PDA

View Full Version : Texans Recievers vs early 90's Oilers Recievers


LBC_Justin
08-11-2005, 01:46 AM
I like our current team.....but these guys were magical. (Maybe it was Warren Moon and a sick O-Line. Maybe it was the fact that we passed every down in the run-n-shoot. But I loved every one of these guys.)

Haywood Jefferies (pro bowl 91', 92', 93')
Ernest Givins (pro bowl 90', 92')
Drew Hill (pro bowl 88', 90)
Webster Slaughter (pro bowl 93')
Curtis Duncan

(*Time Machine Fantasy*) I would love to bring a few of these guys in their prime to the Texans to compete for the #2 & #3 receiver positions.

How do you think our current squad of guys would compete against these old school guys. I think Andre Johnson would still be a stand out.



P.S. I hate Bud Adams and I am glad he is gone.
GO TEXANS!!!!

HJam72
08-11-2005, 08:46 AM
I'm gonna say:

1) Johnson
2) Jefferies
3) Slaughter (I'm countin' his Browns days too to put him over Givens)
4) Givens
5) Hill
6) Every body else...

I'd put Slaughter over Jefferies as the #2 for this team though. I think he'd be a perfect #2 for us.

That O-line was WAY better overall than what we've seen so far and yes it made a big difference, but you have to remember (not saying you didn't) that Moon was a better QB than Carr has been--SO FAR. We're thinking and hoping that will change.

Lucky
08-11-2005, 09:32 AM
...but you have to remember (not saying you didn't) that Moon was a better QB than Carr has been--SO FAR...
In his 1st 3 years with the Oilers, Moon threw for 40 TDs & 59 INTs, 54% completions, as the Oilers went 13-35. Try comparing apples to apples.

HJam72
08-11-2005, 09:43 AM
Actually, I meant Moom at his best vs. Carr so far. Sorry, I should have specified that.

I wasn't comparing Carr to Moon is his first 3 yrs. because I couldn't remember Moon's output back then ,but yeah those stats certainly make Carr look good.

Lucky
08-11-2005, 09:49 AM
It should be noted that it was Moon's 4th season when he had his breakout season. Warren threw 21 TDs to 18 INTs in 12 games (strike shortened) and led the Oilers to a wildcard berth.

Double Barrel
08-11-2005, 11:21 AM
Moon played with the CFL for several years, too. Plus he wasn't a rookie on a BRAND NEW TEAM with no experience, behind a line that gave up the most sacks on one QB in NFL history.

I have fond memories of the Run&Shoot days, but that's that. They hever got over the hump, and the design of their offense would never allow it (no TE or FB on the roster?!? + can't control the clock by nature of a lack of a running game).

As far as the question: I'd take our WRs today. Mainly because AJ is that good! Pro Bowl in his second season?! On a team that has never had a winning record?! OH YEAH!! :thumbup

Bear
08-11-2005, 11:36 AM
Two names:

Mike Munchak
Bruce Mathews

Our O-Line was SICK, even with Brad Hopkins at LT ;)

Huge
08-11-2005, 03:29 PM
It should be noted that it was Moon's 4th season when he had his breakout season. Warren threw 21 TDs to 18 INTs in 12 games (strike shortened) and led the Oilers to a wildcard berth.
Yeah but even his "breakout season" included just a 50% completion percentage.

TheOgre
08-11-2005, 03:37 PM
I didn't think Moon really got going until 1988 and beyond. In 1987, didn't we go 2-1 in scrub games against 2 playoff teams? We likely wouldn't have made the playoffs until 1988 if it hadn't been for the scrubs.

El Tejano
08-11-2005, 04:30 PM
Ernest Givens was by far the best hands down. Johnson makes me forget though.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 05:31 PM
Stats are very deceptive when it comes to football and it's hard to define players with raw stats like you can in baseball. Moon was a dynamite QB in a failed trick-bag offense (chuck and duck) when he was with the Oilers. He was much better at finding secondary receivers and reading defenses than Carr has shown to be so far. I don't think much of Jeffries, but Hill and Givins were dynamite little WR's.

donbmt
08-11-2005, 05:35 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Jeffries the 1st Oiler to have 100 receptions in a season?

Vinny
08-11-2005, 05:40 PM
Yeah, but he was the WR1 in a gimmick offense and he was good for about 11 ypc. He wasn't anything special. The slot guys really made that offense work. All Jeffries would run were those little outside routes.

donbmt
08-11-2005, 05:43 PM
100 catches was a big deal then, but now it seems pretty commonplace. Just an observation.

I spoke too soon, last year only Tony Gonzales had at least 100 (102), I guess it's not that commonplace.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 05:48 PM
It's nearly 7 catches per game, so it's a heck of a pace.

LBC_Justin
08-11-2005, 06:09 PM
Ernest Givens ---> 5-9, 170 lbs
At that height and Weight it must have been really fast or he wouldn't have been in the league.

Drew Hill was also short 5-9.

Anyone know their 40 times?

Vinny
08-11-2005, 06:49 PM
He wasn't that fast but he was lightning quick and had fantastic body control. Givins was electric after the catch. Hill is 29th all-time in the NFL with 634 catches.

All-time leaders

1. *J Rice 1549
2. C Carter 1101
3. *T Brown 1094
4. A Reed 951
5. A Monk 940
6. I Fryar 851
7. *M Harrison 845
8. L Centers 826
9. S Largent 819
10. S Sharpe 815
11. H Ellard 814
12. *J Smith 792
13. *I Bruce 777
14. J Lofton 764
15. *K McCardell 755
16. M Irvin 750
17. C Joiner 750
18. A Rison 743
19. *M Faulk 723
20. *R Smith 712
21. G Clark 699
22. T Mathis 689
23. *K Johnson 673
24. H Moore 670
25. *T Owens 669
26. O Newsome 662
27. C Taylor 649
28. *R Proehl 641
29. D Hill 634

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/misc/rec.htm

utahmark
08-11-2005, 07:21 PM
the offense made most of those guys. givens and jefferies did nothing after they left the oilers. duncan was also a product of the run and shoot. slaughter and hill were pretty good with other teams. hill had the best hands of any of those guys.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 07:24 PM
Haywood was cut in 1995. He retired after playing in just 9 games as a Saint. He pretty much played his entire career here as Givins did. Here is a piece on Givins by hpf...

http://www.houstonprofootball.com/team/wr3.html

Lucky
08-11-2005, 07:49 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Jeffries the 1st Oiler to have 100 receptions in a season?
Charley Hennigan had 101 receptions for the 1964 Houston Oiler team.

utahmark
08-11-2005, 07:49 PM
Haywood was cut in 1995. He retired after playing in just 9 games as a Saint. He pretty much played his entire career here as Givins did. Here is a piece on Givins by hpf...

http://www.houstonprofootball.com/team/wr3.html


i dont know for a fact but i always got the impression that those guys did not do anything after the run n shoot was finished because they were products of the system. after we changed offenses we learned they were not able to get open on their own. they went to other teams and quit or were cut soon after. i believe they were not as good as the stats lead us to believe.

givins was my favorite reciever of all time i just dont think he would have made it in a conventional offense.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 07:55 PM
In my opinion Haywood is/was overrated (then and now still), and Givins could play well just about anywhere like Drew Hill (another smallish WR). Givins was simply electric. Givins was done when he left here, he had nothing left much like Earl had nothing left. Nine years of pounding took the toll on his little body in a league of big people.

LBC_Justin
08-11-2005, 09:41 PM
The system is not what made those guys great.(it helped)

Every good reciever is somewhat a product of the system. You either embrace it or you don't make it in the NFL. How often do you see a player (any position) do well on one team and then move to another team and stink. It happens.

Yes the system helped.
A good QB helped.
A good running back helped.
A good offensive line helped.


But most importantly those guys all pretty much PEAKED at the exact same time. (That is very very rare in this league.) When you have 4 great recievers the defense can't roll coverage to the strong side, when both sides are strong.

All those guys spent the prime of their careers in Houston. 7-8 a years with 5-6 very productive years is a good NFL career. Yes some of them were cut as they reached the twilight of their careers. That is how it works in this league. Eventually everyone retires or gets cut.

To me Haywood Jeffries was a poor man's Michael Irving, but I love the guy. The smurfs (givins and hill). LOL the Electric Slide thing. That was classic. I loved those days.

What ever they did, for several years it worked. They put up a winning record every year from 1987-1993. No they didn't win a championship. But of those 7 years we lost by a touch down or less 5 times in the playoffs.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 09:48 PM
Poor mans Micael Irving? More like a kicked up Cory Bradford. :heh: Haywood and Duncan were average receivers on the outside. Givins and Hill were the mojo of that offense.

utahmark
08-11-2005, 09:59 PM
The system is not what made those guys great.(it helped)

Every good reciever is somewhat a product of the system. You either embrace it or you don't make it in the NFL. How often do you see a player (any position) do well on one team and then move to another team and stink. It happens.

Yes the system helped.
A good QB helped.
A good running back helped.
A good offensive line helped.


But most importantly those guys all pretty much PEAKED at the exact same time. (That is very very rare in this league.) When you have 4 great recievers the defense can't roll coverage to the strong side, when both sides are strong.

All those guys spent the prime of their careers in Houston. 7-8 a years with 5-6 very productive years is a good NFL career. Yes some of them were cut as they reached the twilight of their careers. That is how it works in this league. Eventually everyone retires or gets cut.

To me Haywood Jeffries was a poor man's Michael Irving, but I love the guy. The smurfs (givins and hill). LOL the Electric Slide thing. That was classic. I loved those days.

What ever they did, for several years it worked. They put up a winning record every year from 1987-1993. No they didn't win a championship. But of those 7 years we lost by a touch down or less 5 times in the playoffs.

dont get me wrong i lived and died with that team(mostly died). but the run and shoot has made a lot of players look really good. david klinger and andre ware were a couple.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 10:02 PM
dont get me wrong i lived and died with that team(mostly died). but the run and shoot has made a lot of players look really good. david klinger and andre ware were a couple.
You are talking college though. What did the run and shoot do for Bob Gaglinano up in Detroit? Nobody rememers their Run and Shoot. Heck, they had Ware there too. You still needed talent to push the numbers at the NFL level. Moon, our line, Hill and Givins were the talent behind the Run and shoot here.

utahmark
08-11-2005, 10:04 PM
Givins did good before we went to the Run N Shoot, he was drafted in 1986. If my memory serves me correct we ran a conventional offense(may have added a form of it in 87-88, I want to say the Red Gun) from 1986-1990 before Pardee took over and went to the RNS full time.

Givins was my favorite receiver also. :)


im pretty sure we ran a 4 wide reciever set most of the time when glanville was coach. he was right before pardee. they were mostly run n shoot style but tried to run a conventional offense in certain situations.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 10:07 PM
No, we used tight ends and tried to run the ball with Glanville. We had a multifaceted attack that included 4 wides though.

utahmark
08-11-2005, 10:17 PM
You are talking college though. What did the run and shoot do for Bob Gaglinano up in Detroit? Nobody rememers their Run and Shoot. Heck, they had Ware there too. You still needed talent to push the numbers at the NFL level. Moon, our line, Hill and Givins were the talent behind the Run and shoot here.


i agree with you about moon and the o-line. we even had good running backs. not sure about all the recievers though. really the only one we might disagree on is givins. he just seems like more of a jj moses type player
that was lucky to play in a system designed specifically for him.

utahmark
08-11-2005, 10:18 PM
No, we used tight ends and tried to run the ball with Glanville. We had a multifaceted attack that included 4 wides though.

i was thinking we used 4 wides more than 50% of the time.

LBC_Justin
08-11-2005, 10:22 PM
Poor mans Micael Irving? More like a kicked up Cory Bradford. :heh: Haywood and Duncan were average receivers on the outside. Givins and Hill were the mojo of that offense.

If being a three time pro bowler is average then the Texans need to pick up a few AVERAGE recievers.

Duncan was decent to average. I am biased because I just remember him making some clutch third down / 2 minute drill catches.

But yeah I know what you mean...
5foot9 170lb Givins going over the middle, getting hammered, but holding on to the ball for the first down was the heart and soul of what made those Oiler teams so great. Drew Hill has some slick moves and knew how to get open.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 10:26 PM
If being a three time pro bowler is average then the Texans need to pick up a few AVERAGE recievers.That's why I said he was overrated. In my eyes he was truely a product of the system, and he got in the pro bowl because of pure numbers. Tons of 8 yard curls and outs. I hated that offense too. I think if we ran a conventional offense we would have at least one Super Bowl appearance.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 10:29 PM
i was thinking we used 4 wides more than 50% of the time.One of the problems with Glanvilles "red gun" offense was the fact that we came out with TE's in first and second down and went to different personel on 3rd down or long second downs. We didn't have a system that could run or pass equally from one formation or package.

BradK10
08-11-2005, 10:40 PM
EG was the man.....

utahmark
08-11-2005, 10:40 PM
That's why I said he was overrated. In my eyes he was truely a product of the system, and he got in the pro bowl because of pure numbers. Tons of 8 yard curls and outs. I hated that offense too. I think if we ran a conventional offense we would have at least one Super Bowl appearance.


unlike you i loved the offense. although i dont think it would work again it sure did work pretty well then. 38 points in a cold playoff game in buffalo. should be enough to win even if you cant run the clock out. also i remember 2 other playoff games we lost when we had a lead after halftime. denver, where haywood droped a first down pass giving elway his chance at a miracle. and kc where we had a ton of injuries that helped kill that year(that and the greastest qb ever).

eventually teams caught up with that offense and learned to defend it.

from what i hear the texans wide outs use a form of the run n shoot. maybe thats why they cant seem to get it going against the cover two. the cover two tries to eleminate the deep patterns and the run n shoot tries to go where the defense is not. so that eleminates a lot of the field.

i dont know a lot of the x's and o's so i may be way off on that last part.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 10:47 PM
Palmer still uses the multi-read and react RnS patterns (take what they give you instead of dictate the action) and most of this off-season hoopla is about switching to more timing routes. We will still run the RnS style routes but they will not be the main part of our offense from what I gather.

The RnS was a failure in the NFL. It really didn't work here although it looked good on paper. If you liked stats it was the offense for you (lots of baseball fans loved it). It was rotten outside the 20's and nobody could make it work outside Moon and the Oilers. Personally I think it wasn't physical enough. There is a physical dynamic that is impossible to discount when the field shrinks in the red zone. Speed no longer dictates, and the more physical team wins in the red zone. You can't be more physical than the other team with 4 midget WR's and no TE and no FB. Also, there is a clock to deal with. The RnS just couldn't manage the clock with so many incomplete passes that were inevitable. It was a disaster up in Detroit where the Father of the RnS Mouse Davis tried to make it work and couldn't.

utahmark
08-11-2005, 11:07 PM
Palmer still uses the multi-read and react RnS patterns (take what they give you instead of dictate the action) and most of this off-season hoopla is about switching to more timing routes. We will still run the RnS style routes but they will not be the main part of our offense from what I gather.

The RnS was a failure in the NFL. It really didn't work here although it looked good on paper. If you liked stats it was the offense for you (lots of baseball fans loved it). It was rotten outside the 20's and nobody could make it work outside Moon and the Oilers. Personally I think it wasn't physical enough. There is a physical dynamic that is impossible to discount when the field shrinks in the red zone. Speed no longer dictates, and the more physical team wins in the red zone. You can't be more physical than the other team with 4 midget WR's and no TE and no FB. Also, there is a clock to deal with. The RnS just couldn't manage the clock with so many incomplete passes that were inevitable. It was a disaster up in Detroit where the Father of the RnS Mouse Davis tried to make it work and couldn't.


here are some stats. points scored 1990 thru 1993 under pardee by nfl rank. they were number 2 in 90, 4 in 91, 6 in 92 and 4 in 93. thats points not yardage. they were also ranked 3rd in the afc in scoring inside the redzone in 90 or 91. i couldnt find anymore of the redzone stats but it was not near as bad as the perception.

that team could have easily won a super bowl with that offense. things just didnt fall the right way. to many bonehead players and a coach who didnt have control of his team was the main reasons they didnt win.

Vinny
08-11-2005, 11:12 PM
Like I said...looks great on paper but there is a clock you have to manage and a defensive unit on the field all game. Stats extrapolate great in baseball and you can paint clear pictures with them and define who is good, but stats don't give the full picture in football, never have. If it was such a wonderful offense why didn't it work (ie win someone a super bowl...or win in the playoffs)? I think I know why....but those are just my thoughts. Nobody runs it as a stand-alone offense at the NFL level for a reason.

utahmark
08-11-2005, 11:58 PM
Like I said...looks great on paper but there is a clock you have to manage and a defensive unit on the field all game. Stats extrapolate great in baseball and you can paint clear pictures with them and define who is good, but stats don't give the full picture in football, never have. If it was such a wonderful offense why didn't it work (ie win someone a super bowl...or win in the playoffs)? I think I know why....but those are just my thoughts. Nobody runs it as a stand-alone offense at the NFL level for a reason.

alright here is why they lost the 3 most meaningfull games they had.

against denver haywood droped a first down pass with a little over two minutes remaining. in buffalo the defense gave up 35 points in the second half. and against kc by the end of the game there were 10 starters not in the game due to injury. 3 of them were on the offensive line.

in my opinion these were things that the offense could not control.

i dont think people realize who fragile winning is. a droped ball here or a missed block there. could be the difference. i believe if those games were each played 10 times the "titians" win the majority of those games. and people would have a totally diff opinion of that offense.

history is writen by the victors.

at least you changed my opinion a little about givins.

texasguy346
08-12-2005, 12:03 AM
Wouldn't an offense that could control the clock help minimize the amount of time the Bills had to score those 35 points? Wouldn't an offense that could control the clock also give their defense quite a bit more time to rest between drives? Seems like keeping the Bills offense of the field and having them face a rested defense the time they did get on the field might reduce some of that second half scoring.

Vinny
08-12-2005, 12:04 AM
We dissagree a bit...but I understand your side. I can agree with you on the fact that winning is indeed fragile. There are franchises like Detroit that has never seen a Super Bowl. Come to think of it, in the 30 or so years of pro football here...we haven't either.

On Buffalo, I think that one of the big failings in the Buffalo game was the fact that we kept stopping the clock with incompletions and interceptions because we didn't have any other offense to get into except a passing offense. If you can run the ball and keep the clock running you won't give up that many points on defense...the other team doesn't have the time. I'll buy your point that some of our failings had nothing to do with the offense, but I think this scheme has some major holes in it and it just doesn't hold up well. Every team in the NFL uses some variance of it....so I don't think the scheme is all bad...I just don't think you can build a team around it and play winning football when the weather gets bad and when you get into the playoffs and only face top defenses for the most part.

;) good stuff.

Jwwillis
08-12-2005, 12:32 AM
Bring back:

Earl Campbell
Kenny Burroughs 00
Dave Casper

And we're set!

Now that I think about it...just bring back Earl.

Crank_It_Up
08-12-2005, 12:33 AM
the basic advantage of the run and shoot was to make the defense think you were going to pass all the time, and thereby get some easy yards running occasionally. Also, a lot of motion was used to help identify the defense. As I recall, some of the routes were determined after the ball was snapped, determined by the positioning of the defense.

eventually the oilers run and shoot suffered as teams learned to give a little more cushion on the line to the recievers and not worry about a few short completed passes. Let them complete the short stuff and just punish them with a big hit. After a few hits, receivers started dropping balls, or were carried off the field.

the oilers recievers were just too fragile to take the pounding that was ultimately unleashed upon them.

scourge
08-12-2005, 12:55 AM
I liked jefferies, but i didnt think he was all that amazing. From what I remember seeing, he was much like Tory Holt or Isaac Bruce in that he seemed to be afraid of contact and I always remember him going down rather easy and never going over the middle.

LBC_Justin
08-12-2005, 02:44 AM
alright here is why they lost the 3 most meaningfull games they had.

against denver haywood droped a first down pass with a little over two minutes remaining. in buffalo the defense gave up 35 points in the second half. and against kc by the end of the game there were 10 starters not in the game due to injury. 3 of them were on the offensive line.

in my opinion these were things that the offense could not control.

i dont think people realize who fragile winning is. a droped ball here or a missed block there. could be the difference. i believe if those games were each played 10 times the "titians" win the majority of those games. and people would have a totally diff opinion of that offense.

history is writen by the victors.

at least you changed my opinion a little about givins.
You stated it perfectly "Winning is fragile". It takes events like the "immaculate reception" to win a championship sometimes. Plus in football unlike basketball and baseball, you have one game. You either win that game or your season is over. That means if a player gets sick, is sore, or any of a thousand things the outcome might change depending on the day.

The Denver game.....Elways drive....4th and long....it was the Oiler defense that failed us not the RnS. And if Jeffries doesn't drop that ball 1st down.

The "made me cry, Buffalo come back" game. The officiating was horrible. There were several huge blown calls that would have given the Oilers the game. (I may sound like a poor loser but even NFL FILMs special on that comeback points out how the Officials made a few bad calls that changed the outcome of the game.)

For those 4 years or so the RnS offense was very very successful.
Keep in mind it is even a BETTER offensive system if Average players can execute it with great success. (even thought I firmly believe those guys were far far from average.)

Keep in mind there are a TON of teams that have never won championships playing traditional offenses.

HoustonHarley
08-12-2005, 04:43 AM
You guys hit on some good points, however that offense was VERY exciting! I loved watching every minute they were on the field. They had that certain something. If we could have only played the Cowgirls in the Superbowl, rather that the Bills that year, I know we would have won. I just bought a bunch of Oilers footage (about the last 30 years of highlights) and that was totally exciting football. I think we forget how great it was after the sour taste left in our mouths after Bud's BS. The funny thing is that KS "Bud" Adams stillhas luv ya blue and Oilers Carpet in his private elevatorat his Oil and Gas Company. All I am hearing is about the offense, which was so much more exciting than what we have seen from the Texans so far. I have been a season ticket holder since 02 and will be as long as I live in Houston, but Dom Capers and Palmer's Offense puts me to sleep. In my honest opinion, that offense will never get us to the promise land. I wouldn't normally say that, but I live, breath and sleep Houston Sports and I am a realist. What we forget to mention about those glory years with the Oilers was the defense. Remember the hard hitting corners and safteys we had. I loved to see Donaldson and Dishman crack someones melon after they got a pass over the middle and Big Ray sacking the QB and switching position and still kicking *****. We had a hell of a D, but they were on the field too much to make a constant stand. Like many have said, there were many varibles that held us out of the Superbowl. There is not a doubt in my mind that that we didn't have the team capable....because we did. So we didn't get to the promise land....so what! That is the kind of stuff that makes us TRUE FANS! There are so many fair weather fans in this town. I have been amazed at all the support the Texans have had. I only hope that continues. Sorry, I went and watched the Astros win and was told to sit down with a 3/2 pitch in the 7th...not a good move by anyone. I don't care what the lead is. Ok, my soapbox is over. Kick *** this season Texans and make us Proud!

HJam72
08-12-2005, 05:15 AM
Just some random thoughts about all of this:

1) No tight end and they still had WAY fewer sacks.

2) Moon saw every receiver. (Had more time too for one thing.)

3) No Superbowl is true, but how many NFL teams have ever tried to run the RnS long enough to win a Superbowl? To my knowledge, the Oilers were it. Maybe it hasn't been tried enough.

4) 46 Defense. LOVED IT! Wound up hating the DC, though. Who hits a fellow coach in front of thousands and cameras.

5) 46 Defense. Dunta. Buchannon? Nah, not ready for that...

HJam72
08-12-2005, 05:36 AM
OK, lol, was it called a 46? 52? 46 sounds like 10 men in the box and a lone safety, lol. Wasn't the 3-4 or the 4-3 and it sure wasn't a nickel or dime package.

By the way, the way I remember it, they got away from it in the second half of that Buffalo game and that's part of why they blew that huge lead. The prevent D strikes again! I remember reading or hearing somewhere that players were on the sidelines begging that DC to go back to the aggressive D, but he wouldn't do it. I don't know if "super moron", or anything else I can come up, with defines it.

Random dumb question: How does your team practice when it has an RnS offense and a 46? defense? Maybe that's why they didn't make it all the way. :wacko:

TheOgre
08-12-2005, 10:07 AM
Haywood Jeffries was a poor man's Keyshawn. He had size and pretty good hands but really no breakaway speed.

LBC_Justin
08-12-2005, 12:51 PM
3) No Superbowl is true, but how many NFL teams have ever tried to run the RnS long enough to win a Superbowl? To my knowledge, the Oilers were it. Maybe it hasn't been tried enough.

Detroit tried to run it for a little while. I could be wrong but I believe Atlanta also tried their hand at it.

In college as most of us know...the University of Houston destroyed teams with it.
1988 averaged 39.5 points per game
1989 averaged 53.5 points per game
1990 averaged 46.4 points per game

But alas....eventually defenses learned to scheme against it and it became less effective. But it was hardly a Gimmicky offense. It was just a nontraditional pass centric offense.

Bottomline:
- The Oilers won a lot of games with the Run N Shoot.
- They made the playoffs pretty much every year, so we had a shot at the title.
- It was exciting to watch.

What more could a fan ask for?

Oilers/Texans
08-12-2005, 07:04 PM
You guys hit on some good points, however that offense was VERY exciting! I loved watching every minute they were on the field. They had that certain something. If we could have only played the Cowgirls in the Superbowl, rather that the Bills that year, I know we would have won. I just bought a bunch of Oilers footage (about the last 30 years of highlights) and that was totally exciting football. I think we forget how great it was after the sour taste left in our mouths after Bud's BS. The funny thing is that KS "Bud" Adams stillhas luv ya blue and Oilers Carpet in his private elevatorat his Oil and Gas Company. All I am hearing is about the offense, which was so much more exciting than what we have seen from the Texans so far. I have been a season ticket holder since 02 and will be as long as I live in Houston, but Dom Capers and Palmer's Offense puts me to sleep. In my honest opinion, that offense will never get us to the promise land. I wouldn't normally say that, but I live, breath and sleep Houston Sports and I am a realist. What we forget to mention about those glory years with the Oilers was the defense. Remember the hard hitting corners and safteys we had. I loved to see Donaldson and Dishman crack someones melon after they got a pass over the middle and Big Ray sacking the QB and switching position and still kicking *****. We had a hell of a D, but they were on the field too much to make a constant stand. Like many have said, there were many varibles that held us out of the Superbowl. There is not a doubt in my mind that that we didn't have the team capable....because we did. So we didn't get to the promise land....so what! That is the kind of stuff that makes us TRUE FANS! There are so many fair weather fans in this town. I have been amazed at all the support the Texans have had. I only hope that continues. Sorry, I went and watched the Astros win and was told to sit down with a 3/2 pitch in the 7th...not a good move by anyone. I don't care what the lead is. Ok, my soapbox is over. Kick *** this season Texans and make us Proud!
Where did you buy old Oilers footage??

Oilers/Texans
08-12-2005, 07:08 PM
Haywood Jeffires was great. That whole crew was great. I'd take those guys over the Texans current group.

Number19
08-14-2005, 08:21 AM
Two names:

Mike Munchak
Bruce Mathews

Until injuries took their toll, Dean Steinkuhler was considered - talent wise - right their with M & M. The Oilers certainly invested valuable draft picks in their OL.