PDA

View Full Version : Single WTF play that changed the game


thegr8fan
11-08-2010, 09:15 PM
First let me say, I am not angry or upset at the game yesterday. I think we had a chance to win it in the end and we just didn't get there yesterday. Which was much better than the butt whipping handed to us in a basket ending that I actually expected walking into that stadium.

However. There is one singe, GAME CHANGING, play yesterday that I am still trying to figure out. The very first play of the 4th QTR. We are on the San Diego's 17 yd line. We just made a pass play of 5 yds on a 3rd and 6, so we're a yard short. It is 4th and 1 on their 17 yd line. We are ONLY up 2 pts, the score is 23-21 Houston ahead.

And we go for it?? :headhurts: And of course turn the ball over on downs. :smiliepalm:

Why did we not take the 'chipshot' FG?? Puts us up by 5, instead of only 2. Changes the entire game ending as even with the Chargers TD and 2 pt conversion, we still only need a FG at the end of the game to win it. Not tie, but WIN. Why in the name of all Holy Football Gods do we NOT take the pts there???

But without going into the 'if only this' kinda threads, but taking an actual game play that was completely against all football logic that I know of, we don't take points when the Chargers only have to score a FG to take the lead.

This is the play that won or lost the entire game. Not the 'hurry up' one that everyone wants to discuss. That one was much later and not even necessary is we play this one correctly.

Wolf
11-08-2010, 09:17 PM
this was my thoughts on it at the time

I haven't seen any quotes from Kubiak yet on why he went for it on 4th when they were in field goal range.. however, I did think that they needed to just take the 3 points while you have a basic chip shot but I was also thinking "well I don't blame them for going for it, the defense is getting drilled.. a first down here would eat some more time and keep the defense off the field and also 4 new downs to try to get 7"



from the fire frank bush thread

SheTexan
11-08-2010, 09:18 PM
I ask this same question yesterday Pete. I simply did not understand WHY we did not go for a FG that would have put us ahead. No one I talked to seemed to have an answer either. Just another Kubiak brain fart I guess.

gtexan02
11-08-2010, 09:19 PM
The fans wanted Kubiak to go for it, and Im guessing he was swayed

Just a clarification point: If we go up by 5 and then they score a TD and 2 pointer (8 points), that puts them up by 3. A fg in that instance would not win it, but would tie the game

thegr8fan
11-08-2010, 09:24 PM
thanks for the reply Wolf. But there is a huge difference, IMO, in how you play defense when you're up by 5 instead of 2 pts. So wouldn't the FG actually have helped our defense, in that sense. Taking some of the pressure off them and allowing them to defend against a TD, instead of just a FG.

Everyone seems to be focused on the other 4th and 1 play later in the game. But even that play wasn't necessary if we just take the pts here.

I mean a 2 pt lead, usually, is not even a 'decision' by a Head Coach, they always take the points.

Especially with a struggling defense. We need all the points we can get.

thegr8fan
11-08-2010, 09:27 PM
Just a clarification point: If we go up by 5 and then they score a TD and 2 pointer (8 points), that puts them up by 3. A fg in that instance would not win it, but would tie the game thanks for the correction gtexan02.

Your correct. But we still take it into OT with a FG. We don't have to score a TD at the end like yesterday.

really the question is why up by 2 pts, and we don't take the points? That is just not a logical football decision, IMO.

DerekLee1
11-08-2010, 09:33 PM
We're the best red zone team in football this year, believe it or not. I like that he had confidence that his offense could get that first down. He was playing for the win and not the tie. You get that first, run more time off the clock and score a TD, the game is almost out of reach for SD. It's something Bellichik would've done, and I was actually happy to see the attempt. Hindsight is 20/20. If they'd made the first and scored, everyone would be talking about how much of a genius call it was.

I, for one, think football is a 4-down sport, not "3 and kick".

awtysst
11-08-2010, 09:37 PM
First let me say, I am not angry or upset at the game yesterday. I think we had a chance to win it in the end and we just didn't get there yesterday. Which was much better than the butt whipping handed to us in a basket ending that I actually expected walking into that stadium.

However. There is one singe, GAME CHANGING, play yesterday that I am still trying to figure out. The very first play of the 4th QTR. We are on the San Diego's 17 yd line. We just made a pass play of 5 yds on a 3rd and 6, so we're a yard short. It is 4th and 1 on their 17 yd line. We are ONLY up 2 pts, the score is 23-21 Houston ahead.

And we go for it?? :headhurts: And of course turn the ball over on downs. :smiliepalm:

Why did we not take the 'chipshot' FG?? Puts us up by 5, instead of only 2. Changes the entire game ending as even with the Chargers TD and 2 pt conversion, we still only need a FG at the end of the game to win it. Not tie, but WIN. Why in the name of all Holy Football Gods do we NOT take the pts there???

But without going into the 'if only this' kinda threads, but taking an actual game play that was completely against all football logic that I know of, we don't take points when the Chargers only have to score a FG to take the lead.

This is the play that won or lost the entire game. Not the 'hurry up' one that everyone wants to discuss. That one was much later and not even necessary is we play this one correctly.

Disagree. I think Kubiak make the right call here. Up till that point, the Texan defense had done virtually nothing to slow down the Charger offense. They had thrown and run on us with relative ease. Kicking a fg would have given us 3 nice points, but if the opposition is going up and down the field getting tds, you need em too. 3 points would have been nice, but Kubiak needed 7 and in my opinion made the right call.

Now, the Texan D did actually show up and made a a couple of key stops, but up until then they had not done anything and there was no reason to believe they could.

TexCanada
11-08-2010, 09:40 PM
We went for it because it is pretty clear that our defense can't prevent a score. We needed to be up by more the 8 points to win that game.

thegr8fan
11-08-2010, 09:42 PM
I, for one, think football is a 4-down sport, not "3 and kick". it is when you play the Texans, just ask KC. They went for it twice on 4th downs and made it in their opening drive against us. :bat:

As for the best red zone stat, you we're correct, yesterday morning. But I don't think that is true today BECAUSE we were 100% in scoring completion of either a FG or TD all the way up UNTIL the very play that I am pointing out. Up until that play at that time we ALWAYS took the points. Always.

The play that I am referring to killed the 100% Red Zone eff. we had all the way up till then.

why change? Why do something different??

And I will never applaud that call when only up 2 pts. If we're up by 4, perhaps. If we're up by 6 I might buy into your logic. But up by 2 and we don't take the points? Come on. Really?

Andre_Johnson
11-08-2010, 09:49 PM
Good aggressive call at the time, poor play selection, thus poor results.

With that said, if you take the field goal and put the points on the board, your defense plays differently and momentum is still on our side. Overall, Kubiak takes this kind of risk all the time and I was not surprised.

I was more upset with the hurry up offense with 5 minutes to go, they could have given the ball to Arian or Ward on a couple of draws and Schaub wouldn't have had to force any throws. The offensive play-calling at the end of games this year has been questionable, it's almost as if Rick Dennison falls in love with the pass too much when running the ball isn't really a bad idea.

Thoughts?

DerekLee1
11-08-2010, 09:51 PM
And I will never applaud that call when only up 2 pts. If we're up by 4, perhaps. If we're up by 6 I might buy into your logic. But up by 2 and we don't take the points? Come on. Really?

I think you do it every time as long as you're up by more than 1 point and less than 7 and more than 4 minutes left. You want to go up by 2 scores any chance you can.

JB
11-08-2010, 09:53 PM
I think you do it every time as long as you're up by more than 1 point and less than 7 and more than 4 minutes left. You want to go up by 2 scores any chance you can.


Ummm, going up by 5 is not going up by 2 scores.

awtysst
11-08-2010, 09:55 PM
Ummm, going up by 5 is not going up by 2 scores.

Safety and a fg?!

I know, I'm just trying to help him out!

JB
11-08-2010, 09:56 PM
Safety and a fg?!

I know, I'm just trying to help him out!

:lol:

DerekLee1
11-08-2010, 10:00 PM
Good aggressive call at the time, poor play selection, thus poor results.

With that said, if you take the field goal and put the points on the board, your defense plays differently and momentum is still on our side. Overall, Kubiak takes this kind of risk all the time and I was not surprised.

I was more upset with the hurry up offense with 5 minutes to go, they could have given the ball to Arian or Ward on a couple of draws and Schaub wouldn't have had to force any throws. The offensive play-calling at the end of games this year has been questionable, it's almost as if Rick Dennison falls in love with the pass too much when running the ball isn't really a bad idea.

Thoughts?

Mentioned this on another post. That was a really well-rested defense after a long drive by their offense. And they had stuffed our run game the entire 2nd half. By playing a no-huddle (it wasn't really a hurry-up as much as a no-huddle, because they did run some draws and screens), it kept the defense on its hells. And guess what? IT WORKED. AJ catches that ball, we're within a hair of pulling it out.

thegr8fan
11-08-2010, 10:00 PM
Up by 5 changes the pressure on our Defense and also forces San Diego to get a TD, not a FG. Taking that FG there would have given the Texans the momentum, changed the defensive playcalling and allowing us to get a little more aggressive Defensively and also forced SD to score a TD, and not a FG, thus putting the pressure on them to score and changing their playcalling. IMO

thegr8fan
11-08-2010, 10:01 PM
AJ catches that ball, we're within a hair of pulling it out.
Take the FG on this play and it doesn't matter whether AJ catches that pass or not. We only needed a FG to tie the score. And hopefully take it into OT.

TexCanada
11-08-2010, 10:03 PM
Take the FG on this play and it doesn't matter whether AJ catches that pass or not. We only needed a FG to tie the score. And hopefully take it into OT.

Um..that play resulted in an interception. We can't kick a FG when the other team has the ball.

hradhak
11-08-2010, 10:03 PM
The book Hidden Game of Football has a good table about what to do in that situation. It tells you the win probabibility (based on 10 seasons of game situation) based on the situation (score, yardage, etc) if you go for it rather than kick the field goal.

It actually recommends going for the first down. I don't disagree with the call and as gtexan pointed out, we would still be down by 3 and would need a FG to tie. I don't think it was a bad call, we just couldn't execute.

thegr8fan
11-08-2010, 10:12 PM
The book Hidden Game of Football has a good table about what to do in that situation. It tells you the win probabibility (based on 10 seasons of game situation) based on the situation (score, yardage, etc) if you go for it rather than kick the field goal.

It actually recommends going for the first down. I don't disagree with the call and as gtexan pointed out, we would still be down by 3 and would need a FG to tie. I don't think it was a bad call, we just couldn't execute.

thank you. I find that a huge surprise. But at least it gives Kubiak some kind of intelligent decision basis that I can at least try to understand why anyone would do that.

I appreciate that answer hradhak.

Andre_Johnson
11-08-2010, 10:13 PM
Mentioned this on another post. That was a really well-rested defense after a long drive by their offense. And they had stuffed our run game the entire 2nd half. By playing a no-huddle (it wasn't really a hurry-up as much as a no-huddle, because they did run some draws and screens), it kept the defense on its hells. And guess what? IT WORKED. AJ catches that ball, we're within a hair of pulling it out.

Okay, you're talking about the final drive. I'm referring to the previous drive that led to the intentional grounding call (total BS by the way.) This wouldn't have happened if they would have kept a balanced play-call on that drive. It was 2nd and five and they ran a passing play with no dump-off available. IMO that was a perfect time for the draw, instead Schaub is pressured, throws a pass out of bounds, and the referees make a questionable call that puts us at 3rd and 15 ("I had my TE on the out route," Matt was saying to the ref during the intentional grounding penalty called.)

This is what I think changed the game the most in the fourth quarter.
:mariopalm:

Andre_Johnson
11-08-2010, 10:15 PM
Um..that play resulted in an interception. We can't kick a FG when the other team has the ball.

Well put.
:goodpost:

JB
11-08-2010, 10:21 PM
Okay, you're talking about the final drive. I'm referring to the previous drive that led to the intentional grounding call (total BS by the way.) This wouldn't have happened if they would have kept a balanced play-call on that drive. It was 2nd and five and they ran a passing play with no dump-off available. IMO that was a perfect time for the draw, instead Schaub is pressured, throws a pass out of bounds, and the referees make a questionable call that puts us at 3rd and 15 ("I had my TE on the out route," Matt was saying to the ref during the intentional grounding penalty called.)
This is what I think changed the game the most in the fourth quarter.
:mariopalm:

Kubiak addressed this today. There was a blitz that Foster picked up, and he was Schaub's outlet on that play. And the call was a pure judgement call. The sideline offical thought Dreesen was in the area, but he was overruled by the referee, who thought Schaub did not have a good angle on the pass...

hradhak
11-09-2010, 08:01 AM
Kubiak addressed this today. There was a blitz that Foster picked up, and he was Schaub's outlet on that play. And the call was a pure judgement call. The sideline offical thought Dreesen was in the area, but he was overruled by the referee, who thought Schaub did not have a good angle on the pass...

I still think it was BS since Schaub wasn't under immediate pressure. Regardless of the receiver in the area, Schaub can throw it away if there's no pressure.

JB
11-09-2010, 08:39 AM
I still think it was BS since Schaub wasn't under immediate pressure. Regardless of the receiver in the area, Schaub can throw it away if there's no pressure.

I agree. BS call. Apparantly when you throw it away, you have to throw it in the precise direction of a receiver, unless you are outside the box.

Ole Miss Texan
11-09-2010, 08:51 AM
I didn't have a problem with the 4th and 1 play at the SD 17 yard line. I think we're all upset because it didn't work. If Kubiak had sent the FG unit out there, we'd all be saying how this coach has no balls, doesn't even trust his offense, that Foster had been moving the ball with relative ease during the game and all season long... that Kubiak always just plays it safe and that's why we lost and why he needs to get fired.

I would have loved the 3 points as much as anybody and if we had kicked the FG, I would have probably supported the call. I was surprised when we went for and actually kind of happy. If Schaub would have passed it, we'd be saying how stupid Kubiak was b/c we have Foster. I think it was a good call, I would have run it.. we just didn't convert.

Our defense was giving up way too many big plays and scores. I think that was half the reason why we needed the extra 4 points.

HOU-TEX
11-09-2010, 09:06 AM
Not a single play, but 2 of 6 in the redzone lost the game. Going into the game we were #1 in the league in redzone scoring. Imagine that!

That's the thing with this team. It's not always the same thing that causes us to lose games. Redzone issues this week, coach last week, poorer than normal defense another week, etc. We just find ways to lose games. Consistency!! Something this team hasn't had since their inception.

infantrycak
11-09-2010, 09:16 AM
Not a single play, but 2 of 6 in the redzone lost the game. Going into the game we were #1 in the league in redzone scoring. Imagine that!

That's the thing with this team. It's not always the same thing that causes us to lose games. Redzone issues this week, coach last week, poorer than normal defense another week, etc. We just find ways to lose games. Consistency!! Something this team hasn't had since their inception.

Consistency is the new execution and pretty much it's the same thing. There are 80000000 posts on here about coaching. Coaching doesn't make Jacoby get the hiccups in critical situations. Coaching doesn't make AJ (still best WR in the league) mysteriously not just miss a catch but accidentally punt it to a DB, etc. Players make mistakes no matter how good they are. Ours seem to come at the worst times.

panamamyers
11-09-2010, 10:00 AM
I wasn't so upset that he went for it as I was with the play call.
We have had trouble all year on those shot yardage plays. Our running game is not built to line up and plow straight forward.

If Kubiak had the least bit of imagination, he could have rolled Schaub out and let him moonwalk for 5 yards and a first down.

Kubiak just isn't very imaginative about his playcalling most of the time.

Ole Miss Texan
11-09-2010, 10:05 AM
I wasn't so upset that he went for it as I was with the play call.
We have had trouble all year on those shot yardage plays. Our running game is not built to line up and plow straight forward.

If Kubiak had the least bit of imagination, he could have rolled Schaub out and let him moonwalk for 5 yards and a first down.

Kubiak just isn't very imaginative about his playcalling most of the time.

Besides a Schaub roll-out, what would you (anyone) suggest? I remember him throwing it on those 4th and shorts in the last few games and all of us jumping on the terrible playcalling - wondering why we wouldn't just run it b/c Foster has been doing so well.

HOU-TEX
11-09-2010, 10:08 AM
I would've done a halfback pass using Turk as the HB and Rackers as the WR. They would've never seen it coming. Foster would've been the decoy

Ole Miss Texan
11-09-2010, 10:09 AM
I would've done a halfback pass using Turk as the HB and Rackers as the WR. They would've never seen it coming. Foster would've been the decoy

Wouldn't have worked. Chris Brown is the only guy that could have pulled it off and Kubiak f*cked up by getting rid of him. Next!

disaacks3
11-09-2010, 10:20 AM
I still think the lack of calling a timeout on our next to last offensive series was the biggest WTF play. You have THREE timeouts, you HAVE to get the first, and you don't have a 2TE set in there. You take a timeout in that situation as it may very well be the last time you touch the ball.

Getting threes (instead of sixes) is what cost us the game IMHO. I can't bash Kubiak over going for it. I may think his choice of plays/personnel were whack, but the choice was the correct one.

infantrycak
11-09-2010, 10:37 AM
Besides a Schaub roll-out, what would you (anyone) suggest? I remember him throwing it on those 4th and shorts in the last few games and all of us jumping on the terrible playcalling - wondering why we wouldn't just run it b/c Foster has been doing so well.

Exactly - the result dictates the discussion not the actual play call. 9 year in I am waiting for the first time someone starts a thread about how stupid a play call is when the play works.

gtexan02
11-09-2010, 10:40 AM
I wasn't so upset that he went for it as I was with the play call.
We have had trouble all year on those shot yardage plays. Our running game is not built to line up and plow straight forward.

If Kubiak had the least bit of imagination, he could have rolled Schaub out and let him moonwalk for 5 yards and a first down.

Kubiak just isn't very imaginative about his playcalling most of the time.

Can you imagine how awful this board would have been to visit if Kubiak had called anything other than the play he chose and it hadn't worked?

Foster was getting over 5 ypc at that point. Of course you run it with him

Hervoyel
11-09-2010, 10:47 AM
thanks for the correction gtexan02.

Your correct. But we still take it into OT with a FG. We don't have to score a TD at the end like yesterday.

really the question is why up by 2 pts, and we don't take the points? That is just not a logical football decision, IMO.


I think Gary just knew in his heart that we were incapable of stopping the chargers offense and he got locked into a "belief" that he had to answer touchdowns with touchdowns. I felt that to be true but I'm a guy sitting in my living room watching the game on TV and drinking a beer. You kind of expect the head coach of the team to understand the finer points of the game as it's happening and to know that a FG gets him at the very least into overtime.

We did go down there and settle for a FG a couple of times when we needed a TD. He obviously got stressed as that happened and the Chargers closed in for the kill. Kubiak brain fart ensued.

Hervoyel
11-09-2010, 10:55 AM
Exactly - the result dictates the discussion not the actual play call. 9 year in I am waiting for the first time someone starts a thread about how stupid a play call is when the play works.

You'll never get it because whenever someone is critical of something that still worked they get shouted down for being negative about something that worked.

infantrycak
11-09-2010, 10:58 AM
You'll never get it because whenever someone is critical of something that still worked they get shouted down for being negative about something that worked.

Maybe but we won't know until it's been tried.

Norg
11-09-2010, 11:03 AM
Why they couldnt just hand the ball off to Leech and tell the Oline to man up and push somepeople !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no way a team is going to stop Leech on one yard

Better yet HERE IS A IDEA HAND THE BALL OFF TO FOSTER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! for 1 yard :mariopalm:

Double Barrel
11-09-2010, 11:07 AM
I thought it was a bonehead call to go for it. 5 point lead definitely gives the defense a different mindset, and even if the Chargers score a TD with a conversion, all we need is to get in FG range.

Kubiak is worried about the defense on the next Chargers drive??? Dude admitted that he doesn't look two plays ahead, so I'm calling BS on this excuse. He was just getting cute with it and failed.

Of course, I think perspectives of it being a good or bad call probably depends on an individual's opinion of Kubiak. 5 seasons into it and a 35-37 overall record is not impressive to me and indicative of mediocrity. This call is par for the course. I'm just surprised that he bothered to actually watch the play live.

Norg
11-09-2010, 11:09 AM
Its all yall fault yall were all over kubes for thinking 2 much in the Indy game

well he prob heard that and say hey Im not even going to think this game

He went for it like twice on 4th down he never does that unless he has 2 !!!!!!!!!!

I dont blame him tho Keeping the texans D of the field is the best for the Texans LOL

Lets face it guyz Our O has to take this team on its back this year

Ole Miss Texan
11-09-2010, 11:56 AM
Texans' Drives:
1 - Foster TD (1 play drive, started on Chargers' 8 after blocked punt)
Score: Texans 7 - Chargers 0
2 - Settled for a FG from the Chargers' 10 yard line
Score: Texans 10 - Chargers 7
3 - Punt (3 and out)
Score: Texans 10 - Chargers 14 - End of 1st Quarter
4 - Foster TD (8/9 plays went to Foster; 1/9 Def. P.I. against AJ)
Score: Texans 17 - Chargers 14
5 - Settled for a FG from the Chargers' 3 yard line (Foster TD overturned)
Score: Texans 20 - Chargers 14 - End of 2nd Quarter
6 - Settled for a FG from the Chargers' 7 yard line
Score: Texans 23 - Chargers 14
7 - Turnover on Downs (Foster stuffed on 4th and 1 on Chargers' 17 yard line)
Score: Texans 23 - Chargers 21 - End of 3rd Quarter
8 - Punt (1st down off 5 yard penalty; Schaub sack/fumble recovered; ball at Texans 44 yard line)
Score: Texans 23 - Chargers 21
9 - Turnover on Downs (Schaub stuffed on 4th and 2 from Chargers 34 yard line)
Score: Texans 23 - Chargers 29 (3:30 left in the game)
10 - Schaub Interception off Andre's knee with 80 seconds remaining.
Score: Texans 23 - Chargers 29 - End of Game

The Chargers had 11 total possessions:
- 4 passing TD's
- 2 punts (1 to pin us inside the 14 w/ 3 minutes left in the game, forcing us to go 86 yards)
- 2 turnovers
- 2 kneel downs to end half/game

Call it 9 legitimate drives. They got a TD on 45% of their drives.

By the time we ran Foster on the 4th and 1 from the 17 yard line, we had already settled for 3 FGs from inside the 10 yard line. We were only up by 2 points at the time and the Chargers had scored easy TDs on 3 of their 6 drives up to that point. Being up by 5 points would not have changed the Defensive playcalling one bit. The Chargers weren't playing for FGs... they were playing for TDs the entire game. General perception is if we're up by 5, our defense may play the bend but don't break strategy to give up a FG but not a TD. After that stop, Rivers was 6/9 for 66 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT. But they were only down by 2 points and only needed a FG. I don't think it would have changed their strategy.

2slik4u
11-09-2010, 12:09 PM
this was my thoughts on it at the time




from the fire frank bush thread

I was actually happy to see Kubiak grow a pair and go for it on 4th and short. I wasnt happy with the call being rushed. It is what it is, in hindsight, yes that wasnt the best call but Im ok with taking a chance like that. If it worked out and we ended up scoring a TD, he woulda been praised.

I was prepared before that play happened to accept whatever fate came, I was just happy that he went for it.......at the time.......however, me being captain hindsight, I obviously wished we took the FG.

Nothing can be done about it now but I like the agressiveness shown.

El Tejano
11-09-2010, 12:26 PM
No, you go for the points because you have a chance to score early in the 4th.

I also hated that it took so long to get the FG unit out on Foster's "dropped" pass.

thegr8fan
11-09-2010, 01:21 PM
2slik, I believe the rushed 4th down QB sneak, that your referring to was later in the 4th QTR, than the one I am referring to. The very first play of the 4th QTR is the one I am talking about. It wasn't a rushed play. It actually was at the end of the 3rd, so the team changed endzones and all that in between. Then they tried to run it instead of taking the FG.

thegr8fan
11-09-2010, 01:34 PM
The Chargers had 11 total possessions:
- 4 passing TD's
- 2 punts (1 to pin us inside the 14 w/ 3 minutes left in the game, forcing us to go 86 yards)
- 2 turnovers
- 2 kneel downs to end half/game


If we take a FG at the 17 yd line instead of turnover on downs. Then we turnover on downs again on their 34 yd line, both of those could have been FG's. which means the Texans, potentially, had

-2 TD's
-5 FG's
-1 turnover
total of 29 points to tie the game
AND the ball in our hands with 3:30 left in that game.

But then again your opinion was: Being up by 5 points would not have changed the Defensive playcalling one bit.

so we probably won't agree on much else either, since we clearly do not agree on this.

Ole Miss Texan
11-09-2010, 02:43 PM
If we take a FG at the 17 yd line instead of turnover on downs. Then we turnover on downs again on their 34 yd line, both of those could have been FG's. which means the Texans, potentially, had

-2 TD's
-5 FG's
-1 turnover
total of 29 points to tie the game
AND the ball in our hands with 3:30 left in that game.

But then again your opinion was:

so we probably won't agree on much else either, since we clearly do not agree on this.
I'm not saying kicking a FG would have been a bad choice, I would have been totally fine with it. I'm just saying with the way the game had gone the first 3 quarters, I had no issue with running Foster on a 4th and 1 from their 17 yard line.

I, among many of the people I was sitting with, had the feeling that Rivers would pluck on down the field, throw another TD pass to Say Ihaveatutu and they'd be up on us 29 - 26 with 12 minutes left in the game. That's a lot of time left on the clock and the first 45 minutes of the game gave me ZERO inclination that our secondary was able to stop their offense. ZERO.

Now we're sitting here as Monday/Tuesday morning armchair coaches saying, welp - woulda coulda shoulda. We have to look at what happened the first 45 minutes of the game... not what happened the last 15. The way the game was going, I felt like we had to score at least another TD to stay on top and win the game. Sometimes we can get by kicking 6 FG's to win a game and that's fine. We gotta do what it takes to get the W...

But what happens if Rackers happened to miss one of those FGs? So what if it was 29 -26 Chargers in the lead with 3:30 remaining. Rackes steps up for the 51 Yard game tying field goal and misses it? Chargers have the ball at midfield with 3 1/2 minutes to go and the lead.

Ole Miss Texan
11-09-2010, 02:50 PM
But then again your opinion was:
Being up by 5 points would not have changed the Defensive playcalling one bit.
so we probably won't agree on much else either, since we clearly do not agree on this.
Just curious, but if we had made the FG from the 17 and gone up 26-21 with 15 minutes left to play... how would that have changed the Texans' Defensive Play Calling? Would we all of sudden realized they were going to pass the ball against us because they needed a TD? Would our Secondary all of sudden been able to stop them because of our change in scheme?

Up to this point, Philip Rivers was 12/15 for 235 yards and 3 TDs to 0 INTs. But being down by 5 points all of a sudden would have changed things? They are the #1 passing team in the league... and we're the worst team in the league against the pass. That's a deadly combination.

thegr8fan
11-09-2010, 03:15 PM
the Chargers next set of plays ended in an INT. Despite the first 45 min success Rivers had, we did in fact stop him on the very next set of downs. We just didn't do anything with it. So the 15 min left to play really isn't relevant or true. The next time the Chargers touched the ball there was 9:31 left in the game. They did score a TD AFTER that, which would have only put them up 3 pts. We get the ball back with 5:37 left to play and go into hurry up mode, ending with a hurry up 4th and 2 quick QB sneak by Schaub that failed. I don't think only down 3, we hurry up offense it. I also don't think down by only 3 we try to go for it on that hurry up 4th down. I think we kick a FG instead. Which ties the game.

as for your we couldn't stop them all day, we did stop them and made them go 3 and out the next set of plays. So they only held the ball 31 seconds, and at 3:06 we get the ball back. The score would have been tied. And we have the ball in our hands with 3 minutes left in the game.

We can argue the long FG being a miss because it didn't take place. But I would give Rackers the long FG chance before a hurry up 4th down QB sneak. And even if he did miss it, we're only down 3 pts and the rest of the game to play and kick a FG at the end to tie it up and go into OT.

Which is why almost every HEAD COACH in the NFL would have taken those points, in that situation. And why I completely do not understand why we have done so all season long till that play. We not only do not use sound football reasoning, but we deviate from what has been working for us all season long with that decision. We had 100% red zone scoring until then. We always took the points.

Why change that in that situation?? Just baffling.

TheMatrix31
11-09-2010, 05:14 PM
Its all yall fault yall were all over kubes for thinking 2 much in the Indy game

well he prob heard that and say hey Im not even going to think this game

He went for it like twice on 4th down he never does that unless he has 2 !!!!!!!!!!

I dont blame him tho Keeping the texans D of the field is the best for the Texans LOL

Lets face it guyz Our O has to take this team on its back this year

Is this English?

.....anyway, the play that changed the game was the Foster TD. Because of a ridiculous rule, we don't go into the half up 24-14 and getting the ball back at halftime. I think that was a big shift.

Texanmike02
11-09-2010, 06:05 PM
If we take a FG at the 17 yd line instead of turnover on downs. Then we turnover on downs again on their 34 yd line, both of those could have been FG's. which means the Texans, potentially, had

-2 TD's
-5 FG's
-1 turnover
total of 29 points to tie the game
AND the ball in our hands with 3:30 left in that game.

But then again your opinion was:

so we probably won't agree on much else either, since we clearly do not agree on this.

First let me say this:

RUN THE BALL STUPID.

I would be tempted to agree with your stance but I think at some point we needed a TD out of those two drives. It didn't make any sense. We didn't run the ball much in the second half. That was the problem.

Consider this:

Up 21-23 with 5 mins left in the third we ran the ball a record 4 times in the rest of the game. Foster got involved and was responsible for most of our offense in screens and check downs... but Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Even better? We Ran the ball 11 times in the second half. Foster only saw 9 of those. RUN THE DAMN BALL STUPID!

We were never down by more than a score. I never felt like we shouldn't have closed it out. but we went away from the run. The one time I felt that we should have thrown was with Ward in the backfield down by the goal line and AJ lined up wide left. Matt should have check to a slant for AJ because there was no safety help on AJ.

Oh well.

Mike

BrandonLwowski
11-09-2010, 07:06 PM
The play the changed the game for me was fosters touchdown taken away. This is one of the worst calls in the nfl this year. This stabbed the SD defense in the heart. We wouldve probably came out at half time with momentum and scored again. Mike Pereira agrees that it was a bad call check out this link (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Austin-Collie-injury-hit-helmet-penalty-referee-Week-9-110710) This call was a huge game changer

infantrycak
11-10-2010, 12:21 AM
Here's one - former head of officials Mike Pereira says the Foster TD reception should have counted.

And 90% of the pissing and moaning wouldn't exist. OK - I said the second part.