Thread: Gary Kubiak shows confidence in Broncos with calculated risk

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

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.)

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

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.

Originally Posted by Joel

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.

Originally Posted by Joel

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.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

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/pd.../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.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Joel

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.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

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.

Joel I do not think you will win over anyone with this debate over irrelevance with field position.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

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.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

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.

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

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.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

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.")