I wouldn’t say the idea of “too early” makes no sense in general. Take two evenly matched teams in a tie game in the first quarter, and consider two scenarios from this article: the fourth down decision faced by Chip Kelly and the one faced by Ron Rivera. I would argue that punting is the correct decision in the former because even though the expected return of going for it may be higher, the upside of succeeding is still quite low and not worth the risk of failing. If you wait a while to be aggressive, you will likely encounter another opportunity to go for a high variance play with greater upside later in the game. On the other hand, if you are down near your opponent’s goal line, the upside is tremendous and the downside not so bad. In that case, it makes sense to go for it early in a game because you will probably never have a better opportunity to swing the game in your favor with a single play. But I would agree that “too early” doesn’t make sense in most of the contexts where we hear it used in broadcasts.

That’s a good point; perhaps I should have limited my point to games where the two teams are of even strength. I guess when the Broncos play the Texans, they should take the low-variance options even when they bring about a lower EV. But I still think, in general (and in this specific case), the idea of “too early” makes no sense.