PDA

View Full Version : Kuharsky blog: Will new o-coord "slow down" Schaub and passing attack?


GP
03-25-2010, 07:44 PM
Kuharsky, in his AFC South blog (http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/10414/the-big-question-will-change-slow-schaub), shares thoughts about Texans new o-coord. Not a very in-depth article, but it's something for us to kick around.

Excerpt:

Shanahan went to Washington to join his dadís new staff with the Redskins. The Texansí offensive system isnít going to change a lot as Rick Dennison takes over the post. Like Kubiak and Kyle Shanahan, Dennison comes from Denver roots with Mike Shanahan.

The Texans will do everything possible to make for a smooth transition. Still, even with a top-flight quarterback (Matt Schaub) and one of the gameís best receivers (Andre Johnson), Dennison is a different guy and his own man and there is likely to be an adjustment period.

I don't think Frank Bush cost us the playoffs, though. He had a very Richard Smith'ish first few games, but the defense made a bigger leap in 2009 than it did over the course of the three previous seasons under Richard Smith.

b0ng
03-25-2010, 07:55 PM
Kuharsky, in his AFC South blog (http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/10414/the-big-question-will-change-slow-schaub), shares thoughts about Texans new o-coord. Not a very in-depth article, but it's something for us to kick around.

Excerpt:



I don't think Frank Bush cost us the playoffs, though. He had a very Richard Smith'ish first few games, but the defense made a bigger leap in 2009 than it did over the course of the three previous seasons under Richard Smith.

I think the OC has much less of an impact on the offensive side of the ball than the DC does on the defense due to Kubiak and his background.

That's just my thought though.

TheRealJoker
03-25-2010, 08:16 PM
If by "slow down" he helps us get a credible running game to give us more balance on offense then yes I hope he does.

Carr Bombed
03-25-2010, 08:27 PM
He certainly didn't slow down Jay Cutler during his time there.

Carr Bombed
03-25-2010, 08:33 PM
Anyways if less passing yards means more rushing yards and wins I won't give a crap.

Texan_Bill
03-25-2010, 08:35 PM
Anyways if less passing yards means more rushing yards and wins I won't give a crap.

Exactly.. Well said.

infantrycak
03-25-2010, 09:00 PM
Anyways if less passing yards means more rushing yards and wins I won't give a crap.

Exactly again.

DocBar
03-25-2010, 10:51 PM
Anyways if less passing yards means more rushing yards and wins I won't give a crap.Is that really all that important? I don't care how many yards we get in either category as long as it translates into WINS. There's a lot of people coming around to the idea that thos who pass and stop the pass most effectively win more than those who run and stop the run effectively. http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2009/01/the_cold_hard_football_facts_o_1.html

Vinnie
03-25-2010, 11:21 PM
If it means the run game gets better at all it will translate into more wins. You just can't expect to throw as much as the Texans did this past season EVERY season, that's crazy. Now if we can get an even average running game going with our elite passing game, now you're talking.

Carr Bombed
03-25-2010, 11:39 PM
Is that really all that important? I don't care how many yards we get in either category as long as it translates into WINS. There's a lot of people coming around to the idea that thos who pass and stop the pass most effectively win more than those who run and stop the run effectively. http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2009/01/the_cold_hard_football_facts_o_1.html

No offense, but I don't really care about that. Last season a rookie QB and rookie HC almost found themselves in the SB strictly on running the ball and stopping the run.

Don't really care if last season was a pass happy season, year in and year out, more often than not running the ball and stopping the run means mucho success in this league.

I mean don't get me wrong, I don't want to become a boring conservative team, but we are a team that struggles to win/pull out close games.........the lack of a running game is the biggest reason for that. We have been one of the best passing offenses in the league for a couple of seasons now (and haven't accomplished crap) and last season the lack of a consistent running game cost us a chance at the playoffs...that's about all I need to know about how important a good running game is. I don't really care what other stats say, I know the reason why we still haven't punched our playoff ticket is because we can't run the ball consistently, especially in short yardage situations.

I would've gladly taken about 700-800 less passing yards from Schaub this season if you would've promised me a dominant running game in return......hell even just a above average running game.

With a better running game last season we sweep Jacksonville, most likely beat Arizona, and we atleast split with the Colts (and you can say that about the Colts for the last couple of seasons).......thus easily putting us in the playoffs. Yeah a running game would be great. I'm getting tired of aerial shootouts (especially against the Colts) where games come down to the wire. The only time we ever beat the Colts is where we ran all over them and wore them into the ground. Ron Dayne murdered them and had one of his best days as a pro. Give me a team that can run the ball when the other team is expecting us to run the ball (like in game where he beat the Colts) late in games and then pair them with Schaub and Andre and that's a team that's really going places. Until Houston can do that, well....I'll expect much of the same. Another year of being outdueled by Peyton late in games and another year where we'll drop about 4 games that we should've won inside of our 5 yard line.

m5kwatts
03-25-2010, 11:40 PM
I think the OC has much less of an impact on the offensive side of the ball than the DC does on the defense due to Kubiak and his background.

That's just my thought though.

Ding ding ding winner

Texans_Chick
03-25-2010, 11:48 PM
Is that really all that important? I don't care how many yards we get in either category as long as it translates into WINS. There's a lot of people coming around to the idea that thos who pass and stop the pass most effectively win more than those who run and stop the run effectively. http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2009/01/the_cold_hard_football_facts_o_1.html

Even with that link, I believe that Kubiak's specific offense will work better with a credible running game. I believe it would help their scoring offense, keep Schaub safer and more effective.

As for Kuharsky's topic, I address that in this recent post:

Offensive coaching changes affect on team (http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2010/03/offensive_coaching_changes_eff.html)

In part:

It is possible that Schaub's numbers go down, but only in the way that Drew Brees' numbers went down from silly enormous in 2008 to regular enormous in 2009 after his running game got on track, and he actually got a defense. (Or if he gets hurt, of course, mentioning this as a un-jinx).

kiwitexansfan
03-26-2010, 12:21 AM
I think a steady running game can increase Schaub's output as that will mean more third down conversions, which means longer drives, which means more yards and hopefully more touchdowns.

The Pencil Neck
03-26-2010, 12:23 AM
I think a steady running game can increase Schaub's output as that will mean more third down conversions, which means longer drives, which means more yards and hopefully more touchdowns.

Also, Schaub has a DEADLY play fake when he really wants to sell it. If the running game is working, he'll be able to use those play fakes more and that should open up things in the passing game.

ObsiWan
03-26-2010, 10:43 PM
No offense, but I don't really care about that. Last season a rookie QB and rookie HC almost found themselves in the SB strictly on running the ball and stopping the run.

Don't really care if last season was a pass happy season, year in and year out, more often than not running the ball and stopping the run means mucho success in this league.



Except that this year the two teams with the best passing attacks were the ones actually in the Super Bowl. Same with last year too. Seems to me the passing game nearly won the game for the Cards last year and DID win the game for the Steelers.

JB
03-26-2010, 10:55 PM
Except that this year the two teams with the best passing attacks were the ones actually in the Super Bowl. Same with last year too. Seems to me the passing game nearly won the game for the Cards last year and DID win the game for the Steelers.

Yep. But you must have the threat of the running game. Even though the running game might not be good, if you can run occasionaly, the defense has to account for that first. That slows them for just one step, and that can be all the difference.

ObsiWan
03-26-2010, 11:22 PM
Yep. But you must have the threat of the running game. Even though the running game might not be good, if you can run occasionaly, the defense has to account for that first. That slows them for just one step, and that can be all the difference.

I think our offense must be balanced. Otherwise any good defensive coordinator will load up to stop your strength and dare you to beat them with your weakness.

Brisco_County
03-27-2010, 06:56 PM
The ability to impose the run is necessary for red zone production. Guess what area this team needs to improve upon to translate offensive production to wins.

Carr Bombed
03-27-2010, 07:45 PM
Except that this year the two teams with the best passing attacks were the ones actually in the Super Bowl. Same with last year too. Seems to me the passing game nearly won the game for the Cards last year and DID win the game for the Steelers.

Again, I don't care about other teams......I'm talking about this team. The running game prevented us from making the playoffs destroying our chance at getting in a Super Bowl.


I'm not saying we need to scrap the passing game, I like our passing game, but anybody who doesn't think a running game would greatly help this team is crazy. Especially after all the third and shorts/goal line situations we haven't been able to pick up.

ObsiWan
03-27-2010, 08:04 PM
Yep. But you must have the threat of the running game. Even though the running game might not be good, if you can run occasionaly, the defense has to account for that first. That slows them for just one step, and that can be all the difference.

When you think about it, this is really becoming a 'chicken & egg' argument. The two Super Bowl teams are feared for the deadly efficiency of their passing attacks. So when they run - especially the Colts - it's an effective surprise. Let me put it this way; if the Colts came out in "I" formation and tried to run the ball on the first two downs every time, "to establish the run", would they be as feared as when they line up spread out and no one knows where The Peyton is going with the ball?? I think not.

Carr Bombed
03-27-2010, 08:12 PM
When you think about it, this is really becoming a 'chicken & egg' argument. The two Super Bowl teams are feared for the deadly efficiency of their passing attacks. So when they run - especially the Colts - it's an effective surprise. Let me put it this way; if the Colts came out in "I" formation and tried to run the ball on the first two downs every time, "to establish the run", would they be as feared as when they line up spread out and no one knows where The Peyton is going with the ball?? I think not.

The difference is the Colts are able to get a yard out of the I formation when they need that yard......Houston isn't. It doesn't matter how lethal your passing game is, there are going to be crucial spots in some games when you need to be able to pick up a yard even when the other team knows you're going to run the ball up the middle and we can't do that. Not with this soft ass interior offensive line.

ObsiWan
03-27-2010, 08:12 PM
Again, I don't care about other teams......I'm talking about this team. The running game prevented us from making the playoffs destroying our chance at getting in a Super Bowl.


No.
TURNOVERS prevented us from making the playoffs. Some came while we were trying to run the ball but more came via the pass 17 INTs vs 11 fumbles lost - remember when we came back on the Cards and Schaub threw that pick-six? before that pick, we had that game won.

Carr Bombed
03-27-2010, 08:20 PM
No.
TURNOVERS prevented us from making the playoffs. Some came while we were trying to run the ball but more came via the pass 17 INTs vs 11 fumbles lost - remember when we came back on the Cards and Schaub threw that pick-six? before that pick, we had that game won.

LOL, when you drop back and pass more than any other team in the league you're going to throw or take the chance to throw more picks. A good running game would cut down on turnovers. Even with that pick aside, Houston lost against the Cards, because they couldn't get one damn yard when they needed it the most. (and how did we have that game won before the pick???? the game was tied)

The lack of a consistent running game lead to a lack of confidence in the running game and the combination of a lack or running game (1st Jags game, Cards game) and lack of confidence in the running game (2nd Jags game) easily cost us ball games last year and the year before that.

Until we can get a yard or move the ball on the ground when the other teams knows we need to move the ball on the ground......we aren't making the playoffs.

ObsiWan
03-27-2010, 09:13 PM
LOL, when you drop back and pass more than any other team in the league you're going to throw or take the chance to throw more picks. A good running game would cut down on turnovers. Even with that pick aside, Houston lost against the Cards, because they couldn't get one damn yard when they needed it the most. (and how did we have that game won before the pick???? the game was tied)

The lack of a consistent running game lead to a lack of confidence in the running game and the combination of a lack or running game (1st Jags game, Cards game) and lack of confidence in the running game (2nd Jags game) easily cost us ball games last year and the year before that.

Until we can get a yard or move the ball on the ground when the other teams knows we need to move the ball on the ground......we aren't making the playoffs.

I contend that we "had it won" because the Cards couldn't stop us in the second half nor move the ball on our defense. We were headed toward the go-ahead score. After that pick-six we have to play from behind for a tie instead of playing for the win with a 3 or 7-pt lead.

If Schaub doesn't give them the lead with that pick six, we don't need the goal line heroics everyone is so upset about.

Carr Bombed
03-27-2010, 09:20 PM
I contend that we "had it won" because the Cards couldn't stop us in the second half nor move the ball on our defense. We were headed toward the go-ahead score. After that pick-six we have to play from behind for a tie instead of playing for the win with a 3 or 7-pt lead.

If Schaub doesn't give them the lead with that pick six, we don't need the goal line heroics everyone is so upset about.

A NFL game is never "won" when the score is tied. That is ridiculous, there is alot of "what ifs" in your reasoning.

What if we scored on that drive, or What if Kris Brown could actually hit a go ahead FG, or what if or defense could continue to shut out the Cards. That game was not won at the point when Schaub threw that pick and again.......when you lead the league in pass attempts you put yourself in the position to throw that pick more often.

The running game has hurt this team more than any other aspect over the last couple of years. It's ridiculous for anybody to think that we don't need to get better at running the ball. It has cost us a chance at the playoffs the last couple of years and again........unless we get better next year, we'll once again be sitting at home come January

houstonspartan
03-28-2010, 12:11 AM
A NFL game is never "won" when the score is tied. That is ridiculous, there is alot of "what ifs" in your reasoning.

What if we scored on that drive, or What if Kris Brown could actually hit a go ahead FG, or what if or defense could continue to shut out the Cards. That game was not won at the point when Schaub threw that pick and again.......when you lead the league in pass attempts you put yourself in the position to throw that pick more often.

The running game has hurt this team more than any other aspect over the last couple of years. It's ridiculous for anybody to think that we don't need to get better at running the ball. It has cost us a chance at the playoffs the last couple of years and again........unless we get better next year, we'll once again be sitting at home come January

Yep. We need to run the ball. Anyone who knows anything about football can see that about this team.

Well said.

ObsiWan
03-28-2010, 12:05 PM
A NFL game is never "won" when the score is tied. That is ridiculous, there is alot of "what ifs" in your reasoning.

What if we scored on that drive, or What if Kris Brown could actually hit a go ahead FG, or what if or defense could continue to shut out the Cards. That game was not won at the point when Schaub threw that pick and again.......when you lead the league in pass attempts you put yourself in the position to throw that pick more often.

The running game has hurt this team more than any other aspect over the last couple of years. It's ridiculous for anybody to think that we don't need to get better at running the ball. It has cost us a chance at the playoffs the last couple of years and again........unless we get better next year, we'll once again be sitting at home come January

perhaps you have a point. maybe I shouldn't have had faith in the defense to keep shutting out the Cards or Kris Brown's ability to hit the necessary go-ahead FG.
But I do know this. That TD was their winning score.
I also know that the Cardinals' offense did not score again.
Perhaps I shouldn't what-if about the continued success of our defense or Kris Brown's ability to win the game with a FG. But there's no what if about what was the winning score - Schaub's pick-six won the game for them.

And make no mistake, I'd love to see Slaton get back to his 2008 effectiveness and Foster (or whoever) come in and be part an effective 1-2 punch so we put wins away by grinding out the clock in the 4th quarter. If you've seen any of my "who-should-we-draft" posts, I'm all for getting some studs up front to make holes for the guys we have or whoever we might draft.

my original point was (and still is) that turnovers hurt us as much, if not more, than the ineffectiveness of our running game. Both are areas that need lots of improvement.

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2010, 01:36 PM
my original point was (and still is) that turnovers hurt us as much, if not more, than the ineffectiveness of our running game. Both are areas that need lots of improvement.

If we had a better running game, a running game able to punch it in from a yard out, we would have won 2-3 more games than we did even keeping the turnovers the same.

AND.

The turnovers that killed me were the fumbles, not the picks. And that's part of the running game.

Sure we had more picks than fumbles lost (15-11), but when you've got about a 2-1 TD:INT ratio that's acceptable. You've got to expect interceptions when you're throwing the ball a lot.

Texans_Chick
03-28-2010, 09:16 PM
Texans only win against the Colts involved David Carr and Ron Dayne playing keep away from Manning. And accurate field goal kicking. (insert barf noise here).

That's pretty much the formula which as the Colts' record under Manning shows is hard to do.

There's been time when teams have beat Manning with a great pass rush, but there's only so many opportunities you are going to get with him.

Texan_Bill
03-28-2010, 09:25 PM
Texans only win against the Colts involved David Carr and Ron Dayne playing keep away from Manning. And accurate field goal kicking. (insert barf noise here).

That's pretty much the formula which as the Colts' record under Manning shows is hard to do.

There's been time when teams have beat Manning with a great pass rush, but there's only so many opportunities you are going to get with him.

That just makes me feel dirty.. :gun:

The Pencil Neck
03-28-2010, 11:28 PM
That just makes me feel dirty.. :gun:

And that fact that it's nasty enough to make YOU feel dirty is damning in and of itself.

I'm not sayin.

I'm just sayin.

disaacks3
03-29-2010, 03:06 AM
For all you numbskulls who think the TEXANS can succeed without a running game, let me give you a small reminder - this team has O-Lineman designed for a zone-blocking run game.


If the Texans were simply going to sit back and sling it all day, they'd use a different physical type lineman. ZBS guys are (supposedly) SMALLER and quicker to allow them to reach second-level blocks that much faster. They are NOT designed to allow for a gunslinger to make camp behind all day.

You want the Texans in the playoffs, then they MUST have a credible running game.

threetoedpete
03-29-2010, 07:14 AM
Kuharsky, in his AFC South blog (http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/10414/the-big-question-will-change-slow-schaub), shares thoughts about Texans new o-coord. Not a very in-depth article, but it's something for us to kick around.

Excerpt:



I don't think Frank Bush cost us the playoffs, though. He had a very Richard Smith'ish first few games, but the defense made a bigger leap in 2009 than it did over the course of the three previous seasons under Richard Smith.

Wasn't Cushing's foot banged up out of camp ? And they didn't add Pollard the psycho until the fourth or fifth week I believe. Hard to soar with eagles when your working with chicken dung. Y'all wanted the heat and you got it. I think he blitzes just as much as Kubes lets him.

GP
03-29-2010, 09:29 AM
Wasn't Cushing's foot banged up out of camp ? And they didn't add Pollard the psycho until the fourth or fifth week I believe. Hard to soar with eagles when your working with chicken dung. Y'all wanted the heat and you got it. I think he blitzes just as much as Kubes lets him.

I think there was a carry-over, with the attitude on-the-field by the defensive players, from the previous season. I'm not saying Frank Bush didn't drill "his way" into the defensive squad good enough. Just that it might have been a case of those players reverting back to what they had known under Richard Smith for the previous three seasons. Habits are hard to break.

Also, I think we need to consider that maybe David Gibbs brought a better approach to the defensive backs. Adding Pollard certainly helped, because he loved to run up and hit people. It inspired confidence in the whole defense. It added a Brian Cushing-type personality in the defensive backfield.

IIRC, we also benched a few defensive backs (Busing was among that group, IIRC) who were getting torched and looked clueless out there.

My memory recalls that the first 2, maybe even 3 games (at the most), were pretty rough. Not even putting a man on Chris Johnson as he swung out to the receiver spot before the snap, and one of our d-backs shrugging his shoulders and asking to be told what to do. Duh. You're out there, so go get on him. Stuff like that.

Goldensilence
03-31-2010, 09:07 PM
I think there was a carry-over, with the attitude on-the-field by the defensive players, from the previous season. I'm not saying Frank Bush didn't drill "his way" into the defensive squad good enough. Just that it might have been a case of those players reverting back to what they had known under Richard Smith for the previous three seasons. Habits are hard to break.

Also, I think we need to consider that maybe David Gibbs brought a better approach to the defensive backs. Adding Pollard certainly helped, because he loved to run up and hit people. It inspired confidence in the whole defense. It added a Brian Cushing-type personality in the defensive backfield.

IIRC, we also benched a few defensive backs (Busing was among that group, IIRC) who were getting torched and looked clueless out there.

My memory recalls that the first 2, maybe even 3 games (at the most), were pretty rough. Not even putting a man on Chris Johnson as he swung out to the receiver spot before the snap, and one of our d-backs shrugging his shoulders and asking to be told what to do. Duh. You're out there, so go get on him. Stuff like that.

IMO hard to say one way or another what effect Bush had on the defense. Perhaps actually having scheme that has assignments was big.

I'd contend that this defense even with Pollard, who stepped in and did very well, without Cushing playing out of his mind we would've had a Dick Smith defense.

Far as the running game goes for us Versus the Colts and Saints, the difference is that both of those team can score at will in the red zone. When we hit the redzone the offense tended to sputter and we had to settle for...all holding our breath when Kris Brown walks onto the field. 1st in passing yards but 17th in scoring. If that's not perspective, perhaps comparing the super bowl participants running games would help.

Texans running game put into perspective Joe Addai alone equaled the rushing touchdowns of all Texans running backs. Reggie freaking Bush would've been the rushing TD leader on the team. (Jeeze if that doesn't hurt I don't know what will)

We are not going to get into the playoffs without better production in the running game, specifically in the redzone.

JB
03-31-2010, 09:15 PM
IMO hard to say one way or another what effect Bush had on the defense. Perhaps actually having scheme that has assignments was big.

I'd contend that this defense even with Pollard, who stepped in and did very well, without Cushing playing out of his mind we would've had a Dick Smith defense.
Far as the running game goes for us Versus the Colts and Saints, the difference is that both of those team can score at will in the red zone. When we hit the redzone the offense tended to sputter and we had to settle for...all holding our breath when Kris Brown walks onto the field. 1st in passing yards but 17th in scoring. If that's not perspective, perhaps comparing the super bowl participants running games would help.

Texans running game put into perspective Joe Addai alone equaled the rushing touchdowns of all Texans running backs. Reggie freaking Bush would've been the rushing TD leader on the team. (Jeeze if that doesn't hurt I don't know what will)

We are not going to get into the playoffs without better production in the running game, specifically in the redzone.

Agreed with everything in your posts except the bolded. Your first two paragraphs totally contradict each other.

infantrycak
04-01-2010, 09:41 AM
When we hit the redzone the offense tended to sputter and we had to settle for...all holding our breath when Kris Brown walks onto the field. 1st in passing yards but 17th in scoring. If that's not perspective, perhaps comparing the super bowl participants running games would help.

Where did you get 17th? NFL.com is showing us 10 in ppg at 24.2 and without Brown sputtering (kicking as well as he did the two previous years we would have been in 8th with 25.6 ppg right behind Indy with 26 ppg.

Oh and completely disagree with last year's D being anything similar to Smith's. Pollard alone demonstrates the different philosophy as Smith would have misused Pollard and not allowed him to assist in run support as much.

threetoedpete
04-01-2010, 09:55 AM
If by "slow down" he helps us get a credible running game to give us more balance on offense then yes I hope he does.

Not jumping on you Joker, but...I mean with the same personnel, unless something radical happens, you are what you are. And what they were last year was a team who used the short passing game as a rushing attack. You could make the argument Will Shields will upgrade the pivot. I view him as insurance. You can make the argument that as a whole with another season under their belt they, the o-line will be better.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009091305/2009/REG1/jets@texans/analyze/box-score

Jets ran us out of the park with everyone healthy....and supposedly ready. 190 to 38. Color me skeptical. I'm taking the Thomas position, when I see it, a rushing attack, I will believe it.

Goldensilence
04-01-2010, 01:05 PM
Where did you get 17th? NFL.com is showing us 10 in ppg at 24.2 and without Brown sputtering (kicking as well as he did the two previous years we would have been in 8th with 25.6 ppg right behind Indy with 26 ppg.

Oh and completely disagree with last year's D being anything similar to Smith's. Pollard alone demonstrates the different philosophy as Smith would have misused Pollard and not allowed him to assist in run support as much.

Perhaps I was using an in season number. That shows lack of proper research done on my part. I admit that.

First of year looked pretty lost and didn't have what they needed far as personnel went. We got lucky KC cut Pollard and that no one signed him while we waited two weeks to make a move.

For clarification, I think having added someone who obviously has a clue of what a defense looks like helps a lot. I still contend that without Cushing playing possessed this defense would've given the same results of a Dick Smith defense. I guess the defining difference would've been well at least they looked like knew what they were doing.

The Pencil Neck
04-01-2010, 02:39 PM
Perhaps I was using an in season number. That shows lack of proper research done on my part. I admit that.

You were flashing back to two years ago when we had the 3rd ranked offense in terms of yards but the 17th ranked offense in terms of scoring. I felt like last year, they really solved most of their red zone issues. The play calling was more creative and Matt was better with the ball. We had far fewer turnovers in the red zone last year as opposed to the year before. They just had a few hiccups with punching it in from the 1 and a botched halfback pass. Other than that, they were pretty reliable.

infantrycak
04-02-2010, 10:49 AM
You were flashing back to two years ago when we had the 3rd ranked offense in terms of yards but the 17th ranked offense in terms of scoring. I felt like last year, they really solved most of their red zone issues. The play calling was more creative and Matt was better with the ball. We had far fewer turnovers in the red zone last year as opposed to the year before. They just had a few hiccups with punching it in from the 1 and a botched halfback pass. Other than that, they were pretty reliable.

Yeah Schaub and the passing attack were nails in the redzone last year. Schaub had a QB rating of 103 in the redzone with 21 TD's and 2 INT's. The rushing attack certainly failed at times.

For comparison on redzone attempts:

Schaub 80 att. 21 TDs
Manning (the real one) 78 att. 20 TDs
Brady 75 att. 16 TDs
Brees 87 att. 21 TDs

Rarified air.