PDA

View Full Version : 5 Wide?


KJ3
09-10-2007, 08:48 AM
so on i think 3 plays the texans lined up with 5 wide. call me crazy but i don't think our improved o'line is even close to good enough for that. IIRC, schaub took a pretty solid hit on one play, the others were just short passes. maybe the calls were in to try and confuse or put the chiefs d on their heels?

i'm all about 5 wide and exploiting single coverages if we can get better pass protection up front, but it's not worth losing our shiny new qb over it...

Kaiser Toro
09-10-2007, 08:59 AM
I will be watching it again, but it looked like we did not have enough blockers when he was sacked on 5 wide.

Vinny
09-10-2007, 09:10 AM
I will be watching it again, but it looked like we did not have enough blockers when he was sacked on 5 wide.
We didn't....I think they overloaded the side. Schaub needed to be more aware when we have that package in since I don't think there was a blocking back and there was nobody on the edge to help the overload.

hobie
09-10-2007, 09:22 AM
Indeed, thought the same thing, but I have to admit, I like the 5 wide setup. Give it some time and I am sure Kubiak and Co. can make it work pretty well..

One thing I didn't like, and this is minor, is that they had Schaub in the shotgun a few times more than I would have liked him to be, even on 3rd and short...But if this is the only thing I am a little critical about, then things are good !!! :texflag:

Vinny
09-10-2007, 09:33 AM
Indeed, thought the same thing, but I have to admit, I like the 5 wide setup. Give it some time and I am sure Kubiak and Co. can make it work pretty well..

One thing I didn't like, and this is minor, is that they had Schaub in the shotgun a few times more than I would have liked him to be, even on 3rd and short...But if this is the only thing I am a little critical about, then things are good !!! :texflag:

Early on I didn't like the playcalling...I thought we were getting too cute before we establish a running game. In hindsight he may have thought that he needed to establish a credible passing game to open up the running game. The great thing about this game is that I think that the offense left some plays on the table and can play better. They could have really blown the Chiefs out if they played a little better. I find this encouraging.

eriadoc
09-10-2007, 12:54 PM
Early on I didn't like the playcalling...I thought we were getting too cute before we establish a running game. In hindsight he may have thought that he needed to establish a credible passing game to open up the running game. The great thing about this game is that I think that the offense left some plays on the table and can play better. They could have really blown the Chiefs out if they played a little better. I find this encouraging.

That was my thought as well. SR610 reported that only four WRs were activated for the game, so I was thinking they'd be doing more I-form and/or twin TEs, especially early, to get the running game established. I figured Mathis wouldn't see the field, which essentially meant OD or AG were the 4th WR in any wide sets.

The late 10-min drive was the best drive we've ever seen as Texans fans, IMO. That showed that we can run the ball in punishing fashion (when it matters, too), so I would like to see them stick to it early, even if it does mean a 0-0 first quarter.

Battle Red Flash
09-10-2007, 04:17 PM
Early on I didn't like the playcalling...I thought we were getting too cute before we establish a running game. In hindsight he may have thought that he needed to establish a credible passing game to open up the running game. The great thing about this game is that I think that the offense left some plays on the table and can play better. They could have really blown the Chiefs out if they played a little better. I find this encouraging.

100% agreement on that. The five wides, and not establishing the run. But, I can't argue too much with 20-3. Maybe they were setting them up for something later. If we go 5 WR in the future, I hope Matt gets rid of it faster.

TK_Gamer
09-10-2007, 06:28 PM
I think the I formation is our strength. when you have a full back and a tight end like we have you waste your power going 4 wide or 5 wide. I think as a gimmick it's ok, but I think we totally wasted the value of owen daniels in the game sunday.

real
09-10-2007, 06:43 PM
I believe Owen was the fifth reciever when we went 5 wide...

I could be wrong though...

badboy
09-11-2007, 04:44 PM
Isn't it more fun to disect after a win than a loss? The team is only going to get better. Now that's what I'm talking about!

Double Barrel
09-11-2007, 05:10 PM
I think the I formation is our strength. when you have a full back and a tight end like we have you waste your power going 4 wide or 5 wide. I think as a gimmick it's ok, but I think we totally wasted the value of owen daniels in the game sunday.

I tend to agree. We have a team built for the pro-style/WCO more than a run & shoot spread offense. It's cool to see an occasional 5 WR set, but only to keep the defense on their toes.

I think our line is better than advertised in previous years, but they are average right now, at best. It will take an elevated effort on their part, along with Schaub reading the blitz, to make a 5 wide-out set be more than a gimmick.

What is really promising, though, is seeing a playbook being opened up and knowing that it is a learning process and just the tip of the iceberg. Kubiak had no confidence in the previous QB, so the playbook was obviously shrinking as the season progressed last year. I can recall not even running a two minute drill because the head coach was concerned with confidence. I seriously doubt we'll be seeing that conservative mentality much in the future.

Protecting a lead through ball control is one thing (10:26 is a thing of beauty!), and quite another to scale back because the signal caller can't handle it.