PDA

View Full Version : HPF: Offensive outlook


Maddict5
06-12-2007, 08:11 PM
http://www.houstonprofootball.com/review/review69.html

nothing too new or anything.. just another offseason read- never realised that black was pencilled in as our lt over salaam though if spencer isnt back

Runner
06-12-2007, 08:40 PM
never realised that black was pencilled in as our lt over salaam though if spencer isnt back

Well, that's one nugget of information, which is one more than many articles have this time of year.

MorKnolle
06-12-2007, 10:29 PM
http://www.houstonprofootball.com/review/review69.html

nothing too new or anything.. just another offseason read- never realised that black was pencilled in as our lt over salaam though if spencer isnt back

In the couple practices I saw Salaam was always the LT with the 1st team offense, Black seemed to always be in with the 2nd team. Maybe they have split some time or something, but FWIW every rep I saw had Salaam above Black.

dalemurphy
06-13-2007, 02:11 AM
I don't think Kubiak sees Salaam as a guy who can handle starting a full season- he'll break down physically... So, If they determine Spencer is going to be healthy and ready to take over LT, he may start a game or two early on. However, if we go into the season with Spencer on IR or PUP then I think Black will start at LT... With a healthy SPencer, I look for Black to challenge at RG or at least be a part of a rotation at G.

infantrycak
06-13-2007, 09:28 AM
In the couple practices I saw Salaam was always the LT with the 1st team offense, Black seemed to always be in with the 2nd team. Maybe they have split some time or something, but FWIW every rep I saw had Salaam above Black.

Have you seen Bob out there? Not sure he is reporting anything he has actually seen or just off-season chatter. Salaam is on the depth chart as the starter. Bob also has McKinney working at G with Hodg stilling 2nd at C which is also not reflected on the depth chart, does not comport with Kubiak's statements nor some of the clips the Texans have had where McKinney has been shown at C. Where have you seen McKinney working?

HOU-TEX
06-13-2007, 09:51 AM
Have you seen Bob out there? Not sure he is reporting anything he has actually seen or just off-season chatter. Salaam is on the depth chart as the starter. Bob also has McKinney working at G with Hodg stilling 2nd at C which is also not reflected on the depth chart, does not comport with Kubiak's statements nor some of the clips the Texans have had where McKinney has been shown at C. Where have you seen McKinney working?

The practice on NFLN last night McKinney was playing left guard with the ones. What's up with that? Where was Pitts? Yesterday the ones looked like this:
LT- Salaam
LG- McKinney
C- Flanagan
RG- Weary
RT- Winston

Texans_Chick
06-13-2007, 11:07 AM
A few comments on the article that haven't already been mentioned:

1. The Texans did not run a Denver zone blocking scheme last year, and from what I heard from my media friends, Sherman would get upset if someone said they were doing that. They ran a bit of a mixed scheme last year, and McKinney on 610 said they will be doing more of that this year. Very complicated he said.

2. This year, Kubiak said they are going to be opening up the playbook more, and that the playbook is changing because it is going to be a combined Sherman and Kubiak scheme. There were comments that Ahman Green was ahead of all the other running backs because he already knew the Sherman terminology.

The question will be--can the Texans offense learn the playbook well enough that they are playing and not thinking too much. Where the plays are second nature. All teams have that issue to some degree, but the Texans more so because of new QB and not that many players that are VERY familiar with the system.

To me, how the Sherman-Kubiak offense is, the coaching side of things, is the interesting offensive story Kubiak year 2.

Porky
06-13-2007, 12:03 PM
I watched the NFL Network mini-camp special on the Texans last night, and I rewound a few of the plays to check out who was in there, and also to watch both the defense and the offense. It's hard to concentrate or focus on both sides of the ball at once. Mckinney was definetely working at first team LG, and Salaam was for sure at LT. I have no idea where Pitts was. It might have simply been an excused absence, so I don't want to read too much into it, but I don't recall seeing Pitts anywhere.

A couple of real quick observations, and take it fwiw, because I saw a handful of plays without pads via the TV, so lol, it's not worth a lot - but here is what I noticed - It's apparent that Schaub gets rid of that ball in a hurry, and knows where he is going with it. On one play, two guys were really pressuring him, and he quickly found his checkdown and delivered it on target. Once he plants his back foot, that ball is gone. I see very little in the way of indecision on his part.

Green looks like the real deal, and had a couple of nice plays where he made one cut and was gone. Dayne and Gado also had some nice plays. I couldn't really see the WR's real well, but they did run a reverse for Jacoby Jones, so look for that somewhere down the road.

On D, it looked to me like Omobi has a really quick first step. It's hard to tell for sure with no pads, but I think he has a very bright future. I still saw Mario get tied up and not dominate and just be pushed out of the play, but again, no pads, so let's see what happens. But, Okoye definetely looks to have a quicker first step.

Lastly, they had an interview with Schaub. A really nice moment was when they asked him what the strength of the offense is. My jaw dropped open when he said the offensive line. He was really pumping them up, and saying what a a great unit it is, and that he is looking forward to working with them. I LOVED the way he came off at that moment. I hate to use the L word, but that was real leadership. Instead of tearing down the unit, he was really lifting them up. This line is going to want to block for this man! That 30 seconds was worth the whole hour to me, and was worth the price of admission. :heart:

Double Barrel
06-13-2007, 01:18 PM
Thanks for the recap, Porky. But inquiring minds want to know: did it look like they were having fun out there? :joker:

They ran a bit of a mixed scheme last year, and McKinney on 610 said they will be doing more of that this year. Very complicated he said.

hmmmmm...I'm not going to rain on anyone's parade, but I've shared your concerns about the inability to hide plays last year, which was a result of our blocking schemes. Hopefully they are not overthinking and trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole by combining offensive philosophies. Obviously, these are just my thoughts and are worth a grain of salt.

Runner
06-13-2007, 06:19 PM
It's apparent that Schaub gets rid of that ball in a hurry, and knows where he is going with it. On one play, two guys were really pressuring him, and he quickly found his checkdown and delivered it on target. Once he plants his back foot, that ball is gone. I see very little in the way of indecision on his part.


If that carries through to the season that would be big help - I think he'll have many opportunities to make quick decisions. Getting some positive yardage out of theose situations would be huge for the offense.

Maddict5
06-13-2007, 06:56 PM
I think he'll have many opportunities to make quick decisions. Getting some positive yardage out of theose situations would be huge for the offense.

lol.. thats the nicest back-handed compliment/ positive spin of an o-line ive ever seen

aj.
06-13-2007, 09:52 PM
They ran a combination of inside-outside zone (Denver base) and power-counter (old GB base) last year. This year they will run more of the power counter stuff but will still do the zone stretch and the boots and play actions that feed off it. You can recognize the power-counter stuff by watching for a pulling guard and misdirection out of the I. The zone stuff is pretty straightforward (cutback) style. You will see Schaub drive deep into the backfield with the handoffs on power and counter, and you will also see him carry out bootleg motion after the handoff - and actually keep it on play actions and nakeds once in a while to keep things honest.

And I seriously doubt that Jordan Black has been pencilled in as anything other than 1 of 9.

Texans Horror
06-13-2007, 11:16 PM
http://www.houstonprofootball.com/review/review69.html

nothing too new or anything.. just another offseason read- never realised that black was pencilled in as our lt over salaam though if spencer isnt back

Last year Wand was penciled in as the starting LT almost until the start of the season, so I think the idea is that the starting LT position is up for battle. Black or Salaam could take it at any time. Not sure which one I'd prefer though. Kinda pick your poison.

MorKnolle
06-14-2007, 04:49 PM
Have you seen Bob out there? Not sure he is reporting anything he has actually seen or just off-season chatter. Salaam is on the depth chart as the starter. Bob also has McKinney working at G with Hodg stilling 2nd at C which is also not reflected on the depth chart, does not comport with Kubiak's statements nor some of the clips the Texans have had where McKinney has been shown at C. Where have you seen McKinney working?

I don't know that I'd recognize him if I did see him. As for McKinney and Hodgdon, McKinney worked exclusively at backup C in the practices I saw and Hodgdon was a backup OG.

quicksilver
06-15-2007, 12:12 AM
I'm really surprised Hodgdon hasn't been cut already. I hate to be down on any Texan, but I haven't seen anything positive from that guy the last two seasons. With Flanagan, McKinney, Lucas, White, and a potential to play Studdard at C, the Hod doesn't have a prayer. And I don't see how he cracks Pitts, Weary, McKinney, Studdard at G--especially if you can play Black, or Tavo Tupola in at G as well as T.

Texans_Chick
06-19-2007, 05:39 PM
They ran a combination of inside-outside zone (Denver base) and power-counter (old GB base) last year. This year they will run more of the power counter stuff but will still do the zone stretch and the boots and play actions that feed off it. You can recognize the power-counter stuff by watching for a pulling guard and misdirection out of the I. The zone stuff is pretty straightforward (cutback) style. You will see Schaub drive deep into the backfield with the handoffs on power and counter, and you will also see him carry out bootleg motion after the handoff - and actually keep it on play actions and nakeds once in a while to keep things honest.

And I seriously doubt that Jordan Black has been pencilled in as anything other than 1 of 9.


AJ, I'm curious for your point of view on this. What do you think of the prospects of this hybrid working well? Where it won't be so obvious at the line when the Texans are running.

To me, last year, the offense looked like a continuous experiment, almost like a long preseason--and a complete segregation between the run and pass game.

maddogmrb
06-19-2007, 07:31 PM
AJ, I'm curious for your point of view on this. What do you think of the prospects of this hybrid working well? Where it won't be so obvious at the line when the Texans are running.

To me, last year, the offense looked like a continuous experiment, almost like a long preseason--and a complete segregation between the run and pass game.

TC, I agree ....... there was no synergy in the offense last year between the run and pass or just from one play to the next. Many will blame it all on you know who but, I'm not so sure about all that....... How about you?

Texans_Chick
06-19-2007, 08:58 PM
TC, I agree ....... there was no synergy in the offense last year between the run and pass or just from one play to the next. Many will blame it all on you know who but, I'm not so sure about all that....... How about you?

I don't know. Of course, it is hard to get your offense working well when apparently your quarterback is struggling with his reads and his decision making. That being said, the one who shall not be named is not the one responsible for the atrocious running game that plagued a good part of the season. For the beginning of the season, that guy performed despite an absolutely embarrassing running game.

I truly hope everything can be pinned on ocho viejo, and that the scheme that they are unveiling this year is going to work. That it really is something tailored to suit the offense's strengths, and doesn't telegraph run or pass.

It is not something that we will know for sure until we see it in action. There were just so few times where we saw a Texans offense without TOWSNBN. I have feelings that what we are going to see is going to be surprisingly good or surprisingly awful. In other words, I have no idea but I can't wait to see it. A healthy Green would certainly help.

Bull Pen 1
06-20-2007, 02:52 AM
TC, I agree ....... there was no synergy in the offense last year between the run and pass or just from one play to the next. Many will blame it all on you know who but, I'm not so sure about all that....... How about you?

I know what you mean, as usual many have blamed it on the O-Line when it was really you know who. Now he is gone.

Texanmike02
06-20-2007, 03:37 AM
I think you blame the offense on alot last year. He who shall not be named. The OL. The injury bug. The new coaching staff. The running game. The bottom line is it was s disaster from the start. I don't think if you got rid of one factor that the others would pick up the slack. If someone else was under center the ol woul have still been horrible. If the ol was better the coaching would have been still trying to get their act together. Our offense was what it was last year. It was the result of poor drafting, the inability to build a competent line, a new coaching staff, a gun shy QB and a poor running game.

This year we come in with a poor recieving corps (other than the obvious) and questions on OL at QB and RB.

Can Green stay healthy. Does Matt adjust and learn the book quickly. Do Sherman and Kubes iron out the kinks in the game plan. Does Spencer come back or Black play adequately at T in his absence. It can't possibly be as bad as it was last year. But that's what I told myself last year too.

Mike

The Pencil Neck
06-20-2007, 10:01 AM
I think you blame the offense on alot last year. He who shall not be named. The OL. The injury bug. The new coaching staff. The running game. The bottom line is it was s disaster from the start. I don't think if you got rid of one factor that the others would pick up the slack. If someone else was under center the ol woul have still been horrible. If the ol was better the coaching would have been still trying to get their act together. Our offense was what it was last year. It was the result of poor drafting, the inability to build a competent line, a new coaching staff, a gun shy QB and a poor running game.

This year we come in with a poor recieving corps (other than the obvious) and questions on OL at QB and RB.

Can Green stay healthy. Does Matt adjust and learn the book quickly. Do Sherman and Kubes iron out the kinks in the game plan. Does Spencer come back or Black play adequately at T in his absence. It can't possibly be as bad as it was last year. But that's what I told myself last year too.

Mike

Even though this is a team game, one bad player can spoil the whole thing. You're only as strong as your weakest link.

IF HWWNBN doesn't get the ball out on time and holds the ball too long. He makes the line look bad.

If HWWNBN locks on to one receiver, he makes the other receivers look bad by not throwing to them. Walter didn't have great stats last year but he caught almost every ball that was thrown to him... and he was open more often than he was thrown to.

If HWWNBN hits guys in stride going upfield instead of dumping the ball off, it stretches the defense and opens up the run game.

A better QB with our offense last year makes the whole offense better. And it's my position that our QB play was so bad that even an average QB would be a significant improvement. The tape that Baldinger showed could have been skewed against HWWNBN but several of us were seeing those same mistakes in other games. That wasn't the worst of HWWNBN's play last year.

Texanmike02
06-20-2007, 07:51 PM
Even though this is a team game, one bad player can spoil the whole thing. You're only as strong as your weakest link.

IF HWWNBN doesn't get the ball out on time and holds the ball too long. He makes the line look bad.

If HWWNBN locks on to one receiver, he makes the other receivers look bad by not throwing to them. Walter didn't have great stats last year but he caught almost every ball that was thrown to him... and he was open more often than he was thrown to.

If HWWNBN hits guys in stride going upfield instead of dumping the ball off, it stretches the defense and opens up the run game.

A better QB with our offense last year makes the whole offense better. And it's my position that our QB play was so bad that even an average QB would be a significant improvement. The tape that Baldinger showed could have been skewed against HWWNBN but several of us were seeing those same mistakes in other games. That wasn't the worst of HWWNBN's play last year.

I agree with the basic premiss of what you're saying. But I don't think it applies to us specifically. Our line, partly due to injury, was horrible last year. Not as bad as it has been in the past... but we've become used to such bad oline play that we were decieved into thinking that our line was actually above atrocious last year. I watched every game except the boys game and the browns games several times and HWWNBN's play was abysmal at times... but the line play was also abysmal. Our playbook was pretty vanilla as well. Our system is just rounding into shape and that was a contributor as well. And you have to factor in the fact that we had absolutely no running game through the first 8 weeks of the season. I'm not saying he was the solution (I still think we ruined him with our plan the first 4 years in the league) but I am saying that I don't believe that there are many QB's we could have brought in that would make a difference.

Our offence was weak in at least 3 or 4 areas and there was no one area that you could have fixed that would have made us significantly better than we were. Now if you fixed say the line and the running game... HWWNBN probably looks alot better. If you change QB's and the line, we might look better. If you had given the guys another year in the system and changed the line.. we probably look better. If you have better RB play and a different QB.. we probably look better. I'm not going to list all of the possibilities but at least two of the 4 had to be changed to make much of a difference. The good news... we've started to significantly overhaul the team in a very short time.

mike

frequentfliertx
06-20-2007, 07:57 PM
What does the acronym HWWNBN stand for and why is it in reference to DC?
I'm reading your posts and I'm a little confused. Can you please clarify this for me. Thx.

Maddict5
06-20-2007, 08:16 PM
He Who Will Not Be Named

Texanmike02
06-20-2007, 08:23 PM
What does the acronym HWWNBN stand for and why is it in reference to DC?
I'm reading your posts and I'm a little confused. Can you please clarify this for me. Thx.

It stems from the old texans talk board. No matter what you posted about at some point it became a discussion about him. SoI made a vow, and encouraged others to not talk about him for a 1 month period.. and then immediately something developed where I needed to talk about him... so I said he who will not be named... and ended up shortening it to something else (I screwed up the acronym) and then someone (I think it was apple or texanschick) fixed it for me... probably my biggest contribution to the board (which is sad huh) and in 4 or 5 weeks it will be an afterthought.

Old times...

Mike

Runner
06-20-2007, 09:01 PM
Not as bad as it has been in the past... but we've become used to such bad oline play that we were decieved into thinking that our line was actually above atrocious last year.


Well said. Also, the two yard passing attack protected the line's weaknesses as well as the QB's.

The Pencil Neck
06-20-2007, 09:23 PM
Well said. Also, the two yard passing attack protected the line's weaknesses as well as the QB's.

Yeah, but... we had a 2 yard passing attack because he wasn't throwing to the guys that were running free further past the line than that. Kubiak said as much.

HWWNBN wasn't throwing 2 yard passes because that was the play that was called or because he didn't have time to throw longer. The longer passes were there and were open and he was choosing the dump off because it was an easier throw to make. A throw he felt more comfortable making.

Runner
06-20-2007, 09:29 PM
Yeah, but... we had a 2 yard passing attack because he wasn't throwing to the guys that were running free further past the line than that. Kubiak said as much.

HWWNBN wasn't throwing 2 yard passes because that was the play that was called or because he didn't have time to throw longer. The longer passes were there and were open and he was choosing the dump off because it was an easier throw to make. A throw he felt more comfortable making.

Yeah but... I saw Salaam get pushed back to Carr on a few of those two step drop, two yard passes. That never should have happened. Was he incompetent or apathetic? Which is worse?

I still believe there was more than one bad player on the Texans last year. I'll go so far as to say there was even more than one bad player on the offense alone, shocking as that may be to some.

Texanmike02
06-20-2007, 09:33 PM
Yeah, but... we had a 2 yard passing attack because he wasn't throwing to the guys that were running free further past the line than that. Kubiak said as much.

HWWNBN wasn't throwing 2 yard passes because that was the play that was called or because he didn't have time to throw longer. The longer passes were there and were open and he was choosing the dump off because it was an easier throw to make. A throw he felt more comfortable making.

There were alot of times that he really didn't have the time to make those throws. I watched the film over and over, and unless you are at the game and just have better vantage points than I do, when did he have this time and who was open? Walters was open from time to time, but one of our problems was we didn't really have a speed guy on either side. AJ is fast, but he's a big guy... he doesn't have that sneaky speed- he has fast straight line speed and he's not going to be open in those midrange routes... it takes him a few steps to get to full speed. We need an Ernest Givens type... who is fast in space and cuts real well. I'm not saying he didn't miss throws... but there were way too many cases where someone on the OL just flat out missed their assignment. Again, I'm not suggesting that he wasn't the problem... merely that replacing him wouldn't have solved the problem. Somewhere there's a thing I wrote # of times sacked in a game and QB performance. The numbers suggested that even Manning would have had a difficult time running this offence last year.

Mike

The Pencil Neck
06-20-2007, 09:55 PM
There were alot of times that he really didn't have the time to make those throws. I watched the film over and over, and unless you are at the game and just have better vantage points than I do, when did he have this time and who was open? Walters was open from time to time, but one of our problems was we didn't really have a speed guy on either side. AJ is fast, but he's a big guy... he doesn't have that sneaky speed- he has fast straight line speed and he's not going to be open in those midrange routes... it takes him a few steps to get to full speed. We need an Ernest Givens type... who is fast in space and cuts real well. I'm not saying he didn't miss throws... but there were way too many cases where someone on the OL just flat out missed their assignment. Again, I'm not suggesting that he wasn't the problem... merely that replacing him wouldn't have solved the problem. Somewhere there's a thing I wrote # of times sacked in a game and QB performance. The numbers suggested that even Manning would have had a difficult time running this offence last year.

Mike


I watched every game at least twice (except for the Cowboys game where I was actually in the stands and the Patriots game.)

There were guys open that he didn't throw to over and over again.

Baldinger's report showed him doing it against the Raiders. Two open guys facing him and he pulls it down and tries to run.

Another report on ESPN showed a perfect example against the Browns. Owen Daniels running underneath open and he's got a touchdown if he gets thrown to. Carr misreads the coverage and tries to throw it to AJ and it gets intercepted.

Another report on ESPN showed a perfect example against the Giants. He takes 3 steps back. He had 2 guys open. He pulls the ball down and doesn't throw it. Then he starts to look around in a panic and he gets sacked. If he had thrown on time, it's a completion.

When I looked at the games, I saw him pulling the ball down in other games in the same situation. Open receivers, he doesn't see them.

Early in the season, Kubiak even said it. He said that HWWNBN was leaving a lot of yards on the field. He wasn't making the reads and throws that he was making in practice. They were there, he just wasn't making them.

We didn't try to run the 2-minute drill because Kubiak didn't trust him. When he did try to run it, HWWNBN fumbles and the ball is returned for a TD against the Titans.

And I'm not saying our line was great or even above average. I feel our line was slightly below average. But we went 4-4 and won 2 games where HWWNBN threw for less than 100 yards and he only threw 2 TD's in the last half of the season. You fix that one position, and a lot of things start falling in place. Just like it did with the Titans and with the Cowboys.

Runner
06-20-2007, 10:15 PM
Then I guess I can't figure out why the Texans picked up so many offensive lineman in free agency and the draft. Either:

a) they don't have any other positions that need upgrades
b) they are afraid the o-line won't play like it did last year
c) they are afraid the o-line will play like it did last year


And yes, David Carr didn't recognize and/or throw to open receivers. He wasn't a good player.

HJam72
06-20-2007, 10:34 PM
I think it should be He Who Will Inevitably Be Named. :)

frequentfliertx
06-20-2007, 10:50 PM
Oh OK Thanks for clarifying. Things seem clearer now. Thx.:fans: :texflag:

The Pencil Neck
06-20-2007, 11:53 PM
Then I guess I can't figure out why the Texans picked up so many offensive lineman in free agency and the draft. Either:

a) they don't have any other positions that need upgrades
b) they are afraid the o-line won't play like it did last year
c) they are afraid the o-line will play like it did last year


And yes, David Carr didn't recognize and/or throw to open receivers. He wasn't a good player.

Did you even bother to read anything I wrote about the offensive line? It's not a strength of the team and I never said it was. And if it's not a strength, then we need to make moves to improve it.

But even at that, how many offensive linemen did they pick up in free agency? One? What was the single biggest move we made this offseason? Was it to fix the line? Well, yeah, but indirectly.

We picked up some guys in the draft and as UDFA's and I'm sure we're hoping they'll develop into great players, but I don't think we're expecting any of those guys to be starters this year as opposed to last year when we were hoping both Spencer and Winston were going to work their way into the starting line up quickly. If we end up with a line like:

Frye - Pitts - Lucas - Studdard - Winston

Then I'm going to be very worried.

Runner
06-21-2007, 02:03 AM
Did you even bother to read anything I wrote about the offensive line? It's not a strength of the team and I never said it was.


Yes I did. All the way to the last paragraph.

And I'm not saying our line was great or even above average. I feel our line was slightly below average. But we went 4-4 and won 2 games where HWWNBN threw for less than 100 yards and he only threw 2 TD's in the last half of the season. You fix that one position, and a lot of things start falling in place. Just like it did with the Titans and with the Cowboys.

I'm saying the line wasn't slightly below average or "not a strength". I'm saing the o-line was and is a weakness all by itself, independent of the quarterback. Schaub doesn't magically give Flanagan new knees and his game of 5 years ago, nor does he make Salaam more capable of standing up to a straight bullrush or provide him with his own fountain of youth. The team won a couple of those games last year because they were no longer asked to pass block, and they could do an adequate job of run blocking, especially with McKinney at center. McKinney is still a poor pass blocker too and it isn't wise to count on Spencer for anything next year.

The o-line didn't give up fewer sacks because they were almost average last year. They gave up fewer sacks because little was asked of them compared to what they would have had to do in a pro passing game. Put that line in Palmer's deep passing offense the Texans ran in 2004 and they probably would have given up 70+ sacks.

Texans Horror
06-21-2007, 08:54 AM
It can't possibly be as bad as it was last year. But that's what I told myself last year too.

Mike

On the bright side, I don't think 2006 was near as bad as 2005. The team looked a lot more focused and not just out there to get through the season. Of course, the addition of Mario Williams, Eric Moulds, and Demeco Ryans didn't hurt things, either.

This year will probably be overall better than last year, especially in regards to o-line play. I contend that as fans we won't see the end result, but the team will be better.

frequentfliertx
06-21-2007, 09:15 AM
I think that the things that we need to improve upon are the following:

1. Offensive line

2. Receiving core (Andre Johnson can't do it all by himself).

3. Secondary (giving the opposing WRs 10-20 yard leeway just isn't going to cut it).

4. Running game (we need RBs who can quickly go through the holes that are created by a decent (do we have that?) offensive line.

5. Quarterback (hopefully Schaub will be the answers to our prayers).

6. Kicking game

Have I left anything out?

Kaiser Toro
06-21-2007, 09:24 AM
With a horrible QB, patchwork O line, average at best RB's this team has a good running game in our history given the aforementioned components:
2003 23rd ranked NFL Rushing
2004 12th ranked NFL Rushing
2005 15th ranked NFL Rushing
2006 21st ranked NFL Rushing

Lucky
06-21-2007, 10:10 AM
With a horrible QB, patchwork O line, average at best RB's this team has a good running game in our history given the aforementioned components:
2003 23rd ranked NFL Rushing
2004 12th ranked NFL Rushing
2005 15th ranked NFL Rushing
2006 21st ranked NFL Rushing
I think the numbers in '04 & '05 are misleading. I can remember a game in Indy where DD had 30+ rushes...and the Texans lost 49-10. And another game against the Colts where Carr threw the ball 9 times. I've seen wishbone offenses throw more. And the Texans still lost by 18.

The Texans have had good games rushing the ball in the past, but I wouldn't describe their rushing attack as "good" overall. Not good enough to win football games on a consistent basis. If the Texans are to become winners, they'll need their best run offense ever, and something positive out of the passing game.

Kaiser Toro
06-21-2007, 10:17 AM
I think the numbers in '04 & '05 are misleading. I can remember a game in Indy where DD had 30+ rushes...and the Texans lost 49-10. And another game against the Colts where Carr threw the ball 9 times. I've seen wishbone offenses throw more. And the Texans still lost by 18.

The Texans have had good games rushing the ball in the past, but I wouldn't describe their rushing attack as "good" overall. Not good enough to win football games on a consistent basis. If the Texans are to become winners, they'll need their best run offense ever, and something positive out of the passing game.

Ok, sounds far off when comparing our rushing offense versus our passing offense and the severe issues we had with orchestrating a pass offense while defenses could compensate by honing in on the rush. Yeah it was not good given the conditions, players and data. :rolleyes:

HOU-TEX
06-21-2007, 10:33 AM
I think the numbers in '04 & '05 are misleading. I can remember a game in Indy where DD had 30+ rushes...and the Texans lost 49-10. And another game against the Colts where Carr threw the ball 9 times. I've seen wishbone offenses throw more. And the Texans still lost by 18.

The Texans have had good games rushing the ball in the past, but I wouldn't describe their rushing attack as "good" overall. Not good enough to win football games on a consistent basis. If the Texans are to become winners, they'll need their best run offense ever, and something positive out of the passing game.

I think this years running game is already the best. IMO, A.G. is a much better RB than DD. Even though his previous 2 years haven't been up to par, I predict one of his best seasons this year. I believe with Leach paving the way for AG, we'll have our best running season to date.:whip:

infantrycak
06-21-2007, 10:45 AM
2003 23rd ranked NFL Rushing
2004 12th ranked NFL Rushing
2005 15th ranked NFL Rushing
2006 21st ranked NFL Rushing

2004 and 2005 are also skewed by Carr's 300+ rushing yds--2nd only to Vick. Take those out (since they were not for the most part designed rushing plays) and they drop 10+ spots.

Kaiser Toro
06-21-2007, 10:46 AM
2004 and 2005 are also skewed by Carr's 300+ rushing yds--2nd only to Vick. Take those out (since they were not for the most part designed rushing plays) and they drop 10+ spots.

Good point.

Texans Horror
06-21-2007, 10:49 AM
With a horrible QB, patchwork O line, average at best RB's this team has a good running game in our history given the aforementioned components:
2003 23rd ranked NFL Rushing
2004 12th ranked NFL Rushing
2005 15th ranked NFL Rushing
2006 21st ranked NFL Rushing

I think the numbers in '04 & '05 are misleading. I can remember a game in Indy where DD had 30+ rushes...and the Texans lost 49-10. And another game against the Colts where Carr threw the ball 9 times. I've seen wishbone offenses throw more. And the Texans still lost by 18.

The Texans have had good games rushing the ball in the past, but I wouldn't describe their rushing attack as "good" overall. Not good enough to win football games on a consistent basis. If the Texans are to become winners, they'll need their best run offense ever, and something positive out of the passing game.

Ok, sounds far off when comparing our rushing offense versus our passing offense and the severe issues we had with orchestrating a pass offense while defenses could compensate by honing in on the rush. Yeah it was not good given the conditions, players and data. :rolleyes:

Before his injuries, Dominick Davis was a pretty good running back, and the Texans could actually get things going on a running offense. Even at the end of last season, the Texans were able to scrounge together some semblence of a run game.

So, IMO, while the Texans rushing game was never one of the elite rushing games in the league, sadly, it also has been one of the bright spots for the Texans. I know it's comparing mediocre to bad and horrible, but in the scheme of the Texans, it looked pretty good.

Now with Green and Sherman reunited, I am anxious to see the new run game. I think it will do really well, especially if they can successfully rotate a third back (Lundy?) into the offense. Dayne, too, seems to finally have found his niche. I would like to see the run game do well next year.

Texans_Chick
06-21-2007, 10:55 AM
Last year was the first year that the Texans looked at times like they had a real, actual, shall we say, even entertaining offense. A lot of the first drives of games. Just the way the preseason looked. I know preseason means squat, but remember the preseason before the 2005 season??? ACK!

The disconnect between run and pass was really bad, as was having to take the keys away from the QB for the last third of the season. That being said, I saw enough to be somewhat encouraged that if the running game was more together and that you had someone more decisive and consistent at QB, maybe some cool looking stuff could come from that.

Players learning the playbook. Coaches learning the players and how to work better together. Hopefully, things will be coming more together this year.:cool:

Overalls
06-21-2007, 01:07 PM
The disconnect between run and pass was really bad, as was having to take the keys away from the QB for the last third of the season. That being said, I saw enough to be somewhat encouraged that if the running game was more together and that you had someone more decisive and consistent at QB, maybe some cool looking stuff could come from that.

Players learning the playbook. Coaches learning the players and how to work better together. Hopefully, things will be coming more together this year.:cool:

What she said.:thumbup

dalemurphy
06-21-2007, 01:17 PM
Last year was the first year that the Texans looked at times like they had a real, actual, shall we say, even entertaining offense. A lot of the first drives of games. Just the way the preseason looked. I know preseason means squat, but remember the preseason before the 2005 season??? ACK!

The disconnect between run and pass was really bad, as was having to take the keys away from the QB for the last third of the season. That being said, I saw enough to be somewhat encouraged that if the running game was more together and that you had someone more decisive and consistent at QB, maybe some cool looking stuff could come from that.

Players learning the playbook. Coaches learning the players and how to work better together. Hopefully, things will be coming more together this year.:cool:


I agree. Also, imagine actually being able to audible out of a run when the SS walks up into the box.. won't that be a wild and crazy thing to see?!

Having some balance on offense will help and having the most skill at RB we've ever had will help as well. And, I think this OLine has a chance with guys like Winston, Spencer, Pitts, Weary, Black to be pretty physical and dominate at the point of attack. While all of those lineman may not be special pass blockers they are all at least above average in the run game. Also, let's not forget that we also have an effective FB in Leach.

Really looking forward to this season!

Lucky
06-21-2007, 02:26 PM
Ok, sounds far off when comparing our rushing offense versus our passing offense and the severe issues we had with orchestrating a pass offense while defenses could compensate by honing in on the rush.
That sounds good. I know that's the common perception here. But, the reality is that defenses did not hone in on the rush. Backside DEs stopped playing the cutback lanes sometime in the middle of the season. That totally shut down the bootleg. Teams like the Raiders and the Colts had their lines shoot the gaps and disregard the run. Had the Texans a running game to fear, they would have seen less blitzing and fewer 2 deep zones.

The notion that the Texans offense has a running game to rely on is based upon hope, not fact. We hope that the Ahman Green of '03 shows up. We hope that Charles Spencer returns to provide a true road grader at LT. But, to suggest that perhaps the Texans already have a good rushing attack in their back pocket is not true. And until they find that, Kubiak's passing offense will be limited.

Kaiser Toro
06-21-2007, 02:31 PM
That sounds good. I know that's the common perception here. But, the reality is that defenses did not hone in on the rush. Backside DEs stopped playing the cutback lanes sometime in the middle of the season. That totally shut down the bootleg. Teams like the Raiders and the Colts had their lines shoot the gaps and disregard the run. Had the Texans a running game to fear, they would have seen less blitzing and fewer 2 deep zones.

The notion that the Texans offense has a running game to rely on is based upon hope, not fact. We hope that the Ahman Green of '03 shows up. We hope that Charles Spencer returns to provide a true road grader at LT. But, to suggest that perhaps the Texans already have a good rushing attack in their back pocket is not true. And until they find that, Kubiak's passing offense will be limited.

More than fair analysis and I share the hopes.

maddogmrb
06-21-2007, 07:36 PM
I think that the things that we need to improve upon are the following:

1. Offensive line

2. Receiving core (Andre Johnson can't do it all by himself).

3. Secondary (giving the opposing WRs 10-20 yard leeway just isn't going to cut it).

4. Running game (we need RBs who can quickly go through the holes that are created by a decent (do we have that?) offensive line.

5. Quarterback (hopefully Schaub will be the answers to our prayers).

6. Kicking game

Have I left anything out?


I would put OLB as the #4 concern....

Texanmike02
06-21-2007, 08:59 PM
On the bright side, I don't think 2006 was near as bad as 2005. The team looked a lot more focused and not just out there to get through the season. Of course, the addition of Mario Williams, Eric Moulds, and Demeco Ryans didn't hurt things, either.

This year will probably be overall better than last year, especially in regards to o-line play. I contend that as fans we won't see the end result, but the team will be better.


I agree completely with what you said. Like I said all of last year... this team was a young team with some talent who would lose games they shouldn't and win games they shouldn't. I actually don't think last year was that pad (my preseason post had us going 6-10, and I felt like less than 5 wins was a disaster and more then 7 and we had caught lightning in a bottle. I think we'll be fine... And I agree, the casual fan will look at the upcoming season, see that we went 6-10 (my pick again) and say "they aren't any better", but we will be more consistent and be ready to take a shot at some real players in the off-season. I don't see us playing many meaningful games past November (I actually think we'll start the season off with a record similar to last year's start and finish strong) but I see us making huge strides in game plan as well as catching the eye of some young up and coming free agents who want to go to a place they can both shine, and have a chance to compete on a very good team in the next 2 or 3 years.


Mike

aj.
06-21-2007, 09:22 PM
... the casual fan will look at the upcoming season, see that we went 6-10 (my pick again) and say "they aren't any better", but we will be more consistent and be ready to take a shot at some real players in the off-season. I don't see us playing many meaningful games past November (I actually think we'll start the season off with a record similar to last year's start and finish strong) but I see us making huge strides in game plan as well as catching the eye of some young up and coming free agents who want to go to a place they can both shine, and have a chance to compete on a very good team in the next 2 or 3 years.

Mike

So this year's 6-10 will be so much better than last year's 6-10 that young, up-and-coming free agents will be coming here so they can shine from '08 and beyond... what a bunch of horse bleep. What people will see is mediocrity - although it should feel good to be mediocre and not terrible for a change.

If this team starts 2-6, things aren't going to be good for Kubiak and Sherman even if they manage to finish 6-10. Their lower bound of tolerance this year is 7-9 - barely.

This reminds me of the 'baby steps' garbage I used to rail against. Anything less than .500 is unacceptable to me this year. I'll grudgingly accept 8-8 because it means we probably went 3-3 in Div..

Set your goals low and you'll probably achieve them -- -and save me the 'realist' responses.

Texanmike02
06-21-2007, 10:19 PM
So this year's 6-10 will be so much better than last year's 6-10 that young, up-and-coming free agents will be coming here so they can shine from '08 and beyond... what a bunch of horse bleep. What people will see is mediocrity - although it should feel good to be mediocre and not terrible for a change.

If this team starts 2-6, things aren't going to be good for Kubiak and Sherman even if they manage to finish 6-10. Their lower bound of tolerance this year is 7-9 - barely.

This reminds me of the 'baby steps' garbage I used to rail against. Anything less than .500 is unacceptable to me this year. I'll grudgingly accept 8-8 because it means we probably went 3-3 in Div..

Set your goals low and you'll probably achieve them -- -and save me the 'realist' responses.

So you really see this team as being talented enough to compete for a playoff spot? Should THIS team be shooting for 9 wins? Seriously. Look at the holes and questions on this team. Do you not think that Mcnair has shown that he wants to build a winner and isn't going to pull the plug this year? You don't take a 19 year old.. I don't care how talented he is... if you want to win today. Look at the dead money on the team. We are paying that dead money this year so we don't have to next year. Look at the teams in this conference. 8 of the top 10 teams in the league play in this conference.

This isn't madden where you make 2 or 3 huge moves and all of the sudden your team goes from worst to first. It takes time. You can site the Pats, Rams and teams like Indy all you want, but those teams built for years before they had that magical season and while I think we are in a better position for a bright future than alot of teams in this conference... Its quite possible that the only teams worse than us are Oakland and Cleveland. You may not want to admit it... hell I hate admitting it... but that's the truth. What we have going for us is the fact that we are a young team with some up and coming talent with a bright head coach and have made some nice moves over the past two off seasons that can be built around. But even if you think we have top 10 talent on both of our lines, and this is especially true on the offensive line... stability is a key ingredient... and we just don't have that. Look at our schedule..

KC - LJ is just too much.

Carolina - that's one game we should probably win

Colts - Are you kidding me? They are going to be pissed about last year.

@Falcons - This game could go either way.

Dolphins- With Green there, you have to like the Fins in this one

@Jax - Never know with these games.. but the QB controversy will be over by this time

Titans- It is possible that as a team... they are just a little better than we are.

Chargers- LOL

Raiders-Finally a team that we should blow out of the water

Saints- Its not Bush that kills us... its Brees,Bush,Deuce/Colston etc

@Browns- Another game we SHOULD win

@Titans- If I don't like us here... I don't like us there

Buccaneers- One of their QB's is bound to be playing well enough to beat us
with the rest of the team

Broncos- They do what we do, only better

@Colts- If we're lucky they don't care cause they've locked up home field advantage

Jags- Another game that you never know.

If we were in the NFC... If we didn't play against most of the top half of the league... I'd agree with you. But the reality is that we are in the AFC. We do play a top 15 team over half of the time next year. And yes this 6-10 will be better than last year's 6-10. Its not about "baby steps" its about big steps. We finally have talent on the team. We're not riddled with talent but we do have enough to be a legit NFL team. If you want a reference for when Players go to a team that has been a loser but has turned it around... check out SF this year. I think that's the model for our team financially to be quite honest. I also think we enter the season with similar talent to them last year... the only problem is that we play in the AFC.

Mike

infantrycak
06-21-2007, 11:02 PM
See, this is what I hate when people are only "realists" about their own team.

KC - LJ is just too much.

And their QB is who? And who is blocking for LJ? His ypc went down .9 last year after the loss of Roaf and now after losing two more OLmen?

Colts - Are you kidding me? They are going to be pissed about last year.

Yeah, pissed has to overcome losing a bunch of starters on an already mediocre defense.

Dolphins- With Green there, you have to like the Fins in this one

They may win, but not even close to "have to" like them. Green did nothing after coming back last year and was dumped for ?

@Jax - Never know with these games.. but the QB controversy will be over by this time

Never visited a Jax MB have you? Their QB controversy has been going on for the last couple years and will only be worse if they get Culpepper.

Titans- It is possible that as a team... they are just a little better than we are.

It's also possible they aren't. Take Pacman out of the games last year and what happens?

Chargers- LOL

Yeah, not a snowballs chance.

Signed,

The Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts.

Buccaneers- One of their QB's is bound to be playing well enough to beat us with the rest of the team

Now there is some stellar realism--they have six (plus a retired one) so one has to out play us. Let's ignore the aging D, etc.

Broncos- They do what we do, only better

Aah, but for how long. Denver minus Kubiak--4 games worse. Texans plus Kubiak--3 games better. Not likely to happen again, but the gap sure did narrow.

The NFL simply isn't as static as you want to make it out and realism has to apply to every team.

Texanmike02
06-21-2007, 11:15 PM
See, this is what I hate when people are only "realists" about their own team.



And their QB is who? And who is blocking for LJ? His ypc went down .9 last year after the loss of Roaf and now after losing two more OLmen?



Yeah, pissed has to overcome losing a bunch of starters on an already mediocre defense.



They may win, but not even close to "have to" like them. Green did nothing after coming back last year and was dumped for ?



Never visited a Jax MB have you? Their QB controversy has been going on for the last couple years and will only be worse if they get Culpepper.



It's also possible they aren't. Take Pacman out of the games last year and what happens?



Yeah, not a snowballs chance.

Signed,

The Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts.



Now there is some stellar realism--they have six (plus a retired one) so one has to out play us. Let's ignore the aging D, etc.



Aah, but for how long. Denver minus Kubiak--4 games worse. Texans plus Kubiak--3 games better. Not likely to happen again, but the gap sure did narrow.

The NFL simply isn't as static as you want to make it out and realism has to apply to every team.

Obviously its over simplified. The were one liners.

Here's the problem though... you ripped half of my picks. How many of them do you see us winning though?

That's the point I'm trying to make. We're a below average team. Which is a huge step up from last two years. Unfortunately, when you live in the AFC... that's good for 6 wins... In the NFC it can win you the 9 or 10 games people are talking about. Last year I was crucified for my stance that we would win 6 games. I said we would lose some we shouldn't and win some we had no business winning and it would even out. I think this year is the same.

Mike

Texanmike02
06-21-2007, 11:17 PM
Set your goals low and you'll probably achieve them -- -and save me the 'realist' responses.

How long have you been a fan of Houston sports? This town made me a realist. I prefer to let my teams show me they are better than they should be before I get my hopes up and assume they will win with no rhyme or reason.

Mike

infantrycak
06-21-2007, 11:30 PM
How many of them do you see us winning though?

See that is the thing to me--realism is in large part recognizing that you can't sit down with a schedule and predict wins. I think people don't understand that even getting up to average QB play will be huge. In short, there is no doubt in my mind the team will be better this year but we'll have to see how that translates on the field.

How long have you been a fan of Houston sports? This town made me a realist.

Barking up the wrong tree here. aj has been attending NFL games in Houston for 30+ years.

Honoring Earl 34
06-21-2007, 11:59 PM
KC - LJ is just too much.

Carolina - that's one game we should probably win

Colts - Are you kidding me? They are going to be pissed about last year.

@Falcons - This game could go either way.

Dolphins- With Green there, you have to like the Fins in this one

@Jax - Never know with these games.. but the QB controversy will be over by this time

Titans- It is possible that as a team... they are just a little better than we are.

Chargers- LOL

Raiders-Finally a team that we should blow out of the water

Saints- Its not Bush that kills us... its Brees,Bush,Deuce/Colston etc

@Browns- Another game we SHOULD win

@Titans- If I don't like us here... I don't like us there

Buccaneers- One of their QB's is bound to be playing well enough to beat us
with the rest of the team

Broncos- They do what we do, only better

@Colts- If we're lucky they don't care cause they've locked up home field advantage

Jags- Another game that you never know.


The teams that are better than us going into the season are the Colts , Chargers , Broncos , and the Saints .

The rest I think that we could win 70% of . You take that and add an upset or two and we're 9-7 .

The Pencil Neck
06-22-2007, 12:02 AM
So you really see this team as being talented enough to compete for a playoff spot? Should THIS team be shooting for 9 wins? Seriously. Look at the holes and questions on this team.

Last year's team was only a few plays from being a contender for the playoffs. And it had a LOT more holes than this one does.

**** WARNING IFS AND COULD HAVES AHEAD ************
If we make a defensive stop or HWWNBN completes one more pass, we win the Bills game. We played well enough to win either (or both) of the Titan's games. If HWWNBN doesn't throw into quadruple coverage and doesn't fumble the ball in the 2-minute drill at the end of the first half or we don't give up the Pac Man return for a TD, we could have won that first game. If we win the toss, we could have won the second game. We were also very close to winning the Giants game.

If we win 3 of those games, we're in contention. We win all 4, we're in the playoffs.

We didn't. But we weren't that far away.
************************************************

A team doesn't have to be perfect to make the playoffs or even get to the Super Bowl. I only expect us to go 8-8 this year. I expected 6-10 last year. We're a better team and we're on our way to becoming a good team. And good teams find ways to win games we lost last year.

If we play defense at the same level that we played the final 13 games with, we're going to be tough to beat. If we play a bit better offense and score 20-21 points a game, we're going to win more games.

real
06-22-2007, 12:06 AM
I agree with Pencil Neck...Talent around the leauge is pretty close and in most instances games come down to a couple key plays...We just need players to make those key plays...We're not as far off as some make it seem, though I recognize we're not exactly a 'legit' play-off contender either...

I'm expecting atleast 8-8, maybe 9-7....But we shall see....

Texanmike02
06-22-2007, 12:08 AM
Last year's team was only a few plays from being a contender for the playoffs. And it had a LOT more holes than this one does.

**** WARNING IFS AND COULD HAVES AHEAD ************
If we make a defensive stop or HWWNBN completes one more pass, we win the Bills game. We played well enough to win either (or both) of the Titan's games. If HWWNBN doesn't throw into quadruple coverage and doesn't fumble the ball in the 2-minute drill at the end of the first half or we don't give up the Pac Man return for a TD, we could have won that first game. If we win the toss, we could have won the second game. We were also very close to winning the Giants game.

If we win 3 of those games, we're in contention. We win all 4, we're in the playoffs.

We didn't. But we weren't that far away.
************************************************

A team doesn't have to be perfect to make the playoffs or even get to the Super Bowl. I only expect us to go 8-8 this year. I expected 6-10 last year. We're a better team and we're on our way to becoming a good team. And good teams find ways to win games we lost last year.

If we play defense at the same level that we played the final 13 games with, we're going to be tough to beat. If we play a bit better offense and score 20-21 points a game, we're going to win more games.

Well I hope I'm wrong. I would love for us to put together our first winning season since 93 (wasn't that our last winning season?). I would settle for 8-8 really. Either way I'm excited about this season. Real excited because this is the first time since pigskin returned to Houston that I think our team has made significant improvement with a definite direction.

I'm not your typical pessimist, there are lots of things this team does well.. and I've been pointing them out here when nobody wanted to listen, I just don't think we do enough to get over the hump.

Mike

Texanmike02
06-22-2007, 12:23 AM
See that is the thing to me--realism is in large part recognizing that you can't sit down with a schedule and predict wins. I think people don't understand that even getting up to average QB play will be huge. In short, there is no doubt in my mind the team will be better this year but we'll have to see how that translates on the field.



Barking up the wrong tree here. aj has been attending NFL games in Houston for 30+ years.

Obviously we can't predict wins. Especially this early on, with a great degree of certainty but we should be able to get in the ballpark. And yes I realize one or two plays decide a very high % of the games in the NFL. But there is nothing to talk about if we don't talk about the future.. Hell, do you really want to relive the last 5 years of football again? And I can see if several things fall into place... us winning more games than I'm predicting... but I think that with the number of things that have to go right... we aren't likely to see it. I wouldn't be shocked I guess if we won 7 or 8 games.. not floored at least. I would also be surprised to see us win 4 games. So I guess I would put the o/u at 6.5, but just have a hard time looking at the team and saying yeah... they're ready to compete for a playoff spot. Our secondary is in shambles and our line is undecided and we're counting on an aging running back to suddenly get healthy for the first time in two years...Wow did I just say shambles? And don't get me started on our kicking game. Which may prove to be the final straw... I think that we will lose alot of games to field position unless we get someone who can either boom the ball or punt for accuracy (neither of which Stanley does reliably any more)

Mike

Overalls
06-22-2007, 07:54 AM
To me this team has a different feel than it has had the last two years. Last season we were waiting to see what would go wrong to cost us a game and usually something did. The year before that it seemed like the players were just going through the motions at the end. We have been a team that the ball bounces have gone against since 05'. This year I can see us getting more bounces going our way. It could be called luck, but luck can be one player that is in position to make a play that we might not have been in position to make in the past. It's the old weakest link theory. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I think we are stronger as a team than we have been in the past so we SHOULD have more players in position to make a play. As has been poited out sometimes it only takes one play on offense or defense to swing a game in one direction or anther. This team, starting with Schaub has a feel that it is going to make more plays.

:fans:

aj.
06-22-2007, 08:07 AM
How long have you been a fan of Houston sports?



A long time.



This isn't madden

I'll have to take your word for that since I'm not into video games. I prefer the real thing.

Should THIS team be shooting for 9 wins?

I would sure as hell hope so.

The table is set for the Texans to beat KC and Miami at Reliant this year. If you can't see that, you are letting your 'realism' cloud your vision of what's going on around the league.

dalemurphy
06-22-2007, 08:34 AM
Obviously we can't predict wins. Especially this early on, with a great degree of certainty but we should be able to get in the ballpark. And yes I realize one or two plays decide a very high % of the games in the NFL. But there is nothing to talk about if we don't talk about the future.. Hell, do you really want to relive the last 5 years of football again? And I can see if several things fall into place... us winning more games than I'm predicting... but I think that with the number of things that have to go right... we aren't likely to see it. I wouldn't be shocked I guess if we won 7 or 8 games.. not floored at least. I would also be surprised to see us win 4 games. So I guess I would put the o/u at 6.5, but just have a hard time looking at the team and saying yeah... they're ready to compete for a playoff spot. Our secondary is in shambles and our line is undecided and we're counting on an aging running back to suddenly get healthy for the first time in two years...Wow did I just say shambles? And don't get me started on our kicking game. Which may prove to be the final straw... I think that we will lose alot of games to field position unless we get someone who can either boom the ball or punt for accuracy (neither of which Stanley does reliably any more)

Mike


You're right that our punter was hidious last year. With a good punter, we'd have been 8-8 last season. I have enough faith in Rick Smith and Kubiak to believe they'll adequately address it. Regardless, if Stanley is around, it's because he corrected some problem that he had last year.

Regarding our secondary, I'd hardly call it "in shambles"... We lack anything proven at FS. Otherwise, we have good depth at CB and are solid at SS.

With a relatively healthy season, I think a winning record is a very reasonable goal. IF you don't, then you're not a "realist", you're a "pessimist"

Runner
06-22-2007, 05:02 PM
To me this team has a different feel than it has had the last two years.

Could very well be. However, I remember last year many thought they had a different feel too because Kubiak had them fired up. That feeling didn't survive contact with the regular season very long. They need to come out of the blocks a little bit better this year to build on any positive vibes.

Kaiser Toro
06-22-2007, 05:11 PM
Could very well be. However, I remember last year many thought they had a different feel too because Kubiak had them fired up. That feeling didn't survive contact with the regular season very long. They need to come out of the blocks a little bit better this year to build on any positive vibes.

You are right, but we did improve by 300% and won 3 out of the last 5 when we took the ball out of Carr's hands including being the last team to beat the Super Bowl champs. That game was a high water mark to me as we went toe to toe with an NFL elite team and we were the better team that day.

That premise along with the additions, the one major subtraction and the hiring of Bush and Franklin provide some optimism that I have never had for this team in the off season. In the past I just wanted to have a football experience. This year I expect this team to defend the home field.

Runner
06-22-2007, 05:20 PM
You are right, but we did improve by 300% and won 3 out of the last 5 when we took the ball out of Carr's hands including being the last team to beat the Super Bowl champs. That game was a high water mark to me as we went toe to toe with an NFL elite team and we were the better team that day.

That premise along with the additions, the one major subtraction and the hiring of Bush and Franklin provide some optimism that I have never had for this team in the off season. In the past I just wanted to have a football experience. This year I expect this team to defend the home field.

I think they need to build some confidence early to take full advanage of these additions. If they start 0-4 or something it could get ugly. Those late wins were great, but some of the early losses (and the Raiders win) were some of the worst football I've ever watched.


Good points though. Have you hired a ghost writer?

Kaiser Toro
06-22-2007, 05:27 PM
I think they need to build some confidence early to take full advanage of these additions. If they start 0-4 or something it could get ugly. Those late wins were great, but some of the early losses (and the Raiders win) were some of the worst football I've ever watched.


Good points though. Have you hired a ghost writer?

I do not discount that at all. Confidence should be there and that is why I feel optimistic, but if it goes south early it could get ugly.

Ghost writer? Not sure if a Theater of the Absurd or a high brow, left handed sarcastic retort should be in order. I think the best play is to go with a spontaneous fleeting confabulation, "bingo." No punt intended.

Runner
06-22-2007, 05:31 PM
Ghost writer? Not sure if a Theater of the Absurd or a high brow, left handed sarcastic retort should be in order. I think the best play is to go with a sponataneous fleeting confabulation, "bingo." No punt intended.

If you had chosen a retort I may have come back with a rejoinder. Too late now I guess. Maybe next time.

real
06-22-2007, 05:42 PM
I swear, you guys keep me on dictionary.com...

Runner
06-22-2007, 06:08 PM
I swear, you guys keep me on dictionary.com...

You're welcome.