PDA

View Full Version : Chronicle: "We can't run, and we can't stop the run"


Marcus
09-22-2009, 10:09 AM
Today's article (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6630432.html) in the Houston Chronicle should bring a few of us back to earth.

One day after his team accomplished two of his goals— winning on the road and winning in the AFC South — coach Gary Kubiak still could not enjoy the Texans' 34-31 victory at Tennessee.

“We've got a lot of things we're going to have to improve to give ourselves a chance to win week in and week out,” Kubiak said Monday. “We did some good things, but we're just making some big mistakes.

“We've got a lot of problems we've got to work out to give ourselves a fair chance to win (consistently).”

What makes the victory at Tennessee even more improbable is that the Texans could not run the ball and couldn't stop the run. They ran 29 times for 63 yards, a 2.2-yard average. They allowed the Titans to run for 240 yards on 26 carries, a 9.2-yard average.

“We're last in the league in running the ball, and we're last in the league at stopping the run,” Kubiak said. “Historically in this league, you're not going to be successful if you can't run and you can't stop the run. We're as poor as we can be in those two phases.”

There's no other way to put this. They lucked out winning that game. They lucked out in so many ways, it's not funny. From not stopping the run, to not being able to run, to Jacoby's muffed punt, to Collins coughing it up in the end. Like they say, it's better to be lucky than good.

But if they can't run, or stop the run against the Jags or the Raiders, do you really think we'll continue to get that lucky?

I actually think stopping the run will be less and less of an issue as more games are played. There are talented people on defense, but they haven't played that much together as a unit. Once everyone figures out where they are supposed to be consistently on every play, the problem should resolve itself.

Offensively, that is another story. This is the same unit that played together all of last year. I'm not sure what Steve Slaton's problem is, but it's to the point where I don't care. He's running behind the same line as he was last year. But whatever, I hope Kubiak moves on with this and gives the ball to Moats. He ran the ball better than Slaton in preseason. I think it's time Moats gets some carries, if anything to narrow down where the problem really is . . . Slaton or the O-line.

Norg
09-22-2009, 10:13 AM
umm not alot of people can run on the jets and Titans ... calm down Kubes :shades: everyone wants to run the ball yes lets eork on that but intill then everyone knows our Team main skill point is throwing the ball if u wanted to run the ball kubes u should have singed a pricey F/A Running back or drafting a high pick RB

Texans#1Fan
09-22-2009, 10:21 AM
Yeah, but slaton needs to get more yardage especially after last years performance. Also, the Defense needs to step up and get going or we are going to be the worst team in the NFL.

Marcus
09-22-2009, 10:21 AM
umm not alot of people can run on the jets and Titans ... calm down Kubes :shades: everyone wants to run the ball yes lets eork on that but intill then everyone knows our Team main skill point is throwing the ball if u wanted to run the ball kubes u should have singed a pricey F/A Running back or drafting a high pick RB

How does that explain why Slaton could run the ball well last year, and not now?

Norg
09-22-2009, 10:27 AM
last year it took intill wk 3 for slaton to emerge

he had nothing the pitts game avid that was his first NFL game

and wk 2 he was running from Ike that didnt count

in wk 3 he did run for 116 yds agansit the titans yeah odd he couldnt do that agian this year

BrandonLwowski
09-22-2009, 10:29 AM
I kinda disagree on the fact that we can't stop the run. I think in the last two games we did a pretty good job stoping the run. Lets look at the jets game. the score was 10-0 at half. Jets really couldnt get there run game started. Then they bust out the big 30 yard run for a td. And the titians game they ran a little more but if u take away the 50 and 90 yard run Johnson didnt run that good. i think the major problem is stopping the big plays. with ryans, cushing, mario and are tough dline i think we will be fine in stopping the run in future games.

BSofA04
09-22-2009, 10:30 AM
FWIW, we have gone against two of the best teams that run the ball well and stop the run. We should seem some improvement in both departments these next few weeks.

Runner
09-22-2009, 10:31 AM
I actually think stopping the run will be less and less of an issue as more games are played. There are talented people on defense, but they haven't played that much together as a unit. Once everyone figures out where they are supposed to be consistently on every play, the problem should resolve itself.

Offensively, that is another story. This is the same unit that played together all of last year. I'm not sure what Steve Slaton's problem is, but it's to the point where I don't care. He's running behind the same line as he was last year. But whatever, I hope Kubiak moves on with this and gives the ball to Moats. He ran the ball better than Slaton in preseason. I think it's time Moats gets some carries, if anything to narrow down where the problem really is . . . Slaton or the O-line.

We have an interesting contrast in perspectives.

I think that the Texans will get it together and run the ball well this year, precisely because it us the same unit that ran well last year. I also credit the defenses they've faced for taking away the running game.

I think the defense will have problems all year because of their play last year and the very bad performances this year.

We will know more in a few games.

Hardcore Texan
09-22-2009, 10:31 AM
...

nero THE zero
09-22-2009, 10:38 AM
I tend to side more with AJ's perspective on our defensive woes:
http://www.examiner.com/x-778-Houston-Texans-Examiner~y2009m9d21-A-closer-look-at-Chris-Johnsons-three-touchdowns--Part-III?cid=examiner-email
Obviously the Texans run defense has to get itself in order quickly. It's an vexing problem since the Texans are having a fair amount of success stuffing the run, but about one in every eight or nine plays, something bad happens.

To us Monday Night Quarterbacks, it's easy to see why the team has given up so many huge running plays.

When you load up the line like the Texans have been, it's imperative that the first wave of defenders make the stop before the ball carrier hits the second level, because there's not much help back there.

One thing for sure is that Frank Bush's defense is far less forgiving than what we're used to, especially if a linebacker misses an assignment. But I'm intrigued by what it can do if it's working according to plan.

Despite the gaffes, there are flashes of goodness that we've seen with this Texans defense and with the pressure it's bringing.

Remember, it took Buddy Ryan five weeks to get our defense squared away back in '93.

Our defense seems to be a Jekyll and Hyde defense that stops you on negative plays and backs you up on third and longs, and then gives it up to you on that third and long.

It's not to say that the defense will definitely turn it around, but it can be as encouraging as it is discouraging.

DexmanC
09-22-2009, 10:39 AM
Most of the Titans' yardage came on draws and screens ON 3RD DOWNS.
We solve the third down problem the defense will be stout. Tennessee
did a good job of recognizing when Connor Barwin is in the game, the
defense is thinking PASS.

You take an aggressive pass rush, plus the fastest man in the NFL, give
him a draw or screen, that equals a big cup of GOOD BYE.

I have faith they'll get this shit fixed. Hell, Cushing started sniffing it
out when they realized he CAN play three downs. Between Cushing,
Demeco, and Diles, you got three SMART, talented run stoppers.

They'll get it fixed. The fact they could screw up as much as they did,
and still win ON THE ROAD speaks volumes about the direction this
team is headed in. I expect them to spank the Jags, due to the
lesson they've learned from the Raiders game last year. They'd better
be looking for draws and screens on all these third and longs they're
forcing.

Their run defense stats are out of whack, because most of the yardage
is coming on third and LONG. That's just stupid mental mistakes, not
so much the scheme, that's killing the squad. Fix that shit, we win
10-12 games.

HoustonFrog
09-22-2009, 10:52 AM
I kinda disagree on the fact that we can't stop the run. I think in the last two games we did a pretty good job stoping the run. Lets look at the jets game. the score was 10-0 at half. Jets really couldnt get there run game started. Then they bust out the big 30 yard run for a td. And the titians game they ran a little more but if u take away the 50 and 90 yard run Johnson didnt run that good. i think the major problem is stopping the big plays. with ryans, cushing, mario and are tough dline i think we will be fine in stopping the run in future games.

Those long runs still count though. Sorry but I hate when people discount long runs against the stats and say the defense was good besides them. The fact is there are serious breakdowns when people break runs so they are just as disconcerting to me overall. That would be like Titan fan saying if they had called the two late hits out of bounds, given us the fumble and Kerry hadn't fumbled we would have won by 21 points.

Maddict5
09-22-2009, 10:53 AM
im not overly concerned with either problem given who we've faced so far this season & given that slatons big games last year v the titans were the result of greatness on his part- getting away from 2 or 3 guys. somehow staying up after being tripped etc

defensively we can stop the run. id guess we've had more TFL's & no gains so far this season than we had in over 8 games last season when we couldnt stop the run. its just those two monster plays we give up a game due to young guys making mistakes & being in the wrong position. hopefully that should stop as they get more experience

i think those stats are partly down to who we've played so far but i like what kubiak is doing- giving each unit something to keep them focused where they might otherwise nod off against a jags team that doesnt look up to much this year

BigBull17
09-22-2009, 10:53 AM
Today's article (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6630432.html) in the Houston Chronicle should bring a few of us back to earth.



There's no other way to put this. They lucked out winning that game. They lucked out in so many ways, it's not funny.

.

I think the Titans were lucky they didn't lose by 20. We outplayed them, most of the game.

BigBull17
09-22-2009, 10:55 AM
im not overly concerned with either problem given who we've faced so far this season & given that slatons big games last year v the titans were the result of greatness on his part- getting away from 2 or 3 guys. somehow staying up after being tripped etc

defensively we can stop the run. id guess we've had more TFL's & no gains so far this season than we had in nearly 16 games last season when we couldnt stop the run. its just those two monster plays we give up a game due to young guys making mistakes & being in the wrong position. hopefully that should stop as they get more experience

i think those stats are partly down to who we've played so far but i like what kubiak is doing- giving each unit something to keep them focused where they might otherwise nod off against a jags team that doesnt look up to much this year

My budy and I looked it up, Demeco is on pace to have more TFL this year than his whole career. That's a big difference.

nero THE zero
09-22-2009, 11:02 AM
Those long runs still count though. Sorry but I hate when people discountlong runs against the stats and say the defense was good besides them. The fact is there are serious breakdowns when people break runs so they are just as disconcerting to me overall. that would be like Titan fan saying if they had called the two late hits out of bounds, given us the fumble and Kerry hadn't fumbled we would have won by 21 points.

Well, I think the general idea is that, when viewing trends and patterns, it is more encouraging to have a defense that can stop the run for no or negative gains on most plays and give up a big run once every 10 plays than to have a defense who gets constantly gashed for 4 or 5 yards.

The idea is that, this early in the season, you might have the time and the capability to eventually stop that 10th play that goes big for no yards like you do the previous nine plays, whereas there is no glimmer of hope for a defense that is constantly giving up 4-5 yards.

Though, obviously the defense has to make that improvement at some point or it's no better.

HoustonFrog
09-22-2009, 11:03 AM
I think the Titans were lucky they didn't lose by 20. We outplayed them, most of the game.

Disagree. On 2 Titan drives getting near midfield the Texans got away with 2 blatant shots out of bounds. The Jacoby fumble, etc. I'm not sure how you can say that when a defense leaves a guy wide open sitting by the sidelines. Not complaining, just saying.

HOU-TEX
09-22-2009, 11:04 AM
Those long runs still count though. Sorry but I hate when people discountlong runs against the stats and say the defense was good besides them. The fact is there are serious breakdowns when people break runs so they are just as disconcerting to me overall. that would be like Titan fan saying if they had called the two late hits out of bounds, given us the fumble and Kerry hadn't fumbled we would have won by 21 points.

I agree. Heck, people were saying how Slaton was the only RB that successfully ran on the titans last season. Well, if you take away the 50 yarder he had in Tenn he would've only had 66 yards. Take away the 34 yarder in the game we won he would've had 66 yards. So it goes both ways.

BigBull17
09-22-2009, 11:06 AM
Disagree. On 2 Titan drives getting near midfield the Texans got away with 2 blatant shots out of bounds. The Jacoby fumble, etc. I'm not sure how you can say that when a defense leaves a guy wide open sitting by the sidelines. Not complaining, just saying.

Other than the three long plays, the Titans never moved the ball. How can you NOT say we dominated that game? I don't discount long runs, but I know for sure that our D played better than the yards they gave up. The Titans couldn't sustain anything on offense. They burned us on three long plays, missed assignments by young players. We did not get lucky and fall into a win, IMO.

Hookem Horns
09-22-2009, 11:14 AM
It would have been nice if the Texans would have signed Cedric Benson when they had the chance. The guy had another great game yesterday up in Green Bay. You can't have enough depth at RB. The Giants have proven that to me with all the backs they are rotating out there.

Maddict5
09-22-2009, 11:16 AM
My budy and I looked it up, Demeco is on pace to have more TFL this year than his whole career. That's a big difference.

16 games was probably an exaggeration by me but we've had way more of those plays than against anybody last yr & given that the two teams we've done that against (jets & titans) were top of the league when it came to running the ball last year, thats pretty impressive

BigBull17
09-22-2009, 11:17 AM
It would have been nice if the Texans would have signed Cedric Benson when they had the chance. The guy had another great game yesterday up in Green Bay. You can't have enough depth at RB. The Giants have proven that to me with all the backs they are rotating out there.

He used us to get a little more cash from the Bungles.

Runner
09-22-2009, 11:34 AM
It would have been nice if the Texans would have signed Cedric Benson when they had the chance. The guy had another great game yesterday up in Green Bay. You can't have enough depth at RB. The Giants have proven that to me with all the backs they are rotating out there.

He used us to get a little more cash from the Bungles.

That is incorrect - the Texans didn't make him an offer. The Texans decided they weren't interested, not Benson.

The board was split too. Some thought he would be a waste at league minimum.

HoustonFrog
09-22-2009, 11:38 AM
Other than the three long plays, the Titans never moved the ball. How can you NOT say we dominated that game? I don't discount long runs, but I know for sure that our D played better than the yards they gave up. The Titans couldn't sustain anything on offense. They burned us on three long plays, missed assignments by young players. We did not get lucky and fall into a win, IMO.

But you are discounting the big plays. They count. Their 3rd TD was a throw to Nate W inside the red zone. The were driving twice when the two no calls were made. They had no problems in the first half moving it. Stop making excuses for the D. Your same reasoning could be used by them..."if not for a blown coverage and AJ being wide open we would be up by 2 TDs." They were up by a TD when Jacoby muffed the punt. So overall you can't say what you've been saying. There was nothing close to domination.

ChampionTexan
09-22-2009, 11:43 AM
That is incorrect - the Texans didn't make him an offer. The Texans decided they weren't interested, not Benson.

Not according to McClain/The Chronicle:

Benson left Houston to return to Austin after considering signing with the Texans, but getting $3.5 million a year to be a starter was more appealing than getting $2.75 million a year to be a reserve.
LINK (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6292470.html)

Double Barrel
09-22-2009, 11:44 AM
I do not feel as confident as others that we will turn it around on either the offense or defense. Proof will be in the games to come, because based on what we have seen so far, we are losing the trench war with both running the ball and stopping the run.

Taking out big plays is just silly to me, with maybe the exception of the uncovered Chris Johnson play. That was a unit asleep at the wheel and we should be able to expect that we will never see that again.

HoustonFrog
09-22-2009, 11:49 AM
I do not feel as confident as others that we will turn it around on either the offense or defense. Proof will be in the games to come, because based on what we have seen so far, we are losing the trench war with both running the ball and stopping the run.

Taking out big plays is just silly to me, with maybe the exception of the uncovered Chris Johnson play. That was a unit asleep at the wheel and we should be able to expect that we will never see that again.

Exactly!

GP
09-22-2009, 12:23 PM
We need two big run stuffers in the middle. Amobi isn't that. Okam is sorta' that.

But does this team DARE to draft one in the 1st round in 2010 where there's more chance at finding a good one, rather than later rounds? LOL.

If you want to stop the best rushing offenses in the NFL, don't you have to do what teams like the Vikings do: Get two massively big guys to shut down the middle running lanes.

TJ didn't work out for us in that capacity. There's one first rounder lost on the cause. And Amobi's on the verge of being 1st rounder number 2.

On the bright side, there's always plenty of TEs to pick up in the early rounds. So we got that going for us, which is nice...

Runner
09-22-2009, 12:39 PM
That is incorrect - the Texans didn't make him an offer. The Texans decided they weren't interested, not Benson.

Not according to McClain/The Chronicle:

Benson left Houston to return to Austin after considering signing with the Texans, but getting $3.5 million a year to be a starter was more appealing than getting $2.75 million a year to be a reserve.
LINK (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6292470.html)

Thanks for the info and link. It appears at this point I was wrong about this.

I didn't think an official offer was ever made. Hmmm.......

Hervoyel
09-22-2009, 12:39 PM
It would have been nice if the Texans would have signed Cedric Benson when they had the chance. The guy had another great game yesterday up in Green Bay. You can't have enough depth at RB. The Giants have proven that to me with all the backs they are rotating out there.


Exactly. There we were sitting on a rookie RB with promise, lame ass Ahman Green, and Ryan Moats and we're too good to go talk to Cedric Benson.

That infuriated me then and it infuriates me now. How's Cedric Benson doing these days by the way? 6th in the NFL and averaging over 4 yards a carry behind Cincinnati's line thank you very much.

Way to not even try to improve your team Rick, Gary, & Bob. Bravo! The Bengals got him for next to nothing. We could have done that easily and rotated him with Slaton all year.

nero THE zero
09-22-2009, 12:43 PM
Thanks for the info and link. It appears at this point I was wrong about this.

I didn't think an official offer was ever made. Hmmm.......

Kubiak suggests that there was never an offer made:
(on the Texans not taking RB Cedric Benson in free agency last year) "We had our chance with Cedric in free agency. It just didn't work out. He was free for a while and we were a team that passed in that situation. We ran the ball pretty good last year. We had our chance at him in free agency in the offseason. We evaluated him and evaluated his fit with our football team and we made a decision to go in a different direction. We've got people to run the ball. But they have to run the ball better and we have to help them run the ball better. You know, hindsight is 20-20. We've got to play with the people we've got."

Runner
09-22-2009, 12:55 PM
Not according to McClain/The Chronicle:


LINK (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6292470.html)

Thanks for the info and link. It appears at this point I was wrong about this.

I didn't think an official offer was ever made. Hmmm.......

Ok. I figured it out. The offer in the link was made during this offseason. I was talking about when Benson tried out during the season last year.

Sorry to correct the original poster. It appears we were both right.

Runner
09-22-2009, 12:57 PM
Thanks for the info and link. It appears at this point I was wrong about this.

I didn't think an official offer was ever made. Hmmm.......

Kubiak suggests that there was never an offer made:
(on the Texans not taking RB Cedric Benson in free agency last year) "We had our chance with Cedric in free agency. It just didn't work out. He was free for a while and we were a team that passed in that situation. We ran the ball pretty good last year. We had our chance at him in free agency in the offseason. We evaluated him and evaluated his fit with our football team and we made a decision to go in a different direction. We've got people to run the ball. But they have to run the ball better and we have to help them run the ball better. You know, hindsight is 20-20. We've got to play with the people we've got."

This Kubiak quote is interesting too. McClain might be exagerating a contract offer. Imagine that.

The Pencil Neck
09-22-2009, 01:31 PM
I do not feel as confident as others that we will turn it around on either the offense or defense. Proof will be in the games to come, because based on what we have seen so far, we are losing the trench war with both running the ball and stopping the run.

Taking out big plays is just silly to me, with maybe the exception of the uncovered Chris Johnson play. That was a unit asleep at the wheel and we should be able to expect that we will never see that again.

Taking out 1 big play that is obviously an aberration is okay for me.

The problem is, we don't have one big play that's obviously an aberration. We have a bunch of big plays. That's no aberration. That's a problem. Hopefully, it's a problem that can be fixed. To me, it LOOKS like a problem that can be fixed and the question is whether it will be fixed.

Gawd. I hope so.

LonerATO
09-22-2009, 01:43 PM
Today's article (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6630432.html) in the Houston Chronicle should bring a few of us back to earth.



There's no other way to put this. They lucked out winning that game. They lucked out in so many ways, it's not funny. From not stopping the run, to not being able to run, to Jacoby's muffed punt, to Collins coughing it up in the end. Like they say, it's better to be lucky than good.

But if they can't run, or stop the run against the Jags or the Raiders, do you really think we'll continue to get that lucky?

I actually think stopping the run will be less and less of an issue as more games are played. There are talented people on defense, but they haven't played that much together as a unit. Once everyone figures out where they are supposed to be consistently on every play, the problem should resolve itself.

Offensively, that is another story. This is the same unit that played together all of last year. I'm not sure what Steve Slaton's problem is, but it's to the point where I don't care. He's running behind the same line as he was last year. But whatever, I hope Kubiak moves on with this and gives the ball to Moats. He ran the ball better than Slaton in preseason. I think it's time Moats gets some carries, if anything to narrow down where the problem really is . . . Slaton or the O-line.

I think that number is skewed in that CJ had that one run that should have happened since he wasnt covered and we also basically got gashed by one player

The Pencil Neck
09-22-2009, 01:47 PM
I think that number is skewed in that CJ had that one run that should have happened since he wasnt covered and we also basically got gashed by one player

The bottom line is that we got gashed.

Period.

End of story.

We have to fix that. If we keep getting gashed, by 1 player or 10, we can't expect to keep winning.

BigBull17
09-22-2009, 01:50 PM
But you are discounting the big plays. They count. Their 3rd TD was a throw to Nate W inside the red zone. The were driving twice when the two no calls were made. They had no problems in the first half moving it. Stop making excuses for the D. Your same reasoning could be used by them..."if not for a blown coverage and AJ being wide open we would be up by 2 TDs." They were up by a TD when Jacoby muffed the punt. So overall you can't say what you've been saying. There was nothing close to domination.

All I am saying is when our young guys didn't blow assignments, which happens with a new scheme, we didn't give the Titans much to work with. Agree to disagree. Also, what blown calls were you talking about?

dc_txtech
09-22-2009, 01:51 PM
Taking out 1 big play that is obviously an aberration is okay for me.

The problem is, we don't have one big play that's obviously an aberration. We have a bunch of big plays. That's no aberration. That's a problem. Hopefully, it's a problem that can be fixed. To me, it LOOKS like a problem that can be fixed and the question is whether it will be fixed.

Gawd. I hope so.

That's pretty much how I feel about. I will say one thing though, I would rather give up big plays than giving up an easy 5 yards on every play like we have in the past.

GP
09-22-2009, 02:32 PM
This Kubiak quote is interesting too. McClain might be exagerating a contract offer. Imagine that.

Or when Kubiak said "...we passed..." he was talking about passing on the counter-offer made by Benson's agent.

That, or we "passed" something else to Cedric that someone would normally pass to him. :grass:

Ckw
09-22-2009, 03:06 PM
I think what so many of you are missing is the Titans were aggressively playing the run BECAUSE of last season. Fisher even said his biggest concern was our running game, and he believes Slaton is legit. Why else do you think we were able to pass for over 350 yards?!? I'm not saying Slaton doesn't look tentative; he certainly doesn't seem to have the vision he had last season. At the same time, you have to recognize that Fisher was specifically targeting our running game which in turn led to our big passing game, and so far no one has been able to run on the Jets.

Texecutioner
09-22-2009, 03:17 PM
Anyone that says that we don't have major problems stopping the run is completely delusional and needs to get out of La La land or off the acid they're tripping off of. The Texans were ran all over by the Saints in pre season with Bell, Peterson in the Vikings game, and the first two regular season games as well. We've been getting pounded all over on defense when it comes to running the ball. Frog is right, that trying to spin stuff like "well if it wasn't for that big run play, we did alright." Well that big run play was there and it still counted just like any other play. Chris Johnson just had a career game against us, where it looked like he was playing some college team out of the BIG East or something. The worst part about our inability to stop the run is that teams are scoring TD's off of those big plays. They're not just runs where we have the ability to stop them afterward and force a FG kick, teams are hitting HR plays on our defense left and right with these big plays.


I like exactly what Kubes is saying. He knows there are huge problems with our running game on offense and stopping the run on defense. Those problems need to get fixed pronto if this team is going to have any type of decent season. The Texans will be facing one of the best RB's in the league next week in MJD and we need to stop the guy and make some improvements.

Stopping the run and running the ball should be the team's main focus all week long going into this game and it seems like it is from what Kubes is saying. Get on it Kubes!

HJam72
09-22-2009, 03:17 PM
I think what so many of you are missing is the Titans were aggressively playing the run BECAUSE of last season. Fisher even said his biggest concern was our running game, and he believes Slaton is legit. Why else do you think we were able to pass for over 350 yards?!? I'm not saying Slaton doesn't look tentative; he certainly doesn't seem to have the vision he had last season. At the same time, you have to recognize that Fisher was specifically targeting our running game which in turn led to our big passing game, and so far no one has been able to run on the Jets.

....and I thought Fisher was smart.

HoustonFrog
09-22-2009, 03:23 PM
All I am saying is when our young guys didn't blow assignments, which happens with a new scheme, we didn't give the Titans much to work with. Agree to disagree. Also, what blown calls were you talking about?

I was happy to see that two late hits weren't called on the sidelines on 2 drives. One of them CJ was basically 4 yards out of bounds and the refs let it go. Same thing happened later but it was a little closer. Both instances they were close to midfield and it would have moved them closer. But from replays they looked late. Overall they were calling it like it was playoff football so it wasn't surprising.

Ckw
09-22-2009, 03:24 PM
Anyone that says that we don't have major problems stopping the run is completely delusional and needs to get out of La La land or off the acid they're tripping off of. The Texans were ran all over by the Saints in pre season with Bell, Peterson in the Vikings game, and the first two regular season games as well. We've been getting pounded all over on defense when it comes to running the ball. Frog is right, that trying to spin stuff like "well if it wasn't for that big run play, we did alright." Well that big run play was there and it still counted just like any other play. Chris Johnson just had a career game against us, where it looked like he was playing some college team out of the BIG East or something. The worst part about our inability to stop the run is that teams are scoring TD's off of those big plays. They're not just runs where we have the ability to stop them afterward and force a FG kick, teams are hitting HR plays on our defense left and right with these big plays.


I like exactly what Kubes is saying. He knows there are huge problems with our running game on offense and stopping the run on defense. Those problems need to get fixed pronto if this team is going to have any type of decent season. The Texans will be facing one of the best RB's in the league next week in MJD and we need to stop the guy and make some improvements.

Stopping the run and running the ball should be the team's main focus all week long going into this game and it seems like it is from what Kubes is saying. Get on it Kubes!

Definitely. Chris Johnson looked like a man amongst boys out there on Sunday. Amobi looked better, but there is no doubt that Deljuan needs to be starting. The one thing I will add, Tex, is that many of the big runs by CJ were almost shut down; our guys were just a bit too slow closing the gaps. The guy I noticed a few times, and on the big run play, was Cushing. He seemed to almost get there to shut down the play but barely didn't make it on time. This is likely due to inexperience and will hopefully be rectified by next week otherwise MJD will run all over us.

BrandonLwowski
09-22-2009, 03:28 PM
Those long runs still count though. Sorry but I hate when people discount long runs against the stats and say the defense was good besides them. The fact is there are serious breakdowns when people break runs so they are just as disconcerting to me overall. That would be like Titan fan saying if they had called the two late hits out of bounds, given us the fumble and Kerry hadn't fumbled we would have won by 21 points.

I agree with you, but if you look at both games we were solid on the run game. yes i know the stats show us at number 32nd in stopping the run but that is misleading. Even if we dont take away the 3 big runs, one agaisnt the jets two the titans, we stopped the run consisently so that the play action passes could not be as succesful. im just saying except for those 3 runs we have stopped the run consistently

Marcus
09-22-2009, 03:51 PM
I do not feel as confident as others that we will turn it around on either the offense or defense. Proof will be in the games to come, because based on what we have seen so far, we are losing the trench war with both running the ball and stopping the run.

I agree with this to a certain extent. If we can't win the battle up front, then any game we do win will be by sheer luck. We went into the Titans home field, and despite not being able to run, and not being able to stop the run, and still won???? That was luck, any way you slice it.

But problem that nobody seems to want to talk about, is Steve Slaton. You can say the O-line is not getting it done, but it's the same O-line he ran behind last year. And it's the same line he ran behind last year when he ran for 100 yards against the Titans. Even taking out the 3 times he's coughed up the ball already, his performance thus far is pretty much a big zero.

HOU-TEX
09-22-2009, 04:05 PM
I agree with you, but if you look at both games we were solid on the run game. yes i know the stats show us at number 32nd in stopping the run but that is misleading. Even if we dont take away the 3 big runs, one agaisnt the jets two the titans, we stopped the run consisently so that the play action passes could not be as succesful. im just saying except for those 3 runs we have stopped the run consistently

IMO, you can either be consistent at stopping the run or you can be inconsistent stopping the run. There is no in between. You can't just exclude the big runs and say we were consistent.

Our entire team is inconsistent.

HJam72
09-22-2009, 04:11 PM
Not to disagree, but the Titans have just lost 2 in a row where they outran their opponent. How many times have the Colts won games where they were outplayed in every way but one? Yes, I am worried about the Jags, but I'm just glad we have a good passing game and that we put pressure on opposing QBs. Teams that win in the trenches are always more impressive, but....well, they don't always win (in the regular season, lol).

BrandonLwowski
09-22-2009, 04:11 PM
I see everyone has mix feeling feelings on the run defense for the texans. it seems like noone can agree on it so here is something that we can all agree on. Lets hope texans defense can tighten up and our offense have another great game. And sunday we are gonna beat the Jags @$$ hell yea!!!!

HJam72
09-22-2009, 04:12 PM
Yes, but we are consistently inconsistent. :texflag:

HoustonFrog
09-22-2009, 04:13 PM
IMO, you can either be consistent at stopping the run or you can be inconsistent stopping the run. There is no in between. You can't just exclude the big runs and say we were consistent.

Our entire team is inconsistent.

Exactly. You aren't consistent at stopping the run if there are 3 big runs every game or big runs in general every game. That is consistently giving up big runs is what it is....those are scores. That's called being inconsistent...stuffing a team and then giving up long ones. Consistently inconsistent :)

Ckw
09-22-2009, 04:15 PM
I agree with this to a certain extent. If we can't win the battle up front, then any game we do win will be by sheer luck. We went into the Titans home field, and despite not being able to run, and not being able to stop the run, and still won???? That was luck, any way you slice it.

I really don't understand this mentality. The Tennessee game was not luck. Orton throwing it up last week only to have it bounce off his receiver's hands into Brandon Stokely's hands was luck. Sunday against Tennessee was not luck. It was a hard fought win and the biggest reason we won was BECAUSE Fisher was worried about Slaton. I agree, Slaton has not looked good. I still have hope that he will put it together. But passing for over 350 yards and 4 tds isn't luck. Tennessee stacked the box and focused on the run so we burned them with the play action pass. Also, we held onto the football. Slaton did fumble twice but our O line kept their eyes open and fell on the ball. It was smart football not luck.

HJam72
09-22-2009, 04:17 PM
All we need to stop the run D. problems is a 4-5-4 defense. Sometimes against the Colts, we'll use a 4-2-7.

Double Barrel
09-22-2009, 04:17 PM
I agree with this to a certain extent. If we can't win the battle up front, then any game we do win will be by sheer luck. We went into the Titans home field, and despite not being able to run, and not being able to stop the run, and still won???? That was luck, any way you slice it.

But problem that nobody seems to want to talk about, is Steve Slaton. You can say the O-line is not getting it done, but it's the same O-line he ran behind last year. And it's the same line he ran behind last year when he ran for 100 yards against the Titans. Even taking out the 3 times he's coughed up the ball already, his performance thus far is pretty much a big zero.

yeah, Slaton doesn't seem to be finding the holes like he did last year. It is such a quick event that I have to wonder if he's lost a step or something. Our linemen aren't going to be able to hold off opposing defenders forever, so it has to be a reflex type of decision. He's being stuffed, but when Chris Brown is in, he seems to get between the tackles and at least move forward past the line of scrimmage.

I think the Jags game will really tell us something about the direction and consistency of our running game and run defense.

HJam72
09-22-2009, 04:20 PM
If Slaton lays an egg again, I gotta start believing it's that extra weight he put on. Maybe time for some starvation.

Texanmike02
09-22-2009, 04:28 PM
But you are discounting the big plays. They count. Their 3rd TD was a throw to Nate W inside the red zone. The were driving twice when the two no calls were made. They had no problems in the first half moving it. Stop making excuses for the D. Your same reasoning could be used by them..."if not for a blown coverage and AJ being wide open we would be up by 2 TDs." They were up by a TD when Jacoby muffed the punt. So overall you can't say what you've been saying. There was nothing close to domination.

You can't discount the big plays. Then again, you have to. If I'm looking statistically, they are outliers. Statistically, they would both be thrown out.

Now looking at it from a realistic standpoint. They were BAD plays. Which is an improvement. When this defense plays the way it should, they are an average to above average defense. Really they are. They are capable of getting in the backfield and disrupting the run... they are starting to make the QB move around and even getting a little (baby steps) pressure up the middle of the pocket. In seasons past, it was Mario or nobody. The QB had to watch one guy and that was it. Now they have to be aware of what's going on around them. I can't wait to compare completion % (on non screen plays) from last year to this.

The bottom line is this. We have up 3 bad plays. Very Very bad. Our defense looked similar to last years statistically with one glaring exception. We didn't give up yardage in 3 to 7 yard chunks like we usually do. Every Texans fan knows the long agonizing 15 play 9 minute drives we seem prone to. We got the ball into Schaub's hands and let him work.

On the JJ punt. I'm not a fan of his as a PR and you can argue against him but that wasn't luck. It might have been fortunate, but it was the right call. You are given the opportunity to catch the ball until it hits the ground. If Barber had been fired in the preseason we don't give up the long one to Johnson probably. And those two run plays were flukes. This defense is much improved (CAN WE GET A DT PLEASE!!!)

Mike

Thorn
09-22-2009, 04:53 PM
Yes, but we are consistently inconsistent. :texflag:

This.

ObsiWan
09-22-2009, 05:10 PM
Anyone that says that we don't have major problems stopping the run is completely delusional and needs to get out of La La land or off the acid they're tripping off of. The Texans were ran all over by the Saints in pre season with Bell, Peterson in the Vikings game, and the first two regular season games as well. We've been getting pounded all over on defense when it comes to running the ball. Frog is right, that trying to spin stuff like "well if it wasn't for that big run play, we did alright." Well that big run play was there and it still counted just like any other play. Chris Johnson just had a career game against us, where it looked like he was playing some college team out of the BIG East or something. The worst part about our inability to stop the run is that teams are scoring TD's off of those big plays. They're not just runs where we have the ability to stop them afterward and force a FG kick, teams are hitting HR plays on our defense left and right with these big plays.


I like exactly what Kubes is saying. He knows there are huge problems with our running game on offense and stopping the run on defense. Those problems need to get fixed pronto if this team is going to have any type of decent season. The Texans will be facing one of the best RB's in the league next week in MJD and we need to stop the guy and make some improvements.

Stopping the run and running the ball should be the team's main focus all week long going into this game and it seems like it is from what Kubes is saying. Get on it Kubes!

Rep your way. This is not a "recent development". As you point out, running defense has been suspect all summer and hasn't gotten any better - as some of us hoped it might - when Cushing started playing regularly and Diles moved to Will.

We better this FIXED if we have any hopes of making the playoffs.

Marcus
09-22-2009, 05:35 PM
I really don't understand this mentality. The Tennessee game was not luck. Orton throwing it up last week only to have it bounce off his receiver's hands into Brandon Stokely's hands was luck. Sunday against Tennessee was not luck. It was a hard fought win and the biggest reason we won was BECAUSE Fisher was worried about Slaton. I agree, Slaton has not looked good. I still have hope that he will put it together. But passing for over 350 yards and 4 tds isn't luck. Tennessee stacked the box and focused on the run so we burned them with the play action pass. Also, we held onto the football. Slaton did fumble twice but our O line kept their eyes open and fell on the ball. It was smart football not luck.

You and I are going to have agree to disagree on basic football philosophy. Analyze the Titans game all you want, but game was won despite losing the battle up front. That is an aberration, not the norm. Any game that's won where the trench battle was lost is a lucky win. If we can't run, and stop the run against the Jags, we will probably lose. If we can't run, and stop the run against the Oakland, we will probably lose.

Kubiak would never admit it publicly, but I think even he thinks we lucked out.against the Tacks.

silvrhand
09-22-2009, 05:50 PM
Haven't we beat this dead horse to death yet, our defense is young and learning a new system.

We have to improve on not getting blown so bad out of our gap protection that we allow linemen to release downfield for 2nd/3rd level penetration, once that happens it spells bad news period.

wagonhed
09-22-2009, 06:06 PM
I know that football is a team sport, but at some point using the word "we" stops being descriptive of what is happening on the field. As a unit, our defense was obviously inconsistent against the run. But in my estimation, the source of that inconsistency was the secondary. The people that are saying "our defense played great against the run except for a few huge plays", what they really mean is that our linebackers and linemen did a very good job against the run - I think that much is undeniable. The problem is that on the very few run plays where the front 7 couldn't do their job, the secondary didn't do it either.

Against a defense with a poor front 7, the offense usually racks up lots of 8+ yard runs. This isn't the case with us. We stuffed the run the vast majority of the time but when we didn't, our secondary provided no safety net whatsoever. Stopping 85% of the run plays for less than 6 yards is what I call a talented and consistent front 7. It's up to the secondary to stop the 20 yard runs (which happen to everyone) from turning into 80 yard runs.

So to me, talk of consistency and inconsistency is meaningless. The performance against the run last week was just another symptom of our eternally bad secondary. A speedy RB like #28 just exposes how bad our secondary really is.


(PS - this is why I originally wanted Chung in the 2nd round... course the Pats took him)

Ckw
09-22-2009, 06:12 PM
You and I are going to have agree to disagree on basic football philosophy. Analyze the Titans game all you want, but game was won despite losing the battle up front. That is an aberration, not the norm. Any game that's won where the trench battle was lost is a lucky win. If we can't run, and stop the run against the Jags, we will probably lose. If we can't run, and stop the run against the Oakland, we will probably lose.

Kubiak would never admit it publicly, but I think even he thinks we lucked out.against the Tacks.

You are right; we will have to agree to disagree. Check out the game last night. Call it luck, call it whatever you want, but the Colts won because they did their job when it mattered most. They were dominated by the Dolphins but like us, they passed the ball much more effectively than Miami and won the game. Also, like us, they won the turnover battle. That isn't luck; that's football the way it is supposed to be played.

Ckw
09-22-2009, 06:14 PM
I know that football is a team sport, but at some point using the word "we" stops being descriptive of what is happening on the field. As a unit, our defense was obviously inconsistent against the run. But in my estimation, the source of that inconsistency was the secondary. The people that are saying "our defense played great against the run except for a few huge plays", what they really mean is that our linebackers and linemen did a very good job against the run - I think that much is undeniable. The problem is that on the very few run plays where the front 7 couldn't do their job, the secondary didn't do it either.

Against a defense with a poor front 7, the offense usually racks up lots of 8+ yard runs. This isn't the case with us. We stuffed the run the vast majority of the time but when we didn't, our secondary provided no safety net whatsoever. Stopping 85% of the run plays for less than 6 yards is what I call a talented and consistent front 7. It's up to the secondary to stop the 20 yard runs (which happen to everyone) from turning into 80 yard runs.

So to me, talk of consistency and inconsistency is meaningless. The performance against the run last week was just another symptom of our eternally bad secondary. A speedy RB like #28 just exposes how bad our secondary really is.


(PS - this is why I originally wanted Chung in the 2nd round... course the Pats took him)

Good post man. I agree. Rep your way.

Runner
09-22-2009, 07:18 PM
I wouldn't attribute the Texans win over the Titans to luck. I attribute it to an incredible offensive explosion. A few breaks went the Texans way, but that happens. Breaks go the other way too.

The problem is, I don't think relying on offensive explosions by the Texans to win games is a viable long term plan. It sure was fun though.

Ckw
09-22-2009, 07:22 PM
I wouldn't attribute the Texans win over the Titans to luck. I attribute it to an incredible offensive explosion. A few breaks went the Texans way, but that happens. Breaks go the other way too.

The problem is, I don't think relying on offensive explosions by the Texans to win games is a viable long term plan. It sure was fun though.

Well said. The team still had to step up and put those points on the board. The defense also had to do enough in the end to spook Collins and cause him to fumble the ball. Very much am enjoying rewatching it on NFL Replay.

Runner
09-22-2009, 07:27 PM
I wouldn't attribute the Texans win over the Titans to luck. I attribute it to an incredible offensive explosion. A few breaks went the Texans way, but that happens. Breaks go the other way too.

The problem is, I don't think relying on offensive explosions by the Texans to win games is a viable long term plan. It sure was fun though.

Well said. The team still had to step up and put those points on the board. The defense also had to do enough in the end to spook Collins and cause him to fumble the ball. Very much am enjoying rewatching it on NFL Replay.

We were so close to agreeing! :)

I thought if anything was lucky it was the fumble by Collins. I considered it an unforced error.

FR0497
09-23-2009, 12:23 AM
I know that football is a team sport, but at some point using the word "we" stops being descriptive of what is happening on the field. As a unit, our defense was obviously inconsistent against the run. But in my estimation, the source of that inconsistency was the secondary. The people that are saying "our defense played great against the run except for a few huge plays", what they really mean is that our linebackers and linemen did a very good job against the run - I think that much is undeniable. The problem is that on the very few run plays where the front 7 couldn't do their job, the secondary didn't do it either.

Against a defense with a poor front 7, the offense usually racks up lots of 8+ yard runs. This isn't the case with us. We stuffed the run the vast majority of the time but when we didn't, our secondary provided no safety net whatsoever. Stopping 85% of the run plays for less than 6 yards is what I call a talented and consistent front 7. It's up to the secondary to stop the 20 yard runs (which happen to everyone) from turning into 80 yard runs.

So to me, talk of consistency and inconsistency is meaningless. The performance against the run last week was just another symptom of our eternally bad secondary. A speedy RB like #28 just exposes how bad our secondary really is.


(PS - this is why I originally wanted Chung in the 2nd round... course the Pats took him)

Excellent post.

As far as us being able to run the ball, I've noticed Slaton missing quite a few holes so far. I recall several plays from this past game where Slaton was stopped for no gain but had a hole with some daylight he could have hit. I don't think his weight is any issue in his running game. And the proof for me was the Jets game on the screen play that he ended up fumbling. He was the same speedy shifty Slaton to me. His vision just isn't on par with last year so far.

I'm sure these plays are being brought to his attention and hopefully we see a nice change this week. :fans:

silvrhand
09-23-2009, 01:26 AM
I know that football is a team sport, but at some point using the word "we" stops being descriptive of what is happening on the field. As a unit, our defense was obviously inconsistent against the run. But in my estimation, the source of that inconsistency was the secondary. The people that are saying "our defense played great against the run except for a few huge plays", what they really mean is that our linebackers and linemen did a very good job against the run - I think that much is undeniable. The problem is that on the very few run plays where the front 7 couldn't do their job, the secondary didn't do it either.

So to me, talk of consistency and inconsistency is meaningless. The performance against the run last week was just another symptom of our eternally bad secondary. A speedy RB like #28 just exposes how bad our secondary really is.



Wagon,

Not to start an argument but if you look back on the the two long runs, they were not really the secondary's fault. Both times you had OL releasing downfield on the safeties. 99% of the time an OL with a RB behind him against the safety is just going to end up bad.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1256601&postcount=46

I broke down both of the long runs and there is good conversation here. Ultimately I think a lot of people are setting their expectations a bit high of what you can get in a safety. Are you really suggesting that you can find a safety in the draft that can beat an OL block, then turn around and run down Chris Johnson who ran a 4.25 in the combine?

Do we need some upgrades at safety, absolutely. Would that safety had stopped the long runs CJ had this week, very doubtful. Defense is a team job and when someone doesn't do their job it puts others in very difficult situations which usually ends up in long yardage plays.

BigBull17
09-23-2009, 07:28 AM
I was happy to see that two late hits weren't called on the sidelines on 2 drives. One of them CJ was basically 4 yards out of bounds and the refs let it go. Same thing happened later but it was a little closer. Both instances they were close to midfield and it would have moved them closer. But from replays they looked late. Overall they were calling it like it was playoff football so it wasn't surprising.

One was Cushing and Wilson, if I remember now. That one looked ok, since they were falling down in bounds. Dunta's should have been called, that I agree with. But, thy let things go on both ends, so its cool. We won, thats what matters.

PhilpW
09-23-2009, 12:13 PM
Since when are we a running team? Our offense is not built like the Steelers to pound the ball and pass occasionally. We are more like the Chargers from the Air-Coryell days. Suspect defense and try and put points on the board. We have Andre, Owen, and Walters who can do some damage now that the o-line can offer protection. We may have a top 15 defense one day, but that ain't happening anytime soon.

Goldensilence
09-23-2009, 01:17 PM
Since when are we a running team? Our offense is not built like the Steelers to pound the ball and pass occasionally. We are more like the Chargers from the Air-Coryell days. Suspect defense and try and put points on the board. We have Andre, Owen, and Walters who can do some damage now that the o-line can offer protection. We may have a top 15 defense one day, but that ain't happening anytime soon.

Problem is that this staff seem doesn't realize it.

I know Kubiak wants to run the ball and have his offense go off the play-action like in Denver. Problem is the running game still hasn't materialized full time.

I said it in another thread, I'm not saying abandon the run, just use the pass to set it up. I'm going with 9 out 10 times our best 4 WRs or 3 with TE can beat your best 4 cover guys.

Offense did its part but to not admit that the Texans got lucky on this win is looking through battle red glasses.

What I don't get is after Chris Johnson's first big play is why the defensive staff didn't put a target on Johnson's back for the defense. There shouldn't have been a second big play, again lack of ability to make adjustments in game. We at lest should've had one of the LBers spying him from that point on.

If I don't see the team keying in big on MJD next week, we're going to have this problem all season.