PDA

View Full Version : Running vs. Blocking


real
10-02-2006, 12:49 PM
What do you think the biggest problem with our running game is...The O-Line or the running backs???:cool:

real
10-02-2006, 12:51 PM
I voted running back...

jerek
10-02-2006, 12:51 PM
Our backs. Lack the speed and the recognition to find the holes. I've watched tape where a number of different times we had a big hole and Dayne or Gado just didn't hit it. Makes the Morency trade that much more frustrating IMO.

Mr. White
10-02-2006, 12:52 PM
I think that while the pass blocking has improved, the run blocking has gotten worse. I'll vote OL.

real
10-02-2006, 12:54 PM
Our backs. Lack the speed and the recognition to find the holes. I've watched tape where a number of different times we had a big hole and Dayne or Gado just didn't hit it. Makes the Morency trade that much more frustrating IMO.


I agree...

hollywood_texan
10-02-2006, 01:01 PM
Both of your options are part of the problem, but the lack of a potent passing attack that defenses can respect is the biggest reason the running game is suffering.

Linebackers and safeties are leaning forward and not backwards. The defensive lineman don't have to maintain their rush lanes when rushing the passer is also a big problem from what I see with the passing attack, which makes it harder to get the ball downfield via the passing game.

A passing attack that uses the entire part of the field at anytime will make the offensive line's job easier on run blocking.

I believe you run first and then pass. But, it is hard to run first when the defense doesn't respect that you can pass it first at any time.

A clear indication we can't pass the football is when Kubiak elects not to run the 2 minute offense in the first half of the Dolphins game.

real
10-02-2006, 01:03 PM
I think that while the pass blocking has improved, the run blocking has gotten worse. I'll vote OL.

I acctually think our run blocking is pretty good...How many times do you see defenders slicing through to make plays on our guys in the backfield ??? I've seen plenty of space to run on occasion but it seems like neither one of our backs have enough lateral speed to cut back or change direction...our Running backs are definitely a problem...

real
10-02-2006, 01:05 PM
Both of your options are part of the problem, but the lack of a potent passing attack that defenses can respect is the biggest reason the running game is suffering.


are you serious??? Our passing game is the only thing we have going right now....

thunderkyss
10-03-2006, 08:15 AM
Both of your options are part of the problem, but the lack of a potent passing attack that defenses can respect is the biggest reason the running game is suffering.


Late in the third, and into the 4th, our passing game had the defense on their heels....... Dayne got some nice chunks....

he does look a little slow, but if get's to a hole, he's hell to bring down.

But getting hit by Linebackers & DTs in the backfield pretty much has me blaming the Ol.. There was one play we had 7 guys run blocking on 5 defensive players....... couldn't make a whole......

Dayne would have done better if he'd have followed his fullback more often, but I still voted Offensive Line.

sleepwalker
10-03-2006, 08:21 AM
Losing Davis really really really really really hurt our running game...Now I hear Salaam is out...We have some serious run game issues we are going to have to just live with.

real
10-03-2006, 08:34 AM
Losing Davis really really really really really hurt our running game...Now I hear Salaam is out...We have some serious run game issues we are going to have to just live with.

But what about the scheme??

I definitely think our OL has problems and neeeds some work, but I really don't like either one of our backs...It seems like all they can do is run straight...Make a move for christ sakes....I know kubes is on the one cut and go tip....but do you really have to run up your linemans back???

TheOgre
10-03-2006, 08:36 AM
I think the problem is both. We don't have a featured back, and we have a line that can neither pass-block nor run-block effectively.

Texans Horror
10-03-2006, 09:11 AM
A better o-line will open up holes for the running backs and improve their game. This has been the major difference between what was happening in the pre-season running game and the regular season. The O-line has not been opening holes/lanes. Injuries have affected this as much as anything, but to be realistic, the Texans did not have a good running game even when they had the starting offensive line in there.

OzzO
10-03-2006, 09:16 AM
Just what I noticed in the Miaimi game, there seemed to be quite large lanes open up on the left side between guard and tackle and the running back either didn't notice the opening or went with the play as called and continued right and only gaining minimal yards.

So in that situation, I think it's more on the RB not noticing a spot when it opens irregardless if the play is designed that way.

TK_Gamer
10-03-2006, 11:52 AM
Late in the third, and into the 4th, our passing game had the defense on their heels....... Dayne got some nice chunks....

he does look a little slow, but if get's to a hole, he's hell to bring down.

But getting hit by Linebackers & DTs in the backfield pretty much has me blaming the Ol.. There was one play we had 7 guys run blocking on 5 defensive players....... couldn't make a whole......

Dayne would have done better if he'd have followed his fullback more often, but I still voted Offensive Line.

I think both are bad, but I think our main problem is the quickness of the backs to hit the holes. If they dont hit it quick the hole becomes a hole for the defense rather than a hole for the running back, dayne has been dropped at the LOS many times because he tried to push the pile with a wide open hole righ next to him, next thing you know a LB is comming thru the hole to finish him off. all our backs seem to hit the point of contact really quick but not neccesarrily the hole :( The difference between being tackled at the point of impact and making it thru the hole and then being tackled is about 3 yards or more, with that we would be moving the ball down the field, at least to a 3rd and short.

TexansLucky13
10-03-2006, 11:58 AM
You have to have a strong Line of Scrimmage before you can run the ball effectively. We have an impressive set of RBs who can do a lot in this scheme. We just need the O-line to operate well enough to give them some lanes to run through.

Crazyhorse
10-03-2006, 12:11 PM
I think the O-line is the bigger problem because we get no push off the line, and we don't sustain the blocks either. If we did Weigert would not be the first one to the pile to help the runner up. Sherman has turned the O-line into a Green Bay retirement camp. We need to get the rookies into the game. both Winston and Spencer showed great drive and aggression during the preseason. I know Spencer is gone but Sherman needs to get his head out his ### and give Winston his shot. Bedell was worse than horrible Sunday and almost cost us the game. Makes you wonder if coaches have the teams interest first or are thinking about their own agenda. If Sherman is still hung up about losing the Green Bay job he needs to get over it and help make this team a winner.

CenTexNative
10-03-2006, 12:24 PM
If the line could block better it would open the offense up in every catagory.

Bamaborn-Texasbred
10-03-2006, 12:25 PM
I didn't vote. I think it is a combination of the two, plus we have played some really good defenses.

thunderkyss
10-03-2006, 12:34 PM
I think both are bad, but I think our main problem is the quickness of the backs to hit the holes. If they dont hit it quick the hole becomes a hole for the defense rather than a hole for the running back, dayne has been dropped at the LOS many times because he tried to push the pile with a wide open hole righ next to him, next thing you know a LB is comming thru the hole to finish him off. all our backs seem to hit the point of contact really quick but not neccesarrily the hole :( The difference between being tackled at the point of impact and making it thru the hole and then being tackled is about 3 yards or more, with that we would be moving the ball down the field, at least to a 3rd and short.

We'll get there, I'm sure. Right now, It looks like a young team trying to learn to run... I'm sure he is being told to go where the hole is supposed to be. This is GreenBay's power running, not ZBS..... hopefully we'll get to ZBS soon, and the RB will be given more freedom.

real
10-03-2006, 12:39 PM
I didn't vote. I think it is a combination of the two, plus we have played some really good defenses.

I made the poll like that on purpose...because it is definitely a combo of the two......but if you had to pick one what would it be ?

real
10-03-2006, 12:42 PM
I actually think our line has done decent in the running game....Our running backs haven't been impressive at all to me...Dayne more than Gado....Even if our line is a bad as some of you think it is....good running backs would make a play every once in a while....These guys just run up their lineman's backs...I've had RB's do that to me, and I garauntee you If I were one of the Texans OL Dayne and Gado would be looking like Reggie Bush out there the next game.....All they do is run str8...no cuts....nothing...

thunderkyss
10-03-2006, 12:54 PM
....good running backs would make a play every once in a while....

Kinda like that dude in Arizona??

what was his name again??

real
10-03-2006, 12:59 PM
Kinda like that dude in Arizona??

what was his name again??

I haven't watched Arizona play.....But I know E.J is making more plays than Gado and Dayne....It may not be showing up in the stats...but atleast E.J tries to get away from defenders...and not try to tackle his right gaurd...

JDizzle
10-03-2006, 01:29 PM
When Ron Dayne is your starting RB then you have problems. Right now we'd be better off with Mike Sherman pushing Domanick Davis around in a wheelchair out of the backfield.

sportsguyla
10-03-2006, 02:07 PM
hey guys - Im an everyday reader of the board, but I very rarely actually type up a reply. I had a thought this morngint Id like to share tho.

I think where Kubiak (and to some extent Sherman) went wrong was not in the evaluation of our RB talent. I believe Dayne can be GOOD. Gado can be VERY GOOD. I think where Kubiak went wrong was his overconfidence in thinking he (and sherman) can coach up a poor offensive line with the magical denver/GB "system."

Texans_Chick
10-03-2006, 03:55 PM
What's worse? Being stabbed or clubbed?

Neither one works for me.

TexHorns
10-03-2006, 04:29 PM
IMO the oline is bad but I think DD would still be close to a 1000 yd rusher with this line. Lundy I don't think has good vision and Dayne is not as allusive as DD. Hope we draft another good back to go with DD next year.

real
10-03-2006, 04:35 PM
Hope we draft another good back to go with DD next year.

Wow thats optimistic...

V Man
10-03-2006, 04:43 PM
I made the poll like that on purpose...because it is definitely a combo of the two......but if you had to pick one what would it be ?


That is why I haven't voted yet. It is like picking the lesser of two evils.

Texans Horror
10-03-2006, 04:45 PM
IMO the oline is bad but I think DD would still be close to a 1000 yd rusher with this line. Lundy I don't think has good vision and Dayne is not as allusive as DD. Hope we draft another good back to go with DD next year.

As much as I heard about the improvements we made along the line (new left tackle, new center, better scheme), I expected DD to have well over a thousand-yards rushing, should he have been healthy. My guess is, though, that because of the line's inabilities, DD would be having the same results Gado, Dayne, and Lundy have been having.

The Pencil Neck
10-03-2006, 04:56 PM
Kinda like that dude in Arizona??

what was his name again??


Damn. It's on the edge of my tongue.

Meloy
10-03-2006, 05:04 PM
We've got AJ, Moulds, Walters, Breuner, Putzier & Owen Daniels and we are worried about running? What happened with all the "wow! can't wait to see these guys go down the field"? Yes it opened up some against Miami. IMO we should wear the dbacks out on the other side and work in a draw play occasionally or Carr bootlegging. Bet that would help the running game a bit, too.

thunderkyss
10-03-2006, 09:10 PM
hey guys - Im an everyday reader of the board, but I very rarely actually type up a reply. I had a thought this morngint Id like to share tho.

I think where Kubiak (and to some extent Sherman) went wrong was not in the evaluation of our RB talent. I believe Dayne can be GOOD. Gado can be VERY GOOD. I think where Kubiak went wrong was his overconfidence in thinking he (and sherman) can coach up a poor offensive line with the magical denver/GB "system."

Didn't Kubiak take an entire offensive line from a loosing franchise, and turn them into the better offensive lines of the past decade?? Had something to do with Clevland...

dat_boy_yec
10-03-2006, 09:36 PM
As much as I heard about the improvements we made along the line (new left tackle, new center, better scheme), I expected DD to have well over a thousand-yards rushing, should he have been healthy. My guess is, though, that because of the line's inabilities, DD would be having the same results Gado, Dayne, and Lundy have been having.

No way man. DD if healthy would have been racking up numbers. DD had alot of patience to go along with vision. He let things develop and when the hole appeared he was through it. I've seen huge holes opened up by our line, but our running backs just don't see them or can't get to them. Running into your own linemen can't help and that's were DD would have excelled. Dayne is making our line look worse than it is. Gado hasn't been given enough opportunity to show what he can do, but he broke off that 23 yd. run so given time I think he could do well. Lundy hasn't seen many opportunities after the Colt's game, but he looked like he was beginning to find his rhythm, that play where he fumbled was a nice gain. I just gotta disagree, DD would have had plenty of yards behind this line.

thunderkyss
10-03-2006, 10:00 PM
No way man. DD if healthy would have been racking up numbers. DD had alot of patience to go along with vision. He let things develop and when the hole appeared he was through it. I've seen huge holes opened up by our line, but our running backs just don't see them or can't get to them. Running into your own linemen can't help and that's were DD would have excelled. Dayne is making our line look worse than it is. Gado hasn't been given enough opportunity to show what he can do, but he broke off that 23 yd. run so given time I think he could do well. Lundy hasn't seen many opportunities after the Colt's game, but he looked like he was beginning to find his rhythm, that play where he fumbled was a nice gain. I just gotta disagree, DD would have had plenty of yards behind this line.

In that same game where Lundy had that big gain, then fumbled.... Dayne was doing very, very well...... Lundy never should have come in the game.

Dayne has been doing an excellent job with the exception of the Miami game.

dat_boy_yec
10-03-2006, 10:27 PM
In that same game where Lundy had that big gain, then fumbled.... Dayne was doing very, very well...... Lundy never should have come in the game.

Dayne has been doing an excellent job with the exception of the Miami game.

Every RB will fumble once in a while. Had he not fumbled we would have been getting great production out of the run. Notice that the first game Lundy's inactive our run game sucks. J/K I just feel Dayne doesn't have great vision and I believe Lundy has a little better vision.

johndoe
10-03-2006, 11:00 PM
hey if we loose enough games this year we might be able to draft adrian peterson who unlike r. bush could be an every down back... with the young guys like demeco mario and owen daniels, peterson would fit nicely into the young nucleus of players we have. and we would have a fetured back unlike what we have now:twocents:

SBTexans08
10-04-2006, 01:16 PM
Instead of Williams, Bush, or Young....we should have picked up Lawrence Maroney! That dude's a monster and extremely talented!