PDA

View Full Version : My least favorite excuses today


eriadoc
09-24-2007, 09:13 AM
If we had blitzed Peyton Manning, he would have exposed us in the secondary.

Well, we didn't blitz, and we sure looked exposed. Hit the man, and make him remember he was in Reliant for something other than his stats.

Faggins is only a 6th round pick, and doing the best he can.

Well, I'm pretty sure we didn't have a lot invested in Matt Stevens, either. And how many other guys have we had that we played this long that have sucked this long? Only one that I can think of, and everyone was all for him getting fired as well.

The running game wasn't there.

We only ran the ball 8 times in the first half, not counting the JJones end-around and Schaub scramble. EIGHT times in the first half. And why were we giving the ball to Jameel Cook at tailback so much? I understand that he's the emergency tailback at that point, but Gado was still available. After Green officially left the game (after the direct snap), the carries went Cook, Gado, Cook, Cook, Cook. And that was the end of the first half. If Cook is that much better at tailback than Gado, then we should have kept Lundy, or Walker, or Bob from Accountemps, jeez.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 09:27 AM
Faggins is only a 6th round pick, and doing the best he can.

Well, I'm pretty sure we didn't have a lot invested in Matt Stevens, either. And how many other guys have we had that we played this long that have sucked this long? Only one that I can think of, and everyone was all for him getting fired as well.

Faggins is a nickel corner pressed into duty as the #2 CB. Compounding on the problem is the fact that he was asked to cover Marvin "1st ballot HOF'er" Harrison. I mean couldn't Faggins atleast have kept Harrison out of the endzone or under 200 yards recieving? (The opponent has to be figured into the discussion of Petey's play this week)

I'm shocked that so many people seem to think that Petey has sucked the enitre time he's been here. I quess nobody remembers his play as the nickel CB his first few years, a time where he made several plays.

Faggins is a good nickel CB, and thats it. As the #2 CB he leaves a lot to be desired, but it is not his call as to what spot he plays. Nor can Petey choose to ignore the coaching and the gameplan, which more then likely dictated the cushion on Harrison.

Faggins is NOT Matt Stevens.

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 09:36 AM
If we had blitzed Peyton Manning, he would have exposed us in the secondary.

Well, we didn't blitz, and we sure looked exposed. Hit the man, and make him remember he was in Reliant for something other than his stats.

Faggins is only a 6th round pick, and doing the best he can.

Well, I'm pretty sure we didn't have a lot invested in Matt Stevens, either. And how many other guys have we had that we played this long that have sucked this long? Only one that I can think of, and everyone was all for him getting fired as well.

The running game wasn't there.

We only ran the ball 8 times in the first half, not counting the JJones end-around and Schaub scramble. EIGHT times in the first half. And why were we giving the ball to Jameel Cook at tailback so much? I understand that he's the emergency tailback at that point, but Gado was still available. After Green officially left the game (after the direct snap), the carries went Cook, Gado, Cook, Cook, Cook. And that was the end of the first half. If Cook is that much better at tailback than Gado, then we should have kept Lundy, or Walker, or Bob from Accountemps, jeez.

Some comments:

1. Agree with your first comment.

2. As for your second comment, I'm not sure that is an excuse. Faggins is who he is. He's a nickle corner pressed to play #2. It's not like the Texans can go to Costco and pick them out a good CB. The Texans chose to stay mostly pat at CB in the offseason, for various reasons (inavailability of quality corners and not having much salary cap money). There are no obvious candidates of better options, and well, Steve Smith and Peyton Manning have burnt lots better corners.

3. A lot of good running teams have had problems running against the Colts since their playoff run. That the Texans are facing them in an emergency situation with Gado and Cook, and with no Andre Johnson to keep them honest, well, actually it is amazing that they did the things that they did on offense at all, to be honest.


Maybe my point of view of stuff is that I never really felt that the Texans defense was going to stop Manning. I thought they might be able to get a turnover here or there.

I think the biggest thing the Texans need to figure out is how to get the defense working from the first quarter. These slow starts aren't helping.

Vinny
09-24-2007, 09:40 AM
What I'd like to see is a little imagination on defense at times. Line Dunta up on the slot from time to time like the Capers regime did....utilize his blitzing skills along with DeMeco mixing it up here and there. When DeMeco creeps up to the line and never blitzes...I donno how that "tricks" anyone.

Goldensilence
09-24-2007, 09:48 AM
What i think the problems was is the colts offense is really a timing offense more then anything. It's not just getting to Manning it's getting pressure in his face and upsetting the timing. Also getting a jam on the receivers at the LOS is equally important. Wayne didn't kill us and that's because we weren't afraid to one up on him with Dunta. Clark was the big killer, which is something i was scared about going into the game, the way they're starting to use him. Gonzalez also broke free a few times.

As for Faggins I'm not opposed to moving someone else into the starting spot next week and at least giving them a shot against Atl. Fletcher looked solid in Detroit last year and i'm kind of wondering about Richard Smith right now. But i think you're going overboard with the Matt Stevens comparison right now. Faggins isn't that bad. Not sayin he should be starting but he's not that terrible.

The run game wasn't there because the Colts defense played fast and physical.Like isaid early in the year the reports of their demise was exagerated. Like it or not Jameel Cook was the most effective back yesterday. Seriously so last year he made some costly mistakes but much liek the Colts feel the superbowl was last year and they're not going to sit and hang their hat on it. We shouldn't either on Cook. When pressed into it he played well and so did Andre Davis.

Honestly don't get it diced either. We played a supremely good Colts team toe to toe without all cylinders firing and we still took them to the last drive even with some mistakes by our starting QB. The Cotls will make other good teams look bad this year count on that.

Vinny
09-24-2007, 09:55 AM
I donno why people keep bringing up Fletcher when we doesn't play as well as Faggins does...he was awful yesterday.

The1ApplePie
09-24-2007, 09:58 AM
Two things are proven to beat (or at least slow down) Manning

The 3-4
A great RB (or at least a good running game)

We had neither yesterday.:gun:

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 10:05 AM
Two things are proven to beat (or at least slow down) Manning

The 3-4
A great RB (or at least a good running game)

We had neither yesterday.:gun:

Yup, casue of the four teams that beat the Colts last year only 1 ran a 3-4 D. The Cowboys (3-4), the Jags (4-3), the Titans (4-3) and the Texans (4-3). So much for needing the vaunted 3-4 D to beat the Colts.

gtexan02
09-24-2007, 10:08 AM
Faggins gave up lots of 3rd down conversions, but he didn't get beat like DRob did against Reggie Wayne

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 10:10 AM
Faggins gave up lots of 3rd down conversions, but he didn't get beat like DRob did against Reggie Wayne

How dare you blame somebody else then Faggins, espically one this day of all days. Don't you know it's "Faggins Fault for Everything" Day. Did you know it was Faggins who rolled up on McKinney's leg?

:sarcasm:

eriadoc
09-24-2007, 10:31 AM
Faggins gave up lots of 3rd down conversions, but he didn't get beat like DRob did against Reggie Wayne

Every corner gets beat. Faggins didn't get crucified for giving up an 80-yard TD to Lee Evans last year. It was the SECOND 80-yard TD. Faggins consistently gives too much of a cushion and gives up completions all day. Yeah, he played Steve Smith and Marvin Harrison, I'll give you that. But he sucked against everyone he played last year, and he'll give it up all year this year, as well. And it doesn't matter if their name is Marvin, Steve, Roydell, Brandon, Matt, Ernest, Roddy, or Michael.

Faggins has shown enough to have established what's called a trend. And the opposing teams are pretty good at finding those trends and exploiting them.

And to add insult to injury, the only reason it was Marvin eating us up on those 3rd downs is because they have two good WRs. If they only had one top-notch WR, they would just move him pre-snap over to Faggins' side of the field, knowing D-Rob will never get assigned to the best guy on the field - just a specified side of the field.

eriadoc
09-24-2007, 10:34 AM
Some comments:

3. A lot of good running teams have had problems running against the Colts since their playoff run. That the Texans are facing them in an emergency situation with Gado and Cook, and with no Andre Johnson to keep them honest, well, actually it is amazing that they did the things that they did on offense at all, to be honest.

The fact that the team attempted to run the ball eight times in the first half, aside from the end-around and an unplanned scramble, is a coaching staff problem. The fact that this coaching staff kept Gado instead of Lundy or even Darius Walker, as a 3rd string RB, is defensible right up until the first two guys go down and the staff feels more comfortable using the backup FB at tailback rather than use the guy they kept instead of those prior two. Un-freakin-believable.

eriadoc
09-24-2007, 10:36 AM
If we had lost this game with a well-executed gameplan, I'd be fine about it. Injuries hurt, and the occasional mistakes happen. We all knew, going into this game, that we were only going to have a small chance to win, and that we'd have to run the ball, run it some more, control the clock, and put pressure on Manning.

So, we never blitzed, and we gave up on the run as soon as Green went down.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 10:45 AM
The fact that the team attempted to run the ball eight times in the first half, aside from the end-around and an unplanned scramble, is a coaching staff problem. The fact that this coaching staff kept Gado instead of Lundy or even Darius Walker, as a 3rd string RB, is defensible right up until the first two guys go down and the staff feels more comfortable using the backup FB at tailback rather than use the guy they kept instead of those prior two. Un-freakin-believable.

Yeah cause every team in the NFL can run the ball on Indy with there 3rd string RB except the Texans, damn stupid Rick Smith and Gary Kubiak.

or

Yeah, we so could have used a Wali Lundy fumble or two yesterday (and do you really think Lundy is that much better then Gado, in my view they both kinda suck).

And FYI Walker is still on the team, but you can't activate somebody from the practice squad on gameday or during the game (Dayne was a gametime decsicion and Green went down during the game). You may get your wish in regards to Walker seeing some playing time this weekend, but don't forget that he's already been cut from this team once.

On one hand it's nice to see a change in the fan base (being a tad annoyed with a lose) on the other everybody needs to simmer down now, simmer down. We lost by 6 to the defending SB champs, who look better this year then the looked last year.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 10:49 AM
If we had lost this game with a well-executed gameplan, I'd be fine about it. Injuries hurt, and the occasional mistakes happen. We all knew, going into this game, that we were only going to have a small chance to win, and that we'd have to run the ball, run it some more, control the clock, and put pressure on Manning.

So, we never blitzed, and we gave up on the run as soon as Green went down.

You think blitzing the Colts is a good idea?

We had issues covering the Colts WR/TE/RBs with 8 guys back in coverage, and you want to reduce that number?

Newsflash: Peyton Manning in maybe the best QB in a couple of generations, and when paired with Marvin Harrison, Regie Wayne, Dallas Clark, and that O-line. We are not the first team they have done this to, nor will we be the last.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 10:51 AM
I usually agree with TChicks posts, but I don't care for the excuse of Petey Faggins being a nickel to explain his bad play. The man is a football player and he should play like an NFL starter. And since he is not, he should be sitting on the bench and waiting on nickel/dime formations.

The way that excuse is set up is basically saying that it's either the coaches or the gm's fault for him not playing well. I think a bad player is just a bad player. He's gotten burned so many times and he'll just get burned even more. Run support, pass coverage; you name it, he blew it.

Texans fans should stop making excuses for consistently bad play from this guy. Put in Fletcher and the kid Bennett and see what they can do. Things could get worse with Faggins still out there. :cool:

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 10:51 AM
The fact that the team attempted to run the ball eight times in the first half, aside from the end-around and an unplanned scramble, is a coaching staff problem. The fact that this coaching staff kept Gado instead of Lundy or even Darius Walker, as a 3rd string RB, is defensible right up until the first two guys go down and the staff feels more comfortable using the backup FB at tailback rather than use the guy they kept instead of those prior two. Un-freakin-believable.

Okay. Let's look at it this way.

One of the biggest problems that the Texans had with protection last year was their inexperienced running backs. It's not like Lundy showed a ton last year. And Walker? His performance in training camp got him cut once.

A team that depends on the fullback for their offense, can't carry a bunch of running backs on the roster.

badboy
09-24-2007, 10:53 AM
Like it or not imo we do not line up even with the Colts if both teams are healthy. Having five starters on offense out makes it lopsided even more. No excuses needed. We got beat. We did have hopes of a win prior to kick off and I was still hopeful into 4th. Were there mistakes? Sure. I happen to think we remain on track for a good season. I am concerned about the injuries plaguing us again.

eriadoc
09-24-2007, 10:56 AM
You think blitzing the Colts is a good idea?

We had issues covering the Colts WR/TE/RBs with 8 guys back in coverage, and you want to reduce that number?

Newsflash: Peyton Manning in maybe the best QB in a couple of generations, and when paired with Marvin Harrison, Regie Wayne, Dallas Clark, and that O-line. We are not the first team they have done this to, nor will we be the last.

Yes, I do. I'm not saying you blitz every down, but more than zero would have been good. Put Manning on the ground a few times, and give him something to think about. Hell, we got burned anyway, so we may as well have gotten burned while hitting him.

Yeah cause every team in the NFL can run the ball on Indy with there 3rd string RB except the Texans, damn stupid Rick Smith and Gary Kubiak.

No, I figure most teams would have problems running the ball with their 3rd-string RB. I would also figure that number would be worse with your BACKUP FULLBACK playing tailback. Give me a break. I don't really see how this message is at all unclear. If you are going to keep Gado as your 3rd back, then you hope you never have to play him. Yesterday, though, they had to. And they didn't. If you can't use Gado in that situation, then you may as well never use him.

I'm not steamed about the loss. I'm steamed about how we lost. And I'm adding to my list of excuses:

We only lost by six to the SB champs.

The score was never that close, in terms of play or score.

hollywood_texan
09-24-2007, 10:57 AM
If we had blitzed Peyton Manning, he would have exposed us in the secondary.


I believe the game plan was not give up big play TDs. Do you remember the Buffalo game and Lee Evans? If Indy moved down the field, so be it, but hold them to FGs.

Then it was up to offense to make long sustaining drives for TDs.

When Green went down, that threw the entire game plan out the window.

You are completely calling out Faggins, but you want the defense to blitz Manning with the corners on man coverage. You are making no sense! In other words, you are contradicting yourself.

Look, the Texans don't have the personnel in the defensive secondary to run the defense you would like. Fortunately, we don't play elite WRs every game. It's going to be several weeks before we have this problem again. Not to mention, Manning and Harrison going to the Hall of Fame! Indy is just a very good offensive team.

This whole Indy situation reminds of the Oilers vs. Pittsburgh in the 70s. The Oilers had a really good team that probably would have a won a Super Bowl if they didn't have to play the Steelers 3 times for 2 years. The Texans have a ways to go to become a good team against the Colts, but their plate is going to full knocking off the Colts for the AFC South.

As for Faggins, this is just situation we are going to have deal with until next year. It will be interesting off season to see what Kubiak/Smith do about the RB position and defensive secondary. Those positions are holding this team back.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 10:57 AM
You think blitzing the Colts is a good idea?

We had issues covering the Colts WR/TE/RBs with 8 guys back in coverage, and you want to reduce that number?

Newsflash: Peyton Manning in maybe the best QB in a couple of generations, and when paired with Marvin Harrison, Regie Wayne, Dallas Clark, and that O-line. We are not the first team they have done this to, nor will we be the last.

This is football, you don't play damage control from the start of the game. You go out and hit them in the mouth and figure out the best time to apply pressure. You have to blitz the Colts to have a chance at winning.

Remember who beat these guys? Teams like the Steelers and Pats.
Were you watching those games???

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 10:57 AM
I usually agree with TChicks posts, but I don't care for the excuse of Petey Faggins being a nickel to explain his bad play. The man is a football player and he should play like an NFL starter. And since he is not, he should be sitting on the bench and waiting on nickel/dime formations.

The way that excuse is set up is basically saying that it's either the coaches or the gm's fault for him not playing well. I think a bad player is just a bad player. He's gotten burned so many times and he'll just get burned even more. Run support, pass coverage; you name it, he blew it.

Texans fans should stop making excuses for consistently bad play from this guy. Put in Fletcher and the kid Bennett and see what they can do. Things could get worse with Faggins still out there. :cool:

Fletcher got beat (bad) by Anthony Gonzalez, a rookie, and you want to put him on Harrison. Yup that sounds like fun. Let's not forget that the vaunted Lions D thougth they could get by without him in their secondary.

Bennet is injuried, thigh issuse. Was not availible this week, might not be next week.

Faggins is a nickel CB (and a good one) that is being pressed into service as a #2 CB, that is not Faggins fault (blame Cass for jacking the cap up so we were unable to sign anybody).

jerek
09-24-2007, 10:58 AM
For the record I agree with eriadoc. The key to beating Peyton Manning (besides keeping him off the field) is to keep him on his toes. Those few times we did get him moving he threw crappy balls. With too few exceptions, we spent too much of the game trying to create pressure with a four-man rush which worked too infrequently to be effective as a component of our overall gameplan.

There is a balance to be struck between too much coverage and too much blitzing and we didn't strike that balance. As Vinny noted, sending DeMeco to the line and then putting him into zone virtually every play isn't going to "trick" any one. It goes without saying that Peyton Manning is as close to perfect as the quarterback position gets and that it is very difficult to disrupt his play but the Patriots are the most consistent example I can think of and they do it by consistently mixing up their look.

Faggins has been an utter liability since day one and I know that there isn't a "cornerback store" we can shop at but we could've tried to shop it more aggressively this offseason. I understand we had a variety of holes to fill and that our staff did the best they could. The good news is that it's easier to hide liability in your secondary when you pressure the QB--the bad news is that we didn't do that to Manning. I don't know of any NFL team that can consistently create pressure utilizing a 4-man rush to the extent that we do so I don't understand our insistence on living and dying by this philosophy. Receivers will get open and coverage will break down against the very best Pro-Bowl secondaries if the quarterback has long enough to throw and the best quarterback in the game had too much time too often yesterday.

I also fault the coaches for not attempting a 2-minute drill to end the first half and for kicking the ball off to the Colts after our score with 2+ minutes left, 2 timeouts and access to the obvious perspective that our defense had to that point in the game been incapable of forcing a quick 3-and-out against a Colts offense running on all cylinders.

The Colts play top-notch ball and we didn't capitalize on the precious few opportunities they gave us. Injuries are unfortunate and we did a lot of good things yesterday and it's a shame we didn't do a couple more things right because the game was ours for the taking.

badboy
09-24-2007, 10:59 AM
I usually agree with TChicks posts, but I don't care for the excuse of Petey Faggins being a nickel to explain his bad play. The man is a football player and he should play like an NFL starter. And since he is not, he should be sitting on the bench and waiting on nickel/dime formations.

The way that excuse is set up is basically saying that it's either the coaches or the gm's fault for him not playing well. I think a bad player is just a bad player. He's gotten burned so many times and he'll just get burned even more. Run support, pass coverage; you name it, he blew it.

Texans fans should stop making excuses for consistently bad play from this guy. Put in Fletcher and the kid Bennett and see what they can do. Things could get worse with Faggins still out there. :cool:You seem to be saying if a player is chosen to play a position above his skills by his coaches, he should just play above those skills anyway? How exactly is that done? We should fire all the players and sign street players and tell them to go be starters. I think if Fletcher and or Bennett could play CB#2, one of them would be there by now. Coaches must think Faggins gives the best chance to win. I agree he is not the long term answer, but he was not supposed to be.

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 11:01 AM
Faggins gave up lots of 3rd down conversions, but he didn't get beat like DRob did against Reggie Wayne

What's worse....

Outside of getting beat once, you completely shut down your receiver.. (When you actually man up your receiver and not give up 10 yard cushions.......you take the chance of getting beat, but you also don't give him free catches.)

or

You give up third down conversions like they are candy on Halloween leading to MANY scoring drives.........hell when you do get down in the red zone, you let a RB punk you twice for scores.


I don't understand why people are trying to justify Faggins performance by comparing him to Dunta.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:02 AM
Yes, I do. I'm not saying you blitz every down, but more than zero would have been good. Put Manning on the ground a few times, and give him something to think about. Hell, we got burned anyway, so we may as well have gotten burned while hitting him.

And has that proven to be an effective way to beat the Colts over the last 2 years? We didn't blitz that often last year and managed to beat the Colts. Then there is the problem of just getting to Manning, even if you due blitz. You beat the Colts by keeping Manning off the field; cause he usually beats the blitz.



No, I figure most teams would have problems running the ball with their 3rd-string RB. I would also figure that number would be worse with your BACKUP FULLBACK playing tailback. Give me a break. I don't really see how this message is at all unclear. If you are going to keep Gado as your 3rd back, then you hope you never have to play him. Yesterday, though, they had to. And they didn't. If you can't use Gado in that situation, then you may as well never use him.

I'm not steamed about the loss. I'm steamed about how we lost. And I'm adding to my list of excuses:

We only lost by six to the SB champs.

The score was never that close, in terms of play or score.

I don't think the situation would have been any different of Lundy or Walker was the 3rd RB, do you? It's a depth issue, something that is being addressed but will not be fixed quickly.

eriadoc
09-24-2007, 11:04 AM
Jerek and Shaft are getting what I am trying to say. You know what? If we do all that, we probably still lose that game. Ahman Green going down that early hurts. Losing McKinney hurts the run game. Losing Jones hurts, though it was late by that point. Regardless, we would have played a competitive game that was a real effort to win. The game we played Sunday was reminiscent of the Capers era, where we just tried to play not to lose. We gave a huge cushion to the WRs, we played seven back in coverage, we gave up the short stuff, etc. It's choosing death by a thousand cuts. It's football - I hate watching that crap. Go hit someone. Go make a play. Go for an INT and get burned; I don't care. TRY TO DO SOMETHING. I'd rather see our guys fail while striving for something big than fail while playing timid.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:06 AM
For the record I agree with eriadoc. The key to beating Peyton Manning (besides keeping him off the field) is to keep him on his toes. Those few times we did get him moving he threw crappy balls. With too few exceptions, we spent too much of the game trying to create pressure with a four-man rush which worked too infrequently to be effective as a component of our overall gameplan.

There is a balance to be struck between too much coverage and too much blitzing and we didn't strike that balance. As Vinny noted, sending DeMeco to the line and then putting him into zone virtually every play isn't going to "trick" any one. It goes without saying that Peyton Manning is as close to perfect as the quarterback position gets and that it is very difficult to disrupt his play but the Patriots are the most consistent example I can think of and they do it by consistently mixing up their look.

Faggins has been an utter liability since day one and I know that there isn't a "cornerback store" we can shop at but we could've tried to shop it more aggressively this offseason. I understand we had a variety of holes to fill and that our staff did the best they could. The good news is that it's easier to hide liability in your secondary when you pressure the QB--the bad news is that we didn't do that to Manning. I don't know of any NFL team that can consistently create pressure utilizing a 4-man rush to the extent that we do so I don't understand our insistence on living and dying by this philosophy. Receivers will get open and coverage will break down against the very best Pro-Bowl secondaries if the quarterback has long enough to throw and the best quarterback in the game had too much time too often yesterday.

I also fault the coaches for not attempting a 2-minute drill to end the first half and for kicking the ball off to the Colts after our score with 2+ minutes left, 2 timeouts and access to the obvious perspective that our defense had to that point in the game been incapable of forcing a quick 3-and-out against a Colts offense running on all cylinders.

The Colts play top-notch ball and we didn't capitalize on the precious few opportunities they gave us. Injuries are unfortunate and we did a lot of good things yesterday and it's a shame we didn't do a couple more things right because the game was ours for the taking.

Faggins has proven to be a more then capable nickle CB (something that Fletcher didn't show yesterday) since he's been here. Unfortuantly he is being pressed into service as the #2, a situation that should and will be addressed in the offseason. Thankfully Faggins does not have to cover a WR the caliber of Harrison except one more time this year (the game in Indy).

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:07 AM
Fletcher got beat (bad) by Anthony Gonzalez, a rookie, and you want to put him on Harrison. Yup that sounds like fun. Let's not forget that the vaunted Lions D thougth they could get by without him in their secondary.

Bennet is injuried, thigh issuse. Was not availible this week, might not be next week.

Faggins is a nickel CB (and a good one) that is being pressed into service as a #2 CB, that is not Faggins fault (blame Cass for jacking the cap up so we were unable to sign anybody).

If I were the coach......

I would have faith in the fact that my GM set up the roster so I can bench a player at anytime due to lack of production. There is no excuse to leaving the guy on the field. And it is his fault that he is out there, he signed a contract and wanted to be a part of the team.

Petey needs to man up and shows his teammates and coaches that he gives a sh*t about this team.

He is and has been our weakest link on D, and nobody wants to blame him. Geez...:thumbdown

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 11:10 AM
I usually agree with TChicks posts, but I don't care for the excuse of Petey Faggins being a nickel to explain his bad play. The man is a football player and he should play like an NFL starter. And since he is not, he should be sitting on the bench and waiting on nickel/dime formations.

The way that excuse is set up is basically saying that it's either the coaches or the gm's fault for him not playing well. I think a bad player is just a bad player. He's gotten burned so many times and he'll just get burned even more. Run support, pass coverage; you name it, he blew it.

Texans fans should stop making excuses for consistently bad play from this guy. Put in Fletcher and the kid Bennett and see what they can do. Things could get worse with Faggins still out there. :cool:

Okay let me splain it this way. Not an excuse. Just stating reality. Water is wet, Pope Catholic sort of reality.

1. Faggins plays to the best of his ability. Dude is a little guy, and he has made plays in the past, and is best suited for nickle So you shouldn't crush him due to effort because by most accounts his issues are not ones of effort.

2. He didn't choose to be #2 CB, the coaches put him there.

3. Coaches have an incentive to play their best players.

4. Fletcher hasn't set the world on fire, and Bennett has had some injury issues and is a rookie.

5. As for CB cushions, if you talking to NFL CBs, one of the things that they will tell you is that the #1 thing that fans do not understand about their play is that they play the coverages that their coaches tell them to play. So sometimes they have to play with a big cushion.

6. The Texans over the years have had all sorts of placeholder players. Guys who play with effort but don't have the ability to back it up. Guys who are starting for the Texans because for whatever reasons, we can't replace them yet. Jason Simmons is a good example of such a player. His nickname with the coaches is Max, because he plays up to the maximum of his potential.

I just don't feel the need to call for Petey Faggins head on a platter because it ain't like he is an overpaid,underperforming guy, not using his best efforts, or someone that has no value as a player. He is playing out of position because the coaches need him too.

I will slam Petey when I also feel the need to kick puppies too. There's no point in it. Oooohweee, Steve Smith and Peyton Manning abused him. Is that much of a surprise?

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:11 AM
You seem to be saying if a player is chosen to play a position above his skills by his coaches, he should just play above those skills anyway? How exactly is that done? We should fire all the players and sign street players and tell them to go be starters. I think if Fletcher and or Bennett could play CB#2, one of them would be there by now. Coaches must think Faggins gives the best chance to win. I agree he is not the long term answer, but he was not supposed to be.

Did his contract, draft position, biography or anything to that extent say NICKEL or CORNERBACK.

MY GOSH people,

FAGGINS IS AN NFL CB, A STARTER IN THE NFL, AND SHOULD PLAY LIKE ONE!

TheCD
09-24-2007, 11:12 AM
Even though we lost, I think we played extremely well yesterday. There was some iffy moments here and there in regards to coaching decisions. And I was practically screaming at the t.v. for our guys to show some sense of urgency on both drives in the 4th, but other than that, I am pretty well satisfied.

My hope was that our statment in this game would be to punch them in the mouth and keep on swinging, and I think we accomplished that in spite of the injuries. Whenever someone made a mistake, they went right back out there to make up for it, rather than sit on the sidelines like years past while Peyton padded his stats.

With how this game turned out, so long as we're healthy next time around, I expect us to squeak by with a win in their house...just to return the favor. :)

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:12 AM
Jerek and Shaft are getting what I am trying to say. You know what? If we do all that, we probably still lose that game. Ahman Green going down that early hurts. Losing McKinney hurts the run game. Losing Jones hurts, though it was late by that point. Regardless, we would have played a competitive game that was a real effort to win. The game we played Sunday was reminiscent of the Capers era, where we just tried to play not to lose. We gave a huge cushion to the WRs, we played seven back in coverage, we gave up the short stuff, etc. It's choosing death by a thousand cuts. It's football - I hate watching that crap. Go hit someone. Go make a play. Go for an INT and get burned; I don't care. TRY TO DO SOMETHING. I'd rather see our guys fail while striving for something big than fail while playing timid.

Yeah right. If Harrison had burned Faggins for a couple of TDs and we hade been truly blown out...you's till be all over him. Same thing if we had blitzed and gotten burned.

Vinny
09-24-2007, 11:13 AM
I kinda wanted Revis in the draft because I didn't consider Faggins a legit CB2. The Texans wanted an interior lineman more than a cb....so we have Okoye. I'm not too bent over that since Okoye looks like he is going to be a player...but you can't fix everything at once. Fletcher certainly isn't a good option at CB2 and while Faggins is a liability, he is the best player we have for the position right now. Nothing is going to change that I don't think.

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 11:14 AM
What I'd like to see is a little imagination on defense at times. Line Dunta up on the slot from time to time like the Capers regime did....utilize his blitzing skills along with DeMeco mixing it up here and there. When DeMeco creeps up to the line and never blitzes...I donno how that "tricks" anyone.

Best post of the thread.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:14 AM
If I were the coach......

I would have faith in the fact that my GM set up the roster so I can bench a player at anytime due to lack of production. There is no excuse to leaving the guy on the field. And it is his fault that he is out there, he signed a contract and wanted to be a part of the team.

Petey needs to man up and shows his teammates and coaches that he gives a sh*t about this team.

He is and has been our weakest link on D, and nobody wants to blame him. Geez...:thumbdown

I swear I remember reading about his guy named C.C Brown that everybody was saying the weakest link on the team, and I think I was reading it last week. Then there was all this talk about the lack of a pass rush, and the weakest link where the 1st round picks on the D-line, last year.

Can somebody please tell me who the real weakest link is?

Lucky
09-24-2007, 11:15 AM
Thankfully Faggins does not have to cover a WR the caliber of Harrison except one more time this year (the game in Indy).
Good point. At the same time, Bennett should be able to match up against most of the WRs we'll face this year. Rather than continue to send a CB who's not going to get better, why not give a young player with potential an opportunity? Games against the Falcons, Dolphins, Jags, & Titans seems as good a time as any to see what the rookie has.

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 11:15 AM
I kinda wanted Revis in the draft because I didn't consider Faggins a legit CB2. The Texans wanted an interior lineman more than a cb....so we have Okoye. I'm not too bent over that since Okoye looks like he is going to be a player...but you can't fix everything at once. Fletcher certainly isn't a good option at CB2 and while Faggins is a liability, he is the best player we have for the position right now. Nothing is going to change that I don't think.

Okay, this is the second best post of the thread. Embracing reality, what a concept.

Texan_Bill
09-24-2007, 11:16 AM
Oooohweee, Steve Smith and Peyton Manning abused him. Is that much of a surprise?

JP Losman???!

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:16 AM
Okay let me splain it this way. Not an excuse. Just stating reality. Water is wet, Pope Catholic sort of reality.

1. Faggins plays to the best of his ability. Dude is a little guy, and he has made plays in the past, and is best suited for nickle So you shouldn't crush him due to effort because by most accounts his issues are not ones of effort.

2. He didn't choose to be #2 CB, the coaches put him there.

3. Coaches have an incentive to play their best players.

4. Fletcher hasn't set the world on fire, and Bennett has had some injury issues and is a rookie.

5. As for CB cushions, if you talking to NFL CBs, one of the things that they will tell you is that the #1 thing that fans do not understand about their play is that they play the coverages that their coaches tell them to play. So sometimes they have to play with a big cushion.

6. The Texans over the years have had all sorts of placeholder players. Guys who play with effort but don't have the ability to back it up. Guys who are starting for the Texans because for whatever reasons, we can't replace them yet. Jason Simmons is a good example of such a player. His nickname with the coaches is Max, because he plays up to the maximum of his potential.

I just don't feel the need to call for Petey Faggins head on a platter because it ain't like he is an overpaid,underperforming guy, not using his best efforts, or someone that has no value as a player. He is playing out of position because the coaches need him too.

I will slam Petey when I also feel the need to kick puppies too. There's no point in it. Oooohweee, Steve Smith and Peyton Manning abused him. Is that much of a surprise?

And Jake Delhomme, JP Losman, Lee Evans, the list goes on...

I agree with him being on the field by default. Blame has to be put somewhere though. He has been our CB2 for awhile now, and I have no idea who, in our organization, thinks he's the best for our team.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:16 AM
Did his contract, draft position, biography or anything to that extent say NICKEL or CORNERBACK.

MY GOSH people,

FAGGINS IS AN NFL CB, A STARTER IN THE NFL, AND SHOULD PLAY LIKE ONE!

Please listen, is has been said several times. Petey is ONLY starting cuase we have no better options. His true position in the NFL is as a nickel CB, not a starter.

eriadoc
09-24-2007, 11:17 AM
Yeah right. If Harrison had burned Faggins for a couple of TDs and we hade been truly blown out...you's till be all over him. Same thing if we had blitzed and gotten burned.

If Harrison had burned Faggins the way that Steve Smith did last week - yes, I would. If Faggins were burned while trying for an INT or something, a la the TO reception in preseason where Dunta totally missed - no I would not. I even give Faggins a break on the first TD to Steve Smith last week. Steve Smith does that to people. On the second TD (the one in the endzone), Faggins just didn't turn his head around and play the ball. He had position, but he played it like a rookie. That is the kind of stuff I gig Faggins for.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:19 AM
I swear I remember reading about his guy named C.C Brown that everybody was saying the weakest link on the team, and I think I was reading it last year. Then there was all this talk about the lack of a pass rush, and the weakest link where the 1st round picks on the D-line.

Can somebody please tell me who the real weakest link is?

Yeah I wasn't on this board last year. The only players that I remember dogging were Matt Stevens, David Carr, and then Petey Faggins..

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:19 AM
And Jake Delhomme, JP Losman, Lee Evans, the list goes on...

I agree with him being on the field by default. Blame has to be put somewhere though. He has been our CB2 for awhile now, and I have no idea who, in our organization, thinks he's the best for our team.

It would be safe to say that the coaches think he is the best option for our team since he's been starting. And unlike the previous regime, I trust this coaching staff and FO.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:21 AM
Yeah I wasn't on this board last year. The only players that I remember dogging were Matt Stevens, David Carr, and then Petey Faggins..

CC was being dogged as little as a week ago. And I love how Boulware is taking no heat for being abused by Clark all day. I really think some people are using Faggins as a scapegoat. I just can't figure out why?

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:24 AM
It would be safe to say that the coaches think he is the best option for our team since he's been starting. And unlike the previous regime, I trust this coaching staff and FO.

Everyone has a vice, and this regime's is CB2. I guess it could be worse...

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:26 AM
If Harrison had burned Faggins the way that Steve Smith did last week - yes, I would. If Faggins were burned while trying for an INT or something, a la the TO reception in preseason where Dunta totally missed - no I would not. I even give Faggins a break on the first TD to Steve Smith last week. Steve Smith does that to people. On the second TD (the one in the endzone), Faggins just didn't turn his head around and play the ball. He had position, but he played it like a rookie. That is the kind of stuff I gig Faggins for.

I'd say he played it like a guy who shouldn't be a starting NFL CB, and Faggins is not. But sadly he is the best option we have and barring a trade the only option (Fletcher is not an option, atleast if we base it on his play yesterday).

eriadoc
09-24-2007, 11:27 AM
CC was being dogged as little as a week ago. And I love how Boulware is taking no heat for being abused by Clark all day. I really think some people are using Faggins as a scapegoat. I just can't figure out why?

Because some people can key on trends.

I'd say he played it like a guy who shouldn't be a starting NFL CB, and Faggins is not. But sadly he is the best option we have and barring a trade the only option (Fletcher is not an option, atleast if we base it on his play yesterday).

On that, we can agree.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:28 AM
CC was being dogged as little as a week ago. And I love how Boulware is taking no heat for being abused by Clark all day. I really think some people are using Faggins as a scapegoat. I just can't figure out why?

Boulware has a bad day... It's one bad game.

But Faggins gives up big plays in back to back games, and many times before that.

Seriously, man it should'nt hurt to look at this objectively. Other teams score on his side, consistently.

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 11:28 AM
And Jake Delhomme, JP Losman, Lee Evans, the list goes on...

I agree with him being on the field by default. Blame has to be put somewhere though. He has been our CB2 for awhile now, and I have no idea who, in our organization, thinks he's the best for our team.

I think we should start Champ Bailey. Oh wait, he doesn't play for the Texans.

Basically, the Texans defense in 2005 was Dunta Robinson and Mr. Nobody. A bunch of try hard guys, some young guys, and old guys or slacker old guys. Look at the roster from 2005 (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/rosters.nsf/Annual/2005-hou). They had a lot of changes to make and you can't make them all at once.

hollywood_texan
09-24-2007, 11:29 AM
This is football, you don't play damage control from the start of the game. You go out and hit them in the mouth and figure out the best time to apply pressure. You have to blitz the Colts to have a chance at winning.

Remember who beat these guys? Teams like the Steelers and Pats.
Were you watching those games???

While you are watching those games, why don't you review the personnel for those two teams!

Palamalu and Harrison are elite safeties that are critical to confusing Manning.

Point is, the Texans need a few more pieces on defense to go after Manning. This is arguably one of the best offenses of all time! Give it break, the Texans don't have to personnel to go toe to toe.

The more big plays you give up to Manning for TDs, the more possessions Manning gets. Do you really want to to do that?

For all your complaining, the Texans still had an outside shot at that game.

The personnel has to be there. Just like Carr last year meant Kubiak could only run a fraction of the offense, same with Faggins as the 2nd corner. They'll fix it in the offseason.

We have several more weeks before we play an elite WR. Sit back and enjoy the ride man.

DocBar
09-24-2007, 11:30 AM
What I 'd like to see is Faggins do something other than his patented "try to catch up and flail the arms about in an attempt to hit the ball cuz I just got burned AGAIN" move.I'm done whining about the guy, but I sure do hope we use some of our extra cap room next year to get a SOLID #2 CB and not one "pressed into service". I would not be adverse to seeing what Fletcher or anyone else can do just to see something a little different.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:31 AM
I'd say he played it like a guy who shouldn't be a starting NFL CB, and Faggins is not. But sadly he is the best option we have and barring a trade the only option (Fletcher is not an option, atleast if we base it on his play yesterday).

If we are just making-do with what we have then we should try him out. You are saying that Fletcher can't play nickel and Faggins can. Why not switch them and see how it works?

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:32 AM
Boulware has a bad day... It's one bad game.

But Faggins give up big plays in back to back games.

Seriously, man it should'nt hurt to look at this objectively. Other teams score on his side, consistently.

Agaist the two fo the best WRs in the NFL. In the second half on the Carolina game, Petey played pretty well, espically after the coaches put D-Rob on Smith (where he should have been from the start).

And how am I not being objective, I've said several times that Faggins is not a starting CB caliber CB; but a) I do not think there is a better option on the roster and b) when/if Faggins is move back to the nickel CB his play will improve (he has shown that he can and will make plays as the nickel guy).

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:36 AM
If we are just making-do with what we have then we should try him out. You are saying that Fletcher can't play nickel and Faggins can. Why not switch them and see how it works?

Because Fletcher can't even play as the nickel CB that well, that's why you don't switch them.

Bennet is probably the onl y option to replace Faggins but a) he's injuried and b) as a rookie he needs more reps in practice before starting (and some actual game time would be nice, too).

Vinny
09-24-2007, 11:36 AM
If we are just making-do with what we have then we should try him out. You are saying that Fletcher can't play nickel and Faggins can. Why not switch them and see how it works?Fletcher was struggling to cover the Colts rookie....I personally think that Faggins is clearly the better player even with all the holes in his game. Faggins turns and runs better, is quicker and is better in coverage....so I guess I'm saying that I don't think much of Fletcher. Fletcher is a better tackler.....he has that going for him.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:39 AM
I think we should start Champ Bailey. Oh wait, he doesn't play for the Texans.

Basically, the Texans defense in 2005 was Dunta Robinson and Mr. Nobody. A bunch of try hard guys, some young guys, and old guys or slacker old guys. Look at the roster from 2005 (http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/rosters.nsf/Annual/2005-hou). They had a lot of changes to make and you can't make them all at once.

Have you played football?

Does anyone in this thread realize that this is about the team? About a defensive unit?

Come on... For years it has been the same. You bench the guy that lets your team down that much. How do you think the front four feel whenever they get good pressure, but Faggins gives up the score because he can't hold up his end of the job? They ran the ball at him twice on the goalline, and neither time did he look like an NFL corner and both times they scored.

Vinny
09-24-2007, 11:41 AM
Have you played football?

Does anyone in this thread realize that this is about the team? About a defensive unit?

Come on... For years it has been the same. You bench the guy that lets your team down that much. How do you think the front four feel whenever they get good pressure, but Faggins gives up the score because he can't hold up his end of the job? They ran the ball at him twice on the goalline, and neither time did he look like an NFL corner and both times they scored.

You don't bench a player and put in a worse player....have you coached football?

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:41 AM
Agaist the two fo the best WRs in the NFL. In the second half on the Carolina game, Petey played pretty well, espically after the coaches put D-Rob on Smith (where he should have been from the start).

And how am I not being objective, I've said several times that Faggins is not a starting CB caliber CB; but a) I do not think there is a better option on the roster and b) when/if Faggins is move back to the nickel CB his play will improve (he has shown that he can and will make plays as the nickel guy).

I edited my post to let you know that this is greater than two games...

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:42 AM
You don't bench a player and put in a worse player....have you coached football?

Umm, Vinny my life is football. You always give the other guy a shot...

hollywood_texan
09-24-2007, 11:43 AM
Have you played football?

Does anyone in this thread realize that this is about the team? About a defensive unit?

Come on... For years it has been the same. You bench the guy that lets your team down that much. How do you think the front four feel whenever they get good pressure, but Faggins gives up the score because he can't hold up his end of the job? They ran the ball at him twice on the goalline, and neither time did he look like an NFL corner and both times they scored.

Just relax. Faggins is the best we have right now for the 2nd corner position.

They will address this issue in the offseason.

Example, David Carr!

Also, I believe the players will rally around Faggins anyway. He is being asked way more than what he is capable of.

Hervoyel
09-24-2007, 11:43 AM
We only lost by six to the SB champs.

The score was never that close, in terms of play or score.

You know, like it or not that's how people tend to beat Indianapolis. As much as it sounds like I'm about to have a "Dom Capers Moment" you try to hang close and win it in the fourth. We didn't leave enough time on the clock to drive down and win it but we did come back on these guys.

Their last four possessions they went punt, FG, FG, punt. That is what normally passes for keeping Indy's offense in check. It's not that that's great or anything but it's not shabby.

Our final four possessions went INT, TD, TD, End of Game. Now Schaub threw that pick when we were on Indy's 18 yard line. If the Texans take that in for a TD instead of wasting Jacoby's long punt return then the ball game could have gone in an entirely different direction. We scored those late two TD's with almost none of our primary weapons.

We came close, we lost, it happens. On to Atlanta. I find it encouraging that no matter whether it's been home or away, with or without injuries our team has come to play every single game so far. We didn't pull a no-show against Indy. We played them fairly tight IMO. We just don't have the firepower they have.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:44 AM
Umm, Vinny my life is football. You always give the other guy a shot...

Not when you know he is not as good as the guy you are pulling out of the game.

Vinny
09-24-2007, 11:45 AM
Umm, Vinny my life is football. You always give the other guy a shot...
life is like football....I can agree with that....you put in something that doesn't work as well and you get worse results. That's how it usually works for me. Did you even pay attention to #21 yesterday?

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:47 AM
Not when you know he is not as good as the guy you are pulling out of the game.

We can agree to disagree.

I believe that as a coach you should be accountable to your players and your players are accountable for what they put on the field. If one link in the chain breaks then try to mend it the best way possible.

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 11:50 AM
Have you played football?



Yes, actually I've played a lot. Played a lot of sports through the years and football was my favorite.

Even so, I am not available to replace Petey Faggins. I'd consider it if the contract was really good though.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 11:53 AM
Yes, actually I've played a lot. Played a lot of sports through the years and football was my favorite.

Even so, I am not available to replace Petey Faggins. I'd consider it if the contract was really good though.

It was a rhetorical question to you and every other Faggin apologist. As you could see when in the next sentence I addressed everyone.

Honestly though, if you were on the bench behind Faggins, I would say give you a shot.

badboy
09-24-2007, 11:58 AM
I kinda wanted Revis in the draft because I didn't consider Faggins a legit CB2. The Texans wanted an interior lineman more than a cb....so we have Okoye. I'm not too bent over that since Okoye looks like he is going to be a player...but you can't fix everything at once. Fletcher certainly isn't a good option at CB2 and while Faggins is a liability, he is the best player we have for the position right now. Nothing is going to change that I don't think.Exactly my desires too. Glad we have Okoye but thought a CB like Revis would do more to shut down the passing game, especially with all the additions at LB & with TJ playing better, our DB would have looked a lot stronger. I guess a Dlineman gets more opportunities to effect a game than CB.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 11:58 AM
It was a rhetorical question to you and every other Faggin apologist. As you could see when in the next sentence I addressed everyone.

Honestly though, if you were on the bench behind Faggins, I would say give you a shot.

Even if you knew that the guy on the bench was playing behind Faggins because all through camps and practice Faggins has out played him?

If that's the case, then I'm quite glad that you aren't the Texans coach.

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 12:02 PM
It was a rhetorical question to you and everyone other Faggin apologist. As you could see when in the next sentence I addressed everyone.

Honestly though, if you were on the bench behind Faggins, I would say give you a shot.

Yes, I realize that. It was a joke instead of me blasting you for ignoring what I wrote, and instead chosing to make me the subject.

I'm not a Petey apologist, I just realize that the guys on the bench aren't likely going to be *THE ANSWER.* As I said, Fletcher has had his own problems and IIRC Bennett has had some injury issues and is also a rookie. As bad as Faggins played last year, the entire defense played better after he came back from injury.

My 40 time isn't the best. But me starting instead of Faggins to solve all the secondary problems is about as viable of Fletcher and Bennett making everything all good.

disaacks3
09-24-2007, 12:02 PM
It was a rhetorical question to you and every other Faggin apologist. As you could see when in the next sentence I addressed everyone.

Honestly though, if you were on the bench behind Faggins, I would say give you a shot. OK, I'll be the one to give you the "benefit of the doubt" here and say that yes, you've got a point and that sometimes it makes sense to give the 'next best option' a shot. (This is despite the opportunities that Faggins backup(s) have been given that they've all proven to be inferior)

There's a big difference between being an 'apologist' and a 'realist'. You expect that the mere act of being named an NFL starter means that you can automatically handle (or are the right guy for) the job.

When you can make all that work out for you, please let Rick Smith & Gary Kubiak know...that way they can name the right guys for the rest of the season at each position. :sarcasm:

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 12:05 PM
OK, I'll be the one to give you the "benefit of the doubt" here and say that yes, you've got a point and that sometimes it makes sense to give the 'next best option' a shot. (This is despite the opportunities that Faggins backup(s) have been given that they've all proven to be inferior)

There's a big difference between being an 'apologist' and a 'realist'. You expect that the mere act of being named an NFL starter means that you can automatically handle (or are the right guy for) the job.



I think this is a fair sum up of everything.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 12:06 PM
Even if you knew that the guy on the bench was playing behind Faggins because all through camps and practice Faggins has out played him?

If that's the case, then I'm quite glad that you aren't the Texans coach.

I get chastized for saying that Faggins should be on the bench? Come on Texans fans, we should hold all of our players accountable for their performance.

All-in-all, I say if someone doesn't perform well, then the guy behind him should get a shot.

Vinny
09-24-2007, 12:06 PM
It was a rhetorical question to you and every other Faggin apologist. As you could see when in the next sentence I addressed everyone.

Honestly though, if you were on the bench behind Faggins, I would say give you a shot.
It's not like Fletcher was sitting on the bench...pining to get in (no pun intended?). Fletcher played quite a bit yesterday...and didn't play all that well. Heck I was telling Kevin when he was going to get burned every time the Colts were in certain formations....and I wasn't wrong much.

infantrycak
09-24-2007, 12:08 PM
It was a rhetorical question to you and every other Faggin apologist.

That is an absurd statement--everyone has recognized Faggins' weaknesses.

Honestly though, if you were on the bench behind Faggins, I would say give you a shot.

And here is another one. It makes zero sense to put a weaker player on the field just because the guy starting is weak himself. That's like saying screw it, let's put Matt Stevens back on the field just because CC isn't playing real well--just silly.

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 12:12 PM
I get chastized for saying that Faggins should be on the bench? Come on Texans fans, we should hold all of our players accountable for their performance.

All-in-all, I say if someone doesn't perform well, then the guy behind him should get a shot.

Okay, make the case. Who do you want to start instead of Faggins? These are guys who couldn't beat out Faggins in camp, where just about everyone wanted that to happen, and they brought in all sorts of try out CBs.

Do you think Fletcher's play on the field means that he should be playing?

Fred Bennett hasn't been playing. He injured his hamstring in the second game (http://www.kffl.com/player/13412/nfl/news). He was expected to play this last game, but was not activated.

And due to lack of game play conditioning and poor 40 time, I am taking my own play out of the running.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 12:14 PM
That is an absurd statement--everyone has recognized Faggins' weaknesses.



And here is another one. It makes zero sense to put a weaker player on the field just because the guy starting is weak himself. That's like saying screw it, let's put Matt Stevens back on the field just because CC isn't playing real well--just silly.

A lead moderator probably shouldn't take shots at other posters, IMO.

I have stated my opinion very clearly. I don't think that we should allow less than mediocre play from any of our starters. If a guy isn't holding up his end of the deal, then he should be watching from the sidelines and the guy behind him should get a shot.

Usually I would take comments like this a little personal. But it is really just an immature way of stating your case.

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 12:17 PM
A lead moderator probably shouldn't take shots at other posters, IMO.

I have stated my opinion very clearly. I don't think that we should allow less than mediocre play from any of our starters. If a guy isn't holding up his end of the deal, then he should be watching from the sidelines and the guy behind him should get a shot.

Usually I would take comments like this a little personal. But it is really just an immature way of stating your case.

He is making a football point. He is criticizing your statement, and not you.

Moderators here are just fans like anyone else. He is not attacking you, but he is saying your argument is absurd and silly. There's a difference.

infantrycak
09-24-2007, 12:21 PM
A lead moderator probably shouldn't take shots at other posters, IMO.

Usually I would take comments like this a little personal.

Well you shouldn't take it personally. Like TC said, my comments are about the specific opinion you are espousing in this thread--replace Faggins, quality of replacement be damned--not about you.

HoustonFrog
09-24-2007, 12:22 PM
In high school I played CB and never got beat deep. I really think I could do Faggins job. :hmmm:

Seriously, Faggins isn't doing a bang up job but you can't cover a mistake with another mistake. Right now we are 2-1 and he is functioning within the system. I thought the Colts basically salivated over his cushion but the Texans against most teams are going to try and get away with it. I understand the argument of "putting in so and so can't be any worse" but somehow the coaching staff that watches practice daily is afraid to do exactly that right now. I'll trust them until we can legitimately fill the hole.

Vinny
09-24-2007, 12:23 PM
I still can't figure out how anyone of you guys think that Fletcher can outplay Faggins when he struggled to cover the rookie Gonzo yesterday.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 12:24 PM
He is making a football point. He is criticizing your statement, and not you.

Moderators here are just fans like anyone else. He is not attacking you, but he is saying your argument is absurd and silly. There's a difference.

Don't we make statements to show what we believe. We don't know each other, so calling my statement absurd and saying what I believe is silly is indeed a personal shot at me.

Anyways, I think that Fletcher did well this preseason. Many of us thought that he would get his shot on the field. I would say move Hutchins down to CB and see how that fairs but with Earl and Simmons out we are really thin there.

I know that Fletcher didn't do too well this weekend, but I am having a tough time seeing the difference in his lack of production compared to Faggins. As some have said, we were playing the Colts.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 12:31 PM
What's so funny about this is that Faggins held Marvin Harrison down two years ago. He did a great job in that game. I wish that Faggins would show up.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 12:32 PM
What's so funny about this is that Faggins held Marvin Harrison down two years ago. He did a great job in that game. I wish that Faggins would show up.

Harrison had less tehn 60 yrds and 0 TDs yesterday. Which is still pretty good for any DB covering Harrison, and that includeds all the 1st downs.

Vinny
09-24-2007, 12:35 PM
What's so funny about this is that Faggins held Marvin Harrison down two years ago. He did a great job in that game. I wish that Faggins would show up.
He's the same player....the Coaches had him in a soft cushion technique yesterday, and I bet that Faggins was mixing up his techniques and played some press back then while we mixed in a few blitzes on that day (likely)...they obviously didn't want any big plays on that side of the ball and he didn't give up any huge plays but he gave up plenty of easy short passes...I didn't find the defensive game plan all that deceptive personally. We were pretty vanilla the entire game.

Hervoyel
09-24-2007, 12:35 PM
This entire conversation makes no sense to me. I don't know anybody who doesn't think that Faggins needs to be replaced (most everyone seems to be in general agreement about this) but I can't help but think that if somebody riding the pine was going to be an improvement over him then that somebody would be in there already.

I just think that the secondary is going to have to wait until we get to the off-season before it can be fixed. As I understand it we're making progress on getting rid of the bad contracts we've given out in the past and once we're in the clear on those we'll be able to go shopping for real help back there in free agency and the draft.

infantrycak
09-24-2007, 12:40 PM
Harrison had less tehn 60 yrds and 0 TDs yesterday. Which is still pretty good for any DB covering Harrison, and that includeds all the 1st downs.

That's part of something some folks are missing--Manning was not hitting the Texans deep yesterday as he does on most weekends.

First two games, Manning had 13 plays over 20 yards and 2 over 40.
Against the Texans he had 3 plays over 20 yards (1 to WR, 2 to TE's--none covered by Faggins by the way) and 1 over 40 yards (also not covered by Faggins).

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 12:50 PM
That's part of something some folks are missing--Manning was not hitting the Texans deep yesterday as he does on most weekends.

First two games, Manning had 13 plays over 20 yards and 2 over 40.
Against the Texans he had 3 plays over 20 yards (1 to WR, 2 to TE's--none covered by Faggins by the way) and 1 over 40 yards (also not covered by Faggins).

You won't see Dunta get beat on a double move that many times. But, I wish that we had a another shut down corner so that we could play a little bump and run, and throw some blitzes in there.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 12:56 PM
I still can't figure out how anyone of you guys think that Fletcher can outplay Faggins when he struggled to cover the rookie Gonzo yesterday.

I didn't pay that much attention to Fletcher and Gonzo yesterday. So I wasn't aware that he did that bad.

However, I didn see Boulwares whiff on Clark right in front of me. I wondered why he couldn't jam him, especially being on the goaline. No matter what someone should jam the TE, whether run or pass, especially that close to the endzone.

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 12:58 PM
That's part of something some folks are missing--Manning was not hitting the Texans deep yesterday as he does on most weekends.

First two games, Manning had 13 plays over 20 yards and 2 over 40.
Against the Texans he had 3 plays over 20 yards (1 to WR, 2 to TE's--none covered by Faggins by the way) and 1 over 40 yards (also not covered by Faggins).

Nope, just everytime Manning needed a first down or a clutch throw and catch, he went to Faggins.

I'm not looking at the stats, I watched the game and watched Faggins get burned time and time again. I really don't care if Faggins gave up only 60 yards, I'd rather him give up a 100 and a score rather than give up mulitiple 3rd downs leading to long drives and multiple scores.

I also don't understand the argument.........."lets just stick with Faggins, because we have nobody better", if Faggins doesn't pick up his play, especially next week against the Falcons, we need to throw somebody else out there. I mean atleast you can rotate CBs in and out keeping them fresh (while sending a message to Faggins at the same time), because you certainly aren't going to get a drop off in performance. Anybody can just stay back and not get beat deep.

Mr teX
09-24-2007, 01:02 PM
Give credit where credit's due. Manning & the colts are a very good football team & we're just not there yet. manning/harrison/wayne/clark have made some of the most accomplished defenses look like high schoolers at times. manning likes to pass & we're "light" in the secondary, you had to know that we were going to struggle against them in that regard.

We had opportunities & we didn't capitalize even after 3 VERY key cogs were forced to sit out or left the game with injuries. lets move on to the next opponent people, b/c based on how we've played & our upcoming schedule, we've got a real good shot to be 6-2 by half way point in the season. Then, the playoffs become a real possibility @ that point.

Errant Hothy
09-24-2007, 01:02 PM
Nope, just everytime Manning needed a first down or a clutch throw and catch, he went to Faggins.

I'm not looking at the stats, I watched the game and watched Faggins get burned time and time again. I really don't care if Faggins gave up only 60 yards, I'd rather him give up a 100 and a score rather than give up mulitiple 3rd downs leading to long drives and multiple scores.

I also don't understand the argument.........."lets just stick with Faggins, because we have nobody better", if Faggins doesn't pick up his play, especially next week against the Falcons, we need to throw somebody else out there. I mean atleast you can rotate CBs in and out keeping them fresh (while sending a message to Faggins at the same time), because you certainly aren't going to get a drop off in performance. Anybody can just stay back and not get beat deep.

Why? So we can watch Fletcher get burned worse then Petey?

You make a change whenit will make an improvement in your team, you do not make a change to just make a change.

Texans_Chick
09-24-2007, 01:03 PM
I also don't understand the argument.........."lets just stick with Faggins, because we have nobody better", if Faggins doesn't pick up his play, especially next week against the Falcons, we need to throw somebody else out there. I mean atleast you can rotate CBs in and out keeping them fresh, because you certainly aren't going to get a drop off in performance. Anybody can just stay back and not get beat deep.

Who? Who would be your rotation of better cornerbacks?

I find that it usually much easier to criticize than it is to come up with workable solutions.

It wouldn't surprise me if ATL dinks and dunks on the Texans all day long like they did to Carolina. Why run the ball if you can throw it at will?

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 01:16 PM
Who? Who would be your rotation of better cornerbacks?

I find that it usually much easier to criticize than it is to come up with workable solutions.


I look at it this way. With any team, any sport, any defensive/offensive unit, you choose a group of guys to go to battle with. You choose as best as you can to develop a roster that will carry you through the season and hopefully win a majority of its games.

The Texans have chosen to assign Jamar Fletcher to the second string CB position. If Faggins were to go down, or not produce like he should, then obviously someone else should get a crack at it.

I think we should try whoever is next in line.

bckey
09-24-2007, 01:20 PM
What I'd like to see is a little imagination on defense at times. Line Dunta up on the slot from time to time like the Capers regime did....utilize his blitzing skills along with DeMeco mixing it up here and there. When DeMeco creeps up to the line and never blitzes...I donno how that "tricks" anyone.


I agree Vinny. I kept yelling at Richard Smith from 4 levels up (doubt he heard me) to do something different. BLITZ occasionaly. I thought Smith would make some adjustments at halftime but he didn't. I don't blame the players for the loss, this loss is on the coaches. The players gave it everything they had. Like the nike commercial, leave nothing.

badboy
09-24-2007, 01:21 PM
Nope, just everytime Manning needed a first down or a clutch throw and catch, he went to Faggins.

I'm not looking at the stats, I watched the game and watched Faggins get burned time and time again. I really don't care if Faggins gave up only 60 yards, I'd rather him give up a 100 and a score rather than give up mulitiple 3rd downs leading to long drives and multiple scores.

I also don't understand the argument.........."lets just stick with Faggins, because we have nobody better", if Faggins doesn't pick up his play, especially next week against the Falcons, we need to throw somebody else out there. I mean atleast you can rotate CBs in and out keeping them fresh (while sending a message to Faggins at the same time), because you certainly aren't going to get a drop off in performance. Anybody can just stay back and not get beat deep.Yeah here is a message I want our coaches to send "You are playing to the best of your abilities & we have no one better than you that stepped up, so we are going to put you back on the bench."

Mr teX
09-24-2007, 01:23 PM
Nope, just everytime Manning needed a first down or a clutch throw and catch, he went to Faggins.

I'm not looking at the stats, I watched the game and watched Faggins get burned time and time again. I really don't care if Faggins gave up only 60 yards, I'd rather him give up a 100 and a score rather than give up mulitiple 3rd downs leading to long drives and multiple scores.

I also don't understand the argument.........."lets just stick with Faggins, because we have nobody better", if Faggins doesn't pick up his play, especially next week against the Falcons, we need to throw somebody else out there. I mean atleast you can rotate CBs in and out keeping them fresh (while sending a message to Faggins at the same time), because you certainly aren't going to get a drop off in performance. Anybody can just stay back and not get beat deep.


Everyone was getting picked on back there not just faggins. Some of those key conversions came on Robinson, Boulware & Greenwood too. We were overmatched & i truly don't think that there was much we could've done back there to stop the onslaught.

badboy
09-24-2007, 01:23 PM
I agree Vinny. I kept yelling at Richard Smith from 4 levels up (doubt he heard me) to do something different. BLITZ occasionaly. I thought Smith would make some adjustments at halftime but he didn't. I don't blame the players for the loss, this loss is on the coaches. The players gave it everything they had. Like the nike commercial, leave nothing.I was watching on tv but I heard you. I thought Smith turned and gave you a thumbs up? Maybe it wasn't his thumb though.

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 01:24 PM
Why? So we can watch Fletcher get burned worse then Petey?

You make a change whenit will make an improvement in your team, you do not make a change to just make a change.

I know this is getting thrown around, but Fletcher did not get burned worse than Petey. Gonzalez had 2 catches the whole game and the 1st catch came when the Texans were playing zone and Gonzalez sat down in it.

Sometimes you make a change to send a message, and if Faggins keeps up his play a message needs to be sent. Look at my name, this is what you get when you support a subpar player for 5 years. There is no difference between Fletcher and Faggins, the only difference is, one has proved that you can burn him time and time again.

hollywood_texan
09-24-2007, 01:29 PM
Nope, just everytime Manning needed a first down or a clutch throw and catch, he went to Faggins.

I'm not looking at the stats, I watched the game and watched Faggins get burned time and time again. I really don't care if Faggins gave up only 60 yards, I'd rather him give up a 100 and a score rather than give up mulitiple 3rd downs leading to long drives and multiple scores.

I also don't understand the argument.........."lets just stick with Faggins, because we have nobody better", if Faggins doesn't pick up his play, especially next week against the Falcons, we need to throw somebody else out there. I mean atleast you can rotate CBs in and out keeping them fresh (while sending a message to Faggins at the same time), because you certainly aren't going to get a drop off in performance. Anybody can just stay back and not get beat deep.

I believe the Texans were employing the bend but don't break philosophy. Which means, they wanted to give up FGs instead of big play TDs. It didn't work to well in the first half, but they did a good job of it in the 2nd half.

If they had AJ and Green healthy on the offensive side of the ball, it would have been a good strategy that had a good shot of being successful.

It's real simple, the more big plays Manning gets, the more offensive possessions he gets. The Texans held the Colts to 30 points. That is pretty good considering the circumstances.

Bottom line, the Texans were trying to slow the game down considering the personnel they had for Sunday.

Faggins is an issue as a 2nd corner. But, he is the best we got for the rest of the year.

Smith will address this issue in the offseason. Every thing they have done thus far, they have addressed. CB and RB are the next positions to get addressed directly without bandaids.

One thing at at time...

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 01:29 PM
Everyone was getting picked on back there not just faggins. Some of those key conversions came on Robinson, Boulware & Greenwood too. We were overmatched & i truly don't think that there was much we could've done back there to stop the onslaught.

Faggins was beat up and abused yesterday, stop making excuses for the poor play. Yes Boulware got beat by clark (Boulware is not a starter...Faggins is), but Dunta did his job and had a good game...........Faggins did not.

Mr teX
09-24-2007, 01:30 PM
I know this is getting thrown around, but Fletcher did not get burned worse than Petey. Gonzalez had 2 catches the whole game and the 1st catch came when the Texans were playing zone and Gonzalez sat down in it.

Sometimes you make a change to send a message, and if Faggins keeps up his play a message needs to be sent. Look at my name, this is what you get when you support a subpar player for 5 years. There is no difference between Fletcher and Faggins, the only difference is, one has proved that you can burn him time and time again.

Fletcher was just lucky that gonzo dropped 2 passes, 1 of which would've been a huge gain & Fletcher was no where in sight.

Mr teX
09-24-2007, 01:34 PM
Faggins was beat up and abused yesterday, stop making excuses for the poor play. Yes Boulware got beat by clark (Boulware is not a starter...Faggins is), but Dunta did his job and had a good game...........Faggins did not.

Not making excuses for his poor play, but manning didn't get all of his nearly 300 yds passing on Faggins & backups they were all torched. Clark was the passing threat that killed us more than anything.

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 01:36 PM
Fletcher was just lucky that gonzo dropped 2 passes, 1 of which would've been a huge gain & Fletcher was no where in sight.

So I guess he was also lucky on that one play where he got a hand on the ball and tipped it before Gonzo even had a chance to drop the ball also.

Fletcher atleast tries to make plays on the ball, I'd rather have a back go down in flames of glory than one that just cowards in the corner.

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 01:39 PM
Not making excuses for his poor play, but manning didn't get all of his nearly 300 yds passing on Faggins & backups.

I'm not saying he did, but the fact remains that there's really no difference between Faggins and what we have on the bench. Who knows, we might get lucky and find a better player. If your #2 corner is hurting you time and time again, what does it hurt to take a look at what you have on the bench?

Vinny
09-24-2007, 01:41 PM
Fletcher was just lucky that gonzo dropped 2 passes, 1 of which would've been a huge gain & Fletcher was no where in sight. To me Peyton did a good job of finding the slot WR3/TE when Faggins played the outside shoulder trying to force a re-route inside (Faggins getting help). The team couldn't help both of those spots at once so when the Colts were in a spread, the defense was just not able to disrupt Manning enough to do anything about our liabilities in coverage in both of these areas. If we only had one liability in coverage we could have covered it (hid it) better.

Mr teX
09-24-2007, 01:46 PM
So I guess he was also lucky on that one play where he got a hand on the ball and tipped it before Gonzo even had a chance to drop the ball also.

Fletcher atleast tries to make plays on the ball, I'd rather have a back go down in flames of glory then one that just cowards in the corner.

pretty much, just like CC Brown was lucky last week when he blindly knocked the ball out of carter's hands on that sure TD that Delhomme under threw.

Gambling CB's are in many ways worse than "safe" CB's. You didn't get enough of "showtime" P. Buch lunging at the ball, getting there too late & Wayne/Harrison scampering for another 10 yds in yac?

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 01:51 PM
pretty much, just like CC Brown was lucky last week when he blindly knocked the ball out of carter's hands on that sure TD that Delhomme under threw.

Gambling CB's are in many ways worse than "safe" CB's. You didn't get enough of "showtime" P. Buch lunging at the ball, getting there too late & Wayne/Harrison scampering for another 10 yds in yac?

First of all, that tipped ball was NOTHING LIKE CC just blindly running down the field, knocking down the pass and..

Second Faggins is NOT a "safe CB", unless your the opposing QB and you can safely get a 7 to 8 yard pickup for a first down.

A cornerback's job isn't just to "be there and make the tackle" it's to disrupt passes. So far Faggins in in over his head and drowning.

Mr teX
09-24-2007, 02:01 PM
First of all, that tipped ball was NOTHING LIKE CC just blindly running down the field, knocking down the pass and..

Second Faggins is NOT a "safe CB", unless your the opposing QB and you can safely get a 7 to 8 yard pickup for a first down.

By safe i mean, not letting them beat you deep, trying to keep everything in front of you, which is the objective of a cover 2. In addition to the respect factor to harrison, that also explains the huge cushion that was given.

You could put someone else out there in his place, but i doubt the results would change very much, especially if Kubes & smith feel that they don't need to put their #1 CB on the teams' #1 WR. There is no way Faggins should be holding the opposition's #1 WR at any time.

I know it's zone coverage & both DB's are doing the same thing on both sides, but still.

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 02:03 PM
By safe i mean, not letting them beat you deep, trying to keep everything in front of you, which is the objective of a cover 2. In addition to the respect factor to harrison, that also explains the huge cushion that was given.

You could put someone else out there in his place, but i doubt the results would change very much, especially if Kubes & smith feel that they don't need to put their #1 CB on the teams' #1 WR.

I know it's zone coverage & both DB's are doing the same thing on both sides, but still.

I believe our #1 corner was on their #1 WR............Wayne is now a bigger threat than Harrison and has been for a couple of seasons.

Vinny
09-24-2007, 02:05 PM
I believe our #1 corner was on their #1 WR............Wayne is now a bigger threat than Harrison and has been for a couple of seasons.
They have Dunta lining up on the weakside and they don't move him around much....That's just where Wayne lines up all the time.

Mr teX
09-24-2007, 02:07 PM
I believe our #1 corner was on their #1 WR............Wayne is now a bigger threat than Harrison and has been for a couple of seasons.

Nope, harrison is still the # 1, manning is always looking for him 1st mainly b/c of chemistry. plus harrison has the better hands of the 2. Wayne is just that good & could play #1 for many a team in the NFL & he's got a mismatch on any teams #2 CB.

This happened last week though when Smith got his 2 early TD's. they need to change that

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 02:20 PM
They have Dunta lining up on the weakside and they don't move him around much....That's just where Wayne lines up all the time.

In the Carolina game I know they had Dunta going against the #2 receiver, I guess their thinking was.....we can shut down that side of the field and stop the other with Faggins + help..........turns out that didn't work all that well.

In the Colts game, it's pretty much pick your poison, because despite the fact that Wayne can be a #1 on most teams.......he can be a #1 on the Colts team. (I really think as of September 24th, 07.....Wayne is the biggest threat on the Colts team)

Look, I'm not bashing Faggins just to thrash a player, I just want better play out of that position and if he gets beat again by the Falcons then we need to move on, because if he can't even hold up against the Falcon receivers, then there's no reason to continue to waste snaps on him...........next week his excuse of going against a "all time great" receiver goes bye bye.....he needs to show up and play.......for his job.

Vinny
09-24-2007, 02:22 PM
In the Carolina game I know they had Dunta going against the #2 receiver, I guess their thinking was.....we can shut down that side of the field and stop the other with Faggins + help..........turns out that didn't work all that well.
you haven't noticed but Dunta just lines up on the weakside and they don't like to move him around....OC's see this and go after Faggins. I think this is an OK philosophy if you have two CB's of equal or nearly equal value, so I think that it is a coaching issue when you have one CB that is clearly superior to the other one. OC's aren't dumb and they see that the Texans always line Dunta up on the weakside....so it's easier to exploit our coverages when they don't move Dunta around.

Shaft75
09-24-2007, 02:40 PM
Look, I'm not bashing Faggins just to thrash a player, I just want better play out of that position and if he gets beat again by the Falcons then we need to move on, because if he can't even hold up against the Falcon receivers, then there's no reason to continue to waste snaps on him...........next week his excuse of going against a "all time great" receiver goes bye bye.....he needs to show up and play.......for his job.

Agreed.
:ok:

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 02:49 PM
you haven't noticed but Dunta just lines up on the weakside and they don't like to move him around....OC's see this and go after Faggins. I think this is an OK philosophy if you have two CB's of equal or nearly equal value, but I think that it is a coaching issue when you have one CB that is clearly superior to the other one. OC's aren't dumb and they see that the Texans always line Dunta up on the weakside....so it's easier to exploit our coverages when they don't move Dunta around.

I have noticed this and also questioned our coaching in another thread

http://texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=743473#post743473

http://texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=743465#post743465

Vinny
09-24-2007, 02:53 PM
It didn't seem you made the connection from the posts. You keep asking why they are putting Faggins on the best WR and I'm just trying to say that the Texans are taking a passive approach and letting the offense dictate who is covering their best WR by always playing Dunta on the weakside. They like to line them up the same way all or most of the time as per philosophy.

jerek
09-24-2007, 03:14 PM
you haven't noticed but Dunta just lines up on the weakside and they don't like to move him around....OC's see this and go after Faggins. I think this is an OK philosophy if you have two CB's of equal or nearly equal value, so I think that it is a coaching issue when you have one CB that is clearly superior to the other one. OC's aren't dumb and they see that the Texans always line Dunta up on the weakside....so it's easier to exploit our coverages when they don't move Dunta around.

This has been their philosophy going back years now and it has frustrated me similarly. Most OCs seem to exploit it and I don't understand the "football reasoning" behind it.

eriadoc
09-24-2007, 03:31 PM
To me Peyton did a good job of finding the slot WR3/TE when Faggins played the outside shoulder trying to force a re-route inside (Faggins getting help). The team couldn't help both of those spots at once so when the Colts were in a spread, the defense was just not able to disrupt Manning enough to do anything about our liabilities in coverage in both of these areas. If we only had one liability in coverage we could have covered it (hid it) better.

So, if Faggins is a decent nickel back, shift him over to the slot WR on 3-wide sets and play Fletcher + a safety on the outside. I suspect we'd see that Faggins isn't any better at nickel, but I'm open to finding out for sure, and the coaching staff can work on masking that weakness at CB2 instead of weakening two spots.

Carr Bombed
09-24-2007, 03:39 PM
It didn't seem you made the connection from the posts. You keep asking why they are putting Faggins on the best WR and I'm just trying to say that the Texans are taking a passive approach and letting the offense dictate who is covering their best WR by always playing Dunta on the weakside. They like to line them up the same way all or most of the time as per philosophy.

I've already said Dunta was lined up against their biggest threat receiver, (at this time, Wayne is a bigger threat than Harrison) so I'm not asking why "they keep putting Faggins on the best WR".

and I really don't understand why this is even a topic, Faggins needs to elevate his play regardless of what's going on, the guy is Toastie McGee.

Mr teX
09-25-2007, 09:31 AM
So, if Faggins is a decent nickel back, shift him over to the slot WR on 3-wide sets and play Fletcher + a safety on the outside. I suspect we'd see that Faggins isn't any better at nickel, but I'm open to finding out for sure, and the coaching staff can work on masking that weakness at CB2 instead of weakening two spots.

I suppose there isn't a good enough reason not to insert fletcher as the # 2 CB & let faggins play the nickel. But it's like Vinny said, neither are comparable to Dunta right now so you're likely going to see the same thing happening to fletcher. As many CB's that we've had opposite of Dunta over the years (Buchanon, Sanders, Faggins & Glenn), for the most part, their fate has been the same, especially against the colts.

That's the reality i think you guys aren't grasping. Change for the sake of change doesn't mean better results. Plus i have to believe that kubes would make that move in a heartbeat if he felt it would make the team better.

steelbtexan
09-25-2007, 09:56 AM
I think it may be time to give Bennett a try. He's not real physical but he appears to be a good cover corner. He's tall with long arms and has exellent speed. He just needs expirience and now would be a good time for him to get the time he needs with Atlanta and Miami next on the schedule.

Errant Hothy
09-25-2007, 10:00 AM
I think it may be time to give Bennett a try. He's not real physical but he appears to be a good cover corner. He's tall with long arms and has exellent speed. He just needs expirience and now would be a good time for him to get the time he needs with Atlanta and Miami next on the schedule.

Bennet is hurt, which is way he was inactive last week. Plus he's a rookie that is still learning assignments/coverages, he's not ready.

real
09-25-2007, 10:11 AM
Normally back-ups don't get a shot until they start making plays.