Thread: Gary Kubiak shows confidence in Broncos with calculated risk

Originally Posted by Joel

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?

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

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.

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

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.

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

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.

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

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.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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?"

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

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.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Yashahla17

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Yashahla17

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.

Originally Posted by Slick

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Yashahla17

Your correct. Still taste bad though.

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

Originally Posted by Yashahla17

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.

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.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

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.