PDA

View Full Version : Rushing Attempts


Jwwillis
10-06-2004, 07:02 PM
Even without star running back Domanick Davis, the Texans rushed a franchise-high 40 times for 162 yards (105 by third-string back Jonathan Wells) against a Raiders defensive line that included Warren Sapp and Ted Washington

By JOSEPH DUARTE
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

END

Funny, I haven't seen any of the fire Palmer cause we are too conservative threads this week. Especially given the above statistic. Winning changes everything for the arm-chair QB's :rofl:

Blake
10-06-2004, 07:06 PM
I see your point. But its not the rushing alot that bugs people. Its the rushing alot without ANY sucess. When they shut you down on the ground, you need to look air.

Yes, we did run alot on Sunday, but it was effective running.

Reddevil63
10-06-2004, 07:07 PM
Ya it was 40 times but we had over 4 yards per carry. If we can run with success then its not a problem but sticking with something that isnt working is what gets under peoples skin.

rhc564
10-06-2004, 07:22 PM
...offense was mixed up Sunday-- look at Johnson's numbers-- will be
interesting to see how we do on the play calling this week-- were'nt
we 2-2 last year?

rhc564
10-06-2004, 07:28 PM
...just one other point-- while the 'fire Palmer' folks ask for his head
when the team loses, I think it's great they give him a little respect
when the offense is more balanced and the team wins. I'd be more con-
cerned if they were still being negative... :headbang:

aj.
10-06-2004, 07:29 PM
A quote from Gil Brandt's fantasy column on NFL.com for the "air it out" crowd:

"Despite the universal prediction that passing would increase this season, teams that ran more than they passed were 11-1 last week. In Week 3, teams that ran more were 6-1; the only team to lose that week despite running more was Kansas City, and that's because they allowed a defensive touchdown against the Texans."

Jwwillis
10-06-2004, 07:29 PM
Call me old school but you can't have one without the other and be consistant. Run opens up the pass the pass opens up the run. I've seen several occasions where passing has failed on 3 downs in a row but never hear anyone screaming RUN THE BALL. Its the quick strike that is alluring but is similar to the 3pt shot in Basketball...your odds go down. The Chiefs are a good example of a team that can fool an inexpierenced arm-chair boy. The Chiefs, at the time of game 3, had the most tackles for negative yardage but were also in the top 5 in rushing yardage allowed. This means SOMEBODY kept trying and succeeded. Defenses wear down toward the end of a game, mistakes are made, and like a long pass play, a running play can go all the way at anytime even after 10 stuffs in a row. All you do by giving up the run and game plan is give the defense 1 less thing to worry about. I do not recall any regular season game this year where ANY of our running backs have been completely stuffed for a whole game.

Jwwillis
10-06-2004, 07:45 PM
...just one other point-- while the 'fire Palmer' folks ask for his head
when the team loses, I think it's great they give him a little respect
when the offense is more balanced and the team wins. I'd be more con-
cerned if they were still being negative... :headbang:

This is the funny part. How exactally did they run a more balanced O compared to the last 3 weeks? If anything they ran more. The diffrence as most would agree is Carr had time to throw and the Texans won the ever important turnover battle. NOTHING to do with Palmer.

aj.
10-06-2004, 07:50 PM
Hmm. Must be execution then. Fancy that.

blockhead83
10-06-2004, 08:17 PM
I think the number of run plays are more a result of the wins than the wins being a result of the number of run plays. By that I mean of course the teams that won more often ran it more often. Losing teams have to revert to passing the ball to catch up, and winning teams run more often to run the clock. I wouldn't invest too much into that statistic.

rhc564
10-06-2004, 08:50 PM
This is the funny part. How exactally did they run a more balanced O compared to the last 3 weeks? If anything they ran more. The diffrence as most would agree is Carr had time to throw and the Texans won the ever important turnover battle. NOTHING to do with Palmer.


yeah, right---both sides now, huh

Jwwillis
10-06-2004, 09:05 PM
I think the number of run plays are more a result of the wins than the wins being a result of the number of run plays. By that I mean of course the teams that won more often ran it more often. Losing teams have to revert to passing the ball to catch up, and winning teams run more often to run the clock. I wouldn't invest too much into that statistic.

Agreed, however the Texans were ahead and able to control the clock because Carr had time to make the DB's pay and won the turnover battle. Not because Palmer "mixed it up better". Thats all I'm sayin idonno:

TexansTrueFan
10-06-2004, 09:32 PM
The only thing i see people complain about is when its 3rd down and 16 and we run it up the middle when its an obvious passing situation. Like we did a few times against SD and Detroit. But we havent done that in the last 2 games so maybe thats why there is no more fire Palmer threads !

Jwwillis
10-06-2004, 10:48 PM
The only thing i see people complain about is when its 3rd down and 16 and we run it up the middle when its an obvious passing situation. Like we did a few times against SD and Detroit. But we havent done that in the last 2 games so maybe thats why there is no more fire Palmer threads !

Maybe you should go back and read a few more posts. Besides, calling passing plays on obvious passing downs isnt what they pay Palmer to do. Even you can call that one.They pay him to come up with creative plays that try to take advantage of various 3rd and 16 defensive packages. As a matter of fact I would say a pass down field on 3rd and 16 is more conservative than a draw or screen. Also, how many times has Palmer called the pass play on 3rd and 16 only for Carr to see a cover 4 with 5 in the box? Of course he is going to check down to a run when DD can break it for 16 no prob after he gets past the line. Of course If it doesnt work " Fire Palmer " he is too conservative.

infantrycak
10-06-2004, 10:49 PM
I see your point. But its not the rushing alot that bugs people. Its the rushing alot without ANY sucess. When they shut you down on the ground, you need to look air.

Yes, we did run alot on Sunday, but it was effective running.

BS--DD had a 4.1 ypc average against the Chargers and a 14 yard per completion average and people were complaining. It is mostly about the winning, i.e. consistant execution.

Grid
10-06-2004, 11:16 PM
where are the rest of the stats? How about time of possession? did we have the ball more against oakland than we did against the other 3 teams? id say thats probably the case since we had 5 turnovers.

how about how many times did we rush in the fourth quarter while trying to run down the clock?

How about.. how many times did we pass the ball? More than previous games? id bet we passed it more cause it sure seemed like it in the game.


Yah we rushed 40 times.. but we still had a more balanced attack. We passed more.. and they werent dump off passes... and we rushed at the RIGHT TIMES (except those 3 times on the 7 yard line).

And its not just the amount of rushes that was pissing people off.. it was the overuse of D. Davis. In the first 2 games.. if we werent handing it off to him.. chances are we were dumping it off to him.


All that aside.. do we have to play the "im a better fan cause i didnt complain" game? if someone makes a STUPID negative comment about the team.. yah.. tear them a new one. But if there are INTELLIGENT debates with valid points being made, i dont think that qualifies as "bad fans". So why dont we drop the whole back patting party.

infantrycak
10-06-2004, 11:33 PM
And its not just the amount of rushes that was pissing people off.. it was the overuse of D. Davis. In the first 2 games.. if we werent handing it off to him.. chances are we were dumping it off to him.

I disagree. DD doesn't fumble those two times in San Diego and walks out of the game with the team winning and 157 yards total, then people are crowning him the next Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes franchise back. Instead he fumbled 4 times in two games and the sky is falling folks need a reason (why I don't know since turnovers are the single greatest indicator of who wins a game) for the loss and pin it on DD got the ball too much, oh no we had too many 10.4 yd passing plays (otherwise known as 1st downs) to DD or my favorite--we are overusing him, that is why he fumbles--when two of his fumbles came on the 8th and 11th plays of the first two games.

Sure we should be having intelligent debates, but part of that includes a recognition that not everything that occured in a losing game is a bad thing.

Here is an example of such an argument:

We lost the San Diego game because the Texans were forcing the ball to AJ. The 1st drive ended on an incompletion to AJ when the dump-off pass to DD was available and would have gone for the 1st down. Both of Carr's INT's were intended for AJ the obvious target. Teams know AJ is the star so they prepare for it. If Carr had taken the safe pass on each of those three occasions the Texans would have won.

What iffing (especially play calling) is easy, but overlooks the most obvious--execution.

Andre Carr
10-06-2004, 11:51 PM
I was very satisfied with the play calling this past weekend . It did'nt seem as though we ran the ball as much . I guess its because we were'nt running in obvious passing situations . Wells really impressed me too .

Grid
10-07-2004, 12:55 AM
Yes but he did fumble and that forces us to look at the other tools we have available and ask why we arent using them more. of course when you are winning no one cares if you are just handing it off to the RB 99% of the time.. but when you are losing.. even if it is just because of turnovers.. then you have to ask yourself "what are you doing wrong"

Now.. you are trying to make it seem as though i dont think DD did a good job.. he DID play awesomely.. but he also made costly mistakes. We have a very talented receiving corp and a very talented QB who were NOT getting used enough in those games.. so yes.. im going to say something about it.. even if DD DID put up great yardage. Doesnt matter if we lost.

If DD comes back this week, and we start playing him again like we did the first two weeks.. expect me to be talking about Palmers shoddy playcalling again. If nothing else, the two weeks without Davis have shown that we CAN win games without him.. that being the case.. having him in the game should be a BONUS.. not our entire offense. Giving him the ball 2 out of 3 downs every game is squandering the talent we have at other positions.

footballbutterfly
10-07-2004, 08:51 AM
Okay, first let me say that I love our RBs! Still, I think that the vast majority of possessions the play call is predictable - Run, Run, Pass. I am an "air it out" advocate, but I agree that we should not stifle the run game. The only point I want to make is that we should not run THREE run plays in the red zone when the first (and then the second!) yield no gain! Try a play action to one of our tight ends or Johnson. I am not anti-Palmer nor anti-run game, but I am against settling for 3 instead of taking a SMALL chance and going for 6. :twocents:

aj.
10-07-2004, 12:41 PM
The running was not the problem before. It was the fact that Palmer ran 90% or first downs. When was "before?" I just looked at the two losses and the Texans ran 68% of the time on first down against SD, and 56% of the time on first down against Detroit. I excluded the final drive of the game from the Det number since it was hurry-up and almost exclusively pass. Against Oakland they ran on first down 61% of the time which appears to be about normal for this offense based on the other games. The Oak number excludes the kneel downs at the end and counts the Carr scramble at the end of the half as a pass.

Jwwillis
10-07-2004, 01:28 PM
where are the rest of the stats? How about time of possession? did we have the ball more against oakland than we did against the other 3 teams? id say thats probably the case since we had 5 turnovers.

how about how many times did we rush in the fourth quarter while trying to run down the clock?

How about.. how many times did we pass the ball? More than previous games? id bet we passed it more cause it sure seemed like it in the game.


Yah we rushed 40 times.. but we still had a more balanced attack. We passed more.. and they werent dump off passes... and we rushed at the RIGHT TIMES (except those 3 times on the 7 yard line).

And its not just the amount of rushes that was pissing people off.. it was the overuse of D. Davis. In the first 2 games.. if we werent handing it off to him.. chances are we were dumping it off to him.


All that aside.. do we have to play the "im a better fan cause i didnt complain" game? if someone makes a STUPID negative comment about the team.. yah.. tear them a new one. But if there are INTELLIGENT debates with valid points being made, i dont think that qualifies as "bad fans". So why dont we drop the whole back patting party.

Saying DD fumbles because Palmer is running the wrong plays or DD is over used IS a stupid negative comment. However my post was not directed at anyone in specific.

TheOgre
10-07-2004, 02:07 PM
When interviewed on 610 radio the other day, Mack Brown stated that the 10 teams in the NFL last week with more running plays than passing plays were 10-0 last weekend.

infantrycak
10-07-2004, 02:12 PM
When interviewed on 610 radio the other day, Mack Brown stated that the 10 teams in the NFL last week with more running plays than passing plays were 10-0 last weekend.

Gil Brandt had a similar statement:

Despite the universal prediction that passing would increase this season, teams that ran more than they passed were 11-1 last week. In Week 3, teams that ran more were 6-1; the only team to lose that week despite running more was Kansas City, and that's because they allowed a defensive touchdown against the Texans.

Link (http://www.nfl.com/fantasy/story/7772812)

Grid
10-07-2004, 02:45 PM
Saying DD fumbles because Palmer is running the wrong plays or DD is over used IS a stupid negative comment

lucky for me i didnt say that then.

cuppacoffee
10-07-2004, 03:07 PM
Okay, first let me say that I love our RBs! Still, I think that the vast majority of possessions the play call is predictable - Run, Run, Pass. I am an "air it out" advocate, but I agree that we should not stifle the run game. The only point I want to make is that we should not run THREE run plays in the red zone when the first (and then the second!) yield no gain! Try a play action to one of our tight ends or Johnson. I am not anti-Palmer nor anti-run game, but I am against settling for 3 instead of taking a SMALL chance and going for 6. :twocents:

Im glad Oakland tried to pass for six. :hehe: Especially since Zero had been running so well all game.
102 yard int/runback for Texans TD. :twocents:

footballbutterfly
10-07-2004, 07:06 PM
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you trying to equate Kerry Collins to David Carr? I mean really, Collins is much older, does not have the talent that Carr has (Porter Schmorter and don't even get me started on what they are doing to Rice) and our D is so much better than Oakland's. As far as Zereoue (yes that would be the correct SPELLING OF HIS WHOLE LAST NAME!!!) he is not that great and that is why the Steelers kept the BUS and let his sorry A*@ go!

Jwwillis
10-07-2004, 07:15 PM
lucky for me i didnt say that then.

"And its not just the amount of rushes that was pissing people off.. it was the overuse of D. Davis."


If you say so bro.

HJam72
10-07-2004, 08:30 PM
We keep saying to fire Palmer and they've won the last 2 in a row. As long as we keep winning that way, I say, "FIRE PALMER!!!!!!!" :hehe:

Jwwillis
10-07-2004, 10:44 PM
All that aside.. do we have to play the "im a better fan cause i didnt complain" game? if someone makes a STUPID negative comment about the team.. yah.. tear them a new one. But if there are INTELLIGENT debates with valid points being made, i dont think that qualifies as "bad fans". So why dont we drop the whole back patting party.

Nice rant but what the heck are you talking about? I noticed you used quotes for "bad fans". Who were you quoting? I started this thread and have checked everywhere and do not see that reference anywhere? It is rather satisfying to see the Texans win 2 in a row by executing using the same coaching staff they had at 0-2. I still say If Davis doesnt fumble the Texans are at least 3-1 if not 4-0 and DD is the next Barry Sanders and Palmer is a genius. Back to what I said in the original post. " Winning changes everything for the arm-chair QB."

infantrycak
10-07-2004, 10:52 PM
Back to what I said in the original post. " Winning changes everything for the arm-chair QB."

This is a message board so obviously the point is discussion. Having said that, absolutely agree. Too many people want to fire a coach or player rather than breaking down plays and seeing the failure in execution. Sometimes failure in execution can mean player replacement--sometimes it doesn't, like giving rookies time to adjust or an OL time to gel and get adjusted to a new scheme.