If you’ve listened to Mike Macdonald’s post-game interviews this season you’ll have noticed how often he makes reference to letting the game ‘declare itself’.
The inference here is that he’s waiting to see what happens then acting accordingly. He adjusts to opponents, game scenarios and conditions. He makes decisioned based on the moment and flow of a given game.
If there’s one thing the 2025 NFL season has shown us it’s that several other coaches refuse to do this.
There’s a trend among Head Coaches to do the opposite. They, along with analysts like Greg Olsen, treat every game like it’s a carbon copy. If you just do this list of things, you’re doing it right. Forget the situation. Stick to your principles.
This lack of flexibility has caused more problems than solutions.
Detroit’s Dan Campbell is a big proponent of this. Yet his decision making cost the Lions in the NFC Championship game two years ago against the 49ers.
He passed on two potential field goals for fourth-down attempts (4th & 2 from the 28 and 4th & 3 from the 30) when leading and trailing, respectively. Both resulted in incomplete passes. The Lions lost a game they led 24-7 at half-time by three points.
In that scenario the Lions just had to keep the scoreboard ticking along. Campbell refused — because he believes in what he describes as “feel calls”.
We saw that same aggressiveness prove costly for the Lions again during the 2025 season. In a 16-9 loss to the Eagles they were 0-5 on fourth down:
— 4th & 2 from own 48-yard line (0-yard run)
— 4th & 2 from own 43-yard line (failed fake punt)
— 4th & 5 from Eagles’ 32-yard line (incomplete pass)
— 4th & goal from Eagles’ 3-yard line (incomplete pass)
— 4th & 3 from Eagles’ 45-yard line (incomplete pass)
After the game Campbell admitted:
“If you go totally conservative in the way this game played out and the way it was, you got a better chance of winning that game than some of those decisions I made.”
Meanwhile, his former offensive coordinator Ben Johnson suffered the same fate last night. In a cold, frigid environment, in what ultimately proved to be a low-scoring typical playoff encounter, he aggressively chased fourth down conversions instead of kicking field goals. There were mixed results.
Take the opening drive. They march downfield, turn it over on fourth down and instead of the Bears’ defense trotting onto the field feeling like they’d had a good start, they had to grab their helmets and respond to an interception. A few moments later, the Rams were leading 7-0.
It didn’t help that Johnson’s play-calling was off, as was his personnel usage (just run Kyle Monangai in goal-to-go situations). Yet it felt like he wasn’t playing the weather, the situation, the type of game we were witnessing or the opponent. He was ‘doing what he always does’ because ‘that’s just the way I am’.
Funnily enough, having suffered failure on the goal-line, when it came to be braver than, well, a bear — he suddenly lost his bottle and didn’t go for the two-point conversion to win. Instead he kicked an extra-point and settled for overtime.
Macdonald doesn’t seem to fall for any of this. It’s not that he’s anti-analytics or never aggressive. He’s just more thoughtful and calculated. He’s not going for fourth down all of the time. He isn’t listening to the cool kids on Twitter who treat any game like an opportunity to tut at not following the prescribed cool kid rules. Every 2nd and 10 run after an incomplete pass is a heinous crime. Never kick field goals. Go for two when you’re down 15 (as the Eagles did against the Bears in November) — meaning if you fail you still need two scores.
Please, stop the madness.
There’s been no louder voice on this than Olsen, the former Seahawks tight end now working for Fox. His views on the matter, delivered like a weekly sermon, drowning every game he covers in noise, reached fever pitch in the Vikings/Seahawks game in week 13. He declared ‘field goals get you beat’ as the Seahawks climbed to a 13-0 half-time lead against a team fielding Max Brosmer at quarterback.
Some coaches would’ve felt like they had to be ultra-aggressive to prove some kind of point against an overmatched opponent. The Seahawks were content to focus on the mission — actually winning the game. They did win, 26-0.
Olsen went on to say:
“I hate when commentators say it, I hate when coaches say it, I hate when the media says it. I don’t know what ‘take the points means,’ it doesn’t make sense to me.”
It means scoring points. Building a lead. In some games, that’s what you need to do. In other games, a more aggressive approach might be necessary. If it’s a shoot-out and you need to match every score with your opponent, going for it a lot on fourth down could be the key to winning.
Other games might be a defensive battle and playing the percentages will be the key, with scoring at a premium.
Macdonald seems to recognise this and the Seahawks are better for it. You need to let the game declare itself and make sound decisions based on what you’re seeing on the field. Not stick to inflexible principles that can easily get you beat if they’re stubbornly pursued.
It would be great if the Seahawks could win a Super Bowl for many different reasons — perhaps none more so than their traditional brand of football reminding people that the game hasn’t changed quite as much as they seem to think. And no amount of twitter shouting or online clout chasing will do anything about it.
If you missed it earlier, check out my stream with Jeff Simmons (he joined for the second half) plus my appearance on UK Seahawks show ’12 Talk Podcast’.
