PDA

View Full Version : Gary Kubiak shows confidence in Broncos with calculated risk



Denver Native (Carol)
10-07-2015, 10:03 PM
The perception challenged the reality. John Fox won four division titles, but was seen as a coach who never met a a punt he didn't like. He wasn't averse to going for it on fourth down, something he did 40 times with the Broncos. However, one unforgettable kneel down against the Baltimore Ravens in a playoff loss proved a scarlet letter in Denver.

New Broncos coach Gary Kubiak continues to win over fans with victories and a swashbuckler's mentality. While last Sunday's biggest moment arrived in the waning seconds on safety T.J. Ward's strip sack, the defining moment occurred in the third quarter.

The Broncos sat on the 1-yard line. Fourth down stared back from the sideline marker. Kicking a field goal offered a safe choice, swelling the lead to 16-10. Instead, Kubiak took a calculated risk.

The best baseball managers suffer from paranoia. They prepare for a myriad of situations, most of which never happen. Kubiak tucked away a misdirection play from practice to use if the Broncos reached the ledge of the cliff on fourth down.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_28936433/gary-kubiak-shows-confidence-broncos-calculated-risk

Bronco4ever
10-07-2015, 10:16 PM
Kubes probably hasn't gotten enough credit for his in game decisions. The 2nd quarter TD pass against Detroit on 4th down also comes to mind. I highly doubt we'd be 4-0 with Fox.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-08-2015, 08:03 AM
It was a great play by design. Either Green or Daniels would have been open. Green got held on the play.

Ravage!!!
10-08-2015, 08:50 AM
Kubes probably hasn't gotten enough credit for his in game decisions. The 2nd quarter TD pass against Detroit on 4th down also comes to mind. I highly doubt we'd be 4-0 with Fox.

I don't. Kubiak hasn't yet shown to be better at game time decisions than Fox. I know people have this "want to hate Fox" thing going on right now, but Fox wasn't making dumb decisions. Some of Kubiaks' decisions have been very bad, as where Fox were just a bit more "conservative." That isn't necessarily bad.

Bronco4ever
10-08-2015, 09:20 AM
I don't. Kubiak hasn't yet shown to be better at game time decisions than Fox. I know people have this "want to hate Fox" thing going on right now, but Fox wasn't making dumb decisions. Some of Kubiaks' decisions have been very bad, as where Fox were just a bit more "conservative." That isn't necessarily bad.

What bad decisions are you referring to? I'm not saying he's perfect by any means, but some of the risks he has taken have paid off. McManus' first FG against Balt I was thinking we'd punt, but Kubes put confidence in him, which seems to have carried over in our other games. Sometimes Fox's conservative approach did help us win, but I just feel like Kubes is more willing to take chances at the right time, which helped lead to wins. Personally, I'd rather we play to win rather than play to not lose.

Ravage!!!
10-08-2015, 12:22 PM
The Chiefs game he was bad.

But this "playing not to lose" thing is so overplayed. What is the line? Isn't that what a coach does.. plays so that HIS calls aren't the ones that loses the game and thus lets the players make the plays? Isn't the coach the one that is supposed to put his players in the best POSITION to win? He's the ultimate "game manager"..right? When we say that about a QB, he's meant to keep the team in the game without doing anything to lose it. When a coach makes poor calls, fans justify it with "he was just going for the win and not trying to lose." Sounds great. Sounds fuzzy and warm. But the same could be said for Pittsburghs coach against Baltimore, and his "going for the win" crappy calls, cost them the game in several ways.

"But he was just playing to win."

Bronco4ever
10-08-2015, 01:18 PM
The Chiefs game he was bad.

But this "playing not to lose" thing is so overplayed. What is the line? Isn't that what a coach does.. plays so that HIS calls aren't the ones that loses the game and thus lets the players make the plays? Isn't the coach the one that is supposed to put his players in the best POSITION to win? He's the ultimate "game manager"..right? When we say that about a QB, he's meant to keep the team in the game without doing anything to lose it. When a coach makes poor calls, fans justify it with "he was just going for the win and not trying to lose." Sounds great. Sounds fuzzy and warm. But the same could be said for Pittsburghs coach against Baltimore, and his "going for the win" crappy calls, cost them the game in several ways.

"But he was just playing to win."

Do you recall any particular instances in the Chiefs game? I don't recall any off the top of my head, but I'm not saying that it doesn't exist.

It's really your deal if you want to defend Fox. He was a decent coach for us, but he played it safe far too often for my tastes (hello kneeling down with 30 seconds left in a playoff game). I don't think Kubes is above making a safe call if the situation calls for it. I disagree with your premise though. I just don't think taking a "playing not to lose" philosophy is synonymous with putting your players in the best position to win. Sometimes a coach has to step up to create a scenario for their team to win. Does that backfire sometimes? Sure. But sitting on your hands hoping that something good happens isn't what NFL head coaches should get paid to do. I'd rather lose going down swinging than just passively let the win get out of reach.

Rick
10-08-2015, 02:02 PM
I prefer kubiak myself and also felt Fox was a bit too conservative, but that being said, us kneeling to close out a quarter and go fight in OT rather than run a play and see what happens reminds me of another game.

In this particular game there was less than a minute left, score was tied. Opposing team handed it off to a probowl RB, RB fumbles that ball and it's picked up by the defense and ran back for the win.

Not saying it is apples to apples, just saying it is easy to second guess and shit can happen, no matter what you do.

Northman
10-08-2015, 02:14 PM
Fox is ok if you want to stabilize an organization but he is far too conservative of a coach for my taste not too mention his ho-hum attitude when it comes to wins/losses. Ill never forgive him for checking out before the Colts game and wish him nothing but total despair in Chicago. Kubes still needs to prove himself as well but i believe his ceiling is a lot higher than Fox's will ever be.

NightTerror218
10-08-2015, 03:37 PM
I don't. Kubiak hasn't yet shown to be better at game time decisions than Fox. I know people have this "want to hate Fox" thing going on right now, but Fox wasn't making dumb decisions. Some of Kubiaks' decisions have been very bad, as where Fox were just a bit more "conservative." That isn't necessarily bad.

Except when fox was involved with throwing or not throwing a challenge flag. I do not think he ever grasped the concept of using g it right

NightTerror218
10-08-2015, 03:39 PM
Do you recall any particular instances in the Chiefs game? I don't recall any off the top of my head, but I'm not saying that it doesn't exist.

It's really your deal if you want to defend Fox. He was a decent coach for us, but he played it safe far too often for my tastes (hello kneeling down with 30 seconds left in a playoff game). I don't think Kubes is above making a safe call if the situation calls for it. I disagree with your premise though. I just don't think taking a "playing not to lose" philosophy is synonymous with putting your players in the best position to win. Sometimes a coach has to step up to create a scenario for their team to win. Does that backfire sometimes? Sure. But sitting on your hands hoping that something good happens isn't what NFL head coaches should get paid to do. I'd rather lose going down swinging than just passively let the win get out of reach.

You could say that 4th down failed conversion in game 1. But I saw that as a chance to try and kick start a stalled offense.

Ravage!!!
10-08-2015, 04:16 PM
You could say that 4th down failed conversion in game 1. But I saw that as a chance to try and kick start a stalled offense.

But not taking the points on a 0-0 game against a division rival, was a bad decision before the SECOND attempt was even trotted out onto the field (the first a TO was called).

Sometimes a coach has to "go for it." BUt he has to know when those situations are there, and when they are the right time. We didn't have any offensive movement, and got a turnover that put us in FG range. Take the free points and the lead. That three points, almost cost us the game.

Joel
10-08-2015, 04:20 PM
You could say that 4th down failed conversion in game 1. But I saw that as a chance to try and kick start a stalled offense.
That's the one most people reference, but if ANY offense (let alone one with a first ballot HoFer, 3 All Pros and a couple more Pro Bowl alternates) can't get 2 yds in 3 plays, that's not a playcalling problem, it's a talent and prep problem: The "offensive" line our LAST coach left Kubiak and Dennison to rebuild from nothing but Vasquez and Clady (who's out for the season.)

Timmy!
10-08-2015, 04:24 PM
Fox was the worst at challenges in the history of instant replay.

I Eat Staples
10-08-2015, 04:24 PM
It's always right to go for 4th and 1, unless it's something like you're up by 3 scores in the 4th quarter and a turnover is the only way you can lose.

Joel
10-08-2015, 04:30 PM
But not taking the points on a 0-0 game against a division rival, was a bad decision before the SECOND attempt was even trotted out onto the field (the first a TO was called).

Sometimes a coach has to "go for it." BUt he has to know when those situations are there, and when they are the right time. We didn't have any offensive movement, and got a turnover that put us in FG range. Take the free points and the lead. That three points, almost cost us the game.
1) A 37 yd FG isn't automatic, especially when the 2nd year kicker's only had half a season worth of starts; HE was on the road against a division rival, too (but handled it well in the end.)

2) Even the worst case scenario of KC getting the ball at their own 22 wasn't the end of the world with their mediocre one-dimensional offense against our excellent verstaile D. It's very likely they end up punting back to us after a three-and-out there, and even a decent return puts us right back near midfield, nearly close enough to try a FG ANYWAY if we find ourself in 4th and long.

In the event, our D committed a series of huge penalties before finally giving up a 34 yd TD run to Charles, but there's a good argument all that was because our many quick punts had tired them out, which is just another reason trying to extend a drive on 4th and 1 was a reasonable choice. As far as "conservatism," the history of all NFL plays says going for it on 4th and <6 ANYWHERE scores more points than a punt or even FG: Whether he knew it or not (and I can't read his mind,) KUBIAK WAS GOING WITH THE ODDS ON 4TH AND 1.

Joel
10-08-2015, 04:38 PM
It's always right to go for 4th and 1, unless it's something like you're up by 3 scores in the 4th quarter and a turnover is the only way you can lose.
Takes some massive stones for a team trailing by 2 at the bad guys 20 with <5:00 left to go for 4th and 1, but, based on the outcomes for EVERY team that's EVER been in that situation, it's the best thing to do. That old "they scored too soon" thing's for real; if an opponent has time for more than a Hail Mary, risking a 2 pt loss is worth it to force them to get a TD rather than an answering FG. That's not a matter of opinion, interpretation, preference or philosophy: It's what most often HAPPENS to teams in that situation.

Ravage!!!
10-08-2015, 04:44 PM
isn't automatic? No.. nothing is. But its not a difficult FG. "KC getting the ball on the 22 isn't the end of the world." No kidding. N othing was the end of the world. Eithe way, it was a poor coaching decision, even before the result.

Joel
10-08-2015, 04:55 PM
isn't automatic? No.. nothing is. But its not a difficult FG. "KC getting the ball on the 22 isn't the end of the world." No kidding. N othing was the end of the world. Eithe way, it was a poor coaching decision, even before the result.
History says that's false. In fact, it says going for 4th and 1 at KCs 22 was neither better nor worse than going for 4th and G at Minnesotas 1: The expected value swing of a turnover is 4 pts ANYWHERE. Going for 4th and 1 is right EVERYWHERE or NOWHERE, with no in between (apart from self-evident exceptions like Staples referenced; chip shot walkoff FGs when trailing by 2 remain the right call.)

I Eat Staples
10-08-2015, 04:55 PM
Takes some massive stones for a team trailing by 2 at the bad guys 20 with <5:00 to go for 4th and 1, but, based on the outcomes for EVERY team that's EVER been in that situation, it's the best thing to do. That old "they scored too soon" thing's for real; if an opponent has time for more than a Hail Mary, risking a 2 pt loss is worth it to force them to get a TD rather than an answering FG. That's not a matter of opinion, interpretation, preference or philosophy: It's what most often HAPPENS to teams in that situation.

Yep, I wouldn't want a 1 point lead with less than 5 minutes left. The team with the ball should win in that situation. Would definitely go for it.

I Eat Staples
10-08-2015, 04:58 PM
I wish people would just stop calling 4th and 1 "risky." How is expecting to gain 1 measly yard risky? Punting is what should be considered risky, considering you're willingly giving the ball to the other team's offense. And field goals are just extremely situational.

Northman
10-08-2015, 05:00 PM
I wish people would just stop calling 4th and 1 "risky." How is expecting to gain 1 measly yard risky? Punting is what should be considered risky, considering you're willingly giving the ball to the other team's offense. And field goals are just extremely situational.

Depends where you are on the field. I certainly would not go for it in my own end, especially with the way our defense is playing.

I Eat Staples
10-08-2015, 05:05 PM
Depends where you are on the field. I certainly would not go for it in my own end, especially with the way our defense is playing.

With how good our defense is and how bad our offensive line is, I'd definitely consider punting, which is more than I'd say for most teams. I still think going for it would be correct though, because even though it FEELS risky it's really not.

And with a good defense there's also the confidence that they can hold the other team to a field goal, and I'm happy letting my opponent kick as many field goals as they want.

Joel
10-08-2015, 05:06 PM
Yep, I wouldn't want a 1 point lead with less than 5 minutes left. The team with the ball should win in that situation. Would definitely go for it.
What I didn't expect was that going for 4th and 5 is also statistically better. But it kind of makes sense; even runs get 4 yds often as not, and passes nearly 6½, so that gamble's worth not telling an opponent flat out "if YOU reach FG range in the next 5:00, you win." Under 2:00, things change, especially if they're out of time outs, but too much can happen too fast for a narrow lead to be safe before that.

I Eat Staples
10-08-2015, 05:08 PM
What I didn't expect was that going for 4th and 5 is also statistically better. But it kind of makes sense; even runs get 4 yds often as not, and passes nearly 6½, so that gamble's worth not telling an opponent flat out "if YOU reach FG range in the next 5:00, you win." Under 2:00, things change, especially if they're out of time outs, but too much can happen too fast for a narrow lead to be safe before that.

4th and 5 is what I'd consider risky, but still not as risky as keeping a team out of field goal range.

Northman
10-08-2015, 05:10 PM
With how good our defense is and how bad our offensive line is, I'd definitely consider punting, which is more than I'd say for most teams. I still think going for it would be correct though, because even though it FEELS risky it's really not.

And with a good defense there's also the confidence that they can hold the other team to a field goal, and I'm happy letting my opponent kick as many field goals as they want.

Unless of course you go for it on 4th and 1 5 times but fail every time. Than it can be a problem if you are not scoring points yourself. :lol:

I Eat Staples
10-08-2015, 05:12 PM
Unless of course you go for it on 4th and 1 5 times but fail every time. Than it can be a problem if you are not scoring points yourself. :lol:

Yeah, I think at that point you just accept that your team sucks.

Joel
10-08-2015, 05:40 PM
Depends where you are on the field. I certainly would not go for it in my own end, especially with the way our defense is playing.
Yeah, giving the bad guys 1st and G at our 1 sucks, but remember: HAVING 1st and 10 at our own 1 wasn't exactly ideal; a safeties likely (even by penalty,) a NT could get a pick-six just by falling down after the Int, and a punt netting a respectable 45 yds STILL puts them on our side of midfield, already in extreme FG range, and just 25 yds from the red zone. That's what usually happens, too, because most coaches are too terrified of goal line turnovers to do anything "risky" like try to pass for a first down; a couple safe pointless runs into a line expecting them, then a safe 3rd down fade, then punt.

So, yeah, a turnover at our goal line sucks because its expected value is -6 pts—but the value of 1st and 10 at our goal line was ALREADY -2 pts, so what's the difference? 4. Just like a turnover at THEIR goal line transforming a "sure" TD into a "likely" safety. It's not quite that simple, because the "historical" expected value (i.e. calculated from the record of all actual plays with a given down, distance and field position) only tells us who's most likely to score next, and by how much, whether "next" is the next play or next QUARTER. But it works out the same.

As an interesting sidenote, that also gives 1st and 10 at ones own 20 an expected value of exactly 0: A push. Nice place for the rules to put touchbacks, eh? Coughing it up costs 4 pts just as anywhere else, so that's what we lost giving KC the ball on their own 20 (or near enough.) So what do the odds say Kubiak should've done? The first hit for googling "NFL 4th and 1 conversion rate" is this NFL.com article: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d80bd5485/article/faced-with-fourth-and-1-why-not-go-for-it

As of Week 6 2008, the 4th and 1 conversion rate was 72%, multiplied by the 4 pt expected value of 1st and 10 at an opponents 20=2.88 pts (we can ignore failure, because 0 times anything is 0.)

According to the NFL again: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=FIELD_GOALS&season=2008&seasonType=REG the 2008 FG% from 30-39 was 89.2, multiplied by 3=2.68. Technically a bit less, because the 7 yds of field position lost on a miss are worth ~½ pt, but 10.8% of ½ is small enough to ignore.

Going for 4th and 1 from their 20=2.88 pts but a FG try=2.68; why would anyone kick? Again, that's not just theoretical number crunching: It's what ACTUALLY HAPPENED to every team in that situation.

Joel
10-08-2015, 05:48 PM
4th and 5 is what I'd consider risky, but still not as risky as keeping a team out of field goal range.
Well, it's worth noting 4th and 5 attempts are both rare (i.e. provide a small sample size consequently more subject to anomalous noise) and desperate (i.e. both teams are emptying their players tanks and coaches playbooks, because the game's usually in the balance.) If they were more routine, and so more subject to normal conditions, the conversion rates could well go down. But, as it stands, and all else being equal, history says teams should go for it on a) 4th and <6 ANYWHERE and b) 4th and G inside the 10.

That incidentally means Fox trotting out the old standby "any possession that ends in a kick is a good one" wasn't so much "conservative" as "ignorant." Or gambling, if that's a more generous take.

NightTerror218
10-08-2015, 10:25 PM
Denver got it the first time for not for bone head time out by Manning.

Denver offense needed a jump start, getting a 4th down conversion might have done it.

I do not see it as a bad call due to the location on field and the fact it was early enough in game.

Joel
10-09-2015, 04:11 AM
Denver got it the first time for not for bone head time out by Manning.

Denver offense needed a jump start, getting a 4th down conversion might have done it.

I do not see it as a bad call due to the location on field and the fact it was early enough in game.
Again, location's irrelevant: Turnovers equal the difference between a FG and TD EVERYWHERE. Although, inside the 10, a FG is almost literally equivalent to a turnover (unless trailing <3 with <2:00 left.)

TXBRONC
10-09-2015, 08:18 AM
Denver got it the first time for not for bone head time out by Manning.

Denver offense needed a jump start, getting a 4th down conversion might have done it.

I do not see it as a bad call due to the location on field and the fact it was early enough in game.

I wouldn't call it bone headed move. IIRC Manning saw that the play clock was about expire so he was going to quickly call time but at the same he was calling timeout Paradis was hiking the ball. Other than that I agree with you fully. It wasn't bad call it worked and would have given Denver a first down. It was early enough in the game and deep enough K.C. that it was well worth the risk.

TXBRONC
10-09-2015, 08:21 AM
Again, location's irrelevant: Turnovers equal the difference between a FG and TD EVERYWHERE. Although, inside the 10, a FG is almost literally equivalent to a turnover (unless trailing <3 with <2:00 left.)

Location is irrelevant in that situation no matter what you may say.

Ravage!!!
10-09-2015, 09:50 AM
Again, location's irrelevant: Turnovers equal the difference between a FG and TD EVERYWHERE. Although, inside the 10, a FG is almost literally equivalent to a turnover (unless trailing <3 with <2:00 left.)

Its absolutely ridiculous to say that location doesn't matter. It absolutely matters, always.

Ravage!!!
10-09-2015, 09:53 AM
I wouldn't call it bone headed move. IIRC Manning saw that the play clock was about expire so he was going to quickly call time but at the same he was calling timeout Paradis was hiking the ball. Other than that I agree with you fully. It wasn't bad call it worked and would have given Denver a first down. It was early enough in the game and deep enough K.C. that it was well worth the risk.

Nah.. it was a bad call before the play was snapped, because he chose to go for a 4th and 1 when our run game had gone nowhere, and we just had a turnover that put us in scoring position. It was doubled when we called time out, and then came back onto the field without the FG kicker.

The 3 points that were supposedly 'well worth the risk'..were the three points that would have changed a lot of different things in the last number of drives, and could have very easily cost us the game. But that's water under the bridge now.

It's why opinions are like rear-end-cracks. Everyone has one.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-09-2015, 09:57 AM
It would have absolutely been delay of game if Manning wouldn't have called timeout.
The ball was snapped at least a full second after the play clock hit zero.

Joel
10-09-2015, 01:16 PM
Location is in this isn't irrelevant in that situation no matter what you may say.
Yeah, it is, as one of Bill Walshs former starting Bengals QBs proved by compiling several seasons worth of plays to learn possession's worth at each 10 yds down the field: -2 pts at our goal line, 6 pts at theirs and 1 pt for every 12½ yds between the two. Turnover's at our goal line make a bad situation horrible, at their goal line makes a great situation slightly favorable and at their 20 make a good situation neutral. http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/opre.19.2.541

Anyone who wants to dispute that should contact a former NFL season passing leader (thank you, West Coast Offense,) the NFL and the Elias Sports Bureau, but don't kill the messenger.


Nah.. it was a bad call before the play was snapped, because he chose to go for a 4th and 1 when our run game had gone nowhere, and we just had a turnover that put us in scoring position. It was doubled when we called time out, and then came back onto the field without the FG kicker.

The 3 points that were supposedly 'well worth the risk'..were the three points that would have changed a lot of different things in the last number of drives, and could have very easily cost us the game. But that's water under the bridge now.

It's why opinions are like rear-end-cracks. Everyone has one.

STILL not an opinion, but CONCRETE REALITY:

1) In nearly a CENTURY of NFL plays, teams with 1st and 10 at the opponents 20 averaged 4 pts off it: Even if the FG were automatic (instead of 90%) it would've been equivalent to GIVING AWAY 1 pt.

2) According to the NFL itself, teams converted 72% of 4th and 1s and missed 10% of 30-39 yd FGs in 2008; 72% of 4 pts=2.86 and 90% of 3 pts=2.66, so going for it's worth 0.2 pts more than kicking.

Denying that isn't just saying, "I dispute your analysis/conclusion" but "that didn't happen, x did." Then call Elias and tell them to correct their play-by-play records: It's 90+ years overdue. That probably still won't convince Virgil Carter though; he not only did the math, but saw it first hand from under center.

NightTerror218
10-09-2015, 01:29 PM
Again, location's irrelevant: Turnovers equal the difference between a FG and TD EVERYWHERE. Although, inside the 10, a FG is almost literally equivalent to a turnover (unless trailing <3 with <2:00 left.)

Field position is never irrelevant when making a call to go for it on 4th down.

NightTerror218
10-09-2015, 01:31 PM
I wouldn't call it bone headed move. IIRC Manning saw that the play clock was about expire so he was going to quickly call time but at the same he was calling timeout Paradis was hiking the ball. Other than that I agree with you fully. It wasn't bad call it worked and would have given Denver a first down. It was early enough in the game and deep enough K.C. that it was well worth the risk.

I don't think the clock was that close to running out because he did get the snap off. I think there was a few seconds do left. Kubiak was shown on sideline asking who called timeout.

NightTerror218
10-09-2015, 01:32 PM
Joel I do not think you will win over anyone with this debate over irrelevance with field position.

TXBRONC
10-09-2015, 01:32 PM
Nah.. it was a bad call before the play was snapped, because he chose to go for a 4th and 1 when our run game had gone nowhere, and we just had a turnover that put us in scoring position. It was doubled when we called time out, and then came back onto the field without the FG kicker.

The 3 points that were supposedly 'well worth the risk'..were the three points that would have changed a lot of different things in the last number of drives, and could have very easily cost us the game. But that's water under the bridge now.

It's why opinions are like rear-end-cracks. Everyone has one.

I just don't see how it was bad call when it would have been a first down if it were not for the timeout.

TXBRONC
10-09-2015, 01:36 PM
I don't think the clock was that close to running out because he did get the snap off. I think there was a few seconds do left. Kubiak was shown on sideline asking who called timeout.

As quickly as Manning made the signal for the timeout it had to have been pretty close. I don't think Manning was expecting the snap.

NightTerror218
10-09-2015, 01:38 PM
Nah.. it was a bad call before the play was snapped, because he chose to go for a 4th and 1 when our run game had gone nowhere, and we just had a turnover that put us in scoring position. It was doubled when we called time out, and then came back onto the field without the FG kicker.

The 3 points that were supposedly 'well worth the risk'..were the three points that would have changed a lot of different things in the last number of drives, and could have very easily cost us the game. But that's water under the bridge now.

It's why opinions are like rear-end-cracks. Everyone has one.

And if the first down change get how effective the offense played it would have been called the turning point in the game. Offense was not working, it was an attempt to jump start. Nobody knew this offense would be this ineffective this season. And if we scored a touchdown....still bad call and we got lucky? Hell no you would say, that's Manning for you.

TXBRONC
10-09-2015, 01:39 PM
Field position is never irrelevant when making a call to go for it on 4th down.

No kidding. It is highly unlikely Kubiak make's that call if it was on Denver's side. The only time field position is irrelevant is when it's do or die.

Joel
10-09-2015, 02:36 PM
Field position is never irrelevant when making a call to go for it on 4th down.
Four points is four points, whether -2-4, 6-4 or ANYTHING-4. The logic that "even if 4th and G at the 1 fails, they've still got their butts to their goal line" works both ways: NOT going for 4th and 1 from OUR 9 still means punting from our end zone. Sure, a turnover's worse, but a conversion's much better than a punt the same way a TD's much better than a FG. The only difference field position makes is how deep the hole ALREADY was (or wasn't,) but 4' deeper is 4' deeper regardless; it's still pretty high atop Everest, and the Marianas Trench is still pretty deep even without more digging.

The complete old saying is "opinions are like ******** because everyone has one AND thinks it's the only one that doesn't stink." That's fine, but we're still not debating opinions, and another old saw has it that "everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but NOT their own FACTS." Denying 1+1=2 isn't a difference of opinion, perspective or preference: It's just stubborn error. Again, anyone willing to do that is free to call Elias and tell them they recorded every down, distance and play result WRONG for a CENTURY, but don't expect to "convince" THEM of that.


No kidding. It is highly unlikely Kubiak make's that call if it was on Denver's side. The only time field position is irrelevant is when it's do or die.
No, that's the only time a FG try is better than going for 4th and <6: It's just more obvious sometimes (e.g. midfield, the opponents goal line) than (e.g. our goal line, the opponents 20.)

Any team that can take a 4+ lead with <2:00 left, or ANY lead on the final play, should do so and trust it's D to their job until the offense cup of gatorade is half empty. But in any close game with enough time for both teams to run a 2:00 Drill, finish the job, don't settle for a FG so they can undo that simply by gaining 20-30 yds and an answering FG in <30 SECONDS, or crush you with a walkoff TD.

How many times have we seen that happen? I haven't tracked it closely enough to say precisely, but I bet it happens 2-3 times/week. Meanwhile, 4th and 1 still converts 72% of the time, burning more clock while preserving the option of kicking that walkoff FG whenever one likes (which should be "in the final 30 seconds unless we score a TD first.")

Ravage!!!
10-09-2015, 02:38 PM
And if the first down change get how effective the offense played it would have been called the turning point in the game. Offense was not working, it was an attempt to jump start. Nobody knew this offense would be this ineffective this season. And if we scored a touchdown....still bad call and we got lucky? Hell no you would say, that's Manning for you.

No. I was yelling bad call before the play. I was saying it here, before we attempted. It was a bad call to go for it, successful or not. Luck happens, and its great when its on your side, but just like the reason I didn't want Tebow as my QB. You can't RELY on luck to be successful. You have to play solid football with smart calls and good game planning. It was a risk call, one that shouldn't have been called at that time, imo. The success/failure of the play didn't have anything to do with it being a bad choice.

Ravage!!!
10-09-2015, 02:39 PM
I just don't see how it was bad call when it would have been a first down if it were not for the timeout.

What?

We don't know what the outcome would have been, AND, it was a bad call before the play was snapped. But I went over that above.

Ravage!!!
10-09-2015, 02:43 PM
Yeah, it is, as one of Bill Walshs former starting Bengals QBs proved by compiling several seasons worth of plays to learn possession's worth at each 10 yds down the field: -2 pts at our goal line, 6 pts at theirs and 1 pt for every 12½ yds between the two. Turnover's at our goal line make a bad situation horrible, at their goal line makes a great situation slightly favorable and at their 20 make a good situation neutral. http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/opre.19.2.541

Anyone who wants to dispute that should contact a former NFL season passing leader (thank you, West Coast Offense,) the NFL and the Elias Sports Bureau, but don't kill the messenger.



STILL not an opinion, but CONCRETE REALITY:

1) In nearly a CENTURY of NFL plays, teams with 1st and 10 at the opponents 20 averaged 4 pts off it: Even if the FG were automatic (instead of 90%) it would've been equivalent to GIVING AWAY 1 pt.

2) According to the NFL itself, teams converted 72% of 4th and 1s and missed 10% of 30-39 yd FGs in 2008; 72% of 4 pts=2.86 and 90% of 3 pts=2.66, so going for it's worth 0.2 pts more than kicking.

Denying that isn't just saying, "I dispute your analysis/conclusion" but "that didn't happen, x did." Then call Elias and tell them to correct their play-by-play records: It's 90+ years overdue. That probably still won't convince Virgil Carter though; he not only did the math, but saw it first hand from under center.

This is just numbers, and its hasn't anything to do with coaching while WATCHING your team. You can see "hey, we can't seem to get that LDE blocked." No matter what the numbers say about how often the LDE should be blocked, it doesn't change what's happening ON the field. It's why guys like you aren't coaches, and read books. The game is actually played on the field. Numbers are great, but they don't tell you what the weather is, the wind, the momentum, the feel of the players, the injuries, the "hurting", the way the game is moving, back-ups, line-ups, adjustments, peronnel, defensive allignments or just how things have shown to be ON the field. They are just numbers on a sheet.

Everything you just pointed out to me, means zero when it comes to stategy of football. It's like telling me which is the best QB by looking at the QBR stats. They mean nothing in reality. They are just discussion points, and nothing more.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-09-2015, 02:47 PM
I don't think the clock was that close to running out because he did get the snap off. I think there was a few seconds do left. Kubiak was shown on sideline asking who called timeout.

The play clock was at zero for a full second before the ball was snapped.

Joel
10-09-2015, 03:02 PM
No kidding. It is highly unlikely Kubiak make's that call if it was on Denver's side. The only time field position is irrelevant is when it's do or die.
Actually, let's play out this scenario (which I concede Kubiak and every other coach would be unlikely to do.) 1st and 10 at our 20 is a historically breakeven proposition: BOTH teams are equally likely get equal points first. Maybe not on the current drive, or the next; maybe not even till the last play of the half—but EACH team has the same 50% chance to score the same amount of points NEXT.

Switching possession at the same field position shifts that to the new offense by a 4:1 ratio, while switching possession after gaining 9 yds and punting 45 yds (the NFL net average last year) makes it pretty close to 1st and 10 at their own 20 for the OTHER team. The cost of the turnover is the difference and, as EVERYWHERE, is 4 pts. And it makes not a whit of difference which end of that equation either team is on; stopping us on 4th and 1 got KC back to break even when they were previously in the hole for an average of 4 pts, and if it had happened at OUR 20 WE'D have gone from break even to -4 pts.

Four points is four points is four points. Claiming otherwise is like saying, "well, a TD's 7 pts SOME places, but being in the red zone's ALREADY such good field position a TD THERE's only worth 4 pts." No, a TD's always 7 (assuming the 90+% likely PAT is good) a FG's always 3, a safety's always 2 and a turnover's always 4 pts, even if the last is a historical rather than immediate occurrence. It's certainly possible that ONE of the 28% of times a team fails to convert 4th and 1 at the opponents 20, even the best D will surrender an 80 yd TD drive; ours did.

It's equally likely to make a pick-six, return a fumble for a TD, or just trade punts until we end up scoring first ANYWAY, because that's what a century of play-by-plays says HAPPENED.

Joel
10-09-2015, 03:14 PM
This is just numbers, and its hasn't anything to do with coaching while WATCHING your team. You can see "hey, we can't seem to get that LDE blocked." No matter what the numbers say about how often the LDE should be blocked, it doesn't change what's happening ON the field. It's why guys like you aren't coaches, and read books. The game is actually played on the field. Numbers are great, but they don't tell you what the weather is, the wind, the momentum, the feel of the players, the injuries, the "hurting", the way the game is moving, back-ups, line-ups, adjustments, peronnel, defensive allignments or just how things have shown to be ON the field. They are just numbers on a sheet.

Everything you just pointed out to me, means zero when it comes to stategy of football. It's like telling me which is the best QB by looking at the QBR stats. They mean nothing in reality. They are just discussion points, and nothing more.
Again: Tell it to Virgil Carter, who PLAYED QB 7 more NFL seasons than "guys like you," started 2 of them, logged the leagues best completion percentage one of them and was literally the guy Walsh designed the West Coast Offense around, because he had elite accuracy and brains but mediocre arm strength. In the offseason between his two starting seasons he ALSO completed his Masters and co-authored an analysis of the game based on several seasons worth of PLAYS (i.e. "in reality" not "just numbers") but that shouldn't blind us to what he learned about the NFL as a participant.

HE'S the guy telling us turnover's are worth 4 pts EVERYWHERE (though heaven knows plenty of people have cited him in the past 45 years) so feel free to call him up and offer the benefit of your greater first hand college "experience" with what he made a good LIVING at for 7 seasons. Fortunately, he didn't make the mistake of thinking literacy somehow disqualified him as an athlete (or vice versa.)

Short form: It's 1) what ACTUALLY HISTORICALLY HAPPENED, not just "opinion" and 2) comes from a FORMER STARTING NFL QB, not just a book. You're welcome and encouraged to call the former starting NFL QB and the NFLs official record keeping agency to tell them your semesters of college ball refute their lying eyes; my only request is that you record and send me a copy, 'cause I'd LOVE to hear it. ;)

TXBRONC
10-09-2015, 03:15 PM
What?

We don't know what the outcome would have been, AND, it was a bad call before the play was snapped. But I went over that above.

Sorry Rav I don't agree with. We know exactly what the result of the play would have been because the play actually exectuted.

Ravage!!!
10-09-2015, 03:18 PM
Sorry Rav I don't agree with. We know exactly what the result of the play would have been because the play actually exectuted.

Maybe. We don't know how many players heard whistles, watched coaches/manning trying to call timeout. I'm just saying, we don't REALLY know at all.

Ravage!!!
10-09-2015, 03:23 PM
Again: Tell it to Virgil Carter, who PLAYED QB 7 more NFL seasons than "guys like you," started 2 of them, logged the leagues best completion percentage one of them and was literally the guy Walsh designed the West Coast Offense around, because he had elite accuracy and brains but mediocre arm strength. In the offseason between his two starting seasons he ALSO completed his Masters and co-authored an analysis of the game based on several seasons worth of PLAYS (i.e. "in reality" not "just numbers") but that shouldn't blind us to what he learned about the NFL as a participant.

HE'S the guy telling us turnover's are worth 4 pts EVERYWHERE (though heaven knows plenty of people have cited him in the past 45 years) so feel free to call him up and offer the benefit of your greater first hand college "experience" with what he made a good LIVING at for 7 seasons. Fortunately, he didn't make the mistake of thinking literacy somehow disqualified him as an athlete (or vice versa.)

Short form: It's 1) what ACTUALLY HISTORICALLY HAPPENED, not just "opinion" and 2) comes from a FORMER STARTING NFL QB, not just a book. You're welcome and encouraged to call the former starting NFL QB and the NFLs official record keeping agency to tell them your semesters of college ball refute their lying eyes; my only request is that you record and send me a copy, 'cause I'd LOVE to hear it. ;)

Ok.. so I disagree with him and HIS opinion. You are the one repeating his 'theory/opinion'... and I'm telling YOU that the numbers/statistics doesn't take everything into account, thus I don't fall for it. I don't have to call/write to him to tell him that I don't agree with his book material, because its not that important to me, and he's not the one spouting off how field position doesn't make a difference to decisions...YOU are.

You keep spouting off "His" words without giving me something that makes sense as to how it justifies the call/decision, as well as to how "field position doesn't make a difference." NOTHING you have stated (or quoted) holds up. HE may have made a living from playing, but that doesn't mean his 'theory' is fact, at all. It's just coffee table talk.

Joel
10-09-2015, 03:31 PM
Sorry Rav I don't agree with. We know exactly what the result of the play would have been because the play actually exectuted.
Yeaaaah, that's pretty much "my" WHOLE ARGUMENT in this thread; it's evidently far less indisputable (self-evident?) than one would expect. ;)

For the sake of argument though, we don't know how many defenders pulled up once they heard the whistle, nor what they would've done absent ANY whistle. The fact they stuffed us the previous two and following one play, however, and the fact our blocking (run or pass) has been pitiful all season to this point, strongly suggest they would've just stuffed us yet again. But I still say our lines inability to just get SURGE equal to 2 yds in 3 plays reflects more on the garbage blocking Fox and Gase left Kubiak than anything else.

Ravage!!!
10-09-2015, 04:19 PM
Yeaaaah, that's pretty much "my" WHOLE ARGUMENT in this thread; it's evidently far less indisputable (self-evident?) than one would expect. ;)

For the sake of argument though, we don't know how many defenders pulled up once they heard the whistle, nor what they would've done absent ANY whistle. The fact they stuffed us the previous two and following one play, however, and the fact our blocking (run or pass) has been pitiful all season to this point, strongly suggest they would've just stuffed us yet again. But I still say our lines inability to just get SURGE equal to 2 yds in 3 plays reflects more on the garbage blocking Fox and Gase left Kubiak than anything else.

well, yeah. I mean, that helps eleviate any blame on Kubiak, so I'm sure you do.

Joel
10-09-2015, 04:22 PM
Ok.. so I disagree with him and HIS opinion. You are the one repeating his 'theory/opinion'... and I'm telling YOU that the numbers/statistics doesn't take everything into account, thus I don't fall for it. I don't have to call/write to him to tell him that I don't agree with his book material, because its not that important to me, and he's not the one spouting off how field position doesn't make a difference to decisions...YOU are.
Again: NOT an opinion, PHYSICAL FACT; (well) documented history. We're not debating which car's most fun to drive, but which has the most horsepower: A concrete reality that can and has been irrefutably determined. It's not literally "indisputable," because ANYTHING can be disputed by anyone willing—but it's no more disputable than whether the Earth revolves around the sun, for the same reason.


You keep spouting off "His" words without giving me something that makes sense as to how it justifies the call/decision, as well as to how "field position doesn't make a difference." NOTHING you have stated (or quoted) holds up. HE may have made a living from playing, but that doesn't mean his 'theory' is fact, at all. It's just coffee table talk.
*shrugs* Read his paper; heaven knows I've linked it enough, it's shorter than this thread, and insisting a former NFL starter doesn't understand his profession as well as a former amateur player is assuming a duty to prove that. Note: You'll need more than "this is why readers like a former NFL starter don't know the NFL as well as those of us who played in school." If you're a "readist," that's your choice, fault and problem, no one elses, but Carter daring to get a graduate degree in math doesn't negate his NFL playing experience. Once more, with feeling: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/opre.19.2.541

Here's an NFL. com article citing the 4th and 1 conversion percentage the last time it was a (relatively) big story: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d80bd5485/article/faced-with-fourth-and-1-why-not-go-for-it

Rounding it out, last years NFL stats on 1) 30-39 yd FG% and 2) punting (not relevant to our situation, but critical to the general "go for it" debate.) http://www.pro-football-reference.com/pi/share/jQwUO

Note: All those "numbers" are the rate things happened in REALITY, not "my" "opinion" or "just numbers." Try telling the IRS to ignore your adjusted gross income because it's "just numbers." We know:

1) Teams with 1st and 10 at the opponents 20 score an average of 4 pts before that opponent, but at their OWN 20 it's break even (per Carter.)
2) Teams convert 72% of 4th and 1s (per the NFL.)
3) Teams miss 10% of 30-39 yd FGs (per Pro Football Reference.)
4) A FG is 3 pts (per the NFL) SO
5) On 4th and 1 at an opponents 20, going for it historically produces an average of 0.72*4=2.88 pts, but a FG try 0.9*3=2.7 pts, thus:

Going for 4th and 1 at the opponents 20 is historically ~0.2 pts better than a FG try. That's ignoring the field position lost on a FG try (worth another 0.05 pts.)

Yes, our conversion odds were lower because our offense sucked all game, as every game so far, but our odds of getting SCORED on were also lower because our DEFENSE dominated all game, as every game so far. Our great D outweighed our awful offense all game, as every game so far. Again, in REALITY, not "opinion," theory or whatever else one wants to call CONCRETE but distasteful FACTS.

NightTerror218
10-09-2015, 04:31 PM
Joel you claim it's fact, does it take into account change in the rules, does it take into account the edition of players, bigger, faster, syronger? Does it take I to account style of offense verse style of defense on any given play? Does it take I to account talent of offense or defense?

My point is that there are so oooooo many variables that I belive that paper is crap. It is not reality, it use historical data to determine averages and then formed data around that.

But you can not take that paper and give me the odds any given plays results. It does not take I to account a teams momentum. IMO going for it on 4th down was all about getting Manning and the offense are little boost of momentum to get offense going.

And it makes no sense saying it's worth 4 put or whatever. Only thing that matters to any coach is the score board. TDs and FGs.

Ravage!!!
10-09-2015, 04:32 PM
The stats that you are using or accumilated stats. Everything is fact...after the act.

If I hear our HC tells the the media during the post-game interview that he decided to kick the 50 yrd FG instead of punting because the % of made kicks vs the chances of a punter putting the ball inside the 10, are greater... is the day I scream we fire the coach before he gets off the podium.

Please.. quit telling me that your "facts"... the past %'s of accumilated play statistics... are reasons for a coach to go for it on 4th and 1 ANYWHERE on the field purely because you read a paper written by a guy that used to play in the NFL. It doesn't raise the validity of your statement, NOR his.

They are interesting statistics to look at, but they certainly have no place in individual decisions based on what's going on during the game on the field. This isn't poker, where the number of variables is a given, and the statistical chances of something happening are always the same EVERY time. It's why stats are fun to read, and look at, but past that....they don't have much relevance in the game. It's why judging a QBs play based on stats, alone, doesn't really hold water.

Joel
10-09-2015, 04:33 PM
well, yeah. I mean, that helps eleviate any blame on Kubiak, so I'm sure you do.
Well, I concede first DISCOVERING the point in an excellent book, but Kubiak was a backup QB then, so had and has no bearing on it. It's a fine example of the solid, deep and thorough knowledge of football I love about him, but otherwise just a happy coincidence. However, IF we want to discuss an "opinion" of Kubiaks performance b(i)ased on "opinions" of him PERSONALLY, SOMEONE in this thread IS qualified. Far be it from me to let "my" factual reality get in the way of your personal feelings. ;)

Ravage!!!
10-09-2015, 04:35 PM
Well, I concede first DISCOVERING the point in an excellent book, but Kubiak was a backup QB then, so had and has no bearing on it. It's a fine example of the solid, deep and thorough knowledge of football I love about him, but otherwise just a happy coincidence. However, IF we want to discuss an "opinion" of Kubiaks performance b(i)ased on "opinions" of him PERSONALLY, SOMEONE in this thread IS qualified. Far be it from me to let "my" factual reality get in the way of your personal feelings. ;)

So now you are telling me that your opinion, as to the reason we didn't convert, is a fact?

Joel
10-09-2015, 04:54 PM
Joel you claim it's fact, does it take into account change in the rules, does it take into account the edition of players, bigger, faster, syronger? Does it take I to account style of offense verse style of defense on any given play? Does it take I to account talent of offense or defense?
It only considers rules changes to that point, but since that was at least half a century since the rules put TBs on the 20 and 1st and 10 there was STILL break even, maybe the rules haven't changed the facts on the ground much. The MANNER of scoring is different, but that's about it; if anything (as others have noted in this thread) recent rules changes have only made it EASIER for offenses, meaning 1) 4th and 1 conversion rates are necessarily higher and 2) giving the other team a possession and trustings ones defense is more costly than ever.

If we accept the increasingly popular (but false) view rules have made passing so easy field position is ITSELF irrelevant, that makes the chance of scoring (or being scored on) SOLELY a function of possession. And one rule HASN'T changed: Unless we kick onside and/or KC mishandles the ball, they ALWAYS get possession after that drive; the only variable is if and how many points we score first.


My point is that there are so oooooo many variables that I belive that paper is crap. It is not reality, it use historical data to determine averages and then formed data around that.
No, it used historical DATA to form CONCLUSIONS, because that's what statistics IS. They didn't fit data to the curve, the fit a curve to the data, as they're SUPPOSED to do.


But you can not take that paper and give me the odds any given plays results. It does not take I to account a teams momentum. IMO going for it on 4th down was all about getting Manning and the offense are little boost of momentum to get offense going.

No, it doesn't quantify momentum, because momentum is so unquantifiable its very EXISTENCE is often debated. These are adult elite professionals; they don't run crying home to their mommas the first time two straight plays go against them. Tendencies and trends are bigger than momentum, because momentum only matters to the extent players LET it.


And it makes no sense saying it's worth 4 put or whatever. Only thing that matters to any coach is the score board. TDs and FGs.
Right, but ability to score is a function of field position and time, and ALL points are purely theroetical unless/until "actually" on the board. 10% of the time that FG try is wide, the snap's wild, the holds bobbled; Hell, we blocked a PAT against Detroit. If we were debating whether to accept a penalty AFTER a SUCCESSFUL FG, that'd be different, because probability vs. actuality. But going for it risked a total of 0 points ON THE BOARD, so we're only comparing one probability to another. The conversions probability times its value is ~¼ pts better than a FG try, so Kubiak made the right call. Twice now.

Joel
10-09-2015, 05:05 PM
The stats that you are using or accumilated stats. Everything is fact...after the act.

If I hear our HC tells the the media during the post-game interview that he decided to kick the 50 yrd FG instead of punting because the % of made kicks vs the chances of a punter putting the ball inside the 10, are greater... is the day I scream we fire the coach before he gets off the podium.

Please.. quit telling me that your "facts"... the past %'s of accumilated play statistics... are reasons for a coach to go for it on 4th and 1 ANYWHERE on the field purely because you read a paper written by a guy that used to play in the NFL. It doesn't raise the validity of your statement, NOR his.

They are interesting statistics to look at, but they certainly have no place in individual decisions based on what's going on during the game on the field. This isn't poker, where the number of variables is a given, and the statistical chances of something happening are always the same EVERY time. It's why stats are fun to read, and look at, but past that....they don't have much relevance in the game. It's why judging a QBs play based on stats, alone, doesn't really hold water.
Then why do we care about ANY stats; why do we even care about field position? Just because all PAST teams scored a lot more from their opponents goal line than their own doesn't mean anything to CURRENT teams, who are captains of their OWN talent, drive, heart etc. etc. Why does Win Probability exist? Oh, right: Because the former college players who wrote that book I like CREATED it an incidental part of the rest of the book, much like their citation of Carter and Machols paper (gotta admit, I had to take their word for it for a lot of years before easy internet searches let me check.)

Lemme see if I have this straight: I should defer to the wisdom of your greater amateur playing experience, but you're free to REJECT the wisdom of Carters greater PROFESSIONAL playing experience? Can we just shorten that to "Ravage!!! is ALWAYS right, even when explicitly and directly contradicting his own arguments?"


So now you are telling me that your opinion, as to the reason we didn't convert, is a fact?
What? No, WHY the attempt failed is wholly separate from WHETHER it should've tried. If we'd kicked instead and it had been one of those 10% fluke misses from 30-39, would that convince you we should've gone for it? Or if the conversion HAD succeeded and we scored a TD? No, because doing the right thing wrong doesn't make it any less right and doing the wrong thing right doesn't make it any less wrong. Sometimes playing the odds loses, and sometimes betting against the odds wins; that's life.

Yet the law of averages says it's usually the other way around, so consistently playing the odds eventually comes out ahead; the 4th and G on Detroits 1 looks pretty good right now. I have lots of opinions WHY the attempt failed, and freely admit they're just that. But usually HAPPENS (immediately and eventually) IF there's an attempt is factual physical reality as tangible as a pancake block (often literally.)

Meh, if (since) you've got an ax to grind with Kubiak I can't stop you and won't try; he'll either "win championships" and stay, or won't and won't. I definitely see why Houston fired him for ONE awful season when every All Pro was on IR and Schaub was flaming out; they're doing SO much better now: LAST place in the AFCs WORST division, unable to even win a home game against a mediocre Colts team that started the only QB as old as Manning (and fresh off an early morning ER trip at that.) The additions of Mallet and Hoyer show Rick Smith retains his fine eye for QB talent.

TXBRONC
10-09-2015, 08:36 PM
Joel you claim it's fact, does it take into account change in the rules, does it take into account the edition of players, bigger, faster, syronger? Does it take I to account style of offense verse style of defense on any given play? Does it take I to account talent of offense or defense?

My point is that there are so oooooo many variables that I belive that paper is crap. It is not reality, it use historical data to determine averages and then formed data around that.

But you can not take that paper and give me the odds any given plays results. It does not take I to account a teams momentum. IMO going for it on 4th down was all about getting Manning and the offense are little boost of momentum to get offense going.

And it makes no sense saying it's worth 4 put or whatever. Only thing that matters to any coach is the score board. TDs and FGs.

I don't think he's really taking any of these things into account.

NightTerror218
10-10-2015, 01:16 AM
I don't think he's really taking any of these things into account.

That is my point way to many variables to even try to scientifically try to calculate it.

Yashahla17
10-10-2015, 06:56 AM
I like kubiak i just hope when it matters he has the backbone to sit manning unlike john fox when its clear manning is hurting the team.

Ravage!!!
10-10-2015, 09:49 AM
I like kubiak i just hope when it matters he has the backbone to sit manning unlike john fox when its clear manning is hurting the team.

He won't, and shouldn't. When is that moment? Because of injury?

Brock has proved zero in the NFL, and until this season is "over".... or Manning is hurt...it would be absurd to expect Manning to be sat down because of play when he can still read defenses better than anyone.

Yashahla17
10-10-2015, 10:12 AM
The moment should be the game before the bye week so brock can get fully ready. And kubiak system has won some rings the west coast zone scheme has won plenty rings. The manning offense has won regular season games. Big deal. The guy is done. All i need to do to validate manning being done is sunday vs oakland when he stinks it up yet again. Guaranteed charles woodson or some raider gets a pick six.

By the way you can read a defense all you want but if that same brain is telling that body to do something about the defense you just read and your body says i cant then it doesn't matter how much reading you can do.

Slick
10-10-2015, 10:16 AM
The moment should be the game before the bye week so brock can get fully ready. And kubiak system has won some rings the west coast zone scheme has won plenty rings. The manning offense has won regular season games. Big deal. The guy is done. All i need to do to validate manning being done is sunday vs oakland when he stinks it up yet again. Guaranteed charles woodson or some raider gets a pick six.

If Denver starts losing games because of Manning, a move will happen. Until then you're just going to have to deal with it.

Yashahla17
10-10-2015, 10:31 AM
If Denver starts losing games because of Manning, a move will happen. Until then you're just going to have to deal with it.

Your correct. Still taste bad though.

Denver Native (Carol)
10-10-2015, 10:36 AM
If I remember correctly, in all 4 wins, YES, the defense made a play to save the win; HOWEVER, in the 4th qtr., it was the offense who scored to put the Broncos ahead, and then the defense to secure the win.

Ravage!!!
10-10-2015, 11:04 AM
Your correct. Still taste bad though.

Tastes bad that Manning is winning with the Broncos? Careful, your colors are showing.

Ravage!!!
10-10-2015, 11:09 AM
The moment should be the game before the bye week so brock can get fully ready. And kubiak system has won some rings the west coast zone scheme has won plenty rings. The manning offense has won regular season games. Big deal. The guy is done. All i need to do to validate manning being done is sunday vs oakland when he stinks it up yet again. Guaranteed charles woodson or some raider gets a pick six.

By the way you can read a defense all you want but if that same brain is telling that body to do something about the defense you just read and your body says i cant then it doesn't matter how much reading you can do.

Why wouldn't Brock be "fully loaded" now?

Kubiak's system hasn't won anything since he's been a HC. He's not teamed up with other great HCs while he's the OC as he was in Denver and Baltimore. As HC, he's been pretty pedestrian...at best. So don't tell me "kubiak's system" has wont plenty of rings, because that's 100% incorrect.

I'll bet anything you want that a Raider doesn't get a pick 6


By the way you can read a defense all you want but if that same brain is telling that body to do something about the defense you just read and your body says i cant then it doesn't matter how much reading you can do.
Completely inaccurate.

I Eat Staples
10-10-2015, 12:23 PM
A lot of people in this thread remind me of the old baseball folks who refuse to accept sabermetrics and cling to their antiquated cliches such as "you can't measure heart!" and "the will to win!"

The reason most NFL coaches are so horribly inefficient at doing their jobs is because most are former players who are too stubborn to admit that football, at least at the NFL level, is not about being bigger, stronger, and faster than your opponent. It's not some macho, mano y mano, battle of willpower. It's about numbers, analytics, schemes, strategies, etc. Sure, at the college level Ohio State can dominate Indiana just by being more talented, but at the NFL level everyone is a pro.

Stats are never meaningless. That's just absurd. If studies show that x will result in y 55% of the time, then that's literally all there is to it. It's not more complicated than that. With the information we have available to us in this day and age, there's absolutely no excuse for coaches to coach with such an outdated mentality. The only reason we haven't evolved is because the few smart coaches are too afraid of being fired by GMs and/or owners who are even more archaic than the average coach. At some point, someone will be confident enough to do the SMART thing and play the percentages in every situation, and everyone else will realize that's the right thing to do, or watch them celebrate their multiple championships.

Ravage!!!
10-10-2015, 12:43 PM
A lot of people in this thread remind me of the old baseball folks who refuse to accept sabermetrics and cling to their antiquated cliches such as "you can't measure heart!" and "the will to win!"

The reason most NFL coaches are so horribly inefficient at doing their jobs is because most are former players who are too stubborn to admit that football, at least at the NFL level, is not about being bigger, stronger, and faster than your opponent. It's not some macho, mano y mano, battle of willpower. It's about numbers, analytics, schemes, strategies, etc. Sure, at the college level Ohio State can dominate Indiana just by being more talented, but at the NFL level everyone is a pro.

Stats are never meaningless. That's just absurd. If studies show that x will result in y 55% of the time, then that's literally all there is to it. It's not more complicated than that. With the information we have available to us in this day and age, there's absolutely no excuse for coaches to coach with such an outdated mentality. The only reason we haven't evolved is because the few smart coaches are too afraid of being fired by GMs and/or owners who are even more archaic than the average coach. At some point, someone will be confident enough to do the SMART thing and play the percentages in every situation, and everyone else will realize that's the right thing to do, or watch them celebrate their multiple championships.

At the same time, Staples, Numbers are jsut numbers. The game is fluid, the stats can't account for all the variables in the game. Studies can give you the results of past attempts, but they don't account for the variable at the given time of your decision. They can't. They can be a reference, at best. Knowing what percentage ALL kickers kick at 47yrds doesn't apply if I know that MY kicker kicks at a different percentage at that distance. If I'm watching my team and can see that they aren't able to gain 2 yrds on all previous rush attempts... knowing that going for 4th and 1 has yielded a 55% conversion rate over the last 30 years... doesn't apply to My team at THAT moment. It just doesn't.

Its great to appreciate analytics and numbers, but they aren't the end-all to decisions. If they were, coaches would simply pull out their spreadsheets while sitting at the booth, and call down the plays because the computer says its the best time to throw the screen pass because it's had the best success % against this team on 3rd down.

As many times as they've tried, they can't come up with a mathmatical formula that actually gives you a REAL representation of how well a QB played. If anyone takes the QBR seriously, its because they are just relying on a numerical value to associate to soemthing they don't understand. It's why the QB rating was derived to start with. To make it simple for the fans that couldn't watch the games. No different now.

Math has statistics based on an accumilation of past events. But they don't account for everything involved, which is why human brain power is actually needed to decifer the events on the field, happening, at the moment.