As everyone begins to look forward to the draft, we're going to take one last look back on the Kubiak Konundrum, at the year that was. Undoubtedly, some fans will never will embrace Kubes no matter what he does. I even heard some talk show callers saying before the Ravens game that Kubiak needed to go even if the Texans won the Super Bowl. Such calls make you know their true fandom lies in their own "genius" and not the well being of the Texans as a franchise.

However, here we have had a refreshing group of commenters, who have been willing to take an honest look at evaluating the coaching decisions. Sure, that whole newfangled winning thing makes the discourse a lot more pleasant. We didn't have to pull out our hair over halfback passes. The ongoing Kubiak-is-challenged-on-challenges joke reared its unseemly head a few times early in the season, but a winning streak then challenged that prevailing notion. Whether to kick field goals of a certain lengths proved troublesome, but that issue was as much on the unreliable kicking as the coach.

Mainly, I want to reiterate two points I made late in the season about what I have taken from the Kubiak Konundrum experiment.

Continue reading this post »

So proud. I don’t have any game analysis to provide that already hasn’t been beaten to death. No witticisms today. I’m too emotionally drained still, half a week later. But proud.

Instead, we’ll get straight to the decisions of the day.

1=terrible call, 2=negative, 3=neutral, 4=positive, and 5=outstanding.

Continue reading this post »

So, I went to rewatch the game first Texans Ravens game tonight on the DVR and discovered there was a dvr mishap. Luckily, I remembered a tweet about it being replayed tonight and went to NFL Network and the game was one minute in progress. Touchdowns.

A few thoughts I tweeted:

Man, I knew I felt better than most after the game and rewatching it only cemented that feeling. We were going with them toe to toe until 7 minutes left in the fourth. A drive stalled at their forty and then an inability to move the ball in the next drive doomed us. We just didn't make a play or two. That's all. Sometimes it happens.

To the whole "we didn't have Matt Schaub" line of thinking, I'm not even going to mention the absence of Andre Johnson. I'll instead mention that Schaub had a very pedestrian game. Managed the game in first half, one great throw to Jacoby in the third quarter, and then for about the last fifteen minutes of the game, he was visibly hurting and didn't play well. Nothing Weejay can't do.

Let me emphasize how much he was struggling physically. I didn't remember this, but he was struggling to walk on that ankle.

Of Flacco's two big throws, one was Kareem getting beat. Could easily happen again. But, the other had to have been one of the best throws of Flacco's life. I'll take my chances he won't make that play again.

Ray Rice was absolutely bottled up until the last eight minutes. At one point he had 45 yards on 13 carries. Our defense just wore down. Other than our touchdown drive (which was quick in its own right), the offense gave up the ball way too quickly, so the D wearing down was understandable but I don't think worrisome.

All in all, I feel much better about the game. At this point, I think it's a toss up.

Some quick hitters:

Arian Foster truly had Namaste karma working for him. Two fumbles right back into his arms. Yes, Namaste, y'all.

J.J. Mother****in' KillaWatt! That's all.

Weejay to Andre is a beautiful thing.

Chris Crocker, you will always have a place in my heart.

Wade Phillips connecting us to Bum and the HOUSTON Oilers. Also, a beautiful thing.

10 years of pent up aggression exploding in Reliant. I wish I could have been there.

I know this little section of Battle Red Blog that we call the Kubiak Konundrum is for analyzing game management decisions and not for cheering, but unfreakingbelievable!!!!! I'm so proud of the players, and, yes, of Kubes.

Remember after the Falcons game when I said that it is a great Texans world we're living in when our coach is the one that clearly outcoached the other side in a contest between two playoff contending teams? Well, yes. Yes, it is. And even better that I can amend that comment to get rid of the "contending" part.

While Kubiak didn't get tested much in the game management department because of the lopsided score, he did shine by the simple nature of who he was not: namely, Marvin Lewis.

Continue reading this post »

Any audio geeks know how to turn this into a downloadable MP3? Even better, with Texans edited in for Oilers?

http://mp3.rapidlibrary.com/mp3.php?file=167392&song=houston+oilers

I know it might be bad mojo to use something Oilers for the postseason, so I promise not to use it until the offseason.

word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word

Sadly, the last installment of the regular season 2012 Kubiak Konundrum has arrived. And, lest you think the first division championship in franchise history has quieted the Kubiak hate, the last three losses have brought the anti-Kubiak crowd out in full force. Talk shows Wednesday morning (and I’m sure throughout the week) revolved more around the fact that people weren’t happy with Kubes than enjoying the playoff atmosphere to come. While the talk show crowd is in general a far less rational crowd than the loyal BRB readers (game day alcohol infused panic in the game day threads aside), I have no doubt through discussions with friends ranging from casual to, well, fanatical that Kubiak still has a lot to prove in the eyes of many, if not necessarily in the playoffs with a third string quarterback than for sure in the seasons to come.

That’s fine. Even fair. Coaches have to prove themselves every year, especially ones that don’t have a ring or two of goodwill in the bank and even ones that do (see Andy Reid for the former, Tom Coughlin for the latter).

But, the goal here was to analyze Kubiak’s in-game management this season without our preconceptions. To get rid of our in-game emotions as much as possible and evaluate with a level head.

The Titans finale might have tested that resolve more than any game this year. It shouldn’t have. The game was meaningless. Despite all the talk about needing momentum, you knew this was a different affair when you turned on the TV and saw Joseph, Arian, and OD were inactive. At that point, I sighed and resolved myself to a game of second and third stringers. Because, as much as I might have known Kubiak was making the right decision, I wanted to beat the damn BESFs and keep them out of the playoffs more than ever.

Continue reading this post »

Last week’s installment of the Kubiak Konundrum was abbreviated because I had to leave town before re-watching the Carolina game. Alas, in my hurry to leave town, I also forgot to dvr the Colts game. It might seem like I’ve been mailing it in these last two weeks, but that’s not the case. I wanted to rewatch the games in preparation for the weekly installment of the Kubiak Konundrum, but I just got sidetracked with the holidays and didn't take care of the business at hand. So, much like the Texans, I don’t think it was a lack of commitment or effort but a clear loss of focus.

But, much like our team, there is no excuse. I can only make do with what I have and pay my penance, which was having to rewatch the Panthers game and scroll through the Colts game threads looking for possible decisions to evaluate. All in the same day. My heart hurts. I'll do better this week, and let’s hope Kubiak's boys do the same.

1=terrible call, 2=negative, 3=neutral, 4=positive, and 5=outstanding

Carolina Panthers Game

In my truncated post, I noted MDC's questioning of Kubiak's decision to kick a field goal on third and eight down 21-3 with just over five minutes left in the 3rd quarter. I left the call to a vote, and it seems most people agreed it was at the very least not a bad call. While 41% thought the decision was a 4, there were enough people who thought it was a 3 or below for me to downgrade it to a neutral 3. Honestly, I don't think it was much of a decision either way, so a 3 seems to fit.

No one had comments on other questionable decisions, and I didn't see any upon finally getting to rewatch the game, so I'll leave the Panthers game to that one decision.

Indianapolis Colts Game

As I said, I searched high and low to find a way to rewatch the game. I decided against paying for the game rewind just for one week and instead scoured the game threads. I should have paid the $24.99. That wasn't fun.

Most of the vitriol from the threads was rightfully spewing at the refs. There was also plenty of hatred towards the reigns put on Weejay, with which I mostly agree. I'd rather see him try and fail a more aggressive game plan now than in the playoffs. However, I do wonder how much of that was the plays called and how much was TJ not finding anything downfield with Andre out and OD hurting. Either way, playcall isn't really something at which we've been looking in the Konundrum.

The only game management decision I saw questioned came late in the game, but as always hit the comments up if you saw something else to be discussed.

4Q. 4:58 left. Up 13-12. Ball on Colts 13. 4th and 2.
Many people on the thread were urging Kubiak to go for the first down. Honestly, the thought never crossed my BRBPalooza infested brain. Being that the Colts hadn't scored a touchdown all game, a four point lead seemed safe. The results were mixed as Rackers made the field goal, but the defense gave up the game. The referees involvement in the final drive certainly tempers any criticism I might have. Still, I don't even think it was a decision. Some of you do though, so we'll let the poll decide.

Colts Game:

1 play: TBD

Season Totals:

1: 1 play
2: 7 plays
3: 13 plays
4: 11 plays
5: 2 plays

Poll

Was Kubiak's decision to kick a field goal rather than go for a fourth and two . . .

21%

1 -- The reason he'll always be Konserviak.

4 votes

5%

2 -- A tough call that didn't work out.

1 votes

10%

3 -- Just football.

2 votes

57%

4 -- A good evaluation of his and the other team's strengths and weaknesses.

11 votes

5%

5 -- An outstanding call. @$##@$#@$ Refs!

1 votes

19 votes | Poll has closed

So, because of the Christmas holiday, I hopped on a plane first thing Monday morning to head back to HTown and didn't have time to rewatch the game. Therefore, I'm going to postpone this week's analysis and double dip next week. Do me a Christmas solid and let me know in the comments what decisions you want me to look for when I go back over the tape.

I did see in the Two Day Hangover that MDC questioned Kubiak's decision to kick a field goal down 21-3 with just over five minutes left in the third quarter. Had there been less than five yards to go, I might agree, but as the Texans needed eight yards on fourth down, I thought it was a no brainer to kick it and make the game a two score affair (with a two point conversion thrown in) with almost a quarter and a half left. Let's preempt next week's discussion in the poll.

In the meantime, I will be at BRBPalooza on Thursday, so feel free to come up and tell me how horribly misguided one of my evaluations of a Kubiak call has been. Convince me I'm wrong, and I'll buy you a Shiner.

An updated look at the scorecard pre Panthers game. Kubiak's challenge in the Bengals game has been adjusted from a 2 to a 3 by popular demand:

Season Totals:

1: 1 play
2: 7 plays
3: 12 plays
4: 11 plays
5: 2 plays

Poll

Should Kubiak have kicked the field goal with just over five minutes left in the third quarter?

12%

1 -- No, a gutless decision that admitted defeat.

3 votes

16%

2 -- Weak call but the game wasn't over.

4 votes

29%

3 -- Eh. We were damned either way.

7 votes

41%

4 -- Good call. Kept us in the game.

10 votes

24 votes | Poll has closed

Wow. Just wow.

I mean, wow.

Remember a couple weeks ago on the Kubiak Konundrum when I said you can't truly love a team until it fully breaks your heart, and that maybe the Leinart injury on top of the Schaub injury was setting us up for the necessary playoff heartbreak? Who was I kidding?

I'm not sure if this team's regular season flair for disastrous debacles the last couple of years has sufficiently broken my heart or if my thesis was flawed to begin with. But as I watched the last furious minutes of our game, as I flipped quickly over to watch the Titans re-pay us the merest fraction of what they owe, as I listened and watched the players' celebrations back at Reliant over and over, I knew I couldn't love this team any more than I did then. Any more than I do now. No more heartbreak needed. Seriously, please. Let's just skip that part. Our NT might not have the necessary inertia to clog the middle, but perhaps this snowball's-chance-in-hell of a team has the momentum to roll all the way to Indy.

I hate to strike any chord of negativity after that gorgeously ugly display by the Texans, and I would give Kubiak vastly different marks if judging overall on the game. Still, here we're looking at game management, and it wasn't the best day for the battlin' aw-shuckser that we call coach:

Continue reading this post »

Anyone know where to find the Vandermeer audio of the final play? Can't seem to find it on Texans website or 610.

In order to hit the limit, I'll add some nice links:

Interview from Andre. Might make you cry: http://houston.cbslocal.com/2011/12/11/andre-johnson-texans-fans-are-appreciated/
Fun player shenanigans: http://www.houstontexans.com/tv-media/videos/Fans-Welcome-home-AFC-South-Champs/81bea8bd-ba60-49af-ab57-259d47a6a2ab

This week on the Kubiak Konundrum, I'm going to lead not with my usual senseless blather but with an evaluation of a specific decision because it says more than I ever could.

4Q. Approx 2:28 left. 2nd and 9. 17-10, Texans lead.
After the Texans ran for a gain of about a yard, Atlanta used its last timeout. Kubiak was faced with the decision simply to run the ball two more times or to get a little more aggressive and try one pass attempt. The former would basically concede not getting the first down, but the Falcons would only have the two minute warning to stop the clock and their time would be dwindling. My quick calculations guessed the Falcons would have approximately 1:10 left and would get the ball around their own thirty. While the latter decision of attempting another pass would give the Texans the opportunity to go into victory formation if successful, it would risk an incompletion, which would give the Falcons around 35 seconds more with which to work.

In real time, my vote was just to run the ball two more times, trust the D, and milk as much time as possible. Which is of course what Kubiak did. The result: the Falcons got the ball with 58 seconds left (even better!) on the 30 yard line. Yes, the Falcons had enough time to move move the ball and get off two thirty yard tosses into the endzone. Yes, Julio Jones should have caught that ball. But, imagine what the Falcons could have done with 35 more seconds. This move to run three straight times was not earth shattering but a solid job of clock management. I give it a 4.

Contrast that clock management with that of Falcons coach Mike Smith. How terrible was Smith's decision to call a timeout the series before facing a 4th and 6? That decision gave them one timeout left, basically making the 4th and 6 play do-or-die. Had Smith kept the timeout, Kubiak might have even been more tempted to try for a first down and thus more likely to stop the clock one more time with an incompletion. Furthermore, had Mike Smith chosen to kick a field goal instead of go for the 4th down, while keeping his timeout, his team could have been going for the win with more time with which to play.

These aren't definite no-brainer decisions, but the small nuanced ones and how they work out make a coach. You had coaches from two playoff-contending teams making tough calls down the stretch. One had already been much maligned for a late game decision earlier in the season. And it wasn't ours. Ours, in fact, outcoached the other in the final five minutes. I've said it before this season--it's a great Texans world we're living in.

On to the other decisions:

Continue reading this post »

So, fair warning one: This will not be your normal entry due to the fact that I do not have a keyboard that I know how to use an apostrophe on. So bear with me and accept the { or the absence of apostrophes as my apostrophe. And, basically, please accept my lack of capital letters and formatting and proper punctuation.

Ed. note: Fixed. I couldn't handle how it looked unedited.

Fair warning two: This entry will discuss none of the normal Kubiak Konundrum fare. I only was able to listen to the game and will double up next week when I have finally watched it. Seemed to me like a masterfully managed job in the second half, but please leave comments if I should pay special attention to anything.

Third fair warning; Here's what I wrote Sunday evening, slightly edited, which sounded scarily like Tim's have-fun take with way more ramblings.

Continue reading this post »

Last week in the Kubiak Konundrum, I wrote a post about my impending nuptials. Lissy F'n May decided she wasn't all that sure that posting a picture of her as, well, a football player was the most elegant of things for me to post the week of our wedding and asked me to post a wedding picture to counterbalance it. I tried to tell her how bad ass every male from the Battle Red Community thought that picture made her (on a side note, she just called me from a business trip and told me she was watching the '04 USC vs. Oregon game on ESPN Classic to scout Matt Leinart). I tried to tell her that the interwebs is forever and those pictures have been up for two years and will never go away.

Alas, she was unpersuaded by reason and being that I have been married for less than a week, I decided to oblige her. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert at this matrimonial bliss thing yet. In fact, what I am about to write pretty much guarantees that I'm not. However, sometimes you just have to accept that people can be at times brilliant and at other times that same person can seem as challenged by the concept of logic as Bud Adams is by the notion of integrity. But, you still love that person and try to remember the brilliant moments. No, I'm not talking about my wife. I promise. I'm talking about Gary Kubiak.

Continue reading this post »

This week's Kubiak Konundrum will have a little different slant, as I'm getting married Saturday. The day after the wedding, instead of having a brunch to see off all our out of town guests, we will be having a Texans viewing party at a bar in downtown Austin to watch the Texans curbstomp the Bucs. Yes, I am a lucky man. This bride I'm marrying goes by Lissy F'n May on BRB and is the lady I was able to convince two Halloweens ago to dress as Vodka Collins when we went to a party where we were supposed to dress as our favorite drink.

So, right now, we're at the stage where we've pretty much done all the heavy lifting, and we're just waiting for the chaos of the week to unfold. She also still hasn't found the bodies in the attic, so everything is all coming up Milhouse. The other day, Lissy F'n May was talking to me about why we work so well and said, I do not lie, "We're like the Texans offense. Sure, there is the occasional argument, three and out, or boneheaded Schaub pick 6. But, when you start to look at other offenses around the league, when you look at other couples, you realize how damn lucky we are." Yes, I'm damn lucky.

But, I think her football team as couple metaphor can easily be refracted back the other way, and I can say in that regard, I have been in a horribly destructive relationship for years. I'm not even talking Suzy-Green-Curb-Your-Enthusiasm-style verbally abusive. I'm talking about Lisa Nowak-drive-across-the-country-in-a-diaper style bad. I'm talking rabbit head boiling on the stove bad. Lorena Bobbit bad. I speak, of course, about my abusive relationship with the Texans defense.

Continue reading this post »

I have a feeling this week's Kubiak Konundrum will be known as the one with the challenges-which-shall-not-be-named. So, I'm going to start with my general thoughts on challenge theory. First, I think people tend to take most challenges in a vacuum and simply look at whether or not the referees overturned the calls, rather than taking into account the game situation. All challenges are not created equal.

Furthermore, the idea that a coach should only challenge when there is indisputable evidence, just like refs need to overturn the call, is a fallacy.  We've all seen calls overturned that we didn't expect would be.  A coach has to weigh the chances of a play being overturned (or more evidence being provided) against the statistical improvement in a game situation that an overturned call would provide--and then decide whether those chances are worth the risk. And he has to make this decision in about 20 seconds. Just because a challenge does not get overturned does not mean it wasn't worth it!

Continue reading this post »

While you wouldn't think the biggest blowout of the year would provide much to discuss this week, there were a number of calls, including several on 4th down, that initially might have seemed like tough decisions until you actually thought about them. Much like a game against a first place, hated division rival on the road might have seemed like a tough match up. On to the shenanigans:

Poll

Was Kubiak's decision to go for it on 4th and inches from the BESF 36 midway through the 3rd quarter . . .

1%

1: Well, I don't think we can add this as an option

5 votes

2%

2: Unnecessarily risky

7 votes

16%

3: Who cares, the game was over

52 votes

76%

4: A good attempt at sticking it down their throat

245 votes

4%

5: Well, in fairness, I don't think we can add this as an option either

13 votes

322 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

Before we get going on this week's Kubiak Konundrum, first a few updates from the Raiders game:  the decision to punt rather than attempt a 55 yard field goal averaged a 2.6 on the decision meter, so it gets a neutral 3.

Also, theSpaceCityKid brought up the inability to get two plays off at the end of the game. I first gave Kubiak a pass because he said the play was designed in fact to get two plays off and the implication was Schaub ad libbed; however, I do agree that Kubiak should have absolutely made sure Schaub would get two off. He should have been pounding it through the helmet radio, and Kubiak has to take some of the blame for his leader's inability to follow through on his plan. It gets a 2, and, frankly, I considered giving it a 1 for the first terrible decision of the season.

Enough avoiding the ugly beast of last week's game.  Onto the Ravens. Unfortunately, my dvr had a mishap (or was it a freudian erase?), and I wasn't able to rewatch the game. I took plenty of notes though during the game, so the Kunundrum should survive this week, but fire away in the comments if I missed something and I'll add it to the scorecard.

Continue reading this post »

For Week 2's Kubiak Konundrum, I concocted three categories of game management decisions named after Plato, Seinfeld, and Jacoby Jones. While it was a fun exercise, it was patently obvious at the time that those categories would not be used after that week and were, at best, simply adding flavor to that week's post or, at worst, demonstrating the epitome of intellectual masturbation.

At least, I can say that with total and utter certainty in hindsight (wait, didn't I just say it was obvious at the time?). The device would be laborious to use every week, as people would either have to go back every week to find out what the hell I was talking about or just not know what the hell I was talking about.

 

However, for the purposes of that week, I feel it worked. The device sparked considerable conversation and hopefully was amusing. The device, in short, achieved my goal. Much like Kubiak's decision in the Steelers game to go to a conservative play call in the fourth quarter while protecting a seven point lead. Yes, I was going somewhere with all that.

 

With another week of few questionable decisions in the time out and challenge departments, Kubiak faced perhaps his biggest game management decision of the year in whether or not to risk incomplete passes, which would stop the clock, or to run the ball, taking the sure seconds off the clock and trusting the defense.

 

It's a great Texans world we live in where I can say Kubiak chose to trust the defense and it worked. And, while many commenters were gnashing their teeth in the game thread, the fact that the Steelers had nary a credible offensive threat in the fourth quarter has to be considered a win for the coach.

 

While this strategy could backfire in another game, Kubiak had to go with his feel for the situation at hand. Namely, no Andre Johnson and a Steelers offense that was hurting and vulnerable. Had Kubiak chosen to let Schaub put the ball in the air and Schaub had thrown what so many consider to be his obligatory stupid interception of the game, the howling would have reached decibels ten times what they were for the conservative play call (see fall out in Dallas over Romo interceptions).

 

 

Continue reading this post »

 

Last week as we examined Kubiak's performance on the Kubiak Konundrum, the battle coach received mostly 4s on our arbitrary 1 to 5 voting scale (5 being best, 3 average, 1 worst). As for individual game management decisions, last game's scorecard (and the season totals since the Indy game was for all practical purposes a coaching by) reads as thus:

 

2 (for mildly negative decision): 2 plays

4 (for mildly positive): 2 plays

 

Nothing in the 1, 3, or 5 categories. Again, 1 is a terrible decision, 2 mildly negative, 3 neutral, 4 mildly positive, and 5 great.

 

While there is lots of bemoaning the ending of the Saints game and plenty of criticisms that go with a loss, I didn't see a whole lot of game management decisions on the Texans side that were even questionable. In fact, just two:

 

2Q. 1:20 left. 4th and 2.

 

With the Saints deep in Texans territory, Brees hit Sproles on a 3rd and long and almost got the first down, setting up a potential field goal. With 1:20 left in the quarter and plenty of time to move the ball back down the field and put some points on the board, the Texans neglected (chose?) not to call a time out. The clock ticked down to just over half a minute before the Saints kicked their field goal, and the Texans had no chance to answer the Saints' score. Missed opportunity?

 

Perhaps. Since they were so close to the goal line, giving the Saints extra time to score most likely wasn't a concern. However, with only two yards to go and the Saints high powered offense, it was conceivable that the Saints would go for it, and had the Texans called a time out, they might have tempted Payton to go for it. Being that the Saints called a time out themselves and still elected to kick after further time to deliberate, it seems unlikely Kubiak calling a time out would have changed their strategy. However, I will put this is the let sleeping bears slumber category and call it a neutral 3 decision. I don't blame Kubiak for not trying to push the envelope on a half that had gone fairly well.

 

4Q. 4:48 left. 3rd and 1.

 

I almost didn't include this one, but since people in my viewing party were questioning the call, I decided to mention it for the sake of thoroughness. With the Texans on their own 41 and down by 6, they called a time out which might have been invaluable later. In this situation, I'd rather them get the right play and first down, and they did. The time out, of course, wasn't a factor in how things play out. So, I can only give another neutral 3 for a decision that wasn't great but perhaps necessary. Anyone take issue with burning that time out?

 

 

As I said, not a lot I saw that raised eyebrows from a game management standpoint. However, I'm curious to see how much simply getting a loss changes the perceptions of Kubiak. Are the naysayers out in full? Since there's not much to talk about game management wise, feel free to vent, although I'm sure you would anyway.

 

As for our weekly poll, since we didn't get much voting in the comments last week, I'm going to use our weekly poll to vote on each week's toughest decision regarding Kubiak's performance. 

Poll

Was Kubiak's decision not to call time out at the end of the first half the right move?

5%

1 -- Hell no, Kubes must go

1 votes

20%

2 -- I would have tried to save time, but tough call

4 votes

45%

3 -- Six in one, half dozen in the other

9 votes

20%

4 -- Good restraint

4 votes

10%

5 -- The Saints would have rammed a touchdown down his throat.

2 votes

20 votes | Poll has closed

Here's the first installment, detailing what we're trying to accomplish with the Kubiak Konundrum, namely taking an unbiased look at Kubiak's game management decisions.

After the first two weeks of this experiment, I've come to the conclusion that game management decisions will most likely fall into three categories:

 

The Jacoby Jones

A decision that was as obviously wrong as a pass clanging off the hands or as obviously right as an amazing catch that you wish could happen more (for Jacoby and Kubiak, really). These decisions shouldn't need much deliberation, though the negative might cause plenty of venting and vexing.

 

The Seinfeldian Debate

A questionable decision that might or might not have worked out, depending on one's interpretation. George and Jerry could sit at the coffee shop debating this for hours, and, really, that's why we're here. Although it might be more of a  bar room discussion on BRB. I will open these decisions up to a poll at the end for the readers to decide.

 

The Plato

A philosophical decision that some will disagree with out of principle, but that will be almost impossible to determine whether it worked out. I will discuss these decisions when I see fit but refrain from "judging" them on the scorecard because of their ambiguous nature.  Still , fire away in the comments on what kind of strategy would best suit the Republic of the Texans.

 

Yes, I just used Jacoby Jones, Seinfeld, and Plato together in a qualification system. The confusion seems only fitting in a discussion involving Kubiak.

 

I also think these decisions can't just be considered good or bad but that some sort of degree of good or bad must be taken into account. So, on my sliding and arbitrary scale of coaching decisions from 1-5, 3 will be considered neutral, 1 the worst, and 5 the best.

 

Enough ballyhoo, on to the results from the Miami game. This week, I tried to focus in real time to get a feel for making the call under the time pressure (even if I had the benefit of 62 inch HD in front of me). Trying to make the call before the next snap definitely added an appreciation for how difficult the decisions which are so easy in hindsight really are. Without further ado:

 

Continue reading this post »

So, if you missed the introductory Kubiak Konondrum post, you can check it out here:

http://www.battleredblog.com/2011/9/8/2413607/the-kubiak-konundrum

 

Every week we will look at Kubiak's performance in an effort to see beyond our biases for or against him and evaluate his performance going forward, specifically in regards to game management.

 

Week One Scorecard: Bye Week

 

Yup, the Colts game was basically a bye for Kubiak in regards to game management. As y'all know, the game was for all practical purposes over by the middle of the second quarter, and so there were no challenges, no timeout issues, and no opportunities to throw a half back pass from inside the ten (well, I guess there were,

but . . .).

 

That being said, we've gotta talk about something, and I attribute the only coaching debate from the game to that need to criticize something, anything, no matter how small.

 

During the second half, still high on my euphoria and multiple varieties of Shiner, I picked up my phone to find three different texts lamenting Kubiak's decision to “let off the gas.” Even my future wife, who has proved her fandom by dressing up as Vodka Collins one Halloween, was sitting next to me echoing the sentiment.  If you think my friends just are cynical, check the message boards and talk radio.

 

BFD already did a great job of addressing the issue:

http://www.battleredblog.com/2011/9/12/2419309/34-7-sounds-about-right

His research shows exactly what I felt during the game. Kubiak didn't take the foot off the gas as much as a few turnovers kept us from adding to the pile of points.

 

Besides BFD's portrait of a completely balanced play call in the third quarter, I want to highlight one play to reinforce the point that Kubiak was fairly aggressive. On the first Texans drive of the second half, Houston was faced with a third and five from around midfield. Schaub dropped back and chunked a back shoulder throw to AJ at least thirty yards downfield. Not exactly taking their proverbial (or literal) ball and going home.

 

The Texans' next drive, of course, was also a nice blend of passing and running, utilizing none other than Steve Slaton. The drive ended with Schaub's terrible interception and the next one with Tate's fumble. Only after the second turnover of the half did Kubiak let up at all and that was for all of one drive. If anything, I could see a criticism of Kubiak for being too aggressive.

 

The only other thing I can imagine criticizing Kubes for in game one is the decision to keep Schaub and AJ in the game, although he did noticeably start calling plays for people other than AJ, only using him as a decoy. In the post game presser, Kubiak said that he believes Schaub is the team's leader and should ideally take every snap of the season. I'm not sure I would go that far, and I think the mentality is being a bit reckless and overly symbolic; but as no one got hurt and we shouldn't see too many situations like this ever, I'm not going to chalk it up as a negative.

 

If the issue of whether to bench Schaub becomes a recurring theme, I will gladly revisit this stance. Gladly, because it will mean a bushel of blow out wins. Kubiak would also most likely be riding a resurgent wave of public favor and this post series would be much less relevant. I'd gladly take it.

 

As always, tell me how I'm wrong or if I missed anything in the comments.

Our fearless battlefighting leader is like a polarizing political issue in which each side has their predetermined POV and uses any event, statistic, or development to prove their already held belief. It's like that except with the whole world being in one party except for one person who stubbornly (or with passionate conviction, depending how you see it) sticks to his beliefs. That would be me.

I am undoubtedly Gary Kubiak's last defender, or often it feels like it. Part of my allegiance comes from the Broncos being my number 2 team growing up. I loved Elway and, therefore, Kubiak by sheer adjacence. When they brought him home, I was only mildly a Texans fan, having lived outside my hometown for the early years of the franchise. But, Kubiak's arrival coincided with my return to the H in a fortuitous confluence of fandom. I also loved the fact that he was a hometown guy, playing for a school I played in high school. It felt good. It felt even better when Kubiak led the Texans to beating the Vegas three out of his first four years, the other being a push (last year, of course, they were under, but Kubiak still has me well in the black). Not expecting playoffs in the early years, this made the last few games thrilling because they seemed to only pull it out by half a win every season. Don't tell me that Bears game in '08 wasn't like a playoff game.

Continue reading this post »

What are y'all's thoughts?  I've seen it mentioned a couple places that he didn't look great and couldn't move people out of holes (LZ, Kuharsky, one other I forgot).

I watched him specifically on about 90% of the plays and thought he did a damn good job.  Not once did he miss a block or lose ground.  He was standing people up with a nice collision.  No, for the most part he wasn't knocking people backwards between the tackles but honestly I don't remember Vonta doing it a whole lot (between the tackles).  Usually it's just a brick wall collision, and I feel like the FB's done his job if he stands the LB up even if he doesn't clear him out.

The two times I saw Casey go wide for a block, he took the guy completely out of the play with a very physical block. Granted, one was a DB, but one was an outside backer.  

Just wondering if the comments around town are confirmation bias as Steph was discussing today (ie projecting what you expect to see) or if anyone thought Casey played as well as I thought he did.  Then, again, I'm a big Casey fan, so I'm sure I have some confirmation bias of my own.

Or even expected?  From the team that had 25, 30, and 30 in he last three years.  Would have sounded inconceivable this time last year. I know everyone is expecting an increase with Wade, but when I went through my sack predictions per player, I was still shocked how quickly it added up.  So, for argument;s sake:

Mario 10

Barwin 8

Watt 8

Cushing 6

Antonio 4

Earl Mitchell 3

Meco 3

There's 42.  Granted, my Barwin, Watt, and Cushing projections are mildly optimistic, but I think Barwin will be the break out player, Watt's optimisim speaks for itself, and I just got finished watching the fourth quarter of the Ravens game and Wade's words about Cushing rushing between the tackles were echoing as Cush dominated that quarter.  And, I was obviously very conservative on Mario.

So, that just leaves 8 to be picked up by overage, safety blitzes, and subs (Bulman, Reed, Cody would be among candidates to pick one up here or there).

And then, I went to the league stats page and saw the Steelers led the league with 48 last year.  So, not so much . . .

But, it still gets me excited to think of all those possibilities, and I'd say 40-45 is well within reason.

I know this has been discussed elsewhere.  I know by looking at Lombardi's picture, it's apparent he should know exactly what soft is.  I know this really is a semantic argument that doesn't matter, flames being fanned by a media that has little else to talk about in preseason. But, well, it's preseason and I'm all talked out of other stuff until the games start, and I can't listen to another Lombardi podcast or read his words without wanting to pull the bottom out from his house of cards.

 

Were the Texans flawed last year? Hell, yeah. Did they have times where they weren't mentally as strong as they should have been? Absolutely. But, to me, a team that came back as many times as the Texans did from as far as they did and kept battling (yes, I said battling) had an intrinsic toughness, the antithesis of Lombardi's paper lion argument and “soft” label. (For the purposes of this post, toughness will be used as the opposite of softness, the opposite, positive end of the spectrum). A soft team would have quit on many games last year and quit on the season, which the Texans never did.

 

To Lombardi's arguments:

 

First, Lombardi never defines toughness. Is he speaking of physical toughness? Seemingly, when he cites their lack of practicing in pads and discounts their zone running scheme because it's not one that dominates the line of scrimmage.

 

However, he also says toughness is not about rushing yardage, it's about winning (or a lack thereof). Well, if toughness equals winning, he's got us there. But, he seemingly states that today the NFL is a passing league, so rushing doesn't matter as much, while at the same time linking toughness to dominating the line of scrimmage. According to Lombardi, toughness is protecting the passer (not a Texans weakness) and rushing the passer (an admitted weakness) but not controlling the line of scrimmage with the running game. Huh? He's clearly picking only the aspects of the game that fit his argument.

 

Lombardi also seems to be implying a lack of mental toughness in labeling the Texans soft. He cites their inability to impose their will at the start of games. He talks about their inability to close out games. Evidently, the middle two quarters and the ability to stage a valiant comeback have nothing to do with a team's toughness. Again, Lombardi picking the aspects of the argument that help his case and ignoring the others.

 

Lombardi claims he's not challenging their courage, but that's what calling a team soft is absolutely doing.

 

Back to the not practicing in pads argument that stirred up this whole debate.

 

How does being in pads help mental toughness? Wouldn't they be better in a classroom studying more film and x's and o's or do just as well in shorts and no pads, running through plays even more because of the extra energy it would allow.

 

So, perhaps he is hanging his hat on the idea of the Texans being physically soft. His argument takes so many ambiguous forms it's hard to keep track.

 

Lombardi continually says that “everyone” in the league thinks of the Texans are soft and because he names no names and cites no sources, we are left to take him at his word. But, Winston asserts that most teams practice in a similar non pad way this day and age, which Lombardi never refutes. So, do those teams consider the Texans soft?

 

Still, Lombardi claims all the tough teams in the league knock heads in practice unlike the Texans.

He goes on to state that the zone running scheme and light on pads practice habits worked briefly for the Broncos in the 90s but seemingly brushes it off as an aberration. He doesn't include the little fact that this method was instilled by Bill Walsh and passed down through his coaching tree that is more influential than any other in the modern day NFL.

 

I heard a recent interview with Bill Romanowski in which he cited the Bill Walsh practices and said he thought the new practice rules would have zero affect on the toughness on gameday. I have some issues with Romo, but toughness is not one of them and I'll take his word over someone who never played.

 

Lombardi's practice criticisms imply a system wide malady. They imply that because of the Texans practice habits, their toughness cannot be where it needs to be as a team.

 

This line of thinking ignores the players on the team who are tough as nails. He continually laughs at the Twitter fans who cited Andre's fight with Finnegan as a sign of toughness, ignoring the fact that he played through the pain of a high ankle sprain. Well, he does say Andre's as tough as it gets but passes him off as an outlier.

 

Cushing? Lombardi says he's ten pounds lighter so he will have to wait and see. So, if Cushing loses ten pounds, he's not as tough? Or not as good?

 

Demeco? Eric Winston himself? Lombardi's practice argument would imply that they have not had enough tough practice experience to play tough. He might counter by saying that he meant that the team as a whole couldn't be tough, but I'd argue the team's leaders and most important players speak to a team's toughness more than their bench players. You think of Palamalu and Harrison when you think of the Steelers' toughness, not their 22nd starter.

 

So was Vonta tough? Pollard?

 

Pollard is the epitome of Lombardi's argument's flaw. No one would argue Pollard's physical toughness. No one would argue his ability to make clutch, end of the game plays like his blocked field goal in the Redskins game. But, he couldn't cover at all and was emblematic of our teams biggest problem. Not softness but a lack of talent in covering the people who try to catch the ball.

 

Schaub's Ravens game is another great example of a situation that tears Lombardi's argument apart. Schaub (or Schwab as Lombardi likes to call him) threw the pick 6 in overtime to lose the game. So, obviously, he wasn't mentally tough, right? What about his two 4th quarter 90 yard drives (including the last one, which was 98 yards + a two point conversion). To me, with the last glimmer of playoff hopes at stake, those were two of the gutsiest drives I've ever seen in a regular season game.

 

By attributing softness to the practice atmosphere and team culture, Lombardi doesn't allow for some players on the team to be tough while others are not, or even some players to display toughness while also having lapses, because you can't become tough without continually banging and cracking skulls.

 

He doesn't allow for a tough offense that while it started slow, fought back all year.

 

And the biggest thing, perhaps all I really needed to say, is he doesn't allow for people to be tough but just flat suck. The Texans didn't lose last year because they had no talent or experience in the secondary (according to Lombardi's assertion), not because their defensive coordinator had no clear philosophy or game plan, not because their best offensive player played hurt most of the season, not because of a myriad of other reasons, but because they are soft. Because they don't practice in pads as much as other teams.

 

Or it could just be that shittiest ever secondary thing.

So, I saw AJ and LZ discussed the most recent contract restructurings and what they mean towards Mario.  Namely, the Texans are waiting to how he does in the new D and how he is heaklth wise before extending him to a new huge contract.  I pretty much agree with the strategy, but one question:  with the new rules, is Mario unrestricted after this season?  Not sure I see us holding onto him at all if it's a bidding war situation.

So, who caught the VY press conference?  Some of our local media have been having their fun with him on twitter for saying he was part of a "dream team," asking if he is serving the Christian Laettner role on the bench and such.

I also thought it was pretty damn funny when he said he was a "work in product."  Score one for the Wonderlic.

But, more than anything, what struck me was how overweight he looks--just in the face.  I'd guess 25 pounds overweight.  Not good for a scrambling QB, though maybe it will force him to become a pocket passer.  Riiiiight. . . . .

I'm not even going to pull the Purdue angle.

Listen to how the scouts and experts all around the league talk about him.

Great motor, high football character, never quits, a football player etc, etc, many things on which I don't want to actually look up quotes.  But trust me.  Watch or read something about him.

It's over, it's over, it's over!

Barring Quinn (if they love him) or someone else unexpected falling, I think this will be the pick.  I'm not saying I agree with it.*

*Joe Posnaskiesque sidebar:  If Quinn and Quintorris are gone, I honestly don't know who I would want.  In fact, I wouldn't be thrilled OR disgusted with a handful.  A. Smith--I would like to see a OLB taken even if I don't think it's a slam dunk necessity, but I'm not sold on him and the project tag concerns me.  Prince--I don't really want a CB until FA but could see the logic, though I am terrified of some of the evaluations like John Harris's that say he is a second round talent who can't cover one on one (see matchup vs Julio Jones).  Watt/Jordan--not thrilled about taking a rotational backup, though I understand BPA argument.  Still, how would this be more of a need if JJ were available?  Other OLBs--eh.

With all of that sidebar, I lost my train of thought.  Except to say, I don't think this pick would kill me as it would some of you because after one or two who will probably be gone anyway, I see a bunch of solid but meh players. Definitely wouldn't be thrilled with Kerrigan.  But if Quinn and Quintorris are gone, I don't know who I would be thrilled with. And I won't say trade down because I think it's too big of a situational opportunity that us fans have no right demanding when it might not be available.

But, like it or not or if you're as lukewarm/semi negative as I am on it, I think the descriptions by those in the know of this "kid" are right up the Texans' alley.  His picture's already in our playbook.

Most people through the years have had the impression that Kubiak has taken the stance that he can coach up the offense without adding much talent because of his knowledge of that side of the ball while giving the picks and additions to the D to do with what they please (even if they use those poorly).

I'm not so sure this is true.

Sure, Kubes was involved in taking Mario with his most important pick.  But Vince wasn't his type of player (no matter if McNair made him try out a year of mittens or not) and Reggie Bush wasn't necessarily either, at least for the type of number one back he likes (one cut and go, little jukage).  In fact, putting that draft in terms of the type of player Kubiak likes makes people who still claim Casserly pointed out Mario even more ridiculous (Chron.com).

 

But after that, Kubiak, traded two twos for Schaub, and took Duane Brown with a first rounder.  In the Mario draft, he took two Franchise tackles in the third round (that Charles Spencer pick never gets the kudos it deserves because of a fluke injury).  He's strategically picked off a starting WR in free agency (Walter) and late in the draft (DA).  He's taken them fairly early ('Coby).  Point is, Kubiak's not above investing in the Offense.  However, he already had his cornerstone in Andre, and got his unit excelling way before the other side of the ball.

What I'm trying to say is, we don't necessarily have evidence of Kubiak passing on a special offensive talent when itwas easily the best player on the board.

 

Dez Bryant rings a bell.  However, I might surmise that Dez's unwillingness to block might have as much to do with Kubiak passing on him as his attitude.  Julio can block.

 

Mendenhall?  Not elite like Dez and was passed for an offensive player.

 

My point is simple.  And I believe many of you will prove me wrong because you are way more knowledgable than me.  Has Kubiak passed on a truly elite offensive first round talent?  One that is clearly more talented than the defensive player picked over him? 

I'm honestly asking.  I'm not the expert many of you draft nuts are.  But, my hunch (or hope or prayer?) is that Kubiak knows elite offensive talent when he sees it and would never pass on it (unless the better defensive talent of Robert Quinn were also available in which place Kubiak couldn't be blamed for throwing a challenge flag so as to get 30 extra seconds to celebrate his good fortune).

Really, think that headline through again.  Sure, people at least here agree we have other needs.  NT, S, CB, SS, WR2, etc.  But the way the national and local media talks is that OLB, in large part because of Wade's system, is the number one position we need.

I strongly disagree.  I think it's in a coin flip crotch grab with all the others.  It's perhaps as important but not more important than some of the others.

Mainly, because of CONNOR BARWIN.  Think, if we draft no one.  You could still move Cush outside and start Cush, Meco, Sharpton, Barwin.  That's fairly strong, even if weak in depth.  But, should we worry so much about depth, when we DON"T HAVE A STARTING CALIBER SAFETY!  Or NT.  Or a WR2.  Or a CB who could . . . nevermind.

I still take BPA.  I'm a big fan of picking Julio if Quinn's not there.  See (by my want of Quinn), I would even like an OLB because I think it would make our LB corp sick.  I just wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination reach for one.

Oh, unless that's over a DE who would be strictly a rotational player and not be able to start over someone (ie a LB over Darryl Sharpton)

Drunken rambling thoughts.  I'm just saying OLB isn't worth reaching for.  But, neither is CB, S, or NT (because of the talent in this draft).  So, maybe OLB is just less of a reach than those.  I guess what I'm saying is don't take a DE.  Or reach for Amukamura.

Signed,

More confused before I wrote this post #pray for Quinn/Jones

PS   I understand the lack of depth we would have if that were the starting linebacker team.  And that there would be serious injury concerns.  I would still want them to add a 3/4 round backer and at least one legit (above Danny Clark level replacement) LB in free agency to try to give some options.