More people noticing Kubiaks Conservative play calling...

[EllisUnit]

Atleast it isnt just the fans who are noticing this. You want to win then you have to take some shots, Kubiaks confidence dont leave me feeling to confident about the New England game !!!!

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/pos...o-the-end-zone

The first two questions Gary Kubiak fielded at his Monday news conference were about the team’s red zone offense.

In each answer, he mentioned checking the ball down.

First: "We had a lot of second-and-nines down there from that standpoint, but we got to make the small plays whether you check a ball down on a three or four-yard pass. You’ve got to do that so you’re giving yourself a legitimate chance."

A chance at what? A closer field goal?

Second: "We got played the other day in a bunch of quarters defense, people sitting on the goal line makes it tough to get behind people, those types of things. If people are going to play you that way, you got to run the ball efficiently. You’ve got to check the ball down efficiently."


Houston QB Matt Schaub and coach Gary Kubiak will each need to be aggressive in order to defeat New England on Sunday.If you're already in field goal range, what's the benefit of super-efficient checking down, exactly? To prove to a defense you know how to answer the coverage they are calling to keep you out of the end zone by calling plays that keep you out of the end zone?

I'm confused.

[Fred]

Message to anyone who is just now noticing this: Congratulations on coming out of your coma! After more than 6 years we were worried about you!

[Lucky]

Noticing is one thing. Hearing Kubiak admit to it is another. What he is saying with these play calls is that he doesn't trust Schaub to throw into tight coverage. That's okay against the Bengals. But Kubiak has to give Schaub a chance to succeed (or fail) against the Patriots. Playing not to lose won't work this Sunday.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Lucky

Noticing is one thing. Hearing Kubiak admit to it is another. What he is saying with these play calls is that he doesn't trust Schaub to throw into tight coverage. That's okay against the Bengals. But Kubiak has to give Schaub a chance to succeed (or fail) against the Patriots. Playing not to lose won't work this Sunday.

I think what this says, is that there is a reason that fans are fans & newspaper writers are newspaper writers.

If he's saying that we are checking down, that tells you he didn't call a run play (which isn't a bad thing when you've got the best goal line back in the league on your team). He's saying, "I called a pass play to attack the end zone, but Matt was scared. I love my QB & I'm working on his confidence issues, so I'm going to fall on the sword & make it sound like I agreed with his decision to check out of the play I called, or to throw the ball to a guy that has no chance to get into the end zone (or in this case, Arian Foster who has had some success down there). I'm the same Mofo who ran the score up on people when I had Jake Plummer as my QB, people 3itched about it then but this is what it is in this league."

[gafftop]

Originally Posted by Lucky

Noticing is one thing. Hearing Kubiak admit to it is another. What he is saying with these play calls is that he doesn't trust Schaub to throw into tight coverage. That's okay against the Bengals. But Kubiak has to give Schaub a chance to succeed (or fail) against the Patriots. Playing not to lose won't work this Sunday.

Kubiak knows Matt the best. I think he understands Matt can't make the throws he needs to make in the red zone. Matt is too slow on his release, does not have the zip on his pass and maybe his touch is not that great. Everything is compressed and happens quicker in the red zone. Normally you will not have a guy 5 to 10 yards wide open. Many of the passes he completes the receiver is wide open. I don't think it may be just accuracy as much as quick release with accuracy and zip that may be a bigger problem in the red zone. Matt is Matt not trying to bash.

[amazing80]

Great read, great stats and hopefully we can change up our game plan to account for more TDs. 3's wont win this one for us.

[HJam72]

Think about the interception throw that was, I believe, supposed to go to OD. This was the interception very near the EZ where the announcer said Schaub should've checked down to Arian Foster, because he would have gotten a first down, and, given it's Foster, might've even scored. I believe that's the kind of thing Kubiak is talking about here. It's unusual for Schaub to take unwise risks, but that's exactly what he did on that play, and it cost him big.

I think these writers are picking the wrong time to complain about something that might actually be a legitimate complaint. I'm not jumping on THIS bandwagon.

[76Texan]

Fans are fans; news reporters are news reporters.

That's exactly what it is!

On top of that, fans (a majority of them at least) buy into the things these reporters write.

The machine keeps feeding itself.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

On top of that, fans (a majority of them at least) buy into the things these reporters write.

Worse yet, when Mike Mayock or Ron Jaworski says something during the game (& it's not just those two, it's all of them) they take it as gospel.

They'll say things like, "Peyton stared down his receiver." & people will believe it. When in fact, Peyton is trying to move the safety. If the safety doesn't move, Peyton is going to take that shot. It'll look like he stared him down, but it's not the same as Christian Ponder waiting for his receiver to get open.

Or they'll say, "Kareem Jackson was late getting over, he's going to have to do a better job than that." when Kareem wasn't even supposed to be there. Demps let the guy run past him & Kareem was just trying to help.

The most recent one, the guys on play-book saying that Kevin Walter was wide open on the play Matt threw the pick 6. Walter was still in his route when Schaub decided to throw the football. Of course Walter is wide open, everybody is running to where the football went.

[Tailgate]

After rewatching the NE game last night I am alot more confident Kubiak had the right game plan on offense last time. We threw the ball alot early on and moved the ball pretty damn good in that first half.

And ironically, as that article implies we need to throw in endzone more... Schaub should have never forced that ball into double coverage instead checking down to Foster for a likely 7. We need to do a better job of getting the ball to Foster in the passing game this time around. It was there all night.

[dc_txtech]

Originally Posted by Tailgate

After rewatching the NE game last night I am alot more confident Kubiak had the right game plan on offense last time. We threw the ball alot early on and moved the ball pretty damn good in that first half.

And ironically, as that article implies we need to throw in endzone more... Schaub should have never forced that ball into double coverage instead checking down to Foster for a likely 7. We need to do a better job of getting the ball to Foster in the passing game this time around. It was there all night.

Agreed. Rewatching the game it didn't seem nearly as lopsided as it did the first time. Penalties absolutely killed any momentum we tried to get going and a few bounces of the ball just didn't go our way. Dropped passes on 3rd downs played a factor as well.

The Watt forced fumble summed up the game for me, force a fumble in the RZ only for it to be recovered by NE 10 yards up the field for a TD.

[badboy]

Solution to Red Zone woes: score TD before you get to Red Zone.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Tailgate

After rewatching the NE game last night I am alot more confident Kubiak had the right game plan on offense last time. We threw the ball alot early on and moved the ball pretty damn good in that first half.

And ironically, as that article implies we need to throw in endzone more... Schaub should have never forced that ball into double coverage instead checking down to Foster for a likely 7. We need to do a better job of getting the ball to Foster in the passing game this time around. It was there all night.

For the half, our pass/run ratio was 25/13 as compared to 19/11 for the Pats.

We threw into the end zone (the INT, LOL).
How can they say it was a conservative game plan?

[76Texan]

Duplicate

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Tailgate

And ironically, as that article implies we need to throw in endzone more... Schaub should have never forced that ball into double coverage...

I don't agree with this, McCourty made a heck of a play. He was near the sideline, covering on top another receiver. When the ball went in the air, he broke on it. But he was not "double-covering" Walter.

The throw could have been better... I don't think Matt could have thrown a better ball, he doesn't have the arm. But I think most QBs would have made that throw & McCourty still makes that play, maybe not an interception, against an elite arm.

Originally Posted by 76Texan

For the half, our pass/run ratio was 25/13 as compared to 19/11 for the Pats.

We threw into the end zone (the INT, LOL).
How can they say it was a conservative game plan?

Because we lost.

Like you mentioned in another thread, this kind of thing will feed on itself until we win by 80 points or something.

[Tailgate]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

I don't agree with this, McCourty made a heck of a play. He was near the sideline, covering on top another receiver. When the ball went in the air, he broke on it. But he was not "double-covering" Walter.

The throw could have been better... I don't think Matt could have thrown a better ball, he doesn't have the arm. But I think most QBs would have made that throw & McCourty still makes that play, maybe not an interception, against an elite arm.



Because we lost.

Like you mentioned in another thread, this kind of thing will feed on itself until we win by 80 points or something.

The old adage, hind sight is always 20/20 eh? While I agree this was simply more of a good play by McCourty but I dont recall Schaub having the velocity needed to get the better of that situation, imo... when Foster is that wide open and secondary comits deep... you almost always give it to your playmaker.

[tedr]

Originally Posted by gafftop

Kubiak knows Matt the best. I think he understands Matt can't make the throws he needs to make in the red zone. Matt is too slow on his release, does not have the zip on his pass and maybe his touch is not that great. Everything is compressed and happens quicker in the red zone. Normally you will not have a guy 5 to 10 yards wide open. Many of the passes he completes the receiver is wide open. I don't think it may be just accuracy as much as quick release with accuracy and zip that may be a bigger problem in the red zone. Matt is Matt not trying to bash.

I think you're right...that said, why in the world would we give that much on an extension to a QB with those issues?

[deucetx]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

For the half, our pass/run ratio was 25/13 as compared to 19/11 for the Pats.

We threw into the end zone (the INT, LOL).
How can they say it was a conservative game plan?

Most likely because more goes into the 'conservative' gameplan than how many passes were thrown. The Patriots threw 14 passes that were 10+ yards. We threw 8. And since they were up big and early you would think that would be switched around.

In any case, not even sure why you guys are responding to the article talking about the previous Patriots game. They questioned Kubiak about being so conservative in the game against the Bengals and article author is talking about how being conservative in the redzone is playing into the hands of the defense.

So how exactly is he wrong? In the redzone two things are on the defenses mind. Get the ball back or force a field goal. That was the authors point. Checking down in the redzone is pointless is what he's saying. It is being overly conservative and doing exactly what the defense wants. So his point is you have to be a bit more aggressive to be the likes of the Patriots. Now of course there are times to do so but he is talking about how CONSISTENTLY the Texans did it.

Plus, again reporters were right. We were conservative against the Bengals and it did seem he was trying to protect Schaub. We threw a whopping THREE passes over 10 yards. And of course zero over 20 yards.

[GP]

Originally Posted by tedr

I think you're right...that said, why in the world would we give that much on an extension to a QB with those issues?

You're asking questions that cause trouble.

[EllisUnit]

Originally Posted by HJam72

Think about the interception throw that was, I believe, supposed to go to OD. This was the interception very near the EZ where the announcer said Schaub should've checked down to Arian Foster, because he would have gotten a first down, and, given it's Foster, might've even scored. I believe that's the kind of thing Kubiak is talking about here. It's unusual for Schaub to take unwise risks, but that's exactly what he did on that play, and it cost him big.

I think these writers are picking the wrong time to complain about something that might actually be a legitimate complaint. I'm not jumping on THIS bandwagon.

Funny thing is AF was wide open on that play, usually when he checks down the guy is covered and we're lucky to gain 2 or 3 from it. But for the most part I agree this dinking and dunking in the redzone has not been getting it done. Especially lately, but if u look at earlier in the season most of schaubs TDs were thrown from outside the RZ for 20 plus yard TDs. Haven't seen that as of late due to him looking a little scared and always checking down.