Should the Texans have kicked the 52yd field goal?

By this standard, are you saying that anytime you win a game, every decision the coach made is the correct one? If so, would it also be true that if you lose the game, every decision the coach made was a bad one?

I don't see why whether you win a game or not is the determining factor as to whether an individual decision is a good one. Is it not possible to win a game despite bad coaching decisions or lose in a game inspite of good coaching decisions?

 

I don't know what this "play to win" stuff means, other than you have to play the odds and do whatever gives your team the best chance of winning the football game.

What are the odds of the Texans missing? And if they missed, what are the odds that WAS would score from that position? And if they didn't score, then what are the chances the Texans win?

More avid football watchers probably have a better feel for these odds than I do. But I'd put the chances of WAS scoring after a miss at around 80%. And if they don't score, after that the Texans would have an advantage. Let's put it at 70%.

Putting it together (and, yeah, I made those numbers up but they feel right), Kubiak made the right choice if he thinks there was less than a 42% chance that Rackers makes that field goal.

 

Rackers missed a 47 yard kick and he is going to make a 52 yarder.

 

How can y'all not give props to Kubiak??? You play to win the game!! Lol

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IMk5sMHj58I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IMk5sMHj58I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

Delete ^^^ beat me to it!!

 

The math isn't right here. Even supposing your numbers are correct, that only accounts for what the chances in the scenario of kicking. You're comparing that number to 50% - what you really want to do is compare that number to the odds if they punt it.

Punting gives Washington 20 extra yards to go. If you assume Washington has an 80% chance of moving the 30 yards they would need in the case of a missed field goal, what are the odds of them moving the 50 yards they need in a punt situation? You then have to determine their chances of winning in that scenario and see which comes out higher.

Let's take your numbers and assume that Rackers has the 42% chance of making it. In that scenario, if the Texans attempt the FG, they have about a 50% chance of winning and 50% of losing. But we know that teams that get the ball first in OT win 66% of the time. By punting, you're essentially giving the Redskins the ball first in OT at that point - so they presumably have about a 66% chance of winning that way. In other words, even if Rackers only would make that kick 42% of the time, you have a 50% chance of winning that way vs. a 33% chance of winning by punting.

I assumed here the punt gave them the ball at the 20, which is similar to a kickoff - in reality, there was a chance that they get the ball deeper, which would have pushed the odds more in the Texans favor, but the math gets far more complex at that point.

 

I actually would have went for it- the first down that is, not the FG. 5 yards and you have a first down and a great chance to win the game...I know it's a gamble, but I like to keep the fate in the offense's hands and I felt that was higher % than a FG. Punting would be the 3rd option IMO.

The playcalling at the end of regulation was piss-poor too. Ultra conservative after we had caught fire.

 

This is the other thing to consider - the strength of the Texans is their offense. It's not like the defense was shutting down Washington. Combine that with the fact that defenses tend to be tired by OT. If you're Baltimore, it makes more sense to punt. If you're the Colts (or a generic team with bad defense), it makes sense to kick or go for it. If you're the Texans? Probably more similar to the Colts than Ravens.

 

If you don't think your kicker can't make it, you freaking go for it.

 

Dealing in facts and not speculation, his decision was correct. We know for a fact they won. We know for a fact that the win was aided by the Redskins' miss from roughly the same distance.

He made what he thought was the correct decision at the time and it worked out.

I just don't see why so many people are complaining that he didn't have his kicker attempt a 51/52 yard field goal.

This reminds me of the time that the Astros were on TV and Joe Morgan said that Garner should have a runner steal on the next pitch. The runner did not go and it was a pitch out. Morgan said - "Well Garner certainly got lucky there".

If folks want to complain about a decision, complain about a 1st and goal from the 2 pass that resulted in losing your starting QB for the year.

 

This.

Rackers was pushing out kidney stones, and from what I've read about it, it can make a grown Marine cry.

I don't know how painful it is, since he played through it, but I figured it must of limit his kicking motion today. Plus, he missed a 47 yard-FG earlier, so Kubiak must not have been comfortable with him kicking a 52-yarder.

Kubiak knows what he's doing. He must have watched Rackers during pre-game warm-up, kicking FGs. He was on the sideline with him, knowing if he's hurting or not. I trusted that he made the right decision in that moment.

Either way, he made even better decisions in the end, and got us the win.

 

Exactly. You can hate on Kubiak all you want, but at the end of the day the coach's job is to win the game, and thats exactly what he did.

 

great logic. kickers miss 35 yarders, why even kick at 40 yards.


on that 47 yard miss, it was a bad hold by turk. that ball was almost at a 45 degree angle when he placed it on the field.

 

So again - does this mean that if a team wins, all the coach's decisions are correct? If the Texans had lost, it would have been the incorrect decision?

You're assuming the result and the decision have a 100% correlation. Let's say Steve Slaton carries the ball, but pitches it for no good reason, resulting in a fumble. But as a result of that fumble, the other team gets the ball and throws a Pick-6 which gives the Texans a win. Had he not pitched the ball, we might have lost. Since we're only dealing with facts there, and we know that Slaton pitched the ball and then the Texans won, was Steve Slaton's decision to pitch the ball the correct one?

 

He should have gone for the FG You play to win. You have the chance to win the game, you take advantage of that chance..despite his percentages on 50 yarders. You play to win!

 

Absolutely! . . .You kick to win the game! You don't kick to just kick it...The field position if missed would be WAY too dangerous, the distance was suspect at best (50% chance as proven by the Redskins kicker)...

Kubiak did what made sense. At first my reaction was "kick it!" I admit.

 

To put it more simply, you should be able to determine whether a decision was the smart one at the time it's made - not looking at future results. A good decision can work out badly, and a bad decision can work out well. There's nothing that says if the team wins, something was a good decision or vice-versa. They could have won regardless. It may have been even more likely that they won with a different decision.

 

Yes. We also should have tried to win the game in the last minute of the 4th. And it looked like Kubes was going to let us give the Skins a chance to return the kick before someone on the sideline talked to him. Our coach damn near blew the game. With that being said, he saved it by icing the kicker.

All I know is that if the game is tight I don't trust his decision making. How can others not feel this way?

 

Except rackers does not have a super strong leg.

Matt shaub probably can't throw the 70 yard passes that mcnabb so instead of putting him in position where he can make completion you want to him to try for 70 yard bombs?

Gano only made one out of 2 tries.

Rackers career at 50+ is 19/39 which is sub 50%. You miss the kick the redskins have to go 40 yard to kick a field goal.

 

Why is a 50% chance of winning immediately plus another 10-20% chance of winning if you miss a worse option than a 33% chance of winning (the % of teams that win when the other team gets the ball first)?