PDA

View Full Version : Kubiak Game Day Decisions


infantrycak
07-13-2009, 12:10 AM
It's the off-season, how about some football talk and reflection. Here is a thread for people to identify a specific play/call/decision they question Kubiak on and then discussion ensues - maybe we can number them as we go along so we don't get cross conversation in an all encompassing thread.

That said, I don't have a specific thread starting moment, just the idea - either someone will plant a seed or it will die.

This isn't intended for draft picks, free agents, contract negotiations or anything other than decisions during and about the ongoing game.

If at all possible, look up the play by play and give the quarter and time designation so everyone is sure which play is being discussed.

Go forth and debate.

wags
07-13-2009, 12:31 AM
How about calling a bootleg pass play against the Colts when we could have easily gone "32 belly" and kicked a field goal to extend lead in the infamous Rosencopter game. If you run it up the middle it eats clock, you gain 1-2 yards, and either kick a field goal or put them deep in their territory. :deadhorse

NitroGSXR
07-13-2009, 12:44 AM
Game 3 against the Titans last season.

McCareins makes a catch near the goal line. He was out of bounds and I could not stop screaming at my TV for a red flag. It never came. I saw our season go in the toliet then.

I can't help but think that Kubiak might have the worst record when it comes to challenges. I don't even think he even won one. One properly placed challenge can turn a game around and one game can turn an entire season around. Mistakes cannot be made. Especially regarding coaches challenges? I don't understand why he is so BAD at them. It got so bad to the point to where I absolutely dreaded having a challenge put out by Kubiak. He has no business challenging plays. Could these duties be relagated to Kyle Shannahan for this season?

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 12:58 AM
How about calling a bootleg pass play against the Colts when we could have easily gone "32 belly" and kicked a field goal to extend lead in the infamous Rosencopter game. If you run it up the middle it eats clock, you gain 1-2 yards, and either kick a field goal or put them deep in their territory. :deadhorse

I know folks will differ, but I liked that play call there. Roll out and take a safe pass for a 1st (which substantially aids your effort to run out the clock) or run the ball as best you can and as you say set up the field goal or kick. Once Sage made the decision to pull the ball down, the onus was on him to just get the yards to make the kick easier. Slide or go down for 6 rather than Rosencoptering for 8. This play seems to me like a bad result placed on the coach without consideration of the intermediary step of a player who didn't do what he was coached. Just me maybe, but I can't fault Kubiak for the play because to do so seems like faulting Kubiak for not anticipating that his QB would go rogue on what he was supposed to do.

run-david-run
07-13-2009, 12:59 AM
I'll bite.

Oakland game, deciding to go for it on 4th down and inches in the 4th quarter down by 9 or so points in the Oakland red zone(don't remember exactly), and calling a max protect play, only to have both receivers triple covered. If I remember correctly, we ran pretty much the same play on third down, with the same result. The pass was incomplete and we ended up losing, when a field would have made it a one possession game.
That was a pretty terrible call. However, I do think he has gotten better, especially at time management, as evidenced by all the successful 2 minute drills we have run (Miami, Packers).

And to the above poster, he does seem pretty clueless on challenges, something that needs to be addressed, probably with someone in the booth (coaches don't get to see the replay, they're dependent on people up there telling them if its worth a flag.)

Marcus
07-13-2009, 01:06 AM
When Kubes was calling the plays, he couldn't properly manage the game. (clock management, challenges, etc) When he started letting Shanahan call the plays, he had more time to concentrate on the other aspects of the game.

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 01:11 AM
When Kubes was calling the plays, he couldn't properly manage the game. (clock management, challenges, etc) When he started letting Shanahan call the plays, he had more time to concentrate on the other aspects of the game.

OK, further clarification of the intent of the thread. Specific instances with whatever conclusions you want to draw after that. General statements are actually the opposite of what I intend here. If you have an opinion about Kubiak pro or con, give an example or examples. That way we can dissect the plays.

NitroGSXR
07-13-2009, 01:19 AM
OK, further clarification of the intent of the thread. Specific instances with whatever conclusions you want to draw after that. General statements are actually the opposite of what I intend here. If you have an opinion about Kubiak pro or con, give an example or examples. That way we can dissect the plays.

So my questioning him for not throwing a challenge isn't what you're looking for? If so... then this thread is way above my head. I can't compete with you guys. I don't even know the plays in the book.

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 01:54 AM
So my questioning him for not throwing a challenge isn't what you're looking for? If so... then this thread is way above my head. I can't compete with you guys. I don't even know the plays in the book.

Not at all. I just mean name a specific play where he should have thrown a challenge and did not or tossed the flag and shouldn't have.

Giving specific examples makes the rubber hit the road.

I'm just saying let's get more specific on the problems. It is well and good to say he should have done X, so let's discuss what Y and Z were as alternatives.

barrett
07-13-2009, 02:08 AM
I think Nitro's sighting is dead on. I would argue that above all else Kubiak's #1 short coming as a coach is his challenge management. Let it be known that I am a HUGE Kubiak supporter. I like how he runs this team. I think gameday management is his weakest point. Not from a play calling perspective but more so from all the little things. The biggest little thing is the challenges. I don't expect him to be able to know if a play should be challenged. I expect him to have a staff in place that does. It's something so basic. Pay a guy to watch the TV coverage. They have the best camera angles and the fastest replays. Sometimes I am near a heart attack waiting for reliant to get their sh!t together on the big screen. I don't know what the rules are or if there are any regarding that stuff but I don't want him basing his call on the jumbo-tron.

Anyway, Nitro. I think you're dead on with what Infrantry is asking for. I think what he doesn't want is what I just complained about.

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 02:23 AM
I think Nitro's sighting is dead on. I would argue that above all else Kubiak's #1 short coming as a coach is his challenge management. Let it be known that I am a HUGE Kubiak supporter. I like how he runs this team. I think gameday management is his weakest point. Not from a play calling perspective but more so from all the little things. The biggest little thing is the challenges. I don't expect him to be able to know if a play should be challenged. I expect him to have a staff in place that does. It's something so basic. Pay a guy to watch the TV coverage. They have the best camera angles and the fastest replays. Sometimes I am near a heart attack waiting for reliant to get their sh!t together on the big screen. I don't know what the rules are or if there are any regarding that stuff but I don't want him basing his call on the jumbo-tron.

Anyway, Nitro. I think you're dead on with what Infrantry is asking for. I think what he doesn't want is what I just complained about.

No you are dead wrong. I want any opinion expressed here, but I started this thread for people to provide specific examples to support their opinions.

I guess since you declined that obvious invite for examples, you clearly have none.

See how that works?

Now back up and either play along or don't participate. You are free to start your own threads.

SO THIS IS CLEAR - COME UP WITH ANY PRO OR CON ON KUBIAK'S GAME DAY DECISIONS AND WHEN YOU DO SO, REFERENCE SPECIFIC PLAYS OR DECISIONS.

Spare me the "he doeesn't want" comments on an open ended thread.

NitroGSXR
07-13-2009, 02:26 AM
Not at all. I just mean name a specific play where he should have thrown a challenge and did not or tossed the flag and shouldn't have.

Giving specific examples makes the rubber hit the road.

I'm just saying let's get more specific on the problems. It is well and good to say he should have done X, so let's discuss what Y and Z were as alternatives.

I did name a specific play. Let me try it again with a bit more detail...

Third game against the Titans last season...

Late in the second quarter, Justin McCareins caught a long lob from Collins. About 35 yards. He caught the pass as he was going out of bounds on the 3 or 4 yard line. He clearly did not have both feet in. I remember screaming for an EASY challenge. It never came. The Titans eventually scored and the score went from 12-14 to 12-21 going into the half.

Anyway, I'm not saying that winning that particular challenge would have changed the outcome of the game but winning it would have at least changed the momentum the Titans had going into the half. We were warring with the Titans and holding our ground pretty well. I think that the non-challenge call may have destroyed any momentum we had.

A single mistake that definitely altered the course of the game. I don't even think that they were in FG range. If so, it was going to be a LONG kick. Maybe not a problem for Birionas but we had to at least make him work for his kicks.

This was a Kubiak decision.

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 02:30 AM
I did name a specific play. Let me try it again with a bit more detail...

Look back and you will see you are quoting me responding to Marcus.

I am not saying I am going to respond to every play mentioned either (I may keep a list for people to refer to) - I just raised the topic for people to discuss. For example, I remember the play you are talking about and it being controversial, but frankly without video I couldn't take a stance so I will let it go to others with better memory.

Just thought folks might have fun talking football and in specifics rather than generalities.

NitroGSXR
07-13-2009, 02:39 AM
Look back and you will see you are quoting me responding to Marcus.

I know. I still wanted clarification on exactly what you were looking for with this thread. I probably expected a response to my attempt at posting but it didn't come in the form that you apparently were looking for from others. I'm the one who brought up challenges in the first place and you were telling those who responded to me were not what you intended. Doesn't matter. I'm happy with the thread thus far. Moving on...

Just noticed your edit. Makes perfect sense now. Just a tad bit of confusion going on. No biggie. We're back on track now.

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 02:48 AM
I know. I still wanted clarification on exactly what you were looking for with this thread. I probably expected a response to my attempt at posting but it didn't come in the form that you apparently were looking for from others. I'm the one who brought up challenges in the first place and you were telling those who responded to me were not what you intended. Doesn't matter. I'm happy with the thread thus far. Moving on...

Just noticed your edit. Makes perfect sense now. Just a tad bit of confusion going on. No biggie. We're back on track now.

Cool. So let's all move on with specific comments, pro or con, with specific examples on which anyone can comment (and I by no means intend to comment on each). Periodically if the thread goes anywhere, I will number and summarize the plays being discussed for folks to reference.

#1 - Rosencopter play
#2 - failure to call challenge on McCairens completion in 1st Titans game of 2008.
#3 - Oakland game 4th quarter 4th an inches call.

Carry on.

NitroGSXR
07-13-2009, 03:08 AM
Speaking of 4th down calls...

In the same Titans game that I'm referring to... I'm watching it right now thanks to barret's suggestion that we purchase NFL rewind...

*sigh*

About 5:20 left in the 3rd. 4th down and 4 yards to go. Striking distance for Kris Brown. We go for it. Passed for one yard to Slaton. Fail.

The bigger slap in the face was that Kubiak did it AGAIN in the 4th quarter with 7:12 to go. 4th down and two yards to go. We hand it off to Slaton. Fail.

Why go with Slaton on both accounts? We could have easily kicked both of them in and at least made the game interesting.

Ugh. Are you sure you want to do this thread, infantry? Because right about now I want Kubiak tar and feathered! Lol. Just a poor coaching game overall. Going for it against a stiffling defense not once but twice seems silly. Especially to Slaton which is probably who everyone's looking for since the RB would be the dumpoff man.

I also just noticed that Kubiak challenged Griffin's INT of Schaub at 6:33 and lost that challenge. I went back and reviewed it. He had NO business throwing the red flag then. None whatsoever. It was a clean clear INT. Nothing to dispute.

So we've got a blown challenge, a bad challenge, and two poor 4th down decisions. This game was all on Gary Kubiak.

Goatcheese
07-13-2009, 03:27 AM
I'll bite.

Oakland game, deciding to go for it on 4th down and inches in the 4th quarter down by 9 or so points in the Oakland red zone(don't remember exactly), and calling a max protect play, only to have both receivers triple covered. If I remember correctly, we ran pretty much the same play on third down, with the same result. The pass was incomplete and we ended up losing, when a field would have made it a one possession game.
That was a pretty terrible call. However, I do think he has gotten better, especially at time management, as evidenced by all the successful 2 minute drills we have run (Miami, Packers).

And to the above poster, he does seem pretty clueless on challenges, something that needs to be addressed, probably with someone in the booth (coaches don't get to see the replay, they're dependent on people up there telling them if its worth a flag.)

I like going for it in that situation. It's a lot easier to go 30 yards for a TD with plenty of time, then have to run the hurry up for a field goal, than the other way around.

If you need a TD to win the game with time running out the odds are against you. If you just need a field goal there's a very good chance a quality offense will win that game.

NitroGSXR
07-13-2009, 03:36 AM
I like going for it in that situation. It's a lot easier to go 30 yards for a TD with plenty of time, then have to run the hurry up for a field goal, than the other way around.

If you need a TD to win the game with time running out the odds are against you. If you just need a field goal there's a very good chance a quality offense will win that game.

I think I read that Kubiak went for it 17 times last year but only successfully converted two. That's a bad ratio anyway you look at it. Real bad.

I guess my question is... Do you still go for it knowing his 4th down numbers?

Oh god, I want Kubiak so fired right now. I need sleep because I'm a Kubiak fan.

Goatcheese
07-13-2009, 03:44 AM
I think I read that Kubiak went for it 17 times last year but only successfully converted two. That's a bad ratio anyway you look at it. Real bad.

I guess my question is... Do you still go for it knowing his 4th down numbers?

Oh god, I want Kubiak so fired right now. I need sleep because I'm a Kubiak fan.

We went for it on 4th down 23 times last year and converted 14. 61% was good enough for 8th best in the NFL.

NitroGSXR
07-13-2009, 03:47 AM
We went for it on 4th down 23 times last year and converted 14. 61% was good enough for 8th best in the NFL.

Looks like my numbers were WAYYYYYY off base. I need to do a better job of checking the numbers.

Then I have to concur with you. You must go for it in that scenario.

dalemurphy
07-13-2009, 03:50 AM
I believe in Kubiak and actually have fewer problems with his gameday management than most fans. I actually believe he makes excellent decisions handling clock management at the end of the half and games- though I know that is an area many fans are frustrated by. I actually believe his biggest mistakes have been personnel decisions: retaining Studdard instead of Brandon Frye, the Richard Smith hiring and then the decision to keep him on in '08, the strange Jason Babin trade in '07, the release of Anthony Maddox and Lewis Sanders in '08, among others. All that being said, I think it is an area that needs improvement. To me, the greatest example of his problem with game management was the 4th quarter of the GB game....

Early 4th quarter, Texans score a TD and take the lead 19-14. For some reason, the Texans trot out Kris Brown and the field goal unit for the extra point. Just before the ball is snapped, a timeout is called as Kubiak finally realizes that we should go for 2 in that situation... Clearly, that was a pretty big gaff.

One other mistake that stands out is the Jacksonville fake punt in week 3 at Jacksonville. The team was clearly unprepared and confused and the coaching staff should have called a timeout instead of running around and flailing their arms gesticulating to guys like Brandon Harrison where to line up.

HOU-TEX
07-13-2009, 10:15 AM
I'm sure I could come up with several bone-headed calls, but I'm going to go with a play-call we DO NOT call enough. Our second TD against the Bears.......the FADE to AJ. Heck, bring JJ (tall WR) in opposite AJ and toss it up to the side of the weaker defender or single coverage. I know, sounds easier than it looks, I just see teams across the League throwing these fades up for TD's every week.

IMO, this play should be called more often. Get the ball in the hands of the best player on the team. Toss it up and let him eat.

The 2nd TD is around the :37 mark of the video.
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29773&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2008&week=REG17

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 11:43 AM
About 5:20 left in the 3rd. 4th down and 4 yards to go. Striking distance for Kris Brown. We go for it. Passed for one yard to Slaton. Fail.

The score matters here. It was 24 to 12. Three points in that time scenario v. being in the redzone weighs into the equation. I can see people differing there but not calling either conclusion bad except that the result didn't turn out well for the Texans. Kick the field goal there and I bet there are folks complaining about the decision making being too hesitant/scared.

The bigger slap in the face was that Kubiak did it AGAIN in the 4th quarter with 7:12 to go. 4th down and two yards to go. We hand it off to Slaton. Fail.

So is the same player the key problem? One was a pass, one was a run. The ball is going generally to one of four guys - TE, 2 WR's, RB. Would you have had them kick a field goal down 12 points with 7 minutes left in the game?

I also just noticed that Kubiak challenged Griffin's INT of Schaub at 6:33 and lost that challenge. I went back and reviewed it. He had NO business throwing the red flag then. None whatsoever. It was a clean clear INT. Nothing to dispute.

I don't hold challenges against coaches for the most part. There is a guy in the booth with a better view of the field and the ability to look at replay prior to making that call. Standing on the sideline is a piss poor way to view the details of a football game. Any coach has to rely on the guy in the booth. I fault Kubiak not so much for the individual challenge plays but for not firing the guy in the booth.

HOU-TEX
07-13-2009, 11:51 AM
I don't hold challenges against coaches for the most part. There is a guy in the booth with a better view of the field and the ability to look at replay prior to making that call. Standing on the sideline is a piss poor way to view the details of a football game. Any coach has to rely on the guy in the booth. I fault Kubiak not so much for the individual challenge plays but for not firing the guy in the booth.

I think the blame should be equally divided between the guy in the booth and Kubiak. There were at least a couple occasions Kubiak stated in his PC that he went against the observations of the guy in the booth. Is he covering for the guy in the booth? Or did he really choose to go against the observations from the booth? Dunno, but Kubiak made the comments, so he deserves some blame.

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 11:59 AM
I think the blame should be equally divided between the guy in the booth and Kubiak. There were at least a couple occasions Kubiak stated in his PC that he went against the observations of the guy in the booth. Is he covering for the guy in the booth? Or did he really choose to go against the observations from the booth? Dunno, but Kubiak made the comments, so he deserves some blame.

On one of those occasions, Kubiak said the players had come back and were adamant about the play. But generally, I agree, overrule the booth and it is all on you.

HOU-TEX
07-13-2009, 12:23 PM
On one of those occasions, Kubiak said the players had come back and were adamant about the play. But generally, I agree, overrule the booth and it is all on you.

Yeah, I couldn't remember when he had said it so I went back and took a look. Here's what he said on the kickoff that hit Faggins on the head challenge. IMO, it's borderline inexcusable to screw up a challenge when playing at home, unless it's a really close call. Plus, the replay was obvious in this case.

(on the information he got when he challenged a play in the game) "I got good information, I just didn't listen good enough. They felt like that it had hit Petey (CB DeMarcus Faggins) in the head, and it did. They told me that. But yeah, Petey came off the field and we asked him, (special teams coordinator) Joe (Marciano) and I were standing there, and he said, ‘I don't know.' So I should have listened better. Bad decision."

http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=5012

barrett
07-13-2009, 12:27 PM
must have been some misunderstanding infantry. I wasn't intending to be subversive.

I was just pointing out to Nitro that you asked for specifics. He sighted a specific play in a specific game. I on the other hand, went on a rant about how generally Kubiak doesn't handle challenges well. Which is not specific. I was making a joke at myself.

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 12:29 PM
Yeah, I couldn't remember when he had said it so I went back and took a look. Here's what he said on the kickoff that hit Faggins on the head challenge. IMO, it's borderline inexcusable to screw up a challenge when playing at home, unless it's a really close call. Plus, the replay was obvious in this case.

That one is all on him. I can't think of the circumstance right now, but I swear there was one where a couple players came back to the line and were adamant about a play that happened near the opposing team's sideline. Kubiak had zero view and relied on them. I think he may have even said after the game that he had to support his players in that scenario.

HOU-TEX
07-13-2009, 12:37 PM
That one is all on him. I can't think of the circumstance right now, but I swear there was one where a couple players came back to the line and were adamant about a play that happened near the opposing team's sideline. Kubiak had zero view and relied on them. I think he may have even said after the game that he had to support his players in that scenario.

Hmm, I didn't see anything said in this past season's post-game and PC quotes. Maybe 07?

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 12:43 PM
Hmm, I didn't see anything said in this past season's post-game and PC quotes. Maybe 07?

I think it was '07 and I am trying to remember. Vague recollection like it was a a question of a DB intercepting the ball and whether he had control/was in bounds on the opposing sideline. Could all be BS.

HOU-TEX
07-13-2009, 01:01 PM
I think it was '07 and I am trying to remember. Vague recollection like it was a a question of a DB intercepting the ball and whether he had control/was in bounds on the opposing sideline. Could all be BS.

Looky there! Nice memory, I-cak. The 07 game against Carolina I found this:

(on the returned interception call) "When you're on the road, it's very difficult to get a replay. Most home stadiums are not going to show that replay too many times when it affects the visiting team. It was a very hard call for us, but our players were convinced that he did not have the ball, so that was our last challenge we're done for the day. But those are huge points right there. You really have to trust your players. You can have guys looking up in the booth all you want, but when your players tell you something, you have to trust them. And that's what we were doing right there."

NitroGSXR
07-13-2009, 02:50 PM
The score matters here. It was 24 to 12. Three points in that time scenario v. being in the redzone weighs into the equation. I can see people differing there but not calling either conclusion bad except that the result didn't turn out well for the Texans. Kick the field goal there and I bet there are folks complaining about the decision making being too hesitant/scared.
4th and 4 is the most telling thing. We were down 12 points with well over a quarter and a half of football to play against one of the best defensive lines in the NFL. Inside the red zone even, where we're regarded as one of the worst in the NFL. Haynesworth also knocked Schaub silly three plays before and was penalized for roughing the passer. Schaub has not made good decisions when he's seeing stars dancing around in his eyes. Especially stars caused by the same man who put Schaub out the season before. A coach needs to play his team's strengths. That strength is Kris Brown. An easy chip shot that could have put the game within reasonable reach considering the amount of time left to play. Kubiak did not choose well. I understand taking gambles but I'll talk about that in my next response.


So is the same player the key problem? One was a pass, one was a run. The ball is going generally to one of four guys - TE, 2 WR's, RB. Would you have had them kick a field goal down 12 points with 7 minutes left in the game?
Sort of. I saw the first 4th down attempt play as a dumpoff to Slaton. Dumpoffs are what opponents look for. Especially a strong defensive line like the Titans. Also, we couldn't get it done on 3rd down. What made Kubiak think that we were going to do it on the 4th down not once but twice. I read (stephanie's fanhouse) that Kubiak at the time had attempted the most 4th down conversions in the NFL with 7. Kubiak was getting TOO cheeky. Especially against Albert Haynesworth and the Titans. Anyway, when we're doing dumpoffs... the play has been broken up. The Titans were consistently breaking up our plays. Steve Slaton was probably the best player in the game and that was an accident.



I don't hold challenges against coaches for the most part. There is a guy in the booth with a better view of the field and the ability to look at replay prior to making that call. Standing on the sideline is a piss poor way to view the details of a football game. Any coach has to rely on the guy in the booth. I fault Kubiak not so much for the individual challenge plays but for not firing the guy in the booth.
You should. He's the only one who carries the red flag in his back pocket. His poor decisions with challenges did not merely begin with the Titans game. It's been an ongoing issue during Kubiak's tenure here. Kubiak assembled his staff. He's made poor judgements there considering Richard Smith and the challenges. I want the game decided on the field by the players rather than some mind blowing ridiculous timeout costing phantom challenges. He had NO business challenging the Schaub INT. It was not even close. I don't know what he saw but I don't undetstand what possessed him to throw the flag.

Http://www.houstontexans.com/news/story.asp?story_id=4653

Check out what Kubiak had to say about the blown challenge. I don't buy his simplistic approach towards it. Heads should have been rolling that Monday.

wags
07-13-2009, 05:49 PM
I know folks will differ, but I liked that play call there. Roll out and take a safe pass for a 1st (which substantially aids your effort to run out the clock) or run the ball as best you can and as you say set up the field goal or kick. Once Sage made the decision to pull the ball down, the onus was on him to just get the yards to make the kick easier. Slide or go down for 6 rather than Rosencoptering for 8. This play seems to me like a bad result placed on the coach without consideration of the intermediary step of a player who didn't do what he was coached. Just me maybe, but I can't fault Kubiak for the play because to do so seems like faulting Kubiak for not anticipating that his QB would go rogue on what he was supposed to do.

In my mind sometimes you have to play the percentages. There are certain playcalls that bug me because they have a little more flare when none is necessary. This gives a player the oppurtunity to do something crazy. In that situation, even before the "copter" happened, I remember thinking WTF?.

I equate it to running out the clock and calling a toss play. Why risk a bad pitch or the running back fumbling the toss? Just seems like you take the risk out when you go 32 belly. But yes, people will differ for sure.

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 06:46 PM
In my mind sometimes you have to play the percentages. There are certain playcalls that bug me because they have a little more flare when none is necessary. This gives a player the oppurtunity to do something crazy. In that situation, even before the "copter" happened, I remember thinking WTF?.

I equate it to running out the clock and calling a toss play. Why risk a bad pitch or the running back fumbling the toss? Just seems like you take the risk out when you go 32 belly. But yes, people will differ for sure.

To turn your example around, isn't a naked boot a safe play because by design unless there is a wide open safe pass the ball isn't going to change hands at all. The QB just keeps it and gets what he can from the D. Seriously, how many times last year, heck in the past few years have you seen a QB launch himself like that other than into an endzone. No way Kubiak could anticipate that decision.

barrett
07-13-2009, 06:56 PM
I don't see how anyone can argue against the naked bootleg play call in the Indy game. And the second fumble that actually lost us the lead was also a bootleg. I think those are very safe calls. Poorly executed, clearly. But good, safe calls.

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 07:04 PM
1) My point in starting this thread was to encourage discussion on specifics not generalities. It was not for me to be the defender of all things Kubiak so I am not going to be responding to or defending all the plays brought up.

2) Two thoughts on challenges. First, I don't think Kubiak has a very good track record and ultimately it is his responsibility regardless of whether he is relying on a booth guy or not. I would love to see a list of challenge success rates for all coaches for perspective.

Second, I think the Texans have been jobbed several times on challenges. One that I can think of off the top of my head is a 2007 OD fumble - he fumbled came down flat on the ground and then pulled the ball into his control against his body then someone pulled the ball out of his control. Last I checked a player on the ground in contact with an opposing team member was down. The moment he regained control of the ball he should have been down on the spot. Kind of off topic, but there it is.

GP
07-13-2009, 07:41 PM
To turn your example around, isn't a naked boot a safe play because by design unless there is a wide open safe pass the ball isn't going to change hands at all. The QB just keeps it and gets what he can from the D. Seriously, how many times last year, heck in the past few years have you seen a QB launch himself like that other than into an endzone. No way Kubiak could anticipate that decision.

What if Sage had been told that he's got to get that first down if he's near it...that we NEED to get one more set of downs...I mean, none of us know what was said.

It was a good call, but a better call would have been to hand the ball off to a running back. Worse case scenario is that we punt the ball. I am more comfortable with them having the ball at their own end of the field.

I'll take the risk of a fumbled handoff, over the QB running with the ball, any day. Especially if it's at the end of a game. QBs throw the ball. RBs carry the ball.

MY PROBLEMS WITH KUBIAK:

1. Bad choices on the challenges. We got jobbed in the Steelers game, and a time or two elsewhere in the season. But there were times when Kubiak, IMO, was throwing the flag more out of pure desperation or trying to make it an extended timeout to try and slow down momentum for the opponent.

2. Being a bit of a goofball with the depth chart. Slaton should have been the regular season starter. Period. But there's Ahman Green, and whadda-ya-know! he gets hurt. Even when Ahman tried to come back, he was getting royal treatment. It's like there was no end to it. Same goes for the dline with Deljuan and Bulman. Those two guys got into the mix way too late in the season, and should have been getting more gametime from the get-go. I want to see Kubiak give guys shots a lot earlier than he has. I want to see what Caldwell can do in a reg season game, as well as Thor, and some of the other DBs...hell, we got 30 of them.

3. The play-calling duties. I need to see Kubiak remain largely hands-off, allowing Kyle to have the reins. I think the success we had in the last half of the season was due, in some part, to Kubiak finally agreeing to be a HC and not an OC. This will affect Number 4 on my list. Also, can we start a bi-partisan resolution that there be no more "Shanny, Jr." when referring to Kyle? I think he's past being somebody's kid, and now he's simply "Kyle" or "KS". Minor detail, I know, but I think it's time.

4. Planning for teams (finding their holes) & Adjusting the plan after halftime when it's obvious that we need to re-direct our strategy. I think we script our plays and have a basic game plan that we use, and don't adjust it much. I think the "great teams" have people who know how to exploit their opponent's weaknesses--Pittsburgh is a good example. Also, we don't come out of half-time with a radically different approach--Which is OK if the game is close, but not OK when we're getting lapped and need to find a way to stop the bleeding. I just haven't seen Kubiak able to come out and punch the other team in the mouth in the 3rd quarter.

If Kubiak can stop being OC about being an OC, then maybe he can take that 1,000-ft. overhead view and see the battlefield in its entirety. A good HC finds a way to make his coaching staff superstars, making them so good that they get hired away by other teams (Patriots, for example). He knows how to get those coaches what they need, often sifting through the B.S. to get to the core of an issue. The great HC is a general who leads his officers so that they can lead the bulk of the forces, he's NOT the sergeant who carries out the order alongside the foot soldier on the ground. Sergeants are coordinators.

I think there was a corner that was turned after Rosencopter. I think the players turned a corner, and I think the coaches even had to face some music themselves (including Kubiak). Our "turn the corner" statements around here have always been made when we won our last reg season game--We felt that we "ended on a good note" and it gave us "something to build upon" when play resumed the next year. I think the corner was turned after Rosencopter. It forced them to make the remaining games into a whole other season whereby they literally said "The remaining games will be played as if the previous games were preseason games." There was THAT sort of resoluteness about this team, IMO.

I hope this is a playoff year. How sweet THAT would be...:heart:

infantrycak
07-13-2009, 09:23 PM
What if Sage had been told that he's got to get that first down if he's near it...that we NEED to get one more set of downs...I mean, none of us know what was said.

Well according to both Kubiak and Sage after the fact Sage was supposed to play if safe and took it on his own.

[B]MY PROBLEMS WITH KUBIAK:

No offense, but to reiterate as the original poster, the point of this thread is not generalities or conclusions, it is specific plays to discuss. Conclusions without examples was exactly what I was trying to get away from. Can you illustrate each of your points with specific plays?

GP
07-13-2009, 10:26 PM
No offense, but to reiterate as the original poster, the point of this thread is not generalities or conclusions, it is specific plays to discuss. Conclusions without examples was exactly what I was trying to get away from. Can you illustrate each of your points with specific plays?

Not without reviewing the game(s), which is a small problem because my DVR malfunctioned on some games.

You're not going to like this generality, but here goes: I think we can look at the season in two halves: The first half was a nightmare, with the hurricane and the early bye week, etc. The second half was when Schaub came back after the Rosencopter game--This half is marked by our team playing some actual football on a consistent basis. The offense looked better, and I attribute that to the fact (not opinion) that Kubiak admitted he had been involved in the play-calling too much...and that Kyle had a larger hand in calling plays than he had before. Not sure when that actual switch was flipped by Kubiak, but I take it as a good sign that Kubiak recognizes he needs to let go of the OC role. That, in turn, allows him to think about the overall strategies and not obsess over a specific role. I don't have anything specific because I feel this is, by its nature, a general example of something that Kubiak struggled with up until the end of last season: Letting the OC be the OC. For real.

Depth Chart woes: Steve wasn't starting by week 1, and quite frankly he deserved to be. The knock on Kubiak is that he exalts some players, who can do no wrong, and he puts some in the doghouse and they seemingly are in there forever. He's old-school like that. Quirky, or whatever. He tends to try and will someone (someone he likes a lot) to success, such as the Wali Lundy situation. Maybe Wali was the best we had, I dunno. But I remember the TexansTV interview with Kubiak and Kubiak went right out and declared that he saw the look in the eyes of Lundy, the look that says "He's going to be a star or playing in this league for a long, long time..." Oops. There's normal kudos that a coach gives a player, "He's doing well. He fights for every rep, and he's coming along well," etc. Then there's times when Kubiak thinks that because he thinks it's so, it must be--Maybe that's the Aggie in him? Steve Slaton was the future, not Ahman. Steve has the wheels. Ahman doesn't. Steve is young and ready. Ahman was a coin flip on his best day last season, and the year before. This board was lighting up with angry people who couldn't believe that Ahman kept getting the 1st down carries for so long. Same goes with Robinson and Bulman--Those two guys outplayed TJ. Period. Did that just happen overnight? No. There's no way in hail that the coaches could justify leaving TJ in there so much with what they had to have seen in practice with Bulman and Robinson. That was bad dline management, and the HC has got to see that and grab his DC by the back of the neck and demand some answers as to why the loafer is out there while the two scrappers aren't. It was disproportionate, in terms of the energy that Bulman and Robinson displayed on the field in comparison to TJ.

I can add the decision to not carry a 3rd QB on the gameday roster. At the end of the previous season, there was an article where Kubiak mentioned that he was scared by the Schaub injury and then only having Sage out there with only an emergency QB to go in if Sage got hurt. He had said that he was going to look very hard at filling an extra spot for a 3rd QB. And it didn't happen. Flash to this year's Colts game at Reliant. I haven't reviewed the roster for that game, but couldn't we have spared another spot for a 3rd QB? That's kind of a big deal. I don't like carrying only 2 QBs. In today's NFL, the defense can take two of them out, in one game, very easily. Will he go with 3 this year? I think Rick Smith has alluded to something about "Looking very closely at it," which I laugh at. Can't link to those two stories, but am sure that they happened.

This is all to say: I think Kubiak is not a good HC right now. But he's done a great job of assembling this team from a pile of dookie when he came on board. I wonder if maybe it's taken a toll on the guy just to fill all the holes, like someone unable to steer a ship because he's been bailing water and plugging holes for so long. The thing that has suffered is his game-day coaching skills (maybe? maybe not?). That's why I took offense at the sunshine vs. rain cloud thread. I in no way think the guy is a good game-day coach. He damn sure better be THIS season because I feel he's had enough time to assemble the pieces. Now it's time to put up or shut up. But I think, oddly enough, that he WILL. I just have a feeling.

Fox
07-14-2009, 12:19 AM
How about calling a bootleg pass play against the Colts when we could have easily gone "32 belly" and kicked a field goal to extend lead in the infamous Rosencopter game. If you run it up the middle it eats clock, you gain 1-2 yards, and either kick a field goal or put them deep in their territory. :deadhorse

Eh, I'm luke warm on criticizing Kubiak for the Rosencopter play. Of course, as with any of these examples if we had hind sight it was a poor call, but in the moment I don't think it was half bad. If Rosenfels hadn't tried to play the hero it would've been a decent play call. It caught the Colts off guard, Rosenfels had plenty of time and room to roll out. I'm sure Kubes was hoping he either rolls out and makes a big play to put the nail in the coffin, or he rolls out and has plenty of time to throw it out of bounds or slide leading to a punt deep in Colts territory. We all know how it ended, but I don't consider Rosenfels undeniably unusual behavior on the play to be Kubes' fault.


One other mistake that stands out is the Jacksonville fake punt in week 3 at Jacksonville. The team was clearly unprepared and confused and the coaching staff should have called a timeout instead of running around and flailing their arms gesticulating to guys like Brandon Harrison where to line up.

Remembering that play is just misery. We had a bunch of special teamers on the field when it was obvious by just looking at the Jags personnel that they were going to fake it. That's not just being stupid, it's not paying attention and being stupid. And the worst part is you have all the Texans fans yelling at their TV's at home because they saw the fake coming before they even lined up. The coaching staff got caught with their pants down and didn't have the common sense to call time out, and it cost them 7. Ultimately that's Kubes' responsibility and it was a major gaff.

CharloTex
07-14-2009, 07:13 PM
I don't see how anyone can argue against the naked bootleg play call in the Indy game. And the second fumble that actually lost us the lead was also a bootleg. I think those are very safe calls. Poorly executed, clearly. But good, safe calls.

How about have your running back RUNNING the ball instead of your slow-as-cr*p quarterback RUNNING it. We should have just been running out the clock, eating up the field, and even an attempt at a long field goal in my opinion was risky. Just punt it. Even if they drove down the field and scored, they would have burnt up loads of clock or time outs. And then we get the ball back and we owned them all day. I was at that game and I am still sick to my stomach when I think of how fast we gave that win back to the Colts. Faster on a point-per-minute basis than the Oilers gave back 33 points. That game was in the bag. And, if there was any game that sealed last year's fate at the time it was played, it was that one. If we had won that game, we would have eventually been 4-3, instead of 3-4, and 4-6, instead of 3-7. And we would have finished at 9-7, or better, because of the momentum we would have built with just that one more win over the dreaded Colts. We might even have competed with the Colts for a wild card spot, since they would have had one less win.

Yes, Rosenfels made a gallant effort on a bone-headed decision of his own. But that just compounded the more-risky-than-not play call from the sidelines. Both the coaches and Sage were trying to put the last nail in the Colts coffin with one swing of the hammer at 5:14 left, and instead they shanked the nail and broke open the coffin. After all the times we went conservative too early and lost, this was one time when conservative was the absolutely correct call.

Sorry, that whole play just irks me. Every time some national a$$ states how we still can't beat the Colts, or we were 2-4 in our division and we're never gonna advance until we can beat the teams in our division, again does my stomach turn.

Anyway, back to the point of this thread, here's one - remember the Minnesota game when it was obvious to me that Schaub had been injured and was pre-occuppied with his injury. If I recall correctly, he started throwing incompletions and even interception(s). I don't necessarily expect a player to cry to be removed from the game but as ineffective as he was for such an obvious reason, Sage should have been put into the game earlier than he was. If I recall, we lost that game because of those Schaub gaffes.

barrett
07-14-2009, 07:57 PM
How about have your running back RUNNING the ball instead of your slow-as-cr*p quarterback RUNNING it. We should have just been running out the clock, eating up the field, and even an attempt at a long field goal in my opinion was risky. Just punt it. Even if they drove down the field and scored, they would have burnt up loads of clock or time outs. And then we get the ball back and we owned them all day. I was at that game and I am still sick to my stomach when I think of how fast we gave that win back to the Colts.

A naked bootleg contains one less hand off. Had he played it safe and slid it would have been a shorter, less risky FG. Calling the play was not a bad call. It was executed poorly. There's no clearer way to state that. if there was any game that sealed last year's fate at the time it was played, it was that one. I agree. It may have been the turning point for this team for years to come. If we had won that game, we would have eventually been 4-3, instead of 3-4, and 4-6, instead of 3-7. And we would have finished at 9-7, or better, because of the momentum we would have built with just that one more win over the dreaded Colts. We might even have competed with the Colts for a wild card spot, since they would have had one less win. I don't know how anyone can argue with speculation like that. You make a great point. If you make more points like that you'll be more respected and then you'll get a raise at your job and then you can buy a faster car and get to work sooner and be more productive and make more money. You could be president some day.

Yes, Rosenfels made a gallant effort on a bone-headed decision of his own. There's my whole argument summed up nicely. But that just compounded the more-risky-than-not play call from the sidelines. Both the coaches and Sage were trying to put the last nail in the Colts coffin with one swing of the hammer at 5:14 left, and instead they shanked the nail and broke open the coffin. After all the times we went conservative too early and lost, this was one time when conservative was the absolutely correct call.
That's such a classic "if we would've gone for it.../we never should have gone for it" kind of statement. I don't understand how you can say that. Why was that time the time to be conservative but all the other times it's was the other way around? What are you basing that conclusion on?

killer analogy though. seriously. great visual.

Anyway, back to the point of this thread, here's one - remember the Minnesota game when it was obvious to me that Schaub had been injured and was pre-occuppied with his injury. If I recall correctly, he started throwing incompletions and even interception(s). I don't necessarily expect a player to cry to be removed from the game but as ineffective as he was for such an obvious reason, Sage should have been put into the game earlier than he was. If I recall, we lost that game because of those Schaub gaffes.

Sage made a few nice ones too don't forget. That said, I completely agree that Schaub should have been taken out.

wags
07-14-2009, 09:00 PM
To turn your example around, isn't a naked boot a safe play because by design unless there is a wide open safe pass the ball isn't going to change hands at all. The QB just keeps it and gets what he can from the D. Seriously, how many times last year, heck in the past few years have you seen a QB launch himself like that other than into an endzone. No way Kubiak could anticipate that decision.

You know, I don't think you can think of all the possible bad situations I can come up with in real gametime. Such as the DE coming unblocked and beefcaking Sage to force a fumble. So I will say I have marginally changed my mind.

Lucky
07-14-2009, 10:09 PM
I'm reticent to post in this thread, because my comments would come across as redundant. I've beaten this dead horse as hard as anyone, and I'm ready for training camp and a new start.

But...I will make a couple of points regarding the Rosencopter series. One, Sage Rosenfels running the ball is not a safe play. It's a deceptive play. Of course, the deception might have had a better chance of success had the Texans had either or both of their premier skill players (AJ & Slaton) in the game at the time. The Colts were not fooled because they didn't fear a fake to very slow Ahman Green and they didn't need to bring a safety over to double team Kevin Walter.

Two, why wasn't Steve Slaton in the game during that series? He had just dominated the Colts defense a series prior with 51 yards and a TD on 4 carries. Couldn't have been because of fumbling concerns. At that point, Steve had never fumbled in his NFL career.
I don't see how anyone can argue against the naked bootleg play call in the Indy game. And the second fumble that actually lost us the lead was also a bootleg.
Yes, really safe calls. Put the ball into the hands of a ball carrier who is most likely to fumble, then call it safe. BTW, the 2nd fumble wasn't the result of a rollout. It seemed like it. But looking back at the play:

3-9-HST 21 (2:50) (Shotgun) S.Rosenfels sacked at HST 19 for -2 yards (R.Mathis). FUMBLES (R.Mathis), RECOVERED by IND-R.Mathis
at HST 20. R.Mathis to HST 20 for no gain (C.Myers).It was a called pass play from the shotgun. Rather than get rid of the ball or take a slide when the play broke down, Rosenfels tried to make a play. Again. What made the head coach believe that the QB would make a good decision, the next time? He should have taken the ball out of his QB's hands. Maybe, the Colts would have driven the field and won, anyway. But, the head coach went against the percentages twice, and paid dearly both times. Yes, the QB was on the field and made the mistakes. But the head coach, enabled the QB in making those mistakes. A competent NFL head coach closes and wins that football game.

GP
07-15-2009, 12:35 AM
You know, I don't think you can think of all the possible bad situations I can come up with in real gametime. Such as the DE coming unblocked and beefcaking Sage to force a fumble. So I will say I have marginally changed my mind.

From my point of view, Sage got rocked in the jaw...stunning him. There's another "What If"...what if he doesn't get smacked in the head, and he clutches the ball and lands in a heap on the ground? Down, but with the ball.

Maybe we come up short and then punt the ball. Does that help us? Or does Manning and Co. take it down the field anyway?

I was a BIG critic of Schaub. I didn't feel he was owning his position; that he was too soft. But I honest-to-goodness think that Sage's big failure helped Schaub to see that the starting spot was not going to get stolen from him. He realized he had an opportunity to seize. Matt was the QB we had hoped for after that game. And it helped seal this QB situation fairly tightly, IMO.

LOL. I was at the point where I wanted both of them gone, so that we could purge the system and fill it up with something--anything!--other than those two guys. In my mind, one of them needed to make a big move. And I didn't think either one of them would do it. Rosencopter, IMO, was the turning point for both of those guys.

Goldensilence
07-15-2009, 01:10 AM
From my point of view, Sage got rocked in the jaw...stunning him. There's another "What If"...what if he doesn't get smacked in the head, and he clutches the ball and lands in a heap on the ground? Down, but with the ball.

Maybe we come up short and then punt the ball. Does that help us? Or does Manning and Co. take it down the field anyway?

I was a BIG critic of Schaub. I didn't feel he was owning his position; that he was too soft. But I honest-to-goodness think that Sage's big failure helped Schaub to see that the starting spot was not going to get stolen from him. He realized he had an opportunity to seize. Matt was the QB we had hoped for after that game. And it helped seal this QB situation fairly tightly, IMO.

LOL. I was at the point where I wanted both of them gone, so that we could purge the system and fill it up with something--anything!--other than those two guys. In my mind, one of them needed to make a big move. And I didn't think either one of them would do it. Rosencopter, IMO, was the turning point for both of those guys.

I think there is some truth to Rosenfels meltdown and Matt's emergence late in the season as you suggest. Honestly I don't blame Matt for feeling like he was on pins and needles with Sage behind him. For the "aw shucks it's Sage" comments I saw on here, he was clearly pressing for the starting role. He might've said all the right things off the field but, it was evident to me every time he stepped out on the field he viewed it not as a chance to help his team win a game, but as an opportunity elevate himself into the starting role.
I think that game just highlighted it for everyone.

Doesn't help when the coaching staff says stuff like we see Matt and Sage as starter 1A and 1B. I think it's a possibility that had we traded Sage away last year, not only would we have gotten a third instead of a fourth, but I think we might've seen the Matt Schaub we saw at the end of the year earlier.

GNTLEWOLF
07-15-2009, 01:36 AM
I think there is some truth to Rosenfels meltdown and Matt's emergence late in the season as you suggest. Honestly I don't blame Matt for feeling like he was on pins and needles with Sage behind him. For the "aw shucks it's Sage" comments I saw on here, he was clearly pressing for the starting role. He might've said all the right things off the field but, it was evident to me every time he stepped out on the field he viewed it not as a chance to help his team win a game, but as an opportunity elevate himself into the starting role.
I think that game just highlighted it for everyone.

Doesn't help when the coaching staff says stuff like we see Matt and Sage as starter 1A and 1B. I think it's a possibility that had we traded Sage away last year, not only would we have gotten a third instead of a fourth, but I think we might've seen the Matt Schaub we saw at the end of the year earlier.

The question is, "Which Matt Schaub do we see this year?" and for how long...

dalemurphy
07-15-2009, 02:02 AM
I'm reticent to post in this thread, because my comments would come across as redundant. I've beaten this dead horse as hard as anyone, and I'm ready for training camp and a new start.

But...I will make a couple of points regarding the Rosencopter series. One, Sage Rosenfels running the ball is not a safe play. It's a deceptive play. Of course, the deception might have had a better chance of success had the Texans had either or both of their premier skill players (AJ & Slaton) in the game at the time. The Colts were not fooled because they didn't fear a fake to very slow Ahman Green and they didn't need to bring a safety over to double team Kevin Walter.
Two, why wasn't Steve Slaton in the game during that series? He had just dominated the Colts defense a series prior with 51 yards and a TD on 4 carries. Couldn't have been because of fumbling concerns. At that point, Steve had never fumbled in his NFL career.

Yes, really safe calls. Put the ball into the hands of a ball carrier who is most likely to fumble, then call it safe. BTW, the 2nd fumble wasn't the result of a rollout. It seemed like it. But looking back at the play:

It was a called pass play from the shotgun. Rather than get rid of the ball or take a slide when the play broke down, Rosenfels tried to make a play. Again. What made the head coach believe that the QB would make a good decision, the next time? He should have taken the ball out of his QB's hands. Maybe, the Colts would have driven the field and won, anyway. But, the head coach went against the percentages twice, and paid dearly both times. Yes, the QB was on the field and made the mistakes. But the head coach, enabled the QB in making those mistakes. A competent NFL head coach closes and wins that football game.

The Colts were badly fooled. That's how Sage made the corner and picked up 8 yards before getting rocked. We were just outside field goal range and there was still enough time to allow the Colts a shot at a comeback. So, a play was called that we run every day in practice and in game situations. The play didn't require a pitch or a pass. And, the play had us close to a first down and in good position for a field goal. I'm not sure how you can blame the coach for calling a running play that garnered 8 yards on 3rd and 8. I'm pretty sure Kubiak didn't suggest to Sage that he leap through the air and expose the football. There isn't much a coach can do when the one player that makes decisions with the ball every single play and touches it every single play is asked to protect the ball and yet he finds a way to turn it over in the open field.

whiskeyrbl
07-15-2009, 05:37 AM
The one bad challenge that sticks out to me is the one when the punt clearly went off Faggins helmet and we burned a TO. The one play that sticks out as a great call was the 4th and goal QB sneak against Miami.

barrett
07-15-2009, 08:22 AM
Sage Rosenfels running the ball is not a safe play. It's a deceptive play. Of course, the deception might have had a better chance of success had the Texans had either or both of their premier skill players (AJ & Slaton) in the game at the time. The Colts were not fooled because they didn't fear a fake to very slow Ahman Green and they didn't need to bring a safety over to double team Kevin Walter.

Two, why wasn't Steve Slaton in the game during that series? He had just dominated the Colts defense a series prior with 51 yards and a TD on 4 carries. Couldn't have been because of fumbling concerns. At that point, Steve had never fumbled in his NFL career.

Yes, really safe calls. Put the ball into the hands of a ball carrier who is most likely to fumble, then call it safe. BTW, the 2nd fumble wasn't the result of a rollout. It seemed like it. But looking back at the play:
I like your statement I've bolded. Fair assesment on your part. I still would argue that if he is expected to take a snap and run 8 yards and slide that is a scenario when it is unlikely that he would fumble. Still, I recognize your reasoning that he's not a "ball carrier" persay. I still have to think it's a good call if he follows the directions.

It was a called pass play from the shotgun. Rather than get rid of the ball or take a slide when the play broke down, Rosenfels tried to make a play. Again. What made the head coach believe that the QB would make a good decision, the next time? He should have taken the ball out of his QB's hands. Maybe, the Colts would have driven the field and won, anyway. But, the head coach went against the percentages twice, and paid dearly both times. Yes, the QB was on the field and made the mistakes. But the head coach, enabled the QB in making those mistakes. A competent NFL head coach closes and wins that football game.

76Texan
07-15-2009, 03:44 PM
The Colts were badly fooled. That's how Sage made the corner and picked up 8 yards before getting rocked. We were just outside field goal range and there was still enough time to allow the Colts a shot at a comeback. So, a play was called that we run every day in practice and in game situations. The play didn't require a pitch or a pass. And, the play had us close to a first down and in good position for a field goal. I'm not sure how you can blame the coach for calling a running play that garnered 8 yards on 3rd and 8. I'm pretty sure Kubiak didn't suggest to Sage that he leap through the air and expose the football. There isn't much a coach can do when the one player that makes decisions with the ball every single play and touches it every single play is asked to protect the ball and yet he finds a way to turn it over in the open field.
I agree that it was a "safe" play.
We have had success before with Ahman Green in the play action fake.
The fact that A.J. wasn't in there, quite possibly, made the Colts believe more that we were going to run the ball. Especially that we had Dreessen in there... that blocking TE... it screamed run run run.

However, I would rather spread the field, and hand the ball to a RB twice to eat up the clock.
At any rate, somebody has got to be responsible for reminding Sage to protect the ball and to fall down at first sight of a defender.

TimeKiller
07-15-2009, 04:00 PM
Can't remember exactly the game, possibly the Jags/MNF game last year where Salaam declared as an eligible reciever (TE I guess) they lined up, motioned OD and got stuffed on a run at the goalline 3 plays in a row calling that same play. I was watching that in utter disbelief.

Lucky
07-15-2009, 07:56 PM
The Colts were badly fooled. That's how Sage made the corner and picked up 8 yards before getting rocked.
You need to look at the play again. Rosenfels never made the corner. He turned upfield and met the CB. A CB who would have never been there had the Texans put Andre Johnson in the game, as opposed to Joel Dreessen. If the Texans had been in a 2 WR set, Johnson could have run a go route and taken that CB with him. Then, Sage could have had a free path to the sideline. That's if a Colt LB didn't sniff out the play.

It had to be a perfect play for Rosenfels to get that 1st down untouched. From the personnel, to the set, to execution. It was far from perfect on any count. And the play was indictitive of the lack of poise the team, incuding the coaching staff, showed against good opponents.

edo783
07-15-2009, 09:37 PM
incuding the coaching staff, showed against good opponents.

That would perhaps have been true if Sage hadn't went off the reservation on an ad-lib on his own and try and get the 1st when he was supposed to protect the ball like any other pro QB would have.

Lucky
07-15-2009, 09:43 PM
That would perhaps have been true if Sage hadn't went off the reservation on an ad-lib on his own...
That wasn't the first or the last time Rosenfels tried to do too much. The coaching staff had 3 years to get Sage to play under control. When does that reflect back on them?

The Pencil Neck
07-16-2009, 04:10 AM
That wasn't the first or the last time Rosenfels tried to do too much. The coaching staff had 3 years to get Sage to play under control. When does that reflect back on them?

I think they probably thought they had him pretty much under control after the season before. I can't see why it would be their fault when Rosenfels spontaneously implodes and singlehandedly wipes out 3.5 great quarters of work.

76Texan
07-16-2009, 04:31 AM
Can't remember exactly the game, possibly the Jags/MNF game last year where Salaam declared as an eligible reciever (TE I guess) they lined up, motioned OD and got stuffed on a run at the goalline 3 plays in a row calling that same play. I was watching that in utter disbelief.

I broke down this ugly turn of event awhile ago.
What's disturbing was that all their LBs were definitely paying attention to that gap, concentrating more and more each time.
Somebody upstairs ought to be able to pick that up.

76Texan
07-16-2009, 04:37 AM
I think they probably thought they had him pretty much under control after the season before. I can't see why it would be their fault when Rosenfels spontaneously implodes and singlehandedly wipes out 3.5 great quarters of work.

Rosenfels doesn't implode.
He simply made a few bad decisions a bit too often to be a starter in this league.

12 Ints in 240 attempts last year, 10 in 174 attempts this year.
And 4 fumbles each year (8 fumbles in 10 starts.)
Granted, some of those should be charged to the O-line, but Sage made enough bone-head mistakes on his own! :bat:

3 TOs a game by a QB is pretty difficult to overcome, if not insurmountable, IMO.

TimeKiller
07-16-2009, 09:39 AM
I broke down this ugly turn of event awhile ago.
What's disturbing was that all their LBs were definitely paying attention to that gap, concentrating more and more each time.
Somebody upstairs ought to be able to pick that up.

Yeah, they had about 6 hats sitting right over the goalline and anybody with eyeballs saw it coming....It seemed like Kubiak was trying to make a point, a moral victory of sorts by saying, "throw out the book, pick up the ball and pound it in for 6!!!" I even thought the 2nd time would be a counter or something but nooooo....


That series of call(s) was outright the stupidest thing I've ever seen from Kubiak and I'm pretty much heading up the Sunshine Club. I love what's become of this team but I nearly jumped out of the upper deck to choke him for that.

HOU-TEX
07-16-2009, 09:49 AM
That wasn't the first or the last time Rosenfels tried to do too much. The coaching staff had 3 years to get Sage to play under control. When does that reflect back on them?

Maybe Sage was unable to learn how to play under control. His play was similar at Miami, a few good plays, then one game changing play for the opponent.

Plus, it has been said Sage got upset when Kubiak yelled at him. Maybe he didn't want to learn? Maybe he did it out of spite? Maybe he did it in attempt to improve his NFL worth? Personally, I think it's the latter.