Honestly, this reminds me of all the people defending the Astros decisions not to rebuild based on the fact that they had some near miracle runs to mediocrity a few years back and that was evidence of the team being good. You don't evaluate decisions based on outcomes. Good decisions sometimes don't work. Bad decisions sometimes do. Sometimes you get lucky; sometimes you have bad luck. All of those things have to be taken into account. The team has a 6-3 record, yes. But that not evidence of good coaching any more than 6-10 is proof of bad coaching. If the Green Bay Packers had a 6-3 record, that would be evidence of bad coaching at this point because they'd be underperforming their talent. If the Colts were 6-3 right now, that would be evidence of good coaching for the opposite reason. As I said, I think Kubiak has done fine overall this year in terms of gameday coaching - they lost a game they probably should have won (Oakland) and won a game they probably should have lost (Pitt) just based on talent. Everything else has been as expected, and the coaches will not have many opportunities to win games they shouldn't until the playoffs because of the weak schedule. That's just reality and nothing to criticize the coaches on. But 6-3 shouldn't make us just pretend every decision the coaches make is perfect. Everyone questioned that decision when it happened, and if the team was 3-6 today, everyone would be pointing to that as being an example of bad coaching. The future results of the team don't affect whether a particularly coaching decision was good or bad. It was a decision in traditional Kubiak mold - over the year, bad clock and game management has cost the team opportunities to score and potentially cost the team games. It may or may not have here, but it fits his mold that concerned everyone for the past several years. That's all that anyone is saying here.
I listed every single game from the weekend. But those two are directly connected. If you are saying they shouldn't call the timeout, its because you don't think it's smart to try to score with a minute to go. My point is that every single other team that had the opportunity to score tried for it. None of them just tried to run the clock out. If someone wants to make the effort to go back to prevous weeks, you'll find the same overwhelming evidence - that teams consistently think its a good idea to try to score with 1-2 minutes left in a half. There's a reason for that: it's statistically sound logic. That's certainly true. It's also not particularly relevant to whether it's smart to try to score at the end of the half, and indirectly, whether it's smart to try to give yourself the opportunity to score at the half.
When you have over a minute to score, I dont care where you are on the field, you try to score unless you have a 4 possession lead and just want to be "nice" to the other team.
Who is saying that?? All I'm saying is that 10 pages of going back and forth about 2 minutes of a game from 6 weeks ago seems a little excessive, given where the team is now (1st place in the division, 2nd best record in the AFC, 2nd best running game in the league, 2nd best pass defense in the league, 4th best rushing defense in the league, etc.) I mean, there are people in this thread (not you or Kim) actually saying the head coach doesn't deserve credit for any of this. There are people saying it would suck if we won a playoff game because then Kubiak wouldn't get fired. Really?? It would suck to win a playoff game??
i hope the people clamoring for Kubiak to be more aggressive before the half aren't the same ones that don't trust Schaub to lead the team down the field in the first place. that would be quite a conundrum for you.
I have to say, I was a little irritated when Kubiak wasn't canned last year. BUT: he is the coach of my Houston Texans now. Not the Chin. Not Dungy. Not anyone else. On top of that, he is southeast Texas guy. Given those two things, I'm pulling for him. How could I not? I'm with ima that the whole, "o noes, the Texans will make the playoffs and Kubiak won't get canned!!!1" stuff is a little silly.
I don’t know how we got into %s; %s that you made-up, no less… First of all, the likelihood of the Texans’ scoring in that instance, independent of the Saint’s chances, is small. It starts there. Just from the games you pulled from last week, 8 teams tried to score at the end of the half; two succeeded. Another opportunity actually led to a TO and gift points at the end of the half (for the Texans, no less!) When you then start to list all the good things that can happen against all the bad things that can happen, the bad take the good pretty decisively, beginning with handing the Saints a clock stoppage prior to their third down attempt. Fumbles, interceptions, sacks, blocked kicks, punt returns...... Again, taking an opportunity, devoid of any results, is ultimately meaningless. You keep insinuating, if I‘m reading it correctly, that even if they fail, at least they tried and that alone increases their chances of winning. And it doesn’t. Trying increases their chances *only if they’re successful*. So what would you call the decision if they had utilized this strategy, turned the ball over and gifted the Saints additional points? Well then that’s just STUPID because obviously, based on your position here, teams should always be risk-adverse to anything so long as it potentially increases their chances to win, right? I mean… that underscores my point: sure, there’s an upside; there’s also a downside and avoiding that isn’t meritless. Or stupid. I know, Major – because you want this discussion to exist in your world, where you can arbitrarily make-up %s and pretend they have relevance. In the actual real world, the Saints scored 30 second half points. THAT, more than a conservative but wholly defensible decision at the end of the half, was why they lost. And you are? Again, I’ll ask: How would you label your strategy if it fails and results in Saint points? You continue to operate under a false conclusion of positive and/or neutral results, ignoring (or dismissing with made-up %s) very real negative consequences. It’s easy to call a decision “stupid” if there are no negative repercussions. But there are most assuredly some here and those have to be factored in.
Ric, you really can't provide evidence for a character trait. All you can do is list examples of when you see that trait on display. If I say someone is agressive or shy what evidence can I provide, besides giving examples of them displaying those traits? The same for saying a coach is conservative. When did he say it cost them the game? I don't recall him saying "hey lost because of this", but will happily admit I am in error if he stated that. In other words, you disagree with his position because you think the alternative is justifiable. So what's the point of him providing more examples using the same logic? Yes, I read your posts. Are you reading them?
Of course field position matters, just as it did last season when the Texans had one of the worst average starting field position in the league, and for the most part it did not stop them from scoring last year. Teams practice their two minute and under drills all the time, because they know there'll be a situation in-game where they have an opportunity to score. This was the Texans, who are used to long fields and have the ability to move the ball regardless of time constraints, on a Saints defense that had up to that point in the game, been overwhelmed, and it's not like it's a strong defensive unit anyway. The chances of scoring on from your own 20, what kind of stat is that? every team starts on their own 20 many times a game, and they don't just lie down because they're scared of the other team scoring during a turnover. You don't have 80 yards to go, you can try to get in field goal range too.
Wow...debate over. Does this count as evidence Ric? Edit: Nevermind. I see you have already dismissed it. At the least, I think it's fair to say when you look around the league and see every other team trying to score with under 2 left (or trying to get the ball back to score), that you conclude your coach is making a mistake when he doesn't try to do the same. Especially against a high powered offense. Can you at least admit that??
No, no, no, no. I have said repeatedly that it is a "sound" strategy; I have never argued otherwise. Never. My position has not wavered: the decision they did make, however, is every bit as defensible as Kim's strategy. That's NOT what the Texans did, and that's why, devoid of context, those examples are meaningless. The Texans did not have the ball. Let me repeat: The Texans did not have the ball. New Orleans had the ball; New Orleans had burned timeouts; New Orleans was in Houston territory in a closer-than-it-should-have-been first half. That's where this starts. Do you burn TOs when the Saints have the ball? Stopping the clock for them is not a prudent course of action. Again, I have never said it wasn't smart. Ever. Never. Again, I've repeatedly called it "sound." I am NOT arguing that it would have been a bad decision; only that not employing that strategy, while conservative, is every bit as defensible.
I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position... I don't disagree with his position...
Read my response to Major; the circumstances have no relevance. He's discussing teams getting the ball with time and trying to score. That is NOT what the Texans faced.
Again, put your own percentages on each of the possible outcomes. As long as they are reasonable, I guarantee you the Texans come out with the edge. I'm letting YOU define the terms of the math. No - the chance of winning increases when you try to score. If you succeed, it goes up more, and if you fail, it goes back down again - but those aren't things the coach can directly control. The coach only controls the decision, and his decision can increase or decrease the probability of winning. A good decision that didn't work out. Just like the Belichick decision. Good decisions don't work out 100% of the time, but it doesn't make them bad decisions. Similarly, bad decisions don't fail 100% of the time, but that doesn't make them bad decisions. What is stupid? On-side kicking at the half? YES. It's extremely stupid. The exception is if you've seen something in the other team's kickoff coverage that suggests you have a good chance to recover it. That then makes it a good decision because it would increase your probability of winning. When the upside is substantially greater than the downside, it's stupid. When the downside is substantially greater than the upside, it's smart. That's basically the definition of how you make any decision. Anywhere I made up %s, I clearly stated that the specific numbers are irrelevant to the idea. You can pick whatever numbers you want. It's called "an example". Sure - I never said this decision was why they lost. In fact, I clearly stated that the decision reduced their probability of winning. Learn the basic concept of what a probability is, then come back to me. Until then, please stop trying to pin a position on me that I never made. I know it's often necessary for you to create that strawman, but it's pretty stupid when my words clearly state otherwise. Already answered. As I've stated about 6 or 7 times, you shouldn't judge the decision based solely on the result. But since YOU apparently do, the Texans lost the game, and 7 points might have prevented that, so clearly it was the wrong decision not to try for a TD, right? After all, giving up more points would have had no result on the outcome. Yes, they do - that's the concept of probabilities that I refer to over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Once you understand how to weigh the probabilities of all the good and bad outcomes, it becomes very clear why this was a bad decision.
Proper time management gives us the ball back with time to score, similar to those other teams. That was Kim's point. Geez, and you accuse folks of moving the target....
Except it is exactly the situation the Texans faced, because the Texans had the ability to create the scenario that every single coach chose to use and chose not to. Not a single coach thought it was better to simply run out the clock than try to score.
Probably so. But the context here is that Ric - who said he was leaving the thread and had no intention of discussing this issue and almost wanted the team to lose because spoiled fans didn't deserve a winning team - then asked for specific examples of bad coaching decisions. He got one and then wouldn't accept it, because he apparently decided he only wanted examples that directly contributed to a loss - never mind that no coaching decision every directly results in anything because the players still to have to run the play. True - I think all of that is silly.
