PDA

View Full Version : Offense


humblegeo
05-14-2014, 01:32 PM
Will this be more of a Bum Phillips type offense or a Jeff Fisher-Jack Pardee run and shoot type offense??

FirstTexansFan
05-14-2014, 01:34 PM
Will this be more of a Bum Phillips type offense or a Jeff Fisher run and shoot type offense??

Jack Pardee had the run and shoot :)

Playoffs
05-14-2014, 01:56 PM
http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103938

paycheck71
05-14-2014, 02:01 PM
Honestly, I don't know what this is going to be, but OB has said many times that this will be the kind of offense that will adapt to the circumstances and be versatile. Based on what they've drafted, it looks to me that they're looking to have a strong, dominating, physical defense. Also, based on he lack of a solid QB, I imagine this will also be a run heavy offense, at least to begin with until we either get a QB or develop one from what's on the roster.

What I'm looking forward to when the personnel is in place is versatility. If we need to run out the clock, we can do that. But if we need to run no huddle, we can do that, too, plus whatever's in between. Is it possible to be both at the same time? I don't know.

badboy
05-14-2014, 02:27 PM
Will this be more of a Bum Phillips type offense or a Jeff Fisher-Jack Pardee run and shoot type offense??
Same question I asked in thread about Texans game plan, It should be interesting.

"Texans game plan after draft?
No QB thru 3 so... a huge LG to solidify left side and protect our starting QB (Fitz?) and give Foster a better line. Quessenberry probably to RT and alongside Brooks and Fiedo does same to the right side. Do not need a great QB.

Looks to me like O'Brien will have a ball control offense but still maintain AJ and Nuk to stretch field. This could keep defense off field and with the addition of Clowney and NT Chocolate keep the other offense from putting points up. I'm thinking we see close low scoring games but not a Kubiak "play to remain close and hope we pull it out in fourth quarter."
"

steelbtexan
05-14-2014, 03:20 PM
Same question I asked in thread about Texans game plan, It should be interesting.

"Texans game plan after draft?
No QB thru 3 so... a huge LG to solidify left side and protect our starting QB (Fitz?) and give Foster a better line. Quessenberry probably to RT and alongside Brooks and Fiedo does same to the right side. Do not need a great QB.

Looks to me like O'Brien will have a ball control offense but still maintain AJ and Nuk to stretch field. This could keep defense off field and with the addition of Clowney and NT Chocolate keep the other offense from putting points up. I'm thinking we see close low scoring games but not a Kubiak "play to remain close and hope we pull it out in fourth quarter."
"

It amazes me how you devalue the QB position. BTW, I really like the Savage pick. Hopefully they trade for Mallett and trade Yates or Keenum.

badboy
05-14-2014, 03:34 PM
It amazes me how you devalue the QB position. BTW, I really like the Savage pick. Hopefully they trade for Mallett and trade Yates or Keenum.
It's not that I devalue the position but that I realistically see our options. Why are you so gung ho on Mallett? He is tall and so far that's all. With what we should have offensively (if AJ is on roster), we do not have to have a great QB to win. If one happens along, we are better. I don't see Texans having a view different than mine. Maybe you are the odd one out?

badboy
05-14-2014, 03:48 PM
It amazes me how you devalue the QB position. BTW, I really like the Savage pick. Hopefully they trade for Mallett and trade Yates or Keenum.
It's not that I devalue the position but that I realistically see our options. Why are you so gung ho on Mallett? He is tall and so far that's all. With what we should have offensively (if AJ is on roster), we do not have to have a great QB to win. If one happens along, we are better. I don't see Texans having a view different than mine. Maybe you are the odd one out?

powda
05-14-2014, 03:53 PM
It amazes me how you devalue the QB position. BTW, I really like the Savage pick. Hopefully they trade for Mallett and trade Yates or Keenum.

What would you expect to get for yates or keenum?

As for the qb position:

We got a 6 for schaub which was better then expected.

We got fitz which is nothing to brag about except he was the best free agent qb available.

We didn't blow our load early on an unworthy qb early like bortles and force a square peg into a round hole when better talent was available.

We got savage in the 4th round. Sure, he's a developmental prospect , but anybody we drafted was going to be. Keep in mind this guy was invited to the draft and we got him in the 4th!

If you wanted us to trade up for bridgewater it means you value him more then savage and X together. I don't.

To me it boils down to the 2nd round pick. Did we like carr or jimmy g enough to pick them over X? Clearly, BOB did what he wanted to. I dont see anybody complaining about X in the 2nd round.

Offensively how does this play out? Looks to me like they understand qb play may be shaky so they beefed up the running game because thats what was available. And they did it while drastically improving the defense. I'm not thrilled with our qb situation but I think its better then what we had.

TheMatrix31
05-14-2014, 03:55 PM
People have a Ryan Mallett fetish because they have been convinced that anyone learning under the tutelage of legendary players and coaches will, themselves, turn into legendary players. Of course, anyone who believes that such a legendary coach would be willing to exchange such a player for anything is dangerously foolish at best.

badboy
05-14-2014, 04:02 PM
Mallett brings little to the table imo and on the trade Andre front to NE, I'd rather trade for Garoppolo.

humblegeo
05-14-2014, 04:07 PM
If your throwing alott of short passes to tight ends and running backs may not need great quarterback.

steelbtexan
05-14-2014, 04:36 PM
It's not that I devalue the position but that I realistically see our options. Why are you so gung ho on Mallett? He is tall and so far that's all. With what we should have offensively (if AJ is on roster), we do not have to have a great QB to win. If one happens along, we are better. I don't see Texans having a view different than mine. Maybe you are the odd one out?

I'm not gung ho on Mallett although if he were on the roster he would be an upgrade. He's got a very strong arm, decent movement skills in the pocket and most of all already knows the offense.

The odd one out? Niether you or I have any idea of what BOB's ultimate vision for HIS offense is. But I'm sure it will look different in 3 yrs than it does next yr.

steelbtexan
05-14-2014, 04:42 PM
People have a Ryan Mallett fetish because they have been convinced that anyone learning under the tutelage of legendary players and coaches will, themselves, turn into legendary players. Of course, anyone who believes that such a legendary coach would be willing to exchange such a player for anything is dangerously foolish at best.

Or they could've actually seen them play several games and think they would be better than any QB on the current roster. Carry on oh wise one.

steelbtexan
05-14-2014, 04:46 PM
What would you expect to get for yates or keenum?

As for the qb position:

We got a 6 for schaub which was better then expected.

We got fitz which is nothing to brag about except he was the best free agent qb available.

We didn't blow our load early on an unworthy qb early like bortles and force a square peg into a round hole when better talent was available.

We got savage in the 4th round. Sure, he's a developmental prospect , but anybody we drafted was going to be. Keep in mind this guy was invited to the draft and we got him in the 4th!

If you wanted us to trade up for bridgewater it means you value him more then savage and X together. I don't.

To me it boils down to the 2nd round pick. Did we like carr or jimmy g enough to pick them over X? Clearly, BOB did what he wanted to. I dont see anybody complaining about X in the 2nd round.

Offensively how does this play out? Looks to me like they understand qb play may be shaky so they beefed up the running game because thats what was available. And they did it while drastically improving the defense. I'm not thrilled with our qb situation but I think its better then what we had.

Agreed,

If you read the TB thread you will find that I'm no TB fan and wanted either TB or Savage in the 2nd. So getting Savage in the 4th was like found $$$$. IMHO

The Ravens probably would give up a conditional 6/7th rd pick. Gary needs a backup that knows his offense.

TheMatrix31
05-14-2014, 04:54 PM
Or they could've actually seen them play several games and think they would be better than any QB on the current roster. Carry on oh wise one.

Ryan Mallett has started zero games in his illustrious career.

Here are his career game logs. Quite impressive. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MallRy00/gamelog//

I was mistaken. The fetish is well-deserved.

76Texan
05-14-2014, 04:56 PM
We might carry 4 TEs this year.
If we do, it's gonna tell a little about OB's offense.

MistaRed
05-14-2014, 04:59 PM
Can Fitzpatrick fit that Alex Smith role? Savage won't be ready to start week 1. The only QB I see pushing for the starting Job is Keenum.

steelbtexan
05-14-2014, 05:18 PM
Ryan Mallett has started zero games in his illustrious career.

Here are his career game logs. Quite impressive. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MallRy00/gamelog//

I was mistaken. The fetish is well-deserved.

I've watched many of Mallett's games at Arkansas and he's a better fit than any QB for BOB's offense than any QB on the Texans roster at this current time. IMHO (Not a fetish just my opinion)

The list of QB's in NFL history who would start over Brady is a short one. So what's your point, or are you just spouting off stats for effect. BTW, I'm not saying Mallett is/will be an all pro. Just currently he would be my choice as week 1 starter while Savage develops and if that cost a 4-7th rd pick for that luxury so be it.

TheMatrix31
05-14-2014, 05:25 PM
The purpose of my post was to disclose that Ryan Mallett has started zero games so it would therefore be impossible to definitively assess him as better than any QB on our roster. Of course, your admission that yours (and anyone's) exposure to Mallett remains limited to his collegiate career proves my point entirely.

powda
05-14-2014, 06:18 PM
Agreed,

If you read the TB thread you will find that I'm no TB fan and wanted either TB or Savage in the 2nd. So getting Savage in the 4th was like found $$$$. IMHO

The Ravens probably would give up a conditional 6/7th rd pick. Gary needs a backup that knows his offense.

Only my initial sentence was directed at you so if it looks like my entire post was aimed at you, thats not the case. im not familiar with Baltimore's qb depth outside of Flaco but Keenum to kubes for a 7 DOES look plausible. Hadn't considered that. Good post.

Playoffs
05-14-2014, 06:41 PM
We might carry 4 TEs this year.
If we do, it's gonna tell a little about OB's offense.

I'd be surprised if we didn't. Very.

WolverineFan
05-14-2014, 06:41 PM
I know a lot of people seem to be expecting full on Patriots spread, but I seriously doubt it. He ran a lot of two-back and two-TE sets at Penn State and, by the way we drafted, it looks like we'll be doing that too. Especially when you consider that he doesn't like any of the slot WR's on the team and still didn't address the position in draft or FA.

I would expect a power offense with a ton of multi-TE sets and FB usage. I think we can be versatile though with the collection of TE's that we have. Fiedorowicz and Griffin are in-line TE's, but they can both run and catch.

DocBar
05-14-2014, 08:37 PM
People have a Ryan Mallett fetish because they have been convinced that anyone learning under the tutelage of legendary players and coaches will, themselves, turn into legendary players. Of course, anyone who believes that such a legendary coach would be willing to exchange such a player for anything is dangerously foolish at best.How many legendary coaches and/or QB's have taken 2 separate teams to Super Bowl victories? Good post.

thunderkyss
05-14-2014, 08:39 PM
How many legendary coaches and/or QB's have taken 2 separate teams to Super Bowl victories? Good post.

Except Mike Holmgren pretty much did. Well, other than that vitories part. If we can be Holmgren's Seahawks that went to the Super Bowl with an ex-Packer coach & ex-Packer QB... count me in.

DocBar
05-14-2014, 08:43 PM
Mallett brings little to the table imo and on the trade Andre front to NE, I'd rather trade for Garoppolo.Make both of them part of the deal for AJ. :goodluck:

As far as the offense goes, I'm going to take BO'B at his word and expect to see pass happy against teams that are bad against the pass and run happy against teams that are bad against the run. He's said the offense will be flexible. I'll change my mind when I see a Kubiak-esque hardheadedness towards one or the other.

DocBar
05-14-2014, 08:45 PM
Except Mike Holmgren pretty much did. Well, other than that vitories part. If we can be Holmgren's Seahawks that went to the Super Bowl with an ex-Packer coach & ex-Packer QB... count me in.Did or pretty much did? I'm not so sure that was Holmgren's team that won the SB. That was Pete Carroll's team. Or maybe I'm biased. I'm not a Holmgren fan. Good coach, poor GM and talent evaluator, imo.

thunderkyss
05-14-2014, 09:30 PM
Did or pretty much did? I'm not so sure that was Holmgren's team that won the SB. That was Pete Carroll's team. Or maybe I'm biased. I'm not a Holmgren fan. Good coach, poor GM and talent evaluator, imo.

Holmgren won the Super Bowl with Farve & the Packers. He took the Seahawks & Matt Hasselbeck (GreenBay's back up) to the Super Bowl as well. They lost, but he got them there.

DocBar
05-14-2014, 09:39 PM
Holmgren won the Super Bowl with Farve & the Packers. He took the Seahawks & Matt Hasselbeck (GreenBay's back up) to the Super Bowl as well. They lost, but he got them there.Been more than Holmgren that has got them there but didn't win. That was the point of my post.

badboy
05-14-2014, 09:52 PM
I'm not gung ho on Mallett although if he were on the roster he would be an upgrade. He's got a very strong arm, decent movement skills in the pocket and most of all already knows the offense.

The odd one out? Niether you or I have any idea of what BOB's ultimate vision for HIS offense is. But I'm sure it will look different in 3 yrs than it does next yr.
True but we do know he denies talking to Pats about Mallett and thinks his QBs will be enough. My point is and was a good QB can win with this offensive roster.

steelbtexan
05-14-2014, 11:05 PM
Except Mike Holmgren pretty much did. Well, other than that vitories part. If we can be Holmgren's Seahawks that went to the Super Bowl with an ex-Packer coach & ex-Packer QB... count me in.

Shula?

steelbtexan
05-14-2014, 11:07 PM
True but we do know he denies talking to Pats about Mallett and thinks his QBs will be enough. My point is and was a good QB can win with this offensive roster.

I too believe this roster is good enough to make the playoffs with this roster and schedule.

The Pencil Neck
05-15-2014, 12:43 AM
Shula?

No coach has ever coached a team to the Super Bowl and won and then gone to another team and coached it to the Super Bowl and won.

Some coaches have been with two clubs. Some coaches have been there, lost, and then took another team there and won (like Vermiel and Shula). Holmgren won a SB and then took another team there and lost.

Norg
05-15-2014, 01:31 AM
dis will be savagely Good Offensive nooo


or dis offensive with Fitz will be More bearded and ugly dats 4 sure Lumberjack like

justtxyank
05-15-2014, 09:06 AM
No coach has ever coached a team to the Super Bowl and won and then gone to another team and coached it to the Super Bowl and won.

Some coaches have been with two clubs. Some coaches have been there, lost, and then took another team there and won (like Vermiel and Shula). Holmgren won a SB and then took another team there and lost.

Do you that fact proves something? Do you think it means a coach can't win with two teams because one hasn't done it?

The fact that multiple coaches have gotten there is all that matters. Heck, if they got close that would be enough. Playoffs are very hard to get through. There's no mythical barrier that prevents a coach from doing it twice, it's just that's it hard enough to get there once.

On Holmgren specifically, he was jobbed out of the second SB victory by the refs. The Seahawks should have beat the Steelers that year.

The Pencil Neck
05-15-2014, 10:23 AM
Do you that fact proves something? Do you think it means a coach can't win with two teams because one hasn't done it?

Someone else stated it earlier in the thread.

But, yes, I do think it proves something.

Every year when people are talking about firing their coach and hiring another coach, they want to pull up the names of coaches that have won Super Bowls as though winning a SB proves that they're a great coach. But a lot of different things go into winning a SB. You have to have a good coach but you also have to have built the right team and there's a lot of luck and patience in that. As great of coaches Dungy, Cowher, and Gruden are and despite all the years they've coached, they've only won 1 SB apiece.

People want to fire their HCs if they haven't won a SB after 2-3 years and in their places, they want to hire HCs who have won a SB. If OB hasn't won a SB by his third year, there will be people calling for regime change. And if he does win a SB, if he doesn't win another a few years after that, people are going to be calling for regime change.

But hiring a coach who's won a SB doesn't make you immediately a good team, like the Saints with Ditka, the Panthers with Seifert, you've got to build the right team and get the right coaches and luck into the right QB.

justtxyank
05-15-2014, 11:30 AM
Someone else stated it earlier in the thread.

But, yes, I do think it proves something.

Every year when people are talking about firing their coach and hiring another coach, they want to pull up the names of coaches that have won Super Bowls as though winning a SB proves that they're a great coach. But a lot of different things go into winning a SB. You have to have a good coach but you also have to have built the right team and there's a lot of luck and patience in that. As great of coaches Dungy, Cowher, and Gruden are and despite all the years they've coached, they've only won 1 SB apiece.

People want to fire their HCs if they haven't won a SB after 2-3 years and in their places, they want to hire HCs who have won a SB. If OB hasn't won a SB by his third year, there will be people calling for regime change. And if he does win a SB, if he doesn't win another a few years after that, people are going to be calling for regime change.

But hiring a coach who's won a SB doesn't make you immediately a good team, like the Saints with Ditka, the Panthers with Seifert, you've got to build the right team and get the right coaches and luck into the right QB.

I agree with you that hiring a coach with a SB history doesn't mean you are going to win a SB. Your best chance to win a SB is to hire the best head coach you can. Whether they have won a SB before or not is irrelevant to whether he can win another one.

Porky
05-15-2014, 11:57 AM
It's pretty clear that the plan was to beef up the run game for this year and try to win war's of attrition with a ground and pound offense, and a good defense that keeps the other team within striking distance. You can clearly see the plan based on the draft. OB can't go pass heavy this year. That would be suicide by QB. Keep it on the ground, good safe passes to the TE and your two best WR's, and the rare play action bomb to keep the D honest. Field position battles, very safe, boring and somewhat predictable. The hand writing is on the wall. That's it folks. If y'all expect more than that in 2014 I think you'll be in for disappointment.

Don't get me wrong, Philosophically I think OB will diverge from the Kubiak "keep it close" mindset, but practically speaking based on the talent available, I think that's what we will see this year and we'll continue to see that until we have a QB. Right now - we don't.

steelbtexan
05-15-2014, 05:08 PM
Someone else stated it earlier in the thread.

But, yes, I do think it proves something.

Every year when people are talking about firing their coach and hiring another coach, they want to pull up the names of coaches that have won Super Bowls as though winning a SB proves that they're a great coach. But a lot of different things go into winning a SB. You have to have a good coach but you also have to have built the right team and there's a lot of luck and patience in that. As great of coaches Dungy, Cowher, and Gruden are and despite all the years they've coached, they've only won 1 SB apiece.

People want to fire their HCs if they haven't won a SB after 2-3 years and in their places, they want to hire HCs who have won a SB. If OB hasn't won a SB by his third year, there will be people calling for regime change. And if he does win a SB, if he doesn't win another a few years after that, people are going to be calling for regime change.

But hiring a coach who's won a SB doesn't make you immediately a good team, like the Saints with Ditka, the Panthers with Seifert, you've got to build the right team and get the right coaches and luck into the right QB.

I certainly wouldn't call Dungy a great HC. Manning is a great QB though.

As for the rest of the post this type of thinking leads to 8 yrs of Kubiak and 2-14 which is exactly where the Kubiak era began.

The Pencil Neck
05-15-2014, 05:27 PM
I certainly wouldn't call Dungy a great HC. Manning is a great QB though.

As for the rest of the post this type of thinking leads to 8 yrs of Kubiak and 2-14 which is exactly where the Kubiak era began.

So show me all these teams that have hired SB winning coaches and ended up with SB trophies with their new team. Who would you hire?

Marshall
05-15-2014, 05:36 PM
Only my initial sentence was directed at you so if it looks like my entire post was aimed at you, thats not the case. im not familiar with Baltimore's qb depth outside of Flaco but Keenum to kubes for a 7 DOES look plausible. Hadn't considered that. Good post.

Why would Keenum want to go to or Kubes want a QB he refused to keep in the game as instructed by the owner? It likely cost him what little chance he had to one more season here.

thunderkyss
05-15-2014, 07:55 PM
People want to fire their HCs if they haven't won a SB after 2-3 years and in their places, they want to hire HCs who have won a SB. If OB hasn't won a SB by his third year, there will be people calling for regime change.

But don't you think he should have us at least in the Super Bowl in three years minimum if he's as good as he's supposed to be? If we haven't even sniffed a Super Bowl, isn't it time to move on?

& Sean Payton has only won one Super Bowl while in New Orleans, nobody thinks of him as anything less than a genius of a HC, still.

thunderkyss
05-15-2014, 08:21 PM
It's pretty clear that the plan was to beef up the run game for this year and try to win war's of attrition with a ground and pound offense, and a good defense that keeps the other team within striking distance. You can clearly see the plan based on the draft. OB can't go pass heavy this year. That would be suicide by QB. Keep it on the ground, good safe passes to the TE and your two best WR's, and the rare play action bomb to keep the D honest. Field position battles, very safe, boring and somewhat predictable. The hand writing is on the wall. That's it folks. If y'all expect more than that in 2014 I think you'll be in for disappointment.

Don't get me wrong, Philosophically I think OB will diverge from the Kubiak "keep it close" mindset, but practically speaking based on the talent available, I think that's what we will see this year and we'll continue to see that until we have a QB. Right now - we don't.

Well, I'll prepare to be disappointed. I don't think OB is looking for the safe, ground & pound approach. I believe he's going to do what he said & game plan every week. When we go up against the 32nd ranked rushing defense, we're going to run the ball a lot. If we're going up against the 32nd ranked passing defense, we're going to be throwing the ball a lot.

The meat we signed for the OL only helps us to be more balanced than we already were. If we're looking at Case Keenum starting, we're only talking about two new starters on offense. Sua'filo & Fiedorowicz.

I don't think Case Keenum is the future of our football team any more than I thought Matt Schaub was, but I didn't imagine him throwing three TDs to Andre Johnson in two of his first three starts, with Derek Newton being Derek Newton.

We were at least a nine win team last year if we fix our 3rd & short, 4th & 1, and red zone scoring issues. I think Sua'filo & Fiedorowicz gives us a high probability of fixing those issues.

defensively we have more issues.
Antonio is gone. Can Nix be that guy to replace him? Demand a double team, squeeze the pocket? I hope so. I doubt it (really) but I hope so.

Jj needs help with the pass rush. Whitney & Brooks did not get it done. Well, we drafted Clowney. I have my doubts... hopefully he feels like he has something to prove.

Secondary was an issue, we got younger & faster (more range) hopefully that helps. But if we're scoring on offense (that red zone thing we talked about earlier) this may not hurt us so bad. If we can push the score & take away the run game, our offense can make the other team one dimensional.

& Cushing. I really don't think we addressed this issue at all, but I've got my fingers crossed.


In addition to all that hoping & wishing, we'll have 11 games where we'll be facing some of the worse offenses in the NFL & many of those games will be against teams that have been much worse than we have been over the last 8 years.

We don't have to be good to win next season. We just have to be better than the worst.

powda
05-15-2014, 08:49 PM
Why would Keenum want to go to or Kubes want a QB he refused to keep in the game as instructed by the owner? It likely cost him what little chance he had to one more season here.

Keenum may soon be unemployed. kubiak may want him as a 3rd stringer with experience who knows the system.

thunderkyss
05-15-2014, 09:46 PM
Keenum may soon be unemployed. kubiak may want him as a 3rd stringer with experience who knows the system.

But the problem was that Keenum didn't know the system.

powda
05-15-2014, 10:19 PM
But the problem was that Keenum didn't know the system.

Does he know it better then the current ravs 3rd string qb?

steelbtexan
05-15-2014, 10:21 PM
Well, I'll prepare to be disappointed. I don't think OB is looking for the safe, ground & pound approach. I believe he's going to do what he said & game plan every week. When we go up against the 32nd ranked rushing defense, we're going to run the ball a lot. If we're going up against the 32nd ranked passing defense, we're going to be throwing the ball a lot.

The meat we signed for the OL only helps us to be more balanced than we already were. If we're looking at Case Keenum starting, we're only talking about two new starters on offense. Sua'filo & Fiedorowicz.

I don't think Case Keenum is the future of our football team any more than I thought Matt Schaub was, but I didn't imagine him throwing three TDs to Andre Johnson in two of his first three starts, with Derek Newton being Derek Newton.

We were at least a nine win team last year if we fix our 3rd & short, 4th & 1, and red zone scoring issues. I think Sua'filo & Fiedorowicz gives us a high probability of fixing those issues.

defensively we have more issues.
Antonio is gone. Can Nix be that guy to replace him? Demand a double team, squeeze the pocket? I hope so. I doubt it (really) but I hope so.

Jj needs help with the pass rush. Whitney & Brooks did not get it done. Well, we drafted Clowney. I have my doubts... hopefully he feels like he has something to prove.

Secondary was an issue, we got younger & faster (more range) hopefully that helps. But if we're scoring on offense (that red zone thing we talked about earlier) this may not hurt us so bad. If we can push the score & take away the run game, our offense can make the other team one dimensional.

& Cushing. I really don't think we addressed this issue at all, but I've got my fingers crossed.


In addition to all that hoping & wishing, we'll have 11 games where we'll be facing some of the worse offenses in the NFL & many of those games will be against teams that have been much worse than we have been over the last 8 years.

We don't have to be good to win next season. We just have to be better than the worst.

If Nix plays like he did in the 2012 season and Clowney performs like his talent suggests he should, Watt continues to perform at his current level and Cushing stays healthy the defense can be really good. Especially if they Hal or a CB that they pickup to play the nickel CB

leebigeztx
05-15-2014, 10:37 PM
I'm not gung ho on Mallett although if he were on the roster he would be an upgrade. He's got a very strong arm, decent movement skills in the pocket and most of all already knows the offense.

The odd one out? Niether you or I have any idea of what BOB's ultimate vision for HIS offense is. But I'm sure it will look different in 3 yrs than it does next yr.

I concur. At the very least,mallet knows the offense and is young and accomplished as a college player. Has anyone ever witness a good nfl qb who was garbage in college? I haven't. At the very least, mallett at least knows a gameplan. Fitz is garbage and to's the ball.

TexansSeminole
05-15-2014, 11:39 PM
Well, I'll prepare to be disappointed. I don't think OB is looking for the safe, ground & pound approach. I believe he's going to do what he said & game plan every week. When we go up against the 32nd ranked rushing defense, we're going to run the ball a lot. If we're going up against the 32nd ranked passing defense, we're going to be throwing the ball a lot.

The meat we signed for the OL only helps us to be more balanced than we already were. If we're looking at Case Keenum starting, we're only talking about two new starters on offense. Sua'filo & Fiedorowicz.

I don't think Case Keenum is the future of our football team any more than I thought Matt Schaub was, but I didn't imagine him throwing three TDs to Andre Johnson in two of his first three starts, with Derek Newton being Derek Newton.

We were at least a nine win team last year if we fix our 3rd & short, 4th & 1, and red zone scoring issues. I think Sua'filo & Fiedorowicz gives us a high probability of fixing those issues.

defensively we have more issues.
Antonio is gone. Can Nix be that guy to replace him? Demand a double team, squeeze the pocket? I hope so. I doubt it (really) but I hope so.

Jj needs help with the pass rush. Whitney & Brooks did not get it done. Well, we drafted Clowney. I have my doubts... hopefully he feels like he has something to prove.

Secondary was an issue, we got younger & faster (more range) hopefully that helps. But if we're scoring on offense (that red zone thing we talked about earlier) this may not hurt us so bad. If we can push the score & take away the run game, our offense can make the other team one dimensional.

& Cushing. I really don't think we addressed this issue at all, but I've got my fingers crossed.


In addition to all that hoping & wishing, we'll have 11 games where we'll be facing some of the worse offenses in the NFL & many of those games will be against teams that have been much worse than we have been over the last 8 years.

We don't have to be good to win next season. We just have to be better than the worst.

All you need to do is look at our roster and our draft selections and you can see that we are looking at a ground and pound formation offense. We are likely to remain balanced, but this team is looking to develop an identity, atleast this season, of a "don't lose the game, control the game" type of team. I don't blame them, because it works with what we already have. Two big possession receivers capable of making big plays after the catch, all star RB, and a game manager QB. We don't have the athletes at receiver, particularly in the slot, nor the QB to expect a pass reliant offense to win games for us.

drs23
05-16-2014, 12:31 AM
...
People want to fire their HCs if they haven't won a SB after 2-3 years and in their places, they want to hire HCs who have won a SB. If OB hasn't won a SB by his third year, there will be people calling for regime change. And if he does win a SB, if he doesn't win another a few years after that, people are going to be calling for regime change.

But hiring a coach who's won a SB doesn't make you immediately a good team, like the Saints with Ditka, the Panthers with Seifert, you've got to build the right team and get the right coaches and luck into the right QB.

I certainly wouldn't call Dungy a great HC. Manning is a great QB though.

As for the rest of the post this type of thinking leads to 8 yrs of Kubiak and 2-14 which is exactly where the Kubiak era began.

As far as the bolded? So if O'Brien doesn't have us in the dance by year three he should be tossed for some coach who has (who would be available then anyway)? Surely I'm not reading what you're saying correctly. Am I?

If so, then that's the surest path to less than mediocrity that I can imagine. Certain cellar dwellers.

What exactly did you mean?

steelbtexan
05-16-2014, 12:45 AM
All you need to do is look at our roster and our draft selections and you can see that we are looking at a ground and pound formation offense. We are likely to remain balanced, but this team is looking to develop an identity, atleast this season, of a "don't lose the game, control the game" type of team. I don't blame them, because it works with what we already have. Two big possession receivers capable of making big plays after the catch, all star RB, and a game manager QB. We don't have the athletes at receiver, particularly in the slot, nor the QB to expect a pass reliant offense to win games for us.

Webster Slaughter's son Nathan is going to be a major upgrade in the slot. IMHO

steelbtexan
05-16-2014, 12:47 AM
As far as the bolded? So if O'Brien doesn't have us in the dance by year three he should be tossed for some coach who has (who would be available then anyway)? Surely I'm not reading what you're saying correctly. Am I?

If so, then that's the surest path to less than mediocrity that I can imagine. Certain cellar dwellers.

What exactly did you mean?

Kubiak should've been fired along with Smith after the 2010 season. If after 5 yrs the Texans are sitting at 6-10 everybody that has anything to do with personel/coaching should be fired. 6-10 is unacceptable and the team is reaping the rewards of making the decision to extend Smithiak. 2-14

Water under the bridge the BOB era has begun the way that I've always wanted the Texans to be built. Strengthening the trenches 1st.

Scooter
05-16-2014, 12:48 AM
Webster Slaughter's son Nathan is going to be a major upgrade in the slot. IMHO

i was wondering that. googled but didnt find anything, is it really webster's kid?

steelbtexan
05-16-2014, 12:54 AM
i was wondering that. googled but didnt find anything, is it really webster's kid?

According to my brother, who keeps up with this stuff more than I do.

Scooter
05-16-2014, 01:04 AM
pretty cool if he is. webster was one of my favorites from the run & shoot days.

ObsiWan
05-16-2014, 03:01 PM
Webster Slaughter's son Nathan is going to be a major upgrade in the slot. IMHO

i was wondering that. googled but didnt find anything, is it really webster's kid?

According to my brother, who keeps up with this stuff more than I do.

There is no mention of Webster Slaughter in the youngster's bio from his university...
LINK (http://www.gobuffsgo.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=3820)
http://www.gobuffsgo.com/images/2013/8/21/headshot_1_Slaughter,%20Nathan.jpg
#8 Nathan Slaughter Position: WR
Height: 5-10
Weight: 185
Class: Senior
Hometown: Lubbock, Texas
High School: Lubbock HS
Personal: Born August 21, 1992. Mother is Charilene Merick. Has three siblings Veronica Slaughter, Darius Dupree, Cherie Merick. Majoring in mass communications.
A little more research showed that Webster Slaughter has four kids and his only son isn't quite college age yet.
Upon retirement, Slaughter devoted more time to his family. He and Stacey, who teaches at St. Lawrence Christian Academy, live in Missouri City, Texas. They have four children: Shanelle, who just began her freshman year at the University of Texas-San Antonio on a track scholarship; Saschelle, who's 13 years old; Shantelle, 8; and Webster III, 6.link2 (http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050901/SPORTS/509010316/1004/ARCHIVE) (note: the article was written in Sept. 2005)

xtruroyaltyx
05-16-2014, 03:17 PM
I like what I see from Slaughter on film. In a lot of the clips the QB play is pretty bad..But what I like is that he caught the ball well in traffic, wasn't afraid to go over the middle, and he showed some good return skills and run after the catch.

Pretty much the anti-Keyshawn Martin.

I don't expect Keyshawn Martin to make this team.