PDA

View Full Version : A Theory About The Run Blocking


Texans_Chick
10-09-2006, 11:26 PM
Please talk me out of a theory. I wrote about it some after this Leach pick up.

I believe that the meshing of the Green Bay power run game with the Denver style zone blocking isn't working. I haven't read anybody talking about this but it doesn't mean it isn't real.

I don't think that this is the only problem with the run game, but I think that the Green Bay/Denver stuff doesn't mesh well together, require different personnel, and takes away aspect of the Denver offense that is supposed to keep defenses off-balance.

IIRC, the Green Bay stuff started showing up more during the Denver preseason game. I thought it was just stuff they were doing because they were facing a defense more familiar with the Texans playbook than the Texans, but they've kept running it.

To explain this whole subject further, here is my entire post on this subject: Denver Zone + Green Bay Power = No Texans Running Game? (http://nfl.aolsportsblog.com/2006/10/09/denver-zone-green-bay-power-no-texans-running-game/)

Okay, am I imagining this, or are others seeing this too? I've been thinking about this for a while, but after Kubiak's comments today about the running game and the signing of Leach, it seems like the offense suffers from having a schizo kinda philosophy, requiring more skill with Kubiak stuff and more power with Sherman stuff and different types of personnel.

Sometimes things blend to make something worse, and then sometimes blending two different things together makes something better, like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. mmmmm.

mexican_texan
10-09-2006, 11:30 PM
We don't have the personnel to run a pure power blocking or zone-blocking scheme. It all revolves around the tackles, until we get some with good footwork, ie Spencer, power blocking is going to be a part of our game.

LORK 88
10-10-2006, 12:18 AM
I think the biggest problem is that we're using alot of O Linemen from the 2005 season, statistically one of our worst blocking years. To expect such a turn around in 1 year would be revolutionary to say the least, so I reserve final judgment til we can actually see what Kubiak can do in time. Also, dont think that who we have at RB doesnt have anything to do with our sub par running game at this time . . .

edo783
10-10-2006, 12:35 AM
Maybe I just imagined it, but during pre-season when we ran a running play, it looked like the line flowed one way or the other and the back would follow and then cut back against the grain. Seemed to work pretty well. Since then, it has looked like we were doing a sort of straight forward power style blocking and it isn't working worth a toot.

LORK 88
10-10-2006, 12:46 AM
];464944']Why is Fread weary not at RG?
last i checked, he WAS at RG starting unless he got injured . . .

Ibar_Harry
10-10-2006, 12:57 AM
Please talk me out of a theory. I wrote about it some after this Leach pick up.

I believe that the meshing of the Green Bay power run game with the Denver style zone blocking isn't working. I haven't read anybody talking about this but it doesn't mean it isn't real.

I don't think that this is the only problem with the run game, but I think that the Green Bay/Denver stuff doesn't mesh well together, require different personnel, and takes away aspect of the Denver offense that is supposed to keep defenses off-balance.

IIRC, the Green Bay stuff started showing up more during the Denver preseason game. I thought it was just stuff they were doing because they were facing a defense more familiar with the Texans playbook than the Texans, but they've kept running it.

To explain this whole subject further, here is my entire post on this subject: Denver Zone + Green Bay Power = No Texans Running Game? (http://nfl.aolsportsblog.com/2006/10/09/denver-zone-green-bay-power-no-texans-running-game/)

Okay, am I imagining this, or are others seeing this too? I've been thinking about this for a while, but after Kubiak's comments today about the running game and the signing of Leach, it seems like the offense suffers from having a schizo kinda philosophy, requiring more skill with Kubiak stuff and more power with Sherman stuff and different types of personnel.

Sometimes things blend to make something worse, and then sometimes blending two different things together makes something better, like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. mmmmm.

I have a totally different theory. The problem is every team knows Kubiak is going to run, run, run the ball. If he's not successful he's going to run, run, run, the ball. Now that is perception some of you will say. The problem is that is what every team thinks of when you play a Denver or a Denver graduate. The end result is the look for the run 1st and the pass 2nd. They also know that you do not have to fear our RB's.

What you do have to fear on this team is the passing attack. I have said repeatidly that this team has to set up its passing game and pass until the other team believes we really are going to pass the ball come hell or high water. At that point we can run and be effective. Over the last several years we have had a problem protecting the QB because the zone blocking scheme is a running scheme that is not designed to protect the passer. You can not run two different schemes and not expect the defense to key on what you are doing. That means you have to pass out of the zone in order to not tip off the play. End result has been that Carr has taken a whipping. This may be why you are seeing more of Sherman's style of O-line play, because like Farve they are trying to protect David.

We need to be more like the Colts than Denver as we have a lot of personnel like the Colts. Their strengths lie in their QB and their receivers. That is our strength as well. I'm not going to argue degrees of difference I'm just saying what we look like when compared to other teams. We have not had the RB's of Denver and there is not much we can do about it. DD was a great find and there is no question that if he were healthy we would have a running attack. He's not and there is simply nothing we can do about that right now. We have to be more affective with what we have and realize that is the way it is this year. Make a believers out of the other teams. The Colts certainly have. Why can't we?

Its called adapting and overcoming. Our coaches simply need to relax and do what our personnel can do best. Even AJ has commented on this in his locker room interviews and Moulds has even sort of hinted at it, but is less likely to say something. I think the team knows we can generate a lot of fear in the other teams if we will only use our strength. Use the passing game like a running game.

Last week against the Titans Manning was averaging something like 3 yards a reception or less through about the 1st 3 qtrs. I couldn't believe it so I went back and looked at the numbers. That is what they are doing. They are simply trying to get the balls to backs and others beyound the line of scrimmage. That is one way to deal with an ineffective O-line. AJ, Walters, Putzer, Daniels are a healthy load to bring down. Moulds is more of an elusive type person who, if open, can still burn you for a lot of yards. Nobody can see the tree for the forest, however. Again do what you are, not what you are not.

phan1
10-10-2006, 01:41 AM
I had not idea we were trying to "mesh" the two types of styles in the first place or if that's even accurate. Not like I'm questioning your credibility cause I know you're out there all the time, but could you elaborate on this? Just cause we brought in Leach and Gado doesn't mean we're trying to mesh the two together. I thought Kubiak would stick purely with the Alex Gibbs philosophy, and being from Denver, I thought he'd be able to help Sherman with it. It really makes me wonder WTF they're doing right now, cause they're jumping and playing with backs like they're in an all-you-can-eat or something. The front office looks like they're panicking over our lack of running game right now.

For now, we just need to fix this runblocking cause it really ain't working right now. Granted, our backs haven't helped the line out, but I'm not sure that going Christmas shopping is the right thing to do right now.

ccdude730
10-10-2006, 02:25 AM
im not too sure of the combination of the two schemes is whats hurting us. i do see alot more zone blocking than a power type of running. i really like the idea of 'meshing' the two together though because i believe we have both types of backs on the roster (and IMO our backs can do a little bit of both, except gado who needs a little more work with the zone blocking).

its kind of interesting to see our interior lineman moving up to the next level doing the zone schemes and on the next play we run a counter trap. it does throw the defense off a little bit too but i wouldnt be ready to state that this is the reason for our weak running game.

in fact im not even sure that you can theorize about what the heck is wrong with us - especially if you look back at our preseason. in yards per game, rushing average, total yards, touchdowns, and first downs we were top 10 in every category during the preseason. now we are ranked 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, and 29th respectively.

basically, i cant disprove your theory. but i cant confirm it either. maybe we just needed the bye week to gather ourselves. i think over the next couple of weeks we will have a better look at our running game.

Runner
10-10-2006, 06:40 AM
I had not idea we were trying to "mesh" the two types of styles in the first place or if that's even accurate.

Maybe I just imagined it, but during pre-season when we ran a running play, it looked like the line flowed one way or the other and the back would follow and then cut back against the grain. Seemed to work pretty well. Since then, it has looked like we were doing a sort of straight forward power style blocking and it isn't working worth a toot.

I think edo has it about right. The o-line in the Denver style starts the flow and goes with it. The o-line in our hybrid style starts the flow and then tries to square up on their man and push them perpendicular to the line of scrimmage.

Although probably oversimplified, that is it in a nutshell.

The question is, why did our blocking look so different in pre-season? I think during the pre-season we were trying to do the same things as now, but then we were able to do it. We were able to start the flow going well in one direction before we squared up. Now that the games count the d-lineman seem to be resisiting that flow much better and we aren't getting the angled/sideways movement.

Corrosion
10-10-2006, 06:52 AM
I think the poor production is caused by three factors .

First is the new scheme . It takes time to learn the finer nuances of the ZBS . It is quite different from what most players have done since they were kids which is put a hat on a hat and try to beat the guy in front of you into the turf . Now they are trying to block the first man and get off of that block and get to the second level be it a LB or DB .

Second being new players working together. The O-line is probably the part of the team that requires the most continuity . We cant expect this to happen overnight . There is only one player playing at the same position he ended last season in Zach Wiegert and if I remember correctly he bagan last year at the right guard spot not right tackle.
This means four new starters at five positions along the line with McKinney and Pitts changing positions as well as Flannagan and Salaam coming over via FA . Its going to take them at least half a season if not longer to put it together as a unit .

Third is the lack of the type of back who will excell in the system . I dont think Dayne and Gado are suitable for the ZBS and are better suited to a more power type game . Imagine either running behind the Steelers O-line , I could see them doing very well in that scheme . They are more straight ahead runners than guy's who are going to make a quick cut and pick up large chunks of yards.
Wali Lundy may be better suited to the system than the other two but he's not the perfect fit and he is wet behind the ears . Before he see's considerable playing time he will have to get better at picking up the blitz and reading the running lanes .

There is no quick fix .... Unless you could pull off a fantasy trade for LaDainian Tomlinson who I think would be the perfect back for the system and is good enough to make up for the short comings of the O-line . :stirpot:

MightyTExan
10-10-2006, 07:55 AM
Spencer Tillman broke it down a little on Sunday night. In the Green Bay running style,(which he noticed we're using more), the gap between the linemen is different than with ZB. My take:stick with the ZB.

tsip
10-10-2006, 08:27 AM
IMO, Kubiak is his own 'worse' enemy in this scenario. From day one, Gary said a 'primary' goal was to put players in a 'position' to excel by using their strengths. This would mean looking at the players already here and designing 'schemes' around what they are best at now, eventually meshing-over time-personnel with 'play' to fully implement Kubiak's 'ultimate ' offense/defense.

Instead, Gary implemented 'what' he wanted and expected the players to adapt to it, a much longer process to try and achieve with an 'entire' team of players-all at once-trying to learn/execute things they've never done before. IMO, the 'meshing' was to be what we did in '05 that worked with 'tweaks' of the new stuff that players could adapt to in a short period of time to produce a team that would have a better 'chance' to compete in '06. Then, move the process along in '07 to get even closer to full implementation of Kubiak's defense/offense/ST.

We would not expect to go to the SB 'over night' in any scenario, but at least we would not be trying to start from 'scratch' all over again, and could still compete during the transition. Too, it would take awhile to get all the players that Kubiak wants which-in itself-'translates' into slow process.

Kubiak had a team meeting with the players on Monday-starters will remain the same-what will change? Gary told the players that he and the coaches must put players in positions to succeed on the field---DUH.....

I don't know why this 'line of thought' (heard on day one) was never implemented--sounded good then--but does it sound as good now? Personally, I'm left with an 'uncomfortable' feeling about a person telling us what we want to hear but doing something different on the field...

How will this season play out? Wins, even competitive losses would be nice, but-if IMO, the year ends without having started/built a solid foundation to build on for '07, then.....:hides: :confused: :brick wall

threetoedpete
10-10-2006, 08:38 AM
Spencer Tillman broke it down a little on Sunday night. In the Green Bay running style,(which he noticed we're using more), the gap between the linemen is different than with ZB. My take:stick with the ZB.

Take every thing you hear from Spencer with a grain of salt. He has a gig. He's a happy man. He did make a good call on the splits. I had missed it. Spencer's not going to dig a latrine next to the rice bowl though. How many games have we gone with the same five guys lining up next to each other ? How many early day one draft picks are on this line ? How many all pros, the elite of the elite ? At least now, we have enough depth built up we lose a front line guy for the year, two go down with injuries , we can sweat one out against a bad team. I don't think it has anything to do with schemes. We've gone against four good defensive coaches with good personel and had our heads shoved up our south end. There are supposed to be cut back lanes in the ZBS. I haven't seen any. Have you ? Wether it's a function of lack of tallent or lack of will, your guess is as good as mine. Sooner or latter these guys are going to make or break. Sooner or latter this team will leave the pretty skill guys alone in the first round and draft some premier big uglies.
Minnesota is struggling too. With Hutchinson & McKinnie. Which of this two franchises do you honestly expect to turn their running game around for the remainder of the season ? Joppur goes to the PS and we pick up a 250 pound fullback ? Uh huh. That'll work. Once the threat of the fullback in the flat has been removed, the passing game will become dicey. Might be they're junking the ZBS till next year. Fit the scheme to your personel. Do what you can do.

real
10-10-2006, 08:49 AM
Last week against the Titans Manning was averaging something like 3 yards a reception or less through about the 1st 3 qtrs. I couldn't believe it so I went back and looked at the numbers. That is what they are doing. They are simply trying to get the balls to backs and others beyound the line of scrimmage. That is one way to deal with an ineffective O-line. AJ, Walters, Putzer, Daniels are a healthy load to bring down. Moulds is more of an elusive type person who, if open, can still burn you for a lot of yards. Nobody can see the tree for the forest, however. Again do what you are, not what you are not.

You know....that sounds good.......

BUT you have to ask yourself ....is Carr that type of QB ??

Let's not be fooled by his stats this year...Even Carr has said that this offense is easy...And what you'd be askin him to do is be more like Peyton, or Brady, or Palmer....I don't neccessarily think Carr can run an offense that complex...

real
10-10-2006, 09:04 AM
The question is, why did our blocking look so different in pre-season? I think during the pre-season we were trying to do the same things as now, but then we were able to do it. We were able to start the flow going well in one direction before we squared up. Now that the games count the d-lineman seem to be resisiting that flow much better and we aren't getting the the angled/sideways movement.

I don't think thats it...I haven't watched the film but my guess would be that we still are running ZBS...ZBS isn't just stretch right or stretch left....A play can go straight up the middle and be 'zone blocked'....

My Theory: We are still running ZBS....We have two totally different backs than what we had in the pre-season...Neither are the kind of portis, lundy, morency, tatum bell kind of quick back that can use their quickness to make the one cut and go required for the stretch...They are both better suited for straight ahead running...breaking tackles...not being elusive....So they can use their body weight and get a good forward lean....You don't really want your bigger backs running sideways....You let your quick guys run sideways because they can find the hole and make a quick cut....You want to get your bigger backs with their body going forward....

*I don't know if we've been running ZBS because I didn't re-watch the game....But I would bet that we have been

texan279
10-10-2006, 09:09 AM
I think edo has it about right. The o-line in the Denver style starts the flow and goes with it. The o-line in our hybrid style starts the flow and then tries to square up on their man and push them perpendicular to the line of scrimmage.

Although probably oversimplified, that is it in a nutshell.

The question is, why did our blocking look so different in pre-season? I think during the pre-season we were trying to do the same things as now, but then we were able to do it. We were able to start the flow going well in one direction before we squared up. Now that the games count the d-lineman seem to be resisiting that flow much better and we aren't getting the angled/sideways movement.

The only thing I know for a fact that is different right now is in the preseason we had Smith, Lundy, and Morency running the ball, and in the preseason all 3 of them averaged 5.5 yards per carry or better. As of right now it's Gado and Dayne splitting the carries.

Runner
10-10-2006, 09:11 AM
The only thing I know for a fact that is different right now is in the preseason we had Smith, Lundy, and Morency running the ball, and in the preseason all 3 of them averaged 5.5 yards per carry or better. As of right now it's Gado and Dayne splitting the carries.

Good point. I think that has some effect too, but the line isn't getting the movement to start things off. Our RBs don't seem to be doing anything to help them out if something opens up either.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 09:21 AM
What you do have to fear on this team is the passing attack. I have said repeatidly that this team has to set up its passing game and pass until the other team believes we really are going to pass the ball come hell or high water. At that point we can run and be effective.


Yeah, that Kubiak is one stubborn cuss.

The only time we came close to balancing our attack, we win the game.

Other than that, we've passed more than we've run the ball. & we've run the ball well, more times than not, except in the one win.

Philly:
1st half
33 snaps 11 runs (18 yards ) 22 passing plays.

2nd half
22 snaps 5 runs (25 yards)

Indy
1st half
27 snaps 13 runs (51 yards) 14 passing plays

2nd half
26 snaps 7 runs (46 yards) 19 passing plays

Washington
1st half
28 plays 10 runs (38 yards) 18 passing plays

2nd half
23 plays 5 runs (20 yards) 18 passing plays

Miami
1st Half
27 plays 12 runs (26 yards) 15 passing plays

2nd Half
37 plays 16 runs (26 yards) 21 passing plays.

texan279
10-10-2006, 09:26 AM
Yeah, that Kubiak is one stubborn cuss.

The only time we came close to balancing our attack, we win the game.

Other than that, we've passed more than we've run the ball. & we've run the ball well, more times than not, except in the one win.

Philly:
1st half
33 snaps 11 runs (18 yards ) 22 passing plays.

2nd half
22 snaps 5 runs (25 yards)

Indy
1st half
27 snaps 13 runs (51 yards) 14 passing plays

2nd half
26 snaps 7 runs (46 yards) 19 passing plays

Washington
1st half
28 plays 10 runs (38 yards) 18 passing plays

2nd half
23 plays 5 runs (20 yards) 18 passing plays

Miami
1st Half
27 plays 12 runs (26 yards) 15 passing plays

2nd Half
37 plays 16 runs (26 yards) 21 passing plays.


I think what Ibar is saying is we need to stick to our pass game to open up the run, continue passing when it is working, and that if the running game is not working we need to throw the ball. There is no need to keep trying to run the ball when it's not working, and it hasn't worked all season.

real
10-10-2006, 09:38 AM
I don't think thats it...I haven't watched the film but my guess would be that we still are running ZBS...ZBS isn't just stretch right or stretch left....A play can go straight up the middle and be 'zone blocked'....

My Theory: We are still running ZBS....We have two totally different backs than what we had in the pre-season...Neither are the kind of portis, lundy, morency, tatum bell kind of quick back that can use their quickness to make the one cut and go required for the stretch...They are both better suited for straight ahead running...breaking tackles...not being elusive....So they can use their body weight and get a good forward lean....You don't really want your bigger backs running sideways....You let your quick guys run sideways because they can find the hole and make a quick cut....You want to get your bigger backs with their body going forward....

*I don't know if we've been running ZBS because I didn't re-watch the game....But I would bet that we have been

I think what Ibar is saying is we need to stick to our pass game to open up the run, continue passing when it is working, and that if the running game is not working we need to throw the ball. There is no need to keep trying to run the ball when it's not working, and it hasn't worked all season.

I think you'd be askin a lot out of David...

Texans_Chick
10-10-2006, 09:43 AM
I have a totally different theory. The problem is every team knows Kubiak is going to run, run, run the ball. If he's not successful he's going to run, run, run, the ball. Now that is perception some of you will say. The problem is that is what every team thinks of when you play a Denver or a Denver graduate. The end result is the look for the run 1st and the pass 2nd. They also know that you do not have to fear our RB's.

What you do have to fear on this team is the passing attack. I have said repeatidly that this team has to set up its passing game and pass until the other team believes we really are going to pass the ball come hell or high water. At that point we can run and be effective. Over the last several years we have had a problem protecting the QB because the zone blocking scheme is a running scheme that is not designed to protect the passer. You can not run two different schemes and not expect the defense to key on what you are doing. That means you have to pass out of the zone in order to not tip off the play. End result has been that Carr has taken a whipping. This may be why you are seeing more of Sherman's style of O-line play, because like Farve they are trying to protect David.

We need to be more like the Colts than Denver as we have a lot of personnel like the Colts. Their strengths lie in their QB and their receivers. That is our strength as well. I'm not going to argue degrees of difference I'm just saying what we look like when compared to other teams. We have not had the RB's of Denver and there is not much we can do about it. DD was a great find and there is no question that if he were healthy we would have a running attack. He's not and there is simply nothing we can do about that right now. We have to be more affective with what we have and realize that is the way it is this year. Make a believers out of the other teams. The Colts certainly have. Why can't we?

Its called adapting and overcoming. Our coaches simply need to relax and do what our personnel can do best. Even AJ has commented on this in his locker room interviews and Moulds has even sort of hinted at it, but is less likely to say something. I think the team knows we can generate a lot of fear in the other teams if we will only use our strength. Use the passing game like a running game.

Last week against the Titans Manning was averaging something like 3 yards a reception or less through about the 1st 3 qtrs. I couldn't believe it so I went back and looked at the numbers. That is what they are doing. They are simply trying to get the balls to backs and others beyound the line of scrimmage. That is one way to deal with an ineffective O-line. AJ, Walters, Putzer, Daniels are a healthy load to bring down. Moulds is more of an elusive type person who, if open, can still burn you for a lot of yards. Nobody can see the tree for the forest, however. Again do what you are, not what you are not.


The Colts are a much better team when they can run the ball effectively.

In the first three losses of the season, the Texans threw the ball way more than they ran. The Texans lost, and their defense looked terrible because they were on the field so long. Against Miami, they ran the ball mostly in effectively, but were able to keep longer time of possession. Running burns clock and keeps your defense off of the field. Our defense needs that help.

The Denver style offense, though able to run, also has traditionally put up some very fat passing stats.

I believe that a team does best when it has a specific philosophy, commits to that philosophy, and learns how to do the tasks well that fit that philosophy.

I thought the formations and the blocking looked better and less predictable in the preseason and in training camp. The Power I stuff was a surprise in the Denver game. 4th preseason game didn't really count.

(As for the hybrid stuff. Maybe it was around the time of the Denver or TB game, but I seemed to recall that Sherman got testy when someone talked about the Texans doing a just a ZBS, that he took pride in some of his Green Bay formations--didn't make the paper--it was something talked about during one of the broadcasts).

Clearly, Kubiak needs the right players to make his stuff work. I just don't see how the Green Bay stuff sets up the things that Kubiak is trying to do with the Denver stuff. Notably, the part of the team that is doing Denver style things with Denver coaching (QB, WRs) is doing better than the part of the team that is doing more hybrid stuff.

One of things that became a problem with the old Texans is that Capers/Palmer had inconsistent philosophies and Capers meddled on offense, and with Pendry/Palmer, they tried to put two different systems together that didn't work.

I think you run the Power I types of formations when you have such a dominant line that you don't care that the other side knows you are probably going to run. We don't have that line. If you are able to run a ZBS with backside cutblocks, eventualy, it wears down opposing defenses because they become tentative about overpursuit and also start worrying about their legs.

The only time we have been able to get away with boots in the regular season is when we run them so infrequently, defenses stop looking for it. That isn't going to help your run game either.

I know that the preseason is not the regular season, but the passing game we saw in the preseason is still there, but the run game just looks horrible.

Texans_Chick
10-10-2006, 09:49 AM
I think edo has it about right. The o-line in the Denver style starts the flow and goes with it. The o-line in our hybrid style starts the flow and then tries to square up on their man and push them perpendicular to the line of scrimmage.

Although probably oversimplified, that is it in a nutshell.

The question is, why did our blocking look so different in pre-season? I think during the pre-season we were trying to do the same things as now, but then we were able to do it. We were able to start the flow going well in one direction before we squared up. Now that the games count the d-lineman seem to be resisiting that flow much better and we aren't getting the angled/sideways movement.


That's what I want to know.

Clearly having backs starting that did not go through your training camp doesn't help, but I'm not seeing the places to run. Even ole Antowain Smith could find a space to run eventually.

Marcus
10-10-2006, 09:55 AM
The only thing I know for a fact that is different right now is in the preseason we had Smith, Lundy, and Morency running the ball, and in the preseason all 3 of them averaged 5.5 yards per carry or better. As of right now it's Gado and Dayne splitting the carries.

Not to sound cute, but the only thing I know for a fact that is different right now, is that that this is the regular season. This is the time where defensive coordinators develop a game plan based upon what he sees on film. Smith, Lundy, and Morency getting 5.5 ypc in preseason doesn't mean anything. To highlight that point, look what Lundy and Morency did in the first regular season game against Philadelphia.

Kubiak is committed to running the ball. But he's not going to abandon it, just because the running attack is struggling. As for Kubiak and Sherman, I just don't picture a difference in running philosophies clashing here.

I think it just starts up front. The O-line just needs to quit thinking so much, and starting knocking some people on their butts.

texan279
10-10-2006, 09:56 AM
I think you'd be askin a lot out of David...

What's with the constant dogging on David? Sure, he might not be playing like a pro bowler, but the guy has completed 73% of his passes, that's almost every 3 out of 4 passes and he is still the #1 rated QB in the NFL after 4 games. And why do you think it would be asking so much of David? Has our passing game not been successful this season compared to the past few seasons? You know AJ is the 4th ranked WR in the NFL in receiving yards with 410 after 4 games, and the 3 guys ahead of him have all played 5 games. And Moulds has 230 receiving yards himself after 4 games. You do realize that 7 of our 8 total TD's this season have come from the passing game right? And the one rushing TD we have came courtesy of Carr right?

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 09:56 AM
I think what Ibar is saying is we need to stick to our pass game to open up the run, continue passing when it is working, and that if the running game is not working we need to throw the ball. There is no need to keep trying to run the ball when it's not working, and it hasn't worked all season.

& I don't know where this notion is coming from. If you rewatch the games, or look at the play by play(I don't know why people don't like the play by play, other than it doesn't show them what they want to see), but if you rewatch the game, or look at the play-by-play, you'll see that it is the passing game that is leading to the three & outs, or the loss of possession(punt)..... If we had stuck to the running game against Philly, Indy, & Washington, like we did against Miami (& we ran the ball better against Philly, Indy, & Washington) we would have been a lot closer to winning those games.

Our Passing game has really not been as good as we think. The numbers don't tell the whole story.

gtexan02
10-10-2006, 09:58 AM
I think the answer to all of these questions is that we simply don't have the personnel to do a pure ZBS or GB style.

I think Kubiak eventually wants to go with a ZBS, but doesn't have
a) the right OL
b) the right RB
c) the right coaching staff

Hence the addition of Sherman, who Kubiak most likely felt employed a style that would mesh well with his own. Hence:
a) the addition of Sherman as OL coach
b) the addition of Flannagan
c) the addition of Gado

The preseason looked so much different because the coaching staff wanted to get a feel for whether pure ZBS would work, pure GB would work, or hybrids would work. I think they are smart enough to know that D's in the preseason aren't going to attack with the same intensity as the regular season, and so were looking for technique rather than results. Even though one style worked well for us, the coaches knew it wouldn't translate into the preseason....they were just looking for how well the players grasped the techinques.

Thats why we have the run blocking we have now. Its a transitional system, and once Sherman leaves and Kubiak has another season to change the personnel, we'll probably see something different next year. By next year I predict:
-HUGE changes to OL personnel
-If DD isn't back, changes to our RB personnel
-New OL coach

texan279
10-10-2006, 10:00 AM
Not to sound cute, but the only thing I know for a fact that is different right now, is that that this is the regular season. This is the time where defensive coordinators develop a game plan based upon what he sees on film. Smith, Lundy, and Morency getting 5.5 ypc in preseason doesn't mean anything. To highlight that point, look what Lundy and Morency did in the first regular season game against Philadelphia.

Kubiak is committed to running the ball. But he's not going to abandon it, just because the running attack is struggling. As for Kubiak and Sherman, I just don't picture a difference in running philosophies clashing here.

I think it just starts up front. The O-line just needs to quit thinking so much, and starting knocking some people on their butts.

And look at what Dayne, Gado, and Lundy did against a much weaker Indy defense, less than 100 total yards against Indy's 31st ranked rushing defense. My point is that the problem is our running backs.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 10:03 AM
In the first three losses of the season, the Texans threw the ball way more than they ran. The Texans lost, and their defense looked terrible because they were on the field so long. Against Miami, they ran the ball mostly in effectively, but were able to keep longer time of possession. Running burns clock and keeps your defense off of the field. Our defense needs that help.

Thankyou... if I could give you rep, I would. This is what I've been saying, but nobody wants to hear it.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 10:06 AM
Not to sound cute, but the only thing I know for a fact that is different right now, is that that this is the regular season. This is the time where defensive coordinators develop a game plan based upon what he sees on film. Smith, Lundy, and Morency getting 5.5 ypc in preseason doesn't mean anything. To highlight that point, look what Lundy and Morency did in the first regular season game against Philadelphia.

Kubiak is committed to running the ball. But he's not going to abandon it, just because the running attack is struggling. As for Kubiak and Sherman, I just don't picture a difference in running philosophies clashing here.

I think it just starts up front. The O-line just needs to quit thinking so much, and starting knocking some people on their butts.

That's exactly what he did against Philly. We struggled in the first half, but in the second, we are only down by 14, and he comes out slinging. I definitely think we'd have won that game, if we kept pounding. I think it was mostly Lundy in the second half, with 5 ypc......

Crazyhorse
10-10-2006, 10:07 AM
I've said this before but we get no drive off the line of scrimmage with our line. Look at other teams that run the ball well, their line explodes up field!!!
Which makes me wonder why Kubiak hasn't given Winston a shot. He is a power blocker by nature and has quick feet. He is quicker than most of our linemen. I've heard all the arguements that he is not ready but until they put him out there we will never reall know. He has to be better than Bedell was in the Miami game and Wiergert hasn't exactly lit up the world.....

texan279
10-10-2006, 10:07 AM
& I don't know where this notion is coming from. If you rewatch the games, or look at the play by play(I don't know why people don't like the play by play, other than it doesn't show them what they want to see), but if you rewatch the game, or look at the play-by-play, you'll see that it is the passing game that is leading to the three & outs, or the loss of possession(punt)..... If we had stuck to the running game against Philly, Indy, & Washington, like we did against Miami (& we ran the ball better against Philly, Indy, & Washington) we would have been a lot closer to winning those games.

Our Passing game has really not been as good as we think. The numbers don't tell the whole story.

We've been through this a million times. I don't care about play by plays, passing game leading to three and outs, or what ifs. I've watched the games. Our backs are horrible, our rushing game is ranked 29th in the NFL. As a team we have the second worst yards per carry in the NFL. As a team we are ranked 31st in the NFL in total rushing yards. Oakland, possibly the worst team in the NFL, has rushed for 170 yards more than we have on one less carry. And our passing game has scored all but one of our total number of touchdowns, that is saying something when we have run 111 pass plays compared to 94 running plays.

gtexan02
10-10-2006, 10:08 AM
& I don't know where this notion is coming from. If you rewatch the games, or look at the play by play(I don't know why people don't like the play by play, other than it doesn't show them what they want to see), but if you rewatch the game, or look at the play-by-play, you'll see that it is the passing game that is leading to the three & outs, or the loss of possession(punt)..... If we had stuck to the running game against Philly, Indy, & Washington, like we did against Miami (& we ran the ball better against Philly, Indy, & Washington) we would have been a lot closer to winning those games.

Our Passing game has really not been as good as we think. The numbers don't tell the whole story.

You can't just look at the stats and say that. It doesn't tell the whole story:

-Against Philly, the run wasn't working in the beginning. Lundy+Morency were getting stuffed frequently.

-Against Indy, the run was working fine after the first quarter, but we were already so far behind it didn't matter. You can't run the ball in the 3rd quarter when you are behind 20 to 3. It doesn't make sense.

-Against Washington, again, we were down early and by a lot. We couldn't run the ball even if it was working then.

Basically, against the first 3 teams, after they soared out to a lead, the teams could drop a few more back and empty the box a bit because they knew we had to pass. When you are down by more than 2 scores after halftime, you simply can't run the ball as often. You can't waste the clock like that, and you can't afford to settle for 1-3 yard gains. You have to pass to reestablish the lead.

The reason we stuck to the run game in Miami is because we were playing with the lead.

real
10-10-2006, 10:08 AM
What's with the constant dogging on David? Sure, he might not be playing like a pro bowler, but the guy has completed 73% of his passes, that's almost every 3 out of 4 passes and he is still the #1 rated QB in the NFL after 4 games. And why do you think it would be asking so much of David? Has our passing game not been successful this season compared to the past few seasons? You know AJ is the 4th ranked WR in the NFL in receiving yards with 410 after 4 games, and the 3 guys ahead of him have all played 5 games. And Moulds has 230 receiving yards himself after 4 games. You do realize that 7 of our 8 total TD's this season have come from the passing game right? And the one rushing TD we have came courtesy of Carr right?

I know all of that...But right now we are already passing much more than we run....Kyss broke down the numbers....And now you want us to pass more??? Thats not what we need....And yes it is true that David has been passing well, but you are basically asking him to win us the game with his arm and I personally don't think he can do that right now...As evidence...the games where we passed a lot more than we ran...we lost....if you can't run in the NFL you lose...

Texans_Chick
10-10-2006, 10:14 AM
That's exactly what he did against Philly. We struggled in the first half, but in the second, we are only down by 14, and he comes out slinging. I definitely think we'd have won that game, if we kept pounding. I think it was mostly Lundy in the second half, with 5 ypc......

I am not sure we win any of the first three games, but clearly the defense got completely gassed being on the field so much. Ultimately, I think the lack of the run game helped contribute to the defense looking castrophically bad, as opposed to regular bad.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 10:14 AM
What's with the constant dogging on David? Sure, he might not be playing like a pro bowler, but the guy has completed 73% of his passes, that's almost every 3 out of 4 passes and he is still the #1 rated QB in the NFL after 4 games.

There's more to the passing game than completion percentages & QB rating. Penalties, Sacks, & dropped balls has really made our passing game worse than our running game as far as picking up first downs.

Without Question, we are at our best, when we mix it up evenly. But our passing game on it's own, isn't all that.

And why do you think it would be asking so much of David? Has our passing game not been successful this season compared to the past few seasons? You know AJ is the 4th ranked WR in the NFL in receiving yards with 410 after 4 games, and the 3 guys ahead of him have all played 5 games. And Moulds has 230 receiving yards himself after 4 games. You do realize that 7 of our 8 total TD's this season have come from the passing game right? And the one rushing TD we have came courtesy of Carr right?

Most of them set up by the play action.

David's numbers would be much fatter, Andre's would be as well as Moulds, Cook's, Owen, Walter, & Lundy's, if it weren't for the penalties & sacks..... & fumbles.

minus the fumbles, I think David is playing like a ProBowler........ as a unit, our offense needs to get it's crap together. Mainly the Oline.

texan279
10-10-2006, 10:20 AM
I know all of that...But right now we are already passing much more than we run....Kyss broke down the numbers....And now you want us to pass more??? Thats not what we need....And yes it is true that David has been passing well, but you are basically asking him to win us the game with his arm and I personally don't think he can do that right now...As evidence...the games where we passed a lot more than we ran...we lost....if you can't run in the NFL you lose...

I am not asking him to win anything, all I am saying is if the pass game works, keep using it. You know people threw fits last season when Capers would run the ball and it didn't work, now people are asking to see more of an even worse running game while our passing game is looking better than ever...

mexican_texan
10-10-2006, 10:23 AM
Are we turning into the 2005 Cardinals?

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 10:25 AM
You can't just look at the stats and say that. It doesn't tell the whole story:

-Against Philly, the run wasn't working in the beginning. Lundy+Morency were getting stuffed frequently.

-Against Indy, the run was working fine after the first quarter, but we were already so far behind it didn't matter. You can't run the ball in the 3rd quarter when you are behind 20 to 3. It doesn't make sense.

-Against Washington, again, we were down early and by a lot. We couldn't run the ball even if it was working then.

Basically, against the first 3 teams, after they soared out to a lead, the teams could drop a few more back and empty the box a bit because they knew we had to pass. When you are down by more than 2 scores after halftime, you simply can't run the ball as often. You can't waste the clock like that, and you can't afford to settle for 1-3 yard gains. You have to pass to reestablish the lead.

The reason we stuck to the run game in Miami is because we were playing with the lead.


Absolutely, so how can you(not you, but Texan 279) say that our run game sucks, because our total yards is not as high as other teams, or that we only ran for 98 yards against Indy's D??

Those are the stats that are misleading. We had 15 carries against Indy.

In Philly, down by 14, we run the ball 5 times in the entire second half, even though we are avg'ing 5 yards/carry in the second.

texan279
10-10-2006, 10:25 AM
There's more to the passing game than completion percentages & QB rating. Penalties, Sacks, & dropped balls has really made our passing game worse than our running game as far as picking up first downs.

Without Question, we are at our best, when we mix it up evenly. But our passing game on it's own, isn't all that.


Most of them set up by the play action.

David's numbers would be much fatter, Andre's would be as well as Moulds, Cook's, Owen, Walter, & Lundy's, if it weren't for the penalties & sacks..... & fumbles.

minus the fumbles, I think David is playing like a ProBowler........ as a unit, our offense needs to get it's crap together. Mainly the Oline.

Your running game has to be at least somewhat successful to set up your passing game on the play action. And I know there is more to a passing game than completion percentage and QB rating, I just don't get the continued dogging on Carr. I say we stick to what is working, the passing game. And you sit here and act as if our 29th ranked rushing offense is so great and then say that our 21st ranked passing game is "not all that"? Besides Carr's bootleg, our passing game is the only thing that has put TD's on the board in 4 games this season.

real
10-10-2006, 10:29 AM
I am not asking him to win anything, all I am saying is if the pass game works, keep using it. You know people threw fits last season when Capers would run the ball and it didn't work, now people are asking to see more of an even worse running game while our passing game is looking better than ever...

...But the passing game isn't really 'working'...We won when we ran the ball more...So how is the passing game "working"??....You are looking at the numbers and stats and and D.Carr's QB rating...all of which,IMO, are inflated....I don't think the answer is to pass more....I think we just need to run better.....

texan279
10-10-2006, 10:34 AM
Absolutely, so how can you(not you, but Texan 279) say that our run game sucks, because our total yards is not as high as other teams, or that we only ran for 98 yards against Indy's D??

Those are the stats that are misleading. We had 15 carries against Indy.

In Philly, down by 14, we run the ball 5 times in the entire second half, even though we are avg'ing 5 yards/carry in the second.

We had 20 carries against Indy's defense. And we only ran 25 plays in the second half and we were playing from behind in the Philly game.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 10:35 AM
We've been through this a million times. I don't care about play by plays, passing game leading to three and outs, or what ifs. I've watched the games. Our backs are horrible, our rushing game is ranked 29th in the NFL. As a team we have the second worst yards per carry in the NFL. As a team we are ranked 31st in the NFL in total rushing yards. Oakland, possibly the worst team in the NFL, has rushed for 170 yards more than we have on one less carry. And our passing game has scored all but one of our total number of touchdowns, that is saying something when we have run 111 pass plays compared to 94 running plays.

And you'll continue to hear it, as long as it's the truth.

Through 4 games, we've played 8 QTrs of football. in 5 of those 8 Qtrs, we've run the ball well. wouldn't it make sense to say those three Qtrs are the aberation, and not the other 5??

Throw out the Miami game, and we avg 4 Ypc...... & that includes a bad 1st half against Philly, a top 5 rushing D.

We avg 23 carries a game, Indy & Washington, mainly because of the score. That is what is killing our running game. not a lack of production.

texan279
10-10-2006, 10:39 AM
...But the passing game isn't really 'working'...We won when we ran the ball more...So how is the passing game "working"??....You are looking at the numbers and stats and and D.Carr's QB rating...all of which,IMO, are inflated....I don't think the answer is to pass more....I think we just need to run better.....


No I am watching the games. You say we won when we ran more, in our one win against Miami we had 29 carries for 73 yards, that is 2.5 yards per carry. Gado averaged less than 2 yards per carry and Dayne averaged 2.6 yards per carry, if you think our running game had anything to do with that win I have no idea what to tell you, and yes I watched the game, and I also watched Dayne and Gado miss holes and run straight into piles of defenders.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 10:39 AM
We had 20 carries against Indy's defense. And we only ran 25 plays in the second half and we were playing from behind in the Philly game.

20 carries, 98 yards..... 4.9 ypc.... & now you say we only got 98 yards, because we had to abandon the run because of time, and score.... not because of lack of production, so 98 yards against a week Colts D cannont be a negative against our running game.


right??

texan279
10-10-2006, 10:44 AM
And you'll continue to hear it, as long as it's the truth.

Through 4 games, we've played 8 QTrs of football. in 5 of those 8 Qtrs, we've run the ball well. wouldn't it make sense to say those three Qtrs are the aberation, and not the other 5??

Throw out the Miami game, and we avg 4 Ypc...... & that includes a bad 1st half against Philly, a top 5 rushing D.

We avg 23 carries a game, Indy & Washington, mainly because of the score. That is what is killing our running game. not a lack of production.

You can't just throw out bad games to improve stats. And Philly's rushing defense is ranked 16th as of right now, not top 5. And as far as the attempts per game, why would we want to make more attempts when it doesn't work? There are 4 teams in the NFL who have less rush attempts than we do, and 3 of them have more total rushing yards, the only team who has less is Detroit and they average 6 less attempts per game than us.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 10:46 AM
No I am watching the games. You say we won when we ran more, in our one win against Miami we had 29 carries for 73 yards, that is 2.5 yards per carry. Gado averaged less than 2 yards per carry and Dayne averaged 2.6 yards per carry, if you think our running game had anything to do with that win I have no idea what to tell you, and yes I watched the game, and I also watched Dayne and Gado miss holes and run straight into piles of defenders.

I haven't checked, but what was our avg time of possession?? against Washington, it was something like two & a half minutes.

texan279
10-10-2006, 10:47 AM
20 carries, 98 yards..... 4.9 ypc.... & now you say we only got 98 yards, because we had to abandon the run because of time, and score.... not because of lack of production, so 98 yards against a week Colts D cannont be a negative against our running game.


right??

Well when they allow an average of 170 yards rushing per game and we have 3 backs who can't combine for 100 yards against them I wouldn't say it is negative but it's far from great.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 10:50 AM
You can't just throw out bad games to improve stats. And Philly's rushing defense is ranked 16th as of right now, not top 5. And as far as the attempts per game, why would we want to make more attempts when it doesn't work? There are 4 teams in the NFL who have less rush attempts than we do, and 3 of them have more total rushing yards, the only team who has less is Detroit and they average 6 less attempts per game than us.

I'm not throwing out the bad game to improve the stats...... I'm saying other than that game, we ran the ball well. One bad game does not, and can not mean that we have a bad running game.

Washington was top 5, my bad.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 10:52 AM
Well when they allow an average of 170 yards rushing per game and we have 3 backs who can't combine for 100 yards against them I wouldn't say it is negative but it's far from great.

You just said we were playing from behind, and you don't run the ball when you are behind that much...... were they supposed to get 170 yards in the first half??

texan279
10-10-2006, 10:58 AM
You just said we were playing from behind, and you don't run the ball when you are behind that much...... were they supposed to get 170 yards in the first half??

Then why are you complaining about us having only 5 carries in the second half against Philly, you know we were behind in that game as well...were we supposed to run the ball 20 times in the second half playing from behind? And why are you complaining about us only getting 23 carries per game? You know we have been playing from behind a lot this season, are we supposed to run the ball 40 times a game while playing from behind?

tsip
10-10-2006, 11:26 AM
TK, I'm trying to understand your logic about our run game that avg 3.2 ypc vs our opp that avg 4.7 ypc-we have 1 rushing TD (by our QB)/opp has 5 rushing TDs.

Generally, I would think if you ran the ball on 1st/2nd/3rd downs you would at least want your ypc to avg enough yds to get you a first down.

I'm assuming that you think if we run the ball more our results will be better,right?...and you know that because_______________

texan279
10-10-2006, 11:34 AM
TK, I'm trying to understand your logic about our run game that avg 3.2 ypc vs our opp that avg 4.7 ypc-we have 1 rushing TD (by our QB)/opp has 5 rushing TDs.

Generally, I would think if you ran the ball on 1st/2nd/3rd downs you would at least want your ypc to avg enough yds to get you a first down.

I'm assuming that you think if we run the ball more our results will be better,right?...and you know that because_______________

That is exactly what he thinks. I guess instead of 20 carries for 60 yards, 30 for 90 yards would be much better.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 12:26 PM
Then why are you complaining about us having only 5 carries in the second half against Philly, you know we were behind in that game as well...were we supposed to run the ball 20 times in the second half playing from behind? And why are you complaining about us only getting 23 carries per game? You know we have been playing from behind a lot this season, are we supposed to run the ball 40 times a game while playing from behind?

When we got the ball in the second half, we were down by 11. We ran the ball 3 times..... 3 yards, 2 yards(first down) & 11 yards(first down). After that last first down, we went to three straight passes. A short 4 yard pass to Lundy, an incomplete pass, short right, then a 10 yard sack. we had to punt.

we should have ran the ball more....

Our defense forced a punt. Still, we are down by 11.

Again, we go with three straight passes, 5 yards to Andre, sack, incomplete to Owen.


Again, should have ran the ball more


Our defense holds the Eagles to a field goal. We get the ball back 12:41 remaining in the 4th Qtr, down by 14. We pass, 7 yard run, pass, pass, pass, pass(david scrambles for the 1st), pass 4 yard run, pass, pass (scramble for 2), pass


Down by 14, with dang near 13 minutes in the 4th Qtr is not the time to abandon the run game.

& I'm not compaining about the 23 carries per game, I'm poinint out we don't have many yards compared to other teams, because we haven't been running the ball as much as we should have. We are not running the ball as much, because we were behind (Against Indy 27-3 to start the third Qtr with 8:07 left in the Qtr, Against Washington, we are down 21-7 to start the third, go 3 & out, allow a touchdown, and are down 28-7 with 5:29 left in the third), & not because of poor run production.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 12:44 PM
TK, I'm trying to understand your logic about our run game that avg 3.2 ypc vs our opp that avg 4.7 ypc-we have 1 rushing TD (by our QB)/opp has 5 rushing TDs.

Generally, I would think if you ran the ball on 1st/2nd/3rd downs you would at least want your ypc to avg enough yds to get you a first down.

I'm assuming that you think if we run the ball more our results will be better,right?...and you know that because_______________

Philly:
1st half
33 snaps 11 runs (18 yards ) 22 passing plays.

2nd half
22 snaps 5 runs (25 yards)
I want us to run more often, when we are avg'ing 5 yards per carry, this was our first game as a team, we are doing something different. Or passing game did in fact open the run.

Indy
1st half
27 snaps 13 runs (51 yards) 14 passing plays

2nd half
26 snaps 7 runs (46 yards) 19 passing plays


3.9 ypc in the first........ 6.5 ypc in the second... 4.85 ypc the entire game. Our avg ypc would have got the first down, running on 1st, 2nd, & 3rd down.

Poor running is not why we stopped running against Indy.

Washington
1st half
28 plays 10 runs (38 yards) 18 passing plays

2nd half
23 plays 5 runs (20 yards) 18 passing plays


3.8 ypc in the first, 4 ypc in the second, 3.86 ypc combined. Our avg ypc would have got us the first down, if we ran on 1st, 2nd, & 3rd down.

Poor running was not the reason we stopped running against Washington.

Miami was really, really bad, and ruined our numbers. Even though it is only one game.

HOU-TEX
10-10-2006, 12:50 PM
I want us to run more often, when we are avg'ing 5 yards per carry, this was our first game as a team, we are doing something different. Or passing game did in fact open the run.

3.9 ypc in the first........ 6.5 ypc in the second... 4.85 ypc the entire game. Our avg ypc would have got the first down, running on 1st, 2nd, & 3rd down.

Poor running is not why we stopped running against Indy.


3.8 ypc in the first, 4 ypc in the second, 3.86 ypc combined. Our avg ypc would have got us the first down, if we ran on 1st, 2nd, & 3rd down.

Poor running was not the reason we stopped running against Washington.

Miami was really, really bad, and ruined our numbers. Even though it is only one game.


Are you typing to yourself? LOL!:tease:

texan279
10-10-2006, 01:36 PM
we should have ran the ball more....


Again, should have ran the ball more



Down by 14, with dang near 13 minutes in the 4th Qtr is not the time to abandon the run game.

& I'm not compaining about the 23 carries per game, I'm poinint out we don't have many yards compared to other teams, because we haven't been running the ball as much as we should have. We are not running the ball as much, because we were behind (Against Indy 27-3 to start the third Qtr with 8:07 left in the Qtr, Against Washington, we are down 21-7 to start the third, go 3 & out, allow a touchdown, and are down 28-7 with 5:29 left in the third), & not because of poor run production.

Down by 14 against Philly with 13 minutes left in the game you can't just run the ball against a team with the #1 offense in the NFL and hope to catch up. You said yourself teams do not run as much when they are down, yet everything you pointed out we were down by 2 scores and you are complaing that we didn't run the ball enough.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 01:50 PM
Down by 14 against Philly with 13 minutes left in the game you can't just run the ball against a team with the #1 offense in the NFL and hope to catch up. You said yourself teams do not run as much when they are down, yet everything you pointed out we were down by 2 scores and you are complaing that we didn't run the ball enough.
.

I'm not complaining that we didn't run the ball enough. Against Indy & Washington, it's understandable that we had to get away from the run game. As far as those two are concerned, the avg rushing yards per game is going to look bad. Not because we couldn't run, but because we didn't. & that's okay. I understand.

Against Philly, we didn't run the ball enough. I'm complaining about that.

Miami, we sucked.

infantrycak
10-10-2006, 02:24 PM
Philly vs. Texans--3.5 ypc vs. everyone else 3.75 ypc
Indy vs. Texans--4.7 ypc vs. everyone else 5.3 ypc
Washington vs. Texans--3.4 ypc vs. everyone else 3.5 ypc
Miami vs. Texans--2.0 ypc vs. everyone else 3.1 ypc

The Texans have underperformed against every single team they have faced this season compared to what those same D's have given up to other teams.

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 02:42 PM
Philly vs. Texans--3.5 ypc vs. everyone else 3.75 ypc
Indy vs. Texans--4.7 ypc vs. everyone else 5.3 ypc
Washington vs. Texans--3.4 ypc vs. everyone else 3.5 ypc
Miami vs. Texans--2.0 ypc vs. everyone else 3.1 ypc

The Texans have underperformed against every single team they have faced this season compared to what those same D's have given up to other teams.

yeah, that settles it. We suck.

0.25 yards worse than every other team that has played the Eagles. The Cowboys, The Giants, they need to get rid of their running backs, and start over. Get rid of the Oline.... those guys aren't worth crap.

0.6 yards/carry worse than every other team that played Indy...... doesn't matter that our guy was only with our team for 9 days. TikiBarber & FredTaylor, bums..... those OLines, worthless.

0.10 yards worse than every team that's played Washington in '07. FredTaylor, & Julius Jones should be hitting the waiver list soon, but why would we want those bums if they can't perform against Washington.

1.1 yards less than anyone against Miami..... yes, that is a cause for concern. We need to look at that game, and see what the problem is.

texan279
10-10-2006, 02:47 PM
yeah, that settles it. We suck.

0.25 yards worse than every other team that has played the Eagles. The Cowboys, The Giants, they need to get rid of their running backs, and start over. Get rid of the Oline.... those guys aren't worth crap.

0.6 yards/carry worse than every other team that played Indy...... doesn't matter that our guy was only with our team for 9 days. TikiBarber & FredTaylor, bums..... those OLines, worthless.

0.10 yards worse than every team that's played Washington in '07. FredTaylor, & Julius Jones should be hitting the waiver list soon, but why would we want those bums if they can't perform against Washington.

1.1 yards less than anyone against Miami..... yes, that is a cause for concern. We need to look at that game, and see what the problem is.

I am so tired of hearing that excuse, if he wasn't ready he wouldn't have been on the field.

tsip
10-10-2006, 02:52 PM
"when we are avg'ing 5 yards per carry"

This is a no-brainer that does not happen very often for any team, let alone the Texans. TK, you act like each team has a 'stat' machine in the press box that can tell them what play to run based upon the avg of previous plays in the same game.........at a moment notice.

Contradictions!! First, you say Kubiak is the 'man.' Second, Kubiak says-in effect-the run sucks. Third, you say the run game is great, just need to do it more.

I'm begining to think you pick out 'trains of thought' that you know will be 'confrontational' so you can post over and over and over and over-did I say over-again till no one but you is left 'standing'!:brickwall

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 02:58 PM
I am so tired of hearing that excuse, if he wasn't ready he wouldn't have been on the field.

0.6 ypc....... & it's still over 4 ypc...... he was ready.

texan279
10-10-2006, 03:03 PM
0.6 ypc....... & it's still over 4 ypc...... he was ready.

Then why are you saying he was only here 9 days?

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 03:06 PM
"when we are avg'ing 5 yards per carry"

This is a no-brainer that does not happen very often for any team, let alone the Texans. TK, you act like each team has a 'stat' machine in the press box that can tell them what play to run based upon the avg of previous plays in the same game.........at a moment notice.

Contradictions!! First, you say Kubiak is the 'man.' Second, Kubiak says-in effect-the run sucks. Third, you say the run game is great, just need to do it more.

I'm begining to think you pick out 'trains of thought' that you know will be 'confrontational' so you can post over and over and over and over-did I say over-again to no one but you is left 'standing'!:brickwall

even the first half stats aren't bad enough to abandon the run, when we are only down by 11 with 11:28 seconds to go in the 3rd Qtr. On that possesion, we run the ball 3 times for 16 yards. & only run the ball 2 other times for the remainder of the half.

We all say Kubiak is the man, & alot of people are upset with him for all kinds of things. Wand, Bedell, Pitts, Joppru, Taylor, running instead of passing, passing instead of running........

I just don't understand why he would say what he has said in reference to the run game, when the run game has been doing well(not great) in all but the Miami game.

& I don't see how we fans can say the problem is the running backs, when they have been doing well in all but the miami game.

real
10-10-2006, 03:06 PM
The run game is not good....The run game sucks....BUT we still need to do it more...

thunderkyss
10-10-2006, 03:13 PM
Then why are you saying he was only here 9 days?
Dayne only avg'd 3.3 ypc against Indy. it was the big run by Gado (27 yards) that helped that stat.

But Dayne got the bulk of the carries....... 11. & Lundy's 6 for 25 also boosted the stat.

edo783
10-10-2006, 03:22 PM
Why am I thinking there is some sort of baseball nerd/stats geek/trading card discussion going on? All the stats are great, but our running game still sucks...........alot.

Texans_Chick
10-10-2006, 03:32 PM
Why am I thinking there is some sort of baseball nerd/stats geek/trading card discussion going on? All the stats are great, but our running game still sucks...........alot.

I don't think there is not much real dispute about whether the running game is struggling. The stats say it and the coach says it. There are the obvious reasons that can look to the types of running backs we have and the infamous line gel etc. In the paper today, they are talking about thinking less and doing more. Any time you learn anything new physically, that is always going to be a concern.

But this thread was started to look at the macro issue of whether philosophically what Sherman is doing can work with what Kubiak's offense is designed to do.

I just keep thinking about the game film I watched of Denver in the offseason, and Kyle Shanahan talking about the way the blocking is supposed to work. And showing examples of how it could make Freeney look silly at times. And he talked about trying to get Gruden to change some of Tampa Bay's blocking schemes to get defense ends more confused, but Gruden didn't want to do it. (It is hard to explain the specific point without visuals).

My question ultimately is whether the fusion of the Green Bay style and the Denver style doing things is hindering the running game.

We might not get a good answer about this stuff this weekend, because the Cowboys really do not like to give up the run, but they can have some difficulties with covering good receivers--and I expect a similar game plan to what was used with Miami.

real
10-10-2006, 04:14 PM
My question ultimately is whether the fusion of the Green Bay style and the Denver style doing things is hindering the running game.


I honestly don't think mixing two different styles has as much to do with our struggling running game as it does with not having the right type of back or backs to run the zone stretch....I keep hearing everyone talking about how we haven't been running ZBS as much....Well my question is: How do you know??? Im not saying you're wrong or anyone else is...but was this something you went back and looked at film, or was this something Kubes has said???

dat_boy_yec
10-10-2006, 08:45 PM
Dayne only avg'd 3.3 ypc against Indy. it was the big run by Lundy (27 yards) that helped that stat.

But Dayne got the bulk of the carries....... 11. & Lundy's 6 for 25 also boosted the stat.

Lundy? For real, cuz I could have sworn that that long run was broken by Gado. Okay, we had one good run against a team that usually sucks against the run to boost up our YPC what does that tell you. Against Philly we avg. less than 3 yds. a game per carry. Washington was our only decent game before we reverted to our bad form in the Miami game. I could break down alot of things, but the point is our running game sucks. The coaching staff has to make it work.

dat_boy_yec
10-10-2006, 08:55 PM
I honestly don't think mixing two different styles has as much to do with our struggling running game as it does with not having the right type of back or backs to run the zone stretch....I keep hearing everyone talking about how we haven't been running ZBS as much....Well my question is: How do you know??? Im not saying you're wrong or anyone else is...but was this something you went back and looked at film, or was this something Kubes has said???

I agree with this. I know we've seen some plays ran in the GB mold, but the thing is they're not being called at the same time. Each play has it's assigments so it's the lines job to know what they're to do and go through with it. From what I've seen we've run a ton of ZBS and you know how I know when I see it is the line moving in one direction. The other thing I've noticed is they open up huge holes when they do this, but our RB's just haven't been able to cut back to reach the hole. I've seen these holes when I'm at the game, and second guess myself until I re-watch the game at home and it doesn't change the holes are there, our RB's aren't running through them.

ojthecat
10-10-2006, 09:04 PM
The bottom line is our running is bad not because of mixing of two systems but because of the personel. Can you name any team in the NFL that would trade their OL for ours? Or any team that would trade their RB's for ours?

We need better players... That is all.

Buffi2
10-10-2006, 09:09 PM
But this thread was started to look at the macro issue of whether philosophically what Sherman is doing can work with what Kubiak's offense is designed to do.

My question ultimately is whether the fusion of the Green Bay style and the Denver style doing things is hindering the running game.

I think that we are looking for a relatively simple solution to a complex problem. Everyone's opinion on this subject is valid and it is probably some kind of combination of all of them that is causing the running game to be notgood.

You can't just say that the two philosophies can't/don't mesh - the question is can they mesh with the players we have? Or, are the players capable of the meshing but just ain't quite there yet. Or, all of the above plus any number of other combinations.

This could be a reason Kubiak spent last week reviewing the first four weeks - to try and answer - maybe not this question - but the general wtf is wrong with the running game question. A little time out while the smart coach guy attempts to find the problem(s) and then a solution. I hope he found them.

I think we will get at least an inkling of whether Kubiak found a key Sunday - a bit more to speculate about.

sleepwalker
10-10-2006, 09:59 PM
Here's what I think:

1. Davis is gone and our O Line is average at best.

This is the problem and you can't polish a turd...It really doesnt matter what scheme or run philosophy they try to use.

tsip
10-10-2006, 11:06 PM
Here's what I think:

1. Davis is gone and our O Line is average at best.

This is the problem and you can't polish a turd...It really doesnt matter what scheme or run philosophy they try to use.


...many posters questioned the status of (among other things) our RB and DB situation entering the season, and Kubiak said they were both fine/OK:confused:

texan279
10-11-2006, 12:07 AM
Here's what I think:

1. Davis is gone and our O Line is average at best.

This is the problem and you can't polish a turd...It really doesnt matter what scheme or run philosophy they try to use.

Exactly. Davis was/is a good back, the last few years our running game has been good. Now we've got 2 below average backs and the running game has gotten worse.

mexican_texan
10-11-2006, 12:10 AM
I hope Gado can pick up the ZBS here. He reportedly had a hard time learning it in GB.

TK_Gamer
10-11-2006, 06:04 AM
Yeah, that Kubiak is one stubborn cuss.

The only time we came close to balancing our attack, we win the game.

Other than that, we've passed more than we've run the ball. & we've run the ball well, more times than not, except in the one win.

Philly:
1st half
33 snaps 11 runs (18 yards ) 22 passing plays.

2nd half
22 snaps 5 runs (25 yards)

Indy
1st half
27 snaps 13 runs (51 yards) 14 passing plays

2nd half
26 snaps 7 runs (46 yards) 19 passing plays

Washington
1st half
28 plays 10 runs (38 yards) 18 passing plays

2nd half
23 plays 5 runs (20 yards) 18 passing plays

Miami
1st Half
27 plays 12 runs (26 yards) 15 passing plays

2nd Half
37 plays 16 runs (26 yards) 21 passing plays.

ok so :

philly 16 runs for 42 yards = 2.6 yds per carry

indy 20 runs for 97 yards = 4.8 yds per carry

skins 15 runs for 58 yards = 3.86 yds per carry

miami 28 runs for 52 yards = 1.86 yds per carry

where do you see we ran the ball well besides indy? even if you call 3.8 ypc good thats only 2 out of 4 and does not constitute "more times than not" the indy and wash games we ran better because they losened up the defense to stop the pass, but we were so far behind it became a non issue because we had to throw the ball to try and catch up. IMHO we won the Miami game because we played good defense and had an adequate passing game. the run never mattered. the miami game showed we cannot run against a good run defense. phily and indy showed we cannot stop a good QB from scoring on us. and the skins game showed we cannot get to the QB without blitzing. I dont see any good news about our running game so far other than Carr can run for a touchdown with a good play fake. I think we made a mistake getting gado though, at least dayne showed he can make a cut and gain 3 to 4 yards with a guy on his back. we give up or fastest back and gain a strait ahead runner that cant see a hole right next to him. we have a long way to go. practice practice practice. at least seth wand could zone block.

Texans_Chick
10-11-2006, 09:11 AM
I agree with this. I know we've seen some plays ran in the GB mold, but the thing is they're not being called at the same time. Each play has it's assigments so it's the lines job to know what they're to do and go through with it. From what I've seen we've run a ton of ZBS and you know how I know when I see it is the line moving in one direction. The other thing I've noticed is they open up huge holes when they do this, but our RB's just haven't been able to cut back to reach the hole. I've seen these holes when I'm at the game, and second guess myself until I re-watch the game at home and it doesn't change the holes are there, our RB's aren't running through them.

IIRC, at the time of the Denver game, Sherman was getting a little snippy about people saying that the Texans were running just a Denver ZBS. He said it was different.

As for the Green Bay plays, it does matter throwing those in there. The way that Denver did things, even the plays that didn't work were meant to set up the defense later in the game to bite on stuff. The Green Bay plays don't really do that, because they are straight up, we are going to run at you plays. And they require different skill sets to do correctly.

real
10-11-2006, 09:31 AM
And they require different skill sets to do correctly.

BAM!!! theres your answer....We need different players that fit our scheme....It's not impossible to run the scheme we're running.....But thats where the coach has to decide whether he's going to stick with his scheme and find players that fit or if he is going to change his scheme to fit the players he has now.....Having observed Kubiak thus far....Im going to go with option #1....I think he is just going to get rid of the players that don't fit....It just depends on how you look at the problem...Not having lineman versatile enough to run both schemes...or....the scheme being too difficult.....

Runner
10-11-2006, 09:40 AM
....the scheme being too difficult.....

As I understand it, the scheme is an easy one to run. That was one factor that helped us to our gaudy pre-season record - our less experienced 2nd/3rd string offensive players could execute the scheme effectively and handle the other team's 2nd/3rd string defenses.

thunderkyss
10-11-2006, 10:02 AM
As I understand it, the scheme is an easy one to run. That was one factor that helped us to our gaudy pre-season record - our less experienced 2nd/3rd string offensive players could execute the scheme effectively and handle the other team's 2nd/3rd string defenses.

It's also why many colleges use it........

I think, however, that Kubiak said they were going to look at what formations worked, and what didn't. By formations, I think that might extend to blocking schemes.

I think what he was saying, was that they are going to streamline their offensive playbook. Making it more ZBS than Greenbay, or more Greenbay than ZBS.......

nunusguy
10-11-2006, 10:05 AM
I hope Kubiak is not going "wobbly" in the knees with his commitment to
the WCO system featuring ZB that he knows and practiced when at Denver.
Though not directly related to the OL, his latest personel decision to bring in the big FB Leach is troubling.
Zone guys in the OL are small, quick and atheletic who move laterally and deeper into the defense as opposed to the bulky, powerful behemoths who drive block staright ahead. Occasional you'll get a player who is both, but
as a policy you need to be commited to one or the other or you'll end up with a sytem that in general is staffed with players that is not capable of being real successful at either scheme.

Texans_Chick
10-11-2006, 10:29 AM
I hope Kubiak is not going "wobbly" in the knees with his commitment to
the WCO system featuring ZB that he knows and practiced when at Denver.
Though not directly related to the OL, his latest personel decision to bring in the big FB Leach is troubling.
Zone guys in the OL are small, quick and atheletic who move laterally and deeper into the defense as opposed to the bulky, powerful behemoths who drive block staright ahead. Occasional you'll get a player who is both, but
as a policy you need to be commited to one or the other or you'll end up with a sytem that in general is staffed with players that is not capable of being real successful at either scheme.

I think the Leach signing is what they said it was. Too many TEs on the roster and not enough FBs.

Leach was available, Sherman was familiar with him, they had a need.

The types of pickups that you will be doing this time of year aren't necessarily the ideal pickups you would do in the offseason.

Runner
10-11-2006, 10:34 AM
Too many TEs on the roster and not enough FBs.


True. When the team broke up into postion meetings at practice Bennie went the with fullbacks, not the tight ends. I think Kubiak liked what he saw in Bennie and tried to keep him but just couldn't make it work.

I still question if we'll keep two fullbacks on the roster when Wong and Mathis come off the PUP.