PDA

View Full Version : Great analysis of the O-line's performance on Sunday night


Yossarian
10-20-2005, 01:25 PM
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=3073&cat=5

Every NFL fan knows what has happened: Houstonís line still stinks.

But what I donít like about the football media is the way they analyze offensive lines as single entities, rather than examining offensive linemen as individuals. We hear that Houstonís line is bad and Kansas Cityís line is good, but we rarely hear specifics about the individual players on the line. So on Sunday I watched the Houston offensive line on every play of their horrible 42-10 loss to Seattle to try to figure out who was the weak link, and whether anyone pulled his weight.

Coach C.
10-20-2005, 01:39 PM
Good article, but Pitts should have been 3 to 8, but the rest of the article was pretty right on. Other than the Zone Blocking scheme which is predominately applied to running the ball.

Texans Horror
10-20-2005, 01:44 PM
Analyzing the O-line is a great thing, and I agree with the basic analysis that the o-line stinks, that nothing has been done about it, and that it will probably remain that way until our new HC. However, plays were considered bad for a player if they made a penalty, which sounds good, but it makes Pitts sound like one of our worst players. He had a different position, and as harsh a critic of the o-line as I am, I believe he deserves at least a 1-game gradint curve. I agree that Pitts and Wade is a great combo, and that no matter how the Texans cut it, they need the LT. This always leads me back to Wand. He is the missing link in the line. He did a decent job last year, and if Pendry can find it in his head to put him back on the line, many of the problems will be fixed (giving the 1 - 2 game curve). I don't think it will take Wand long to get back to form, and I think he will be even better since he had a year to learn the position in '04. Overall, I liked the analysis, though.

Texans Horror
10-20-2005, 02:02 PM
A lot of them were making mistakes that we knew came from being "new" to that position, but I am thinking about how Pitts was moving to a position he used to play for Houston and McKinney was moving to a position he prefers to play. So I don't think they deserve much leniency. I'll give them to Cleveland to turn it around...

eriadoc
10-20-2005, 02:14 PM
Quote from the article -

And Carr is far from blameless in all this. I donít think Iíve ever seen a team that took an early lead use as many eight-man fronts as Seattle did. The Seahawks clearly didnít think Houstonís passing game could beat them, and Carr proved them right, even though there were quite a few plays when Seattle rushed only three linemen and Carr had plenty of time to pass.

He states that Carr had to share some of the blame, yet he fails to mention what he did wrong. I think we all agree that Carr makes his share of mistakes, but I would have expected a bit more insight from someone who went to the trouble to analyze all this and then mention Carr's role in it. The only thing he mentions is Seattle rushing only three. Well, I doubt this guy picked up on it, but that means there are eight men covering only two to three receivers. Simple math, that.

touttail
10-20-2005, 02:31 PM
That was a good article. Guy really put some time in analyzing each lineman. BTW-Pitts had two penalities for not lining up on the line, not one.

Makes you wonder what is going through Capers :homer: and Casserly's :homer: minds, knowing we are very weak with our offensive line and not drafting accordilngly!

bobby 119C :brickwall

Scooter
10-20-2005, 02:31 PM
yall that are reading the article and citing "rookie mistakes" and "they were out of position", did you forget that the line has looked as bad or worse the entire season? these guys just arent very good to begin with, and what little talent some of them have ... for whatever reason isnt being applied on the field. to me, they just dont look like they care. 90% of that IMO is coaching ... getting everything out of the players you have and making them want to fight 60+ minutes of every game.

that being said, where's wand? did he get benched for making capers cry during a practice? he isnt listed as injured, and he's the only thing resembling a LT we've ever had. why is pitts still on the left side? why is mckinney not only allowed to be in the nfl, but getting paid like someone who's actually good?


eriadoc ... i think he left the carr analysis off of it because he was focusing on the line. what i'm suprised that he didnt mention though is the few times they only sent 3 or 4 is that they STILL got a good rush.

Ibar_Harry
10-20-2005, 02:52 PM
"Milford Brown repeatedly struggled against the pass rush. On Houstonís final drive Seattleís Rocky Bernard ran right past him to sack Carr. That was pretty much par for the course. Seattleís defensive tackles are all fairly quick on inside pass rushes, and Brown just wasnít ready for them. On several occasions Brown allowed rushers to get into Carrís face.

Offensive coordinator Joe Pendry, who became Houstonís offensive line coach last year and took over as coordinator when Dom Capers fired Chris Palmer this season, believes in a zone-blocking scheme in which linemen block a specific area rather than a specific player. The problem, as I see it, is that too often Houston linemen just stood around doing nothing on plays when no Seattle players went into their zone. On one play, when no one came into Brownís zone, he just stood there instead of looking to help one of his teammates."

I think this clearly states part of the problem and I've been eluding to it for a long time. Our players do not understand ZONE BLOCKING. It requires players to remain agressive and they simply don't know what they are doing with this scheme. I remember in the Titans game when people commented that Carr toke off on a run and people were just standing around and he got the 1st down literally on his own. Don't employ something your players can't understand and don't know how to use.

I have been posting for sometime I think the best line combo would be WAND, WIEGERT, HODGDSON, PITTS and WADE or REILLY. Unfortunately Wiegert is injured, but I still think that is the best combo and I would also say throw out the current play book and dust off the year 2 play book and go back to the old blocking technique. We might not win, but I will bet we will be a whole lot closer and the games will be a lot more exciting. As we gain confidence we might even surprise a few folks. This is ALL BECAUSE CAPRES WANTED A DENVER LIKE RUNNING GAME FOR WHICH NOT HE HAS THE PERSONNEL. HE AND PENDRY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THIS......................

Note, I would say we would try Washington at LG with injury to Wiegert, but that's because I do not like McKinny at all. How many times did Feeney get to Carr when Wand played LT? Also how many penalties did Wand get? Wand is on Pendry's list and I really don't think it has anything to do with football.

the wonger need food
10-20-2005, 02:58 PM
A Seattle fan summed it up in the comments section. No new revelations, just interesting hear other fans' perspectives...

My friends and I were in Seattle for this one and noticed a few things.

1. Houston has absolutely zero chemistry! We were seated behind their bench and honestly once Seattle took the lead nobody talked to each other or were trying to find ways to fix things. They looked like they were waiting to get the game over with.

2. Play Calling- The Houston offence was soooo predictable it hurt. I was calling the plays that Houston would run and (with a witness I might add) called the exact play when they scored their one TD. This is a problem, if I can predict their offense imagine what a defensive coordinator can do.

3. Carr is scared- I dont think this is his fault cause lord knows most of us would have given up by know. Scared is the wrong word, Carr knows from experience that if he doesnt throw the ball hes going to get hit, so even when the line does a good job he is really antsy to throw the ball.

4. Recievers Stink- Twice Carr threw perfect throws to his recievers on obvious option routes that they missed. Say a DB is lining up way inside on a WR, a QB will spot this and the WR is supposed to know to turn outside at about 8-10 yards. Twice Carr threw absolute rockets while the reciever (Gaffney) was just aimlessly running down the field.

Personally I dont think this can be fixed, Carr would be incredible somewhere else, the fact that he has gone this long without trying to force a trade or anything is INCREDIBLE!! They really should trade Carr to a team for a good lineman, draft another one and pick up a veteran QB and move on.

Runner
10-20-2005, 02:59 PM
How many times did Feeney get to Carr when Wand played LT? Also how many penalties did Wand get? Wand is on Pendry's list and I really don't think it has anything to do with football.

a) 3 times total in 2 games
b) 3 penalties all year

Ibar_Harry
10-20-2005, 03:03 PM
a) 3 times total in 2 games
b) 3 penalties all year

Gee, no wonder he's not playing. The standards are too high for the other players. Sorry, but this coaching staff is beyond me. I know Mr. B thought Wand had the potential and talent to be an outstanding LT. That came from assessments while tuitoring him. I have a feeling that I would respect his judgement over what we have on this coaching staff. Wand's downfall started with zone blocking. Hmmm, guess I shouldn't say that should I.............................

Honoring Earl 34
10-20-2005, 03:30 PM
:brickwall The guys who run this team never cease to amaze me . I expect next week we'll find out that their all brother inlaws .

I think the coaching staff treaded water for three years and stayed fairly competetive . The offseason moves killed the team chemistry and now we're starting to see our true talent level . That includes GMs , coaches and players.

ccdude730
10-20-2005, 07:04 PM
wand had no bad plays....but no good ones either

but he was dressed in regular clothes on the sideline. WHY is he not dressed?!? my goodness this is driving me up a wall as to why we cant go back to wand-pitts on the left side.

rmartin65
10-20-2005, 07:09 PM
Quote from the article -



He states that Carr had to share some of the blame, yet he fails to mention what he did wrong. I think we all agree that Carr makes his share of mistakes, but I would have expected a bit more insight from someone who went to the trouble to analyze all this and then mention Carr's role in it. The only thing he mentions is Seattle rushing only three. Well, I doubt this guy picked up on it, but that means there are eight men covering only two to three receivers. Simple math, that.
It is also hard when Carr is not allowed to audible into a pass. He can only put it into a run I think.

Ibar_Harry
10-20-2005, 07:12 PM
wand had no bad plays....but no good ones either

but he was dressed in regular clothes on the sideline. WHY is he not dressed?!? my goodness this is driving me up a wall as to why we cant go back to wand-pitts on the left side.

I do not think Pitts works with Wand and that's why I want Pitts on the Right side. Wand is on the outs with Pendry. Its amazing how far this coaching staff can take us down the road of self distruction.

utahmark
10-20-2005, 07:13 PM
It is also hard when Carr is not allowed to audible into a pass. He can only put it into a run I think.

ive never seen him audible to a pass. he needs to at least start faking some audibles. defenses have to know that everytime he audibles its a run.

Coach C.
10-20-2005, 07:14 PM
Ibar would you not rather see Pitts at LT or a new premeire rookie and Wand at RT. I think Wand at RT would make him look really good. Plus that would let us get rid of weigert or McKinney. Eventhough I am a big fan of McKinney.

ccdude730
10-20-2005, 07:22 PM
wand was a project and i would be ok if he did not work out for us in the long run, but after playing 1 season he took way too much heat and i think he should get another chance at LT or RT. he would be better than riley and pitts at LT, and better in pass protection at RT than riley or wade.

Ibar_Harry
10-20-2005, 07:23 PM
If you read the article you will find an evaluation of Pitts at tackle. The best way to put it is he is the pitts. Wand is far and away our best LT. I think he needs a working companion next to him like Wiegert. Although Washington might work. NO I DO NOT WANT PITTS NEXT TO WAND. I think Pitts is a problem and thinks he is more than he is. Pitts' agressive personality would be better served on the Right side of the line. However, Wand is in the dog house with someone, but anybody with a backbone might be with this coaching staff.

HomeBred_Texan
10-20-2005, 08:52 PM
I saw this and almost spewed Dr. Pepper all over my monitor. Some good reading though. So now everyone is pointing fingers at our O-Line and not just the group, they finger point at each individual. Here is the link.
O-Linemen (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5009578)

Here is a rating of the O-Linemen.

Bad plays consist mostly of missed blocks and penalties. Houston's linemen had a lot more bad plays than good plays, so I'll get into specific examples in a bit, but first, here are the results:


Player Position Good Plays Bad Plays
Chester Pitts LT 1 9
Milford Brown G 2 7
Drew Hodgdon C 0 6
Steve McKinney C/RG 1 5
Todd Wade RT 5 4
Victor Riley RT 1 5

Note: The starting lineup, from left to right, was Pitts, Brown, McKinney, Zach Wiegert, and Wade. Wiegert went down with an injury during the first series and hadn't done anything I marked as a good play or a bad play. Todd Washington filled in for him on the next two plays, and he also didn't do anything worth noting. Beginning with the second series, McKinney moved from center to guard and Hodgdon came in at center for the first NFL game of his career. Later in the first quarter, Riley came in for Wade at tackle. Riley and Wade alternated for much of the rest of the game.

Nighthawk
10-21-2005, 01:03 AM
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=3073&cat=5

Texans Horror
10-21-2005, 07:36 AM
I'm not trying to make Pitts out to be a great lineman, but for the Texans, he is one of our better linemen. I have heard before that he and Wand actually get along well, so I do not think that line psychology is a reason for Wand's absence. The Mystery of the Missing Wand is one of the strangest conundrums of this staff. I believe that if they had Wand for the first four games, the o-line would have been better anchored and they would not have been blown out of the water. This would have had a domino effect on the rest of the team. Would it have prevented an 0-2 start? I doubt it. But would they have had a better shot at Cinci and Tenn? My guess (and it can only be a conjecture at this point) is probably. My reaosning is that the Texans' defense is too new to be effective this year, and Capers knew he would be relying on an offense rather than a defense for the first time as a Texan. That is why he brought in a "veteran" to anchor the line. The offense can move the ball if Carr is protected. Without Wand on the line, they lost their protection and the ability to move the ball.

SESupergenius
10-21-2005, 10:12 AM
All I got to say is, wow. That was one of the best reads I've seen about this o-line. A complete, unbiased, unhomered look at our offensive line. And Imagine that, they come up with the same conclusion, Our o-line and passing protections stink.

But hey, let's blame Carr.

Ibar_Harry
10-21-2005, 10:24 AM
All I got to say is, wow. That was one of the best reads I've seen about this o-line. A complete, unbiased, unhomered look at our offensive line. And Imagine that, they come up with the same conclusion, Our o-line and passing protections stink.

But hey, let's blame Carr.

A lot of us have taken a lot of heat with respect to saying the zone blocking scheme is the problem. The comments in this article really say perhaps it really is. Its an implimentation and personnel problem. Again Capers and Pendry are trying to fit square pegs in round holes. Its the childish I want a Denver type running game and I will get come hell or high water. The inability to adapt to your personnel is the failing of this staff and has been all along. An even bigger victum has been Carr and AJ is right in their too. The O-line is but a small part of the whole picture.

Kaiser Toro
10-21-2005, 10:28 AM
All I got to say is, wow. That was one of the best reads I've seen about this o-line. A complete, unbiased, unhomered look at our offensive line. And Imagine that, they come up with the same conclusion, Our o-line and passing protections stink.

But hey, let's blame Carr.

Been trying to give you rep for your new avatar, but I need to pass it around. Can't stop chuckling every time I read one of your posts from your avatar and your 180 degree opinion from mine. :)

ArlingtonTexan
10-21-2005, 01:09 PM
All I got to say is, wow. That was one of the best reads I've seen about this o-line. A complete, unbiased, unhomered look at our offensive line. And Imagine that, they come up with the same conclusion, Our o-line and passing protections stink.

But hey, let's blame Carr.

What conclusion has anyone else come up with concerning the OL?

Texas_Thrill
10-21-2005, 01:29 PM
The article is good but it forgets to take something into account. LINE PLAY is as more about moving as ONE. That's why its always talked about like that. As is D-line play. You must move in unison. Know what the other is doing and NOT doing for that matter.

ArlingtonTexan
10-21-2005, 01:40 PM
STOP GOING WITH THE ZONE BLOCKING SCHEME. IT ISN'T WORKING!!!

Every team uses the zone blocking scheme. It is a matter of 25% to 40% to 75% depending on the team. In fact, some teams which are not known as zone blocking team, actually use in the same proportion as the Texans or other teams which are considered zone blocking. It is a term that some of you have locked on to. Sort of the West Coast Offense of blocking schemes.

BTW, I have my glasses. Normal type please.

Ibar_Harry
10-22-2005, 01:35 PM
Every team uses the zone blocking scheme. It is a matter of 25% to 40% to 75% depending on the team. In fact, some teams which are not known as zone blocking team, actually use in the same proportion as the Texans or other teams which are considered zone blocking. It is a term that some of you have locked on to. Sort of the West Coast Offense of blocking schemes.

BTW, I have my glasses. Normal type please.

May be true what you say, but our players apparently don't understand it. Our players are standing around waiting for someone to come into their zone. Remember, guard your Zone with vigor, but don't step out of your zone. All I can say is we started using the zone and it was all downhill from there. Like it or not that is the facts................. Could be the coaching though couldn't it? Defense is in a zone also. Could be the coaching though couldn't it? I still say dust off the year 2 playbook and have at it. Do what we were doing offensively in year 2 and see if things don't get better. At least the other team will wonder what we are doing.............................. Course they might be wondering what we are doing now, because we are not executing the way we are suppose to. The other team knows are offense better than we do....

cadahnic
10-22-2005, 02:18 PM
Do you not remember that we sucked in year 2. I mean why go back to year 2 cause Carr only got saked 36 times. Big damn deal we still were losing games. I dont care if Carr is getting sacked or we only score 3 damn points per game as long as we win. Winning is all that matters and going back to a time when we sucked is not gonna get the job done.

Ibar_Harry
10-22-2005, 02:26 PM
Do you not remember that we sucked in year 2. I mean why go back to year 2 cause Carr only got saked 36 times. Big damn deal we still were losing games. I dont care if Carr is getting sacked or we only score 3 damn points per game as long as we win. Winning is all that matters and going back to a time when we sucked is not gonna get the job done.

We were in a lot of games and people were looking forward to year 3. I think it was our best offensive year overall, because we played an extemely hard schedule. We had one of the toughest schedules that year. We played the Colts and the Patriots down to the wire. Say what you want, but I believe we were on track to become a very good team and we had the draft coming up and we did what we did that year despite a catastrophic number of injuries. That was a bigger factor in year 2 than anything else. Everyone was looking forward to us being injury free to begin the 3rd year. We had a lot of young people step up and we though we had the makings of a real good team.

infantrycak
10-22-2005, 11:36 PM
Do you not remember that we sucked in year 2. I mean why go back to year 2 cause Carr only got saked 36 times.

We were in a lot of games and people were looking forward to year 3. I think it was our best offensive year overall

Good question cadahnic. Let's see if Ibar is correct this time:

2003 Offense--237 1st downs, 31% 3rd down conversion, 4306 total yds, 896 plays, 1651 rushing yds, 2655 passing yds, 18 field goals, 29 TD's, 29th scoring offense and 27:39 TOP.
2004 Offense--300 1st downs, 38% 3rd down conversion, 5128 total yds, 1001 plays, 1882 rushing yds, 3246 passing yds, 17 field goals, 37 TD's, 21st scoring offense and 29:59 TOP.

Well, I guess if you would give up the improvements in every single category except field goals for one extra field goal, then yup Ibar is correct, 2003 was better.