PDA

View Full Version : Dennison Accepts


Pages : 1 [2]

Carr Bombed
01-10-2010, 12:45 PM
Woot! Great choice. :clap:

I know, I'm excited too.......that's who I wanted all along.

The offense shouldn't skip a beat and hopefully he can also help out with the Oline.

Jackie Chiles
01-10-2010, 01:02 PM
Adam Schefter just said Rick Dennison is basically a shoe in for the job, he has a meeting with the Texans Monday.

Great news, heres a link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4813403

False Start
01-10-2010, 01:10 PM
Awesome news! Hes the guy I preferred all along. :cool:

SAMURAITEXAN
01-10-2010, 05:34 PM
Just as most us suspected that Dennison will be our OC. It should be the same O that we are so familier with.

Go Texans!!!

barrett
01-11-2010, 06:58 PM
http://www.sportsradio610.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4306018


Somewhat interesting interview with Kyle.

He talks about play calling and how the "gameday playcalling" is somewhat over blown. He says the game plan is much more critical and that he and Gary worked on it together.

He also goes on to say that basically he was given complete play calling control from the Cincy game on.

He mentions as well that he expects Kubiak to hire a QB coach in his absence should Dennison get the job. Note: Dennison doesn't have any experience as a QB coach.

Carr Bombed
01-11-2010, 07:29 PM
http://www.sportsradio610.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4306018


Somewhat interesting interview with Kyle.

He talks about play calling and how the "gameday playcalling" is somewhat over blown. He says the game plan is much more critical and that he and Gary worked on it together.

He also goes on to say that basically he was given complete play calling control from the Cincy game on.

He mentions as well that he expects Kubiak to hire a QB coach in his absence should Dennison get the job. Note: Dennison doesn't have any experience as a QB coach.

I can't stand listening to Barry Warner. :strangle: He's one of those people who think the louder you are, the more correct you are.


Other than that though.....good interview.

SAMURAITEXAN
01-11-2010, 08:33 PM
I can't stand listening to Barry Warner. :strangle: He's one of those people who think the louder you are, the more correct you are.


Other than that though.....good interview.

If the Texans can't find QB coach candidate which we shouldn't have hard time finding one, Kubiak could give QB a few pointers as a former QB himself.

Go Texans!!!

silvrhand
01-11-2010, 08:48 PM
If the Texans can't find QB coach candidate which we shouldn't have hard time finding one, Kubiak could give QB a few pointers as a former QB himself.

Go Texans!!!

That never saw much of any action.. I'm a bit disappointed to be honest, I was hoping that we would hire not an exact clone of Kubiak, and that is what I feel is about to happen.

I would hope that we would get someone along the same lines, but different backgrounds to help bring some new things to the table to help improve our running game and play calling in the red zone.

I for the life of me do not now why we don't go to our best play more in the red zone, it's like andre and the back corner of the end zone doesn't exist in our playbook.

Goatcheese
01-11-2010, 08:55 PM
That never saw much of any action.. I'm a bit disappointed to be honest, I was hoping that we would hire not an exact clone of Kubiak, and that is what I feel is about to happen.

I would hope that we would get someone along the same lines, but different backgrounds to help bring some new things to the table to help improve our running game and play calling in the red zone.

I for the life of me do not now why we don't go to our best play more in the red zone, it's like andre and the back corner of the end zone doesn't exist in our playbook.

Denny had the Denver running game in the top 10 for almost a decade, and in the top 5 for much of it.

He knows the system, but is definitely not a Kubiak clone. He's an O-Line coach and running attack coordinator, while Kubes is a QB coach and passing attack coordinator.

If you are hoping for a guy to improve the running game Denny should be near the top of your list.

SAMURAITEXAN
01-11-2010, 09:03 PM
silvrhand, actually, I am looking forward to Dennison hire. Reason, Goatcheese covered that already.

Go Texans!!!

steelbtexan
01-11-2010, 09:47 PM
Now if Denny brings Kuper with him in FA and they draft Iupati in the 1st or Asamoah in the 2nd rd. This would give Denny the talent he needs to improve the running game.

This offense would be awsome with a good running game and playing JJ at the no.2 WR full time. IMO

silvrhand
01-12-2010, 01:04 AM
Denny had the Denver running game in the top 10 for almost a decade, and in the top 5 for much of it.

He knows the system, but is definitely not a Kubiak clone. He's an O-Line coach and running attack coordinator, while Kubes is a QB coach and passing attack coordinator.

If you are hoping for a guy to improve the running game Denny should be near the top of your list.

That's my problem is that I don't think the ZBS works for us in this division. I think we have to have more of a ball control offense traditional power running game in this division, I think defense are just getting too big and too fast and it's starting to negate the ZBS strategy.

houstonspartan
01-12-2010, 02:05 AM
That's my problem is that I don't think the ZBS works for us in this division. I think we have to have more of a ball control offense traditional power running game in this division, I think defense are just getting too big and too fast and it's starting to negate the ZBS strategy.

I personally think ZBS is one of the worst things to happen to the NFL.

Carr Bombed
01-12-2010, 02:30 AM
I personally think ZBS is one of the worst things to happen to the NFL.

Titans run alot of zone and they had a 2,000 yard rusher. The ZBS isn't the problem......our ZBS is the problem. We rely on wimpy lineman who get pushed around, while other teams don't have problems still plugging big physical lineman into their system.

thunderkyss
01-12-2010, 05:23 AM
I would hope that we would get someone along the same lines, but different backgrounds to help bring some new things to the table to help improve our running game and play calling in the red zone.


I understand your point, but I think it was doing exactly what you say, brining in Sherman, that set us back at least a year in the run game.

Scooter
01-12-2010, 06:20 AM
I understand your point, but I think it was doing exactly what you say, bringing in Sherman, that set us back at least a year in the run game.

i agree with the direction i assume TK is heading, we're not looking for an opposing view to support our weaknesses for the next OC ... we're looking for a compliment to accentuate our strengths. the colts dont want bill cowher telling them to run the ball 40 times a game nomatter how good he may be at it. bulldozing from the 1 yardline isnt a scheme, it's personnel - arizona and baltimore and others lining up defensive tackles in the backfield helps prove that point. this is also where a trusted coordinator is going to have kubiak's ear when it's said "coach, butler and hill and zgonina in this scenario would help".

as for the "ZBS doesnt work" crowd ... stop. the ZBS in effect exactly mirrors the 3-4 defense in how and how often it's used. your arguement carries as much weight as bashing the 3-4 because capers' version in houston failed spectacularly. half of the league uses it as their main scheme. the entire league takes something from it, and those exclusive teams still revert to power/man running scheme (the 4-3 in my example) when the scheduled situation comes up. the scheme is just fine ... how we execute it is flawed. we're in a division of massive tackles and tiny ends. this is where myers is seen by his supporters as "doing his job". his perceived successes are exactly the flaw - wholly bypassing the tackles to get into the secondary with predictable results, offset by not always being the furthest man in our backfield when he does attempt to take on a tackle (i think it was studdard looking like a tumbleweed during one of our touchdowns against the patriots). sealing undersized ends and locating the nearest linebacker shouldnt be our concern. chopping down the second tackle to free up inside, forward, and back-cut opportunities is what ISNT happening. this is why defensive linemen hate gibbs, and why he's been so successful, and why our zone isnt. (legally) chopping down inside persuit creates a "follow your bocker", "one cut and go" opportunity that we havent had.

one of the biggest reasons gibb's zone blocking has been so successful with late round picks and passed over veterans is because that's where you get guys like studdard who have no qualms about throwing their body out there. for some reason, we dont do that. we block in a direction, myers goes straight to the outside linebacker, and at most we chip the weakside linebacker or defensive end. we either need to find more powerful blockers who can push a direction, or we need to join the most wanted list in the true gibbs scheme. right now we're half assed inbetween. a coach from that school would be our best bet to finish the scheme in either direction.

but hey, i'm 3 sheets to the wind and making it up as i go.

DeMarCushPoll
01-12-2010, 09:44 AM
That's my problem is that I don't think the ZBS works for us in this division. I think we have to have more of a ball control offense traditional power running game in this division, I think defense are just getting too big and too fast and it's starting to negate the ZBS strategy.

I don't think the problem is with the ZBS, it proved to be very succesful in 2008 (Slaton over 1200 yrds). I think the loss of 2/5 of the starting line combined with Slaton's fumbling problems are mostly to blame.

BigBull17
01-12-2010, 10:11 AM
i agree with the direction i assume TK is heading, we're not looking for an opposing view to support our weaknesses for the next OC ... we're looking for a compliment to accentuate our strengths. the colts dont want bill cowher telling them to run the ball 40 times a game nomatter how good he may be at it. bulldozing from the 1 yardline isnt a scheme, it's personnel - arizona and baltimore and others lining up defensive tackles in the backfield helps prove that point. this is also where a trusted coordinator is going to have kubiak's ear when it's said "coach, butler and hill and zgonina in this scenario would help".

as for the "ZBS doesnt work" crowd ... stop. the ZBS in effect exactly mirrors the 3-4 defense in how and how often it's used. your arguement carries as much weight as bashing the 3-4 because capers' version in houston failed spectacularly. half of the league uses it as their main scheme. the entire league takes something from it, and those exclusive teams still revert to power/man running scheme (the 4-3 in my example) when the scheduled situation comes up. the scheme is just fine ... how we execute it is flawed. we're in a division of massive tackles and tiny ends. this is where myers is seen by his supporters as "doing his job". his perceived successes are exactly the flaw - wholly bypassing the tackles to get into the secondary with predictable results, offset by not always being the furthest man in our backfield when he does attempt to take on a tackle (i think it was studdard looking like a tumbleweed during one of our touchdowns against the patriots). sealing undersized ends and locating the nearest linebacker shouldnt be our concern. chopping down the second tackle to free up inside, forward, and back-cut opportunities is what ISNT happening. this is why defensive linemen hate gibbs, and why he's been so successful, and why our zone isnt. (legally) chopping down inside persuit creates a "follow your bocker", "one cut and go" opportunity that we havent had.

one of the biggest reasons gibb's zone blocking has been so successful with late round picks and passed over veterans is because that's where you get guys like studdard who have no qualms about throwing their body out there. for some reason, we dont do that. we block in a direction, myers goes straight to the outside linebacker, and at most we chip the weakside linebacker or defensive end. we either need to find more powerful blockers who can push a direction, or we need to join the most wanted list in the true gibbs scheme. right now we're half assed inbetween. a coach from that school would be our best bet to finish the scheme in either direction.

but hey, i'm 3 sheets to the wind and making it up as i go.

Other teams use ZBS, but they dont use finesse linemen who our weak at the point of attack. Thats where we get hurt. When Myers is blocking those huge disruptive Nose Tackles you are at a disadvantage. If we had stronger linemen and ran Zone mixed with power running, we would be ok.

infantrycak
01-12-2010, 10:27 AM
That's my problem is that I don't think the ZBS works for us in this division. I think we have to have more of a ball control offense traditional power running game in this division, I think defense are just getting too big and too fast and it's starting to negate the ZBS strategy.

Titans run alot of zone and they had a 2,000 yard rusher. The ZBS isn't the problem......our ZBS is the problem. We rely on wimpy lineman who get pushed around, while other teams don't have problems still plugging big physical lineman into their system.

What CB said. Indy and the Titans primarily run ZBS. By the way, Myers is the 2nd biggest C in the division. This is a case where size doesn't matter, talent does as the smallest C in the division is the best - Mawae at 285 lbs.

Goatcheese
01-12-2010, 11:12 AM
That's my problem is that I don't think the ZBS works for us in this division. I think we have to have more of a ball control offense traditional power running game in this division, I think defense are just getting too big and too fast and it's starting to negate the ZBS strategy.

It's not a scheme issue. It's a talent issue.

The ZBS scheme works just fine. The only thing that is outdated is the idea that you can bring in UDFA linemen and scheme your way to a dominant running game.

They need to invest draft picks in guys like Iupati who have both elite athleticism and the strength to dominate in the trenches. A line built with guys like that could run the ZBS with Chris Brown and make him a 2,000 yard rusher.

BigBull17
01-12-2010, 11:18 AM
What CB said. Indy and the Titans primarily run ZBS. By the way, Myers is the 2nd biggest C in the division. This is a case where size doesn't matter, talent does as the smallest C in the division is the best - Mawae at 285 lbs.

Myers plays like he is 220. Rag dolled is rag dolled.

infantrycak
01-12-2010, 11:27 AM
Myers plays like he is 220. Rag dolled is rag dolled.

Which was the point of my post. People keep acting like Myers is too small and he isn't. Myers is talent/strength deficient not size deficient. Mawae is a mauler and is 15 lbs lighter.

Goldensilence
01-12-2010, 11:37 AM
Which was the point of my post. People keep acting like Myers is too small and he isn't. Myers is talent/strength deficient not size deficient. Mawae is a mauler and is 15 lbs lighter.

To be fair in what I can recall Myers had also gained something close to 20 lbs last offseason supposedly.

BigBull17
01-12-2010, 11:47 AM
Which was the point of my post. People keep acting like Myers is too small and he isn't. Myers is talent/strength deficient not size deficient. Mawae is a mauler and is 15 lbs lighter.

Just agreeing with you. Our Guys all have trouble blocking on the 1st level. Thats my problem with our "pure" ZBS linemen we want. No point in worrying about 2nd level if you can't block on the 1st.:kitten:

silvrhand
01-12-2010, 01:39 PM
as for the "ZBS doesnt work" crowd ... stop. the ZBS in effect exactly mirrors the 3-4 defense in how and how often it's used. your arguement carries as much weight as bashing the 3-4 because capers' version in houston failed spectacularly. half of the league uses it as their main scheme. the entire league takes something from it, and those exclusive teams still revert to power/man running scheme (the 4-3 in my example) when the scheduled situation comes up. the scheme is just fine ... how we execute it is flawed. we're in a division of massive tackles and tiny ends. this is where myers is seen by his supporters as "doing his job". his perceived successes are exactly the flaw - wholly bypassing the tackles to get into the secondary with predictable results, offset by not always being the furthest man in our backfield when he does attempt to take on a tackle (i think it was studdard looking like a tumbleweed during one of our touchdowns against the patriots). sealing undersized ends and locating the nearest linebacker shouldnt be our concern. chopping down the second tackle to free up inside, forward, and back-cut opportunities is what ISNT happening. this is why defensive linemen hate gibbs, and why he's been so successful, and why our zone isnt. (legally) chopping down inside persuit creates a "follow your bocker", "one cut and go" opportunity that we havent had.

but hey, i'm 3 sheets to the wind and making it up as i go.

The reason I'm saying that the ZBS simply doesn't work for me is the fact that the athletic large talented players are almost always geared for DL prospects before they are for OL prospects. If the opposing defense has an athletic front four IMHO the ZBS goes out the window. The inside ZBS game has been HORRENDOUS for us, so has the stretch/outside, and we just have noone that is able to do cutbacks. And don't get me going on the ZBS in the red zone, it's just not good when you are inside the 5 and really get man up blocking with nowhere to stretch.

Denver was ahead of their time with the ZBS, and not a lot of experience defending against it. Things are changing and more teams are effective at defending it.

The Titans, well they have some pretty damn big studs on the OL and RB, they'll be effective at whatever they do for the most part with running the ball.

Just my .02 worth.

b0ng
01-12-2010, 02:05 PM
The reason I'm saying that the ZBS simply doesn't work for me is the fact that the athletic large talented players are almost always geared for DL prospects before they are for OL prospects. If the opposing defense has an athletic front four IMHO the ZBS goes out the window. The inside ZBS game has been HORRENDOUS for us, so has the stretch/outside, and we just have noone that is able to do cutbacks. And don't get me going on the ZBS in the red zone, it's just not good when you are inside the 5 and really get man up blocking with nowhere to stretch.

Denver was ahead of their time with the ZBS, and not a lot of experience defending against it. Things are changing and more teams are effective at defending it.

The Titans, well they have some pretty damn big studs on the OL and RB, they'll be effective at whatever they do for the most part with running the ball.

Just my .02 worth.

Again, these issues all revolve around talent and skill. The scheme really isn't the problem, the problem is our players do not execute the scheme that well. Whether these particular players here could execute a different scheme in a more effective manner is up for debate, but I think Kubiak is as committed to ZBS as anybody in the NFL and I really don't forsee a change in philosophy.

silvrhand
01-12-2010, 02:44 PM
Again, these issues all revolve around talent and skill. The scheme really isn't the problem, the problem is our players do not execute the scheme that well. Whether these particular players here could execute a different scheme in a more effective manner is up for debate, but I think Kubiak is as committed to ZBS as anybody in the NFL and I really don't forsee a change in philosophy.

And I don't forsee us having much of a running game either. Kubiak seems a bit stubborn in some aspects, willing to adapt/change too late or not at all when things aren't working for them.

The eagles should be a clear indicator that when you get the playoffs, if you can't run the ball prepare to be wtfpwned.

barrett
01-12-2010, 02:48 PM
I don't think the problem is with the ZBS, it proved to be very succesful in 2008 (Slaton over 1200 yrds). I think the loss of 2/5 of the starting line combined with Slaton's fumbling problems are mostly to blame.

This is my thinking at times as well. I'm not sold on my opinion though. The later half of last year (08) the front 6 looked very good at the scheme. I was expecting them to pick up where they left off. They didn't. I know that both Pitts and Meyers sat out most of the preseason but all 6 played every snap in '08. I felt like they should have looked better than they did in the first 3 weeks. They didn't. I can't find a reasonable explanation for this. Pre-injury, we looked out matched, out coached, out something'ed.

Was it Gibbs being too hard headed? I've always loved his philosophy of "run 4 plays. Run them perfectly." Very Lombardi'esque. I believe in that. I think our passing philosophy is very similar as well. More plays but still more of a perfectionists offense. When I watch other offenses in the NFL I'm often shocked at how retarded the schemes look. Not all of them obviously, but many of them.

I digress. Was the problem the players themselves? It appeared to be. I often times saw them getting blown up. Not getting off the first level. The guys who are designed to stay on the first level getting pushed into the back field. Were we out schemed? Did a year of film do enough for the DC's to snuff it out? Was Meyers high ankle sprain and shoulder injury enough to take him from the weakest link to bad enough to ruin the whole scheme? It didn't look like that to me. It looked like all 5 guys 6 if you include the TE's getting man handled. Consistently. What's the cause? I don't know and I think it's very hard to say.

It will be interesting to see what difference it makes having Gibbs gone and (hopefully) Dennison here. Will we be better? Can we even be any worse? I guess we'll find out either way...

DeMarCushPoll
01-12-2010, 03:53 PM
This is my thinking at times as well. I'm not sold on my opinion though. The later half of last year (08) the front 6 looked very good at the scheme. I was expecting them to pick up where they left off. They didn't. I know that both Pitts and Meyers sat out most of the preseason but all 6 played every snap in '08. I felt like they should have looked better than they did in the first 3 weeks. They didn't. I can't find a reasonable explanation for this. Pre-injury, we looked out matched, out coached, out something'ed.

Was it Gibbs being too hard headed? I've always loved his philosophy of "run 4 plays. Run them perfectly." Very Lombardi'esque. I believe in that. I think our passing philosophy is very similar as well. More plays but still more of a perfectionists offense. When I watch other offenses in the NFL I'm often shocked at how retarded the schemes look. Not all of them obviously, but many of them.

I digress. Was the problem the players themselves? It appeared to be. I often times saw them getting blown up. Not getting off the first level. The guys who are designed to stay on the first level getting pushed into the back field. Were we out schemed? Did a year of film do enough for the DC's to snuff it out? Was Meyers high ankle sprain and shoulder injury enough to take him from the weakest link to bad enough to ruin the whole scheme? It didn't look like that to me. It looked like all 5 guys 6 if you include the TE's getting man handled. Consistently. What's the cause? I don't know and I think it's very hard to say.

It will be interesting to see what difference it makes having Gibbs gone and (hopefully) Dennison here. Will we be better? Can we even be any worse? I guess we'll find out either way...

I think there was a combination of issues from the start that sort of snowballed as they went along.

1. Slaton looked slow from day one. Maybe it was due to the extra weight he put on in the offseason, but he was just not quick enough to the hole.

2. Pitts was coming off of surgery and still trying to recover right up to the start of the season.

3. Then Slaton started fumbling which led to him being benched which prevented him from ever getting into any kind of rhythm.

4. Pitts and Meyers go down causing 5 o-linemen to have to learn how to play together.

5. Slaton goes down and the RB by committee begins

I've always understood that it takes time for an o-line to gel, especially in ZB schemes. It took several weeks but I think they did finally get it together toward the end. I'm basing this on their running game performance in the last two weeks against quality deffenses.

I think we'll see much improvement in the running game in 2010 with a stud RB in the draft and a few changes in the O-line.

barrett
01-12-2010, 05:08 PM
the second year in the system should not 14 weeks to "gel".

thunderkyss
01-12-2010, 06:37 PM
one of the biggest reasons gibb's zone blocking has been so successful with late round picks and passed over veterans is because that's where you get guys like studdard who have no qualms about throwing their body out there. for some reason, we dont do that. we block in a direction, myers goes straight to the outside linebacker, and at most we chip the weakside linebacker or defensive end. we either need to find more powerful blockers who can push a direction, or we need to join the most wanted list in the true gibbs scheme. right now we're half assed inbetween. a coach from that school would be our best bet to finish the scheme in either direction.

but hey, i'm 3 sheets to the wind and making it up as i go.

Great post... I agree, for the most part. But I think the biggest reason our ZBS has failed, is that Winston won't cut down inside. He makes a weak attempt to look like he is doing it, but it is the most ineffective thing I've seen. When we run to his side, he's strong, & like you said, Studdard has no qualms about doing what he's asked to do. But if you look at our run plays, we decided to run to the left an unreasonably, unbalanced amount of the time. I don't know why, maybe to get Winston to cut block.

Another problem we have had, was that Pitts didn't block down like he was supposed to. He seemed to want to take the man in front of him, & overpower him like you would do in a Power system.

While I like Pitts as much as any Texans fan, I don't look for him to come back because I don't think he wants to run the ZBS. I believe Kubiak has been patient with him because of his consecutive game streak. But now that is over, Studdard is doing what Kubiak wants, & Winston is finally coming around.... I don't see Chester signing with us. He'll do what Dunta did, and find another place to play. We won't franchise him to provide depth. With Chris White & Caldwell taking snaps, If the Keep Myers at Center, White will be the starting Guard, & Caldwell will be our experienced depth.

Other teams use ZBS, but they dont use finesse linemen who our weak at the point of attack. Thats where we get hurt. When Myers is blocking those huge disruptive Nose Tackles you are at a disadvantage. If we had stronger linemen and ran Zone mixed with power running, we would be ok.

Read his post again. Chris Myers is not here to block the NT. His job is to attack the LBs. If you see Chris Myers blocking a NT, something went wrong. & we're talking about true NTs, like Jenkins.

Just agreeing with you. Our Guys all have trouble blocking on the 1st level. Thats my problem with our "pure" ZBS linemen we want. No point in worrying about 2nd level if you can't block on the 1st.:kitten:

When reading my post, don't think that I do not agree with you here. I'm just saying what Myers is "supposed" to do.

Jackie Chiles
01-12-2010, 06:54 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6812051.html

Dennison is officially the new OC.

Thorn
01-12-2010, 07:01 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6812051.html

Dennison is officially the new OC.

On paper, this seems like a good fit. For now, I think it's a step in the right direction. We'll see come later this this though.

thunderkyss
01-12-2010, 07:01 PM
This is my thinking at times as well. I'm not sold on my opinion though. The later half of last year (08) the front 6 looked very good at the scheme. I was expecting them to pick up where they left off. They didn't. I know that both Pitts and Meyers sat out most of the preseason but all 6 played every snap in '08. I felt like they should have looked better than they did in the first 3 weeks. They didn't. I can't find a reasonable explanation for this. Pre-injury, we looked out matched, out coached, out something'ed.



If you can remember back to the run game last year... a lot of Slaton's runs were where he was able to bounce outside & break a big one, after he ran up the middle into the back of a logjam that was going nowhere.

A lot of his big runs, were also behind a pulling Eric Winston, or Chester Pitts.

This year, they stopped all that, & it was clear early on, we were going to run the ZBS the way it's supposed to be run.

IMHO, Winston & Pitts never got on board, which led to the pathetic performance we saw before the injuries to Pitts & Myers.

Studdard came in, & he looked like a rookie, but he was doing what Kubiak wanted him to do. Kubiak saying, "the kid should start in this league" made me go back & try to find out wtf Kubiak was talking about.

Winston didn't start playing well on the backside until the second Indy game. IMHO from then on, it was purely a RB problem.

I'm not too excited about Arian Foster, unless he finds some burst this offseason, and some gametime speed.... Our OL are going to have to play perfect, every down, every play, & that isn't going to happen.

thunderkyss
01-12-2010, 07:04 PM
the second year in the system should not 14 weeks to "gel".

Piitts went down in week 2. Briesel went down in week 5. & we had started to play well, as an OL unit, in week 12 against Indy.

I don't think that adds up to 14 weeks.

False Start
01-12-2010, 07:14 PM
Good news. :cool:

SAMURAITEXAN
01-12-2010, 07:17 PM
Denisson accepts, good hire for Kubiak. Now, are we going to look for QB coach? Or, this would be the last hire coach for now?

TEXANRED
01-12-2010, 07:18 PM
Well good. I was getting worried that with Gibbs leaving and if Dennison turned down a promotion to run an offense he has been in for 14 years then that was a bad sign of things to come next season.

TEXANRED
01-12-2010, 07:19 PM
Denisson accepts, good hire for Kubiak. Now, are we going to look for QB coach? Or, this would be the last hire coach for now?

Kubes can handle that.

SAMURAITEXAN
01-12-2010, 07:46 PM
If the Texans can't find QB coach candidate which we shouldn't have hard time finding one, Kubiak could give QB a few pointers as a former QB himself.

Go Texans!!!

TEXANRED, I am aware of that as you can see what I posted earlier. What I am trying to getting at is this would be our last hire for the Texans' coaching staff or not. Although Kubiak can handle QB situation, I would like for him to focus more of over all HC duties.

Go Texans!!!

GuerillaBlack
01-12-2010, 08:08 PM
Glad that he accepted. Feel better now. Hopefully he can help Kubiak with the conservative play-calling (be more aggresive with the lead) and the running game.

Carr Bombed
01-12-2010, 08:39 PM
Oh noes...all the rats are jumping ship. Well except for this stupid rat who just jumped on the sinking ship. LOL.

Carr Bombed
01-12-2010, 08:42 PM
If you can remember back to the run game last year... a lot of Slaton's runs were where he was able to bounce outside & break a big one, after he ran up the middle into the back of a logjam that was going nowhere.

Some of Slaton's biggest runs last year, came straight up the middle of the field....well as long as we were in between the 20s. Slaton struggled in short yardage situations, but in space he didn't have a problem finding yards in the middle of the field last year.

houstonspartan
01-12-2010, 09:01 PM
So much for the theory that Gary couldn't get the OC he wanted if he didn't have an extension. Now it's time for him to EARN an extension.

thunderkyss
01-13-2010, 12:45 AM
Some of Slaton's biggest runs last year, came straight up the middle of the field....well as long as we were in between the 20s. Slaton struggled in short yardage situations, but in space he didn't have a problem finding yards in the middle of the field last year.

My point was that the ZBS wasn't working well last year as the previous poster implied. We weren't 100% pure, and a lot of the running game was more Steve that the OL.

I also contend that over the last 4 or 5 games, our OL was playing very well, but we were short a RB who could see & adjust until Foster got into the line up.

phantom17
01-13-2010, 02:09 AM
Good signing!:bravo:

DeMarCushPoll
01-13-2010, 06:55 AM
So much for the theory that Gary couldn't get the OC he wanted if he didn't have an extension. Now it's time for him to EARN an extension.

I asked John McClain on his live chat yesterday if he expected Kub to get an extension before the start of next season and he said yes.

I hope he does get one because I think it would become a distraction. The media would harp on it all year.

BigBull17
01-13-2010, 08:41 AM
I asked John McClain on his live chat yesterday if he expected Kub to get an extension before the start of next season and he said yes.

I hope he does get one because I think it would become a distraction. The media would harp on it all year.

I would extend him one year, no more till we know if we want him.

HuttoKarl
01-13-2010, 09:13 AM
I asked John McClain on his live chat yesterday if he expected Kub to get an extension before the start of next season and he said yes.

I hope he does get one because I think it would become a distraction. The media would harp on it all year.

I want the players to think Kubiak's job is on the line starting in the preseason and all the way through week 17 and hopefully the playoffs. It worked for Wade Phillips.

ATXtexanfan
01-13-2010, 09:49 AM
I want the players to think Kubiak's job is on the line starting in the preseason and all the way through week 17 and hopefully the playoffs. It worked for Wade Phillips.
This is true, no need to extend kubiak. Wait and see.

GuerillaBlack
01-13-2010, 10:03 AM
A Kubiak extension should even be considered this season. Make the playoffs first.

disaacks3
01-13-2010, 10:54 AM
A Kubiak extension should NOT even be considered pre/during this season. Make the playoffs first. There, fixed that for ya!:fingergun:

Joe Texan
01-13-2010, 11:18 AM
This is great news being we got the draft and all coming up:turtle:

DeMarCushPoll
01-13-2010, 11:19 AM
This is true, no need to extend kubiak. Wait and see.

Bob McNair either has confidence in Kubs ability or he doesn't (extend or let go). If he feels that he has to take a wait and see approach then that shows a lack of confidence in his abilities IMO. If I was an owner and I couldn't decide whether to extend my coach before the last year of his contract then that would tell me that he's not the right one for my team and I would find someone else. I'm not suggesting a five year extension, but just enough to send the message that I think he's right for the job.

GuerillaBlack
01-13-2010, 11:33 AM
^^Yep.

If you can't decide whether to extend him or not, what does that tell you about the job Kubiak is doing? I'm glad McNair is not extending him (or at least doesn't look like he is). Kubiak hasn't earned it...yet. Needs to make the playoffs this year, or he's out.

houstonspartan
01-13-2010, 12:13 PM
Bob McNair either has confidence in Kubs ability or he doesn't (extend or let go). If he feels that he has to take a wait and see approach then that shows a lack of confidence in his abilities IMO. If I was an owner and I couldn't decide whether to extend my coach before the last year of his contract then that would tell me that he's not the right one for my team and I would find someone else. I'm not suggesting a five year extension, but just enough to send the message that I think he's right for the job.

No. Kubiak has not earned an extension. Period. He has the OC he wanted, so, clearly his contract status wasn't an issue.

A wait-and-see approach is EXACTLY what McNair should do. It says more about Kubiak's performance than it does McNair's faith in him as a coach. McNair has given Kubiak EVERYTHING, and has not mettled. And Kubiak, while improving the team, is still stumbling and bumbling his way to meidocrity every year.

Uh uh. I don't think so. Extension my ass.
Make him sweat.

ChampionTexan
01-13-2010, 12:22 PM
Kubes can handle that.

He could, but I don't want him to. I want someone to spend a much larger chunk of his time (particularly on game day) working with Matt, and to a lesser extent the #2 guy than a Head Coach should be able to.

With the criticism (largely valid) regarding Kubes and clock management, instant replay, and in-game X's and O's, I would really prefer he not add working with the QB to his list of responsibilities.

I also think that given the relationship between a QB and his coach (or at least when it's at it's best), it's a far better thing to have that coach be somebody other than the guy at the top of the food-chain.

Ole Miss Texan
01-13-2010, 01:15 PM
There are valid arguements for extending Kubiak's contract and there are valid arguements for not. I don't think firing him with 1 year left was ever an option.

I agree with the notion that McNair has a pretty darn good idea of whether he wants to keep Kubiak or find a new head coach after this season. I think the coaches, the players, the staff and the owner all like the quality of the players on the team now, they like the direction this team is heading and think we're on the verge of being a great team. And they want Kubiak to be the coach. It shows we're committed to what we're doing and who we're doing it with.

I also understand the view of letting him play this season out and see what happens. I think the players and coaches are playing with the playoffs in mind and wanting to get there and win the superbowl, they're definitely motivated enough to do that... but they all really like Kubiak and the thought that they're also playing for him and to keep him might (and i stress might) help. On the other hand you could just as easily say with a similar arguement that they're happy he's going to be the coach another 2-3 years and are going to play to prove he really is that guy.

What are the requisites for an extension for Kubiak? Winning season? Playoffs? If that's the case, let me ask you this: What if Oakland would have beat Baltimore in Week 17. Would that be grounds for a Kubiak extension? I mean we'd be in the playoffs with our first winning record. I could see people being exciting and wanting Kubiak to get an extension (maybe just a short one). My point is, you don't solely base a decision of this magnitude on whether another team beats another team or not. In this instance, you'd be saying McNair would can Kubiak and get a new HC. If the raiders beat the ravens... McNair would extend Kubiak's contract. That's hogwash.

My prediction is that McNair likes and supports Kubiak as our Head Coach. He loves the way this team has transformed over the last 4 years. He's dissappointed we haven't done better because he truly wants a winner here. He really likes the direction this team is going and the personnel we have. He'll always be looking for ways to improve our team (players/coaches/etc.). I think he's committed to having Kubiak our longterm coach and if the Texans get off to a quick start next season and the team looks really good, some contract extension talks begin. Maybe a deal happens during the season, maybe not. But I fully expect Kubiak to be this Coach going forward.

Goldensilence
01-13-2010, 01:24 PM
No. Kubiak has not earned an extension. Period. He has the OC he wanted, so, clearly his contract status wasn't an issue.

A wait-and-see approach is EXACTLY what McNair should do. It says more about Kubiak's performance than it does McNair's faith in him as a coach. McNair has given Kubiak EVERYTHING, and has not mettled. And Kubiak, while improving the team, is still stumbling and bumbling his way to meidocrity every year.

Uh uh. I don't think so. Extension my ass.
Make him sweat.

I think had Kubiak not gone after someone he knew and was in a lesser role in an organization that was willing to let him go things might've turned out differently.

With the number of children he has it's a big move to bet all your marbles on a lame duck coach for next year currently. But, I guess at the same time it's a promotion back to being an OC with someone he knows and worst case scenario Kubiak gets fired next year he's likely to be able to join Shannahan's staff quickly after.

Personnaly I'm more or less indifferent on the hiring. At least we've gained more experience at the position, I just hope he can keep the gas on the offense for 4 quarters.

GuerillaBlack
01-13-2010, 01:37 PM
There are valid arguements for extending Kubiak's contract and there are valid arguements for not. I don't think firing him with 1 year left was ever an option.

What valid arguments are there for extending Kubiak's contract?

houstonspartan
01-13-2010, 01:42 PM
What valid arguments are there for extending Kubiak's contract?

1) Poor widdle Gary couldn't find an offensive coach if he didn't have an extension.

2) Poor widdle Gary needs his ego stroked so he needs and extension to make him feel better.

Screw that. As I said: let widdle Gary Kubiak earn his extension.

OzzO
01-13-2010, 01:58 PM
...What are the requisites for an extension for Kubiak? Winning season? Playoffs? If that's the case, let me ask you this: What if Oakland would have beat Baltimore in Week 17. Would that be grounds for a Kubiak extension? I mean we'd be in the playoffs with our first winning record. ...

For me (if it matters):
1. winning season (range of 9+ wins)
2. playoffs (make it in)
3. split the series in the AFC South or at least 3 wins from someone (tying his best confrerence record)

All 3 of those things met - give a decent extension as he's on the right path.

2 out of 3 - provide a minimal extension, 1 mayyyybe 2 years as the potential is seen... and it's been seen for 4 years now - but by golly, this time we MEAN it.

1 out of 3 - buh bye.

GuerillaBlack
01-13-2010, 02:08 PM
For me, it's ten wins or your ass is out. If we don't make the playoffs next year with ten wins, then you'll get a pass. Anything less, and bye.

hookinreds
01-13-2010, 04:11 PM
That's my problem is that I don't think the ZBS works for us in this division. I think we have to have more of a ball control offense traditional power running game in this division, I think defense are just getting too big and too fast and it's starting to negate the ZBS strategy.

Have we really seen the ZBS work the way it is supposed to? All schemes fail if they aren't executed correctly, and with the ZBS, it has to work all the time for it to be successful some of the time (if that makes since), because you’re only going to get a couple yard on most of the handoffs and then break 10+ gainers on the others. If it doesn't work all the time, you are never going to see those 10+ breakers. While we were attempting it, I don't think it was successful enough on a down to down basis for the team to really reap the benefits. A change OL personnel can help address that though.

hookinreds
01-13-2010, 04:33 PM
I should have kept reading after your post as my thoughts have already clearly been expressed much better previously by other TT members.

SAMURAITEXAN
01-13-2010, 08:23 PM
Dennison signs. Now, anyone from the Broncos Oline following Dennison to join the Texans?

The Pencil Neck
01-13-2010, 09:15 PM
I'm PRO-Kubiak... and I kinda think he should earn his extension.

Play-offs or bust. The whole coaching staff needs to know that their livelihoods are on the line. The players need to know if they don't perform, the coaches are going to find someone who can and that there's no time for "developmental" players.

HOU-TEX
01-14-2010, 10:19 AM
Dennison signs. Now, anyone from the Broncos Oline following Dennison to join the Texans?

Actually, we might land 1 or 2 of them. I was reading through Rotoworld a day or so ago and came across this:

ESPN.com's Bill Williamson expects the Broncos to "fully move away" from their traditional zone-blocking scheme following the departure of OL coach Rick Dennison.

RBs coach Bobby Turner is expected to follow Dennison out the door, and Josh McDaniels was already moving toward a power-blocking scheme. After the offensive line struggled mightily down the stretch, McDaniels will likely search for bigger options at left guard and center this offseason. Knowshon Moreno, a strong inside runner, would benefit from the added size up front

Unlike a lot of y'all, I could care less about the amount of Broncos we bring in here. We need interior Oline and these dudes would fit right in here. I would presume Smith will be watching the Broncos like a hawk this off season.

http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playernews.aspx?sport=NFL&line=166276

HuttoKarl
01-14-2010, 10:24 AM
Actually, we might land 1 or 2 of them. I was reading through Rotoworld a day or so ago and came across this:



Unlike a lot of y'all, I could care less about the amount of Broncos we bring in here. We need interior Oline and these dudes would fit right in here. I would presume Smith will be watching the Broncos like a hawk this off season.

http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playernews.aspx?sport=NFL&line=166276

Maybe this guy could help...

http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=498&contentID=5914

I truly like the line about him not giving up a sack in 16 games.

Ole Miss Texan
01-14-2010, 10:43 AM
Chris Kuper was drafted in the 5th round during the 2006 NFL Draft. He won't be an unrestricted free agent this offseason meaning he'll either need to be cut or we'll need to trade for him. We gave Denver a 6th for Chris Myers (who was drafted in the 6th during 2005).

I'd totally be willing to trade a 2nd day pick for Kuper. They guy is exactly what we need, a perfect fit and knows the system, would be a starter from day 1 (and an improvement), is young and has had success starting. I believe to get draft a guy that we think might turn out the way he will, we'd be taking him Day 1. This would allow us to take BPA throughout the draft and get some playmakers on both offense and defense.

I'm a HUGE fan of trading mid to late round picks for proven young players that fit this team. Especially when it comes to the OL. Typically it takes a later round pick a few years to get up to NFL game speed, guys like Myers and Kuper are already there and we can hit the ground running instead of waiting for them to mature. OL is also a long term investment.

dalemurphy
01-14-2010, 10:46 AM
Chris Kuper was drafted in the 5th round during the 2006 NFL Draft. He won't be an unrestricted free agent this offseason meaning he'll either need to be cut or we'll need to trade for him. We gave Denver a 6th for Chris Myers (who was drafted in the 6th during 2005).

I'd totally be willing to trade a 2nd day pick for Kuper. They guy is exactly what we need, a perfect fit and knows the system, would be a starter from day 1 (and an improvement), is young and has had success starting. I believe to get draft a guy that we think might turn out the way he will, we'd be taking him Day 1. This would allow us to take BPA throughout the draft and get some playmakers on both offense and defense.

I'm a HUGE fan of trading mid to late round picks for proven young players that fit this team. Especially when it comes to the OL. Typically it takes a later round pick a few years to get up to NFL game speed, guys like Myers and Kuper are already there and we can hit the ground running instead of waiting for them to mature. OL is also a long term investment.


If they offer him a low tender, then we can sign him away for a 5th round pick... If they aren't high on him, that is a likely scenario.

Ole Miss Texan
01-14-2010, 11:00 AM
If they offer him a low tender, then we can sign him away for a 5th round pick... If they aren't high on him, that is a likely scenario.

Denver was VERY interested in David Anderson last year and offered him something like 3 years for $4.5MM but we matched it. I've brought up replacing DA with more of a playmaker but I hate to sound like I want him gone b/c I really really like the guy. With that said, maybe there could be some sort of player trade involved. There's a connection that Denver's current staff likes(ed) DA... whether they filled the role he would fit or not I havn't looked. And I assume Kubiak/Dennison would like Kuper here. Just a thought...

Goldensilence
01-14-2010, 11:07 AM
Denver was VERY interested in David Anderson last year and offered him something like 3 years for $4.5MM but we matched it. I've brought up replacing DA with more of a playmaker but I hate to sound like I want him gone b/c I really really like the guy. With that said, maybe there could be some sort of player trade involved. There's a connection that Denver's current staff likes(ed) DA... whether they filled the role he would fit or not I havn't looked. And I assume Kubiak/Dennison would like Kuper here. Just a thought...

That was kind of my thought this year except I was more thinking DA for Hillis.

Really I am not enamored by DA as it seems like some Texans fans are. I've even seen some hilarious attempts to compare him to Wes Welker.

Truth is I doubt he's ever going to break into the top 3 WRs on this squad. He just doesn't have big time play making ability.

HuttoKarl
01-14-2010, 11:07 AM
Denver was VERY interested in David Anderson last year and offered him something like 3 years for $4.5MM but we matched it. I've brought up replacing DA with more of a playmaker but I hate to sound like I want him gone b/c I really really like the guy. With that said, maybe there could be some sort of player trade involved. There's a connection that Denver's current staff likes(ed) DA... whether they filled the role he would fit or not I havn't looked. And I assume Kubiak/Dennison would like Kuper here. Just a thought...

and if Denver is truly going to dump the ZBS in favor of a power blocking game, it's quite possible they would explore a trade for Kuper.

BigBull17
01-14-2010, 11:54 AM
That was kind of my thought this year except I was more thinking DA for Hillis.

Really I am not enamored by DA as it seems like some Texans fans are. I've even seen some hilarious attempts to compare him to Wes Welker.

Truth is I doubt he's ever going to break into the top 3 WRs on this squad. He just doesn't have big time play making ability.

I agree. Wouldn't mind more of a play maker at the slot.

sbalderrama
01-14-2010, 12:46 PM
Truth is I doubt he's ever going to break into the top 3 WRs on this squad. He just doesn't have big time play making ability.

Being able to consistently grab 3rd down passes for 1st downs is just as valuable as "big time play making ability" IMO.

b0ng
01-14-2010, 12:56 PM
RE: Anderson

If somebody wants him and is willing to give up something of value we need (Interior lineman, backup RB, DT, whatever) I'd say ship him off. Getting offers like that is a different story all together.

Besides, why'd you wanna give away Mr. String-Dance? :(

disaacks3
01-14-2010, 01:17 PM
Denver was VERY interested in David Anderson last year and offered him something like 3 years for $4.5MM but we matched it. I've brought up replacing DA with more of a playmaker but I hate to sound like I want him gone b/c I really really like the guy. With that said, maybe there could be some sort of player trade involved. There's a connection that Denver's current staff likes(ed) DA... whether they filled the role he would fit or not I havn't looked. And I assume Kubiak/Dennison would like Kuper here. Just a thought...

That was kind of my thought this year except I was more thinking DA for Hillis.

Really I am not enamored by DA as it seems like some Texans fans are. I've even seen some hilarious attempts to compare him to Wes Welker.

Truth is I doubt he's ever going to break into the top 3 WRs on this squad. He just doesn't have big time play making ability.

We don't let andersen see the field that often, so it's difficult for me to judge how big his play-making abilities are. From what I HAVE seen, he's good in over-the-middle catches that result in 1st downs and I've VERY rarely, if ever seen him drop the ball.

SAMURAITEXAN
01-14-2010, 05:47 PM
One thing is certain about DA is that he was good enough to get an offer from other NFL team which explains we are not the only one seeing DA's value.

Go Texans!!!

Bronco Texan II
01-14-2010, 06:13 PM
I am sure McDaniels looks at DA as a Welker type WR. He could do wonders in McDs offense. I bet their would be trader oppurtunities if they were brougth up.

thunderkyss
01-14-2010, 06:24 PM
We don't let andersen see the field that often, so it's difficult for me to judge how big his play-making abilities are. From what I HAVE seen, he's good in over-the-middle catches that result in 1st downs and I've VERY rarely, if ever seen him drop the ball.

I like David Anderson, as a player & a person. I think he's a Texan through & through. I agree that we don't maximize his abilities here. & I can definitely see why other teams would be interested him.

All that being said, If Jacoby is getting more snaps, that would mean Jacoby beat him out while being in Kubiak's dog house.

If Jacoby is getting less snaps, that would mean Jacoby has been able to do more with less.

If Dennison had visions of DA in his offense... I doubt we'll let him go, & I'll be excited to see more 3 WR sets.

Goatcheese
01-14-2010, 06:48 PM
I like David Anderson, as a player & a person. I think he's a Texan through & through. I agree that we don't maximize his abilities here. & I can definitely see why other teams would be interested him.

All that being said, If Jacoby is getting more snaps, that would mean Jacoby beat him out while being in Kubiak's dog house.

If Jacoby is getting less snaps, that would mean Jacoby has been able to do more with less.

If Dennison had visions of DA in his offense... I doubt we'll let him go, & I'll be excited to see more 3 WR sets.

Jones 277 snaps 14 games 27 receptions for 437 yards
Anderson 396 snaps 16 games 38 receptions for 370 yards

Ole Miss Texan
01-14-2010, 06:54 PM
We don't let andersen see the field that often, so it's difficult for me to judge how big his play-making abilities are. From what I HAVE seen, he's good in over-the-middle catches that result in 1st downs and I've VERY rarely, if ever seen him drop the ball.

49 career games played
1 play of 30+ yds (65 yd reception, no TD)
3 career TDs (receptions of 7 yds, 6 yds, 3 yds)

I've seen enough to confidently say he doesn't have the big play ability (at least want I would want). With that said, you're absolutely right: He is not afraid to go over the middle, he has great hands- rarely do we see him drop a pass, he's a guy that you throw the quick slant to to pick up the 1st down.

ATXtexanfan
01-14-2010, 06:55 PM
Jones 277 snaps 14 games 27 receptions for 437 yards
Anderson 396 snaps 16 games 38 receptions for 370 yards

jacoby has a higher average yard per catch. how bout td's

Ole Miss Texan
01-14-2010, 06:58 PM
jacoby has a higher average yard per catch. how bout td's

Jacoby has 6 TDs for the year vs. Anderson's 0. But they are different types of WRs that are used completely differently so its hard to really compare them to each other.

Jacoby is going to stretch the field more and catch longer passes, Anderson is going to catch shorter passes for less yards. Just by design.

ATXtexanfan
01-14-2010, 07:23 PM
Jacoby has 6 TDs for the year vs. Anderson's 0. But they are different types of WRs that are used completely differently so its hard to really compare them to each other.

Jacoby is going to stretch the field more and catch longer passes, Anderson is going to catch shorter passes for less yards. Just by design.

which do you think is easier to replace? i think jj is more valuble than DA. i like DA but if we can move him i say do it. if not i don't have problem with DA being on the team.

Thorn
01-14-2010, 07:27 PM
which do you think is easier to replace? i think jj is more valuble than DA. i like DA but if we can move him i say do it. if not i don't have problem with DA being on the team.

We are fairly well loaded with good recievers, and should stay that way if at all possible. That means we don't have to spend time or effort in free agency or the draft on them. We got tons of other positions that need attention.

ATXtexanfan
01-14-2010, 07:36 PM
We are fairly well loaded with good recievers, and should stay that way if at all possible. That means we don't have to spend time or effort in free agency or the draft on them. We got tons of other positions that need attention.

the thoery is moving anderson to denver for o-line assistance. i say do it because he can be replaced. maybe by a FA or late rd pick. cinci gave up on walter right? maybe we hit on someone unexpected.

Thorn
01-14-2010, 07:51 PM
the thoery is moving anderson to denver for o-line assistance. i say do it because he can be replaced. maybe by a FA or late rd pick. cinci gave up on walter right? maybe we hit on someone unexpected.

I'd trade Anderson for a good O-lineman, if someone wanted to make that trade. I'm not sure I'd trade him for a draft pick though. He wouldn't command a very high pick, and chances of getting someone good in the lower rounds is kind of a crap shoot.

SAMURAITEXAN
01-14-2010, 08:28 PM
I kind of sense that Kuper may follow Dennison to join the Texans. Should this happens, we may not need to trade DA for O-line. I agree with Thorn on trading later rd draft pick for DA.

mussop
01-14-2010, 09:55 PM
Has there ever been a quality offensive lineman traded for a #3 slot WR in the history of the NFL? Hell why were at it lets trade Busing for good RB.

Ole Miss Texan
01-14-2010, 10:08 PM
I doubt Denver flat out releases Kuper. I'd like to see us trade David Anderson plus the 6th rd pick from SD (Travis Johnson) to Denver for Chris Kuper. Kuper starts at LG, Myers at C and Caldwell at RG. Pitts, Studdard, White and Brisiel battle as backups. First round we go DB, hopefully Earl Thomas. 2nd round we take Dexter McCluster and then in the 3rd go with a power RB(Matthews/Gerhart). Our offense would dominate and our defense would finally get a playmaker in the secondary.

SAMURAITEXAN
01-14-2010, 10:42 PM
I doubt Denver flat out releases Kuper. I'd like to see us trade David Anderson plus the 6th rd pick from SD (Travis Johnson) to Denver for Chris Kuper. Kuper starts at LG, Myers at C and Caldwell at RG. Pitts, Studdard, White and Brisiel battle as backups. First round we go DB, hopefully Earl Thomas. 2nd round we take Dexter McCluster and then in the 3rd go with a power RB(Matthews/Gerhart). Our offense would dominate and our defense would finally get a playmaker in the secondary.

I am not certain about CBA situation. Does Kuper becomes RFA or he still be UFA in 2010?

Jackie Chiles
01-14-2010, 10:54 PM
I doubt Denver flat out releases Kuper. I'd like to see us trade David Anderson plus the 6th rd pick from SD (Travis Johnson) to Denver for Chris Kuper. Kuper starts at LG, Myers at C and Caldwell at RG. Pitts, Studdard, White and Brisiel battle as backups. First round we go DB, hopefully Earl Thomas. 2nd round we take Dexter McCluster and then in the 3rd go with a power RB(Matthews/Gerhart). Our offense would dominate and our defense would finally get a playmaker in the secondary.

This is the 2nd post I have seen advocating the trading of David Anderson plus a pick to the Broncos for one of their players. Why the hate? Anderson is more valuable than people realize and we do not need to give him up to get Kuper or the other player I saw mentioned (Hillis).

Jackie Chiles
01-14-2010, 10:57 PM
I am not certain about CBA situation. Does Kuper becomes RFA or he still be UFA in 2010?

Pretty sure he is a RFA so we or any other team can sign him to an offer sheet. I will be surprised to see the Broncos tender him more than the minimum or match the offer because I believe they are going in a different direction with the O-line. Therefore it will cost the team a 5th round pick. Washington or here are his most likely destinations.

HOU-TEX
01-15-2010, 10:15 AM
I highly doubt JJ and DA are going any where. Why would we get rid of them? Am I missing something? lol

Kuper is a RFA. It'll be a wait and see what the Broncos decide he's worth. The Broncos aren't the Raiders, so he won't be cut.

Goldensilence
01-15-2010, 11:39 AM
This is the 2nd post I have seen advocating the trading of David Anderson plus a pick to the Broncos for one of their players. Why the hate? Anderson is more valuable than people realize and we do not need to give him up to get Kuper or the other player I saw mentioned (Hillis).

Honestly if we look past the Jaws impersonation, the String dance TD celebration (which you didn't see this year because he had NO TDs), and how fun he is in the locker room, he's at best a 4th string WR. He's not likely to ever break to into the top 3 and he isn't anywhere near a threat in the return game.

IMO if you can get a guy that can start on the OL or give us a boost in our struggling running game for a 4th string WR and a late round pick. You make the move.

Hate? I dunno maybe I just can't see the David Anderson fan fare? Maybe I'm missing the valuable part he brings to the offense that is irreplaceable?

b0ng
01-15-2010, 11:47 AM
Honestly if we look past the Jaws impersonation, the String dance TD celebration (which you didn't see this year because he had NO TDs), and how fun he is in the locker room, he's at best a 4th string WR. He's not likely to ever break to into the top 3 and he isn't anywhere near a threat in the return game.

IMO if you can get a guy that can start on the OL or give us a boost in our struggling running game for a 4th string WR and a late round pick. You make the move.

Hate? I dunno maybe I just can't see the David Anderson fan fare? Maybe I'm missing the valuable part he brings to the offense that is irreplaceable?

I agree, if somebody is willing to give us a player who is going to start on our O-line (Or a safety!) for David Anderson, I say do it.

There is no way a team will give us a starter for David Anderson, unless it is in the form of a draft pick not from the 5th round or later.

HOU-TEX
01-15-2010, 12:00 PM
Honestly if we look past the Jaws impersonation, the String dance TD celebration (which you didn't see this year because he had NO TDs), and how fun he is in the locker room, he's at best a 4th string WR. He's not likely to ever break to into the top 3 and he isn't anywhere near a threat in the return game.

IMO if you can get a guy that can start on the OL or give us a boost in our struggling running game for a 4th string WR and a late round pick. You make the move.

Hate? I dunno maybe I just can't see the David Anderson fan fare? Maybe I'm missing the valuable part he brings to the offense that is irreplaceable?

IMO, why attempt to make changes in an area that's arguably our strongest? He's got great hands and he's been pretty good at moving the chains on 3rd downs. Save a couple, I don't think anyone's irreplaceable.

Ole Miss Texan
01-15-2010, 12:07 PM
DA is actually one of my favorite players on the team. It's just after 8 years and no playoff appearences, I'm finally become hardened as a fan and am over any sentimental feelings towards keeping a player because I like him.

I only bring up DA for two reasons: (1) there's the connection with Denver because they offered him a 3 yr $4.5MM contract last year and I think they'd give us a 7th rd draft pick? and (2) His value to OUR team is that he routinely catches the ball and makes short yardage 1st downs. I think we can just as easily find a player to do what he does but also has the big play ability to make the first guy miss and take it to the house (also probably cheaper).

I also like Slaton a lot. But after his rookie success, I was wondering if he would become Clinton Portis 2.0. Came into Denver as a 2nd round pick, had two successful seasons and then they traded him for Champ Bailey.

I'm just SO ready for this team to become great. Our offense moves the ball well and has great stats. We're very good... but I'm ready for the Offense to become ELITE. That includes getting a solid OL and at least one other playmaker, maybe two. I see a guy like Percy Harvin taking over DA's spot to be one. I also think getting the OL to perform 1st rate is vitally important for our offense and running game. That's when our RB's will really take off, another playmaker at RB would be great. So I see 3 new players for our offense making a huge difference and taking us to the ELITE stage. That can be done (easily) this offseason. OL through FA because they're Game Ready and 2 of the first 3 or 4 picks go to the playmakers on Offense RB/WR.

Jackie Chiles
01-15-2010, 12:24 PM
Honestly if we look past the Jaws impersonation, the String dance TD celebration (which you didn't see this year because he had NO TDs), and how fun he is in the locker room, he's at best a 4th string WR. He's not likely to ever break to into the top 3 and he isn't anywhere near a threat in the return game.

IMO if you can get a guy that can start on the OL or give us a boost in our struggling running game for a 4th string WR and a late round pick. You make the move.

Hate? I dunno maybe I just can't see the David Anderson fan fare? Maybe I'm missing the valuable part he brings to the offense that is irreplaceable?

Yes, lets look past all the fluff:
2006: 1 catch
2007: 12 catches
2008: 19 catches
2009: 38 catches

Hes a solid possession receiver for us who isn't making much money and is still improving in this offense. If anything Denver should be the team throwing draft picks and players our way for him seeing as the guys that everyone wants from their team don't fit their current offensive philosophy. David Anderson is more valuable to Denver than Kuper. We can get some of those players without giving up DA. Also, with Walter already being an UFA and Davis making too much money how much turnover do you really want at WR? Just because Denver was interested in DA doesn't mean we should gift wrap him and send him to them as a freebie/throw in to get a guy that we could have gotten anyway.

Goldensilence
01-15-2010, 12:42 PM
IMO, why attempt to make changes in an area that's arguably our strongest? He's got great hands and he's been pretty good at moving the chains on 3rd downs. Save a couple, I don't think anyone's irreplaceable.

When most teams are deep at one position if given a chance to take the later part of their depth and use it to improve another, they take it. If I felt DA was an integral part of this offense or didn't think we could do better for a 4th stringer I wouldn't suggest it.

DA is actually one of my favorite players on the team. It's just after 8 years and no playoff appearences, I'm finally become hardened as a fan and am over any sentimental feelings towards keeping a player because I like him.

I only bring up DA for two reasons: (1) there's the connection with Denver because they offered him a 3 yr $4.5MM contract last year and I think they'd give us a 7th rd draft pick? and (2) His value to OUR team is that he routinely catches the ball and makes short yardage 1st downs. I think we can just as easily find a player to do what he does but also has the big play ability to make the first guy miss and take it to the house.

I also like Slaton a lot. But after his rookie success, I was wondering if he would become Clinton Portis 2.0. Came into Denver as a 2nd round pick, had two successful seasons and then they traded him for Champ Bailey.

I'm just SO ready for this team to become great. Our offense moves the ball well and has great stats. We're very good... but I'm ready for the Offense to become ELITE. That includes getting a solid OL and at least one other playmaker, maybe two. I see a guy like Percy Harvin taking over DA's spot to be one. I also think getting the OL to perform 1st rate is vitally important for our offense and running game. That's when our RB's will really take off, another playmaker at RB would be great. So I see 3 new players for our offense making a huge difference and taking us to the ELITE stage. That can be done (easily) this offseason. OL through FA because they're Game Ready and 2 of the first 3 or 4 picks go to the playmakers on Offense RB/WR.

Exactly. I'm not saying routinely we could offer David Anderson and a late draft pick to every team and expect to possibly land a starter on the OL or a RB that can contribute. It's just that Denver has already openly expressed interest in Anderson.

It's the situation as it lines up with Denver. McDaniels has stated he wants to go in a different direction with larger OLmen. We're still looking at running some form of the ZBS and Kuper would be a good fit. In he case of Kuper If they lowball his offer we might be able to take advantage of it.

Peyton Hillis is now listed as a Fullback and they have another FB on roster. If they are still interested in acquiring DA for a FB that's replaceable (and possibly better suited as a RB) it's not a bad move for both teams. Hillis is under contract, but some people are talking about a power back that can punch through a bad line. Hillis is listed 6'1" and 240. Certainly makes our depth at RB much more interesting. Put him in a trio with Spiller, and Slaton.

Frankly I'm surprised. I've seen people ready to let a much more productive Kevin Walter walk in FA, but are hesitant to trade off a guy whose career numbers don't even match Kevin Walter's first full year as a starter.

Ole Miss Texan
01-15-2010, 01:01 PM
I totally agree Goldensilence.

Kevin Walter - I think it's important for us to re-sign him. I don't think Jacoby is ready to take over the #2 WR spot outright, but def. should be seeing his number called more. If we don't re-sign KW, I think we have to look at one of the veteran FA's to replace him... or we could be seeing us take one of the early WR's in the draft to replace him.

Denver - Even if Denver goes towards a different blocking scheme, it's going to be a transition. We don't know that Kuper may not fit that scheme too, so I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he's gone. With that said, his contract is up and they have to decide what kind of longterm value he is to them. Peyton Hillis. Forget drafting an RB if we get him. I'd totally be comfortable with Slaton/Hillis combo and see if Foster can continue improving. PH would also serve as a backup to Leach. I just can't see Denver getting rid of Hillis though. If we could pick up Kuper AND Hillis THAT right there would make my offseason. I hope Dennison can convince Kubiak, Smith & McNair to get it done!! I just think its wishfull thinking of fans who think we'd get Kuper and/or Hillis for free - but I hope I'm wrong.

Ole Miss Texan
01-15-2010, 01:04 PM
I feel bad harping on some sort of trades. Does anyone think Dennison may bring over any coaches/assistants with him? Do yall see any guys on our staff that may be replaceable?

b0ng
01-15-2010, 01:46 PM
I feel bad harping on some sort of trades. Does anyone think Dennison may bring over any coaches/assistants with him? Do yall see any guys on our staff that may be replaceable?

Unfortunately the RB coach already went to. . . Atlanta I think?

SAMURAITEXAN
01-15-2010, 10:11 PM
I feel bad harping on some sort of trades. Does anyone think Dennison may bring over any coaches/assistants with him? Do yall see any guys on our staff that may be replaceable?

Denver only let their coaches have an interview if it is a promotioal position offer. Like for Dennison O-line coach to OC. But, Washington was denied to have an interview with Dennison due to no promotional position offered. In order for the Texans to bring more coaches from Denver, it has to be a pomotional position. Looking at our current Texans coaching position, we are set. I have hard time seeing us bringing more coaches from Denver. Perhaps, assistant coaches to be somekind of coach position.

Wolf
01-16-2010, 07:23 PM
pretty favorable comments
http://www.milehighreport.com/2010/1/12/1247878/denver-offensive-line-coach-rick

HOU-TEX
01-19-2010, 02:43 PM
Just out of curiosity, how much will Dennison be involved with our Oline? I've been wondering about this for the past few days. With Gibbs leaving, will Benton be the primary Oline coach? Will Dennison have the time to spend on coaching up the Oline along with the rest of the OC duties?

We know our Oline must improve in the run game. Will it be by personel? Or coaching?

b0ng
01-19-2010, 02:54 PM
Just out of curiosity, how much will Dennison be involved with our Oline? I've been wondering about this for the past few days. With Gibbs leaving, will Benton be the primary Oline coach? Will Dennison have the time to spend on coaching up the Oline along with the rest of the OC duties?

We know our Oline must improve in the run game. Will it be by personel? Or coaching?

I am pretty sure Dennison will have a hand in the O-line because he was the O-line coach before. I can't imagine an OC who takes a hands-off approach to a unit that he used to coach for a different team. Especially if that unit underperforms at any point.

The Pencil Neck
01-19-2010, 02:56 PM
Just out of curiosity, how much will Dennison be involved with our Oline? I've been wondering about this for the past few days. With Gibbs leaving, will Benton be the primary Oline coach? Will Dennison have the time to spend on coaching up the Oline along with the rest of the OC duties?

We know our Oline must improve in the run game. Will it be by personel? Or coaching?

Benton should be the Oline coach. Period.

Dennison may work a little more closely with him and maybe iron some things out. But Dennison should be concentrating on being the OC and getting everything working. He should be trying to convince Smith to draft offensive linemen, running backs, and wide receivers (maybe a QB) and the defense be damned.

I don't want him getting down and dirty and going over techniques with the linemen. That's not his job.

b0ng
01-19-2010, 03:16 PM
Benton should be the Oline coach. Period.

Dennison may work a little more closely with him and maybe iron some things out. But Dennison should be concentrating on being the OC and getting everything working. He should be trying to convince Smith to draft offensive linemen, running backs, and wide receivers (maybe a QB) and the defense be damned.

I don't want him getting down and dirty and going over techniques with the linemen. That's not his job.

I see the OC as the guy who overlooks the entire offense. If one part of that offense isn't working (And lets face it, QB/WR/TE/FB do not need any help really) then the OC needs to find out what isn't working and get it up to snuff. Whether that be the O-line or the RB's is up to him, but I can't see him not giving his input where it might be warranted on the line.

HOU-TEX
01-19-2010, 03:36 PM
Benton should be the Oline coach. Period.

Dennison may work a little more closely with him and maybe iron some things out. But Dennison should be concentrating on being the OC and getting everything working. He should be trying to convince Smith to draft offensive linemen, running backs, and wide receivers (maybe a QB) and the defense be damned.

I don't want him getting down and dirty and going over techniques with the linemen. That's not his job.

Normally I'd agree with this, but is Benton suitable for the job? It's been said Gibbs took a step back in favor of Benton this season and our running game stunk. Yes, we had injuries, but is it possible Benton also had a hand in the problem?

The Pencil Neck
01-19-2010, 05:21 PM
I see the OC as the guy who overlooks the entire offense. If one part of that offense isn't working (And lets face it, QB/WR/TE/FB do not need any help really) then the OC needs to find out what isn't working and get it up to snuff. Whether that be the O-line or the RB's is up to him, but I can't see him not giving his input where it might be warranted on the line.

Like I said, I've got no problem with him correcting someone if he sees something wrong. I expect him to sit down with Benton and go over exactly what he expects and if he sees something wrong, I expect him to fix it.

But I don't want him concentrating on fixing the line to the point that he ignores all the other positions and ignores how everything works together. He's the OC, he needs to be the OC.

The Pencil Neck
01-19-2010, 05:22 PM
Normally I'd agree with this, but is Benton suitable for the job? It's been said Gibbs took a step back in favor of Benton this season and our running game stunk. Yes, we had injuries, but is it possible Benton also had a hand in the problem?

Now that, my friend, is a totally different question.

Goldensilence
01-19-2010, 05:31 PM
Normally I'd agree with this, but is Benton suitable for the job? It's been said Gibbs took a step back in favor of Benton this season and our running game stunk. Yes, we had injuries, but is it possible Benton also had a hand in the problem?

I think that's really a hard question to answer. If there was any doubt that the reason the Texans had success in the running game last year was due to the surprising play of Steve Slaton, there shouldn't be now.

I guess the coaching staff and Slaton thought it would be a good idea to put on a little bulk so that his frame could take the beating a bit better. Truth is they should've just drafted someone suitable enough to split the load instead of whatever got into their heads about Chris Brown being that guy. Or not take so long in getting Foster any kind of reps at RB.

To me, success in the running game (or lack of here) has been the result personnel running it. I don't think Gibbs not being so "hands on" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) or Benton taking more control is important as the guys they've been forced to run with.

dalemurphy
01-19-2010, 06:03 PM
I think that's really a hard question to answer. If there was any doubt that the reason the Texans had success in the running game last year was due to the surprising play of Steve Slaton, there shouldn't be now.

I guess the coaching staff and Slaton thought it would be a good idea to put on a little bulk so that his frame could take the beating a bit better. Truth is they should've just drafted someone suitable enough to split the load instead of whatever got into their heads about Chris Brown being that guy. Or not take so long in getting Foster any kind of reps at RB.

To me, success in the running game (or lack of here) has been the result personnel running it. I don't think Gibbs not being so "hands on" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) or Benton taking more control is important as the guys they've been forced to run with.


I think that's a big part of it. But, I also think Alex Gibbs' attitude philosophy about running the same play over and over set them back. I also blame Shanny and Kubiak for not being stronger leaders. Anyway, I feel strongly that teams overplayed the zone runs... essentially, beating the OLmen into the gap right after the snap of the ball. They were able to do this, I believe, because Schaub isn't athletic enough to threaten the opposite edge with the bootleg. The solution, I think, is to run some counters. On a counter run, the OL would take a false step in unison, then change direction and block the overpursuing linemen/LBs. This is different than simply having the RB cut to the backside on a Zone run because the entire blocking scheme and run is set up to punish the defense in overpursuit and thereby create a huge, predetermined running lane. In a zone play, ideally, running room can be created by overpursuit as well but the running back has to see and find the hole and there is very little blocking assistance other than a potential cut block from one of the backside linemen. Anyway, Jeremy Rice from the Chronicle argues quite well that a few designed counter runs would discourage opposing defenses from jumping into the gaps so quickly on our zone runs and therefore allow the OL to make more of the hook and reach blocks so essential in the ZBS. Imagine being the LG on a zone stretch run to the right this season. Often his job is to cross the face of the DT lined up between him and Chris Myers and cut him down. Difficult as that is under normal conditions, imagine if the DT was coached to explode into the front side gap as soon as he sees a step right from the RB, Center, or QB. At that point, the LG's job is almost impossible. I think that was happening a lot last season.

Remember, most of Alex Gibbs' success running this system has been with the following QBs: John Elway, Jake Plummer, Mike Vick. My guess is that NFL DCs reviewing our '08 offense, realized that Schaub was too slow and unathletic to consistently hit the edge on a bootleg. They probably also discovered that he was a better QB in the pocket. As a result, many of these teams simply decided to sell out on our Zone plays since there was no penalty for their overpursuit... other than the end around, which we've not run well either.

The Pencil Neck
01-19-2010, 06:06 PM
I think that's a big part of it. But, I also think Alex Gibbs' attitude philosophy about running the same play over and over set them back. I also blame Shanny and Kubiak for not being stronger leaders. Anyway, I feel strongly that teams overplayed the zone runs... essentially, beating the OLmen into the gap right after the snap of the ball. They were able to do this, I believe, because Schaub isn't athletic enough to threaten the opposite edge with the bootleg. The solution, I think, is to run some counters. On a counter run, the OL would take a false step in unison, then change direction and block the overpursuing linemen/LBs. This is different than simply having the RB cut to the backside on a Zone run because the entire blocking scheme and run is set up to punish the defense in overpursuit and thereby create a huge, predetermined running lane. In a zone play, ideally, running room can be created by overpursuit as well but the running back has to see and find the hole and there is very little blocking assistance other than a potential cut block from one of the backside linemen. Anyway, Jeremy Rice from the Chronicle argues quite well that a few designed counter runs would discourage opposing defenses from jumping into the gaps so quickly on our zone runs and therefore allow the OL to make more of the hook and reach blocks so essential in the ZBS. Imagine being the LG on a zone stretch run to the right this season. Often his job is to cross the face of the DT lined up between him and Chris Myers and cut him down. Difficult as that is under normal conditions, imagine if the DT was coached to explode into the front side gap as soon as he sees a step right from the RB, Center, or QB. At that point, the LG's job is almost impossible. I think that was happening a lot last season.

Remember, most of Alex Gibbs' success running this system has been with the following QBs: John Elway, Jake Plummer, Mike Vick. My guess is that NFL DCs reviewing our '08 offense, realized that Schaub was too slow and unathletic to consistently hit the edge on a bootleg. They probably also discovered that he was a better QB in the pocket. As a result, many of these teams simply decided to sell out on our Zone plays since there was no penalty for their overpursuit... other than the end around, which we've not run well either.

Schaub didn't hurt anyone with his legs but he was GOUGING teams with the bootleg through the air. For teams like the Dolphins and Patriots, who had good backside pursuit that wasn't going to fall for the bootleg, we didn't run any bootlegs and Schaub became a dropback passer (and was pretty good at it). But against teams like the Bengals, the Rams, the Seahawks, etc, Shaub was working that bootleg.

dalemurphy
01-19-2010, 06:14 PM
Schaub didn't hurt anyone with his legs but he was GOUGING teams with the bootleg through the air. For teams like the Dolphins and Patriots, who had good backside pursuit that wasn't going to fall for the bootleg, we didn't run any bootlegs and Schaub became a dropback passer (and was pretty good at it). But against teams like the Bengals, the Rams, the Seahawks, etc, Shaub was working that bootleg.

Yes but I don't think he was good on the bootlegs in '08 and I think that's what teams looked at when they attacked our run this season.

I think running some counters will force teams to play the run more honestly. Otherwise, we can just gash them for 15 yards a pop until they do.

GP
01-19-2010, 10:10 PM
Schaub didn't hurt anyone with his legs but he was GOUGING teams with the bootleg through the air. For teams like the Dolphins and Patriots, who had good backside pursuit that wasn't going to fall for the bootleg, we didn't run any bootlegs and Schaub became a dropback passer (and was pretty good at it). But against teams like the Bengals, the Rams, the Seahawks, etc, Shaub was working that bootleg.

That is the one thing that I wonder about having Matt Schaub as our QB.

Very much like a Drew Bledsoe type of QB: No running/agility, but can kill teams if he has time to set his feet and throw the ball.

I had said in the past off-season that I'd welcome Brett Favre here, but I honestly think that the only reason he has had success in Minnesota is because of the stellar RB he hands it off to, which opens a lot of stuff up for Favre. I don't think Brett would have been as effective here, due to our lack of a quality running game.

Would McNabb succeed here, throwing it to AJ and the rest of our guys?

I know that I'd like us to have a QB who can run it when needed. The ability to extend a broken-down passing play can really change the landscape of a few games...and maybe more.

I know Schaub has the stats through the air. No arguing it. I just wish Matt had been blessed with some better running ability.

Joe Texan
01-19-2010, 11:34 PM
Why don't you Couch Coaches head to the locker room and let Bob make this decision of extending Kubiak

ChampionTexan
01-19-2010, 11:37 PM
Why don't you Couch Coaches head to the locker room and let Bob make this decision of extending Kubiak

Yeah, what do you think this is a NFL/Houston Texans message board or something?

barrett
01-20-2010, 01:41 AM
That is the one thing that I wonder about having Matt Schaub as our QB.

Very much like a Drew Bledsoe type of QB: No running/agility, but can kill teams if he has time to set his feet and throw the ball.

I had said in the past off-season that I'd welcome Brett Favre here, but I honestly think that the only reason he has had success in Minnesota is because of the stellar RB he hands it off to, which opens a lot of stuff up for Favre. I don't think Brett would have been as effective here, due to our lack of a quality running game.

Would McNabb succeed here, throwing it to AJ and the rest of our guys?

I know that I'd like us to have a QB who can run it when needed. The ability to extend a broken-down passing play can really change the landscape of a few games...and maybe more.

I know Schaub has the stats through the air. No arguing it. I just wish Matt had been blessed with some better running ability.

No. He's inaccurate. Schaub is one of the more accurate passers in the league. McNabb for all his "abilities" lacks one of the more critical talents... being able to throw the ball accurately to his receivers. He's one of the most frustrating QB's to watch if you ask me. (which you didn't) If you would like an education on the benefits of an accurate passer and are in disbelief about Schaub's abilities go back and watch Brees against the Patriots earlier in the year. It's hands down the best performance by a QB that I can remember seeing in my life. If that's not enough, go watch Warner against the Packers, and if you still don't see it, go back and watch Schaub (especially in the first half of our games for the majority of the season).

dalemurphy
01-20-2010, 02:46 AM
No. He's inaccurate. Schaub is one of the more accurate passers in the league. McNabb for all his "abilities" lacks one of the more critical talents... being able to throw the ball accurately to his receivers. He's one of the most frustrating QB's to watch if you ask me. (which you didn't) If you would like an education on the benefits of an accurate passer and are in disbelief about Schaub's abilities go back and watch Brees against the Patriots earlier in the year. It's hands down the best performance by a QB that I can remember seeing in my life. If that's not enough, go watch Warner against the Packers, and if you still don't see it, go back and watch Schaub (especially in the first half of our games for the majority of the season).


what he said!!

The Pencil Neck
01-20-2010, 11:07 AM
That is the one thing that I wonder about having Matt Schaub as our QB.

Very much like a Drew Bledsoe type of QB: No running/agility, but can kill teams if he has time to set his feet and throw the ball.
<snip>

I know that I'd like us to have a QB who can run it when needed. The ability to extend a broken-down passing play can really change the landscape of a few games...and maybe more.

I know Schaub has the stats through the air. No arguing it. I just wish Matt had been blessed with some better running ability.

But like I was saying, on those rollouts, Schaub picks up a lot of yardage even though it's not with his feet. I actually prefer that.

And he was better this past season about pulling it down when he felt pressure and turning it into positive yardage. Not a lot of positive yardage, but some.

I'm fine with that. It's exciting to watch a guy who can pick up yards on the ground but as long as a guy can move around a little bit (like a Manning or a Brady), that's all I need.

Texans_Chick
01-20-2010, 11:22 AM
Like I said, I've got no problem with him correcting someone if he sees something wrong. I expect him to sit down with Benton and go over exactly what he expects and if he sees something wrong, I expect him to fix it.

But I don't want him concentrating on fixing the line to the point that he ignores all the other positions and ignores how everything works together. He's the OC, he needs to be the OC.


I talked to someone with the staff about offensive coaching and the roles of different coaches. They are VERY collaborative on the offensive side of the ball. Lots of team teaching. One of the things they wanted to do when Kubiak came on board is to break down the barriers between positions on the offense.

They are not that big into what their titles are, and are very big into making sure that the offense works together.

That Dennison has worked with a number of these guys before is going to make communication between groups easier and not harder.

ChampionTexan
01-20-2010, 11:27 AM
I talked to someone with the staff about offensive coaching and the roles of different coaches. They are VERY collaborative on the offensive side of the ball. Lots of team teaching. One of the things they wanted to do when Kubiak came on board is to break down the barriers between positions on the offense.

They are not that big into what their titles are, and are very big into making sure that the offense works together.

That Dennison has worked with a number of these guys before is going to make communication between groups easier and not harder.

So TC, any reason to think this philosophy might have been a bit of a problem for Alex Gibbs given that I've always heard he wanted complete and total control of the running game?

thunderkyss
01-20-2010, 12:36 PM
And he was better this past season about pulling it down when he felt pressure and turning it into positive yardage. Not a lot of positive yardage, but some.

Not only that, but this season he has also done a much better job of keeping the play alive, when he does get outside the pocket... not just the roll-outs, but the busted plays as well.

That was my biggest gripe with Schaub, before, when he was forced out of the pocket, the play was pretty much over.

I think over the second half of the season, there was at least one play per game, where he "made" something happen, after being flushed from the pocket.

I don't think we'll ever mistake him for Big Ben, but I think it's another aspect of his game that he will need if he's going to be the one to take us where we need to go.

dalemurphy
01-20-2010, 12:56 PM
Not only that, but this season he has also done a much better job of keeping the play alive, when he does get outside the pocket... not just the roll-outs, but the busted plays as well.

That was my biggest gripe with Schaub, before, when he was forced out of the pocket, the play was pretty much over.

I think over the second half of the season, there was at least one play per game, where he "made" something happen, after being flushed from the pocket.
I don't think we'll ever mistake him for Big Ben, but I think it's another aspect of his game that he will need if he's going to be the one to take us where we need to go.

I was talking to Barrett about this: somewhere around week 10 or 11, Schaub started to display a new level of pocket awareness. It really made a difference in his play, I thought. His development is definitely on schedule for him to be one of the elite 4 or 5 QBs in the NFL over the next 5-8 years. It's pretty exciting!

LonerATO
01-21-2010, 04:48 AM
Maybe this guy could help...

http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=498&contentID=5914

I truly like the line about him not giving up a sack in 16 games.

Im thinking Kuper and Hamiliton for the 4th from Sage and the 5th/6th from TJ

HOU-TEX
01-21-2010, 10:07 AM
Im thinking Kuper and Hamiliton for the 4th from Sage and the 5th/6th from TJ

The 4th for Sage was used last year. Anthony Hill was picked with it.

LonerATO
01-21-2010, 12:08 PM
The 4th for Sage was used last year. Anthony Hill was picked with it.

such a waste of a pick

HOU-TEX
01-21-2010, 12:11 PM
such a waste of a pick

ACL tears in the same knee doesn't sound promising, but I won't call it a wasted pick, yet. I hope he's able to rehab it back and get on the field.

barrett
01-21-2010, 12:48 PM
such a waste of a pick

How on earth can you say that after one season and a knee injury? Knee Jerk comment.

LonerATO
01-21-2010, 04:09 PM
How on earth can you say that after one season and a knee injury? Knee Jerk comment.

It is and I will admit it