PDA

View Full Version : Football Outsiders bullish on the Texans


Texans_Chick
07-31-2013, 02:34 PM
A Q&A I did with Tom Gower on this year's Texans prediction:

Football Outsiders Almanac bullish on the Texans (http://blog.chron.com/ultimatetexans/2013/07/football-outsiders-almanac-2013-texans/)

Tons of stuff we didn't talk about but a nice taste of what is in this year's FOA.

Stemp
07-31-2013, 02:52 PM
I don't know why but I initially read that as "football outsiders bulls**t on the texans"

Texans_Chick
07-31-2013, 03:17 PM
I don't know why but I initially read that as "football outsiders bulls**t on the texans"

I think that headline would get me in trouble.

In semi-related news, I hate writing headlines.

paycheck71
07-31-2013, 04:10 PM
I don't know why but I initially read that as "football outsiders bulls**t on the texans"

That's exactly what I first read... LOL

Hervoyel
07-31-2013, 04:15 PM
I think that headline would get me in trouble.

In semi-related news, I hate writing headlines.

Why would it get you in trouble. We bull***t on the Texans all the time around here :)

paycheck71
07-31-2013, 05:13 PM
I think that headline would get me in trouble.

In semi-related news, I hate writing headlines.

What trouble? Aren't you doing Chronicle a favor these days by working for them for free?

76Texan
07-31-2013, 05:16 PM
Thanks for the read, TC.

BTW, the poll on Keenum and Yates is interesting.

thunderkyss
07-31-2013, 06:01 PM
TC.... thanks. Somehow you always manage to ask the questions I would ask.

I found this interesting
The Texans were right to play such a conservative personnel grouping so often, as they’ve struggled badly the past couple seasons when they’ve played “11.” In 2012, their DVOA in “12″ was 14.9%, compared to -27.5% in “11.” In 2011, when they had Jacoby Jones and thus better WR depth (at least in the games Andre Johnson played), they had a 17.6% DVOA in “12″ and -7.3% DVOA in “11.” DVOA includes an adjustment for game situation, so this suggests the Texans offense simply hasn’t worked as well when they’ve played with more wide receivers. This could reflect the quality of the wide receiver depth, the particular strengths of the offense, or a number of things it’s hard to tease out.”

EllisUnit
07-31-2013, 06:03 PM
Glad to see we all werent just crazy saying Kubiak is slightly conservative :kitten:

drs23
07-31-2013, 06:39 PM
Glad to see we all werent just crazy saying Kubiak is slightly conservative :kitten:

What the hell do they know? Just generating page hits. :D :kitten:

Texans_Chick
07-31-2013, 07:21 PM
What trouble? Aren't you doing Chronicle a favor these days by working for them for free?

You make a terrific point that is best for me to ignore.

I try to think of it as not a Chronicle thing and more as something I can give to fans who I love. Some people host big tailgates, I host a blog.

:texflag::texflag::texflag:

paycheck71
07-31-2013, 07:28 PM
You make a terrific point that is best for me to ignore.

I try to think of it as not a Chronicle thing and more as something I can give to fans who I love. Some people host big tailgates, I host a blog.

:texflag::texflag::texflag:

And we all greatly appreciate it!

dc_txtech
07-31-2013, 09:26 PM
Very good article. Definitely worth the click.

MEGA SWATT
08-01-2013, 01:16 AM
Cool, thx!

Texans_Chick
08-01-2013, 07:00 AM
Glad to see we all werent just crazy saying Kubiak is slightly conservative :kitten:

Interestingly, the conclusion is that given the way the team is structured, such conservatism makes sense.

FWIW, this is part of the conclusion about the coaching staff that is included at the end of the chapter:

It's a popular thing to claim the Texans need to "open up" or otherwise "diversify" their offense after their playoff failures the past two seasons. Yet detailed reviews of the team's play show a scheme that stresses defenses and punishes indiscipline, often with big plays. Gary Kubiak handles more of the pass game and Rick Dennison more of the run game and both do an excellent job of getting the most out of the talent they have. It will be up to well-regarded offensive line coach John Benton to help get the right side of the line in better shape this season.

thunderkyss
08-01-2013, 09:30 AM
Glad to see we all werent just crazy saying Kubiak is slightly conservative :kitten:

Makes you wonder if there was really a problem. We still won 12 games during the regular season. We still managed to have one of the top offenses in the NFL, points as well as yards.

Maybe Kubiak knows this team better than we give him credit for & were he not as conservative, we wouldn't have won so many games.

I know people don't like the 3 yards & a cloud of dust offense. Personally, If we get a 12+ point lead, we should work on running the ball when the other team knows we're going to run the ball. I want to win the TOP, I don't want to give the ball to the other team.... ever.

Even without a lead, I want to run the ball & keep it away from Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, & Peyton Manning. As long as we aren't down by two scores with less than a qtr to play, I want to see that ground & pound against those guys.

But those long drawn out possessions need to end in points, 6 preferably.

Surreal McCoy
08-01-2013, 09:46 AM
...
Maybe Kubiak knows this team better than we give him credit for & were he not as conservative, we wouldn't have won so many games...

Don't! You're just encouraging him to run more 3rd down draws! :kitten:

Rey
08-01-2013, 09:57 AM
Makes you wonder if there was really a problem. We still won 12 games during the regular season. We still managed to have one of the top offenses in the NFL, points as well as yards.


Maybe something different could have helped us be THE TOP offense in the NFL.

The Pencil Neck
08-01-2013, 09:59 AM
I've said it before and I'll probably have to say it again but...

I prefer this conservative approach. I prefer winning by choking someone out than losing with big, flashy, grandiose plays. I've got no problem with a team that isn't afraid to punt and trust its defense to step up instead of having to flail around and pray for a big play to bail them out.

And it's not like we're a conservative team that wins squeaker after squeaker by the skin of our teeth, a team that keeps it close and tries to get some last second score to win. We dominated most of the games we won last year... even when we weren't playing all that well. To me, that's just some good damn strategy right there.

We have to play better down the stretch and we have to find a way to stop higher-caliber offenses and not get ourselves in out-of-hand situations against teams like the Patriots and Packers. But. This is a young team that is new to winning and it's in the process of developing a winning tradition and a winning identity. I'm cool with that. We just need to keep winning and keep getting better at it.

ObsiWan
08-01-2013, 11:05 AM
I've said it before and I'll probably have to say it again but...

I prefer this conservative approach. I prefer winning by choking someone out than losing with big, flashy, grandiose plays. I've got no problem with a team that isn't afraid to punt and trust its defense to step up instead of having to flail around and pray for a big play to bail them out.

And it's not like we're a conservative team that wins squeaker after squeaker by the skin of our teeth, a team that keeps it close and tries to get some last second score to win. We dominated most of the games we won last year... even when we weren't playing all that well. To me, that's just some good damn strategy right there.

We have to play better down the stretch and we have to find a way to stop higher-caliber offenses and not get ourselves in out-of-hand situations against teams like the Patriots and Packers. But. This is a young team that is new to winning and it's in the process of developing a winning tradition and a winning identity. I'm cool with that. We just need to keep winning and keep getting better at it.

Co-signed.
Just win.

The aforementioned Patriots and Packers threw the ball around the yard. Neither made the Super Bowl last year. Arguably the best QB of this "age" (#18) who's known for his lofty passing stats was one-and-done in the playoffs last year.

Just do whatever the heck works against whoever the heck we're playing.
Just win.

Rey
08-01-2013, 11:10 AM
I've said it before and I'll probably have to say it again but...

I prefer this conservative approach. I prefer winning by choking someone out than losing with big, flashy, grandiose plays.

You don't have to always be looking for a big play to be more effective. You can be highly efficient and effective with what ever play style you have.

I don't care how we play really....I just want it to be as effective as possible.

But When it's not effective in certain areas, then I think we as fans are going to question the methods.

eriadoc
08-01-2013, 11:21 AM
You don't have to always be looking for a big play to be more effective. You can be highly efficient and effective with what ever play style you have.

I don't care how we play really....I just want it to be as effective as possible.

But When it's not effective in certain areas, then I think we as fans are going to question the methods.

This. I don't think many fans actually care about how conservative the team is, per se. It's just a convenient label to describe ineffectiveness at times. Some of my favorite times as a fan have been the few times that the team has driven 90+ yards in 12 minutes and punched it in for a TD. That is awesome football. I want to see the team grind it out, ram it down the other team's throat, and score. Conversely, some of the most uneasy times as a fan have been the numerous times that the Texans land on 16 points. 1 TD, 3 freakin' FGs, and it keeps the other team {TeddyKGB} hanging around {/TeddyKGB}.

When the team gets a lead, it's time to be conservative, for the most part. There might be a moment or two in the game when they need to take a calculated risk, like when they really need to convert a 3rd down to close it out. But when they fall behind, that conservative crap doesn't work. I want a team that is capable of controlling the tempo for starters, but also regaining control of the tempo as needed. The 2012 Texans had problems in that area.

The article says that Kubiak was correct to go conservative because his team performed poorly in other situations. I have said before that Kubiak can't trust his personnel in certain situations, starting with the QB. So he leans to the safer side of things.

paycheck71
08-01-2013, 11:28 AM
Co-signed.
Just win.

The aforementioned Patriots and Packers threw the ball around the yard. Neither made the Super Bowl last year. Arguably the best QB of this "age" (#18) who's known for his lofty passing stats was one-and-done in the playoffs last year.

Just do whatever the heck works against whoever the heck we're playing.
Just win.

Actually, the Patriots ran the ball more than the Texans (523 att vs 508 for the Texans). They also passed the ball more than the Texans, but that's because they run more plays. 45% of their plays were runs. 47% of Texans plays were runs. Maybe the Patriots are also a run first team? :kitten:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2012.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/2012.htm

The Pencil Neck
08-01-2013, 11:41 AM
You don't have to always be looking for a big play to be more effective. You can be highly efficient and effective with what ever play style you have.

I don't care how we play really....I just want it to be as effective as possible.

But When it's not effective in certain areas, then I think we as fans are going to question the methods.

That's just it. We're being highly effective and people are still complaining.

We won 12 games by an average margin of victory of over 13 points. That's pretty damned good and pretty freaking effective.

And it isn't just that we lost steam at the end because of injuries or whatnot... which we did and that stings. People were complaining about Kubiaks' conservatism even when we were at our hottest and most effective. We could be winning by 20 points and with our backs against the end-zone and if Kubiak calls a draw play on a 3rd and 20, people start complaining about how conservative he is.

Rey
08-01-2013, 12:04 PM
That's just it. We're being highly effective and people are still complaining.

We won 12 games by an average margin of victory of over 13 points. That's pretty damned good and pretty freaking effective.

Honestly, the 12 games thing doesn't matter to me. Lots of teams in the NFL have won 12 games before. I'm not super impressed by that. It's nice, and it's a really good season though. I want to see us play well in big games against high profile teams.


And the problem is that people think we could be more effective especially when situations get tougher. With the talent we have, finishing near the top of the league should be a given as far as offense goes. We had 5 pro bowl caliber players on offense last year. The biggest injuries we suffered last year were defensively...Not on offense.

Andre, Schaub and Arian haven't made it through many seasons together where they ALL stayed healthy. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting a team that is this talented to do more. They can be better offensively. They know that and they have all said it. They were disappointed with their performances.

I think the ultimate goal is to win a superbowl. The Texans had a good year last year, but they aren't winning any superbowls playing like they did last year down the stretch.

EllisUnit
08-01-2013, 01:22 PM
Interestingly, the conclusion is that given the way the team is structured, such conservatism makes sense.

FWIW, this is part of the conclusion about the coaching staff that is included at the end of the chapter:

I saw that part, but kubiak gets to conservative at the wrong times IMO.like the last 4 games of the season for example. He should have pulled out all the tricks to secure the #1 seed, and look what happened.

thunderkyss
08-01-2013, 02:17 PM
Maybe something different could have helped us be THE TOP offense in the NFL.

I never thought Kubiak was "conservative" by nature. I always thought he wanted to run wide open all the time. But... things happen when this bunch of guys tried it. There was a time when if you called someone a RB he'd fumble the ball.

We invented new ways to lose games in 2010 & we were slinging it.

I don't think Gary opening it up in 2012 would have made us the top offense in the NFL. A little more continuity on the right side of the line, 5+ ypc in the run game, better Quality receivers.... better play from the QB position... those would have probably helped more.

thunderkyss
08-01-2013, 02:33 PM
We have to play better down the stretch and we have to find a way to stop higher-caliber offenses and not get ourselves in out-of-hand situations against teams like the Patriots and Packers. But. This is a young team that is new to winning and it's in the process of developing a winning tradition and a winning identity. I'm cool with that. We just need to keep winning and keep getting better at it.

Certain teams, you can't let them get to big a lead. If they've got 10 points on you, there is pressure to score.

We got down by 5 early in the Denver game. Had we not scored when we did, it could have really been bad. GB & New England gave us opportunities to score early, but we pissed them away (GBs defense actually played that well). Our second game against New England, even though they had us on the score board, going into half time we still had some control.

Then we let New England score on a 7 play drive that took all of 3 minutes to open the half. Our offense answers by going 3 & out. Defense steps it up & get us the ball back. We grind down the field for the next 4 & a half minutes to pick up about 50 yards. Then throw an INT.

Six plays later Brandon Lloyd is doing his touchdown dance.

6 possessions to open the third Qtr, New England got three, we got three. They scored on two out of three. We didn't score on any of ours.

Playing against a team that struggles with points, we can get away with that. We were 8th in ppg, They were 1st & it showed. FYI, Broncos were 2nd, GB was 5th, Baltimore was 10th.

Rey
08-01-2013, 03:04 PM
I never thought Kubiak was "conservative" by nature. I always thought he wanted to run wide open all the time. But... things happen when this bunch of guys tried it. There was a time when if you called someone a RB he'd fumble the ball.

We invented new ways to lose games in 2010 & we were slinging it.

I don't think Gary opening it up in 2012 would have made us the top offense in the NFL. A little more continuity on the right side of the line, 5+ ypc in the run game, better Quality receivers.... better play from the QB position... those would have probably helped more.

My argument is not to open the offense up. I actually LOVE this offense and I have a great, great respect for Kubiak as a playcaller.

I honestly don't know what Kubiak could have done to improve the offense last year. I can come up with a bunch of stuff I would have tried or done differently, but I don't know if it'd have worked...I'm not saying they should have done anything specifically right now.


The reason I quoted you with that comment I made is because I don't have a problem with people wanting more in this instance. I think it's reasonable to expect this offense to be better.

noxiousdog
08-01-2013, 04:01 PM
Honestly, the 12 games thing doesn't matter to me. Lots of teams in the NFL have won 12 games before. I'm not super impressed by that. It's nice, and it's a really good season though. I want to see us play well in big games against high profile teams.

Like against Denver, Baltimore, Chicago, and Cincinnati?

I'd like to win them all but there's want and there's realistic.

Rey
08-01-2013, 04:04 PM
Like against Denver, Baltimore, Chicago, and Cincinnati?

I'd like to win them all but there's want and there's realistic.

I would use a face palm smiley if I did that sort of thing.

I don't care what their record is as long as it gets them into the play-offs.

I really don't care if you are satisfied with what they ended up doing last year. But please, don't try to bring me down to your low expectations.

thunderkyss
08-01-2013, 11:40 PM
I would use a face palm smiley if I did that sort of thing.

I don't care what their record is as long as it gets them into the play-offs.

I really don't care if you are satisfied with what they ended up doing last year. But please, don't try to bring me down to your low expectations.

I think his point is that the thought now is that we couldn't compete against the better teams in the league because we were outclassed by GB & NE.

But we put the stank on Denver & Baltimore, two of the better teams in the league. We did the same to Chicago... they turned out to be an even bigger paper tiger than we were, but at the time, they looked like the class of the NFC.

& while Cincinnati isn't considered among the better teams in the league, they are a back to back play off team. Things could be better of course, but we could be Chicago... for a little while we were. We could be Cincinnati... we probably should have been the one & done Cincinnati Bengals.

Some people think we did no better than we did in 2011, exiting in the divisional round, & technically that's true. But I don't think it was the same. Had we played Baltimore, no doubt in my mind we'd have beat them.

Doesn't mean much but in my mind. New England is on another level than Baltimore & Denver..... we could beat them (again in my mind) 2 out of 5 times, where I think it's more 50/50 with Baltimore & Denver.

I know it looks bad 41 to whatever... again if James Casey caught that ball I think New England would have had trouble keeping up with us.

Anyway, I think that was his point. I get your point as well. It's not that Kubiak was conservative, he was spineless. Put the ball in Schaub's hand on 3rd & 19, give us a shot to make it. If he throws it away, so be it.

Truthfully I haven't figured out if it's Kubiak that was spinelss, calling the draw; or if Schaub was the spineless one checking to the draw when he didn't see the ideal coverage.

But it was spineless just the same.

noxiousdog
08-02-2013, 01:27 AM
I would use a face palm smiley if I did that sort of thing.

I don't care what their record is as long as it gets them into the play-offs.

I really don't care if you are satisfied with what they ended up doing last year. But please, don't try to bring me down to your low expectations.

But they did get into the playoffs....

You wanted them to show well against good teams. They did that against more than half the good teams they played.

I don't actually recall saying what my expectations were, so that's odd that you'd call them low.

thunderkyss
08-02-2013, 10:13 AM
But they did get into the playoffs....

You wanted them to show well against good teams. They did that against more than half the good teams they played.

I don't actually recall saying what my expectations were, so that's odd that you'd call them low.

Don't forget to mention that both GB & NE had their butts handed to them by lesser teams as well.

DX-TEX
08-02-2013, 11:06 AM
Maybe its the homer in me talking but I feel REALLY damn good about this season in all areas but one: Outside linebacker. We have zero depth and one starter now has a hamstring injury.

Rey
08-02-2013, 11:19 AM
But they did get into the playoffs....

You wanted them to show well against good teams. They did that against more than half the good teams they played.

What good teams? Denver early in the year when they were still feeling themselves out? Baltimore before they switched OC's and had one of their worst games of the year?

Chicago? Seriously? The offense didn't do much that game and had Cutler not gotten hurt that game could have easily gone either way.

But yeah...Lets celebrate those wins. Nevermind them getting their asses handed to them when they were: 1) Undefeated against a good team playing in front of a national audience 2) getting owned against the lowly vikings and colts when they needed to win for home field advantage 3) being one slightly overthrown ball away from being bounced in the first round against the Bengals 4) And then finally, going into NE and getting thrashed




I don't actually recall saying what my expectations were, so that's odd that you'd call them low


You don't have to say everything directly. When you say something was good enough, that defines your expectations. If it wasn't good enough, then what exactly is your point?

Rey
08-02-2013, 11:26 AM
I think his point is that the thought now is that we couldn't compete against the better teams in the league because we were outclassed by GB & NE.

But we put the stank on Denver & Baltimore, two of the better teams in the league. We did the same to Chicago... they turned out to be an even bigger paper tiger than we were, but at the time, they looked like the class of the NFC.

& while Cincinnati isn't considered among the better teams in the league, they are a back to back play off team. Things could be better of course, but we could be Chicago... for a little while we were. We could be Cincinnati... we probably should have been the one & done Cincinnati Bengals.

Some people think we did no better than we did in 2011, exiting in the divisional round, & technically that's true. But I don't think it was the same. Had we played Baltimore, no doubt in my mind we'd have beat them.

Doesn't mean much but in my mind. New England is on another level than Baltimore & Denver..... we could beat them (again in my mind) 2 out of 5 times, where I think it's more 50/50 with Baltimore & Denver.

I know it looks bad 41 to whatever... again if James Casey caught that ball I think New England would have had trouble keeping up with us.

Anyway, I think that was his point. I get your point as well. It's not that Kubiak was conservative, he was spineless. Put the ball in Schaub's hand on 3rd & 19, give us a shot to make it. If he throws it away, so be it.

Truthfully I haven't figured out if it's Kubiak that was spinelss, calling the draw; or if Schaub was the spineless one checking to the draw when he didn't see the ideal coverage.

But it was spineless just the same.

Listen TK...All I see are a bunch of excuses. Windows aren't open for long in the NFL. You need to strike when the iron is hot. I think last season was the first year Dre, Arian and Schaub were all healthy. You had three pro bowl Linemen healthy all year.

True we lost Cushing and the right side struggled...True we had injury problems on the Defense...So what? Every team has issues. We didn't overcome ours WHEN WE NEEDED TO. It's that simple. We didn't step up our play. We are going to have issues this year too guys...The excuses will never stop...You guys can rationalize all you want. That's not my make-up. They didn't get it done and they didn't play as well as they should have. Is your argument really that we are so fragile that one dropped pass on the first drive of a game in the play-offs means we're going to get out doors blown off? How does that make you feel better? If we can't overcome hiccups and fold like a piece of paper in big moments then we're doomed. I refuse to take your arguments seriously because the excuses you are making would not make me feel better about this team.

Spineless coach or Spineless QB are not two options I want to choose from. We just need to do better.

Rey
08-02-2013, 11:29 AM
Don't forget to mention that both GB & NE had their butts handed to them by lesser teams as well.

How do you conclude who is a lesser team?

What lesser teams handed NE and GB their Butts?

I don't believe the Texans got beat badly by any "lesser teams" so I don't even know what point you're trying to make???

DX-TEX
08-02-2013, 11:34 AM
How do you conclude who is a lesser team?

What lesser teams handed NE and GB their Butts?

I don't believe the Texans got beat badly by any "lesser teams" so I don't even know what point you're trying to make???

Packers lost to the Vikings twice. Means the Texans were beaten by a lesser team as well

Pats lost to the Cardinals and Ravens (who were not good during the regular season)

deucetx
08-02-2013, 11:39 AM
Packers lost to the Vikings twice. Means the Texans were beaten by a lesser team as well

Pats lost to the Cardinals and Ravens (who were not good during the regular season)

Think Rey was pointing out to the 'handing them their butts' meaning a whipping. Pats lost by a combined 3 points in both those games and the Packers only loss once to the Vikings and it was by 3 points. The other game they won it.

Rey
08-02-2013, 12:25 PM
Think Rey was pointing out to the 'handing them their butts' meaning a whipping. Pats lost by a combined 3 points in both those games and the Packers only loss once to the Vikings and it was by 3 points. The other game they won it.

Yes that was exactly what I was wanting to know. I was trying to find out which lesser teams came out and killed those guys.

thunderkyss
08-02-2013, 12:50 PM
Listen TK...All I see are a bunch of excuses.

.The excuses will never stop...You guys can rationalize all you want.

Spineless coach or Spineless QB are not two options I want to choose from. We just need to do better.

Yeah, I wish I could act like my sht doesn't stink, but that's not my make up. First we need to compete in the division, then we needed to win the division, then we needed to get into the playoffs, then we needed to win in the playoffs.

Now we've got to go undefeated & winning in the play offs don't count unless we beat New England. You can say that's not what you're saying, but if that's the case, what are you complaining about?

You win some, you lose some. You do the best you can with what you got. Maybe the team underperformed by your standards & I'm just as upset as anyone that we didn't win the Super Bowl. But I'm not going to piss on them because they weren't undefeated.

thunderkyss
08-02-2013, 12:52 PM
Ok so handed their butts to them may not have been accurate. But the point is they weren't undefeated. They didn't win the Super Bowl. But they're still good teams & we suck.

76Texan
08-02-2013, 01:39 PM
The Giants were a lesser team and they handed the Packers their butts.
The Ravens were a lesser team and they kicked the Pats in the rear.

:)

Rey
08-02-2013, 02:21 PM
Yeah, I wish I could act like my sht doesn't stink, but that's not my make up. First we need to compete in the division, then we needed to win the division, then we needed to get into the playoffs, then we needed to win in the playoffs.

Now we've got to go undefeated & winning in the play offs don't count unless we beat New England. You can say that's not what you're saying, but if that's the case, what are you complaining about?

You win some, you lose some. You do the best you can with what you got. Maybe the team underperformed by your standards & I'm just as upset as anyone that we didn't win the Super Bowl. But I'm not going to piss on them because they weren't undefeated.

I didn't piss on them. I stated some things that I thought were wrong with the team, but some of you guys turn into mother goose when someone says that the team played poorly last season and could have done better.

Who said anything about going undefeated?

This was my initial reply to your post:

My argument is not to open the offense up. I actually LOVE this offense and I have a great, great respect for Kubiak as a playcaller.

I honestly don't know what Kubiak could have done to improve the offense last year. I can come up with a bunch of stuff I would have tried or done differently, but I don't know if it'd have worked...I'm not saying they should have done anything specifically right now.


The reason I quoted you with that comment I made is because I don't have a problem with people wanting more in this instance. I think it's reasonable to expect this offense to be better.

Now, I'll end it here; If you have a problem with that, then IMO, you are trying to bring others down to your standards of awwww shucks...They did well enough...I wish they'd have done better but hey...

I don't care what you, or anyone else here says. They didn't do good enough. They underachieved. They need to correct their mistakes and put it on display this year. They played like **** to close the year out, and that's not all good to me.

noxiousdog
08-02-2013, 02:30 PM
What good teams? Denver early in the year when they were still feeling themselves out? Baltimore before they switched OC's and had one of their worst games of the year?

Chicago? Seriously? The offense didn't do much that game and had Cutler not gotten hurt that game could have easily gone either way.

But yeah...Lets celebrate those wins. Nevermind them getting their asses handed to them when they were: 1) Undefeated against a good team playing in front of a national audience 2) getting owned against the lowly vikings and colts when they needed to win for home field advantage 3) being one slightly overthrown ball away from being bounced in the first round against the Bengals 4) And then finally, going into NE and getting thrashed

You don't have to say everything directly. When you say something was good enough, that defines your expectations. If it wasn't good enough, then what exactly is your point?



You're all over the map.

You specificially said, "I don't care what their record is as long as it gets them into the play-offs." They made the playoffs and won a game.

You are then saying the Broncos weren't good when we played them and the Bears weren't good at the end. You can't have it both ways. Either you can take the variability into account, or don't. Regardless, in my opinion both were good teams. Not great teams, but good teams, and we beat both of them on the road.

Then you're reading into my comments to argue against something I haven't said or implied.
I didn't say they were good enough. I said it's not realistic to expect them to win every game.

If you're only going to be happy if they win the Super Bowl, fine. That's your perrogative. But don't make stuff up if you don't want to come out and say it directly.

eriadoc
08-02-2013, 02:33 PM
You win some, you lose some. You do the best you can with what you got. Maybe the team underperformed by your standards & I'm just as upset as anyone that we didn't win the Super Bowl. But I'm not going to piss on them because they weren't undefeated.

No one's "pissing on them" because they didn't go undefeated. Given last year's team and circumstances, it's completely unacceptable that they didn't wrap up home field advantage and a bye one of the multiple times they had a chance. It's also unacceptable that they were predictably uncompetitive against the Patriots. No one gave them a chance against the Patriots and they came out and proved the world correct. They didn't lose by three points. They didn't compete and fall off int he 4th quarter. They got their doors blown off and they looked like they didn't even belong on the field. Hell, they looked like they should have been wearing those ridiculous high school letterman jackets again.

thunderkyss
08-02-2013, 02:43 PM
I didn't piss on them. I stated some things that I thought were wrong with the team, but some of you guys turn into mother goose when someone says that the team played poorly last season and could have done better.

Who said anything about going undefeated?

This was my initial reply to your post:



Now, I'll end it here; If you have a problem with that, then IMO, you are trying to bring others down to your standards of awwww shucks...They did well enough...I wish they'd have done better but hey...

I don't care what you, or anyone else here says. They didn't do good enough. They underachieved. They need to correct their mistakes and put it on display this year. They played like **** to close the year out, and that's not all good to me.

Maybe I got out of hand..... taking somethings out of proportion.... Or just got excited about arguing something, I don't know... I'm sorry I'm just in a bad mood. You know how it is. 1st of the month & all.... gov't check not on time, half of it already spent. y'know, bs

Texans_Chick
08-03-2013, 12:06 PM
I saw that part, but kubiak gets to conservative at the wrong times IMO.like the last 4 games of the season for example. He should have pulled out all the tricks to secure the #1 seed, and look what happened.

What stops? His offensive line was doing a rotation with injuries. His tight ends who were so effective earlier in the season were nicked up down the stretch. His 3-5 wide receivers had catch rates so bad that Jacoby Jones would laugh at them. His number 2 wide receiver was Kevin Walter. Earlier in the season, Matt Schaub was getting hit so much after the throw he lost part of an ear. Their defense that had been so effective earlier in the year had their own deals, and they were not getting the turnover luck they had earlier in the season. Oh, and stupid special teams.

They were dealing with schizz. There was a lot of stuff going on. No excuses because it isn't my homework the dog ate, but how you going to open up the offense given these circumstances? In the Patriots game, they didn't have enough TEs so they had to run a Olinemen in there for jumbo packages.

EllisUnit
08-03-2013, 12:28 PM
What stops? His offensive line was doing a rotation with injuries. His tight ends who were so effective earlier in the season were nicked up down the stretch. His 3-5 wide receivers had catch rates so bad that Jacoby Jones would laugh at them. His number 2 wide receiver was Kevin Walter. Earlier in the season, Matt Schaub was getting hit so much after the throw he lost part of an ear. Their defense that had been so effective earlier in the year had their own deals, and they were not getting the turnover luck they had earlier in the season. Oh, and stupid special teams.

They were dealing with schizz. There was a lot of stuff going on. No excuses because it isn't my homework the dog ate, but how you going to open up the offense given these circumstances? In the Patriots game, they didn't have enough TEs so they had to run a Olinemen in there for jumbo packages.

In the Patriots game they had FB clutts sitting on the bench, and kept Casey at FB with OD as the only TE. Common sense says take Clutts and put him in the game, move casey to TE. But NO Clutts didnt play in the game until the game was lost and our starters were pulled. That is the kind of BS i'm talking about.

Why sign Clutts if you dont use him, especially in a situation like that.

Texans_Chick
08-03-2013, 12:47 PM
In the Patriots game they had FB clutts sitting on the bench, and kept Casey at FB with OD as the only TE. Common sense says take Clutts and put him in the game, move casey to TE. But NO Clutts didnt play in the game until the game was lost and our starters were pulled. That is the kind of BS i'm talking about.

Why sign Clutts if you dont use him, especially in a situation like that.

Clutts is not an option that "opens up your offense." He wasn't part of camp at all. Casey knew the offense better.

And when Casey is playing FB, offenses have to play him differently than most FBs because he can catch passes if defenses are sleeping.

EllisUnit
08-03-2013, 12:58 PM
Clutts is not an option that "opens up your offense." He wasn't part of camp at all. Casey knew the offense better.

And when Casey is playing FB, offenses have to play him differently than most FBs because he can catch passes if defenses are sleeping.

i understand ur theory, but its not like we utilized casey properly at FB last season anyways. Clutts could of came in and blocked for foster while casey went back to TE.

Your saying it wouldnt have worked ? Well did it work the way Kubiak did it ? No it didnt.

Not to mention the whole thing about not opening up ur offense, only haveing 1 TE didnt help open up our offense either, but having a FB and 2 TEs would have.

Texans_Chick
08-03-2013, 01:05 PM
i understand ur theory, but its not like we utilized casey properly at FB last season anyways. Clutts could of came in and blocked for foster while casey went back to TE.

Your saying it wouldnt have worked ? Well did it work the way Kubiak did it ? No it didnt.

Not to mention the whole thing about not opening up ur offense, only haveing 1 TE didnt help open up our offense either, but having a FB and 2 TEs would have.

The Patriots were a difficult matchup for the Texans given the composition of the team particularly with the injuries they had at the time.

Wilfork creates problems for everyone, but ungood matchup for Myers, esp with not above average guard play next to him.

Patriots CBs were weak link but Texans had only 1 real WR to test.

Texans TEs were a strength but they were not right by that time in the season.

And I asked all sorts of football people I respected prior to the game how they would defense the Patriots offense given the issues the Texans had at linebacker. The answers were not very encouraging.

In other words, I'm not sure any way to open up the offense would have particularly mattered in 2012.

They were dealing with schizz. Dealt pretty well with it for most of the season. But the Texans are less about trickery and more about execution and they made too many mistakes down the stretch.

EllisUnit
08-03-2013, 01:08 PM
The Patriots were a difficult matchup for the Texans given the composition of the team particularly with the injuries they had at the time.

Wilfork creates problems for everyone, but ungood matchup for Myers, esp with not above average guard play next to him.

Patriots CBs were weak link but Texans had only 1 real WR to test.

Texans TEs were a strength but they were not right by that time in the season.

And I asked all sorts of football people I respected prior to the game how they would defense the Patriots offense given the issues the Texans had at linebacker. The answers were not very encouraging.

In other words, I'm not sure any way to open up the offense would have particularly mattered in 2012.

They were dealing with schizz. Dealt pretty well with it for most of the season. But the Texans are less about trickery and more about execution and they made too many mistakes down the stretch.

Not saying putting clutts in at FB and casey back to TE would of made a difference but IMO it just makes the most sense if your trying to win a game/open up your offense.

For example when we played them in the play-offs atleast it was closer for a while anyways. Gotta try to win no matter what is all i'm saying. Cause a lot of the people who make the patriots so good are not players who would make a lot of teams, but the coach and QB know how to utilize their guys.

Texans_Chick
08-04-2013, 10:25 AM
Not saying putting clutts in at FB and casey back to TE would of made a difference but IMO it just makes the most sense if your trying to win a game/open up your offense.

For example when we played them in the play-offs atleast it was closer for a while anyways. Gotta try to win no matter what is all i'm saying. Cause a lot of the people who make the patriots so good are not players who would make a lot of teams, but the coach and QB know how to utilize their guys.

I'm guessing if the Texans were comfortable that Clutts would be an improvement and knew the playbook, he'd be in.

The Texans like Clutts so much they went after Greg Jones.

Texian
08-04-2013, 10:39 AM
I read the FO article with a keen interest. I see where FO says the Texans play the 3rd easiest schedule in 2013. I am assuming that is based on the 2012 won-loss percentages. It doesn't appear that FO takes into account one of the great equalizers, the salary cap. Texans 2013 opponents on average have approximately $18 million more to spend in Salary Cap dollars vs the Texans. While the Texans may have the 3rd weakest schedule on paper don't expect it to play like the 3rd easiest schedule on Sundays. An $18 million salary cap advantage is equivalent to adding (6) $3 million a year players.

thunderkyss
08-04-2013, 11:06 AM
I read the FO article with a keen interest. I see where FO says the Texans play the 3rd easiest schedule in 2013. I am assuming that is based on the 2012 won-loss percentages. It doesn't appear that FO takes into account one of the great equalizers, the salary cap. Texans 2013 opponents on average have approximately $18 million more to spend in Salary Cap dollars vs the Texans. While the Texans may have the 3rd weakest schedule on paper don't expect it to play like the 3rd easiest schedule on Sundays. An $18 million salary cap advantage is equivalent to adding (6) $3 million a year players.

If they don't spend it, isn't that like saying we have (6) $3 Million dollars a year players against their thin air? That the advantage is actually ours?

I like S.O.S. some people don't. I look at SOS & predict how I think the Texans should do against it. At the end of the season, we'll see how much those teams changed relative to the Texans.

For instance, in 2011, we had a winning record against a winning SoS, meaning we improved more than the teams on our schedule did. Last year, we finished strong against a losing schedule, again, we improved more than the teams on our schedule did.

If 2013's schedule is similar to last seasons, .473 (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/75467/2013-nfl-strength-of-schedule-2)(& It is (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/56896/2012-nfl-strength-of-schedule)) we should expect to win 10-12 games again if we've improved as much as the teams on our schedule did. If we win 8-10 games, then we're falling behind. If we win 12+ games, then we've gained improved more than the teams on our schedule did.

EllisUnit
08-04-2013, 11:20 AM
I'm guessing if the Texans were comfortable that Clutts would be an improvement and knew the playbook, he'd be in.

The Texans like Clutts so much they went after Greg Jones.

well i dont believe Clutts is better than jones, but in that situation u have to consider what is better. A mediocra FB and 2 TEs, or 1 FB and and 1 TE. I would go with option 1 cause option 2 limits us way more.

Texian
08-04-2013, 11:38 AM
Clutts - Jones - Casey they still haven't replaced some of the best TE blocking abilities of Joel Dreessen. While it does appear they've replaced blocking successes of Leach & Vickers with Jones the Texans lose the versatility of Casey. Owen Daniels appears to be regressing and Graham has shown he's not any better. On paper it appears the Texans have taken another step or two backwards in the play from the TE position.

infantrycak
08-04-2013, 11:46 AM
Clutts - Jones - Casey they still haven't replaced some of the best TE blocking abilities of Joel Dreessen. While it does appear they've replaced blocking successes of Leach & Vickers with Jones the Texans lose the versatility of Casey. Owen Daniels appears to be regressing and Graham has shown he's not any better. On paper it appears the Texans have taken another step or two backwards in the play from the TE position.

WTF? Dreessen was a good not great blocker. Hell Manning got less out of him last year than Schaub got out of him as a receiver. Jones is one of the best blocking FBs in the league.

EllisUnit
08-04-2013, 11:46 AM
Clutts - Jones - Casey they still haven't replaced some of the best TE blocking abilities of Joel Dreessen. While it does appear they've replaced blocking successes of Leach & Vickers with Jones the Texans lose the versatility of Casey. Owen Daniels appears to be regressing and Graham has shown he's not any better. On paper it appears the Texans have taken another step or two backwards in the play from the TE position.

They might lose the versatility of Casey but tell me did the really ever take advantage of having casey last season ? To me it was his most unproductive year and he could of been used so much better than he was. So comparing the way they used casey to adding jones in there i dont see much of a difference and if anything it improves the running game. And then add on to it that we didnt have dressn last year anyways we wont be any worse.

thunderkyss
08-04-2013, 11:53 AM
well i dont believe Clutts is better than jones, but in that situation u have to consider what is better. A mediocra FB and 2 TEs, or 1 FB and and 1 TE. I would go with option 1 cause option 2 limits us way more.

If nothing else, leaving Clutts on the sideline should have helped us.

We still played 2 TE sets, Casey lined up at TE at times, it's just that there were no FBs on those sets.

& that's normal. We do that all the time. What we lost, were the 2 TE, 1 FB sets, which I don't know how many of those we ran anyway.

WTF? Dreessen was a good not great blocker. Hell Manning got less out of him last year than Schaub got out of him as a receiver. Jones is one of the best blocking FBs in the league.

Agreed. Graham is easily a better blocking TE than Dreessen. & I liked Dressen's run blocking.

thunderkyss
08-04-2013, 11:55 AM
They might lose the versatility of Casey but tell me did the really ever take advantage of having casey last season ? To me it was his most unproductive year and he could of been used so much better than he was. So comparing the way they used casey to adding jones in there i dont see much of a difference and if anything it improves the running game. And then add on to it that we didnt have dressn last year anyways we wont be any worse.

I don't know. I see him the same as I see KDub, only slower. If the dude would get open, they'd throw the ball at him. If he'd catch the ball, they'd throw it more often.

Casey being unproductive is just as much on him (imo) than anyone else, since there was plenty of opportunity for someone to step up.

EllisUnit
08-04-2013, 11:55 AM
If nothing else, leaving Clutts on the sideline should have helped us.

We still played 2 TE sets, Casey lined up at TE at times, it's just that there were no FBs on those sets.

& that's normal. We do that all the time. What we lost, were the 2 TE, 1 FB sets, which I don't know how many of those we ran anyway.



Agreed. Graham is easily a better blocking TE than Dreessen. & I liked Dressen's run blocking.

i agree with this, but my point is texans chick said using clutss would of limited us, i dont agree as we could of used the 1 FB 2 TE set like u mentioned and when we didnt Casey could of still went back to FB. Thats my whole point.

Texian
08-04-2013, 12:08 PM
WTF? Dreessen was a good not great blocker. Hell Manning got less out of him last year than Schaub got out of him as a receiver. Jones is one of the best blocking FBs in the league.

According to PFF In 2011 when Dreessen was a Texans he was rated in the Top 3 in TE in Run Blocking.

They might lose the versatility of Casey but tell me did the really ever take advantage of having casey last season ? To me it was his most unproductive year and he could of been used so much better than he was. So comparing the way they used casey to adding jones in there i dont see much of a difference and if anything it improves the running game. And then add on to it that we didn't have dressn last year anyways we wont be any worse.

In 2010 & 2011 when the Texans were at their very best at running the football, Dreessen was the primary blocking TE, Leach/Vickers were the blocking FBs and Brisel and Winston were on the right side. In 2012 Texans run game DECLINED and the above 5 were no longer Texans. There will be plenty of excuses and rationale to explain the decline but in the end, it is what it is.

EllisUnit
08-04-2013, 05:45 PM
According to PFF In 2011 when Dreessen was a Texans he was rated in the Top 3 in TE in Run Blocking.



In 2010 & 2011 when the Texans were at their very best at running the football, Dreessen was the primary blocking TE, Leach/Vickers were the blocking FBs and Brisel and Winston were on the right side. In 2012 Texans run game DECLINED and the above 5 were no longer Texans. There will be plenty of excuses and rationale to explain the decline but in the end, it is what it is.

Last season we also had the right side of the line playing terrible, with newton and harris rotating, anlong with caldwell and jones along with casey not being much of a power blocker. Foster still did pretty good considering IMO

Playoffs
08-09-2013, 08:43 AM
Who izzat masked woman in the bubba hat?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TroHTRTdUa0&feature=youtu.be

ObsiWan
08-10-2013, 08:28 AM
Who izzat masked woman in the bubba hat?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TroHTRTdUa0&feature=youtu.be

Steph on camera!
Rare find!!
Repped!

Edit:
To the discussion on that video... sounds like the same argument we have all the time around here regarding Matt Schaub. Schaub has good-to-very good numbers historically but does not pass the "eye test".

thunderkyss
08-10-2013, 08:53 AM
Steph on camera!
Rare find!!
Repped!

Edit:
To the discussion on that video... sounds like the same argument we have all the time around here regarding Matt Schaub. Schaub has good-to-very good numbers historically but does not pass the "eye test".

That woman knows what she's talking about.

One thing she said though... the Flacco narrative. "It was the defense that did it." blah, blah, blah.... "But then Flacco did it." She's right, Flacco is very inconsistent, especially during the regular season, but this wasn't the first time that Flacco nutted up in the play offs. Not that it's something that you can turn on or turn off, but once the play offs start, odds are that Flacco is going to be better than Peyton & Brady.

Matt Schaub hasn't shown to be able to be that guy. The defense didn't step up, the running game didn't step up.... well, Matt didn't either.

She's right, Matt hasn't had the opportunities, but the opportunities he did have weren't very promising.