PDA

View Full Version : Texans need to put more pressure on QB


Tailgate
06-22-2007, 02:24 PM
A tad bit of a neg spin by ole Len Pasquarelli. Is it me... or are we getting more press than we have ever gotten lately??

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2912652

Consider: In 41 of 80 outings, the Texans have managed one sack or fewer. That includes 17 contests in which Houston failed to get to the opposing quarterback even one time. The Texans have registered more than three sacks in just 10 games. And in only 13 games has Houston managed to generate more sacks than it has surrendered.

Just once, in 2005, have the Texans been above the NFL average for sacks, and that wasn't by much. Houston had 37 sacks in '05 and the league mean was 36.9. In five seasons, while Houston quarterbacks were dropped an average of once every 9.41 drop-backs, opposing quarterbacks were sacked every 18.7 trips into the pocket.

Double Barrel
06-22-2007, 02:34 PM
yeah, our rush has been pathetic the first five years. Frustrating to watch, especially when it puts so much burden on our coverage.

I can only hope that the first round picks of the last four drafts will give us enough talent on our d-line to at least have some consistent pressure. If we go into off-season 2008 still looking for a pass rusher, I think I'm going to be depressed.

Tailgate
06-22-2007, 02:41 PM
Hate to bring him up... but losing the trenches game in and game out is exactly why we ended up at 2-14 that one year. Casserly seemed to build from the outside in.... instead of the inside out. Of course.. the turnover and the moves Rick and Kubiak have moved seemed to show the exact opposite.

This will hopefully be the last time we read anything like this on EITHER sides of the ball in the future.

The Pencil Neck
06-22-2007, 02:48 PM
Hate to bring him up... but losing the trenches game in and game out is exactly why we ended up at 2-14 that one year. Casserly seemed to build from the outside in.... instead of the inside out. Of course.. the turnover and the moves Rick and Kubiak have moved seemed to show the exact opposite.

This will hopefully be the last time we read anything like this on EITHER sides of the ball in the future.

What's funny about this is that at the time the team was first being put together, everyone was applauding us on doing things the right way and building from the lines out. Now, after all those moves busted, we go back and say they built from the outside-in.

Bottom line is that our first regime just bit at accessing talent and made a lot of bad moves. And now we're having to rebuild and on the defensive side, we're trying to do that from the d-line out.

dalemurphy
06-22-2007, 02:51 PM
[QUOTE=Tailgate;683812] Casserly seemed to build from the outside in[QUOTE]


Casserly building.... now that's funny!

badboy
06-22-2007, 03:00 PM
What's funny about this is that at the time the team was first being put together, everyone was applauding us on doing things the right way and building from the lines out. Now, after all those moves busted, we go back and say they built from the outside-in.

Bottom line is that our first regime just bit at accessing talent and made a lot of bad moves. And now we're having to rebuild and on the defensive side, we're trying to do that from the d-line out.Two studs (mario & Okoye) on any Dline should be adequate. With our improvement to linebackers, we need not focus on the line for some time. Still our first selection next year will probably be on defense; unless Cb and free safety is addressed in free agency or we get big surprise from our lower picks in this 07 draft.

Tailgate
06-22-2007, 03:58 PM
What's funny about this is that at the time the team was first being put together, everyone was applauding us on doing things the right way and building from the lines out. Now, after all those moves busted, we go back and say they built from the outside-in.

Bottom line is that our first regime just bit at accessing talent and made a lot of bad moves. And now we're having to rebuild and on the defensive side, we're trying to do that from the d-line out.

I think it would be fair to say that we have made the most moves in these past two offseasons on the O-line Unit than any two prior:

Charles Spencer, Jordan Black, Ephraim Salaam, Mike Flannagan, Brandon Frye, Scott Jackson, Kasey Studdard, Eric Winston, etc...

Texans Horror
06-22-2007, 04:07 PM
yeah, our rush has been pathetic the first five years. Frustrating to watch, especially when it puts so much burden on our coverage.

I can only hope that the first round picks of the last four drafts will give us enough talent on our d-line to at least have some consistent pressure. If we go into off-season 2008 still looking for a pass rusher, I think I'm going to be depressed.

If you put Babin, TJ, Mario, Demeco, and Amobi on the line, you have a really highly-drafted line. Too bad TJ and Babin haven't panned out yet. I still have hopes for Babin. Demeco, Amobi, and Mario will evolve into the core of an extremely powerful and dominant line.

This will hopefully be the last time we read anything like this on EITHER sides of the ball in the future.

I hope so, too.

real
06-22-2007, 04:10 PM
Why do you keep including Demeco as part of the line ?

Specnatz
06-22-2007, 04:25 PM
A tad bit of a neg spin by ole Len Pasquarelli. Is it me... or are we getting more press than we have ever gotten lately??

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2912652

Thank you Captain Obvious Len Pasquarelli. A team needs to put pressure on the QB to be successful, I am so glad you put this info out there. It is most likely that with the drafting of Okoye the Houston Texans were not aware of this.

Texans Horror
06-22-2007, 04:36 PM
Why do you keep including Demeco as part of the line ?

To quote "the Mexicans" from Bullrun: "That's how I roll."

Just always have. It's probably because at my high school, linebackers worked with the defensive line when the team split up.

TexanSam
06-23-2007, 11:58 AM
Didn't see this thread

Second Honeymoon
06-24-2007, 03:42 PM
this is a pretty good article on the Texans inability to rush the passer lately. unlike John Clayton, Len Pasquarelli is actually readable and credible. Chicken Little needs to stick to Magic The Gathering and leave the football to others. The article is kind of a Captain Obvious article but he does get some good quotes from current Texans and former Texans in Antwan Peek.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2912652

Texanmike02
06-24-2007, 05:31 PM
In other news... teams trailing in a game need to outscore their opponents for the rest of the game in order to win.

I did some research and found out that when teams are trailing in a game the only way they have ever won is to outscore the opponent by more than the number they are trailing. According to the old guy at the basketball court who's hair seems to have migrated from his head to his nose and ears "Yeah, well you know man... if you don't score more than the other team... its tough man... I haven't seen very many people win like that."

"Dammit Mike, I don't care about sports" said my wife.

"90% of the game is half mental" said some crazy old baseball guy.... so I left him to his scratch pad... trying to figure out what he was saying.

And finally I went back and watched some NFL games to figure this out once and for all. "Abhem abhem, 6 legged turkey... ahem.. RAIDERS", said John madden. I again asked him to expound on that.. and decided I was better off reverting to some of his older game footage.

"You see, the team is behind. What that means.. you see... is that they have to score alot of points... and not let the team score any more... or they're not gonna win the game."

Well that pretty much sums this article up.

Mike

Texanmike02
06-24-2007, 05:32 PM
I have no idea where that came from... and almost deleted it... but figured at least one person will chuckle.. it is a nice article... just thought it was a bit obvious.

Mike

76Texan
06-25-2007, 07:15 PM
I'm not sure about the point of the article.
The one thing that is obvious, IMO, is the disregard for the defense as a whole, and that includes the philosophy of the coaching staff.

The obvious is to win the game, even if it's by 1 point.
We can argue that a run and shoot offense is the way to go, and therefore, spend all the effort to acquire all the offensive weapons necessary for the task.
Or build up a very strong defensive unit, like the Bears, or the Oilers at one time. And the offense can be very one-dimensional.
Or you can build a defense that bends but don't break, trying to limit the scoring to FGs rather than TDs, and still have the money to assemble an offense that is just good enough to score one more point than the opponent.

Whichever way, a FG is probably the difference in those winnable games that lead to a play-off berth. And beyond.

To beat the Colts, a better recipe might be a strong running game over a defense that can put pressure on Manning. JMO.

And then, let say, the Colts can get to the red zone real quick, but we can build a defense that makes it harder for them to score a TD there.
And that doens't necessarily require a FIERCE pass rush.

I'm sure it's not that simple, and will appreciate all the inputs.
Thanks in advance.

Il_Bruno
06-25-2007, 10:33 PM
I'm not sure about the point of the article.
The one thing that is obvious, IMO, is the disregard for the defense as a whole, and that includes the philosophy of the coaching staff.

The obvious is to win the game, even if it's by 1 point.
We can argue that a run and shoot offense is the way to go, and therefore, spend all the effort to acquire all the offensive weapons necessary for the task.
Or build up a very strong defensive unit, like the Bears, or the Oilers at one time. And the offense can be very one-dimensional.
Or you can build a defense that bends but don't break, trying to limit the scoring to FGs rather than TDs, and still have the money to assemble an offense that is just good enough to score one more point than the opponent.

Whichever way, a FG is probably the difference in those winnable games that lead to a play-off berth. And beyond.

To beat the Colts, a better recipe might be a strong running game over a defense that can put pressure on Manning. JMO.

And then, let say, the Colts can get to the red zone real quick, but we can build a defense that makes it harder for them to score a TD there.
And that doens't necessarily require a FIERCE pass rush.

I'm sure it's not that simple, and will appreciate all the inputs.
Thanks in advance.



Thats all good, but it seems that the truly elite defenses can really get the passer. Or get the QB when it matters most