Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Win or Lose, Boston Celtics' New Big 3 Era A Success

Kubiak Konundrum -- Cincinnati Bengals Edition

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:

Star-divide

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

4Q. 13:45 left. Down 19-10. Our ball on the Bengals' 32. 4th and 2.
Down two scores, with the ability to knock one off with a 49 yard field goal, Kubiak instead chose to go for it. Fumble-sack. Not good.

I know Neil Rackers had missed a 47 yarder and barely made a 46 yarder. I know both of those kicks might have hit the cross bar on a 49 yarder or barely made it (if the latter had been straight). I know if he missed the kick here, the Bengals would have excellent field position, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If you can't trust your field goal kicker to get the distance on a 49 yarder, you need a new kicker. Period.

Even if you get the tough 4th and 2, you still have over thirty yards to go for a touchdown. Chances are you simply end up with a shorter field goal and more time off the clock.

Again, this was not a 50-plus yarder. This should have been well in any professional kicker's range. Though Rackers has by no means been automatic this season, I just don't see what Kubiak was thinking. The opportunity to make the game a one score affair was a monumental one that must be taken advantage of.

Of course, the way it unfolded with a spectacular failure, it can't get more than a 2 on our scale. I'm tempted to give it a 1. What say the people?

4Q. 11:50 left. Texans' ball on own 25. 1st and 10. Down 19-10.
After not seeing many game-changing challenges early in the season, there sure have been a bevy of them lately. Arian Foster fumbled quickly after receiving a short outlet pass from T.J. Yates. So quickly, in fact, that Kubiak would challenge the play. The Bengals then bungled the ball to the Texans' 2 yard line, where Eric Winston recovered it.

To these eyes, the play was a pretty obvious one to challenge. Those 23 yards backing us up into our own endzone could very well have ended the drive even though we received a new set of downs. This was most likely our last chance to put together the first of the two necessary point scoring drives. Furthermore, I'm still convinced by NFL rules that Foster did not make the proverbially nondescript "football move." He didn't even have time to turn and look the other way. None of which even begins to address whether he had control of the ball.

There are certainly some arguments against the challenge, which you can fire away at in the comments, but I can't imagine this decision garnering any worse than a 2 on our scale, which I give it since it failed, even if I disagree with the call.

Bonus time. 4Q. 2:43 left. Bengals; ball on the Bengals; 48.
Since there weren't a lot of Kubiak decisions to analyze, we'll look at the opposing coach for the second consecutive week. Namely, why in the world didn't Marvin Lewis challenge the spot when seemingly the entire Bengals team pushed Bernard Scott for what looked to be the first down? When looking at replays during the game, I didn't see one angle that made me think it wasn't a first down. I was holding my breath, hoping Lewis wouldn't challenge and trying to find a way to justify not giving the Bengals the first down If he did. I couldn't. At the least, with three timeouts, Lewis had very little to lose and literally the game to win by challenging. Head scratcher. Praise be to Durga.

So, that's all for this week. It's great when a win, check that a division clinching win, and the stored-up good faith of a seven game win streak help temper some questionable coaching decisions. If it weren't for the pull of obligation from our friend the Konundrum, we might not even be talking about it.

Bengals Game:

2: 1 play.
TBD: 1 play.

Season Totals:

1: 1 play.
2: 8 plays.
3: 10 plays.
4: 11 plays.
5: 2 plays.

Texans vs Bengals coverage

Poll
Kubiak's decision to go for it on fourth down in the fourth quarter from the Bengals 32 was . . .
Moronic. Take the points, take the points, take the points.
22 votes
A bad call, but defensible.
33 votes
A coin flip.
55 votes
A good call, Rackers probably would have probably missed it.
38 votes
The right call every time. Kickers be damned.
17 votes

165 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 48 comments  |  6 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Rackers

has been erratic lately, so I don’t blame Ol’ Kubes for not going for the field goal. The play that he called on 4 and 2 left a lot to be desired, however.

The challenge on the “fumble” was a good one, despite the inexplicable result. The refs have been sucking epically the past couple of weeks, and I’m afraid the Texans might see some of these idiots working in the playoffs.

A sharp tongue is the only edged tool that grows keener with constant use.--Washington Irving

by Foster Child on Dec 14, 2011 9:14 PM CST reply actions  

I totally agree

"The greatest danger in planning for tomorrow is using yesterdays logic."
Marc Kahlberg

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell

I think we will learn that the Bo$$man was right

by Barryfromtexas on Dec 15, 2011 10:18 AM CST up reply actions  

Agreed on the play call

I can see going for it but IIRC it was an empty back field set. That’s not the look I would go for right there.

I'm a man!! I'm forty!!

by Hydroshock on Dec 15, 2011 12:16 PM CST up reply actions  

I went with the Rackers probably would of missed it.

His leg seems to be fading lately. Not sure what’s up with that. He had better find a new one before the playoffs though because we may well need him.

Just my $.02
Even duct tape can't fix stupid

by txknight on Dec 14, 2011 11:50 PM CST reply actions  

I know what's up with Rackers. It's his age

He’s starting to lose some strength in his leg. Hopefully we can find a rookie kicker with a freak leg to challenge him next season

Murphy’s 20th Military Law:
If it’s stupid, but it works, it ain’t stupid
"Fuck em all. Go Texans."

by The Night Owl on Dec 15, 2011 12:03 AM CST up reply actions  

It doesn't seem to hold him back from laying the wood to kick returners though.

"The best thing about being a cynic......is that you are never surprised." ~Anonymous
"Don't get yourself a bunch of tricky plays.......get yourself a bunch of tricky players." `Paul "Bear" Bryant
Eat me, David Stern.

by Christopher H on Dec 15, 2011 8:05 AM CST up reply actions  

lol and rec
Kicking footballs & kicking ass are two very different things

"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me." -- Benjamin Disraeli

"If you really want something in life you have to work for it. Now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers." -- Homer Simpson

"There is no rehab for stupid." -- Chris Rock

Never try to baptize a cat.

by texanslady on Dec 15, 2011 4:06 PM CST up reply actions  

I called it a 2

It’s awesome that Kubiak’s got a pair, and he’s willing to go for the throat and all, and show his confidence in his players….

but take the points. I know it isn’t a gimme, but neither is converting a fourth down. Either way, to get ahead you need two scores at that point. Go ahead and get one, and make the game closer at that point. Didn’t they motion Foster out wide and go empty backfield on that one too? If so, that’s certainly part of why I was yelling at the tv.

It would have been interesting to have this post series to look back on and compare from previous years, to see if Kubes’s decision making has (in our collective opinion) improved from previous years. The eye test tells me it has, and while not always accurate, we all know the eye test Just.Wins.Games.

by JBal on Dec 15, 2011 8:31 AM CST reply actions  

I voted a bad call but defensible

We needed the points. But if we extended the drive and got 7, it would have made it a lot easier to win the game later with just a field goal – and hopefully an easier field goal at that.

I could go in either direction from there to either a coin flip or moronic. Even if it were a coin flip, I think it is the wrong call. Even if we had converted, though I’d be quite happy he did it, I’d still think it was the wrong call.

by WhiskeyR on Dec 15, 2011 8:41 AM CST reply actions  

I didn't see the choice

I thought the choice to go for it was not a bad choice at all. The playcall/formation choice was not a very good one in my opinion.

"The greatest danger in planning for tomorrow is using yesterdays logic."
Marc Kahlberg

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell

I think we will learn that the Bo$$man was right

by Barryfromtexas on Dec 15, 2011 10:19 AM CST reply actions  

Completely agree

good decision to go for it, terrible play called. That balances out to a 3, doesn’t it?

by cubic on Dec 15, 2011 11:49 AM CST up reply actions  

I'd say it's a coin toss, & I see both sides of the coin in this situation

The reason he went for it is because if Rackers missed the field goal, the Bengals would have had better field position than they did after the Texans failed to convert the 4th down. Field position is what made the call reasonable, although I agree they could have used a better play. Hell, they could have used another QB Power run play

Murphy’s 20th Military Law:
If it’s stupid, but it works, it ain’t stupid
"Fuck em all. Go Texans."

by The Night Owl on Dec 15, 2011 11:10 AM CST reply actions  

"gorgeously ugly"

That’s a perfect way to put it.

I'm a man!! I'm forty!!

by Hydroshock on Dec 15, 2011 12:12 PM CST reply actions  

Re: The foster non-fumble challenge play

No way was that a damn fumble. No way. And I still can’t believe we lost the challenge.

I'm a man!! I'm forty!!

by Hydroshock on Dec 15, 2011 12:22 PM CST reply actions  

IIRC Ed Hochuli was the ref. He seems to have something against us IMO.

That would explain why we lost the challenge.

"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me." -- Benjamin Disraeli

"If you really want something in life you have to work for it. Now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers." -- Homer Simpson

"There is no rehab for stupid." -- Chris Rock

Never try to baptize a cat.

by texanslady on Dec 15, 2011 4:11 PM CST up reply actions  

He made a call on the field

He doesn’t think his call can be overturned, is the answer IMO.

"All our lives we're taught to get in line. The ones who conform never discover." - Undrafted Free Agent and NFL Rushing Leader Arian Foster

by Rip Jersey on Dec 16, 2011 10:44 AM CST up reply actions  

THIS^^

From what I’ve seen and heard, Hochuli is an arrogant, self centered, asshole.

Just my $.02
Even duct tape can't fix stupid

by txknight on Dec 16, 2011 5:22 PM CST up reply actions  

The league has already told the Texans is was NOT a fumble

"The greatest danger in planning for tomorrow is using yesterdays logic."
Marc Kahlberg

"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell

I think we will learn that the Bo$$man was right

by Barryfromtexas on Dec 15, 2011 8:49 PM CST up reply actions  

Good

I’m visiting from the Bengals site. This not-fumble still comes up when we talk about the Texans game. Lots of people complain about Atkins losing it and they seem to believe the refs call every single play against us, but we got a big break here. There’s no way that was a fumble by Foster. It was obviously an incomplete pass. You guys should have had 2nd and 10 from your 25, not 1st and 10 from your 2. That’s a big loss, but your offense got the job done. That was a very impressive drive.

by indesignkat on Jan 4, 2012 5:47 PM CST up reply actions  

Going for it on 4th-and-2 was the right call,

given that Rackers has apparently headed down the road to shanktown.

The play failed; them’s the breaks. No way you trust Rackers to make that kick.

“Fool me once indoors against Atlanta, shame on you…”

by FreedomRide on Dec 15, 2011 12:23 PM CST reply actions  

Re: Marvin Lewis not challenging

I was thinking the same thing when that happened. First, I was surprised that they didn’t blow the whistle because Scott’s forward progress had clearly been stopped. But when they didn’t I was just praying Lewis didn’t challenge the spot.

I'm a man!! I'm forty!!

by Hydroshock on Dec 15, 2011 12:24 PM CST reply actions  

I can't help but feel it was the right call.

When you have a two score deficit you have to be agressive, I can’t fault Koobs for playing to win, I positively encourage it. To me it seems like there’s a really strong argument for going for it.
Kubiak understood that his defence was playing well enough that should the call fail they had plenty of field left to defend, and could reliably stop the Bengals O.
If the attempt fell incomplete then it’s no different from a missed kick in terms of points or field position, and in the situation it’s clearly debatable whether Rackers makes it or not.
Now this I think is important there is enough time on the clock that should the aggressive call fail you can make up for it, and if you succeed you reduce the pressure on any later possessions. What puts T.J. in the best possible position to succeed is one of the key questions to this decision, and I think success earlier in the fourth quarter is a much preferable situation with a rookie QB.

by BestOf5 on Dec 15, 2011 12:33 PM CST reply actions  

Actually, from what I saw of the Scott being short of the first down.

He fell down short of the sticks prior to that final push from the offensive linemen. Replayed showed that pile moved w/o him in it.

by jkcheng122 on Dec 15, 2011 12:43 PM CST reply actions  

Didn't see it

Not saying you didn’t see it right. I probably could have given it a few more slo mo replays. But I never saw it. Either way, what was the risk in challenging? With 2:30 left, the chances of us scoring a TD, then them having time to use three time outs was pretty small.

by JMay on Dec 15, 2011 12:46 PM CST up reply actions  

Rackers

So, looks like a lot of people disagree about the decision to go for it being a bad call. I think for the most part, fans are more apt to say go for it than coaches or players. That’s neither here nor there. I just wanted to reiterate a point:

If your kicker can’t make a 49 yarder and distance might be a factor, YOU NEED A NEW KICKER. These things are almost automatic this day in age. You have to be able to count on that kick or you truly are screwed as a coach.

by JMay on Dec 15, 2011 12:44 PM CST reply actions  

For the record

I don’t think we need a new kicker. I think Rackers will work through it. But, to me you got to trust him on a 49 yarder.

by JMay on Dec 15, 2011 12:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Disagree about trusting him on a 49 yarder.

He has proven to be unreliable. Inside 40 is where I trust him. That being said, next year, I would like to see a bevy of placekickers in training camp.

"All our lives we're taught to get in line. The ones who conform never discover." - Undrafted Free Agent and NFL Rushing Leader Arian Foster

by Rip Jersey on Dec 15, 2011 1:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Agreed

I'm a man!! I'm forty!!

by Hydroshock on Dec 15, 2011 1:43 PM CST up reply actions  

Assuming he comes back from injury fine

Why can’t Hartmann kick field goals?

Dallas Cowboys, all hat and no cattle since 1996.

"Will it never be noon?" Duke of Orleans to the Dauphin and Constable of France every Sunday before the Texans play.

by Jonathan Fosburgh on Dec 15, 2011 1:43 PM CST up reply actions  

Does he know how?

Punting and place kicking are two different animals.

I'm a man!! I'm forty!!

by Hydroshock on Dec 15, 2011 1:46 PM CST up reply actions  

My thought is that the kickoff guy usually does field goals.

Of course, I don’t know if the transition from kickoff to field goal as that easy.

Dallas Cowboys, all hat and no cattle since 1996.

"Will it never be noon?" Duke of Orleans to the Dauphin and Constable of France every Sunday before the Texans play.

by Jonathan Fosburgh on Dec 15, 2011 2:49 PM CST up reply actions  

I was gonna make this point earlier

I know he shares kickoff duties with Rackers. I think I saw something somewhere before the season, when they were trying him out, where he had some accuracy trials. Which means, I presume, that he wants to try field goals.

If everybody was somebody, then nobody would be anybody - Gilbert and Sullivan

by professortex on Dec 15, 2011 7:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Only in Denver do we trust him on anything 49 yards or more

Murphy’s 20th Military Law:
If it’s stupid, but it works, it ain’t stupid
"Fuck em all. Go Texans."

by The Night Owl on Dec 15, 2011 5:43 PM CST up reply actions  

I disagree with the policy that unsuccessful challenges get a 2.

That would have been absolutely the right thing to do had we not recovered, and it was defensible of not good in the situation we were.

Drop a 3 on it.

by morecowbell-lesscowboys on Dec 15, 2011 1:16 PM CST reply actions  

yeah i dont think he should get a 2 because the refs were idiots

if they reverse the call like they should’ve kubiak would then get a 4 or 5

by jags52982 on Dec 15, 2011 1:52 PM CST up reply actions  

THIS

We ran into this with the Yates fumble vs. ATL. How can you penalize Kubiak for the ref’s mistake? It was the right call. Hell, it was the only call that could make sense. The only question for the Konundrum should be whether or not he should have thrown the flag. Was the benefit gained from a successful challenge greater than or equal to the loss of a timeout with relation to how likely the challenge was to be successful. Kubiak has no control over whether or not they agree with him, so penalizing him for being unable to read their minds/see the future is a worthless endeavor.

by Franchise19 on Dec 15, 2011 1:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Understood

The system is flawed but any system would be. The goal is to see how things worked out, not necessarily how Kubiak did in comparison with what we thought should have done. An attempt to remove our preconceived biases. Just like I will give Kubiak credit for a move that worked even if most everybody thought it was a poor decision.

The Falcons challenge was so egregious I made an exception but I don’t want to set it as a precedent or else the whole thing gets undercut. I’ve had people disagreeing with the challenge and that’s enough to make me defer to the results.

by JMay on Dec 15, 2011 2:32 PM CST up reply actions  

I disagree

If everyone agrees something is a poor decision, it is a poor decision. If it works out ok, it is still a poor decision, although also a lucky decision. The point is to determine if the decisions are good and based on sound theory and not whether or not they are lucky.

by BleachBum on Dec 15, 2011 2:58 PM CST up reply actions  

If our goal is to "see how things worked out" then I understand what we're doing

If all we care about is the outcome, then there is no discussion: he’s +1 if his challenge is sustained and -1 if it’s overruled; then we add ’em all up and see what his record is.

The only reason to discuss clock issues/field position/impact on the game/odds of succes/etc, is if we’re trying to determine whether, given the situation Kubiak faced, it was advisble to throw the flag. And if THAT is our goal, then the outcome of the challenge is of little to no consequence.

by Franchise19 on Dec 15, 2011 4:17 PM CST up reply actions  

Horrible call

First off, in my opinion, the play called is part of the decision. It should be…I am going for it on 4th down because I believe this play will work. I would have defended the call if he had tried a play action pass that might have netted us a big play.

Second, I believe you have to trust Rackers to make it, otherwise you should be bringing guys in to try out. Kickers aren’t that hard to find, that is why no one drafts them.

Third, if I don’t think Rackers will make it, there is another option besides going for it. That would be punting the ball. That would mean trying to down it inside the 5 or trying to punt it out of bounds near the 5. Then you rely on our stellar defense pinning them back, and you could potentially get the ball back in good field position.

Finally, even though I hate this decision, I think Kubes has done an outstanding job overall this year. Keeping the morale up in the face of terrible injury problems is something that cannot be over emphasized.

I also would have including the winning play call at the end of the game. When Cincy called a time out before that play, I made the comment that it was a stupid call on Cincy’s part, because it gave Kubes time to talk to TJ and get him the proper play call. And the call was perfect.

by BleachBum on Dec 15, 2011 1:59 PM CST reply actions  

You could also

line up like your going for it, make a hard count with 1 sec on the play clock, and if they jump you get a first down, if not, you take the 5 yd penalty and punt.

by BleachBum on Dec 15, 2011 2:09 PM CST up reply actions  

JMay,

You certainly seem to have a tendency to knock points down for when a challenge fails. In my opinion though, the Foster “fumble” and the Yates “fumble” challenges shouldn’t even make the list of things to discuss. Those 2 challenges simply needed to be made b/c they were blatant mistakes by the referees, the fact they are so inept/corrupt that they don’t even overturn it doesn’t change the fact that those challenge flags needed to be thrown.

If a teacher writes on the chalkboard 1+1=3, and you tell him/her it should be 1+1=2, is it a bad decision or wrong if the principal then comes in the classroom and says 1+1=3?

by jkcheng122 on Dec 15, 2011 2:35 PM CST reply actions  

Failed challenge

this just in:
@NickScurfield League told the #Texans that Arian Foster’s fumble at Cincy was not actually a fumble

In light of that admission, I’ll relent and move the challenge to a 3.

by JMay on Dec 15, 2011 2:41 PM CST reply actions  

not bashing

I’m glad that they came out and said that i didn’t need them to tell me in order to give it 3 but i see what you are working with here as you stated above the system has flaws like all systems do

by jags52982 on Dec 15, 2011 3:12 PM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Your big-time home for big-time analysis and big-time rants about all things Houston Texan.

Hate Mail Goes Here

Brb_small Tim

Absurdly Talented Writers

Lucy_small bigfatdrunk

Tumblr_l2ecwbvekp1qbhedwo1_500_small MDC

Vlcsnap-00003_small riversmccown

Tumblr_l4i6iruxha1qbs5d3o1_400_small TexansDC

Chairman_meow_blink_small UprootedTexan

Absurdly Talented Writers, Part Deux

Photo_small Vega

Alec-baldwin-glengarry-glen-ross-always-be-closing_small tehGrindCrusher