PDA

View Full Version : Antoine Caldwell starting center(Not, but possibly starting RG)?


drs23
06-18-2010, 01:53 PM
From the Texans website:

(on who are the best three interior lineman) "(G Kasey) Studdard and (C Antoine) Caldwell didn't do anything not to lineup as a starter when we start, so that won't change. I think (G) Wade Smith is obviously going to push (C) Chris (Meyers) and both of them. I thought (G Mike) Brisiel, when he's healthy, he missed a little time in OTA's but when he's healthy, I think he plays as good as anybody so he's going to be a big part of the mix. Of course you've got(C) Chris White and you've got a young (G) Shelley (Smith). We're going to have to do a good job of mix and matching those guys so that it's very fair from a competitive standpoint. And we'll have to probably make a decision about week three of preseason of which way we're going to go so that they can settle down and work together."

I know alot of folks here are down on K Studdard but there have been many calls for AC to start at center in lieu of ragdoll. Sounds like Coack K is on the same page.

thunderkyss
06-18-2010, 01:59 PM
Nothing from your post suggests Caldwell will be moving to Center. Sounds like he will be our starting RG, Studdard will be our LG. Smith will battle Meyers for Center.

infantrycak
06-18-2010, 02:09 PM
Typo. Caldwell looks to be the starting RG.

Honoring Earl 34
06-18-2010, 02:20 PM
Typo. Caldwell looks to be the starting RG.

This is deja vu all over again .

drs23
06-18-2010, 02:32 PM
DOH! Well then who can ya trust?:gun:

Thorn
06-18-2010, 02:36 PM
This is deja vu all over again .

What??? Sage is coming back???

brakos82
06-18-2010, 02:38 PM
What??? Sage is coming back???

And DDW finally got his knee fixed?

badboy
06-18-2010, 02:52 PM
Lopez (I think) in recent article in Chronicle mentioned every O lineman but forgot or just left out the FA Wade Smith.

Goldensilence
06-18-2010, 04:12 PM
I'd be highly disappointed if our one "big" offseason addition to the team. Wade Smith, gets relegated to backup duty. Still not sure if Studdard has the athleticism you want in a LG, but hey that's Gary's call once again.

thunderkyss
06-18-2010, 04:17 PM
I'd be highly disappointed if our one "big" offseason addition to the team. Wade Smith, gets relegated to backup duty. Still not sure if Studdard has the athleticism you want in a LG, but hey that's Gary's call once again.

I honestly haven't seen an issue with his athleticism. I've always thought his problem was mental, strange decision making.

badboy
06-18-2010, 04:20 PM
I honestly haven't seen an issue with his athleticism. I've always thought his problem was mental, strange decision making.I have to agree. Hoping he will do better with more games under his belt.

TheRealJoker
06-18-2010, 05:26 PM
I really hope Caldwell nails down one of the interior OL spots. I was disappointed that our 3rd round all american from the SEC couldn't win a starting job last season after the starting OGs went down early in the season.

CloakNNNdagger
06-18-2010, 05:32 PM
I honestly haven't seen an issue with his athleticism. I've always thought his problem was mental, strange decision making.

Are we talking about Wade Smith or Kubiak?:backsout:

painekiller
06-18-2010, 05:40 PM
I'd be highly disappointed if our one "big" offseason addition to the team. Wade Smith, gets relegated to backup duty. Still not sure if Studdard has the athleticism you want in a LG, but hey that's Gary's call once again.

I say Smith was signed to be a backup. He was a backup in New York and he only played last year on a bad Chiefs OL. His contract is not huge, definitely not front line money. I see him here one season only.

He is here to upgrade the backup center and guard spots, at least for now.

infantrycak
06-18-2010, 07:50 PM
I see him here one season only.

They aren't paying him $6.25 mil to be a one year backup. Maybe a 3-4 year backup but not one year.

Norg
06-18-2010, 08:12 PM
Has long has myers is not center I cool with anyone

and I think brisles will reclaim his rg slot he was the starter last hear wk1 and will prob be it agian this wk1 but he's def on a short lease if his play drops

Goldensilence
06-18-2010, 08:43 PM
I say Smith was signed to be a backup. He was a backup in New York and he only played last year on a bad Chiefs OL. His contract is not huge, definitely not front line money. I see him here one season only.

He is here to upgrade the backup center and guard spots, at least for now.

If we wanted a one year backup at guard...why not just resign Pitts fora one year deal at a much more reasonable price?


They aren't paying him $6.25 mil to be a one year backup. Maybe a 3-4 year backup but not one year.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts Cak. That's a pretty expensive deal for a guy who is going to be a backup. If he can't make it past Studdard or supplant Myers at C IMO it's a bad signing.

I honestly haven't seen an issue with his athleticism. I've always thought his problem was mental, strange decision making.

Seems a bit stiff to me and more suited for a power man scheme, but hey i mean at this point whatever makes the team better. I'm just not sure, but that doesn't mean a whole lot other than an opinion.

thunderkyss
06-18-2010, 08:50 PM
If we wanted a one year backup at guard...why not just resign Pitts fora one year deal at a much more reasonable price?





Just my opinion, but I think Pitts was our biggest problem on the OL. I don't believe he wanted to be a ZBS guard. To me, he wanted to do a lot of pulling & power 0 stuff. As one of our few leaders, I think Kubiak put up with it. But when his start streak was over, AJ & Schaub stepped up, and it appeared Kubiak was getting his guys as much experience as he could (switching Caldwell & White every game), I knew Pitts wasn't ever going to start here again.

infantrycak
06-18-2010, 09:28 PM
Just my opinion, but I think Pitts was our biggest problem on the OL. I don't believe he wanted to be a ZBS guard. To me, he wanted to do a lot of pulling & power 0 stuff. As one of our few leaders, I think Kubiak put up with it. But when his start streak was over, AJ & Schaub stepped up, and it appeared Kubiak was getting his guys as much experience as he could (switching Caldwell & White every game), I knew Pitts wasn't ever going to start here again.

Pitts having a huge injury (he still isn't cleared medically) isn't a ratification of your IMO incorrect opinion that he wasn't good. Pitts was the best G this team has ever known. If we could have two Pitts at G and McKinney back at C then playoffs would be a virtual certainty this year.

JB
06-18-2010, 09:31 PM
Pitts having a huge injury (he still isn't cleared medically) isn't a ratification of your IMO incorrect opinion that he wasn't good. Pitts was the best G this team has ever known. If we could have two Pitts at G and McKinney back at C then playoffs would be a virtual certainty this year.

Wish I could rep ya for this post.

infantrycak
06-18-2010, 09:51 PM
Wish I could rep ya for this post.

It's the thought that counts.

gary
06-18-2010, 09:56 PM
It's the thought that counts.
Well, I threw you some anyway.

CloakNNNdagger
06-18-2010, 09:56 PM
Pitts having a huge injury (he still isn't cleared medically) isn't a ratification of your IMO incorrect opinion that he wasn't good. Pitts was the best G this team has ever known. If we could have two Pitts at G and McKinney back at C then playoffs would be a virtual certainty this year.

My feelings exactly. As much as some people would say that he increased Brown's burden, when he was healthy he propped Brown up and significantly covered his inadequacies. I still hope that if he passes his physical, the Texans may take another look at him.

lionlisa
06-18-2010, 10:01 PM
thanks for your thread

MojoMan
06-18-2010, 10:03 PM
thanks for your thread

If you want to thank him, give him some "rep". All you have to do is click the little scales in the bottom left corner of the post you want to give rep to.

JB
06-18-2010, 10:05 PM
My feelings exactly. As much as some people would say that he increased Brown's burden, when he was healthy he propped Brown up and significantly covered his inadequacies. I still hope that if he passes his physical, the Texans may take another look at him.

You and me both Doc!

infantrycak
06-18-2010, 10:15 PM
My feelings exactly. As much as some people would say that he increased Brown's burden, when he was healthy he propped Brown up and significantly covered his inadequacies. I still hope that if he passes his physical, the Texans may take another look at him.

I read somewhere (sorry I can't provide a link) that he will be cleared July 15th and hold an audition. Last statement from Pitts I heard was he was going to give the Texans an option to match any offer he received. We'll see. Maybe you could provide some insight on his injury. This has been a long rehab for a 30 year old guy (by NFL standards old).

CloakNNNdagger
06-18-2010, 11:00 PM
I read somewhere (sorry I can't provide a link) that he will be cleared July 15th and hold an audition. Last statement from Pitts I heard was he was going to give the Texans an option to match any offer he received. We'll see. Maybe you could provide some insight on his injury. This has been a long rehab for a 30 year old guy (by NFL standards old).

We don't have information of how extensive his cartilage damage was. Orthoscopic microfracture surgery, if applied to relatively localized cartilage damage can save select players from progressing the damage to having to undergo partial or total knee replacements. The "replacement" cartilage produced is not good quality normal cartilage. It is sort of a fibrous scar variant of cartilage......less durable than normal cartilage, but much better than no cartilage. Besides allowing more normal function, it may slow down the arthritic changes. It usually does not relieve all of the pain that was associated with the previously bone on bone affected segment, but it may relieve the grinding with joint movement, leaving the player with smoother motion and to only mostly deal with a more limited residual arthritic pain. If successful, and with a motivated player, it is possible they buy significant years in continued play. Again, it depends on the extent of the original damage. In Pitts' case, this seems to have been a relatively acute injury, which may imply that he just knocked off a chip of cartilage (a local injury). He did not have a history of long standing progressive knee problems (a chronic injury). That makes me much more encouraged that he can come back strong from his surgery. Only time will tell.

EDIT: The long rehab is a function of the procedure. While the new cartilage is growing from the marrow through the bone and migrating to cover the bare bone of the joint surface in a resurfacing fashion, movement and normal joint trauma must be avoided or else the freshly forming weak unestablish cartilage will be immediately brushed away. It takes a long time for the new fibrous cartilage to become firmly adhered and strong enough for simple function, and then even longer for the magnitude of football function..

CloakNNNdagger
06-18-2010, 11:05 PM
This is what Seattle recently wrote of Pitts last month.


Chester Pitts and the Seahawks (http://www.seahawkaddicts.com/2010-articles/may/chester-pitts-and-the-seahawks.html)


One of the few tidbits of Seahawks-related news lately (aside from the usual offseason shuffling of camp bodies) has been the linking of former Texans starting offensive guard Chester Pitts to Seattle as a possible free agent acquisition.

For those of you who aren't familiar with Pitts (he is an o-lineman, after all), or those of you who are only familiar with him through the Super Bowl XLII ad he starred in with teammate Ephraim Salaam, let's take a second to get to know the guy. Pitts entered the league in 2002 when he was drafted by the Houston Texans in their inaugural season. As the season wore on and the team slumped its way to a 4-12 finish, Pitts proved to be one of the very, very few players the team could rely upon, and over the next several years became a rock-solid mainstay on their offensive line.

His solid play is even more noteworthy when you consider that he was bounced between positions positions three times (left tackle in 2002-'03, left guard in 2004, back to LT in 2005, then back to LG in 2006-'09) and played for at least half a dozen different o-line coaches. No matter the situation, the guy has stayed in there and been effective.

Effective, that is, until week two of last season, when Pitts suffered a major knee injury during a divisional game against the Titans. Which, along with the microfracture surgery required to repair his knee, explains why a player this good is still a free agent in mid-May. So yes, he knows what he's doing, but he also turns 31 in late June and is trying to return from the exact same type of surgery that recently ended Walter Jones' career. I don't know about all of you, but I find that concerning.

In an article by Fox Sports Houston writer David Dalati, Pitts insists that his rehab is going well:

Pitts has been rehabilitating the knee for some seven months, hoping an NFL team will give him a chance. He is still not football ready, but he believes he will be once training camps open.

"The knee is doing great," Pitts says. "It's structurally sound. Because I had to be off it for nine weeks, it's kind of a deep hole you climb in to. It takes time to get it back strong. But I'd say it's about eighty five percent right now."

Pitts says the reality that football would be in his past crossed his mind. "When it first happened, I just wanted to walk again," says Pitts.

"But, as I got stronger and stronger . . . at about the six month mark, I knew . . . OK . . . I'm going to be fine."

Which is all well and good, but to Seahawks fans this all sounds eerily familiar to what we've heard in recent years from both Walter Jones and Marcus Tubbs before their rehab efforts failed and forced them into retirement.

Don't get me wrong, if his knee is sound Pitts would be a valuable addition to the team; not only is he a good lineman, he also has experience in Alex Gibbs' zone-blocking system. Better yet, he's intelligent enough to understand not just how Gibbs' ZBS works but also why it works, and he's able to teach that information to others, too. So even if he ended up as just a backup, he'd still be able to have a significant impact on how quickly the o-line picks up the new blocking scheme. Plus, judging from his recent tweets, he seems more than willing to put on a Seahawks uniform.

Chester Pitts is a proven NFL lineman, and he has experience in all the right places. But his injury situation also has the potential to make his addition to the team even shorter than Mike Wahle's one-and-done appearance on the roster. I guess we'll just have to hope that Seattle's team doctors know what they're doing if Carroll & co. decide to bring Pitts in for a visit.

JB
06-18-2010, 11:11 PM
This is what Seattle recently wrote of Pitts last month.


Chester Pitts and the Seahawks (http://www.seahawkaddicts.com/2010-articles/may/chester-pitts-and-the-seahawks.html)

I think that's pretty much spot on. And, if healthy, I hope the Texans bring him back.

thunderkyss
06-19-2010, 12:57 AM
Pitts having a huge injury (he still isn't cleared medically) isn't a ratification of your IMO incorrect opinion that he wasn't good. Pitts was the best G this team has ever known. If we could have two Pitts at G and McKinney back at C then playoffs would be a virtual certainty this year.

I never said Pitts wasn't good.

painekiller
06-19-2010, 01:10 AM
If we wanted a one year backup at guard...why not just resign Pitts fora one year deal at a much more reasonable price?

Pitts can only play guard, not center, and he is also a prototype LG, not a prototype RG. Smith on the other hand can backup all three spots, which is important. Smith, Caldwell, Brisiel, White and Myers can all play more than one position in the middle of the OL giving Dennison a lot of flexibility.


Pretty much sums up my thoughts Cak. That's a pretty expensive deal for a guy who is going to be a backup. If he can't make it past Studdard or supplant Myers at C IMO it's a bad signing.
Considering the open market this off season and the fact that Dennison had his sights on Smith his contract, IMO, is not out of line. But I will conceed that 6.25M for one year will be to much for a backup.

My answers are in red

steelbtexan
06-19-2010, 01:16 AM
What??? Sage is coming back???

We need another Sage>Schaub thread.

It's a long offseason.

76Texan
06-19-2010, 01:33 AM
They aren't paying him $6.25 mil to be a one year backup. Maybe a 3-4 year backup but not one year.

I thought he signed a four-year deal worths $12M, with $4.25M guaranteed?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6907083.html

The Cardinals signed Rex Hadnot to a 3-yr deal worth $9M and incentives that could bring it up to $12M (don't know the guaranteed portion).
Most likely, if he started all 16 games he would make more money.
Hadnot play both Gs & C.
But he's not guaranteed of a starting spot.
Even though all the guys he's going to compete against is earning less.
(Including Faneca who singned a one-yr deal for $2.5M; Sendlein and Lutui).

Goldensilence
06-19-2010, 02:12 AM
I never said Pitts wasn't good.

Well saying he's (in your opinion) the biggest problem on the line isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

My answers are in red

Look, all I am saying is if you sign the guy to a deal that has (reportedly) 6.25 million in signing bonuses and he's not REALLLY a threat for a starting spot. tThat's a bad deal IMO.

I'm not saying Pitts could play Right or left, but he's a proven LG who has been on the verge of a pro bowl invite, instead it looks like we're giving the spot to a stiff 6th round draft choice. This is also assuming via the OP article the RG spot is locked down by Caldwell. Which leaves C and LG up for grabs. Again which spot did Pitts play?

Again most smart teams don't pay 6.25 Mil for backups. I hope Wade Smith makes the starting rotation at ONE of the interior spots.

I thought he signed a four-year deal worths $12M, with $4.25M guaranteed?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6907083.html

The Cardinals signed Rex Hadnot to a 3-yr deal worth $9M and incentives that could bring it up to $12M (don't know the guaranteed portion).
Most likely, if he started all 16 games he would make more money.
Hadnot play both Gs & C.
But he's not guaranteed of a starting spot.
Even though all the guys he's going to compete against is earning less.
(Including Faneca who singned a one-yr deal for $2.5M; Sendlein and Lutui).


http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Texans-sign-Wade-Smith.html

I'm seeing 6.25 Million guaranteed.

Again if this cat isn't challenging or a lock for ONE of the STARTING spots it's a waste. Basically we've got Jordan Black 2.0 except on the interior.

infantrycak
06-19-2010, 09:51 AM
I never said Pitts wasn't good.

This has been addressed but saying someone is the biggest problem on the OL is a knock. He is the best OLmen we have ever had.

I thought he signed a four-year deal worths $12M, with $4.25M guaranteed?

Rotoworld says $6.25 guaranteed.

Goldensilence - the guaranteed money doesn't mean signing bonus. It may be very well that they guaranteed his first three years of salary rather than gave it as a signing bonus. The Texans and other teams have been moving to that form of contract. Jacque Reeves' guaranteed money was largely in guaranteed salaries rather than bonus.

Lucky
06-19-2010, 10:33 AM
I never said Pitts wasn't good.
But you did say...
Just my opinion, but I think Pitts was our biggest problem on the OL. I don't believe he wanted to be a ZBS guard.
If Pitts didn't want to be a ZBS guard, why would he have interest in joining the Seahawks? Whose o-line is converting to a ZBS under Alex Gibbs?

CloakNNNdagger
06-19-2010, 10:41 AM
But you did say...

If Pitts didn't want to be a ZBS guard, why would he have interest in joining the Seahawks? Whose o-line is converting to a ZBS under Alex Gibbs?

...........or interested in returning to the Texans?........

CloakNNNdagger
06-19-2010, 11:34 AM
I read somewhere (sorry I can't provide a link) that he will be cleared July 15th and hold an audition. Last statement from Pitts I heard was he was going to give the Texans an option to match any offer he received. We'll see. Maybe you could provide some insight on his injury. This has been a long rehab for a 30 year old guy (by NFL standards old).

After re-reading my response (above) to your post, I noticed that I really didn't address your last statement. When it comes to microfracture surgery, it is more the extent of cartilage damage than the age of the player that determines the success of the surgery. It's been pretty well accepted that players, who have limited extent of cartilage involvement (for which this surgery is meant) up to 40 years old can expect around a 75% chance to return to previous form (barring any other pathologic conditions that may exist). Once the surgery is performed, the player will be on crutches for anywhere from 6 to 8 weeks to avoid weight bearing. Then comes the fun part...........rehab. This is also where many players screw themselves up.............by trying to take shortcuts, cutting the rehab period and returning too soon. Rehab of this surgery is one of the most difficult of all rehabs. It requires persistent intense motivation, attention and effort. In fact, an athlete, young or "old," who is not willing to put in 6-8 hours time daily to their rehab for on average of 9-12 months have little chance of returning to the field with previous skills in tact and with expectations of being able to avoid return to street clothes if they ever do see the field again.

With that said, it sounds that Pitts is a smart guy and a smart player, and has shown a great deal of sweat and determination to make it into that 75% group.

infantrycak
06-19-2010, 12:29 PM
After re-reading my response (above) to your post, I noticed that I really didn't address your last statement.

Thanks for the response. My last statement was sloppy and connected two different subjects. Seemed like a long rehab - which you have addressed. And Pitts is turning 31 years old this month so while not particularly long in the tooth for an OLmen he is getting up there.

thunderkyss
06-19-2010, 05:07 PM
But you did say...

If Pitts didn't want to be a ZBS guard, why would he have interest in joining the Seahawks? Whose o-line is converting to a ZBS under Alex Gibbs?

I don't know. Has anyone else made him an offer? It could be that Seattle is the most interested, because they know he has experience in the system.

Well have to see what he does. If he's got serious issues with his knee, that we know about & no one else does (which I assume is the reason everyone but me believes is why he isn't coming back to Houston), I can't imagine Kubiak wouldn't share that information with his good friend Alex Gibbs. If Seattle allows him to do all the pulling and mauling we let him do the first year Gibbs was here... then what I said would still be true.

If he goes to Seattle, and they do the exact same thing we are doing (and they wouldn't be converting, as they have been running ZBS) then my story will be that getting cut was what it took to get his head on straight.

infantrycak
06-19-2010, 05:13 PM
Where did you get the idea he doesn't like ZBS in the first place?

eriadoc
06-19-2010, 05:25 PM
Total, unfounded speculation on my part, but I've also gotten the impression over the years that Pitts didn't want to do ZBS. It's just an impression I've gotten from various interviews, quotes in articles, etc. To me, he had the ability to be a Pro Bowl guy, but I don't think he quite wanted to give 110% for the cut blocks required to do ZBS most effectively.

I agree with Infantrycak; he's been our best OL ever, but I do get the impression he'd rather not do cut blocks. JMO *shrug*

infantrycak
06-19-2010, 05:50 PM
Total, unfounded speculation on my part, but I've also gotten the impression over the years that Pitts didn't want to do ZBS. It's just an impression I've gotten from various interviews, quotes in articles, etc. To me, he had the ability to be a Pro Bowl guy, but I don't think he quite wanted to give 110% for the cut blocks required to do ZBS most effectively.

I agree with Infantrycak; he's been our best OL ever, but I do get the impression he'd rather not do cut blocks. JMO *shrug*

He was a pro bowl alternate year before last. And you know that wasn't fans so players and coaches saw him as a good G.

Two things on the cut blocks. One the guards aren't required to do that near as much as the end guys, the tackles and TE's. I remember some quotes from him as well but I think they were in the Capers era and he was defending their trying to run ZBS without the cut blocks. Seemed more of a being a team player for the interview rather than a personal opinion. I don't recall anything from him once Gibbs got here and they put the whole scheme in place.

TimeKiller
06-19-2010, 05:50 PM
Another reason foiled by the 'why would he follow Gibbs to Seattle then?' line of thought. I think the Texans are comfortable letting him go, knowing he has a place that will give him a shot to get healthy. They have to start winning SOON and sinking a lot of money into a guy who will want a reeeeaalll good shot at starting coming off an injury isn't near as interesting as any of the rest of the players they've got in this maelstrom of C/G. If we see Studdard, Myers, Caldwell starting game 1...honestly I'll believe something went wrong. Can Myers' experience hold his spotty play off? Can Studdard out hustle his backup-who-got-a-shot status? Is Caldwell the real deal? What of the veteran Smith? What of the rookie Smith? Does Brisiel still have claim to RG after getting injured? Can White not pee himself? Compelling stuff.

Studdard should be a goalline FB.

thunderkyss
06-19-2010, 06:32 PM
He was a pro bowl alternate year before last. And you know that wasn't fans so players and coaches saw him as a good G.

Two things on the cut blocks. One the guards aren't required to do that near as much as the end guys, the tackles and TE's. I remember some quotes from him as well but I think they were in the Capers era and he was defending their trying to run ZBS without the cut blocks. Seemed more of a being a team player for the interview rather than a personal opinion. I don't recall anything from him once Gibbs got here and they put the whole scheme in place.

I haven't quite figured out what is Gibbs, what is Sherman, and what is Kubiak just yet. But I think Pitts was happiest when Sherman was here. He got to do, what he is really good at. Blocking man-on-man, overpowering and driving him down field, and pulling. When Gibbs got here, he was till doing a lot of pulling, and some man-on-man stuff. Last year, we made another change, and there was no pulling... at least not so much as having the LG pull, run around the right side, and beat the hell out of someone on the right side.

Every now and then, Winston is allowed to pull around the TE, but we didn't do much of that (that I remember) until the end of the year.

At the end of the 2008 season, during the 2009 preseason, and the beginning of the 2009 season, we were doing less and less pulling, until we pretty much put an end to it starting with the 2009 preseason. During that time, whenever we ran a zone stretch to the left, two things were guaranteed to happen. 1) Chester would not move laterally to his left. If he could move the man in front him past the LOS fast enough, everyone else was allowed to move laterally to the left, and it would "look" like everything worked the way it was supposed to. Or D.Brown or Myers would be blamed for not being able to handle their blocks. If Pitts couldn't move the guy vertically, there would be a pile of people starting where Pitts was, and there would be no hole for the RB to run through. 2) the other thing that would happen, is Winston would totally screw up his backside responsibility. He would just throw himself on the ground, making no "real" attempt at impeding the defensive player. Result would be no cutback lane.

Zone stretch to the right, Winston was/is a beast. The backside lane would be there more times than not, even though Pitts still would not move laterally. He would stand their blocking a guy, and get into D.Brown & the TEs way. If someone got in the backfield, most everyone would blame Myers, whose responsibility is almost never to block a defensive lineman.

If I remember right, once the season started, we ran more times than not, to the left. Which did not work most of the time. I assumed Kubiak was going to keep doing it, until Pitts started to do what he was supposed to do, & Winston started to do what he was supposed to do, and he was... I think he started to put a real effort into his cut blocks in the preseason. Every now and then, we would run to the right, and we would have big gains.

After Pitts went down, and Studdard took over, then Briesel went down, our OL played much better together. They didn't look good, I don't think until the Tennessee game on Monday night. There were holes to be ran through, but our fastest backs, Slaton & Moats had no vision. The Vision that Slaton had in 2008 was gone as well as his burst. I don't know why, but there were holes for him & Moats but they just didn't see them. Brown could see them, but he was way to slow to get to them. (looked like slow motion every time he got the ball) But you would see him getting 5 yards, 6 yards, 7 yards... (I'm not talking about the Tennessee game here, but the games after)because he saw the hole. Had Slaton or Moats been able to see those holes, those would have been 10, 20, 30 yard runs, even without Steve's previous burst.

I know, no one is going to agree with me, & no one is going to believe I'm sane. But I've been saying since 2008, that Myers is our most consistent OLman, Brisiel was our second. Brown was our third... & that's consistent at doing what Kubiak wanted them to do. Never mind what we think or want our OL to do.

Pitts, IMHO was the biggest, the strongest, the quickest, best feet, best hands... he was the best athlete of the bunch. When Kubiak said he had what it took to be a pro-bowl LG, I don't think he was lying, or blowing smoke.

But I don't think Pitts ever got with the program, and I speculate, Sherman ruined him (for the ZBS). Because what Sherman wanted him to do, worked, and it worked very well for Chester.

infantrycak
06-19-2010, 06:58 PM
After Pitts went down, and Studdard took over, then Briesel went down, our OL played much better together.

Well yeah I guess I will throw you in the crazy pot. The 2008 OL with Pitts and Briesel was clearly superior to the 2009 OL. I don't know where you are pulling all this pulling from. Even with Sherman the Texans very very rarely pulled guards. We were not a power blocking team when Sherman was here. We mixed in a few power blocking plays. Even then, almost none were pulling plays. I also think your description of Pitts not moving laterally is inaccurate.

JB
06-19-2010, 07:05 PM
Well yeah I guess I will throw you in the crazy pot. The 2008 OL with Pitts and Briesel was clearly superior to the 2009 OL. I don't know where you are pulling all this pulling from. Even with Sherman the Texans very very rarely pulled guards. We were not a power blocking team when Sherman was here. We mixed in a few power blocking plays. Even then, almost none were pulling plays. I also think your description of Pitts not moving laterally is inaccurate.

I'm still trying to figure out which games he was watching. Pittsburgh maybe?

thunderkyss
06-19-2010, 08:05 PM
Well yeah I guess I will throw you in the crazy pot. The 2008 OL with Pitts and Briesel was clearly superior to the 2009 OL. I don't know where you are pulling all this pulling from. Even with Sherman the Texans very very rarely pulled guards. We were not a power blocking team when Sherman was here. We mixed in a few power blocking plays. Even then, almost none were pulling plays. I also think your description of Pitts not moving laterally is inaccurate.

That's fine. I know what I saw.

In the meantime, it doesn't make sense to anyone else, why Studdard is being touted as the starter at LG, and Chester Pitts is looking for home. The best OLman in Texans history... & I'll bet you money we won't attempt to match any offer he gets from anyone.

CloakNNNdagger
06-19-2010, 08:14 PM
For what it's worth, in 2008, ProFootballFocus (http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2008&pos=G&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1)rated Pitts at LG at #2 of 74 Gs for pass blocking, and #70 for run blocking.

Mike Briesel at LG in 2008 rated #65 for pass blocking and #17 for run blocking. In 2009 Studdard took over LG. I don't even want to tell you about Studard............but I will............in 2009, at LG he rated #74 of 84 for pass blocking and #70 for run blocking.:gun:

infantrycak
06-19-2010, 08:21 PM
The best OLman in Texans history... & I'll bet you money we won't attempt to match any offer he gets from anyone.

It's not like he is healthy and waiting for some team to call him. He isn't even ready to attempt a medical or a workout yet. The team has to operate as if he will not be back. Even if he was as I think the best OLmen in Texans history that doesn't mean he returns to the NFL or his former level.

Rey
06-19-2010, 08:36 PM
That's fine. I know what I saw.

Not talking about you specifically, but sometimes I think that fans who aren't entirely familar with ZBS may think they see something when it's not actually there...

Even when a team is running zone plays, they sometimes end up looking like man because of what the players on defense are doing...

Unless you are sitting there watchin film with the team and the OL it is very hard to determine what is happening on any given play from a blocking standpoint...For one, we don't always know what they are supposed to be doing, and two...We just don't/can't see everything..

If the defense runs a stunt, or if they are lined up a certain way a call may be made where it changes two players assignments (for ex. LT and LG) while the remainder of the line stays the same. That's not even taking into account when an OL has a mental bust and does the wrong thing...We may see an OL do something and say that the coaches are dumb for designing a blocking scheme like that, when in actually one or two of them may have just done the wrong thing...As a fan simply observing, it is hard to decipher all of that...

I played LT in a ZBS scheme in highschool and college and I have learned a whole lot about it, and just OL play in general...

Again, I'm not calling you out, but rather just making a general observation/comment about what I believe to be the state of some fans perspective on watching film and and making concrete determinations...

thunderkyss
06-19-2010, 08:41 PM
I played LT in a ZBS scheme in highschool and college and I have learned a whole lot about it, and just OL play in general...


So from what you saw, & what you know, what do you think?

Rey
06-19-2010, 09:13 PM
So from what you saw, & what you know, what do you think?

Honestly, I stopped re-watching games from the Texans about 4 years ago...Life just got busy...

But just from what I remember I do re-call them being more power oriented under Sherman...In fact, I think that I remember Kubiak saying something like after Sherman left he wanted to go more towards his own system...

What that means, I dunno...


Side note: There are different kinds of Zone plays...There is inside Zone, and there is outside zone...

Inside Zone looks a lot like power on the frontside and often times ends up basically becoming power..But because it is still actually zone, the O-line has more flexibility in how they block it, but to the RB it will often look the same...There isn't a lot of thinking for RB's comparatively speaking...The hole should be there and if it isn't it is because the defense has stunted/slanted/lined up a certain way which means that the cutback should be there...Pass pro for RB's is a different story...that can be pretty difficult for everyone...

We had an inside Zone play called '45' which was basically designed to hit right behind the LT..

As the tackle you are supposed to have the DE in a basic 4-3, and the guard is ideally supposed to have the DT or MLB...Full back comes through and takes first threat which should be OLB...

When you Zone block your first step will normally be towards the play side...

Ok so picture this...

Gaurd steps left expecting to block DT that is lined up on him, but DT slants toward the center (Now if this were man, guard may be require to chase center and wash him down)...Guard feels DT slant, Center's first step is also to the left with a feeler (hand) out just incase DT slants....Now because the DT slants/stunts inside, as an O-lineman you are expecting someone to take his place because defenses aren't in the habbit of just leaving gaping holes....

So...Gaurd keeps going on his tracks, passes DT off to Center, and now the person that has taken the DT's gap assignment is the MLB...That now becomes the LG's man...O-line really didn't do anything but block the man that came to them...Our coach used to tell us that no matter what the defense did, because we Zone blocked, they should always be wrong...

Now picture this....

DE lined up inside and the OLB walked up to the LOS (like you often see in a 3-4) then we had a call where I would Tell the guard that I'm gonna go get the OLB that has walked up, so you have to block out the DE...That also means that the FB's block has changed...Also, the same play can be run out of different sets and to different strengths(can run the play to the TE or away from him), so if we're in two tight with no full back that changes a lot as well...

That is all very, very,very, very simplified....

There is so much going on for any given play and I don't know if people really realize how hard it is to just mentally get it all down...The calls you have, and they way you block a play will probably change from week to week based on what defense the other team plays and what kind of stunts you see on film and what their personnel is...Some teams may not want RB's to pick up a certain player in pass pro so you make sure your OL accounts for him and the RB gets who ever is left (like you may not ever want your RB to pick up Demarcus Ware or Mario Williams, but you may be ok with them picking up other DE's or OLB's in pass pro)...

In college we didn't ever want out RB's to have to pick up or cut DE's in pass pro, but sometimes they were forced to if the defense showed a look that meant they were bringing a lot of pressure inside...That means that the O-line has to pick that up becuase if the QB is under center there is no way the RB can get there in time (which means the O-line has to pick up that inside pressure and the running back may get stuck on a DE or OLB that you didn't want them to get; which is why you want to try to stay away from situations where he'd have to do so)...But if he was in shotgun, then we'd let the RB get go ahead and get a blitzer coming up the middle sometimes...That means the O-line has to know almost ever detail of the play from how long it takes to develop (timing) to just knowing where everyone is lined up...

Now I'm just talking college and highschool stuff...I had some really awesome coaches, but I know that the NFL is a whole different ballgame...Some things really are as simple as they look, but most of the time it's not...I consider myself fairly bright (I would sometimes suggest calls or tell the coach how we should block a certain defense), but I had some teammates that could never fully put the puzzle together in their head, and they were actually in all the meetings and watching all the film and going to all the practices...

Rey
06-19-2010, 09:42 PM
One more thing....

If you want to differentiate between various plays, try not to watch the O-line...As I described above, the o-linemen have a bunch of different ways they can block a play...They can run the same play many times in a row, but based on what the defense does their blocking could change...

If you want to seriously look at film, look at the backfield action because that never changes...There may be other plays with similar backfield action just to keep defenses honest (for ex: bootlegs, and actual running plays) but most times the backfield action is a plays fingerprint...

JB
06-19-2010, 10:04 PM
Honestly, I stopped re-watching games from the Texans about 4 years ago...Life just got busy...

But just from what I remember I do re-call them being more power oriented under Sherman...In fact, I think that I remember Kubiak saying something like after Sherman left he wanted to go more towards his own system...

What that means, I dunno...


Side note: There are different kinds of Zone plays...There is inside Zone, and there is outside zone...

Inside Zone looks a lot like power on the frontside and often times ends up basically becoming power..But because it is still actually zone, the O-line has more flexibility in how they block it, but to the RB it will often look the same...There isn't a lot of thinking for RB's comparatively speaking...The hole should be there and if it isn't it is because the defense has stunted/slanted/lined up a certain way which means that the cutback should be there...Pass pro for RB's is a different story...that can be pretty difficult for everyone...

We had an inside Zone play called '45' which was basically designed to hit right behind the LT..

As the tackle you are supposed to have the DE in a basic 4-3, and the guard is ideally supposed to have the DT or MLB...Full back comes through and takes first threat which should be OLB...

When you Zone block your first step will normally be towards the play side...

Ok so picture this...

Gaurd steps left expecting to block DT that is lined up on him, but DT slants toward the center (Now if this were man, guard may be require to chase center and wash him down)...Guard feels DT slant, Center's first step is also to the left with a feeler (hand) out just incase DT slants....Now because the DT slants/stunts inside, as an O-lineman you are expecting someone to take his place because defenses aren't in the habbit of just leaving gaping holes....

So...Gaurd keeps going on his tracks, passes DT off to Center, and now the person that has taken the DT's gap assignment is the MLB...That now becomes the LG's man...O-line really didn't do anything but block the man that came to them...Our coach used to tell us that no matter what the defense did, because we Zone blocked, they should always be wrong...

Now picture this....

DE lined up inside and the OLB walked up to the LOS (like you often see in a 3-4) then we had a call where I would Tell the guard that I'm gonna go get the OLB that has walked up, so you have to block out the DE...That also means that the FB's block has changed...Also, the same play can be run out of different sets and to different strengths(can run the play to the TE or away from him), so if we're in two tight with no full back that changes a lot as well...

That is all very, very,very, very simplified....

There is so much going on for any given play and I don't know if people really realize how hard it is to just mentally get it all down...The calls you have, and they way you block a play will probably change from week to week based on what defense the other team plays and what kind of stunts you see on film and what their personnel is...Some teams may not want RB's to pick up a certain player in pass pro so you make sure your OL accounts for him and the RB gets who ever is left (like you may not ever want your RB to pick up Demarcus Ware or Mario Williams, but you may be ok with them picking up other DE's or OLB's in pass pro)...

In college we didn't ever want out RB's to have to pick up or cut DE's in pass pro, but sometimes they were forced to if the defense showed a look that meant they were bringing a lot of pressure inside...That means that the O-line has to pick that up becuase if the QB is under center there is no way the RB can get there in time (which means the O-line has to pick up that inside pressure and the running back may get stuck on a DE or OLB that you didn't want them to get; which is why you want to try to stay away from situations where he'd have to do so)...But if he was in shotgun (which we had to know), then we'd let the RB get go ahead and get a blitzer coming up the middle sometimes...That means the O-line has to know almost ever detail of the play from how long it takes to develop (timing) to just knowing where everyone is lined up...

Now I'm just talking college and highschool stuff...I had some really awesome coaches, but I know that the NFL is a whole different ballgame...Some things really are as simple as they look, but most of the time it's not...I consider myself fairly bright (I would sometimes suggest calls or tell the coach how we should block a certain defense), but I had some teammates that could never fully put the puzzle together in their head, and they were actually in all the meetings and watching all the film and going to all the practices...

Wow, Rey! Thanks. I think I learned a lot there.

Rey
06-19-2010, 10:07 PM
Wow, Rey! Thanks. I think I learned a lot there.

No problem...

I'm not an NFL coach and I'm not connected with the Texans so I won't pretend that I know exactly what they are doing or what they are thinking...

That said, I won't shy away from what I do know and anytime I can share some knowledge I will be happy to do so :)

CloakNNNdagger
06-19-2010, 10:17 PM
Honestly, I stopped re-watching games from the Texans about 4 years ago...Life just got busy...

But just from what I remember I do re-call them being more power oriented under Sherman...In fact, I think that I remember Kubiak saying something like after Sherman left he wanted to go more towards his own system...

What that means, I dunno...


Side note: There are different kinds of Zone plays...There is inside Zone, and there is outside zone...

Inside Zone looks a lot like power on the frontside and often times ends up basically becoming power..But because it is still actually zone, the O-line has more flexibility in how they block it, but to the RB it will often look the same...There isn't a lot of thinking for RB's comparatively speaking...The hole should be there and if it isn't it is because the defense has stunted/slanted/lined up a certain way which means that the cutback should be there...Pass pro for RB's is a different story...that can be pretty difficult for everyone...

We had an inside Zone play called '45' which was basically designed to hit right behind the LT..

As the tackle you are supposed to have the DE in a basic 4-3, and the guard is ideally supposed to have the DT or MLB...Full back comes through and takes first threat which should be OLB...

When you Zone block your first step will normally be towards the play side...

Ok so picture this...

Gaurd steps left expecting to block DT that is lined up on him, but DT slants toward the center (Now if this were man, guard may be require to chase center and wash him down)...Guard feels DT slant, Center's first step is also to the left with a feeler (hand) out just incase DT slants....Now because the DT slants/stunts inside, as an O-lineman you are expecting someone to take his place because defenses aren't in the habbit of just leaving gaping holes....

So...Gaurd keeps going on his tracks, passes DT off to Center, and now the person that has taken the DT's gap assignment is the MLB...That now becomes the LG's man...O-line really didn't do anything but block the man that came to them...Our coach used to tell us that no matter what the defense did, because we Zone blocked, they should always be wrong...

Now picture this....

DE lined up inside and the OLB walked up to the LOS (like you often see in a 3-4) then we had a call where I would Tell the guard that I'm gonna go get the OLB that has walked up, so you have to block out the DE...That also means that the FB's block has changed...Also, the same play can be run out of different sets and to different strengths(can run the play to the TE or away from him), so if we're in two tight with no full back that changes a lot as well...

That is all very, very,very, very simplified....

There is so much going on for any given play and I don't know if people really realize how hard it is to just mentally get it all down...The calls you have, and they way you block a play will probably change from week to week based on what defense the other team plays and what kind of stunts you see on film and what their personnel is...Some teams may not want RB's to pick up a certain player in pass pro so you make sure your OL accounts for him and the RB gets who ever is left (like you may not ever want your RB to pick up Demarcus Ware or Mario Williams, but you may be ok with them picking up other DE's or OLB's in pass pro)...

In college we didn't ever want out RB's to have to pick up or cut DE's in pass pro, but sometimes they were forced to if the defense showed a look that meant they were bringing a lot of pressure inside...That means that the O-line has to pick that up becuase if the QB is under center there is no way the RB can get there in time (which means the O-line has to pick up that inside pressure and the running back may get stuck on a DE or OLB that you didn't want them to get; which is why you want to try to stay away from situations where he'd have to do so)...But if he was in shotgun, then we'd let the RB get go ahead and get a blitzer coming up the middle sometimes...That means the O-line has to know almost ever detail of the play from how long it takes to develop (timing) to just knowing where everyone is lined up...

Now I'm just talking college and highschool stuff...I had some really awesome coaches, but I know that the NFL is a whole different ballgame...Some things really are as simple as they look, but most of the time it's not...I consider myself fairly bright (I would sometimes suggest calls or tell the coach how we should block a certain defense), but I had some teammates that could never fully put the puzzle together in their head, and they were actually in all the meetings and watching all the film and going to all the practices...

Very interesting posts.

What changes, if any, occured in the Red Zone?

JB
06-19-2010, 10:17 PM
No problem...

I'm not an NFL coach and I'm not connected with the Texans so I won't pretend that I know exactly what they are doing or what they are thinking...

That said, I won't shy away from what I do know and anytime I can share some knowledge I will be happy to do so :)

That's what it is all about bro, and why most of us are here I think. Besides loving the Texans and Houston, Texas

Rey
06-19-2010, 10:38 PM
Very interesting posts.

What changes, if any, occured in the Red Zone?

That is funny that you mention that because I kid you not...we initially sucked in short yardage situations and used to eat people alive in between the twenties...

I was the biggest O-lineman on my high school team at 6'4 320ish...Going into my senior year my coach told me he wanted me to lose weight because our system was not built for linemen over 300lbs...Our guards were probably about 220, 230 ish..

Just thinking back, it seems that we struggled when we tried to overpower guys in short yardage situations...I remember one time we got stopped on fourth and inches...My coach was so damn mad...He said that we would never get stopped in that situation again and in those situations he had us get in four point stances, lean forward and burrow defensive linemen off the ball...

But even after all of that, to me, it seemed like we did better in the redzone when we ran outside zone stuff, instead of trying to bang it up the middle...We were able to use our OL's athleticism and beat teams to the edges...plus we had a good RB that was good at making a good cut and squeezing into the creases to get that yard...Our best shortyardage back was our starter who was lightning quick but was about 5'7" 160ish and I think I'm being generous...

In college I was considered kind of small...I ended up working out extremely hard that summer right before college and I got down to about 305 then lost more weight in camp and was considered smallish...We blocked a little differently in college and didn't run what I'd call a pure ZBS although we did a fair amount of zone blocking...Guys were also bigger so we didn't struggle as much in short yardage, but we didn't move it as well in between the twenties either...

CloakNNNdagger
06-19-2010, 11:11 PM
That is funny that you mention that because I kid you not...we initially sucked in short yardage situations and used to eat people alive in between the twenties...

I was the biggest O-lineman on my high school team at 6'4 320ish...Going into my senior year my coach told me he wanted me to lose weight because our system was not built for linemen over 300lbs...Our guards were probably about 220, 230 ish..

Just thinking back, it seems that we struggled when we tried to overpower guys in short yardage situations...I remember one time we got stopped on fourth and inches...My coach was so damn mad...He said that we would never get stopped in that situation again and in those situations he had us get in four point stances, lean forward and burrow defensive linemen off the ball...

But even after all of that, to me, it seemed like we did better in the redzone when we ran outside zone stuff, instead of trying to bang it up the middle...We were able to use our OL's athleticism and beat teams to the edges...plus we had a good RB that was good at making a good cut and squeezing into the creases to get that yard...Our best shortyardage back was our starter who was lightning quick but was about 5'7" 160ish and I think I'm being generous...

In college I was considered kind of small...I ended up working out extremely hard that summer right before college and I got down to about 305 then lost more weight in camp and was considered smallish...We blocked a little differently in college and didn't run what I'd call a pure ZBS although we did a fair amount of zone blocking...Guys were also bigger so we didn't struggle as much in short yardage, but we didn't move it as well in between the twenties either...

Sounds like your HS experience mirrors that of the Texans. And the Texans do not appear to have a solidly thought out game plan once they reach the Red Zone that consistently offers them a decent chance to score with the talent they are dealt. It's more of a "pot luck, let's see how this works this time."

76Texan
06-20-2010, 03:37 AM
One more thing....

If you want to differentiate between various plays, try not to watch the O-line...As I described above, the o-linemen have a bunch of different ways they can block a play...They can run the same play many times in a row, but based on what the defense does their blocking could change...

If you want to seriously look at film, look at the backfield action because that never changes...There may be other plays with similar backfield action just to keep defenses honest (for ex: bootlegs, and actual running plays) but most times the backfield action is a plays fingerprint...

Multiple reps for sharing!

And I shouldn't challenge anything here, for I believe it "rings a bell" universally.

At the same time, I will reread you posts again (1) to learn, (2) to ask question, and (3) probably I will challenge on a certain detail, K!

These are the kinds of posts that I would study from, not to dismiss others, but hey but hey but hey (not a mistype) I love football!

76Texan
06-20-2010, 03:51 AM
Well yeah I guess I will throw you in the crazy pot. The 2008 OL with Pitts and Briesel was clearly superior to the 2009 OL. I don't know where you are pulling all this pulling from. Even with Sherman the Texans very very rarely pulled guards. We were not a power blocking team when Sherman was here. We mixed in a few power blocking plays. Even then, almost none were pulling plays. I also think your description of Pitts not moving laterally is inaccurate.

Chester Pitts was a main-stay when we pulled LG, and we did it a few, and we were pretty good at that.

I think you had a worse case of dementia than me, or I would have to pull up some old tapes (which I still have).

Maybe I will push my luck and try my own Alzheimer, I don't think we pulled RG (I could be wong!)

TK knows I'm a thousand per cent with him in that Pitts was not willing and therefore not effective in the cut block, which is very important to the ZBS.

Wade Smith, on the other hand, is a very willling and efficient cut-blocker.
I think I say enough!

infantrycak
06-20-2010, 10:28 AM
Chester Pitts was a main-stay when we pulled LG, and we did it a few, and we were pretty good at that.

The bold is agreement rather than disagreement. It was never the mainstay of our rushing offense.

TK knows I'm a thousand per cent with him in that Pitts was not willing and therefore not effective in the cut block, which is very important to the ZBS.

Well then one of you should be able to dig up a quote to back that up. The Texans were not willing cut blockers under Capers. They publicly said they would not be. An OLmen repeating that is toeing the company line. Where is there anything during the Gibbs tenure indicating Pitts wasn't willing to do what was required?

dalemurphy
06-20-2010, 10:44 AM
The bold is agreement rather than disagreement. It was never the mainstay of our rushing offense.



Well then one of you should be able to dig up a quote to back that up. The Texans were not willing cut blockers under Capers. They publicly said they would not be. An OLmen repeating that is toeing the company line. Where is there anything during the Gibbs tenure indicating Pitts wasn't willing to do what was required?


Watch the tape. He simply wouldn't do it in 2008. He never left his feet on the backside running plays. He would just try and get accross their face and seal them off. I literally never saw him cut on the backside one time. When I would review the games, I would look for it. Didn't happen!

infantrycak
06-20-2010, 11:12 AM
Watch the tape. He simply wouldn't do it in 2008. He never left his feet on the backside running plays. He would just try and get accross their face and seal them off. I literally never saw him cut on the backside one time. When I would review the games, I would look for it. Didn't happen!

Well I think that misapprehends the ZBS which does not require the LG to cut block every time the team runs right. As long as he has control of his man there is no call for a cut block. It's a flow system. And generally Pitts had his man flowing where he wanted him to. And as I recall, we had a pretty good rushing game in 2008.

thunderkyss
06-20-2010, 11:20 AM
One more thing....

If you want to seriously look at film, look at the backfield action because that never changes...There may be other plays with similar backfield action just to keep defenses honest (for ex: bootlegs, and actual running plays) but most times the backfield action is a plays fingerprint...


The last episode of NFL Networks Total Access They have the Vikings Eric Bieniemy laying into Adrian Peterson. He would say things like, "your first step is excellent" then, "I love your first two steps", then there was another time where he & AD said the first two steps are supposed to sync the back with the OL.

Does anyone know what this is about?

thunderkyss
06-20-2010, 12:56 PM
Well then one of you should be able to dig up a quote to back that up. The Texans were not willing cut blockers under Capers. They publicly said they would not be. An OLmen repeating that is toeing the company line. Where is there anything during the Gibbs tenure indicating Pitts wasn't willing to do what was required?

You believe Chester Pitts was the best OL we've had in Texans history.

I agree.

I predict our 2010 OL will be better than any OL we've seen since the 2006 Atlanta Falcons.

IMHO, I think we got it wrong about McNair & Carr... I think the deal included Dunta, TJ, AJ, DD, and Pitts... & I think that is why it has taken longer than most of us expected to turn this team around.

CloakNNNdagger
06-20-2010, 01:04 PM
The last episode of NFL Networks Total Access They have the Vikings Eric Bieniemy laying into Adrian Peterson. He would say things like, "your first step is excellent" then, "I love your first two steps", then there was another time where he & AD said the first two steps are supposed to sync the back with the OL.

Does anyone know what this is about?

The first two steps should allow for the OL to establish their block. This should be in sync with the RB..........after which the RB makes his cut.

76Texan
06-20-2010, 10:04 PM
Well I think that misapprehends the ZBS which does not require the LG to cut block every time the team runs right. As long as he has control of his man there is no call for a cut block. It's a flow system. And generally Pitts had his man flowing where he wanted him to. And as I recall, we had a pretty good rushing game in 2008.
When Pitts attempt a cut block, he would lay down at the feet of the defender rather go for the thigh. This would force the DT to backpedal instead of simply jump over Pitts to continue his pursuit.

No, the O-linemen/TE are not asked to cut block everytime.
But they are required to do it from time to time for the ZBS to work most efficiently.

thunderkyss
06-20-2010, 10:13 PM
When Pitts attempt a cut block, he would lay down at the feet of the defender rather go for the thigh. This would force the DT to backpedal instead of simply jump over Pitts to continue his pursuit.


This is also the way Winston would perform his cut block, Being that it was the same as Pitts, I would blame Pitts...

If they are being told to shoot for the knees, I can understand a lineman having issues with it. But shoot for the thighs, or the hips... there shouldn't be a problem.

76Texan
06-20-2010, 10:19 PM
BTW, here's one of our players talking about some of the more important things in zone blocking:


"It's all about movement," Brown said. "It's not just about brute strength. It's (about) being fast and getting up to the second level quickly and being able to cut guys. And that helps me a lot because that's my kind of game. I'm an athletic left tackle."

http://www.houstontexans.com/news/Story.asp?story_id=4318

Actually, from the Texans Today feed, Brown said "It's all about movement. It's not (at) all about brute strength but rather being fast and getting to the second level etc.

http://www.houstontexans.com/podcasts/texans-today.xml

76Texan
06-20-2010, 10:43 PM
This is also the way Winston would perform his cut block, Being that it was the same as Pitts, I would blame Pitts...

If they are being told to shoot for the knees, I can understand a lineman having issues with it. But shoot for the thighs, or the hips... there shouldn't be a problem.

A lot of times, there are differences with Winston and Pitts.
Most often, Pitts would be cut blocking a DT who rarely lined up inside; therefore, Pitts did not have stretch to make the block like Winston normally had to.

We often optioned the LDE who lined up outside of Winston (or have the TE blocking the LDE).
Winston had to reach to get to the DT who either lined up on the RG or outside the RG. He had more distance to cover before he can get to the defender. Quite a few times he couldn't get there and so he simply lunged and often ended up at their feet.

JB
06-20-2010, 11:21 PM
A lot of times, there are differences with Winston and Pitts.
Most often, Pitts would be cut blocking a DT who rarely lined up inside; therefore, Pitts did not have stretch to make the block like Winston normally had to.

We often optioned the LDE who lined up outside of Winston (or have the TE blocking the LDE).
Winston had to reach to get to the DT who either lined up on the RG or outside the RG. He had more distance to cover before he can get to the defender. Quite a few times he couldn't get there and so he simply lunged and often ended up at their feet.


:confused:

76Texan
06-20-2010, 11:35 PM
:confused:

We = the Texans (as in our team)
The LDE lined up on the RT

JB
06-21-2010, 12:06 AM
We = the Texans (as in our team)
The LDE lined up on the RT

So we didn't really option the LDE?

76Texan
06-21-2010, 12:15 AM
So we didn't really option the LDE?

Sometimes we do, but normally we don't.

JB
06-21-2010, 12:35 AM
So we didn't really option the LDE?

Sometimes we do, but normally we don't.

I guess I just don't understand how we ever option the DE when we are on offense!?

76Texan
06-21-2010, 12:56 AM
I guess I just don't understand how we ever option the DE when we are on offense!?

We optioned the opponents' DE from time to time.

Let's say if we call an outside zone run (outside Duane Brown, for example).
Since the LDE is on the back side of the play and too far away from the RB, we leave him (the LDE) unblocked. This way, we have more blockers near the POA.

Or if we call a bottleg with MS rolled out to his right.
We could fake a run to our left, and leave the LDE unblocked just the same.
It's dangerous, but it's how we "make" the two plays look the same to the LDE.
One of the play was a run, and one was a pass, but the LDE was optioned just the same.
We might not get a good result from the run, but if we do a good job selling it to the LDE, MS could have a good time throwing a long pass later on during the game.

drs23
06-21-2010, 11:46 AM
Hello all,

Since I started this thread because of a typo I thought this might be the correct place to put this rather than starting a new one.

I must admit I'm one who was more unfamiliar with ZBS than I *thought* I was. I spent some time Saturday and most of the day Sunday reading most everything I could find and there was ALOT! I now can see (for the most part)why it works when it does and why it doesn't if penetration is allowed. I'm more in line now with the comments made by posters regarding playing so many 3-4 teams this year as one of the clips was our very own Eric Winston detailing some of the problems presented by same.

One constant that kept coming up was the cut block which is the mechanism used to seal the edge. I've read here and elsewhere that was a reason that Chester Pitts didn't like the system. A coach or two made comments similar. I don't recall seeing an increase in knee injuries to DTs, DEs, or LBs due to the cut blocking and it seems to me if that were the case the play-by-play and color guys would be all over it. Can anyone here point out any specific known instances? Is there a real case for this line of thought or because it's different than what us old guys knew growing up? I ask because some of the "old school" coaches came across leaving me with the impression that it was, not sure how to word this, a softer way to play? more finess perhaps than old smash mouth 3 yards and a puddle of blood kinda play. At the expense of exposing my ignorance is this a correct take on ZBS 101?

76Texan
06-21-2010, 02:10 PM
Hello all,

Since I started this thread because of a typo I thought this might be the correct place to put this rather than starting a new one.

I must admit I'm one who was more unfamiliar with ZBS than I *thought* I was. I spent some time Saturday and most of the day Sunday reading most everything I could find and there was ALOT! I now can see (for the most part)why it works when it does and why it doesn't if penetration is allowed. I'm more in line now with the comments made by posters regarding playing so many 3-4 teams this year as one of the clips was our very own Eric Winston detailing some of the problems presented by same.

One constant that kept coming up was the cut block which is the mechanism used to seal the edge. I've read here and elsewhere that was a reason that Chester Pitts didn't like the system. A coach or two made comments similar. I don't recall seeing an increase in knee injuries to DTs, DEs, or LBs due to the cut blocking and it seems to me if that were the case the play-by-play and color guys would be all over it. Can anyone here point out any specific known instances? Is there a real case for this line of thought or because it's different than what us old guys knew growing up? I ask because some of the "old school" coaches came across leaving me with the impression that it was, not sure how to word this, a softer way to play? more finess perhaps than old smash mouth 3 yards and a puddle of blood kinda play. At the expense of exposing my ignorance is this a correct take on ZBS 101?

The thing is that with cut blocking, when a guy missed the thigh pads, he may end up at the knees, whether in front or on the side or in the back.

Even Mario Williams didn't like it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/126/texans-ready-to-cut-block-take-flack

Rey
06-21-2010, 02:18 PM
I ask because some of the "old school" coaches came across leaving me with the impression that it was, not sure how to word this, a softer way to play? more finess perhaps than old smash mouth 3 yards and a puddle of blood kinda play.

I think that it depends on the individual players. If the guys up front are nasty they thats who they are and thats how they'll play. IMO, the scheme is far more effective if the players up front are nasty...but that could be said about any position on the field...

thunderkyss
06-21-2010, 02:28 PM
The thing is that with cut blocking, when a guy missed the thigh pads, he may end up at the knees, whether in front or on the side or in the back.

Even Mario Williams didn't like it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/126/texans-ready-to-cut-block-take-flack

Travis Johnson didn't like it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egbiNFcY4fI&feature=related)

drs23
06-21-2010, 02:35 PM
Thanks 76Texan, didn't see that one.

infantrycak
06-21-2010, 03:17 PM
The thing is that with cut blocking, when a guy missed the thigh pads, he may end up at the knees, whether in front or on the side or in the back.

Even Mario Williams didn't like it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/126/texans-ready-to-cut-block-take-flack

And yet here is Chester Pitts being specifically interviewed of all the OLmen on this very topic and he says not one bad word about it.

CloakNNNdagger
06-21-2010, 03:20 PM
Some players have voiced concern over cut blocking, mostly because it can easily even inadvertently turn into a chop block. But, if you look carefully at games involving teams incorporating the cut block that overtly ends up a chop block (especially those occuring at the line), how many times have you ever heard it called????..........and, don't kid yourself, it does happen.......even by those "clean" players with the best of intentions. Many times it will not be recognized as THE event that caused the player a major injury. As only a "weakening injury,", it can set the player up for a later crowning injury which is mistakenly recognized as the definitive event.

No More 8-8's
06-21-2010, 03:30 PM
I am still a bit puzzled why we didnt make a stronger push for Faneca, but clearly Kubes really likes the guys we have.

I never played football so I dont know this, but how important is familiarity and consistency on the offensive line?

Goldensilence
06-21-2010, 04:18 PM
I am still a bit puzzled why we didnt make a stronger push for Faneca, but clearly Kubes really likes the guys we have.

I never played football so I dont know this, but how important is familiarity and consistency on the offensive line?

IMO I think Faneca wanted to head to AZ to go back to working with Russ Grimm.

He's also known more for being in a power scheme as opposed to Zone.

thunderkyss
06-21-2010, 05:04 PM
I am still a bit puzzled why we didnt make a stronger push for Faneca, but clearly Kubes really likes the guys we have.


The main reason I think we don't put our name in the hat for many of the big name FAs, is because we haven't proven much yet. Those guys probably want to make sure we are for real, before they hitch their wagons to Kubiak.

Heck, an UDFA DT chose to sign with us, because he felt his chances for making the team, and getting playing time were pretty good.

DexmanC
06-21-2010, 06:52 PM
Some players have voiced concern over cut blocking, mostly because it can easily even inadvertently turn into a chop block. But, if you look carefully at games involving teams incorporating the cut block that overtly ends up a chop block (especially those occuring at the line), how many times have you ever heard it called????..........and, don't kid yourself, it does happen.......even by those "clean" players with the best of intentions. Many times it will not be recognized as THE event that caused the player a major injury. As only a "weakening injury,", it can set the player up for a later crowning injury which is mistakenly recognized as the definitive event.

A perfect example of this was last year when we played the Bengals. I
believe their stud DE, Odom, was coming off a 4 or 6 sack game. Owen
Daniels goes for a CUTBLOCK, and as Odom is on the ground writhing in
pain from an awkward landing from dodging the block, Owen Daniels gets
up and catches a 20+ yard pass. That play happened early in the game.

barrett
06-21-2010, 07:32 PM
We optioned the opponents' DE from time to time.

Let's say if we call an outside zone run (outside Duane Brown, for example).
Since the LDE is on the back side of the play and too far away from the RB, we leave him (the LDE) unblocked. This way, we have more blockers near the POA.

Or if we call a bottleg with MS rolled out to his right.
We could fake a run to our left, and leave the LDE unblocked just the same.
It's dangerous, but it's how we "make" the two plays look the same to the LDE.
One of the play was a run, and one was a pass, but the LDE was optioned just the same.
We might not get a good result from the run, but if we do a good job selling it to the LDE, MS could have a good time throwing a long pass later on during the game.

I don't know why but it seems like I'm almost never allowed to rep you. (or maybe I do it all the time and I don't realize.) But I love these kind of posts!

76Texan
06-22-2010, 01:53 PM
Some players have voiced concern over cut blocking, mostly because it can easily even inadvertently turn into a chop block. But, if you look carefully at games involving teams incorporating the cut block that overtly ends up a chop block (especially those occuring at the line), how many times have you ever heard it called????..........and, don't kid yourself, it does happen.......even by those "clean" players with the best of intentions. Many times it will not be recognized as THE event that caused the player a major injury. As only a "weakening injury,", it can set the player up for a later crowning injury which is mistakenly recognized as the definitive event.
I'm never a fan of the cut block.
But the league allows it. Many teams use it, including the Cowgirls and Daryl Johnston blocking for Emmett Smith.

I don't blame any player who doesn't like it.
But if your boss asks you to do it, and you want to be paid then you do it.
If you don't like it enough, seek employment with a different team.

ICAK, I think it's possible to read between the lines to understand where Pitts stands on the situation. I think there was somewhere else that I read a more direct quote (but I wouldn't trust my memory though).

Rey
06-22-2010, 02:05 PM
I'm fine with cut blocking done legally...

As a lineman, sure you are trying to take the defenders legs out, but more than that you are just trying to slow their progress or not allow them to put their hands up into passing lanes...The defender reacting to you trying to cut them is a win for an OL...

Yes you are trying to take the legs out, but it's no more dangerous than a running back coming down hill and a defender hits them in their legs to make a tackle...In fact, I think cut blocking is less severe...

beerlover
06-22-2010, 02:14 PM
If true (Texans get more aggressive & play @ higher level of intensity) combined with cut-blocking, they could become labeled as "dirty". what a change that would be :pirate:

CloakNNNdagger
06-22-2010, 06:08 PM
A very telling quote from the past.

The run-blocking scheme is new, and the Houston Texans need to work on it.

The run-blocking scheme involves a lot of cut blocking that topples defensive linemen. So, how exactly do they do that without risking injuring their own players?

After all, they're not going to ask Duane Brown to cut Mario Williams in practice.

"Obviously we can't do that to our own players on a daily basis. That would be a recipe for bad things," offensive line coach John Benton said. "We try to get the angles down. We have a lot of coaching points we use to get us in position to do it when it is live and it's time to go."

LINK (http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/126/texans-ready-to-cut-block-take-flack)

76Texan
06-22-2010, 06:59 PM
A very telling quote from the past.



LINK (http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/126/texans-ready-to-cut-block-take-flack)

It was new! They wanted the blockers on Offense to know how to do it right first. It wasn't surprising that they were trying to be careful.

CloakNNNdagger
06-22-2010, 07:13 PM
It was new! They wanted the blockers on Offense to know how to do it right first. It wasn't surprising that they were trying to be careful.


New or old, you won't see cut blocks being thrown/followed through in Texans practices............there's a reason........

Rey
06-22-2010, 08:51 PM
New or old, you won't see cut blocks being thrown/followed through in Texans practices............there's a reason........

You won't see a lot of things in Texans practices that you'd see on game day....Like Defensive linemen hitting QB's, or defenders tackling ball carriers low...

They don't really go full speed in practice.

CloakNNNdagger
06-22-2010, 10:59 PM
You won't see a lot of things in Texans practices that you'd see on game day....Like Defensive linemen hitting QB's, or defenders tackling ball carriers low...

They don't really go full speed in practice.

Because it is significantly more risky (potentially injury producing) as compared to regular blocking, tackling, etc.

Rey
06-23-2010, 01:48 AM
Because it is significantly more risky (potentially injury producing) as compared to regular blocking, tackling, etc.

You hear coaches tell players all the time "stay up"...they don't want players on the ground period. Even if a guy gets pushed on the ground by a regular block you run the risk of someone getting hurt directl or indirectly(someone tripping over a pile). I believe that there are some things that are good for gameday but you wouldn't do in practice. That's what makes football, football.