No, no - as we saw in the Schaub thread, once someone makes up their mind, they are steadfastly not going to change it, no matter what. Kubiak coaches not to lose and is actually a woman with fully-functioning woman parts. Don't look at his other 88 games; just focus in on this 2-minute stretch and that's all you need to know. And now I will jam my fingers in my ear and sing a Toby Keith song in my head so I don't have to listen to any sane, rational response that might make me reconsider a little bit and maybe even hedge a bit on my opinion.
Yes, but they didn't convert, so that was bad coaching too. Don't you get it? Last year, we screamed for Kubiak to run the ball more. This year, we're 2nd in the league in rushing and people are screaming that he's too conservative. Last year, we screamed to get rid of Frank Bush and bring in a real DC. This year, we got rid of Frank Bush and brought in a real DC....but it doesn't matter because it took too long and it may or may not have been Kubiak's actual decision. Last year, we were 6-10 and people were saying it didn't matter how hard the schedule was or how close the games were. The only thing that mattered was our record. Now, we're 6-3 and our record doesn't matter because our schedule is too easy.
It's not terribly uncommon for young teams to ascend only to have a bit of a setback. The Saints made the NFC championship game in '06 and followed it up wth a 7-9 season, followed by an 8-8 season. I think younger teams, frankly, get luckier far more often than we give them credit. In '06, NO played 2 teams that won more than 8 games - 13-3 Baltimore and 9-7 Dallas. So... last year wasn't altogether unprecedented. Again, the ascension wasn't as good as it should have been, and slip was worse but... Agreed; I should have said: it hasn't been a failure. And if they make it this year and again next year... then we can start talking about it being successful. Certainly right that he'd need to do it again the following year(and likely year after imo). And certainly right this aint Rod Marinelli bad. Oops.
But we're not concerned with our absolute chance to score - whether that's 30% or 70% is irrelevant. What matters is your chance to score vs the risk you're taking (ie, their chance to score). No matter what reasonable percentages you assign to all the different possibilities, you'll see that the Texans have a *substantially* better chance of scoring there than the Saints. End of the half is one of the rare situations where one team gets a distinct advantage over the other: you should always use it. It's not the same thing, but it's similar to why teams throw hail mary's at the end of halves from the 40ish yard line: even though the odds of completing the pass are low, the risk of something bad happening (an INT returned for a TD) are substantially lower. Isn't everything we're talking about here conjecture? That's the definition of debating a coaches' decision, because you have no idea what would have happened in the other scenario. I'm not arguing that it cost them the game - I'm just arguing that it was a stupid decision and it is an example of one of the big problems people have had with Kubiak over the years: terrible clock and game management. Sure, absolutely. But the simple issue is that you had maybe a 60%/40% chance of winning the game as of halftime (numbers made up, of course). If you try to score at the end of the half, you increase that to, say, 65%/35% because you give yourself an extra possession that the other team probably doesn't get. If you actually do score, you up it to 70%/30% or maybe 75/25 if you get a TD. This was a specific coaching decision that had a net negative effect on the chances of winning. Did it cause the win or loss? Of course not. Did it affect its likelihood? Absolutely - in a negative way to some random degree.
FWIW, here's the game thread at the time of the decision: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=208749&page=31 Outside of one person, everyone was universally questioning the decision not to try to score. It's easy to defend everything a coach does when the team is 6-3, just as it's easy to criticize everything a coach does when they are 6-10, but there are still big bad decisions in the former situation and good ones in the latter.
Sounds like die hard fans to me.... What do you expect? Im sure Boston fans scathed the Red Sox, Patriots, and the Celtics, even after the success... F.A.N.S (Frustrated Assholes Never Satisfied) Im guilty as well .. But not nearly to the extent of most people in the Clutchfans Community
1 - This thread is much less interesting than the Penn State stuff. 2 - It's true, I never claimed Kubiak costs games for sure; I'm just saying I hate it when he pulls that crap before the halves. 3 - This is not about 1 segment of 1 game; it's multiple games, a pattern of behavior, and I hope he has improved from that. 4 - It's not my strategy; I thought this was typical football strategy that almost every coach (good and bad) does. I can't recall other coaches being as half-time gun shy as Kubiak and I want solid examples of good coaches doing exactly what he does before halves. 5 - Go Texans!
at the time of the 1:27 mark and 3rd and 17 play, NO had 2 timeouts left. let's assume Kubes calls a timeout. NO runs the ball, kills 5 seconds, and Kubes calls his final timeout. NO kicks a FG killing another 4 seconds. this leaves the Texans with 1:18 to score after kickoff. because of the new rules, the Texans are 95% likely to start at the 20 yard line. if he's aggressive, it's safe to assume the first play will be a pass. let's assume it's a an incompletion and kills 4 seconds. well, that saves NO a timeout with 1:14 to play. what are his options now? probably two straight running plays that burns a combined 10 seconds. they can't kill the clock because NO uses their two remaining timeouts leaving 1:04. Texans punt. Unlike the Kickoff, a punt has a chance to be returned and if you remember what Sproles can do well that's the last thing you want. give NO a minute with a short field you're just asking for trouble. it's a lot of assumptions, but it could have easily played out like the above. my point is "aggressiveness" is a double edged sword. it's only the right call if it works.
So in your scenario, the Texans get the ball with 1:14 to play and no timeouts. The Texans apparently run 3 incredibly quick three second plays that go nowhere followed by a punt out of bounds. So your worst case is that the Saints get the ball with to a bit less than a minute to go no timeouts, maybe from the 30 or 40 instead of the 20 - a pretty equal situation to what the Texans were in. So even in your bad case, the Texans have equal odds to score as the Saints. On the other hand, what if the Texans complete a pass? Or they get a first down with a run? Or maybe they run a running play on 1st down and see what happens - if they get good yardage, go for more. If they don't, then just run it twice again and end the half. Keep in mind that the Texans offense was the dominating unit for the previous 29 minutes. Or, if the Texans decide they don't want to take the chance, they can just run out the ball on the kickoff in the endzone and see what happens. If they get a big return, great. If they don't, they can just run 3 running plays and essentially run out the clock. They had lots of options and a huge advantage over the Saints in terms of options. They were also the team dominating the game. But they never gave themselves the chance to even find out what their opportunities might be. There are win probability trackers in all sports (you see it most in baseball) that show the estimated probability of a team winning a game at any particular time (this can also be seen in money lines in live-betting). I guarantee you the odds would have been higher had they called that first timeout than it was when they didn't - because all it does is give the Texans more options and more possibilities. There are always a lot of assumptions - that's why you go with what gives you the best probability to win. But using your standard, the call was wrong anyway because it made the assumption that a 6 pt halftime lead was good enough to win the game, and it wasn't. So the "conservativeness" was the wrong call because it didn't work. To be clear - I don't agree with that logic; the decision should be based on what's most likely to work, not what does. Bill Belichick going for it on 4th and 2 against the Colts a few years ago was the right decision because it gave them the best chance to win. It didn't work and they lost and he was second guessed, but it was still absolutely the right decision.
I disagree. Field position matters; there’s a reason it’s a priority with teams. In that instance, you’re very likely starting with 60, 70, 80 yards to go, including 10, 20, 30 yards just to reach Saint territory. That tilts in favor of the Saints. Your chances of scoring – whatever the % - is significantly lower than the Saints’ chances *if you turn the ball over on your end of the field*. You have 80 yards to go; they’d have very highly likely less than 20, and probably closer to 0. You should have stopped here. There is no even remote corollary between throwing a Hail Mary into your opponents’ end zone with no time on the clock and mounting a 60-80+-yard drive with 90 seconds remaining and one, possibly no TOs. Yes, of course. But as I explained in my response to Icehouse, it opens the door for an endless cycle of good/bad outcomes. If this happens, they lose. BUT if this happens, they win. etc. etc., etc. We could do that all day. I contend that there are absolutely good outcomes; I’m trying to point and get the lot of you to accept that there are also bad outcomes. If we leave those out, of course it’s an easy no-brainer. It wasn’t “stupid” – I think that’s over the top. It was measured; it was conservative – but it absolutely has merit. There IS a downside, and side-stepping that isn’t unwarranted. There are a LOT of things that could have happened had they managed the clock as you’re suggesting; scoring ranks as a fairly low probability among them. Beyond being arbitrarily made-up, that % makes absolutely no sense; the net result of *either* decision denies NO an additional possession – you either do as they did and let the clock expire; or you hold onto the ball and drain the clock by trying to score. In fact, the ONLY way the Saints get an extra possession there is if you burn TOs to try and mount a last-minute drive and then turn the ball over. And simply “trying” something, devoid of positive results, does not in any way, shape or form increase a team’s chances to win a football game. Starting the second half with an onside kick doesn’t mean squat if you don’t recover it. You’re, again, just randomly making up %s and assigning them meaning. In fact, a score there does NOT increase their chances of winning and we know that because the Saints scored 30 second-half points. So a FG there – the far most likely positive outcome, means we still lose. Again, the strategy has merit; but, IMO, the discussion has to begin with, “That’s one way to handle it, here’s another, more aggressive way…” I just don’t see the decision he made as “stupid” and I’m at a loss how anyone can hold it up as evidence against Kubiak given that even if your strategy is sound, there’s no guarantee it leads to anything positive. If he was…. I don’t know - in FG range and for some reason decided, “A blocked FG there is just too much of a risk…” so he knelt and ran out the clock - OK. But he was looking at a long drive with one or no TOs and a Saint team that you’ve dominated but are very much in the game because of your red zone failures. Sitting on a 16-10 lead, on the road, in which you’re clicking in all phases of the game seems, while mild, fairly easy to defend.
I don't know if anyone has brought up this point but... New Orleans is known for their extravagant and often times lethal blitz packages. 3rd and a Mile is where you have 100% chance of seeing one of those first hand. When the first down isn't a MUST HAVE conversion, I don't see why the conservative decision is not a viable move. And I don't remotely understand how it could be a ‘stupid decision.’ There is a big chance that said play would have resulted in a pick six, momentum changing disaster.
Looking at game logs last week of teams getting the ball with under 2 minutes left (don't know anything about timeouts): Buffalo got the ball at midfield with 50ish seconds and tried to score. Dallas got the ball at their own 20 with 1:04 left and tried to score. Colts got the ball deep on their side with 1:31, ran 3 times and punted; Atlanta then got the ball at their own 40 with 28 seconds and no timeouts and tried to score. No late opportunities in KC/MIA Saints got the ball with 1:39 and 2 timeouts at their own 20 and scored. Redskins got the ball with 1:03 left and scored. No late opportunities in HOU/CLE (Texans did get a last second FG on a turnover) No late opportunites in TEN/CIN Denver got the ball with 1:30 at their own 40 and tried to score (missed a FG) No opportunities in NYG/NE None in STL/ARI None in GB/SD Baltimore got the ball on their own 35 (on a kickoff) with 1:00 left and scored. Bears game is weird because there were 4 active drives starting with 2:04 left, including 2 scores and 2 turnovers. Last one was Philly getting the ball at their own 20 with 0:43 left and trying to score. So basically, every game last week that a team had an opportunity to move the ball with between 30 seconds and 2 minutes to go, they did. And some of them did score.
i actually wanted Kubes to call a TO with a chance to get the ball back to try and score. but i don't think his conservative decision was as egregious as some are making it out to be.
Ironically, almost all of those coaches are looking up at the Texans in the standings right now. He's coached us not to lose 6 games this season. To quote Charlie Sheen..... Not losing = winning
well, he did go for it on 4th down against the Raiders and Ravens in the first half. how did that turn out?
I think overall he is doing a pretty good job, but his time management late in halves is preplexing. I do think this team should be 7-2 right now, maybe 8-1.....but 6-3 is not bad..... Overall, I would give Kubes a B+ for this season. DD
Except if you get bad field position, you always still have the option to run it 3 times to end the half. Of course there are - there are bad and good outcomes in every decision. Put whatever realistic percentages you want on each thing that could happen, and you'll find that the Texans always come out with better likelihood of scoring than the Saints do. ALWAYS. That's what makes it a no-brainer decision. If you don't take that opportunity, you don't have that advantage in the 2nd half, and thus your odds of winning go down. This is basic math and probability. Again, you're missing the entire point. It was a stupid decision because (a) the Texans have a much higher chance to score than the Saints and (b) because it reduced their likelihood of winning. Umm, except in one scenario, the Texans have an additional possession to score. The absolute number of possessions doesn't matter - its that the Texans would have one more than New Orleans in one scenario. That makes no sense. Onside kicking to start the 2nd half absolutely changes your chances of winning the game, as does every other decision. If you get it, it increases it; if you don't, it decreases it. Since you're unlikely to recover it, it generally decreases your chances of winning, which is why teams normally don't do it. Here, you have the opposite. Trying to score increases your chances, so that's why teams regularly do it. WTF? This is factually incorrect. If you have a 9 point lead instead of a 6 point lead at any point in any game, you absolutely have a higher chance to win that game. If you disagree, you have no grasp of the basic concepts of math and probability, or frankly, the concept of numbers. I have no idea how to discuss this with you at this point. Clearly, you don't. That doesn't mean you're right. So decisions only matter if they guarantee a positive result? By that standard, no coaching decision ever matters. No QB read ever matters, because even throwing to a wide open receiver in the endzone instead of throwing the ball away wouldn't have guaranteed a positive result because the WR might have dropped the ball. The simple fact is that throwing to the wide open WR in the endzone is the right decision because it has a statistically higher probability of netting a good outcome. Similiarly here, there is a right and wrong decision based on its statistical likelihood of a good outcome - that's how you judge EVERY decision.
Come on, Major - you're ripping those out context. This complaint is very specific: they didn't actively try to leave themselves time to mount a drive; not that they didn't try to mount a drive. You have no idea which of those teams, if any, called a TO to preserve time for their offense as the opponent was marching to a likely scoring drive.
