Should the Texans have kicked the 52yd field goal?

The "play to win" theory is such a misapplied sports cliche.

Who defines whether a coach is playing to win?

Kubes punted and asked his D to hold, which they did. The O got the ball back and went on to kick a FG for the win. How did Gary not "play to win" there?

 

lol? were u watching some other game or something?

 

Does the fact that Kubiak knew their O-line was going to be less effective due to the injury to the LT play into any of this?

Mario was causing havoc throughout the second half, and by no coincidence, the Redskins stopped scoring with ease.

I find fault with a lot of what Kubiak did today. The lack of utilizing the screen pass when the Redskins were bringing everybody (including LB and safeties) nearly every play. Not even trying to establish the run early. Not running for it on 3rd and 4 to get the ball a little closer for a possible long (but makeable FG).

I did not find much fault with the end of regulation calls. That punt took ~ 12 seconds off the clock and pinned them deeper than they wanted. Schaub's deep options were covered, and Andre couldn't break anything on the crossing route. Then, the second pass gets batted down. Had either of those plays worked out, they likely get more room to try something downfield... but a potential sack/fumble at that part of the field gives Washington instant FG position.

As for the FG try, any decision that causes "this" much of a discussion is obviously not a "no brainer". There are cases to be made for either side. It just happened to work out the way it did.

 

At the time I thought it was the wrong call. But that's me being a stupid fan and wanting to go for the win right then and there in the heat of the moment.

Looking back Kubiak absolutely made the right call. They won. I was wrong. End of story.

 

Agreed. I think Kubes is being unfairly criticized for the clock management at the end of regulation. When you're deep in your own territory, the risk/reward ratio is just too high. At that point, playing it safe IS playing to win.

Here's how I know it was the wrong call: everyone on the Redskins board was commenting on how it was such a lousy decision (see link here). They were so certain that the Texans were going to kick it, and when they didn't, the Redskins fans were thanking us for making such a boneheaded play.

Even if it has only a 50/50 chance: you take the kick.

 

Wind an Issue?

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that the wind was having an effect on the ball in the second half. Kickoffs from right to left (on the tv) were routinely going to the back of the endzone in the first half, but in the second half Rackers only got the ball to the 10 yard line on one kick, and then he kicked that line drive on the other kick, possibly b/c of the wind.

Washington chose to defend that goal in OT as well, leading me to believe that the wind would have played a part in making the FG kick tougher.

Maybe Kubiak and the staff assumed that it was in actuality more like a 55+ yard kick.

If anyone has it DVR'd, I'd love to know if they showed a shot of the flags on the goalposts at the time of the kick.

 

There are 3 possible plays in that scenario: Kick, go, or punt.

Punt on 4th and 4 from the 35 is probably the worst call. Look at the pros or cons of each situation:

If Pro on a kick, you win. If Pro on going for it, you get a 1st down. If Pro on a punt you pin them inside the 20.(varying degrees on this one)

If Con on a kick, Skins ball at the 42. If Con on a punt, Skins ball on the 20. If Con on going for it, skins ball on the 35.

You are looking at 15 yards difference between a failed go for it and a failed punt. Up to 22 yards on a failed FG vs a failed punt.


He chose the only option that no matter what happened(barring penalty or turnover) the Skins were getting the ball back.

 

I don't think Kubes was planning on a touchback, but rather, Turk pinning Redskins inside their 10.

 

I was mad at the time too, but when I sat back and thought about it, if Reckers had missed the field goal, McNabb would of had good field position and with a clutch player like that, you don't want that. Gusty move that paid off. I give mad props.

 

On the contrary, all your "cons" scare me at that point... especially since the Redskins only need a FG to win. Also, the Redskins offense after their LT went out changed noticeably as McNabb was pressured nearly every play.

Remember, they were a stupid uneccessary roughness penalty away from keeping the Skins deep in their own territory just after the punt. Skins likely become ultraconservative at that point. But, you give them room (with good field position), and they can open up the playbook a tad more as a sack or yardage loss doesn't spell doom (or possible opponent points).

Speaking of questionable coaching calls, how about Shannahan going for a double reverse in the 4th quarter (that resulted in a 10 yard loss). Craziness.

 

Look, for those of you making excuses for Kubiak, think of it this way.

The only reason the team is 2-0 is because they missed a makeable FG that they made once.

If they make that FG, which they should have....then the Texans would have lost a game that they failed to take a shot at winning.

That is inexcusable.

If you have a chance to win the game, you take it.

Rackers can kick it 52 yards, yes he missed a 47 yarder, then made one.....he had plenty of distance.

This was Kubiak hoping to pin them deep and get a better shot at winning.

However, your players are tired, more injuries could happen, and they might not have gotten the ball back, in fact, they shouldn't have.

Either you are in it to win it, or you are going home......

I think Kubiak will go for the kick next time he and the team got lucky the Skins kicker missed the redo.....

DD

 

You're right. Except I think Kubiak's thinking was that by punting from mid-field, the field position would be in the Texan's favor. So it wouldn't be equivalent to the Redskins having the ball first. I can't imagine it would have been much less than 50%, however.

 

Maybe the reason they were in that position was because of the 15-yard defensive penalty to start the drive. Kubiak's thinking was rooted in the Texans having favorable field position at the start of the Redskin's possession, but that holding penalty basically erased that.

 

They should have made the kick and this would be a much different conversation.

IMO, you have a reasonable chance to win the game...if it was 55 yards then it becomes much more risky, but Rackers has the leg for 52.

It is like having 2 outs in a tie game in baseball with a runner at 2nd, and a sharp single up the middle.....you send the runner, why? Because you take a shot to win the game....same here, you take the shot to win the game.

DD

 

Kubiak wasn't banking on his defense giving Washington a shot at a FG. He was banking on pinning them deep, getting to McNabb (which they did), and holding them scoreless.

He didn't think his defense could do that if Rackers misses the FG. And Rackers missing the FG is likely a 50% shot. Just as you said he hit a 40+ yard FG "with ease and plenty of distance", he also pushed one wide right on the same side of the field. This is also a guy that Kubiak watches kick every single day in practice. A guy that apparently had a kidney stone earlier in the week (that can cause severe nausea/vomiting/dehydration if you've never had one).

Like I said before... this was a "questionable" decision... but defintely not a "slam dunk" by either way.

 

Different scenario. A runner being out at home doesn't make it "easier" for the opposing team to score the next inning.

Your scneario holds true if Rackers miss = Redskins getting the ball at the 20 or something like that. But a miss = Redskins getting the ball at the 42-43 yard line. A punt could have been within the 10 (actually, if you have a punter worth a damn, he can pin a team deep on MOST of those types of punts... but Turk did not).

A missed FG makes a Redskins score that much easier... just as the Texans scored after the Redskins missed FG.

 

I thought the whole point of the kicker competition was to decide who we could throw out there in situations just like these. Kubiak is a nervous wreck who sucks at life, and he's lucky Gano missed the second try.

 

The Skins should have won, they made the FG...the Texans got lucky they missed the reboot.

The Texans should have kicked it, you have a chance to win, you go for it......

I understand what you guys are saying, I am just never going to agree with you.

DD

 

This sounds more like a CBA argument than an in-game decision argument.

 

The Redskins got lucky Antonio Smith commits a dumb penalty (after the sack). IF that sack holds up, the Redskins get scared ****less to drop McNabb back at all... not with our endzone just a few steps away.

The skins should have put this team away when they went up 27-10. They didn't. There was nothing "lucky" about the Texans being in position to win this game today.