PDA

View Full Version : Seriously...it's this simple


jamil
11-11-2008, 01:43 AM
During our win streak and that game we should've won (Ind) we did one thing really well. Get the ball to Andre, and get it to him early and often. Force feed him during the opening quarter and let everything else open up off that.

isn't it that simple? :gun: sorry for the obvious but why aren't we doing this every game?

Vinny
11-11-2008, 02:13 AM
for one....we don't play winless teams every game...that factors into some of it. Our "only" ever 3 game win streak came against 2 winless teams you know. Frankly, we have only won 3 games this season and two of those wins came against winless teams. Say that 3 times and it starts to sink in.

ATXtexanfan
11-11-2008, 05:26 AM
Agree with vinny, anyone know our turnover ratio during the win streak compared to the losses?

Showtime100
11-11-2008, 06:31 AM
Agree with vinny, anyone know our turnover ratio during the win streak compared to the losses?

Losses
=====
Pittsburgh 1, Houston 3
Tennessee 2, Houston 3
Jacksonville 0, Houston 0
Indianapolis 1, Houston 3
Minnesota 1, Houston 3
Baltimore 0, Houston 4

TOTAL Opp. 5, Houston 16

Wins
====
Miami 1, Houston 4
Detroit 0, Houston 1
Cincinnati 3, Houston 0

TOTAL Opp. 4, Houston 5

TimeKiller
11-11-2008, 07:02 AM
During our win streak and that game we should've won (Ind) we did one thing really well. Get the ball to Andre, and get it to him early and often. Force feed him during the opening quarter and let everything else open up off that.

isn't it that simple? :gun: sorry for the obvious but why aren't we doing this every game?

I kind of hope they would start out with a bunch of short passes and screens. Build confidence, momentum, wears down defenses running after WR and then boom: Slaton in their face.

But what do we get? Trying a little of everything and not being successful at anything.

ATXtexanfan
11-11-2008, 07:18 AM
Thank you showtime 100, averaging about three turnovers a game is the problem

mike moffat
11-11-2008, 07:33 AM
I hate to say it, but, last night on Monday night football, I heard something that I had to agree with. Late in the game, one of the announcers (I don't remember who it was) stated that the whole game boils down to a team's take away - loss ratio.
Stats show that if a team has a +1 in that ratio, they win 80% of their games. I would be estatic with an 80% win rate. We will probably wind up with about 20%.

jamil
11-11-2008, 07:35 AM
Thank you showtime 100, averaging about three turnovers a game is the problem

you don't think giving 80 early screens, slants, and some quick outs would alleviate some (definately not all those *****) TO's? I think it would make everything a lot easier if we keep doing this.

Texan Asylum
11-11-2008, 07:35 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/111/307784698_fc36cd0c29.jpg?v=0

'Turnovers...it's what's for dinner!'

Thorn
11-11-2008, 07:37 AM
young team, young players, young head coach with little experience at being a head coach = not so good a record for a while

I'm still willing to stick it out with Kubiak though. If you are a long time Oiler fan such as myself, you realize that history does not favor teams replacing their head coachs like socks.

HJam72
11-11-2008, 07:40 AM
So, basically, we need to bring back HWSNBN and let him throw 2 yard passes all day? :headhurts:

I do think the QBs are the biggest problem, at least in the short run; but, no, I wasn't being serious with the above question.

PS-First round RB with size?

texanhead08
11-11-2008, 07:58 AM
First round defense we need to make the front seven stout first you can pick up a rb in free agency or late in the draft. If we can get Mario and Demeco some help up front it will do wonders for their production plus make the db's look better. Fire Richard Smith too that would help also.

Texans_Chick
11-11-2008, 08:06 AM
I hate to say it, but, last night on Monday night football, I heard something that I had to agree with. Late in the game, one of the announcers (I don't remember who it was) stated that the whole game boils down to a team's take away - loss ratio.
Stats show that if a team has a +1 in that ratio, they win 80% of their games. I would be estatic with an 80% win rate. We will probably wind up with about 20%.

Noteably, the 49ers RAN the ball more. I don't know what the final stats were, but their run to pass ratio was closer to 50/50 than the crazy pass all the time Martz stuff.

Yes, it is possible to fumble the ball running. But when a ton of your turnovers are happening from your QB position then maybe your QBs aren't making the best decisions and/or being pressured too much.

76Texan
11-11-2008, 09:52 AM
Noteably, the 49ers RAN the ball more. I don't know what the final stats were, but their run to pass ratio was closer to 50/50 than the crazy pass all the time Martz stuff.

Yes, it is possible to fumble the ball running. But when a ton of your turnovers are happening from your QB position then maybe your QBs aren't making the best decisions and/or being pressured too much.Both QBs were pressured quite a bit last night, especially off the edge, and especially Warner.

The running game produced 46 yds on 19 carries.
Warner was sacked only once but got knocked quite a bit (2 roughing the passer penalties called), or he almost always had to hurry.
There was also at least one holding call 'cause the LT couldn't fence off the DE. And a bunch of false starts.

Yet the old man was able to manage 32-42-328 yds, 3 TDs, zero INT, zero fumble.

The Niners ran more in the first 3 quarters when they were ahead. For the game they had 28 carries and 40 passing attempts.

Jackie Chiles
11-11-2008, 09:57 AM
Noteably, the 49ers RAN the ball more. I don't know what the final stats were, but their run to pass ratio was closer to 50/50 than the crazy pass all the time Martz stuff.

Yes, it is possible to fumble the ball running. But when a ton of your turnovers are happening from your QB position then maybe your QBs aren't making the best decisions and/or being pressured too much.

Exactly, if anyone was watching that game last night how could you not notice the similarities between Shaun Hill and Sage. At least having a running game stopped the bleeding to a certain extent. Even though they gave up 29 points I thought the 49ers defense did a pretty solid job overall considering the Cardinals are the highest scoring team in the league and were playing at home (not to mention some ridiculous turnovers by their offense).

We don't have to scrap everything we do on offense but we have to become more balanced, way more balanced. We went from Capers and that is one end of the spectrum all the way to what Kubiak has done lately and we have to find some middle ground. Our defense is not nearly good enough to stop teams if they have to deal with all those turnovers. Heaven help me I wouldn't mind us playing to "keep it close" in the 4th a bit just to get us out of this funk.

ATXtexanfan
11-11-2008, 10:24 AM
Heard on 610 yesterday that andre johnson has 1 fumble, all the other turnovers are on matt and sage, wow

ATXtexanfan
11-11-2008, 10:27 AM
you don't think giving 80 early screens, slants, and some quick outs would alleviate some (definately not all those *****) TO's? I think it would make everything a lot easier if we keep doing this.
I understand what your saying, but with our turnover prone qb's your asking for a pick 6

Norg
11-11-2008, 11:18 AM
its not that simple

for one Minn made sure that they where going to take out our QB that stops the MAtt 2 AJ plan right there

and the balty game we throw to AJ like 4 times but i think he dropped one pass

but i think there just got a better Pass defensive IMO

mattieuk
11-12-2008, 12:59 PM
Heard on 610 yesterday that andre johnson has 1 fumble, all the other turnovers are on matt and sage, wow

Yea I was thinking along these lines the other day.

It just hit me, the RB's are really doing a great job of protecting the football, I remember past seasons of cursing fumble after fumble on simple run plays.

texanhead08
11-12-2008, 01:10 PM
That was a knock on Slaton coming out of college but he has done a good job holding the ball so far.

Blake
11-12-2008, 01:52 PM
young team, young players, young head coach with little experience at being a head coach = not so good a record for a while

Tell that to Matt Ryan, Mike Smith and the 6-3 Atlanta Falcons.

noxiousdog
11-12-2008, 01:57 PM
Heard on 610 yesterday that andre johnson has 1 fumble, all the other turnovers are on matt and sage, wow

And 1 from Eugene Wilson, but yeah.

drewmar74
11-12-2008, 02:01 PM
So, basically, we need to bring back HWSNBN and let him throw 2 yard passes all day? :headhurts:

I do think the QBs are the biggest problem, at least in the short run; but, no, I wasn't being serious with the above question.

Whatever your question is at QB - Jeff George is the answer.

but i think there just got a better Pass defensive IMO

Dude, no offense, but what did you say in that line above?

mexican_texan
11-12-2008, 02:01 PM
Tell that to Matt Ryan, Mike Smith and the 6-3 Atlanta Falcons.
The 6-3 Falcons who have way more talent than anyone thought. John Abraham is still one of the best pass rushers in the game.

Vinny
11-12-2008, 02:08 PM
The 6-3 Falcons who have way more talent than anyone thought. John Abraham is still one of the best pass rushers in the game.
most of the league has similar talent...thats why you see teams go last to first so often in the NFL. There are no Rice or Vanderbilts in the NFL unless you consider the Texans and the Lions.

mexican_texan
11-12-2008, 02:11 PM
most of the league has similar talent...thats why you see teams go last to first so often in the NFL. There are no Rice or Vanderbilts in the NFL unless you consider the Texans and the Lions.
And Bengals. Unlike us, the Falcons had veteran leadership on defense. We don't have anyone like Keith Brooking on our defense.

Vinny
11-12-2008, 02:12 PM
And Bengals. Unlike us, the Falcons had veteran leadership on defense. We don't have anyone like Keith Brooking on our defense.DeMeco Ryans...we also have Mario on the edge (Abraham). The Falcons were our equals last year but this year they are in the hunt...stuff like this disgusts me about our team. It never really changes....ever

mexican_texan
11-12-2008, 02:18 PM
DeMeco Ryans...we also have Mario on the edge (Abraham). The Falcons were our equals last year but this year they are in the hunt...stuff like this disgusts me about our team. It never really changes....ever
DeMeco's a leader, yes, but he doesn't have the experience of Brooking.

Blake
11-12-2008, 02:29 PM
The 6-3 Falcons who have way more talent than anyone thought. John Abraham is still one of the best pass rushers in the game.

Every single NFL team has talent. The idea that you think Atlanta has more talent than the Texans to me is laughable.

mattieuk
11-12-2008, 02:53 PM
That was a knock on Slaton coming out of college but he has done a good job holding the ball so far.

Darren McFadden - 2 Fumbles, 1 Lost.

Ray Rice - 1 Fumble, 1 Lost.

Jamaal Charles - 1 Fumble, 1 Lost.

All 3 picked up before Slaton. All 3 have more fumbles for less yardage.

Slaton has been an excellent rookie so far, especially with the burden of work given to him.

RB's protecting against fumbles has been excellent this year.

Yankee_In_TX
11-12-2008, 03:21 PM
I hate to say it, but, last night on Monday night football, I heard something that I had to agree with. Late in the game, one of the announcers (I don't remember who it was) stated that the whole game boils down to a team's take away - loss ratio.
Stats show that if a team has a +1 in that ratio, they win 80% of their games. I would be estatic with an 80% win rate. We will probably wind up with about 20%.

I saw SO many similarities between us and the Niners.

First, thinking - hey, why can Sage do that? Their QB is managing the game nicely, a big pass now and again.

Then, thinking OMG, two picks in the final minutes of the game?

Then watching as they used 20 (I think it was) seconds of game clock to spike the ball and losing because the clock reached 0:00.

I thought, WOW, I feel their pain.

gtexan02
11-12-2008, 03:23 PM
The 6-3 Falcons who have way more talent than anyone thought. John Abraham is still one of the best pass rushers in the game.

10-80-10 rule. I posted this is another thread, but it fits here too.

In my opinion, there are only 10% of NFL players that are so good that they will succeed anywhere, with any coach, on any team.

Meanwhile, there are 80% of NFL players who are either poor or excellent depending on their situation.

We have the talent, we just aren't using it correctly

DerekLee1
11-12-2008, 03:28 PM
Tell that to Matt Ryan, Mike Smith and the 6-3 Atlanta Falcons.

And Joe Flacco, John Harbaugh, and the 6-3 Baltimore Ravens.

maddogmrb
11-12-2008, 06:11 PM
young team, young players, young head coach with little experience at being a head coach = not so good a record for a while

I'm still willing to stick it out with Kubiak though. If you are a long time Oiler fan such as myself, you realize that history does not favor teams replacing their head coachs like socks.


Atlanta Falcons: Rookie Head Coach, Rookie QB.

As for the Oilers changing coaches, it had as much to do with hiring incompetent ones in the first place such as the guy from Canada who came with Warren Moon, Jerry Glanville, etc. I'm just sayin'......

mexican_texan
11-12-2008, 06:22 PM
Every single NFL team has talent. The idea that you think Atlanta has more talent than the Texans to me is laughable.
You must not be familiar with Charlie Casserly.

ObsiWan
11-12-2008, 06:25 PM
The 6-3 Falcons who have way more talent than anyone thought. John Abraham is still one of the best pass rushers in the game.

I'm glad I'm not the only person that's selectively blind to history. Atlanta had a bad year last year because of the dueling dramas involving Mike Vick and Bobby Petrino. The three years prior to 07, they were 7-9, 8-8, and 11-5. And if you recall, Jim Mora, Jr. lost the locker room in 2006 with that crack about rather being in Seattle than Atlanta - something about Seattle being his dream coaching job. That cost him the locker room and his job.

Take a moment to consider that in those same three yrs ('04-'06), we were 6-10, 2-14, and 7-9.

Simple arithmetic says they were 25-22 while we were 15-33. My common sense tells me that they had a better talent pool coming into this year than we did. Oh and so does the fact that they beat us with Joey-flippin'-Harrington at QB last year when they went 4-12.

Thorn
11-12-2008, 06:32 PM
Atlanta Falcons: Rookie Head Coach, Rookie QB.

As for the Oilers changing coaches, it had as much to do with hiring incompetent ones in the first place such as the guy from Canada who came with Warren Moon, Jerry Glanville, etc. I'm just sayin'......


the problem with that line of thinking is that you can't prove your point. The only way to prove your point is swapping the coaching staff on both teams. Would Kubiak and his staff have Atlanta whopping ass right now? Would the Atlanta staff have the Texans whopping ass right now?

Runner
11-12-2008, 07:22 PM
This is turning into another thread my friend Dr. Pangloss would enjoy.

We live in the best of all possible worlds.


It seems that no matter what suggestion of improving the Texans is made or failures pointed out, the counterpoint is that it would have been impossible to engineer a different outcome. These Texans are as good as they could possibly be, given the starting point three seasons ago. This is the outcome of perfect personnel and coaching decisions.

If that fails then it turns out it isn't a fair evaluation. No team has ever been that bad before, had salary cap problems before, etc. While others rise to serious playoff contention, the Texans do it right by rising to .500 before taking a step back to get used to the rarified air at the height of average.

I wonder why the Titans can go from being swept by the lowly Texans one season, being in salary cap hell, and blowing a first round pick to 9-0 and into serious contention for the Super Bowl. I wonder how the team the Texans wrecked by taking Schaub from just before Vick went to prison can be gunning for the playoffs with a rookie QB. I wonder how Miami, who was a serious contender of going 0-16 last year, can be beating good teams and rolling up a record of marked improvement.

I wonder why it is impossible for the Texans to do the same, and unrealistic for fans to expect it.

GNTLEWOLF
11-13-2008, 02:12 AM
This is turning into another thread my friend Dr. Pangloss would enjoy.




It seems that no matter what suggestion of improving the Texans is made or failures pointed out, the counterpoint is that it would have been impossible to engineer a different outcome. These Texans are as good as they could possibly be, given the starting point three seasons ago. This is the outcome of perfect personnel and coaching decisions.

If that fails then it turns out it isn't a fair evaluation. No team has ever been that bad before, had salary cap problems before, etc. While others rise to serious playoff contention, the Texans do it right by rising to .500 before taking a step back to get used to the rarified air at the height of average.

I wonder why the Titans can go from being swept by the lowly Texans one season, being in salary cap hell, and blowing a first round pick to 9-0 and into serious contention for the Super Bowl. I wonder how the team the Texans wrecked by taking Schaub from just before Vick went to prison can be gunning for the playoffs with a rookie QB. I wonder how Miami, who was a serious contender of going 0-16 last year, can be beating good teams and rolling up a record of marked improvement.

I wonder why it is impossible for the Texans to do the same, and unrealistic for fans to expect it.

Good questions. Same ones I've been asking. Rep.....Geeze it says I must spread rep around....

ObsiWan
11-13-2008, 08:50 AM
This is turning into another thread my friend Dr. Pangloss would enjoy.




It seems that no matter what suggestion of improving the Texans is made or failures pointed out, the counterpoint is that it would have been impossible to engineer a different outcome. These Texans are as good as they could possibly be, given the starting point three seasons ago. This is the outcome of perfect personnel and coaching decisions.

If that fails then it turns out it isn't a fair evaluation. No team has ever been that bad before, had salary cap problems before, etc. While others rise to serious playoff contention, the Texans do it right by rising to .500 before taking a step back to get used to the rarified air at the height of average.

I wonder why the Titans can go from being swept by the lowly Texans one season, being in salary cap hell, and blowing a first round pick to 9-0 and into serious contention for the Super Bowl. I wonder how the team the Texans wrecked by taking Schaub from just before Vick went to prison can be gunning for the playoffs with a rookie QB. I wonder how Miami, who was a serious contender of going 0-16 last year, can be beating good teams and rolling up a record of marked improvement.

I wonder why it is impossible for the Texans to do the same, and unrealistic for fans to expect it.

If one didn't know the total history and just read your sentence, they'd think that all happened in one season. Fact is, it was four years ago when we swept the Titans. It took them four years to get to their current 9-0 status. OBTW, they didn't panic and fire Jeff Fisher when they went 4-12 and 5-11 in successive seasons either. Patience paid off.

Also, two years ago, Atlanta was 7-9 with a coach, Jim Mora, Jr. that had lost his team by spouting off about how someplace else was his "dream job". Two year prior to that (four years total), Atlanta was 11-5 and one game away from going to the Super Bowl. And getting rid of locker room cancers like DeAngelo Hall, unhappy guys like Alge Crumpler, and hiring a HC that wasn't secretly looking for another job didn't hurt either.

Last year Miami lost all but one game. But if you look closely at the schedule results, they lost six of those games by three pts or less. Three years (and two HC's) ago, Miami was 9-7. That was the year that 11-5 was needed in the AFC to make the playoffs.

My point is, in most every case where that people point to as having a "miraculous turnaround" I can show where they either were already on their way to being a playoff caliber team and had a setback year, not unlike the 2007 Jets who went 4-12 after going 10-6 in 2006. Or were already playoff caliber and just needed a few pieces to return to their previous status (see the Ravens who were 13-3 in '06 and crumbled to 5-11 last year).

I think we're in the Jets' category. We were on our way to respectability and are having a classic setback year.

Vinny
11-13-2008, 09:57 AM
If one didn't know the total history and just read your sentence, they'd think that all happened in one season. Fact is, it was four years ago when we swept the Titans. It took them four years to get to their current 9-0 status. OBTW, they didn't panic and fire Jeff Fisher when they went 4-12 and 5-11 in successive seasons either. Patience paid off.
They have also been to the playoffs twice since then....so its not like a strong season this year came out of nowhere. You can see their progress every year....unlike this Houston franchise where "progress" consists of winning one more game than the previous season and getting all excited about being .500. We are the only team in the league that gets giddy over winning as many as we lose.

Showtime100
11-13-2008, 10:13 AM
Something that made me go Hmmmm. My wife is a Niner fan first and now a Texan fan as well. Our two teams have been remarkably similar over the course of the last few years.

I'm sure Vinny and a few others know they had higher hopes than the world ever had for them, much like Houston. Then the Niners and Texans seemingly take a step backward and what happens? They got rid of Nolan and I believe will soon hire Mike Singletary, great move. WE sit around and say, "one day soon" a change could come. Hmmmm. Don't pack your bags yet, Kubes, you have time.

Runner
11-13-2008, 10:15 AM
OBTW, they didn't panic and fire Jeff Fisher when they went 4-12 and 5-11 in successive seasons either. Patience paid off.

Also, two years ago, Atlanta was 7-9 with a coach, Jim Mora, Jr. that had lost his team by spouting off about how someplace else was his "dream job". Two year prior to that (four years total), Atlanta was 11-5 and one game away from going to the Super Bowl.

Last year Miami lost all but one game. But if you look closely at the schedule results, they lost six of those games by three pts or less. Three years (and two HC's) ago, Miami was 9-7. That was the year that 11-5 was needed in the AFC to make the playoffs.

My point is, in most every case where that people point to as having a "miraculous turnaround" I can show where they either were already on their way to being a playoff caliber team and had a setback year, not unlike the 2007 Jets who went 4-12 after going 10-6 in 2006. Or were already playoff caliber and just needed a few pieces to return to their previous status (see the Ravens who were 13-3 in '06 and crumbled to 5-11 last year).

I think we're in the Jets' category.

Jeff Fisher had a record of success and had earned trust. I've never said to fire Kubiak anyway. I just think he is average at best.

You point out how teams that are improving were good two or three years previously. However, when I point out the Texans were 7-9 two years pre-Kubiak that doesn't count for some reason. That is an example that there is always an excuse to evaluate the Texans differently.

Maybe the Texans are like the Jets as you say. That is certainly a defensible opinion - I'd counter that 8-8 isn't nearly as successful as the Jets 10-6 though. However, the opinion that the Texans should have progressed further is just as defensible if not more so.

ObsiWan
11-13-2008, 05:26 PM
Jeff Fisher had a record of success and had earned trust. I've never said to fire Kubiak anyway. I just think he is average at best.

You point out how teams that are improving were good two or three years previously. However, when I point out the Texans were 7-9 two years pre-Kubiak that doesn't count for some reason. That is an example that there is always an excuse to evaluate the Texans differently.

Maybe the Texans are like the Jets as you say. That is certainly a defensible opinion - I'd counter that 8-8 isn't nearly as successful as the Jets 10-6 though. However, the opinion that the Texans should have progressed further is just as defensible if not more so.

If Casserly had had sense enough to build on the team that went 7-9 instead of gutting the proven players (Aaron Glenn, Marcus Coleman, Jamie Sharper, et. al.) that composed that team, I wouldn't have a logical leg to stand on. But he didn't keep them, he shoo'ed them away and brought in younger unknowns.
The teams I used as examples built around those core guys that had them either in the playoffs or headed toward being playoff caliber. As a result, they returned to success at what seems like a miracle rate.

We pretty much started completely over when Kubiak got here - had too considering the level of <ahem> "talent that was here in '06. Those other teams built on the good personnel they had. That's the difference.

I'm deathly afraid that we'll do that same silly thing - start over - if we completely overhaul the coaching staff and front office. Because who knows what scheme the new guy will come in with and how many (or how few) of the current personnel will fit into whatever it is. And we'll we waiting another 3-4 yrs for a winning season.

Runner
11-13-2008, 05:37 PM
If the Texas always have such reasons or spins (depending on the point of view) for being so bad, I guess I disagree with them being the like the Jets. They are more like Detroit or the 20+ bad years of the Cardinals or Saints.

Let me summarize.

It is simply impossible for them to be better. They started out in a hole, this coach can't fix them in three years and it will take a couple more after this. They can't replace the coach because then they'll slide backwards (teams that don't regress aren't ever in bad shape like the Texans!).

And people think I'm the pessimist.

I just think they are doing bad because of continuing poor decisions. I don't think it is impossible for them to get better.

I'm upbeat! :)

ObsiWan
11-13-2008, 06:29 PM
I don't want to imply/infer that it is "impossible" for us to get better. My point is, I never expected us to be much farther along than we are considering what a pure mess this team was after the '05 season.

We've goofed up in several ways.

1) I said this when the trade was made and I'm standing by it: Yes, Matt Schaub was two 2nd rd picks better than HWWNBN was at the time. But he was NOT two 2nd rd picks better than Sage Rosenfels at the time. I would rather they had let HWWNBN, Sage, and whoever they could pursuade to come here (I had hopes it would have been Jeff Garcia) and duke it out for the starters job. ....don't bother looking for posts to that affect, I didn't know this place existed back then. I was posting on what passed for a msg board in the Chronic in those days.

2) I was hopeful, but scared, with the Ahman Green signing. I'd seen how good he could be when healthy (every now and again we still see those flashes - but now that's all that's left. A few flashes) but I'd also heard the rumors about how brittle he was and hoped that was all behind him. It wasn't. We rolled the dice on him and lost. It happens.

3) If Richard Smith was a 2nd (or 3rd choice for DC) then we should have upgraded as soon as someone with better credentials was available. Especially after two straight years producing a bottom of the pile defense. If we could bring someone in to make over the defense like Kubiak has made over the offense, we'd be playoff caliber.

4) This past draft was the one to pick up a stud RB. Slaton was a steal, no doubt. But Jonathan Stewart or Mendenhall would have been soooo much better. But instead of Stewart/Mendenhall we picked up Brown and Slaton. That's not an awful deal ...so far.

5) To go this long without a bonafide playmaker at safety is stupid. So is trying to make shutdown CBs out of Faggins and Reeves.

6) I don't care how much they make, keeping Weaver and Greenwood as starters is idiotic. I would rather see guys like who have heart, Maddox and Bulman or young guys like Adibi than Weaver and Greenwood, who have no upside.

Had we "batted 1.000" with all our draft picks and F/A signings we wouldn't be having these discussions - we'd be wondering who we'd playing in the first rd of the playoffs. But we're batting .400-.500. So its gonna take longer to get where we want to be.

At least we aren't going completely backwards like the Lions and Raiders.

And now that horse racing season is ebbing, the boss is finally paying attention and speaking out in the press. Let's see if that wakes some folks up.

Vinny
11-13-2008, 06:50 PM
I don't want to imply/infer that it is "impossible" for us to get better. My point is, I never expected us to be much farther along than we are considering what a pure mess this team was after the '05 season.
You honestly expected us to go till 2009 till we had a winning season? Even the 2.0 Browns made the playoffs in their first 4 years of existence. It may be impossible to disappoint you with your bar set so low.

Second Honeymoon
11-13-2008, 07:03 PM
I don't want to imply/infer that it is "impossible" for us to get better. My point is, I never expected us to be much farther along than we are considering what a pure mess this team was after the '05 season.

We've goofed up in several ways.

1) I said this when the trade was made and I'm standing by it: Yes, Matt Schaub was two 2nd rd picks better than HWWNBN was at the time. But he was NOT two 2nd rd picks better than Sage Rosenfels at the time. I would rather they had let HWWNBN, Sage, and whoever they could pursuade to come here (I had hopes it would have been Jeff Garcia) and duke it out for the starters job. ....don't bother looking for posts to that affect, I didn't know this place existed back then. I was posting on what passed for a msg board in the Chronic in those days.

2) I was hopeful, but scared, with the Ahman Green signing. I'd seen how good he could be when healthy (every now and again we still see those flashes - but now that's all that's left. A few flashes) but I'd also heard the rumors about how brittle he was and hoped that was all behind him. It wasn't. We rolled the dice on him and lost. It happens.

3) If Richard Smith was a 2nd (or 3rd choice for DC) then we should have upgraded as soon as someone with better credentials was available. Especially after two straight years producing a bottom of the pile defense. If we could bring someone in to make over the defense like Kubiak has made over the offense, we'd be playoff caliber.

4) This past draft was the one to pick up a stud RB. Slaton was a steal, no doubt. But Jonathan Stewart or Mendenhall would have been soooo much better. But instead of Stewart/Mendenhall we picked up Brown and Slaton. That's not an awful deal ...so far.

5) To go this long without a bonafide playmaker at safety is stupid. So is trying to make shutdown CBs out of Faggins and Reeves.

6) I don't care how much they make, keeping Weaver and Greenwood as starters is idiotic. I would rather see guys like who have heart, Maddox and Bulman or young guys like Adibi than Weaver and Greenwood, who have no upside.

Had we "batted 1.000" with all our draft picks and F/A signings we wouldn't be having these discussions - we'd be wondering who we'd playing in the first rd of the playoffs. But we're batting .400-.500. So its gonna take longer to get where we want to be.

At least we aren't going completely backwards like the Lions and Raiders.

And now that horse racing season is ebbing, the boss is finally paying attention and speaking out in the press. Let's see if that wakes some folks up.

great post man. agree 100%.

smith needs to be canned at the exact moment the final whistle blows on Week 17. no later...

..as for Kubiak, its obvious he ain't getting fired unless we lose the rest of our games and end 3-13. and even then he probably has another year. he has just failed as head coach and doesn't have a lot of the things you look for in a head coach.

Redtexan#34
11-14-2008, 09:16 AM
Ask yourself this question what can Baltimore, Atlanta, and Miami do that we can not do. They can CONSISTENTLY RUN THE FOOTBALL. I remember in the draft everyone was giving the Titans a hard time about drafting Johnson from ECU. Looks like Fisher and company were the smart ones. Baltimore used 3 backs against us and were successful. The Dolphins were so intent on running the football that they went back in time and pulled out the wildcat formation or single wing. When your team can run the football it does not put the QB in tough situations. Look at the last time we played the Colts (I know that nobody wants to I was at the game) Slaton rushed for 93yds and Green had 47. That is a total of 140yds our best rushing total of any game this season. The Texans were beating down the Colts until the Rosencopter took flight and everybody in the stadium went "OOOHHHH!!!!!!". In the off season we Should back up a flatbed of money to try and get Brandon Jacobs from the Giants. Chances are they will have to let him or Ward go http://www.nypost.com/seven/11122008/sports/giants/tough_choices_on_free_agents_loom_for_gi_138227.ht m they have like 5 key free agents they need to sign. Get another starting OL in free agency and one in the draft and we will be looking good. Next fix defense.

Runner
11-14-2008, 09:26 AM
Ask yourself this question what can Baltimore, Atlanta, and Miami do that we can not do. They can CONSISTENTLY RUN THE FOOTBALL.

That's a big part of it. Ironic that Kubiak has been building a "run first" team for three years.

The Texans abandon the run (and I guess that means the offensive game plan) at the first sign of duress. Recently the Titans ran 29 times for 20 yards one game because they refused to abandon the run. They kept the defense honest and won on the arm of Kerry Collins. The Texans can't seem to run 20 times a game even if they are at 3+ yards per carry.

To win, the Texans have to keep grinding to keep the defense honest and to give Slaton a chance to break one. Punting after a failed series is better than giving the QBs more chances at interceptions. It also has the bonus of keeping the Texans defense off the field longer.

Vinny
11-14-2008, 09:39 AM
That's a big part of it. Ironic that Kubiak has been building a "run first" team for three years.

The Texans abandon the run (and I guess that means the offensive game plan) at the first sign of duress. Recently the Titans ran 29 times for 20 yards one game because they refused to abandon the run. They kept the defense honest and won on the arm of Kerry Collins. The Texans can't seem to run 20 times a game even if they are at 3+ yards per carry.

To win, the Texans have to keep grinding to keep the defense honest and to give Slaton a chance to break one. Punting after a failed series is better than giving the QBs more chances at interceptions. It also has the bonus of keeping the Texans defense off the field longer.
Part of my problem with Kubiak is that his verbiage doesn't match his deeds, so how can the players really trust that he honestly feels confident in what he says?....the 'deeds not words' slogan they have always comes to mind when I watch this team totally disregard the run when all Kubiak has stated since he came here is that this is a franchise that is going to run the ball, run it again, and run the ball even more. Watching how he calls a game over and over tells me that he doesn't believe in what he is talking about.

ObsiWan
11-14-2008, 10:51 AM
You honestly expected us to go till 2009 till we had a winning season? Even the 2.0 Browns made the playoffs in their first 4 years of existence. It may be impossible to disappoint you with your bar set so low.

First, make no mistake, I'm disappointed EVERY time we lose. Sometimes I have to turn off the game I get so pissed. But - after I calm down in a day or so and rewatch it - I'm enough of a realist to see when we're just flat outclassed.

And yeah, Vinny, to be honest, I saw us somewhere between 7-9 and 9-7. While that's still possible, its less and less likely.

Think about it, we are better than we were a couple of years ago, but then so is everyone else. So when you consider our whole team, we haven't truly leapfrogged anybody talentwise.

Now offensively, I believe we can compete with just about anyone (QB meltdowns aside). The stats bear that out. Goodness knows how good we could be with fewer turnovers and a reliable running game.

But defense wins championships. And defensively, I just didn't see where we closed the gap on the rest of the division.
- We still don't have a true pass rusher besides Mario - and now he's nicked up and not at 100%.
- Travis Johnson is not a run stuffer, its starting to appear that he never will be. Robaire Smith was better than he was at that.
- Okam has the size, but some of the posters who had watched him in college questioned - on draft day - whether he has sufficient competitive juices to make a serious impact. Given that he hasn't been activated a lot this season, looks like they might have been right to ask those questions.
- Our best LB, DeMeco, is operating on 1-1/2 wheels.
- Our best cover corner was out for half the season. His replacements have been "underwhelming" (I'm trying to be nice here).
There are just too dang many spots that need serious upgrades on defense.

As long as we have a defense that can't turn those brain farts our QBs keep having (on an all-to-regular basis) into 3-and-outs and maybe get some takeaways of their own, we will have to play flawless offense in order to win games. Well obviously, we don't play flawless offense - reference the aforementioned QB brainfarts.



And, yes, the Browns 2.0 finished 9-7 in their fourth year of re-existence; but after that, they went right back into the tank. And it took five more years - and a fabulous '07 draft - to climb back out.
1999 - 2-14
2000 - 3-13
2001 - 7-9
2002 - 9-7 in playoffs thanks to multiple tie-breakers
2003 - 5-11
2004 - 4-12
2005 - 6-10
2006 - 4-12
2007 - 10-6

Maybe some folks would like to make the playoffs this year with smoke & mirrors (knowing we have no defense) and then suck for the next five years like Cleveland did. I would rather us to build a solid team, on both sides, so once we climb out of the cellar, we STAY out.