PDA

View Full Version : How bout that O-Line!


TK_Gamer
08-14-2006, 12:54 PM
As iv'e said in a couple posts this year I had 3 concerns:

1) O-line

2) Secondary

3) LB/runstopping

Well I'm not too worried about the O-Line now, they really did good, even well into the depth chart. 0 sacks says a lot. I wasnt too sure about the zone blocking but I thought that was impressive also. Sherman is obviously making an impact. hopefully mckinney can come back strong and make it even better depth. I'm excited about the future!

TK_Gamer
08-14-2006, 01:17 PM
Ok....I guess I should have made another Carr thread lol

HOU-TEX
08-14-2006, 01:25 PM
As iv'e said in a couple posts this year I had 3 concerns:

1) O-line

2) Secondary

3) LB/runstopping

Well I'm not too worried about the O-Line now, they really did good, even well into the depth chart. 0 sacks says a lot. I wasnt too sure about the zone blocking but I thought that was impressive also. Sherman is obviously making an impact. hopefully mckinney can come back strong and make it even better depth. I'm excited about the future!

As it is still quite early to be saying I'm not worried about out line. I tend to agree with you. They played really well. Maybe some had to do with KC looking bad too, who knows? I don't think the secondary was really even tested to say good or bad. I agree with you on our LB crew. DeMecco looked good on some plays and on others he was a typical rook. I think he'll progress rapidly into an elite LB. We need our Sam and Will to step it up, period.:redtowel:

Hulk75
08-14-2006, 01:34 PM
o line did well..............:)

Sarg01
08-14-2006, 02:13 PM
Yes, they really did perform well, but I'll wait until the regular season to judge the improvement. 4 years of horror don't get swept away by a preseason game against a team with a poor DL.

srstex
08-14-2006, 02:20 PM
KC has been a scoring monster for some time now, and the fact they didn't march right over us answers some the defensive questions on the post. As for their not looking crisp, and the it's only pre-season, we are all in the same boat, so on the curve, We Won and I am walking proud-talking loud and drawing a crowd that wants to listen to my Texans are great rant.:homer:

JohnGalt
08-14-2006, 03:10 PM
Well I'm not too worried about the O-Line now, they really did good, even well into the depth chart. 0 sacks says a lot. I wasnt too sure about the zone blocking but I thought that was impressive also. Sherman is obviously making an impact. hopefully mckinney can come back strong and make it even better depth. I'm excited about the future!

They did play well, but I am waiting to see a team gameplan for our weaknesses. I saw an interview with Edwards where I felt he was stating that the Chiefs didn't plan to attack the Texans weaknesses. That their whole game plan was based seeing specific players perform in certain plays. Like, calling the powersweep to see if O-Line blocks the correct assignment, not "Houston tends to shift to the weakside on 2 and short, run the powersweep"

I hope the distinction is clear and I my example makes sense.

Texans Horror
08-14-2006, 03:15 PM
Amen. And I hope that Kubiak was also doing a bit of the same work that Herman did. It will pay off dividends in the long run. Of course, there is something to say for generating confidence in a group of players who have never had a winning season, and even a play-off win will help in that area.

kcwilson
08-14-2006, 03:38 PM
They did play well, but I am waiting to see a team gameplan for our weaknesses. I saw an interview with Edwards where I felt he was stating that the Chiefs didn't plan to attack the Texans weaknesses. That their whole game plan was based seeing specific players perform in certain plays. Like, calling the powersweep to see if O-Line blocks the correct assignment, not "Houston tends to shift to the weakside on 2 and short, run the powersweep"

I hope the distinction is clear and I my example makes sense.

I tend to agree here. Especially in week 1 of preseason, the term used most often is 'vanilla' defense. You get the base defensive package and obviously they didn't game plan for bootlegs, even after we kept running them.

The most optimistic thing I saw was on the Wali Lundy 25 yard run, they had a great review of the play from the end zone camera which really showed the C, RG, and RT trucking lanes on that sweep. It was very encouraging to see that mobility from the OL. If you look at the blocking lanes on that view, it is pretty encouraging, not to mention the end result.

I'll have to go back and check (luvin' the tivo), but I don't remember a lot of KC blitzing with Carr on the field. The line seemed to hold the pocket well.

Defensively, the interior run could not be stopped by the defense, which is kind of scary. I'd like to have seen Cowart play the middle and DeMeco on the weak side against a starting unit to see how that combo works. I think Cowart is a better MLB run stuffer. Greenwood has never made a play of any substance.

Mario's performance I think is something that has to develop over the tide of an entire game. When the OL starts to tire a little, the speed rusher and strength late in the game really ought to be a bigger factor. A few series isn't enough to gauge his effectiveness over what will be an entire game, in particular when someone has the kind of skills he has. I'll look for meaningful impact in weeks 1-4 from him, and I bet his late game effectiveness is much better than early game.

gjmac2
08-14-2006, 03:44 PM
If ever a team needed a preseason, this one does.

Not only to get a "winning feeling" back, but to try and get the new offense and defense down. David Carr needs all the confidence he can get, and the new players need to "jell" with the rest of the team.

afcman
08-14-2006, 03:59 PM
I wish we didn't have the eagles and colts first. But it will be interesting to watch.

Scooter
08-14-2006, 04:47 PM
i thought the line looked great as well. granted, we were going against a very basic defensive scheme (almost no blitzing) and a relatively weak defensive line, but our big uglies were very dominant. every other season, we've failed to even slow down a 3-man rush in junk time, so this is a major step. not only were there no sacks, there were no hurries, and only once did a defensive player even come in contact with our qb's (a DE managed to get fingertips on carr's left shoulder as he passed by). the run game was pretty impressive as well, but you could really tell that they still need to gel on the zone blocking scheme. two guys really stood out to me, flanagan & spencer. flanagan just looked incredible, he did get pushed back once, but on every other play he was a brick wall ... on lundy's TD run, flanagan's pushing a DT through the endzone before lundy gets there. spencer also looked like a monster on rushing downs, but had a few miscues with his feet. once he gets his legs under him, spencer's going to be a stud.

ojthecat
08-14-2006, 06:57 PM
I wish we didn't have the eagles and colts first. But it will be interesting to watch.


I am glad we play the Eagles and then the Colts when we go 2-0 this city will be pumped up and Reliant will be ROCKIN

Toro
08-14-2006, 07:55 PM
I didn't get to see the game, so pardon me asking, but how did Charles Spencer look?

JohnGalt
08-14-2006, 08:09 PM
I didn't get to see the game, so pardon me asking, but how did Charles Spencer look?

Generally Spencer looked good against the Chiefs second team. He didn't get to play the 1st team.

Toro
08-14-2006, 08:28 PM
Generally Spencer looked against the Chiefs second team. He didn't get to play the 1st team.

Thanks.

How about Eric Winston? How'd he perform and did he play with the first teamers?

JohnGalt
08-14-2006, 08:43 PM
Thanks.

How about Eric Winston? How'd he perform and did he play with the first teamers?

Again, All second teamers. I didn't notice any glaring problems with either one. I'm cautiously optimistic about Spencer and Winston.

Toro
08-14-2006, 11:01 PM
Again, All second teamers. I didn't notice any glaring problems with either one. I'm cautiously optimistic about Spencer and Winston.

That's a plus. Granted, it's only one pre-season game, but baby steps are baby steps.

I'm like you. I'm cautiously optimistic about both. I think Spencer's one of those diamonds in the rough that could turn out becoming much better than his draft spot. As for Winston, I'm not going to use the term "Franchise Guy" to define him, but if he's able to maintain health, he's certainly the type of guy you build an O-Line around.

Scooter
08-14-2006, 11:15 PM
Thanks.

How about Eric Winston? How'd he perform and did he play with the first teamers?

i didnt notice winston even in the game, which might be a good thing. spencer did stand out to me though probably because i focused more on the left side. i havent gotten a chance to rewatch the game yet, but on several plays i noticed spencer manhandle the end that came his way. he was a little sluggish on a few passing plays, but once he got his hands on the defender, it was over. on running plays, the same was the case because of his obvious girth & strength, but his explosion off the ball was very impressive. if he keeps improving his feet and his timing, spencer really could make for an overwhelming left tackle in a couple years. if wand doesnt find a mean streak real quick, he's going to lose his job with the first team.

The Pencil Neck
08-15-2006, 12:25 AM
i didnt notice winston even in the game, which might be a good thing.

There was only a couple of points that I really noticed him. I've only watched the full game once, the first quarter 3x and the second quarter 2x. But... I remember a play early in the 4th quarter where there was a bumbled reverse or something and Winston was just standing there in open space like he didn't know what to do while the wideout was trying to dodge a couple of Chefs. That was the only time I noticed him.

threetoedpete
08-15-2006, 03:18 AM
I didn't get to see the game, so pardon me asking, but how did Charles Spencer look?
First half the 11:11Mark
Swing pass to Lundi
Spence goes for a cut Block and wiffs. NOTE* JMHO mark this one down on the coaches. Spencer is to quick and strong to waste him on a cut block. Lundi gets tangled in Spencers feet and goes down. Can't get in the pattern.
I understand the therory, but you're plain wrong. Push and go get someone else.

11:07 Strech play right. Lundi gain 4
10:whatever, Pass to Daniels first down. Spencer stones RDE.
9:48 , Pass to Daneils, Spencer stones RDE.
9:whatever, Lundi Drop. Spencer stones RDE
8:56, Cross to Walters...Spencer Stones RDE.
Fourth & short...Punt

6:08, Pass to 86....Spencer Stones RDE.
2nd & 1, Strech play left. Spencer knocks RDE four yards off the hole.
first down.

5:22 Pass to OD...Spncer abuses RDE. If it'd of been on the street he would of been arrested for assult.
2nd & 6
4:40 Quick screen to Lundi. Spencer stones RDE.
1st and down
3: 57 Shallow cross to O.D.. First down.
* 3:19 Strech play left..Spencer & TE pancake RDE. It was ...nasty.
2:29 strech right to Lundi.
2 minute warning.
Rosenfeilds Roll out TD . Spencer stones RDE five yards up the feild.

The Kid can Play.

Oh by the by...Salaam was at right tackle during these two series. Forget who it was giving me crap friday...Salaam makes the cut.

threetoedpete
08-15-2006, 03:36 AM
]']The depth is awsome! AWSOME! Were alwasy going to have fresh linemen in there.
Winston - Def potential here. He needs some work.
I'm grippin about this. Can't hide him and can't slip him through wavers.

Runner
08-15-2006, 05:44 AM
Forget who it was giving me crap friday...Salaam makes the cut.

Giving you crap? I thought we we were discussing various options in the event we keep nine or ten offensive lineman. My point is we may have to cut a decent tackle just because of the numbers game, especially if we only carry nine lineman on the roster.

I still don't think my opinion that it is difficult to keep five tackles if we only carry nine o-lineman is that outlandish. I don't see how, in addition to the starters, we have one back-up guard/center going into the season. I think I'll stick by my opinion.

TK_Gamer
08-15-2006, 06:02 AM
Giving you crap? I thought we we were discussing various options in the event we keep nine or ten offensive lineman. My point is we may have to cut a decent tackle just because of the numbers game, especially if we only carry nine on the roster.

I still don't think my opinion that it is difficult to keep five tackles if we only carry nine o-lineman is "crap". I think I'll stick by it.

under normal circumstances I would say 9 is enough, but considering the depth we have you dont wanna lose guys with potential or skills. also I think when you zone block the guys get wore out faster so fresh legs are never a bad thing. I think we need to carry 10 or 11 for insurance. as far as it being too many tackles, wiegert is g/t pitts is g/t and winston could probably play both as well, mckinney can play guard and in a pinch play center. so when you count the 2 way players we wont be hurting with 5 or 6 tackles. 2 starters, 2 backups, 2 utility 2-way lineman. just my :twocents:

Runner
08-15-2006, 06:35 AM
under normal circumstances I would say 9 is enough, but considering the depth we have you dont wanna lose guys with potential or skills. also I think when you zone block the guys get wore out faster so fresh legs are never a bad thing. I think we need to carry 10 or 11 for insurance. as far as it being too many tackles, wiegert is g/t pitts is g/t and winston could probably play both as well, mckinney can play guard and in a pinch play center. so when you count the 2 way players we wont be hurting with 5 or 6 tackles. 2 starters, 2 backups, 2 utility 2-way lineman. just my :twocents:

I think we'll end up keeping ten too. However, the coaches intentions going into camp was nine, so I threw that out there. I thought it was an interesting topic for discussion because it is not clear cut.

For instance, counting Weigert as a G/T looks good on paper, but he is one of the most likely players to get hurt. In a similar vein, McKinney as a back-up center would be OK for spot duty I guess, but Flanagan is one of our older players and has bad knees. Do we want McKinney at center again for an extended amount of games if Flanagan gets a serious injury?

I guess it may be more crystal clear to others than it is to me. I bet the coaches will give it some thought and discussion though.

Texans Horror
08-15-2006, 07:11 AM
Just because the Texans have a player who has played that position does not mean they are the right person for the job. Unlike high school football where, yes, one player can perform at multiple positions (I once knew a kid who was a receiver/corner/kicker), you start wanting people (except for Doug Flutie) to excel at one position. It is always great to have players who can perform at several different positions (apparently the one-time invisible Bennie Joppru is now up for back, end, or long snapper, depending on the thread you're reading). It is also wise to have a guard backing up a guard and a center backing up a center. The trenches are a mentally challenging place to play, and I think Kubiak will need backups who excel at that position. I am now going to go finish my Excel spreadsheet...

HJam72
08-15-2006, 07:34 AM
I'd use Hodgedon at center before I'd use McKinney anyway. Hopefully Flanagan will stay healthy, though.

HJam72
08-15-2006, 07:45 AM
Wand, Pitts, Flanagan, McKinney, Wiegart

Spencer, Winston, Hodgedon, Salaam?, Weary?



Who else is there, besides Watton, who I'd never even heard of untill I looked at the roster? Any reason we can't keep Spencer, Winston, and Hodgedon?

Texans Horror
08-15-2006, 07:58 AM
I hope not, but our current depth chart lists 14 linemen. JMO, but at least four of those guys have to go (at least be demoted to practice squad). Loverne, Watton, and Brisiel seem to be the ones to go, but that leaves one more. Who of Spencer, Winston, Weary, Hodgon, Bedell, or Salaam would go? Bedell? That leaves you with no full-time backups at right guard. I would assume Weary would move from into McKinney's slot if he was injured.

Even more interesting, as has been brought up in other threads, is who do you suit up? After the initial five, only two other players are suited up. My guess is that it would be Weary and Spencer. If Weigert goes down, move Wand to RT and add Spencer in at left. Weary can cover if Pitts or McKinney goes down. If it's Flanagan, shift McKinney to center and add Weary at guard. If it's Wand, add Spencer.

Seems we are really dependent on Weary, which I like.

Here is the thread discussing linemen depth:

http://www.houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?t=26115&page=3

Runner
08-15-2006, 08:01 AM
Wand, Pitts, Flanagan, McKinney, Wiegart

Spencer, Winston, Hodgedon, Salaam?, Weary?



Who else is there, besides Watton, who I'd never even heard of untill I looked at the roster? Any reason we can't keep Spencer, Winston, and Hodgedon?

This is the basic discussion. It works pretty good if they keep 10 lineman, which I think they will. If they only keep 9, who on your list would you cut?

Runner
08-15-2006, 08:26 AM
On a different o-line topic. I finally sat down and watched my recording of the game. I didn't really notice at the stadium in real time how much the o-line moves now. No wonder the coaches wanted lighter and more mobile lineman.

I like how the tackles shoot the d-line gaps and immediately go after linebackers as the rest of the line covers for their "absence". There was one particular play when at the snap Wand shot the gap between the DE and DT to hit a linebacker, and Pitts crossed behind him to hit the DE that is usually the LT's responsibility. Pitts blasted the guy. It all happened smoothly and quickly - the line seems to be playing very well together within a good scheme.

The only negative I noticed with all this movement is that several times lineman tripped over the legs of another lineman or TE. I've never really noticed that before - did it happen any more than usual?

titan hater
08-15-2006, 10:46 AM
On a different o-line topic. I finally sat down and watched my recording of the game. I didn't really notice at the stadium in real time how much the o-line moves now. No wonder the coaches wanted lighter and more mobile lineman.

I like how the tackles shoot the d-line gaps and immediately go after linebackers as the rest of the line covers for their "absence". There was one particular play when at the snap Wand shot the gap between the DE and DT to hit a linebacker, and Pitts crossed behind him to hit the DE that is usually the LT's responsibility. Pitts blasted the guy. It all happened smoothly and quickly - the line seems to be playing very well together within a good scheme.

The only negative I noticed with all this movement is that several times lineman tripped over the legs of another lineman or TE. I've never really noticed that before - did it happen any more than usual?

Maybe so...This will get better as the line plays together...IMO Weary was the most impressive on SAT.

HJam72
08-16-2006, 10:15 PM
This is the basic discussion. It works pretty good if they keep 10 lineman, which I think they will. If they only keep 9, who on your list would you cut?
I assume that you're assuming that Watton is gone and I, of course, agree. That leaves 10. Sorry, but Salaam's gotta go (if they cut to 9). We need Hodgedon to replace Flanagan, if he gets hurt (not McKinney), and then we keep Weary as a backup guard and we still get to keep Spencer AND Winston, because those two are the future of this team. :twocents:

painekiller
08-16-2006, 10:31 PM
Why can't Weary be the starting LG and McKinney the backup guard and center?:lightbulb:

Runner
08-16-2006, 10:52 PM
Why can't Weary be the starting LG and McKinney the backup guard and center?:lightbulb:

That could happen; Weary may very well end up starting.

I really don't want to see a circumstance where McKinney spends a lot of time at center though.

AFD1717
08-16-2006, 10:55 PM
Why can't Weary be the starting LG and McKinney the backup guard and center?:lightbulb:
No reason why that can't happen if Weary does outplay McKinney, but I would like to point out that we are giving plenty of guys a chance to prove that the last year (or the last couple of years) wasn't indicative of how they will play this year and in the future. Let's not give Weary the job just yet, but it is nice watching some players coming into their own under this new system.

Texans_Chick
08-16-2006, 11:25 PM
There will be an interesting test of the Oline against the Rams.

Their new DC is Jim Haslett.

The Colts beyotched some because the Rams were bringing all sorts of blitzes, all game long. And the Colts thought that was uncool to do in the preseason.

threetoedpete
08-17-2006, 12:05 AM
I guess the Texans are going to face more of a test on Saturday. On the road.

Agreed. fixing to find out about team speed this week end.

TK_Gamer
08-17-2006, 02:53 AM
I assume that you're assuming that Watton is gone and I, of course, agree. That leaves 10. Sorry, but Salaam's gotta go (if they cut to 9). We need Hodgedon to replace Flanagan, if he gets hurt (not McKinney), and then we keep Weary as a backup guard and we still get to keep Spencer AND Winston, because those two are the future of this team. :twocents:

One thing to keep in mind is there are two types of substitutions, under normal circumstances (fatigue), and under adverse circumstances (injury). I think under normal substitution you use straight line positons subs, ie guard for guard, center for center, etc. but in an injury sub you are forced to move TWO guys. one guy becomes the new 1st string at that position and another must move to become the backup. that is where the multi role guys come into play. so normally you would want hodgon to spell flannigan at center, if flanigan gets hurt you may want to move mckinney to 1st string center and hodgon remains the backup, but now weary has to start at guard. this is what I meant about the value of the dual role guys, not so much in normal rotation, but in injury situations. just wanted to explain my thoughts, anyone?

HJam72
08-17-2006, 05:28 AM
IMHO, Hodgedon is a better center than McKinney any day, so I would not start McKinney over Hodgedon. That leaves McKinney as the backup center if Flanagan is injured, not the starting center. I can see where you want to not start McKinney at guard if Flanagan gets hurt and McKinney is now your backup center, so, if Flanagan got hurt, I would save McKinney on the bench (most of the time) and start Weary at guard.

I'm also wondering if Spencer could play guard in a pinch. The guy's just big. That would be under really bad circumstances though, not a regular thing at all.

Here's a wild thought: 3rd and goal on the 2 yard line. Carr hands-off to MARIO WILLIAMS, lol. Just a thought. :) I know it sounds insane, but think about how much the defense would have to worry about him going up the gut or to the strong side if he can be taught to lower his shoulders and such--and then think about the fake hand-off, roll-out, and pass to Putzier in the endzone. Now, think about MARIO WILLIAMS HAVING MORE TDs THAN REGGIE BUSH IN 2006, lol. :tease:

Texans Horror
08-17-2006, 07:46 AM
Here's a wild thought: 3rd and goal on the 2 yard line. Carr hands-off to MARIO WILLIAMS, lol.

Carr hands-off to Charles Spencer... :sumo:
You may laugh, but he played TE once...

:sarcasm:

infantrycak
08-17-2006, 07:49 AM
Here's a wild thought: 3rd and goal on the 2 yard line. Carr hands-off to MARIO WILLIAMS, lol. Just a thought. :) I know it sounds insane, but think about how much the defense would have to worry about him going up the gut or to the strong side if he can be taught to lower his shoulders and such--and then think about the fake hand-off, roll-out, and pass to Putzier in the endzone. Now, think about MARIO WILLIAMS HAVING MORE TDs THAN REGGIE BUSH IN 2006, lol. :tease:

Unlikely, but Mario did play RB also his senior year in HS running for 590 yards and 3 TD's on 58 carries.

HJam72
08-17-2006, 07:49 AM
Carr hands-off to Charles Spencer... :sumo:
You may laugh, but he played TE once...

:sarcasm:

I swear I almost said, "....or maybe Spencer."