores and other site metrics are available in a downloadable format to paid subscribers via Google Sheet.

Find previous advanced reviews here

** Adjusted Scores table:

• “Pass” - Pass rate over expectation (based on context of each play and historical averages

• “Success” - Success rate on offense, a key metric in adjusted score vs actual

• “H & A” - Home or away team

DAL-DET

I’ll weigh in on the refereeing controversy at the end, with all the implications. First, let’s dig into the details of the gaming, knowing the result easily could (should) have been a one-point win in the other direction.

This was a game of big contrasts. While offensive success rate only slightly favored the Cowboys (45% to 42%), they had a massive advantage on late-down conversion value, and the teams were opposites in reliance on the passing game, with the Cowboys dropping back at a rate 8.5% over expectation, and the Lions at -13.9%.

The Lions’ faith in the running game didn’t translate to production (-5.5 EPA, -0.38 per run). While the traditional stat-lines look good for the Lions on the ground with 125 yards on 31 carries (4.0 YPC) and a score, they netted -4.0 EPA on six third-and-short conversion attempts on the ground. The Lions also failed on 5-of-7 third down conversion attempts when dropping back to pass (-4.5 EPA). The contrast in results between Jahmyr Gibbs and David Montgomery was stark, with 15 carries for -7.7 EPA for the former, and 14 carries for +1.3 EPA for the latter.

It’s hard to overstate the impact of the Cowboys’ 92-yard touchdown to CeeDee Lamb. Not only is the raw yardage total enormous, but it came on 3rd & 13, meaning the Cowboys pre-play expected points were roughly -2, meaning it was more likely the Lions would score next. The details how the it played out add to the impact, with Dak Prescott hunkering down and nearly taking a sack in the end zone before rolling out and completing the pass to Lamb after the defensive back fell down.

A lot of the Cowboys’ good fortune on the Lamb touchdown was mitigated by poor luck by everyone’s favorite rule when Lamb fumbled out the side of the end zone, resulting in a touchback for the Lions. It was especially painful to come on 1st & Goal from the 5, meaning the Cowboys would have been very highly likely to get a touchdown with an additional two or three attempts if Lamb went out at the 1 yard-line.

Despite the Cowboys not scoring much in the game until late, I think Prescott’s elite +13.3 EPA on 44 plays was largely representative of his play. Yes, he got a huge advantage from the long touchdown, but his accuracy was strong and he got little support from the ground game, with Tony Pollard & Co. accumulating -7.9 EPA on 21 designed runs.

Jared Goff didn’t play well, but even so provided better efficiency than the Lions run game. The overall Lions passing numbers are better than Goff’s because of their second most positive play of the game, a fake-punt pass for 31 yards on 4th & 2. Goff had accuracy and mistake issues, but it’s a big positive for the Lions that they almost (did?) won with Goff having a bad game. The Lions defense and running game are good enough this year to win with Goff struggling some, even against a solid opponent. They still have a playoff run in them.

Now let’s address the end-of-game stuff. At this point it looks like the head official Brad Allen misidentified who reported eligible on the play. He told the Cowboys defense before the play that 70, not 68, had declared eligible, and that was also what was reportedly announced on the PA system. The video looks like 68 reported, and then 70 came over near Allen after, but not part of the main reporting process. I’m sure we’ll get more details today and later this week, as Allen’s post-game pool report only confirmed that he though 70 reported.

To Dan Campbell’s decision at the end to win the game with a 2-point conversion, I’d put the three decisions as slightly good, very bad, and bad. With 20-something seconds remaining, it’s not even a slam dunk by the numbers to go for it from the 2, as the Cowboys will then be very motivated and have one time out to try and get a field goal. The tipping point on that is around 30 seconds left, so the Lions were in a good but not great context to try. Moving back to the 7 after the penalty is a bad spot to go for it no matter what. So was the next try where they moved forward half the distance to the 3.5 after the offsides penalty.

I’ve seen some analysis that Campbell’s decisions to keep going for it in worse situations was motivated by the lack of stakes in the results for the Lions. It’s true that pre-game they had less than 10% chance of getting the No. 1 seed, but a win would have boosted those chances to 20%. I’ve seen coaches fight tooth-and-nail for less of an advantage. Campbell’s post-game presser indicated he had decided they would go for two before the final drive started, and they wasn’t going to be put off of that decision outside of a total absurd distance like 10-plus yards. He didn’t appear to have a decision tipping point in mind.

The Cowboys would have been essentially eliminated from winning the NFC East with a loss (< 5%), but now stand at 25%. It looks pretty simple now: if the Cowboys beat the Commanders next week and the Eagles lose one of their next two games, the Cowboys will win the division and host a Wild Card game.