PDA

View Full Version : Cold Hard Football Facts on 2009 Texans


Texans_Chick
03-10-2010, 03:38 PM
For those who like left brain stat geekery, check out the recent blog post over at my Chron blog:

Kerry Byrne of Cold Hard Football Facts Talks Texans (http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2010/03/kerry_byrne_of_cold_hard_footb.html)

No big surprises, but puts things in numerical context.

JB
03-10-2010, 03:49 PM
Very nice read!

barrett
03-10-2010, 03:54 PM
It's hard for fans to assess talent on the interior DLine as well. Even watching and re-watching games in slow motion it's very hard to judge their play. Often times they are coached to tie up blockers and other times they are coached to penetrate. We don't know what scenario is what.

The thing that was made obvious to me watching those first 3 "bad games" on defense was the lateral movement of the interior DLine. Getting run out of run plays and kept out of throwing lanes on passing plays. That got better and as it did so did the defensive performance. Secondly, the outside LB's and S's started reading the gaps properly.

I'm guessing what is missing currently is that vertical penetration. That keeps the QB from stepping up and away from the edge rushers.

Is the "Price" right?

Malloy
03-10-2010, 04:14 PM
Good stuff, thanks.

I actually remember the beer-talk last time around, how cool (or sad...) is that? :)

gtexan02
03-10-2010, 04:41 PM
This quote bothered me:

I wouldn't sweat that too much ... running effectively is the single most overrated aspect of pro football. It would be nice if the team could improve in this area. But it's not critical. The Colts were only fractionally better running the ball than the Texans - they averaged 3.54 YPA - and they flirted with an undefeated season.

So don't sweat the ground game right now. The team's hopes don't hinge upon it.



I feel like its overlooking the fact that the Colts offense knows its a pss first offense, while our coach still insists we're a run the ball football team.

Point: Indianapolis may not have been hindered by their terrible YPA because they only ran the ball 366 times all year. This was next to last. On the other hand, we ran the ball 425 times. Good for middle of the pack, and unfortunately, did this despite having almost no success

ArlingtonTexan
03-10-2010, 05:09 PM
Of the new era football stat sites, I found this my favorite. The language and analysis does not seem overdone, and seem to match-up with what I see on the field the best. Look forward to see if it can remain a usuable tool.

Lucky
03-10-2010, 07:59 PM
I wouldn't sweat that too much ... running effectively is the single most overrated aspect of pro football.
I realize that the Colts ran poorly last season. As did the Chargers. The other 4 AFC playoff teams finished in the top 12 in rushing. Having success sans a running game is more of an anomaly than a trend.

Furthermore, Gary Kubiak thinks that a running game is crucial. So he will continue to run the ball, hell or high water. If that continues to be the case, the Texans need to get better, much better, at running the football.

Carr Bombed
03-10-2010, 09:33 PM
Teams that run the football and stop the run still have success more often than not in this league.... For Christ's sake a rookie head coach with a rookie QB almost went all the way to the SB with that formula, while we've had one of the most potent passing attacks for a couple of seasons. That's all I need to know about how important controlling the line of scrimmage is.

steelbtexan
03-10-2010, 10:20 PM
Teams that run the football and stop the run still have success more often than not in this league.... For Christ's sake a rookie head coach with a rookie QB almost went all the way to the SB with that formula, while we've had one of the most potent passing attacks for a couple of seasons. That's all I need to know about how important controlling the line of scrimmage is.

Yep

Part of the problem is that both of the interior OL/DL got their butts kicked on a regular basis. Good coaching covered up some of the problems. But until this gets fixed this team will continue to struggle.

Hardcore Texan
03-11-2010, 12:00 PM
Funny thing is that the common denominator between the CHFF guy's opinion about the passing game being more important and people who believe the opposite that you got to have a good run game and be able to stop the run are both solved by the same solution (at least in my head). It all starts in the trenches.

You can't have a good passing game without at least decent protection and at least some balance with the run game placing emphasis on a solid O-Line. You can't stop the run or put pressure on the QB and force errors in the passing game without a strong D-Line.

It all starts up front. We need to get better on both lines.

CloakNNNdagger
03-11-2010, 02:57 PM
This quote bothered me:




I feel like its overlooking the fact that the Colts offense knows its a pss first offense, while our coach still insists we're a run the ball football team.

Point: Indianapolis may not have been hindered by their terrible YPA because they only ran the ball 366 times all year. This was next to last. On the other hand, we ran the ball 425 times. Good for middle of the pack, and unfortunately, did this despite having almost no success

You almost have to ask yourself "what might have been" had we used a significant number of those 425 plays for passing.

Ole Miss Texan
03-11-2010, 03:10 PM
I don't think the running game is the end all, be all but I think it's really important. Run time off the clock, make the defense tired, etc etc. We all know that.

The difference for me though, is this: We don't need a great running game to be successful, we just need one that a defense respects. Respects enough to know that if they don't account for it, they will pay. We'll get a huge gain or score. We don't need an AP but we do need a Slaton from rookie season. Last year there wasn't that threat, defenses didn't care (I use that loosely). All we need, in my opinion, is to have that threat. I don't think we need to run the ball a ton, be in the top 5 in rushing yards or anything like that. We just need to be able to have the game when there's too many DB's on the field we can successfully run and hurt the defense.

wagonhed
03-11-2010, 08:43 PM
I wouldn't sweat that too much ... running effectively is the single most overrated aspect of pro football.
For all of those people wanting a RB in the 1st rd, take note. Stat people have long since identified the running game as not very important. It's just the truth.


edit: I see this is already being discussed in the thread. Good.

wagonhed
03-11-2010, 08:46 PM
For anyone wanting more information, this website is awesome: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

I linked to an article that talks about which aspects of the game are most highly correlated with winning. It also talks about how relatively unimportant running is.

Norg
03-11-2010, 09:17 PM
U know i just dont want to get into the PLayoffs i want to win the super bowl

i just dont want to win the super bowl i want this team to become a dynasty

heck i just dont want to be a dynasty i want this team to have long term success

The Pencil Neck
03-12-2010, 11:51 AM
For anyone wanting more information, this website is awesome: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

I linked to an article that talks about which aspects of the game are most highly correlated with winning. It also talks about how relatively unimportant running is.

There's a big difference between correlation to winning and something being "relatively" unimportant. It's totally possible to win, a lot, without having a great running game. No RB who won the rushing title won a SB in the same year until the 90's (a few have done it since then, however.) But there's also not much of a correlation between winning a passing title and winning a SB, either.

Over the past 7 years, the average SB winner has been ranked 12th in passing and 12th in rushing. The average SB loser has been ranked 8th in passing and 18th in rushing. The BEST rushing team was the Seahawks in 05 who were 3rd in the league in rushing and the worst rushing team was the Colts and Cardinals the past two years who were both worst in the league in rushing. The best passing team was the Patriots team that lost to the Giants, they were #1 in passing. The worst passing team in the SB was the Steelers who beat the Seahawks even though they were ranked 24th in passing.

The thing is that you've got to have a philosophy and you've got to stick to it. The Cowher Steelers and the Giants were SB winners as rushing teams that played defense. The Colts have been a passing team that has made it. Most teams are a little more balanced.

And that's the thing.

Our philosophy is supposed to be about balance. It was our inability to run the ball effectively, and the inherent danger of being a pass-first team, that caused us to come out and sometimes look flat and sometimes have problems holding on to our leads. We're supposed to be a rushing/time of possession team that can throw and right now, we're a passing team. Kubiak doesn't want Schaub putting the ball up 30+ times a game. And if that's our philosophy, then we should go after a RB that's going to take the pressure off the passing game.

disaacks3
03-12-2010, 12:07 PM
You either need to have a running game good enough that the opposition has to respect it or a timing-passing game that is unstoppable. With a healthy OD, the Texans are almost good enough (especially w/ the addition of Jacoby) to survive by the pass alone.

Without an effective running game however, an Offense will often falter with a shortened field. (does this sound familiar to Texans fans?)

b0ng
03-12-2010, 12:32 PM
It's all in the scheme you use. If only we had 2008's running game and 2009's passing game. Also, if you run the least in the league does that mean you don't really catch defenses looking when you playaction?

Maddict5
03-12-2010, 04:19 PM
You almost have to ask yourself "what might have been" had we used a significant number of those 425 plays for passing.

http://jacksonville.com/files/editorial/images/additional/51/Schaub.jpg


???