PDA

View Full Version : Chronicle article on OL changes, performance in Seattle


nunusguy
10-17-2005, 10:15 AM
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/3399280
**************************************************
I spent some time focusing on the play of the rookie center and have the
impression that his NFL debut could have been worse. He's got some
upside because he obviously has excellent quickness and hustle, though don't know about his strength as his lower body is a bit undersized.

Vinny
10-17-2005, 11:05 AM
I will watch the game again but my first impresson of Hodgdon isn't a good one. He gets pushed around too easy and I don't think he may make it in this league. At first glance his play was underwhelming.

touttail
10-17-2005, 11:12 AM
I will watch the game again but my first impresson of Hodgdon isn't a good one. He gets pushed around too easy and I don't think he may make it in this league. At first glance his play was underwhelming.


Hodgons getting pushed around? I didn't get a chance to see that, because Wistrom was blowing past Chester Pitts so bad and eating his lunch on the way. Man that was really bad, then they put Rivers out there on Wistrom and you could see Wistrom licking his lips, naturally blowing by Rivers too!
8 opposing men on your line, what to do. They know we have no threat so they bring the farm.


bobby 119C :brickwall

Runner
10-17-2005, 11:31 AM
8 opposing men on your line, what to do. They know we have no threat so they bring the farm.


bobby 119C :brickwall

A team with NFL caliber offensive coaches would attempt to install an NFL offense that could take advantage of that alignment.

Vinny
10-17-2005, 11:32 AM
Hodgons getting pushed around? I didn't get a chance to see that, because Wistrom was blowing past Chester Pitts so bad and eating his lunch on the way. Man that was really bad, then they put Rivers out there on Wistrom and you could see Wistrom licking his lips, naturally blowing by Rivers too!
8 opposing men on your line, what to do. They know we have no threat so they bring the farm.


bobby 119C :brickwallPitts had a good game and Wistrom got his sack on Rivers btw.

Hervoyel
10-17-2005, 11:55 AM
A team with NFL caliber offensive coaches would attempt to install an NFL offense that could take advantage of that alignment.


Yeah. You would think that an NFL coaching staff might figure out a way to use these incredibly fast recievers we have (Bradford, Mathis) to catch quick slants.

Anyone remember Bradfords touchdown against Miami a couple of years ago?

Anyone think this Texans team today could possibly execute that play?

Anyone think back in 2003 when Bradford scored that touchdown that two years later we'd be 0-5 and wishing we could score like we did back in the good old days?

This is depressing. I think the Astros are keeping a handful of hard core sports nuts in this town from jumping off of buildings.

beerlover
10-17-2005, 11:59 AM
honestly I don't know what the Texans seen in Hodgdon just becasue he held his own in the Pac-10? and why they waited till the 5th rd to address the OL? picking Travis Johnson #1 then making the Babin & P-Buc trades have killed the Texans line building process so now this is whats left, someone has to be held accountable for this gross oversight :bomb:

Hervoyel
10-17-2005, 12:02 PM
I will watch the game again but my first impresson of Hodgdon isn't a good one. He gets pushed around too easy and I don't think he may make it in this league. At first glance his play was underwhelming.


No big deal. Most rookie linemen get pushed around. He has no real business playing IMO. The guy was a 5th rounder even. No reason in the world for him to be playing. I can't believe that he could possibly be a better answer to our problems in the middle than McKinney or Washington at this point and if he is then that just adds to the case for sending this regime out the door.

Dom's is just trying to throw a bunch of junk against the wall and hoping some of it sticks. It's the kind of thing head coaches who are about to go back to being defensive coordinators somewhere else do.

Runner
10-17-2005, 12:02 PM
This is depressing. I think the Astros are keeping a handful of hard core sports nuts in this town from jumping off of buildings.

I lived in San Antonio for several years before I moved to Houston, and was a Spurs season ticket holder from a couple of years pre-Robinson to a few years after. I went from their 20 win seasons to championships. I am anticipating a good season from the Spurs to keep me upbeat with my teams.

It is a long journey from worst to first, but man, it makes those championships sweeter. I keep thinking of that while I watch the Texans.

BUT, the Spurs are 0-4 this preseason. Should I be worried?

Blake
10-17-2005, 12:13 PM
It is a long journey from worst to first, but man, it makes those championships sweeter.

"The sweet is never as sweet, without the sour."

Ibar_Harry
10-17-2005, 12:20 PM
I will say the best potential O-line we have is Wand LT, Wiegert LG, Washington C, Pitts RG and either Wade or Riley at RT. I do not want Pitts on the left side of the line. Working together is a key component particularly on the left side and I think Wand and Wiegert would work well together. I don't want McKinney in there either.

William.carter
10-17-2005, 01:27 PM
I don't think that Drew looked that bad out there considering it was his first NFL game and it was under less than ideal circumstances. What disappointed me is that McKinney gave up the two late game sacks even thought he moved over to guard. Drew more of less looked like he held his own. I'm sure Vinny's opinion will be more insightful than mine though.

Texans Horror
10-17-2005, 03:47 PM
Since we've stepped out of reality as a team this year, I have an idea. Use a lipogram to decide who stays and who goes. Everybody on the O-line with a "y" in their name is cut. That's Riley and McKinney. Why are we so dead-set on these two lame ducks? All people with "W"s in their name play. That's Weigert, Wade, and Wand. Pitts is the best thing we have on the line, so put him out there. Of course, this still leaves Center undecided, but no plan is perfect, as Capers has shown. The Houston Lipograms. What do you think? We only play well on days that don't end in "y." ... :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall

Runner
10-17-2005, 04:04 PM
Since we've stepped out of reality as a team this year, I have an idea. Use a lipogram to decide who stays and who goes. Everybody on the O-line with a "y" in their name is cut. That's Riley and McKinney. Why are we so dead-set on these two lame ducks? All people with "W"s in their name play. That's Weigert, Wade, and Wand. Pitts is the best thing we have on the line, so put him out there. Of course, this still leaves Center undecided, but no plan is perfect, as Capers has shown. The Houston Lipograms. What do you think? We only play well on days that don't end in "y." ... :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall

That leaves Washignton at center, but Weary is problematic, since he has the Y and the W.

The lipogram system of determining your starting line-up - at least it is a system.

Ibar_Harry
10-17-2005, 04:17 PM
Pitts, other than the penalties, played a pretty good game. Especially in comparison to what we have seen from Riley. Why don't you want him on the left side???

I believe he's an aggressive blocker who is better suited for the right side and I think Wand would work well with Wiegert. Its just a gut feeling, but Pitts seems to have problems with left tackle as much as anyone. Wand wasn't that bad, but he suffered from I believe a lack of coordination and cooperation of Pitts. Pitts gets a lot more penalties than Wand. Its funny how Wand has fallen into the pitts and is nowhere to be seen it seems like. Wand at the end of year 2 and 3 actually looked pretty good overall. It was in TC when all you know what broke loose. I still smell a rat. Perhaps he criticized the staff, because he was the darling of the staff for a long time.

Ibar_Harry
10-17-2005, 04:25 PM
One of the problems Capers has with the O-line is that he is always talking about putting the best 5 atheletes on the field, but the problem is the best 5 atheletes may not work well together. You want the best 5 who work together across the line for a functioning O-line. That's why I made the suggestion I did. I just feel that Wand and Wiegert will work well together along with Washington at the center position. The right side would be your run side for the most part and that is where Pitts, Wade and Riley are a best fit in my estimation. Its all about who works the best together.

Texans Horror
10-17-2005, 04:31 PM
I believe he's an aggressive blocker who is better suited for the right side and I think Wand would work well with Wiegert. Its just a gut feeling, but Pitts seems to have problems with left tackle as much as anyone. Wand wasn't that bad, but he suffered from I believe a lack of coordination and cooperation of Pitts. Pitts gets a lot more penalties than Wand. Its funny how Wand has fallen into the pitts and is nowhere to be seen it seems like. Wand at the end of year 2 and 3 actually looked pretty good overall. It was in TC when all you know what broke loose. I still smell a rat. Perhaps he criticized the staff, because he was the darling of the staff for a long time.

There is something to be said for sneaky suspicions and gut feelings in this league. I like your idea. Pitts looked good in the Seattle game, but that was compared to Riley, and my dog looks good at LT compared to Riley. Wasn't Pitts a guard-type to begin with?

Runner
10-17-2005, 04:39 PM
I don't think Wand and Pitts have a problem with each other, especially after Pitts signed his new contract and the "left tackle money" couldn't be an issue between them anymore. They've been roommates in camp in previous years if I recall correctly, and they took the brunt of Pendry's wrath together last year.

I wouldn't be surprised if Pitts himself prefers the LT - Wand, LG - Pitts formation. The players know what would work best from an o-line unit perspective. "Wand - Pitts" is better than any available "Pitts - whoever" combination, no matter who is the best LT between the two.

Now we just need some team leaders to tell the coaches to put petty differences aside and field the best team.

infantrycak
10-17-2005, 04:53 PM
Wasn't Pitts a guard-type to begin with?

Depends on what you mean by to begin with. Pitts had never played any OL position other than LT prior to last year, but the Texans drafted him believing he was best suited to play LG.

dat_boy_yec
10-17-2005, 09:02 PM
Depends on what you mean by to begin with. Pitts had never played any OL position other than LT prior to last year, but the Texans drafted him believing he was best suited to play LG.
I don't get that, what's really wrong with the Texans, what makes them think that if a player is playing at a position he will play better at another position. If they need a position filled why not go after a player that fills that position. The line is a glaring example, but didnt Morrency get drafted as a running back. Why did he start at wide receiver. Wheres Armstrong and Mathis. I saw Armstrong on the bench. Why isnt he on the field dammit these texans decisions are really frustrating.

Runner
10-17-2005, 09:20 PM
I don't get that, what's really wrong with the Texans, what makes them think that if a player is playing at a position he will play better at another position. If they need a position filled why not go after a player that fills that position. The line is a glaring example, but didnt Morrency get drafted as a running back. Why did he start at wide receiver. Wheres Armstrong and Mathis. I saw Armstrong on the bench. Why isnt he on the field dammit these texans decisions are really frustrating.

According to Capers, they practice with both Morency and Armstrong as the 3rd receiver. If Armstrong is in, the defense puts in a nickel back and all 3 receivers are covered by cornerbacks. If they have two running backs inthe huddle, the defense has 2 corners and 2 safeties. Then Morency splits out giving us three "receivers" vs. 2 corners and a safety.

Of course we really have 2 receivers and an RB against 2 corners and a safety, so I'm not sure what you gain, especially since the coaches claim they are looking for ways to get Armstrong more opportunities.

infantrycak
10-17-2005, 09:47 PM
I don't get that, what's really wrong with the Texans, what makes them think that if a player is playing at a position he will play better at another position. If they need a position filled why not go after a player that fills that position. The line is a glaring example, but didnt Morrency get drafted as a running back. Why did he start at wide receiver. Wheres Armstrong and Mathis. I saw Armstrong on the bench. Why isnt he on the field dammit these texans decisions are really frustrating.

OK well two entirely different situations in there. Pitts played exceedingly well in college as a LT--something like 1 or 2 sacks allowed in 2 years. But, just as you will see some 1st round projected tackles who were LT's in college projected to RT in the NFL (Jammal Brown for example from last year), NFL personnel guys will decide a player's skill set better fits at another position in the NFL. Pitts has pretty good feet, better than most NFL guards, and very good power but doesn't have the classic frame and long arms of an elite LT. They likes what they saw but thought he would be better at another position. As Runner said, the Morency call was purely to create a D match-up problem. It isn't that they think Morency or Davis when they have split him out in the past is a better receiver it is the fact that they get to go up against a safety or LB rather than a CB.

Runner
10-18-2005, 09:55 AM
Back to the line - there have been a few posts that say at least we improved down to 3 sacks, but what did that improvement (from wretched all the way up to poor) cost us?

- Davis ran for an average of 2.2 yards per carry
- Carr had 8 throw aways to avoid being sacked
- A tight end stayed in and blocked on numerous passing plays, removing a passing option from the offense
- We gave up on any type of vertical passing play, further restricting the offense

So yes, we gave up less sacks. But we sacrificed the entire offense to do it.

Vinny
10-18-2005, 10:25 AM
- Davis ran for an average of 2.2 yards per carry (had nothing to do with sacks)
- Carr had 8 throw aways to avoid being sacked (about time...most QB's throw the ball away several times a game too...welcome to the NFL Dave)
- A tight end stayed in and blocked on numerous passing plays, removing a passing option from the offense (we've never thrown to the TE much except for the first year when we had nothing)
- We gave up on any type of vertical passing play, further restricting the offense (since when have we thrown downfield and challenged D's in the middle of the field the last 13 games?.....Better protection allows for more downfield passing...not the reverse)

infantrycak
10-18-2005, 10:39 AM
- Davis ran for an average of 2.2 yards per carry (had nothing to do with sacks)

Not directly, but indirectly yes. They changed up the whole OL to try to improve on pass protection. The net result was an OL who hadn't practiced much together in those respective positions and the run blocking suffered. That and teams are clearly game planning against DD at this point.

Runner
10-18-2005, 10:40 AM
- Davis ran for an average of 2.2 yards per carry (had nothing to do with sacks)
- Carr had 8 throw aways to avoid being sacked (about time...most QB's throw the ball away several times a game too...welcome to the NFL Dave)
- A tight end stayed in and blocked on numerous passing plays, removing a passing option from the offense (we've never thrown to the TE much except for the first year when we had nothing)
- We gave up on any type of vertical passing play, further restricting the offense (since when have we thrown downfield and challenged D's in the middle of the field the last 13 games?.....Better protection allows for more downfield passing...not the reverse)

But restructuring the line and play calling does effect the entire offense, and in this case negatively.

I do think the next time you agree with one of my posts will be the first though, so fire away. That's what these boards are for.

Vinny
10-18-2005, 10:41 AM
I can buy that...but it always seems that everybody blames their favorite skill players woes on the line and never points out the limitations of the players themselves.

Vinny
10-18-2005, 10:42 AM
But restructuring the line and play calling does effect the entire offense, and in this case negatively.

I do think the next time you agree with one of my posts will be the first though, so fire away. That's what these boards are for.I usually (mostly) respond to things I dissagree with....I'm not much of a rah rah group hug fan-type. I see mb's as a place to debate opinions.

infantrycak
10-18-2005, 10:48 AM
I can buy that...but it always seems that everybody blames their favorite skill players woes on the line and never points out the limitations of the players themselves.

Nah, I wasn't trying to make a case for DD being Barry Sanders. Really maybe more of an observation (here comes another Ibar theory) that run blocking is probably more affected on a zone blocking team than on a man blocking team. Strikes me that the zone blocking really requires them to work themselves together as evidenced by the progress over last season. Could be any RB back there and I would expect a zone blocking team with all 5 positions changing to struggle.

Vinny
10-18-2005, 10:54 AM
yeah...I was only correlating sacks to Dom's production and not the position switch(s)....which you point out as a reasonable argument.

Runner
10-18-2005, 11:03 AM
I can buy that...but it always seems that everybody blames their favorite skill players woes on the line and never points out the limitations of the players themselves.

I'm not blaming the players at any postion as much as I blame the coaching staff not giving them the tools to win. Physical skills don't seem to improve when a player gets here - one example of many is Wade who has regressed. Shuffling the line doesn't help much if you don't improve the o-line's blocking skills as a group working together.

The team also doesn't have or use the plays to exploit what the opponents give them.

For instance, against Seattle's 8 man front we were concerned about pass protection - why not quick slant them to death? If that means using Armstrong because his skill set includes catching the ball in traffic, then do it. I don't mean that Armstrong is better than Bradford, Gaffney, or Mathis. I mean he has a particular skill - hands in traffic - that we could have tried to exploit. We could run slants with Gaf and Mathis too - Gaf had a good game and Mathis has the speed to break that type of pass into a big play, especially against an 8 man front. Beat one guy and its a race to the end zone. If not slants, something.

Vinny
10-18-2005, 11:33 AM
All we did was throw short passes or hitches...watch the game again. You can't just "quick slant teams to death" when they cheat over and take it away. You can't even do that in Madden if the other guy is expecting it....all you would do is turn the ball over. We have got to get the ball up the field. Many of Dave's passes more than just a few yards were not accurate. A couple of them were on routine passes that killed drives.

Coach C.
10-18-2005, 12:03 PM
Vinny you are right on track. It was another case of old Jacksonville and Jets offense. It was hard to watch, but D. Carr was nice at the game. He was not overly accurate, but hell he is not that kind of QB. I think DC would do better with a more wide open approach and going up the middle of the field. His footwork right now is not going to get alot of accuracy along the sidelines. Just look at his feet on the throw to gaffney on the sideline. Anyway Vinny check out my coaching list and tell me what you think.

Runner
10-19-2005, 10:05 AM
All we did was throw short passes or hitches...watch the game again. You can't just "quick slant teams to death" when they cheat over and take it away. You can't even do that in Madden if the other guy is expecting it....

I know. I was just using an example - that's what I meant by If not slants, something

The point is a good offense would attack an 8 man front and make them pay.

I wouldn't know anything about Madden; I've never played it nor seen it played.