PDA

View Full Version : Running backs, linemen--what is not working.


Texans_Chick
10-16-2006, 07:41 PM
Okay, this is the subject of my latest Chronic FanBlog post, which can be found here: Link (http://blogs.chron.com/fanblogtexans/2006/10/what_is_the_deal_with_the_texa_1.html)

It revisits some stuff you see on the MB and adds some stuff that you might not otherwise see. It is just a thought piece on the lack of running game.

In Kubiak's latest presser (sorry I don't have a link handy), he says that Lundy is going "to get more involved in what they are doing." Translated, Dayne is nicked and isn't showing us anything.

I'd like some other set of eyes who follow the team and see if what I am saying makes some sense. Or not so much.

Sorry it is longish, but wanted to put the info all in one place for posterity. Blogs are kinda funny reading from a historical narrative perspective. The comments are kinda funny looking back at them too.

Texans_Chick
10-16-2006, 07:54 PM
Here is another article about why the Texans running game is not working, focusing on the line quality:

Denver's Running Scheme Is Not Translating in Houston (http://www.nysun.com/article/41532)

Vinny
10-16-2006, 08:17 PM
Kubiak mentioned Lundy getting involved in the punt game specifically...he also stated that Anderson may be activated soon and he could return punts as well.

nunusguy
10-16-2006, 08:18 PM
In Kubiaks presser today, he said the team spent more time on rushing offense during the bye period than they have at any other time.
Then after yesterdays performance with the running game, how disappointing
is that ? Gotta be a tough Monday for Kubiak and Co.

Texan1
10-16-2006, 08:36 PM
Texas Chick,

My thoughts on our thoughts:

Offensive Line Blocking Scheme - not sure this is an issue, I would guess the direction of push is not so much an issue with the running game. As for the boot leg or play action - well, they have to respect your run game for the bootloeg to be effective - not matter the direction of the push.

Offensive Line Weight Loss - maybe. I'm not sure about the muscle loss thing, but wieght does factor into a player's style of play. And loss will have an effect on the past style.

Offensive Line Personnel - I know we had a bad game running the ball - but overall I think our O line is improving. Probably the best O line we have had. Give them some more time and a RUNNING BACK.

Running Backs--The Obvious Reason - i don't think there are many teams that would have any of our RBs on the roster - much less playing.

Nice thoughts and blog.

jayjordan
10-16-2006, 09:45 PM
Our running problems is a combination of a line not opening holes for the running backs to run through and we dont have a running back that can really make plays, break tackles or make things happen.

dat_boy_yec
10-16-2006, 10:09 PM
Our problem is that our RB's can't find the hole. They got the downhill running part right, but they put their head down and even though there's a huge hole in their vinicity they can't get to it because they lowered their head and can't see it. This is what everybody should look at. How many times have we seen the RB's cut back or change directions? I'm not asking to argue or whatever, but if you could show me where you've seen it let me know, because I sure haven't seen it.

Texans_Chick
10-16-2006, 10:12 PM
Offensive Line Personnel - I know we had a bad game running the ball - but overall I think our O line is improving. Probably the best O line we have had. Give them some more time and a RUNNING BACK.

Nice thoughts and blog.


Thanks for the kind words. As for the improving line. Run blocking is non-good.

It is some progress that Carr wasn't dumped against the Dallas D. That being said, you risk less Carr smooshage when he doesn't throw downfield, and the time of possession in the second half is ridiculously short.

I don't see improvement much at all of the line.

Hervoyel
10-16-2006, 10:13 PM
Running backs, linemen--what is not working.


"Yes"

Texan1
10-16-2006, 10:21 PM
Thanks for the kind words. As for the improving line. Run blocking is non-good.

It is some progress that Carr wasn't dumped against the Dallas D. That being said, you risk less Carr smooshage when he doesn't throw downfield, and the time of possession in the second half is ridiculously short.

I don't see improvement much at all of the line.

Ok, well look at it this way. The line had its best day of pass protection in long, long, time Sunday against the boys. Thats improvement.

Dallas has the best run D in the league - and you can't put all the blame on the Texans running game on the O line. As you said, the RBs are a porblem.

The O line had a good game against a pretty good Miami DL. I think the O line play is getting better - you just won't know how much until we can get a RB that will contribute to the overall effort.

We'll see, we still have 11 more of these things to suffer through

TPIMP
10-16-2006, 10:27 PM
Great blog Chick. I've noticed the blocking scheme now does not look like the blocking scheme from the preseason. In the preseason you saw alot of cut blocks. I didn't see any cut blocks yesterday. In fact I just went back and looked at the Phily game and no cut blocks. Some where along the way it appears they tweaked the blocking scheme a bit. I can only guess it is Sherman's influence. Maybe they determined this line is unable to run a true version of the Denver zone blocking.

Texans_Chick
10-16-2006, 10:31 PM
Running backs, linemen--what is not working.


"Yes"

Classic.

The title of this thread was originally something else, but I couldn't post it because of the bug in the upgrade software.

Jeez, I could have saved a bunch of words that way. :cool:

Texans_Chick
10-16-2006, 10:32 PM
Great blog Chick. I've noticed the blocking scheme now does not look like the blocking scheme from the preseason. In the preseason you saw alot of cut blocks. I didn't see any cut blocks yesterday. In fact I just went back and looked at the Phily game and no cut blocks. Some where along the way it appears they tweaked the blocking scheme a bit. I can only guess it is Sherman's influence. Maybe they determined this line is unable to run a true version of the Denver zone blocking.

Allegedly from what I've heard, the scheme is the same as it was in the preseason.

Preseasons see more vanilla defenses, backup players, and the run defenses we saw in the preseason were mostly bottom third of the league ones.

TPIMP
10-16-2006, 10:44 PM
Allegedly from what I've heard, the scheme is the same as it was in the preseason.

Preseasons see more vanilla defenses, backup players, and the run defenses we saw in the preseason were mostly bottom third of the league ones.

That is all true. But it's right there in color. Watch the KC game and see how many times the Texans OL block into the legs of the DL. Then try and find it in the Phily or Dallas games. No changes? Just count the number of plays the FB played in the preseason compared to yesterday. Some things have changed? Forget debating if things have changed watch a handfull of Denver running plays and compare to the Texans.

Scooter
10-16-2006, 11:42 PM
i think it's all bad.

scheme. tc's mentioned it before as have i, we seem to be running a very poor mix of sherman's "power" blocking scheme and trying to 1on1 at the line a growing majority of the time along with not properly using kubiak's ZBS effectively (when it's used at all). i dont think i've seen a cut-block since the preseason.

runningbacks. dayne's not a feature back, but he's not a bad back. we do need an upgrade here. dayne should be used as a change of pace and a bruiser. what we need is a one & gone. we might already have that in lundy or taylor, but they're rookies and will take some time to adjust. those guys are also a problem though because of very poor pass blocking skills. we dont have a complete player (like a tiki barber) who can catch, block, and run on our roster.

offensive line. the personnel is terrible. everyone knows i dont like weigert & mckinney. salaam is terrible and our backups are very weak. flanagan's not a very good run blocker but he's making good calls and i like his pass protection. pitts is our strongest run blocker but he's been assisting flanagan more often than not ... something i dont mind, but it takes away his effectiveness when noone else is performing well.

we're basically bad all over IMO.

awtysst
10-17-2006, 12:03 AM
Why is it we cant seem to have solid passing protection and run protection at the same time?

Last few years our run protection was decent, we just couldnt keep Carr upright. Now Carr is able to stand and throw and for the mosty part he has done well. Yesterday he had a tipped ball become an INT and one that was clealry his fault. Yet now our running game is gone to hell. Why cant we have each?

Scott D
10-17-2006, 02:45 AM
The problem with most of you people is that you are so blind. Not meant to be rude but it's true.

Ok. You feel that the RB is one of the problems. I doubt it. I bet you would be bashing Reggie Bush if Houston drafted him all season long up to this point because he sucks. For that matter, you put ANY running back behind THAT line and they will ALL suck. Face it. Even DD would suck there too. The only real problem is, is that the offensive line is simply failing MISERABLY to do their job.

The only reason we won against Miami (barely) is that their team is lousy too. They have problems.

I see at the end of the year, many players will no longer be with us and the RB's are not going to be one of them. I am referring to the line. They simply won't work for what the plan is set out to be. They will be traded. Most of them.

Unfortunately, we are, once again, in this rebuilding stage and that too sucks. It will be about another 2 years before we'll have a winning team. As for now, they are losers trying to learn a new system and most of them, I feel, won't be here next year.

Last few years our run protection was decent, we just couldnt keep Carr upright. Now Carr is able to stand and throw and for the mosty part he has done well. Yesterday he had a tipped ball become an INT and one that was clealry his fault. Yet now our running game is gone to hell. Why cant we have each?

Our front line's inability to do their job. Give the other team time. They will test our system and see what our game plan is and start to pick it apart, piece by piece.

Pagan
10-17-2006, 04:56 AM
TC- Good article, but it begs some questions. If a scheme isn't working shouldn't one adjust to what is? That just kind of dangles out there for me.

The current line seems to be able to pass block, which is usually harder, but not run block. This I can't get my head around, zone blocking scheme or not, the principle of attack verus react should be easier to impliment.

Although, with a 'sleaker' back(DD or similiar style), some of those 1 yard, or less, gains may have turned into at least three.

Oh yea, I almost forgot both DD and Wells (under appreciated IMHO) ran behind Norris. Could that be a factor too?

jerek
10-17-2006, 06:37 AM
The general thought is that Sherman's man up power block system fits the RBs we have. The line does not fit that system so much. Our zoneblocking system which our line fits we only have two RBs that really fit that-Wali Lundy and Chris Taylor and they both cannot pick up the blitz. If it was me I would likely activate Taylor and let him and Lundy get after it and have Dayne or Gado has a backup.

TheOgre
10-17-2006, 06:56 AM
You can practice until the cows come home, but if you have Seinfield and Kramer blocking and George carrying the ball, you aren't going anywhere.

kingh99
10-17-2006, 08:33 AM
Okay, this is the subject of my latest Chronic FanBlog post, which can be found here: Link (http://blogs.chron.com/fanblogtexans/2006/10/what_is_the_deal_with_the_texa_1.html)

It revisits some stuff you see on the MB and adds some stuff that you might not otherwise see. It is just a thought piece on the lack of running game.

In Kubiak's latest presser (sorry I don't have a link handy), he says that Lundy is going "to get more involved in what they are doing." Translated, Dayne is nicked and isn't showing us anything.

I'd like some other set of eyes who follow the team and see if what I am saying makes some sense. Or not so much.

Sorry it is longish, but wanted to put the info all in one place for posterity. Blogs are kinda funny reading from a historical narrative perspective. The comments are kinda funny looking back at them too.

Ron Dayne is about as smart as a box of hammers and runs like it. Does he have a bounce off tackle move or does he just run straight up the backs our our linemen occassionally fracturing their legs in 3 places?

Texans_Chick
10-17-2006, 08:57 AM
TC- Good article, but it begs some questions. If a scheme isn't working shouldn't one adjust to what is? That just kind of dangles out there for me.

The current line seems to be able to pass block, which is usually harder, but not run block. This I can't get my head around, zone blocking scheme or not, the principle of attack verus react should be easier to impliment.

Although, with a 'sleaker' back(DD or similiar style), some of those 1 yard, or less, gains may have turned into at least three.

Oh yea, I almost forgot both DD and Wells (under appreciated IMHO) ran behind Norris. Could that be a factor too?


I am not sure that the pass blocking is good. It looks better some because Carr is dumping the ball in situations where in the past he would have held on to it and landed on his backside. In addition, especially in the bad weather, they didn't try to send it downfield much this game, so the line doesn't have to hold the blocks long. And also, Carr under this system has more targets downfield typically--there is always a place for the ball to go.

The run blocking has likely suffered for a couple of reasons. When you take heavier guys, and you make them lighter in a short period of time, they might not have as much push. Norris was good at what he did, though I suppose can't do the pass catching role out of the backfield that the new system needs.

The shape of the blocking in the ZBS really does matter to the play calling and setting up other plays to work. When I saw that film deal that Kyle Shanahan showed, he talked about how it was really important to sell the lateral blocks even when the QB was doing a naked boot. He tried to convince Gruden to do that with Tampa Bay, but it made Gruden nervous, so in the TB system, the tackle on the side of the boot sealed the block and didn't just continue to laterally block.

To get a sense of how important the type of blocking is, and whether cut blocks are used or not, check out this 2005 article from Football Outsiders:

Zone Blocking vs. Man Blocking (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2005/03/31/ramblings/stat-analysis/2484/)

It shows stats of different backs under zone blocking and some of the variables related to it.

The conclusion of the article is this:

The "Denver system" isnít a magical pill that a team can swallow to generate 1500 yard rushers with consistency, but obviously it has been successful for running backs in Denver. One reason it has not been widely adopted is time: it takes time to teach, time to master, and time to get the smaller, more agile offensive linemen that the system requires. If you take zone blocking and try to implement it with 340 pound behemoths, you will probably fail, and for better or for worse, 340 pound behemoths are what youíll find on a typical offensive line in the NFL.

real
10-17-2006, 09:08 AM
The run blocking has likely suffered for a couple of reasons. When you take heavier guys, and you make them lighter in a short period of time, they might not have as much push.

Your weight doesn't have as much to do with your push as it has to do with not getting pushed...In fact losing weight gives you more explosion at the point of attack...And in the ZBS it's not as much about push as it is about leverage and position...The ZBS doesn't require much push...and thats why the running backs are taught to one cut and go.....


The shape of the blocking in the ZBS really does matter to the play calling and setting up other plays to work. When I saw that film deal that Kyle Shanahan showed, he talked about how it was really important to sell the lateral blocks even when the QB was doing a naked boot. He tried to convince Gruden to do that with Tampa Bay, but it made Gruden nervous, so in the TB system, the tackle on the side of the boot sealed the block and didn't just continue to laterally block.


This is true....It is especially true of the tackle to the boot side....The harder he comes down and sells the run, the harder that DE will bite on the run and come down the line....A lot of times if the DE is well coached or if the tackle just doesn't sell it, when the QB boots out the DE will have stayed home and be right on him....It's also importand to sell it for the safeties and LB's...But if they don't get that DE to bite it could be real trouble...

thunderkyss
10-17-2006, 09:14 AM
The general thought is that Sherman's man up power block system fits the RBs we have. The line does not fit that system so much. Our zoneblocking system which our line fits we only have two RBs that really fit that-Wali Lundy and Chris Taylor and they both cannot pick up the blitz. If it was me I would likely activate Taylor and let him and Lundy get after it and have Dayne or Gado has a backup.

First, I find it odd, that Dayne doesn't fit a zone blocking offense. He ran it at Wisconsin, and Denver picked him to run it in Denver, and behind that line, he showed promise.

Someone also mentioned that Dayne should be a backup, I don't agree with that either, especially not now, not for this team. We should pound with Dayne, then bring in Lundy or Taylor after Dayne's loosened up the defense. At least until our line learns their assingments, and to play with some intensity.

Let's not Ruin Lundy/Taylor, instead, lets bring them along like Denver has, letting them get a taste of success more times than not when they touch the ball (we can get that by beating up the defense with Dayne). Then next year, increase their role in our offense. Just like Denver has done with Tatum Bell. & When Lundy is ready to be the man, or ChrisTaylor, or whoever we draft next year, or whoever.... then let them be the man.

real
10-17-2006, 09:21 AM
Let's not Ruin Lundy/Taylor, instead, lets bring them along like Denver has, letting them get a taste of success more times than not when they touch the ball (we can get that by beating up the defense with Dayne). Then next year, increase their role in our offense. Just like Denver has done with Tatum Bell. & When Lundy is ready to be the man, or ChrisTaylor, or whoever we draft next year, or whoever.... then let them be the man.

Beat up the defense??? Less than 2yards a carry??? You call that "beating up a defense" ???

I don't know what they were doing in Denver when Dayne had his success...Obviously it wasn't all that...they decided he was expendable...they obviously felt Mike Bell was just as, if not more capable than him....

I am not sure how you can watch Dayne or Gado run and conclude our O-line sucks...They aren't the best but we've always been decent at run blocking...There have been plenty holes...and the backs don't see 'em till Monday morning film session...only thing is then it's too late......

thunderkyss
10-17-2006, 09:33 AM
Your weight doesn't have as much to do with your push as it has to do with not getting pushed...In fact losing weight gives you more explosion at the point of attack...And in the ZBS it's not as much about push as it is about leverage and position...The ZBS doesn't require much push...and thats why the running backs are taught to one cut and go.....


If you watch Denver & Washington, you see the OLmen attacking the DL. If the blocking is to the left, the OL hits the DLmen in their Left Shoulder pad, and push them sideways..... the OL has an advantage 100% of the time, because of this leverage.

In a man blocking system, one man attacks the other straight on, the doubleteams are effective, because the second OLman hits the DLman from an angle, where he is most vulnerable.

So weight aside, not getting pushed shouldn't come into play. The strength of a VonnieHolliday, or a ChrisCanty is negated with the zone blocking system.

All day against Miami, & against Dallas, our guys tried to take the man in front of them, and "pull" him sideways, which makes it easy for the DLman to sweep our guys in the direction of the "push", and work back towards the play.

Texans_Chick
10-17-2006, 09:41 AM
Your weight doesn't have as much to do with your push as it has to do with not getting pushed...In fact losing weight gives you more explosion at the point of attack...And in the ZBS it's not as much about push as it is about leverage and position...The ZBS doesn't require much push...and thats why the running backs are taught to one cut and go.....



This is true....It is especially true of the tackle to the boot side....The harder he comes down and sells the run, the harder that DE will bite on the run and come down the line....A lot of times if the DE is well coached or if the tackle just doesn't sell it, when the QB boots out the DE will have stayed home and be right on him....It's also importand to sell it for the safeties and LB's...But if they don't get that DE to bite it could be real trouble...


ZBS needs guys who have the feet to run it. What I am saying is you try to make guys into something they aren't just by making them go to an arbitrary weight number, they aren't going to magically turn into agile guys.

Losing lots of weight in a short period of time just to make a weight number and without regard to muscle loss is going to reduce your push (and your energy for that matter).

That, and I don't believe we are running a Denver style ZBS with cut blocking.

As for the running back issue, I can't say that I am on the Tkyss love train about Dayne or that he needs to be making Shipley donuts to find a hole. If your blocking is not right, you are going to be running like 2006 Edgerin James. That being said, Dayne has showed me nothing, and it is easier to change backs than it is to remake and reteach the line during the season.

thunderkyss
10-17-2006, 09:44 AM
Beat up the defense??? Less than 2yards a carry??? You call that "beating up a defense" ???

I am not sure how you can watch Dayne or Gado run and conclude our O-line sucks...They aren't the best but we've always been decent at run blocking...There have been plenty holes...and the backs don't see 'em till Monday morning film session...only thing is then it's too late......

funny that Dayne was able to find lanes to cut into against Indy & Washington. but couldn't find any against better run defenses like Miami(allowing 3.0 ypc, #3 in the league) and Dallas(allowing 2.9 ypc good for #2 inn the league).

by your guesstimation, I suppose the EdgerinJames guy is worthless as a running back as well, gaining 1.5 ypc against Chicago(who allows 3.3 ypc, #6 in the league)

& by now, I think it should be clear, that we haven't always been good at runblocking..... DD just made it look that way.

real
10-17-2006, 09:48 AM
All day against Miami, & against Dallas, our guys tried to take the man in front of them, and "pull" him sideways, which makes it easy for the DLman to sweep our guys in the direction of the "push", and work back towards the play.

Kyss...I honestly don't think our lineman were doing that...I can't really say because I didn't re-watch the game...I am going to watch the next game and grade every OL...

I am very well versed in ZBS...not to toot my own horn but I am....I know the steps, the angles, all that....Im not saying you're wrong but If the lineman are doing things wrong I'll find 'em...

People always say you can plug any back into the ZBS...IMO it's easier on the lineman to block the scheme...Doesn't require as much strength...Don't have to up-root guys...And you don't have to be the strongest lineman...As a lineman in the scheme you do have to take the right steps, and the right angles and you want to be athletic and be able to move...It's more of a finness running stlye than a power running style...

That's why I put more blame on the backs, because IMO they just don't fit the system...They don't find the seams...They don't cut back...

As you mentioned above about getting "pushed in the direction of the play"....
1) the lineman can cut the man they are engaged with to stop pursuit.
2) you don't want to generally cut D-lineman(especially not on the play side)
3) All of the lineman don't have to out leverage their man...If you can't get leverage you are taught to just push past the hole and the RB is supposed to cut back off of that block...The ZBS requires cuts...period...Our RB's aren't making cuts, so Im not really sure if we aren't running ZBS or what...But Im going to record the next game and we can talk about it for real....

real
10-17-2006, 09:50 AM
That, and I don't believe we are running a Denver style ZBS with cut blocking.


Yeah there seems to be a lot of confusion on this issue...

real
10-17-2006, 09:56 AM
funny that Dayne was able to find lanes to cut into against Indy & Washington. but couldn't find any against better run defenses like Miami(allowing 3.0 ypc, #3 in the league) and Dallas(allowing 2.9 ypc good for #2 inn the league).

Dayne hasn't had a great game yet...Not even against one of the worst run defenses in the leauge(indy)....Im not sure what you see in Dayne, but what I see is a guy that doesn't have the quickness or lateral speed required to make quick cuts...IMO he is a good down hill runner and would be good in Pittsburg, but for what we are trying to do he isn't getting it done...

by your guesstimation, I suppose the EdgerinJames guy is worthless as a running back as well, gaining 1.5 ypc against Chicago(who allows 3.3 ypc, #6 in the league)

No Edge was gettin hit in the backfield a majority of the time...He really had no where to go...Our guys are rarely getting hit or met in the backfield or the LOS for that matter...Our O-line hasn't had a game that bad this year...but they still managed more rushing yards than us...

& by now, I think it should be clear, that we haven't always been good at runblocking..... DD just made it look that way.

DD was a decent back...He was good in our system...I am not going to say he made our running game because I just don't think he was that kind of player...

texan279
10-17-2006, 10:03 AM
Dayne hasn't had a great game yet...Not even against one of the worst run defenses in the leauge(indy)....Im not sure what you see in Dayne, but what I see is a guy that doesn't have the quickness or lateral speed required to make quick cuts...IMO he is a good down hill runner and would be good in Pittsburg, but for what we are trying to do he isn't getting it done...



No Edge was gettin hit in the backfield a majority of the time...He really had no where to go...Our guys are rarely getting hit or met in the backfield or the LOS for that matter...Our O-line hasn't had a game that bad this year...but they still managed more rushing yards than us...



DD was a decent back...He was good in our system...I am not going to say he made our running game because I just don't think he was that kind of player...

IMO Davis was a good back, and while he was playing our running game was good. Take Davis out, insert Gado and Dayne, bad backs, and our running game begins to suck. Another good post BTW.

real
10-17-2006, 10:10 AM
IMO Davis was a good back, and while he was playing our running game was good. Take Davis out, insert Gado and Dayne, bad backs, and our running game begins to suck. Another good post BTW.

DD is definitely better than the backs we have now...

real
10-17-2006, 10:14 AM
ZBS needs guys who have the feet to run it. What I am saying is you try to make guys into something they aren't just by making them go to an arbitrary weight number, they aren't going to magically turn into agile guys.

I agree...I was 330 lbs when I was in highschool....I played LT...Going into my senior year my coach asked me to lose weight...He said that the scheme we ran(ZBS) wasn't suited for lineman over 300 lbs...I lost about 15 lbs, but I was good so I manged....

texansfaninca8892
10-17-2006, 10:45 AM
Either Dayne's getting the axe or they are going to try to trade for Michael Turner, LT's back up.

thunderkyss
10-17-2006, 11:47 AM
Dayne hasn't had a great game yet...Not even against one of the worst run defenses in the leauge(indy)....Im not sure what you see in Dayne, but what I see is a guy that doesn't have the quickness or lateral speed required to make quick cuts...IMO he is a good down hill runner and would be good in Pittsburg, but for what we are trying to do he isn't getting it done...

against one of the worse run defenses in the league(Indy) Ron Dayne had 11 carries. not enough to say either way. But he showed flashes of busting through the line, ripping off big (8 yard) runs.
against a much better run defense in Washington, 3.8ypc, Dayne avg'd 4.1 ypc.
in both games, he made several cuts to take an inside run off tackle.

No Edge was gettin hit in the backfield a majority of the time...He really had no where to go...Our guys are rarely getting hit or met in the backfield or the LOS for that matter...Our O-line hasn't had a game that bad this year...but they still managed more rushing yards than us...

Nope, Dayne was getting hit in the backfield, when he finished, the run was for no gain. When he got hit at the LOS, the run was for 3 yards....

DD was a decent back...He was good in our system...I am not going to say he made our running game because I just don't think he was that kind of player...

:ok:

Vambo, the Marble Eye
10-17-2006, 12:31 PM
Our problem is that our RB's can't find the hole. They got the downhill running part right, but they put their head down and even though there's a huge hole in their vinicity they can't get to it because they lowered their head and can't see it. This is what everybody should look at. How many times have we seen the RB's cut back or change directions? I'm not asking to argue or whatever, but if you could show me where you've seen it let me know, because I sure haven't seen it.

We NEVER run outside... is this just a concession that we can not do it? (Hint: the opposition my actually game plan this, right?)

:yawn:

texan279
10-17-2006, 02:07 PM
We NEVER run outside... is this just a concession that we can not do it? (Hint: the opposition my actually game plan this, right?)

:yawn:

Our backs do not have the speed or vision to take it outside IMO. Several times against Dallas I saw where our backs had an open half field on one side and they run right into the middle of the pile.

El Tejano
10-17-2006, 02:59 PM
Our backs do not have the speed or vision to take it outside IMO. Several times against Dallas I saw where our backs had an open half field on one side and they run right into the middle of the pile.

Okay so I am not an ***** for thinking I saw the same thing. Heck even Andre Ware has been seeing that.

kcwilson
10-17-2006, 04:13 PM
After reading the thread, I think you can conclude the following:

(1) There is no absolute solution.
(2) Problems exist on many levels and different positions.
(3) A single replacement will not change the makup of the game torequire no more tweaking.
(4) The further away one is from an ideal situation, the greater amount of iterations in adjusting/optimizing need to take place to reach that ideal.
(5) Reggie Bush solves all of the above problems :sarcasm:
(6) Vince Young would have solved these problems by distracting the crowd from realizing these problems. :sarcasm:

BlueThunder
10-17-2006, 04:28 PM
I'm really begaining to think the QB isn't all there...He had plenty of miss matches he could have taken advantage of and didn't.I think a change there would be a good move.I don't even want these QB complacent thinking they don't have to make the play..It just seams from watching the offense operates better with Rosenfeilds running it..I do realize the game was pretty much over but things just look more settled with the 2nd team QB and thats not normal.We need wins or atleast hope!

kcwilson
10-17-2006, 04:34 PM
I'm really begaining to think the QB isn't all there...He had plenty of miss matches he could have taken advantage of and didn't.I think a change there would be a good move.I don't even want these QB complacent thinking they don't have to make the play..It just seams from watching the offense operates better with Rosenfeilds running it..I do realize the game was pretty much over but things just look more settled with the 2nd team QB and thats not normal.We need wins or atleast hope!

It is much more settling against a 2nd string defense... that really isn't bringing any pressure.

Are you serious? How can you dog Carr's play so far to date this season... much less think that bringing in Sage will strengthen the running game, which is what this thread is about. With that logic, we should just bring on the entire second string to start against Jacksonville.

Scooter
10-17-2006, 04:35 PM
I'm really begaining to think the QB isn't all there...He had plenty of miss matches he could have taken advantage of and didn't.I think a change there would be a good move.I don't even want these QB complacent thinking they don't have to make the play..It just seams from watching the offense operates better with Rosenfeilds running it..I do realize the game was pretty much over but things just look more settled with the 2nd team QB and thats not normal.We need wins or atleast hope!

i'm officially impressed. you took a thread concerning problems with the running game, ignored it's direction completely, and decided that the backup qb would be the best thing for the team based on 40 seconds of playtime.

Mr. Thunder, what you've just said is one of the most insanely *****ic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

kcwilson
10-17-2006, 04:40 PM
I'm really begaining to think the QB isn't all there...He had plenty of miss matches he could have taken advantage of and didn't.I think a change there would be a good move.I don't even want these QB complacent thinking they don't have to make the play..It just seams from watching the offense operates better with Rosenfeilds running it..I do realize the game was pretty much over but things just look more settled with the 2nd team QB and thats not normal.We need wins or atleast hope!

Ok, not to beat a dead horse, but I will...

I was taking a leak, bothered at this thought entirely too much, and was reminded of that Simpsons episode where Homer is asked a question, and then Homer's brain tells him to not say something, then Homer says exactly what his brain told him not to say, and then Homer's brain gets fed up and says "That's it!" then you hear the sound of a door open and the footsteps going downstairs, implying that Homer's brain left his head because of being fed up with Homer not listening to him.

Yeah, that is what I think just happened, Blue. Do you hear the footsteps?

Vambo, the Marble Eye
10-17-2006, 05:05 PM
I'm really begaining to think the QB isn't all there...He had plenty of miss matches he could have taken advantage of and didn't.I think a change there would be a good move.I don't even want these QB complacent thinking they don't have to make the play..It just seams from watching the offense operates better with Rosenfeilds running it..I do realize the game was pretty much over but things just look more settled with the 2nd team QB and thats not normal.We need wins or atleast hope!

"better with Rosenfields running it"... when have you seen him operate, PRESEASON? Give me a break.

There has been one constant - Kubiak has committed to running the ball! Ask anybody what the Texans spent their time practicing during the bye week... yep you got it-"run zone blocking" so the Texans could re-establish their committment to running the ball. What did we do??? Run the ball into a pile for no f'ing yards. When you don't run the ball in the NFL..."welcome to single dimension land" and the inevitable result.

But your suggestion to change out the quarterback for Rosenfields is like a shade tree mechanic wiggling a wire on your battery cable when your truck has run out of gas. Yeah, the mechanic is "doing something" and you can have "hope" your engine is going to start.. but in the end it is pretty damn stupid idea and maybe you are the only one that doesn't know it. :brickwall

thunderkyss
10-18-2006, 08:25 AM
I'm really begaining to think the QB isn't all there...He had plenty of miss matches he could have taken advantage of and didn't.

I've yet to break down the game, and look at the passing plays as well as the run game. I noticed mismatches in the run game, that we should have audibled out of, and take advantage of....

I've got to imagine they weren't there in the passing game. I'm hoping they weren't there & a linebacker(like GregEllis) kept Moulds, Walter, or Owen from having a big game.

But it looked like there was no lattitude to change the play. Our guys went to the line, and ran the play. Neither Sage or Carr did anything at the line, no changing blocking assignments, or audibles, or anything.

I think a change there would be a good move.I don't even want these QB complacent thinking they don't have to make the play..It just seams from watching the offense operates better with Rosenfeilds running it..I do realize the game was pretty much over but things just look more settled with the 2nd team QB and thats not normal.We need wins or atleast hope!

It definitely didn't look any more settled. When Sage came in, we went to 3 & 4 WR sets, and Dallas came with their pass rushing defense(a typical 4-3 nickel) Ellis handled Winston on most occasions, and Ware backed Sallaam & Bedell up a lot more than I would've liked.

Sage is in a pretty good position right now. He can come into a game, and play avg, and people will love him. Mainly because if he gets in a game, it's because someone has played so badly, that we can't possibly come back.

All that changes when you're the man.

Tampa, Tennessee, Arizona, KC(??) they all seem to be doing better with their new QB, but if there is any team in the NFL that would go against the grain, it's going to be the HoustonTexans.

Let's let Kubiak do his thing, teach our guys to play the right way. I still think we should continue with Carr...... yeah, we've got some QB issues that need to be worked out, but nothing we didn't expect coming into the season.

Same with the OL, & the Defense..

threetoedpete
10-18-2006, 08:53 AM
Either Dayne's getting the axe or they are going to try to trade for Michael Turner, LT's back up.

Well all I'd like to know is this the year we leave the pretty skill guys alone in day one and go after some beef ? inquiring minds want to know ?

Buchanan is a bad example TF, but Rick Smith couldn't get a car wash with a wax job for him. One of the primary reasons this team sucks , is because the prior regieme squandered, (may I use that term ?) draft choices for poor players. Now, your solution to the deliema is to do what ? The same thing ?
San Deigo, in the middle of a play off push is not going to throw away LT's priamry back up. What you're talking about is day one draft choices. A couple of 'em. Nope, you don't throw away your move up ammo a year befor you're going to need it. We feel your pain. But his pig is just going to have to wallow for a spell.

And for the record, if our GM is incapable of going after players others than the ones the coaches have sniffed. That's the coaches groceries. Not Rick Smith's. Just saying. I can see what's coming next. Off the scap heap DTs are just as bad as off the scap heap RBs. You fellas can put mucho lip stick on it, but a pig is still a pig.

Bottom line is, you gamble in the draft on lineman by waiting,hoping to hit gold in rounds two, three and four you pay the price. We're paying that price now, with interest. You always build a new franchise from the inside out. Not the outside in. :twocents:

real
10-18-2006, 08:58 AM
Well all I'd like to know is this the year we leave the pretty skill guys alone in day one and go after some beef ? inquiring minds want to know ?

Bottom line is, you gamble in the draft on lineman by waiting,hoping to hit gold in rounds two, three and four you pay the price. We're paying that price now, with interest. You always build a new franchise from the inside out. Not the outside in. :twocents:


I believe it's been about even....Travis,Babin, Mario....A.J,Carr,D.Rob....Am I missing someone ???

threetoedpete
10-18-2006, 09:07 AM
I'm really begaining to think the QB isn't all there...He had plenty of miss matches he could have taken advantage of and didn't.I think a change there would be a good move.I don't even want these QB complacent thinking they don't have to make the play..It just seams from watching the offense operates better with Rosenfeilds running it..I do realize the game was pretty much over but things just look more settled with the 2nd team QB and thats not normal.We need wins or atleast hope!

Ok, I get it. You hate Carr. Can we move on please. No running game. He's hitting the guys in their numbers with balls, and he's still unsatrisfactory in your opinion. He's running a chitty offense with little or no support from the organization. I'm to the point now I hope he gets he knee torn up just to shut you guys tfu. It's no longer a function of Carrs play. Your pejudice against him. And they call that there thing a bigot TK. Wear it well Bro.

real
10-18-2006, 09:14 AM
I have a hard time understanding why Kubes went out and got Sherman to coach the O-line...If we are going to try to run the ZBS why didn't he go get an O-line coach from a team that ran ZBS...or atleast someone who was familar with it....Heck he could have even brought someone over from Denver that was familar with it...

Texans_Chick
10-18-2006, 09:21 AM
I have a hard time understanding why Kubes went out and got Sherman to coach the O-line...If we are going to try to run the ZBS why didn't he go get an O-line coach from a team that ran ZBS...or atleast someone who was familar with it....Heck he could have even brought someone over from Denver that was familar with it...

That is what I would like for the real media to ask:

Is the offensive line blocking coached different than the Denver ZBS, (I am pretty sure the answer is yes, but you can't find that info anywhere), and if so, how and why?

I am quite sure that Sherman is familiar with zone blocking--I am just wondering why they are running it the way they are.

threetoedpete
10-18-2006, 09:34 AM
I believe it's been about even....Travis,Babin, Mario....A.J,Carr,D.Rob....Am I missing someone ???

You have an unequal equation there Royal. I got Babs and the Johnson not named Derick in the duds column. Jury is still out on Mario. If you're saying we drafted them first round yes. I'm saying there ain't an o lineman amongst that lot. You pick guys in the first, and yes there's no gaurentee, you looking for a little more than servicable ablity out to them. My point was...do we stick to the same old theme of going after the Adrian Peterson's, LaRon Landry's or does this franchise do a 360 and actually have more than a BPA plan this year ? The BPA plan, by these results, has not been effective for this oganization. At some point, you've gotta fix the o-line. That's paramount. Everything else is hog wash. Drafting a stud wr when you can't get the ball down the feild is just...stupid. Drafting a power running back for a zone blocking scheme team...is just stupid. Especailly when they can't open holes with the personel they have now ? Free safty is a critacal need. I can't ague that. Corner is a critacal need I can't argue that one either. But if you can't run the ball, can't protect the QB to throw down the feild, waiting for someone to drop in your lap after five drafts, is not acceptible to me any more. Fix the GD o-line. Then we can go after the pretty skill players. Untill they do that, it's going to be the same old same old year after year . Kubs is a greatg leadeer, Carr sucks, what's wrong with the o-line...yada yada yada...

Just getting old.

HOU-TEX
10-18-2006, 09:34 AM
I have a hard time understanding why Kubes went out and got Sherman to coach the O-line...If we are going to try to run the ZBS why didn't he go get an O-line coach from a team that ran ZBS...or atleast someone who was familar with it....Heck he could have even brought someone over from Denver that was familar with it...

Good point! That thought crossed my mind when we brought him in here. I didn't think much of it at the time. Personally, I believe he was brought in to be a mentor type of coach for Kubiak. It appears his influence on the offense has been detrimental to the ZBS. :twocents:

mexican_texan
10-18-2006, 10:59 AM
Broncos | Team works out L. Suggs
Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:59:28 -0700

Bill Williamson, of the Denver Post, reports the Denver Broncos worked out free agent RB Lee Suggs (Browns) Tuesday, Oct. 17.

Proof that we are going after Lee Suggs.

ojthecat
10-18-2006, 11:57 AM
That is what I would like for the real media to ask:

Is the offensive line blocking coached different than the Denver ZBS, (I am pretty sure the answer is yes, but you can't find that info anywhere), and if so, how and why?

I am quite sure that Sherman is familiar with zone blocking--I am just wondering why they are running it the way they are.

I can not blame the coach for our lack of blocking and running. Blame Sherman if you want but name 2 of our linemen that would be starting on any other team. The fact is out talent is sub par.

Vinny
10-18-2006, 11:59 AM
Proof that we are going after Lee Suggs.

They have better backs than us but they are still working out guys like Suggs.

*sigh*

real
10-18-2006, 11:59 AM
I can not blame the coach for our lack of blocking and running. Blame Sherman if you want but name 2 of our linemen that would be starting on any other team. The fact is out talent is sub par.

Pitts...Flannagan....McKinney....Spencer(if healthy)....

Now name ONE of our RB's that would start with another team....

Vinny
10-18-2006, 12:00 PM
McKinney and Flannagan would have trouble starting anywhere else imo

Runner
10-18-2006, 12:02 PM
I can not blame the coach for our lack of blocking and running.

I can.

The moves the new regime has made on the o-line have been mixed. One very good draft pick (if we can judge by 1.5 games of regular season play), one draft pick we have little game data on, and some free agent signings that are as much to blame for the poor blocking as Pitts, Weary, and McKinney. Make no mistake - the existing Texans players get their share of the blame, but the new additions haven't shown much either.

Talent evaluation is a big part of coaching, as is putting the player in a position to succeed.

real
10-18-2006, 12:02 PM
McKinney and Flannagan would have trouble starting anywhere else imo

I think they could start in Oakland and Arizona...for sure...

Vinny
10-18-2006, 12:05 PM
I think they could start in Oakland and Arizona...for sure...

Grove Jake and Barry Sims are not bad inside so I don't think they could start at Oakland. They have Tackle problems. Arizona has good young centers in Nick Leckey and Alex Stepanovich...but they do start Milford Brown at G.

mexican_texan
10-18-2006, 01:05 PM
Green Bay probably would've started Flannagan.

Texans_Chick
10-18-2006, 01:24 PM
I can not blame the coach for our lack of blocking and running. Blame Sherman if you want but name 2 of our linemen that would be starting on any other team. The fact is out talent is sub par.

Well yeah the talent is not what you want.

The reason in a copy cat league that more teams do not copy Denver's success with their form of ZBS is that it is difficult to get the personnel in place to run it and it is difficult to teach. Denver's line gets good at what they do because the kind of linemen they are makes them less attractive to teams that use more road grater linemen.

Atlanta has had some recent success with their run game, but they were able to steal Alex Gibbs. Sherman was probably the best out of the offensive line coaches we could have gotten in the offseasion.

Sherman and Kubiak are involved with talent evaluation, who they keep and who they don't. I think there was some belief that through Sherman's experience, the guys they had could be coached up. Probably more wishful thinking than not, and they were jinxed as it related to Spencer, but with all the holes the team has, it is hard to get all the guys you want in one offseason.

Vinny
10-18-2006, 01:35 PM
Denver's line gets good at what they do because the kind of linemen they are makes them less attractive to teams that use more road grater linemen.also, Denver didn't get great production overnight. Most of their players have been in the same system for a while now. Stability and gathering your kind of player one piece at a time takes longer than one offseason with the kind of line we had.

tsip
10-18-2006, 02:52 PM
Well yeah the talent is not what you want.

The reason in a copy cat league that more teams do not copy Denver's success with their form of ZBS is that it is difficult to get the personnel in place to run it and it is difficult to teach. Denver's line gets good at what they do because the kind of linemen they are makes them less attractive to teams that use more road grater linemen.

Atlanta has had some recent success with their run game, but they were able to steal Alex Gibbs. Sherman was probably the best out of the offensive line coaches we could have gotten in the offseasion.

Sherman and Kubiak are involved with talent evaluation, who they keep and who they don't. I think there was some belief that through Sherman's experience, the guys they had could be coached up. Probably more wishful thinking than not, and they were jinxed as it related to Spencer, but with all the holes the team has, it is hard to get all the guys you want in one offseason.


...and what if we never get those 'rare,special' players that can mesh together to form a kind of OL that is even rarer in the NFL than the players needed to play it successfully....

...trying so hard to be 'Denver South' may be our 'down fall'

instead, with a larger pool of players to pick from, maybe we should have started with a more traditional OL that would have probably 'played' to our player's strength... WOW,,,Gary promised to do that....

Texans_Chick
10-18-2006, 03:57 PM
...and what if we never get those 'rare,special' players that can mesh together to form a kind of OL that is even rarer in the NFL than the players needed to play it successfully....

...trying so hard to be 'Denver South' may be our 'down fall'

instead, with a larger pool of players to pick from, maybe we should have started with a more traditional OL that would have probably 'played' to our player's strength... WOW,,,Gary promised to do that....

That is a question that I repeatedly talked about on my Chronic blog this summer. Can you replicate the Denver system?

A lot of Denver fans believe you can with Kubiak and the other Denver hires, but that you have to have patience to get the right personnel in, and that it takes some time before you feel comfortable enough with what you are doing so that you are just playing the game and not thinking so much.

I guess we get to find out.

ojthecat
10-18-2006, 04:01 PM
Well yeah the talent is not what you want.



Exactly, Look once we get a better Running back and 2 more OL that are of at least average talent, we will not be having this discussion. We have 2 very competent offensive minded coaches and to blame them when we all know that we do not have even average talent well I belive that is wrong.

We got into this mess because of bad talent evaluation and injurys. It will take a couple of more drafts to get us out of our mess. But I cant wait for the day the we can and do control the line by running the ball.

tsip
10-18-2006, 04:56 PM
That is a question that I repeatedly talked about on my Chronic blog this summer. Can you replicate the Denver system?

A lot of Denver fans believe you can with Kubiak and the other Denver hires, but that you have to have patience to get the right personnel in, and that it takes some time before you feel comfortable enough with what you are doing so that you are just playing the game and not thinking so much.

I guess we get to find out.

Now-if we continue on the Denver way-the question becomes what will happen first-- a) we get there or b) we run out of time--a scenario not unlike what faced Capers.....

Texans_Chick
10-18-2006, 05:05 PM
Now-if we continue on the Denver way-the question becomes what will happen first-- a) we get there or b) we run out of time--a scenario not unlike what faced Capers.....

Kubiak has an offensive philosophy. One that has put up wildly prolific numbers in Denver.

Capers had no offensive philosophy other than hoping that the offense held on to the ball. It was a mish mash of Palmer, Capers meddling with Palmer, Pendry-Palmer having dissimilar philosophies--basically a mess.

I do not see the scenario the same, other than fans do not have much patience. I have no confidence, based on what I saw of Capers ball that any amount of time he was given would had led to that offense looking any better.

Most assistant coaches become head coaches because there is something that they have done that they are good at that they can take with them someplace else. So you want to have a borrowed philosophy to some degree because something born of nothing is not likely to work.

HJam72
10-18-2006, 05:32 PM
I think the previous regime sucked, as a whole, and the new regime needs time, mainly to get the right players in place. Time that we are only reluctantly putting up with because the past regime inadvertantly screwed us out of 4 yrs. of buildup that should have us playing highly competitive football by now. We're just going to have to deal with it as fans. I'm sure that Kubiak can get us going in the right direction, but this year is sadly going to be one where it is hard to see what little progress has been made. The O-line is neither right for Kubiak's ZBS, nor right for traditional run blocking. It's stuck in the middle right now, so we may not even be better than last year, except that Carr is being coached well for a change and will hopefully turn out to be at least descent. I don't want to get all into Carr talk, but I believe he's shown major improvement despite the 2 ints. Sunday and other obvious arguments against that belief. I've no doubt at least that he's getting coached well and that's really my only point right now about him.