On Sunday night, the Lions opted to attempt five fourth-down conversions. They failed on all of them and, in so doing, failed to keep the heat on a struggling Eagles offense.

The Eagles had only one fourth-down try. It happened late in the game, on fourth and one from Philly's 29. The failure allowed the Lions to turn a 16-6 deficit into a one-score game, at 16-9. And it required the Eagles to play keep-away from Detroit, an effort that was fueled by an "absolutely terrible" pass interference penalty on Detroit.

It was the second straight game in which Eagles coach Nick Sirianni made a controversial decision on fourth down. Against the Packers, he opted to go for it from the Green Bay 35 on fourth and six with a three-point lead. The failed deep shot to receiver A.J. Brown gave Green Bay a chance to try to force overtime. (The Packers missed a 64-yard field goal at the buzzer.)

On Monday, Sirianni was asked during a press conference about his process for making fourth-down decisions late in a game that his team is leading.

"I've talked to you guys about this," Sirianni said, possibly implying he didn't really want to revisit it. (He did anyway.) "Again, there's a lot of different factors that go into it. It always starts with the players and the play that you're calling first. Do you have faith in the players that you have? The analytics can say what it wants, but if you don't have faith in the players to go execute it, that doesn't give you a lot of confidence. So then, what play do you have, the players that you have and then you do it. Analytics is a piece of the puzzle. All these different things are a piece of the puzzle. Your past successes, the league studies that you do, all these things play into that. I love our process."

There's a difference between the process and the results. In both situations, the process didn't prevail.

"Just because you have a great process doesn't automatically mean that you're going to convert every fourth down," Sirianni said. "I completely understand that. But we've got a great process with our coaches, great process figuring out how we go about attacking there, and when we go for it, I have to make those tough calls and be able to have that conviction. When you don't convert on fourth down, it is always going to be on you as the head coach. You ultimately made that decision, and you're not going to get a lot of praise when you get it on fourth down like, 'Coach, great job on that decision.' That just doesn't go that way and that's okay.

"You have to have major conviction within yourself, understanding that there's going to be major criticisms when you don't get it, and there's not a lot of points that are given to you when you do get it. You have to have a major process that you go through to put yourself in a position where you can have major conviction when you make those decisions and fully accept all the criticism that happens when you."

He also acknowledged that the performance of the defense on Sunday night was a factor.

"[I]t can help you decide on when to kick field goals, help you decide on when to punt, different things like that, knowing when the defense is rolling like that," Sirianni said. "But, again, that's what I'm saying. There are all these different pieces of the puzzle to help you make decisions and you've got to have the discernment and wisdom as you're going through the game to understand how the game's being played."

He's right about everything he said. But there's one key factor that needs to be added.

Before the advent of the analytics age, coaches who did the conventional thing didn't get criticized when the conventional thing didn't work. Coaches who did the unconventional thing faced a public backlash if/when it didn't work.

In 1995, for example, former Cowboys coach Barry Switzer went for it in the same spot against the Eagles with 2:00 minutes left in a 17-17 game. The Cowboys didn't convert, and the Eagles won the game with a field goal.

Said Eagles coach Ray Rhodes after the game, "I don’t think my gonads are that big."

Nowadays, the gonads/onions don't require XL boxer briefs. Analytics has made the unconventional conventional, with more and more models saying "go" when conventional wisdom of past decades would say, "Are you freakin' nuts?"

When Switzer did it (he explained that the Cowboys would have been punting into the wind, and that he believed his offense could "make a foot"), the external criticism was loud. And that external criticism can have very real internal consequences.

In 2025, ignoring the advice of the math experts who have ownership's ear can lead to the same result.

Pre-analytics, coaches had a safe harbor in following the generally conventional path. Today, the safe thing to do is what the in-house analytics experts tell them to do. Disregard the numbers people, and the coach has to worry about the things they'll say to the owner about the coach's overall competence.

And so the external criticism is far less relevant for modern coaches than it used to be, especially since fans and media are far less inclined to heap criticism on a coach who goes for it on fourth down. ESPN analytics says 'GO' has gotten most to accept a rolling of the dice in circumstances that, not long ago, would have prompted cries for the coach's ouster.

The more relevant consideration for coaches isn't the shouts from outside, but the whispers from within.

The message? Accept the input from the analytics department, and you're safe. Ignore that advice at your own career peril.

For every coach who sifts through the various factors while trying to make a good decision in the moment, that dynamic cannot be overlooked.