I actually have said this; repeatedly. Donny Most and I, who agree Matt has played better than people realize in C&L situations, disagree on his overall play against quality opponents. I would argue he's still looking for a signature win in that department. There's certainly room to discuss a coach being conservative; but too conservative to the point it's costing the team games? That's a stretch. IMO. Lighten up, Francis - it was from a movie.
There’s absolutely merit to your strategy. But the mission here is to find games in which Kubiak was so thoroughly outcoached, it led directly to a loss. With that in mind, I don’t think this qualifies for two very relevant reasons: 1) the team scored 17 second-half points, which, on most days, should be more than enough to win and overcome any halftime clock management blunders; 2) you’re assuming points if Kubiak follows your strategy and there’s simply no guarantee of that (more on this later). And then there’s this: Given that you’re thoroughly dominating both sides of the ball, and you’re talking about a high-risk, high-reward situation, explain the urgency to score again. I mean, I inherently understand it, obviously – but you’re asking him to force the issue when there’s nothing to suggest he has to. Let’s consider everything that could happen: the Texans score a TD; the Texans kick a FG; the Texans miss a FG; the Texans move the ball, don’t score, but run out the clock; the Texans don’t move the ball, don’t score, and have to punt back to the Saints; the Texans throw an interception; the Texans fumble; the Saints block a FG; the Saints block a punt. There’re two optimum and one neutral outcomes – the rest provide the Saints, who are being thoroughly dominated on both sides of the ball, a chance to score cheap points at the end of the half. As much as you were screaming at your TV, I promise you it would have been more violent had the Texans gift-wrapped 3 or 7 additional points for the Saints. Again, I’ll grant your strategy has merit; but you’re looking at it from only one perspective: the Texans scoring. And that is arguably, especially in terms of a TD, the least likely scenario. No way that cost them that game, IMO. I am guilty of this, too – we draw a conclusion and then narrow our focus to look for evidence to support the conclusion, ignoring all other – but I find it fascinating that you throw the Redskin game out there (which I would agree with) while ignoring the Charger game, which actually occurred six weeks later and featured a key fourth-down failure that may have cost them the game. Ultimately, you’re talking about very specific moments, that don’t occur every week, and using it to suggest bad coaching, ignoring the larger picture, in terms of game plan, etc. Look back ath the New Orleans game – does he not get *any* credit for “dominating both sides of the ball” in the first half? That’s his game plan (well, offensively). He did that. So to extrapolate roughly 2 minutes from 30 minutes and say, “SEE?!?!?!” seems wildly disingenuous to me.
Whoa, whoa, whoa… Capers’ respectable defense? The one that ranked 31st, 23rd and 31st in his final three years here – is that the respectable defense you’re referring to? The one that ranked 32nd in scoring in 2005? Really?... Do you maybe have a pair of Kubiak hate blinders on if you’re going to rip him for ruining THAT "respectable" defense (which actually improved its rankings in ’06)? (Besides, it was Casserly and/or Capers that dismantled that "respectable" defense; Kubiak didn't trade 4,176 picks for Jason Babin; he didn't trade another 46 picks for Phillips Buchanon; draft the wrong Johnson; let productive players like Walker, Sharper and Glenn walk with no alternatives...) And while yes, he absolutely botched two defensive coordinator hires – why are you harping on that and ignoring the offense he’s built here? Whoa, whoa, whoa… again. I’m specifically respond to this: Kubiak to me gets no credit for everything Phillips has done to this defense. Wade Phillips did not bring in the players I listed; Kubiak did. And please don’t throw, “5 years and that's all you can list? Seriously?” at me when, in the same time period, you can only cite two busts. My list included three Pro Bowlers and two Defensive Rookies of the Year. Other than Watt, Reed, Joseph and Manning – all critical additions, no question (though I’d argue Joseph was a no-brainer) – the rest of that defense was built by Kubiak, the “de facto decision-maker of everything”. Again, you’re narrowing your focus so you can pinpoint one issue at the cost of all others. Yes, he failed to bring in a top-notch defensive coordinator and it cost this franchise dearly. But Phillips is proving Kubiak’s personnel decisions on that side of the ball were better than we thought and the offense continues to roll up historically productive numbers. But, yeah, sure – let’s just talk about Frank Bush and call it a day.
I didn't see this game, so I'm just going by the descriptions provided, but this is probably the very definition of the problem people have with Kubiak's decision making. At halftime against the Saints, a 6 pt lead is not remotely going to hold up - you know you're going to need more points. The Texans could fumble, or get intercepted or whatever anytime during the game - not trying to score because of that is silly. At this point, they have an opportunity to score in a situation where they have the clear advantage: because of the clock, it's far more likely that they will score than it is that the Saints will score. Everything bad that could happen to the Texans on their possession could also happen to the Saints, if they are lucky enough to get a possession of their own. The odds are completely stacked in your favor, so you absolutely try to score. At the very least, you run some safe 10-15 yard plays to see what might happen. If it works, and you get good field position, great. If not, no big deal. Or at the even more very least, you call the timeout on 3rd and 17 so you have the option. Maybe the Texans block the Saints FG. Or maybe you get a good kickoff return to give you a scoring opportunity. If you don't like where you start, you can still basically run the clock out when you get the ball. But they didn't even give themselves the chance by letting the Saints run out the clock. It's basically the very definition of playing scared: we're not going to even try to score because we're afraid we'll totally screw up.
I absolutely give him credit for drawing up game plans and awesome 1st 20 scripts (which are the non-3rd down and non-redzone plays that coaches draw up before each game). I've never said he was a terrible coach. I really don't know one way or the other. I'm just saying what he did in the Saints game before halftime...that's horrible. I personally hate that. I think it's bad strategy. Not trying to build on a 16-10 lead with 1:30 left and 1 timeout before half is terrible, which is what he could have had if he chose to use his 2nd timeout. We can agree to disagree here. But it's really telling to me that the Saints were trying to keep the Texans offense off the field, and so was Kubiak. It is a pattern. I will break down Pitt and Oak later. Again, I'm just critical, very critical of this one aspect of his coaching. I'm not jumping on other aspects here. PS. I can't say if this cost them the game. I'm sure red zone inefficiency was a bigger culprit. They had 4 trips in the 1st half and came away with 3 FGs and 1 TD. But damn, it...they were rolling on yardage in the 1st half! Why wimp out? Of course stuff can go bad, but jeebus, who does that? What other coach kneels the ball with 1:30 and 1 timeout? Get more points!
Except that you’ve thoroughly dominated both facets of the game for 30 minutes; why would you assume your team doesn’t have the capacity to maintain that? Isn’t that an entirely different but altogether similar mark against a coach? You later (unfairly, IMO) label him scared – how would you categorize not trusting your team to repeat its 1st half performance? The bottom line, for me, is: are those 3 or 7 points worth the risk of handing them 3 or 7 points? I think Kim makes a commendable case; but the flip side, IMO, is every bit as justified. It’s conservative – but game-costing? When you score 17 second half points for a total of 33? On the road? (And granted, a turnover could (and did) happen at any time – but its chances are heightened in hurry-up mode when you’re rushed and frantic. Remember - they would have been left with no TOs and likely the majority of the field to go.) I’m not sure the proper/best time to pick this up – but let’s say you call a TO after the sack that created the 3rd and 17. That burns your second TO, leaves you roughly… just less than 2:00 and they still have to run a 3rd down play and then (presumably) punt and/or kick a FG as they’re currently at your 32. So, assuming a 3rd down stop, you’re burning your last TO and the Saints are then either kicking off (if they’re close enough to try and make a FG), turning the ball over (if they miss the FG) or punting, depending how many yards they get on 3rd down. Now, again - I’m perfectly content with Kim’s strategy here; it’s not unsound by any means. But to pretend there’s no downside would irresponsible. I think to hurl “scared” at them is unfair. And it’s more unfair to suggest he left points on the field; he left a long-shot at points on the field, in a game in which they scored 33 points anyway. Most coaches are going to play that conservatively, especially on the road. Do you remember why Buddy Ryan threw a punch at Kevin Gilbride? Because he pulled the exact same thing, failed, put Ryan’s defense back on the field and subsequently cost them Marcus Robertson. You’re up 16-10, you’ve thoroughly dominated both sides of the ball… there’s no reason to risk it. Again, as Kim suggests, it’s not unreasonable to do so – but Kubiak was justified in what he did do and it did not cost them the game.
I watched the game. Kubiak wasn't playing scared. The Texans were having difficulty getting the ball into the endzone. His choices were no points or 3 points most of the game. The Texans lose horribly if he goes for the TDs instead of the FGs. The game turned in the fourth when I expected the Texans to go conservative and run the ball with a 9 point lead. The Texans run the ball once in two possessions. If only Kubiak had been playing not to lose in the 4th instead of "trying to win", the Texans would have won. Well that uses the logic that I know what happens when a butterfly flaps his wings in Brazil.
Is that you Bob McNair? He's the GD HEAD COACH, not just an offensive coordinator. Sure he got a nice offense but who cares if your D and ST sucks? Sure he got a nice offense but where has this 'great/elite' offense taken us? 6-10 back to 6-10. HOORAY!! He is a head coach, not an offensive coordinator. Yeah, yeah, yeah sure Kubiak brought those guys in but he never did **** with them. (Points/Yards D rank)25/24, 22/24, 27/22, 17/13, 29/30, and you guessed it(!) 3/1 when Wade came in. All those individual awards are nice(I guess) but the hell with them. Where would the Texans be without Wade(if Wade wasn't available for whatever reason)? I bet another inept hire by Gary. Hey [good old friend from Denver], wanna be my DC?! Hey, at least Gary didn't hire his offensive line coach to be the next DC. I'll give him that! Unfortunately the case for me. Still following the NFL but hard to follow or care about the Texans. Hate the coach(no secret) and when they win, not too terribly excited and/or always a "Yeah, but...". Did my opinions/credibility just go out the window? Oh well.
They would've been forced to use both TOs to leave that much time on the clock. Their best case scenario is forcing a 4th down with roughly 1:30 left and no TOs. If they tried to keep a TO in their pocket, NO would have run the clock down further, per your conclusion that the Saints were actively afraid of the Houston offense and thus concurrently trying to score points and drain the clock. You're playing fast and loose with the facts here. Again, there is no scenario possible in which they would have had the ball, 1:30 on the clock and a TO in their pocket. You're getting mad at him for a phantom set of circumstances.
LMFAO!!! Hilarious! No one is arguing this; you're literally arguing with yourself. It was a colossal failure on his part, costing the franchise a year, maybe two, of playoff football. So...... he deserves some credit for that? Oh, wait - let me get out of the way; the target is about to move.... Again, no one is arguing otherwise. And now we take our customary detour to FantasyTown as the poster gets irrationally upset at something that never actually happened. And, FYI, to answer your question: Had Wade not been available, they would have hired another experienced defensive coordinator. Sounds exotic, I know – but 100% true. It’s plainly obvious they stripped Kubiak of his power to make another hire and smartly learned their lessons from the previous two failures. What I don’t fully understand is: why be angry and bitter about it? I certainly understand being stung by it– they were terrible, costly decisions. But they corrected it. Late - but better late than never, right? And they’re better for it. This is a good team. Why not live in the now and enjoy what they’re doing?
yep, he went "aggressive" with a two score lead in the fourth quarter. all that did was stop the clock 5 times because I believe they were all incompletions. i remember a wide open Ben Tate dropping one.
Bill Cowher is just jumping on the DD bandwagon, I said all of this before the season... I keed, I keed....it is nice that the national media is giving some attention to the Texans, first it is a trickle, then a stream, and soon a raging torrent, this could be our year. DD
Great point. The Casey TD made it 26-17; it's the first play of the 4Q. On their next possession, the Saints are forced to punt. The Texans then throw, run, throw and punt. The Saints then score to make it 26-24. The Texans then throw, throw, interception. Six plays with a 4Q lead and 1 run. There was nothing conservative about that; no playing to lose there. And, IIRC, Kubiak was eviserated for it in the forum. "Why doesn't he run more?!" Damned if you do.....
That's a shame, man. You know I was right there with you in your Kubiak loathing last year, but once training camp started, I decided to turn the page on 2010 and just worry about 2011. And I'm having much more fun this season because of it. Do I think Kubiak is the second coming of Vince Lombardi? Uh....that would be no. But he's here and we finally have a team that is playing great in all 3 phases of the game, "easy schedule" or not. We've been waiting for a decade to actually have fun watching the Texans on Sundays and it's finally happening. We're physical (no more soft labels), running the ball right down opponents throats, intimidating division rivals to the point where they're accusing us of playing dirty...dare I say we're actually beginning to develop a swagger. So why keep harping on last year?
The reason is that you know New Orleans has a great offense and is likely to score points. You hope you will continue to dominate the second half. But similarly, you hope you can dominate the next 1.5 minutes too and score again. In the 2nd half, your two teams are on even footing. For the next 1.5 minutes, you have the edge. You absolutely should use that. Given that your chance of getting 3 or 7 points is substantially high than theirs, the answer is an absolute and unequivocal YES. If you have a crappy offense, or NO has a great defense, the story is different. But offense is your strength. As you said, you've thoroughly outplayed the other team. Trust your team and try to get more points before the other side has a chance to regroup. Wait - first off, it's not clear they'd have to burn the time out - that's only true in the case of a completed pass or a run. With a run, you've forced NO to kick a longer field goal, so that's a plus there. But again, you at least give yourself the opportunity there. If they complete the pass, kick the FG, kick off, and you don't like your field position with no timeouts, you can still choose to run out the clock. The problem is that they didn't give themselves the opportunity to even find out. No, they aren't. I think the majority of teams with a good offense will try to score there. Under a minute? Probably down it. If you struggled to move the ball all game? Probably down it. If you've been the better team and a 90 seconds, possibly with a timeout? You absolutely try to move the ball. Even if you get the ball at the 20, you only need 50 yards to get a FG. 16 points is not going to win the game - everyone knows that. You have a chance to score points in a situation where the other team has a much, much smaller chance to score points. You know you will need points to win. There's every reason to risk it.
Texans had 2 timeouts 2:00 warning 2nd and 8 from Texans 23 - sack (see the video from my long recap) 1:41 tick tick tick This 3rd down play is run a few seconds later. 3rd and 17 from Texans 32 - dump off to Sproles for 15 yds play over, down time with Brees standing on the sideline My bad, it wasn't 1:30, it was 1:20 tick tick tick Saints drain 40 seconds play clock reset SAINTS call timeout at 38 seconds left. Why did the Saints drain the play clock? Because they were scared to leave too much time on the clock for the Texans offense. Why didn't Kubiak call timeout #2 with 1:20 left before halftime. Because he was risk averse. I'm telling you, this is not just 1 game. I'll recap Pitt and Oak after this.
