PDA

View Full Version : Pollard and is he hurting this D more then helping?


Errant Hothy
10-14-2010, 09:19 AM
We all love the big hits that Pollard administers to the opposing team, as a in the box safety he is by far the best weíve ever seen in Houston; but with all that said his deficiencies in coverage are becoming rather apparent, to both the fans and opposing offensive coordinators.

Could one of the moves needed to help the secondary be to get Pollard off the field on passing downs?

Let us not forgot that Pollard was cut by a bad KC team. A KC team whoís defense has improved since Pollard left. Safety play has always been an issue with the Texans, and outside of Nolan, Iím not convinced that it is any better than it was in the Matt Stevens days.

If I was an opposing QB my first read would to be to see who Pollard is trying to cover or to see if Pollard is supposed to be providing help over the top. Either way I would have no fear throwing in his direction. I fear the re-match with Indy as I see Manning to Clark being a long and unforgiving theme for the Colts.

As much as I think Pollard is hurting the teamís pass D, I donít think there is anybody who could take the job from him. Barber still seems lost the second he steps on the field, and Iím not sure I would trust him as the 8th defender in the box when needed. Same with Wilson, if he could stay healthy. On the flip-side, if the Texans could stop the run with just the front 7, might a pairing of Nolan and Wilson/Barber provide the coverage help we desperately need? There are teams whoís running games I am certain that our front 7 could contain, and if that is the case are positives that Pollard brings out weighted by his negatives?

Just some thoughts.

eriadoc
10-14-2010, 09:27 AM
As long as the coaching staff puts him in position to play to his strengths, he's a plus on the field. If they ask him to do things that he doesn't do well, then we get what we've seen this year. Part of being a good coach is recognizing and playing to your personnel's strengths.

Errant Hothy
10-14-2010, 09:37 AM
As long as the coaching staff puts him in position to play to his strengths, he's a plus on the field. If they ask him to do things that he doesn't do well, then we get what we've seen this year. Part of being a good coach is recognizing and playing to your personnel's strengths.

So we should just play him as a fourth LB every down and ask the 2 CBs and the FS to do all of the coverage work? Dallas tried that with a safety named Roy Williams, it failed miserably for them.

His position is one that reguires him to cover opposing potential pass catchers. There is no "coaching" around this. My question is can he do this well enough to keep him on the field?

From what I've seen this year the answer to that might be no, and if he can't might this team be better served pulling Pollard off the field at times.

gtexan02
10-14-2010, 09:40 AM
Pollard is an excellent strong safety. He's not supposed to be a coverage guy, except that we have corners who both play poor coverage.

I think the problems were seeing with Pollard are 2 fold:
1. Poor scheme
2. Poor cornerbacks

He looked great when we had better corner play

HJam72
10-14-2010, 09:44 AM
Remember what our run-D was like before we got Pollard. I'm just saying that, going by our current roster, I'd rather have Pollard in there and try to use him right. He's never going to be great against the pass, but he's the only SS we've got who is really good at some phase of the game.

I would have more interest in getting a ball-hawking FS, unless Nolan turns out to be that already. We have a SS that one-dimensional (overstated some), why not given in on the FS thing too?

HJam72
10-14-2010, 09:46 AM
Pollard is an excellent strong safety. He's not supposed to be a coverage guy, except that we have corners who both play poor coverage.

I think the problems were seeing with Pollard are 2 fold:
1. Poor scheme
2. Poor cornerbacks

He looked great when we had better corner play

That's why I was so heard on the CB on that play where Pollard bit inside and gave up a TD. A SS making the mistake of biting inside is one thing, but no other DB on the field should make that mistake so blatantly as the CB did.

El Tejano
10-14-2010, 09:46 AM
1. vs. Colts - Pollard helps cause a Collie fumble that prevents another Indy comeback.
2. vs. Washington blocks a potential go ahead FG to help ignite a 17 point come from behind victory.
3. vs. Dallas the whole secondary looked bad.
4. vs. Oakland he puts a hit on the QB that changes the QBs ability to play at a high level and perhaps changes the game.
5. vs. Giants whole secondary looks bad.

3 games he made a play, 3 games we won. 2 games he didn't make a play, 2 games we lost.

I would say he's helping.

I think the real problem is what eriadc said. If we play him to his strengths he will be okay. Only problem is we got a rookie that's getting beat all the time so we are asking him to do more than he should have to.

Errant Hothy
10-14-2010, 09:51 AM
Having a SS who cannot cover is just painting a big "Throw it here" sign for a QB. It's a fact of the NFL, any safety has to be able to cover when called on to. Can Pollard do this? Or am I crazy for thinking that an oppposing O-coordinator won't send his TE at Pollard at all during a game?

As for our run D improving with Pollard, the question now becomes has it improved at the expense of the pass D?

Could we not sub Pollard out on the obvious passing downs to improve the pass D, while still mainting a decent run D?

El Tejano
10-14-2010, 09:54 AM
Having a SS who cannot cover is just painting a big "Throw it here" sign for a QB. It's a fact of the NFL, any safety has to be able to cover when called on to. Can Pollard do this? Or am I crazy for thinking that an oppposing O-coordinator won't send his TE at Pollard at all during a game?

As for our run D improving with Pollard, the question now becomes has it improved at the expense of the pass D?
Could we not sub Pollard out on the obvious passing downs to improve the pass D, while still mainting a decent run D?

Last year it didn't. We had a CB that was pretty good against the run though.

:backsout:

silvrhand
10-14-2010, 09:55 AM
Pollard is an excellent strong safety. He's not supposed to be a coverage guy, except that we have corners who both play poor coverage.

I think the problems were seeing with Pollard are 2 fold:
1. Poor scheme
2. Poor cornerbacks

He looked great when we had better corner play

No, he looked great cause hardly anyone was throwing the ball on us. I wish everyone would quit talking about how we looked last year in pass coverage based on our stats. Everyone was running the ball down our throats last year so why would they even begin to throw it?

That worked into Pollard having a great year cause it played to his strength. Now we see why KC may have felt that he needed to go.

eriadoc
10-14-2010, 10:20 AM
So we should just play him as a fourth LB every down and ask the 2 CBs and the FS to do all of the coverage work? Dallas tried that with a safety named Roy Williams, it failed miserably for them.

Pollard covers better than Roy Williams. And plenty of defenses in the past have had a SS like Pollard, but they paired them with strong cover guys. Steve Atwater wasn't known for his cover skills. Sure, he could cover pretty well, but he was the thunder. Remember the picks Pollard got last year? The guy covers well enough to play SS in a scheme where you have a couple decent corners and a rangy FS. Unfortunately, we don't have any of that. That is the problem, not Pollard. Of the 53 guys on the team that are a problem, Pollard ranks near the bottom of the list. I can think of several guys in the secondary (like, every single one of them) that are more an issue than Pollard.

gtexan02
10-14-2010, 10:25 AM
No, he looked great cause hardly anyone was throwing the ball on us. I wish everyone would quit talking about how we looked last year in pass coverage based on our stats. Everyone was running the ball down our throats last year so why would they even begin to throw it?

That worked into Pollard having a great year cause it played to his strength. Now we see why KC may have felt that he needed to go.

What are you even talking about? Did you look at the stats?

We were rushed on 396 times last season. That was 5th fewest in the entire NFL.

For comparison, Oakland was run on 548 times (last).

Running it down our throats all year? Hardly

We were thrown on 548 times. Thats good for 9th most of any team in the NFL.

I wish people would take the time to check the information before jumping to conclusions. Its all available on espn or nfl.com

gtexan02
10-14-2010, 10:29 AM
Having a SS who cannot cover is just painting a big "Throw it here" sign for a QB. It's a fact of the NFL, any safety has to be able to cover when called on to. Can Pollard do this? Or am I crazy for thinking that an oppposing O-coordinator won't send his TE at Pollard at all during a game?

As for our run D improving with Pollard, the question now becomes has it improved at the expense of the pass D?

Could we not sub Pollard out on the obvious passing downs to improve the pass D, while still mainting a decent run D?

First of all, I think Pollard is fine in coverage skills. He's probably about average for strong safeties in the NFL.

Secondly, your SS is rarely covering your TE one on one. Usually we have linebackers trailing TEs if we're doing the man thing, and if we're playing zone, then weve got linebackers in the middle and safeties up top.

DexmanC
10-14-2010, 10:33 AM
Last year, we had Dunta Robinson and Jacques Reeves. Dunta was
hardly thrown at, because of his reputation. Neither of our corners
garner any respect, and QB's are merciless in destroying them week
in, and week out.

Our corners are instant touchdowns, and even Eli was tryin' to "get him
some 'o dat" in the 4th quarter, when most teams run the ball in that
situation.

If your DB's don't receive respect (don't get thrown at), then they'd BETTER
COVER.

buddyboy
10-14-2010, 11:26 AM
What are you even talking about? Did you look at the stats?

We were rushed on 396 times last season. That was 5th fewest in the entire NFL.

For comparison, Oakland was run on 548 times (last).

Running it down our throats all year? Hardly

We were thrown on 548 times. Thats good for 9th most of any team in the NFL.

I wish people would take the time to check the information before jumping to conclusions. Its all available on espn or nfl.com

Don't let stats get in the way of his argument. Who do you think you are?!

scourge
10-14-2010, 11:35 AM
Pollard covers better than Roy Williams. And plenty of defenses in the past have had a SS like Pollard, but they paired them with strong cover guys. Steve Atwater wasn't known for his cover skills. Sure, he could cover pretty well, but he was the thunder. Remember the picks Pollard got last year? The guy covers well enough to play SS in a scheme where you have a couple decent corners and a rangy FS. Unfortunately, we don't have any of that. That is the problem, not Pollard. Of the 53 guys on the team that are a problem, Pollard ranks near the bottom of the list. I can think of several guys in the secondary (like, every single one of them) that are more an issue than Pollard.

this.

thunderkyss
10-14-2010, 11:44 AM
If I was an opposing QB my first read would to be to see who Pollard is trying to cover or to see if Pollard is supposed to be providing help over the top. Either way I would have no fear throwing in his direction. I fear the re-match with Indy as I see Manning to Clark being a long and unforgiving theme for the Colts.


On our first defensive series against the Giants, there was a play where Eli threw the ball to their other tightend. I think his name is Prescoe.

Pollard came up & not the snot out of Prescoe's mamma.

After that play, I believe Prescoe went to the huddle & told Eli, "don't ever do that **** again!!!"

I think Pollard needs to stay on the field. Don't forget he got 4 picks last year as well, 2 against the Colts.

BigBull17
10-14-2010, 11:50 AM
On our first defensive series against the Giants, there was a play where Eli threw the ball to their other tightend. I think his name is Prescoe.

Pollard came up & not the snot out of Prescoe's mamma.

After that play, I believe Prescoe went to the huddle & told Eli, "don't ever do that **** again!!!"

I think Pollard needs to stay on the field. Don't forget he got 4 picks last year as well, 2 against the Colts.

Yep. He is a little suspect in coverage, but who is your replacement? Also, he has a nose for the football, being one of the few people who can cause a ****ing turn over. Agree he needs to stay out there.

thunderkyss
10-14-2010, 12:16 PM
No, he looked great cause hardly anyone was throwing the ball on us. I wish everyone would quit talking about how we looked last year in pass coverage based on our stats. Everyone was running the ball down our throats last year so why would they even begin to throw it?

That worked into Pollard having a great year cause it played to his strength. Now we see why KC may have felt that he needed to go.

It's funny how people rewrite the past to support their argument. Here (http://www.nfl.com/teams/schedule?team=HOU&season=2009&seasonType=REG) is a link from NFL.com. on the right side of the page, they'll show who the leading rusher was for the game, & the yardage he gained. If you see one of our players, that means the other team did not run for more yards than that player.

For instance, in week 5 Steve Slaton was the leading rusher, with 39 yards. That means the Arizona Cardinals did not have a rusher that topped 39 yards in that game.

Other than Chris Johnson, nobody ran on us after week 3. Frank Gore & Glen Coffee put up 59 yards against us. Jones-Drew, 76.

thunderkyss
10-14-2010, 12:22 PM
Pollard covers better than Roy Williams. And plenty of defenses in the past have had a SS like Pollard, but they paired them with strong cover guys. Steve Atwater wasn't known for his cover skills. Sure, he could cover pretty well, but he was the thunder. Remember the picks Pollard got last year? The guy covers well enough to play SS in a scheme where you have a couple decent corners and a rangy FS. Unfortunately, we don't have any of that. That is the problem, not Pollard. Of the 53 guys on the team that are a problem, Pollard ranks near the bottom of the list. I can think of several guys in the secondary (like, every single one of them) that are more an issue than Pollard.

This.

The problem with Pollard this year, & I think our defense as a whole, is that they're trying to "have each others back" Instead of doing their Job (staying high in the endzone for Pollard on that particular play) they are trying to make up for everyone else's mistakes (biting down on Cushing's guy)..

Kj is just as guilty, he spends too much time looking in the backfield, trying to sniff out the run. I know that's part of why Smithiak wanted him, but he needs to be worried about the guy in front of him.

& call me crazy, but nobody is "picking on" Quin. He finally gave up a TD Sunday, but he's been playing very well IMHO.

JB
10-14-2010, 12:29 PM
This.

The problem with Pollard this year, & I think our defense as a whole, is that they're trying to "have each others back" Instead of doing their Job (staying high in the endzone for Pollard on that particular play) they are trying to make up for everyone else's mistakes (biting down on Cushing's guy)..

Kj is just as guilty, he spends too much time looking in the backfield, trying to sniff out the run. I know that's part of why Smithiak wanted him, but he needs to be worried about the guy in front of him.

& call me crazy, but nobody is "picking on" Quin. He finally gave up a TD Sunday, but he's been playing very well IMHO.

A huge part of this is because Bush wants his defense to stop the run first.

silvrhand
10-14-2010, 12:42 PM
What are you even talking about? Did you look at the stats?

We were rushed on 396 times last season. That was 5th fewest in the entire NFL.

For comparison, Oakland was run on 548 times (last).

Running it down our throats all year? Hardly

We were thrown on 548 times. Thats good for 9th most of any team in the NFL.

I wish people would take the time to check the information before jumping to conclusions. Its all available on espn or nfl.com

In 2009 we gave up:

jets gashed us for @200 yards on opener.
titans gashed us for @250 yards the next week.
Jags gashed us for @190 yards the next week.
Raiders we shutodwn for 50 yards.
Cardinals only ran for @50 yards.
Bengals ran for @90 yards.
49'ers ran for @100 yards.
Bills gashed for for @190 yards.

Ok I'm stopping here, cause as you can see the first half of the year our rush defense was horrid, we gave up big gains in a lot of games.. Now, if you look at the stats on the # of rushing 1st down %, and the rushing TD's, blah blah.. you'll see that we were near the bottom of the leage in every one of those stats.

The simple fact, we couldn't stop a good running team for jack in the first half of the year, the second half of the year we got better, but it was a while till we found our consistency in stopping the run. The only thing that really kept us from getting blown out the entire first half of the year was we scored a ton of points which took teams out of the running mode early for the most part.

Second Half: (added)

Pats: throw away game their starters were out..
Miami: 27-3 halftime (so much for rushing)
Seahawks: 24-7 halftime (so much for rushing)
Titans: 230+ yards rushing..
Colts: we stopped in week 9 pretty nicely.

Colts/Rams in those games didn't rush much but still have > 4 yard average per attempt..

Dutchrudder
10-14-2010, 12:55 PM
On our first defensive series against the Giants, there was a play where Eli threw the ball to their other tightend. I think his name is Prescoe.

Pollard came up & not the snot out of Prescoe's mamma.

After that play, I believe Prescoe went to the huddle & told Eli, "don't ever do that **** again!!!"

I think Pollard needs to stay on the field. Don't forget he got 4 picks last year as well, 2 against the Colts.

1 of those was thrown by Reggie Wayne...

:texflag:

TimeKiller
10-14-2010, 01:00 PM
I hate seeing Pollard in deep zones but the only thing he's hurting is opposing offenses...

jshabang
10-14-2010, 01:04 PM
thiss thread is nuts........

Pollard is not even close to being the major issue with this olay defense.......there is so many others to blame before him that its not even funny

for all that are pointing out some bad plays hes had this season....which hes had a couple........also look at the big plays hes had that is soley responsible for a couple of these W's that would have been L's had he not made em


that blocked field goal in washington....maybe we dont win if this cat doesnt make that play.......

hits that led to interceptions numerous times to seal games.........

and in that raiders game him blowing up gratkowski a few times that would have led to first down plays........

come on guys u got to take the good with the bad.....and his goods definately outweigh his bads which is alot more than i can say about other members of this defense.....real talk

pollard is one of the sole playmakers we have on defense.....u play playmakers

thunderkyss
10-14-2010, 01:13 PM
A huge part of this is because Bush wants his defense to stop the run first.

I totally agree.... But if I wanted to make things easier on my rookie, I would tell him to forget about the run, especially with Cush back, we ought to be alright in that department.

badboy
10-14-2010, 01:38 PM
We all love the big hits that Pollard administers to the opposing team, as a in the box safety he is by far the best weíve ever seen in Houston; but with all that said his deficiencies in coverage are becoming rather apparent, to both the fans and opposing offensive coordinators.

Could one of the moves needed to help the secondary be to get Pollard off the field on passing downs?

Let us not forgot that Pollard was cut by a bad KC team. A KC team whoís defense has improved since Pollard left. Safety play has always been an issue with the Texans, and outside of Nolan, Iím not convinced that it is any better than it was in the Matt Stevens days.

If I was an opposing QB my first read would to be to see who Pollard is trying to cover or to see if Pollard is supposed to be providing help over the top. Either way I would have no fear throwing in his direction. I fear the re-match with Indy as I see Manning to Clark being a long and unforgiving theme for the Colts.

As much as I think Pollard is hurting the teamís pass D, I donít think there is anybody who could take the job from him. Barber still seems lost the second he steps on the field, and Iím not sure I would trust him as the 8th defender in the box when needed. Same with Wilson, if he could stay healthy. On the flip-side, if the Texans could stop the run with just the front 7, might a pairing of Nolan and Wilson/Barber provide the coverage help we desperately need? There are teams whoís running games I am certain that our front 7 could contain, and if that is the case are positives that Pollard brings out weighted by his negatives?

Just some thoughts.I think you just threw out a statement here without considering why KC defense may be better. Here's what I'd think about:

#1 draft selection: Eric Berry a SS/FS who was considered by many as best player 2010 draft http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=68598&draftyear=2010&genpos=FS
# 2 draft selection: CB Javier Arenas solid nickle and return man

KC LCB: Brandon Flowers 24 with 5 INTs 2009 and 2 in 2010
KC LCB:Brandon Carr 24 and a decent CB
KC FS: Jon McGraw 9 year vet with 1 INT 2010
KC SS: Eric Berry
LBs are in 3-4 which helps shut down the run and often the TEs allowing safeties to focus on WRs going long.

I think Chiefs were foolish to force Pollard out but they are doing ok, until Sunday when Schaub throws for nearly 400 yards.

Our problem is not Pollard but he is a liability in coverage and that is simply a fact. We don't have a true cover CB on the team unless Sherrick proves out. FS is a joke but Nolan should be better than Wilson. Plus our DC can not adjust his game plan until half time.

badboy
10-14-2010, 01:40 PM
I totally agree.... But if I wanted to make things easier on my rookie, I would tell him to forget about the run, especially with Cush back, we ought to be alright in that department.There you go TK! KJ gives 3-4 yard cushion and concentrates on breaking up the pass not forcing INT or stopping the run. Shut the best WR down.

HJam72
10-14-2010, 01:44 PM
There you go TK! KJ gives 3-4 yard cushion and concentrates on breaking up the pass not forcing INT or stopping the run. Shut the best WR down.


I tend to agree.

Texanmike02
10-14-2010, 02:05 PM
In 2009 we gave up:

jets gashed us for @200 yards on opener.
titans gashed us for @250 yards the next week.
Jags gashed us for @190 yards the next week.
Raiders we shutodwn for 50 yards.
Cardinals only ran for @50 yards.
Bengals ran for @90 yards.
49'ers ran for @100 yards. WRONG 59 Yards
Bills gashed for for @190 yards. WRONG they "gashed us for 97 yards. 30 of those came from TO on a reverse

Ok I'm stopping here, cause as you can see the first half of the year our rush defense was horrid, we gave up big gains in a lot of games.. Now, if you look at the stats on the # of rushing 1st down %, and the rushing TD's, blah blah.. you'll see that we were near the bottom of the leage in every one of those stats.

The simple fact, we couldn't stop a good running team for jack in the first half of the year, the second half of the year we got better, but it was a while till we found our consistency in stopping the run. The only thing that really kept us from getting blown out the entire first half of the year was we scored a ton of points which took teams out of the running mode early for the most part.

Second Half: (added)

Pats: throw away game their starters were out..
Miami: 27-3 halftime (so much for rushing)
Seahawks: 24-7 halftime (so much for rushing)
Titans: 230+ yards rushing..
Colts: we stopped in week 9 pretty nicely.

Colts/Rams in those games didn't rush much but still have > 4 yard average per attempt..

OK.

Let me stop you here. Do you read the stats from an alternate reality? This stuff happened a year ago and without even looking I know for a fact that you posted two of your weeks were wrong. I'm not going to bother to go look them all up but I corrected the ones I recognized. I'm all for stats but you can't just hit 3 random keys on a number pad and quote stats man.

Consider these plays:

Jones had one for 39 yards.
Chris Johnson 59 yards
Chris Johnson 91 yards
MJD 61 yards


In the first 3 games last year we gave up 250 yards on 4 plays. They were both plays where a S did not fill a hole. Those four plays alone account for 1/6 of the rushing yards against us for the year. FOUR PLAYS. Why? BECAUSE THE SAFETY WASN'T IN POSITION!


Our run defense was actually very good to start the year with one glaring weakness; Our SS (Bussing and the other goat, weird I can't remember his name suddenly) were out of position and didn't fill a hole in time. (You could see them trying to get to the hole to catch the RB they just didn't do it. After Pollard came on board that changed.

All told, we gave up 1711 rushing yards for the season. That is almost 107 ypg. How big a difference was there after the first 3 games?

We gave up approximately 600 yards in the first 3 games. In the next 13, we gave up 1111 yards. Over the final 13 games of the season we only gave up 85 ypg.

Johnson was the only guy who really hurt us after game 3 in the running game.

I don't know man. We were giving up 60+ yard runs because the safety wasn't getting over... Pollard comes in for him and we go from 200 ypg to 85 ypg. Seems like he was a difference maker no?

Mike

Ole Miss Texan
10-14-2010, 02:11 PM
Pollard isn't the one hurting this D.

But I swear if Antonio Smith gets another personal foul at a crucial point in the game or after a 4th down stop... I'm going to punch myself in the gonads.

Big Lou
10-14-2010, 02:14 PM
Pollard is an excellent strong safety. He's not supposed to be a coverage guy, except that we have corners who both play poor coverage.

I think the problems were seeing with Pollard are 2 fold:
1. Poor scheme
2. Poor cornerbacks

He looked great when we had better corner play


Aren't our Safetys suppossed to be interchangable? Like hybrid SS/FS's in this scheme?

silvrhand
10-14-2010, 02:18 PM
OK.

Let me stop you here. Do you read the stats from an alternate reality? This stuff happened a year ago and without even looking I know for a fact that you posted two of your weeks were wrong. I'm not going to bother to go look them all up but I corrected the ones I recognized. I'm all for stats but you can't just hit 3 random keys on a number pad and quote stats man.

Consider these plays:

Jones had one for 39 yards.
Chris Johnson 59 yards
Chris Johnson 91 yards
MJD 61 yards


In the first 3 games last year we gave up 250 yards on 4 plays. They were both plays where a S did not fill a hole. Those four plays alone account for 1/6 of the rushing yards against us for the year. FOUR PLAYS. Why? BECAUSE THE SAFETY WASN'T IN POSITION!


Our run defense was actually very good to start the year with one glaring weakness; Our SS (Bussing and the other goat, weird I can't remember his name suddenly) were out of position and didn't fill a hole in time. (You could see them trying to get to the hole to catch the RB they just didn't do it. After Pollard came on board that changed.

All told, we gave up 1711 rushing yards for the season. That is almost 107 ypg. How big a difference was there after the first 3 games?

We gave up approximately 600 yards in the first 3 games. In the next 13, we gave up 1111 yards. Over the final 13 games of the season we only gave up 85 ypg.

Johnson was the only guy who really hurt us after game 3 in the running game.

I don't know man. We were giving up 60+ yard runs because the safety wasn't getting over... Pollard comes in for him and we go from 200 ypg to 85 ypg. Seems like he was a difference maker no?

Mike

Mike,

You missed my point, yah I typo'd the bills one.. Last year played to Pollards strengths cause a lot of teams tried to run the ball on us due to our early year performance, our defense was swiss cheese. This is the reason Pollard was such a great success for us, there is a reason noone else in the NFL picked him up, and it is starting to show, which is fine we are better than our alternatives at this point.

You really think the SS was the reason for our bad run defense last year, what about half our DL getting smoked about 4-5 yards down the field? Our problem has been the same thing in and out year after year, and it is why we keep drafting DL's. We can't get a good front four to save our life, this year looked better than previous but now injuries have really gotten after us.

Pollardized
10-14-2010, 02:32 PM
If you want his spot on the field, go take it from him. I would love to see anyone on this board go down to the Reliant Practice facility tomorrow and take his spot on the field. Go out there and out play him in coverage, knock the piss out of people when you hit them, and bring the "**** you ******************!" mentality he brings to the Texans otherwise soft ass defense.

Just do me one favor: let me know what time you are going. I want to be there to see Pollard's reaction to getting shown up on the field. I bet it looks a little like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJKdpsZi_10

hradhak
10-14-2010, 02:35 PM
But I swear if Antonio Smith gets another personal foul at a crucial point in the game or after a 4th down stop... I'm going to punch myself in the gonads.
Better wear a cup on Sunday :rake:

Pollard is really not the problem.
There are several issues.
1) There's a lack of experience by the corners.
2) The coverage scheme is extremely soft with enormous cushions.
3) Our pass rush can't get to anyone in 3 seconds, without tight coverage, a wide out can get open quickly and the pass rush is neutralized.

Fix the scheme issues and this defense can be in the top 15, IMHO.

DexmanC
10-14-2010, 02:44 PM
In 2009 we gave up:

jets gashed us for @200 yards on opener.
titans gashed us for @250 yards the next week.
Jags gashed us for @190 yards the next week.
Raiders we shutodwn for 50 yards.
Cardinals only ran for @50 yards.
Bengals ran for @90 yards.
49'ers ran for @100 yards.
Bills gashed for for @190 yards.

Ok I'm stopping here, cause as you can see the first half of the year our rush defense was horrid, we gave up big gains in a lot of games.. Now, if you look at the stats on the # of rushing 1st down %, and the rushing TD's, blah blah.. you'll see that we were near the bottom of the leage in every one of those stats.

The simple fact, we couldn't stop a good running team for jack in the first half of the year, the second half of the year we got better, but it was a while till we found our consistency in stopping the run. The only thing that really kept us from getting blown out the entire first half of the year was we scored a ton of points which took teams out of the running mode early for the most part.

Second Half: (added)

Pats: throw away game their starters were out..
Miami: 27-3 halftime (so much for rushing)
Seahawks: 24-7 halftime (so much for rushing)
Titans: 230+ yards rushing..
Colts: we stopped in week 9 pretty nicely.

Colts/Rams in those games didn't rush much but still have > 4 yard average per attempt..

Judging by your analysis, the perception of the Texans having a
"Top 5 Run Defense" is largely smoke-n-mirrors. Our offense gets up
big at halftime, the opponent stops running the ball. If that is the case,
I definitely agree.

scourge
10-14-2010, 02:46 PM
Let us not forgot that Pollard was cut by a bad KC team. A KC team whoís defense has improved since Pollard left. Safety play has always been an issue with the Texans, and outside of Nolan, Iím not convinced that it is any better than it was in the Matt Stevens days.



This may help your condition... (http://www.menningerclinic.com/)

Texanmike02
10-14-2010, 03:04 PM
Mike,

You missed my point, yah I typo'd the bills one.. Last year played to Pollards strengths cause a lot of teams tried to run the ball on us due to our early year performance, our defense was swiss cheese. This is the reason Pollard was such a great success for us, there is a reason noone else in the NFL picked him up, and it is starting to show, which is fine we are better than our alternatives at this point.


The reason nobody picked him up was the "attitude problem" he supposidly had.

Granted this is a board but here was their reaction:

The following were released:


S Bernard Pollard

Wow. There were trade rumors recently and apparently they had some legs. This is far and away the most shocking move by the Chiefs.



A recent write up on FSN

After leading Kansas City in tackles with 98 in 2008, the Chiefs released Pollard in September of 2009. Judging by the commentary at the time, the move was a stunner to the people that were following the team. The reasons Pollard was let go have never been made clear by the Chiefs. There were reports that Pollardís personality may have irritated coaches and some teammates.


Scott Piolli is the GM there now. I'm sure its a coincidence that Piolli is the one who released him (he was NE's GM when Pollard snapped Brady's leg). I honestly doubt that he held a grudge, but if there were personality conflicts who knows. There were reports that he felt he was blackballed:


But it made no sense for a young safety with as much talent and upside as Pollard has, to be cut -- even with the depth the Chiefs had at safety. And there's definitely a problem if the Chiefs did somehow try to keep Pollard from being able to hook up with another team somewhere down the line.

It's too early to tell if the 24-year-old Pollard will live up to his second-round draft status. But he's sure found new life in Houston. His 42 tackles is already good for third place on the Texans, even after missing the first three games of the season. He also picked off Peyton Manning twice last Sunday and had a season-high 12 tackles.

On Sunday, Kent Babb of the Kansas City Star published a statement on Twitter confirming that Pollard was a "bad, bad influence" in the locker room. But he also said he was a much better player than current Chiefs safety Mike Brown.

Name calling and finger-pointing aside, it looks as if the Chiefs loss of Pollard is Houston's gain. And the Kansas City secondary is truly the group that suffers the most from this debacle -- unless you consider their fans.





You really think the SS was the reason for our bad run defense last year, what about half our DL getting smoked about 4-5 yards down the field? Our problem has been the same thing in and out year after year, and it is why we keep drafting DL's. We can't get a good front four to save our life, this year looked better than previous but now injuries have really gotten after us.

Like I said. Go watch the highlights from the games. I've already done the research 2 times. Our defense wasn't near as bad as you are making it out to be. The linemen have jobs one of their jobs is to make room for LBs and Ss to make tackles.

Go look back at the first three games of the year and the number of stops for negative yardage we had. Consider that our ypc last year without those four plays I mentioned was 3.7 ypc. Coincidently, if you look at our ypc for the rest of the year minus those FOUR PLAYS it was 3.7 ypc. Those four plays were anomolies because of Pollard. If Bissing is still our safety we'd still be seeing a 60 yard gash every game.

So lets compare that to the rest of the league

If you get rid of the four anomolies houston comes in at 3.7 ypa and 85 ypg.

That would put this terrible run defense at fourth in the ENTIRE NFL in ypa. Right ahead of... drumroll please... the NEW YORK JETS.

And this pathetic run defense without those four plays was the 5th in with 90.1 yards against/game. After Pollard got there, we were... SECOND. Just behind GB and ahead of the Vikings.

And before you say "well you can't just take the four worst plays and get rid of them." In this case, you can. You're trying to gauge how good the defense was WITH Pollard.

I'm going with, this defense with Pollard is an excellent run defense. You go with whatever you want but the numbers (and film) support my position.

Mike

gtexan02
10-14-2010, 03:11 PM
In 2009 we gave up:

jets gashed us for @200 yards on opener.
titans gashed us for @250 yards the next week.
Jags gashed us for @190 yards the next week.
Raiders we shutodwn for 50 yards.
Cardinals only ran for @50 yards.
Bengals ran for @90 yards.
49'ers ran for @100 yards.
Bills gashed for for @190 yards.

Ok I'm stopping here, cause as you can see the first half of the year our rush defense was horrid, we gave up big gains in a lot of games.. Now, if you look at the stats on the # of rushing 1st down %, and the rushing TD's, blah blah.. you'll see that we were near the bottom of the leage in every one of those stats.

The simple fact, we couldn't stop a good running team for jack in the first half of the year, the second half of the year we got better, but it was a while till we found our consistency in stopping the run. The only thing that really kept us from getting blown out the entire first half of the year was we scored a ton of points which took teams out of the running mode early for the most part.

Second Half: (added)

Pats: throw away game their starters were out..
Miami: 27-3 halftime (so much for rushing)
Seahawks: 24-7 halftime (so much for rushing)
Titans: 230+ yards rushing..
Colts: we stopped in week 9 pretty nicely.

Colts/Rams in those games didn't rush much but still have > 4 yard average per attempt..

You said in your first post, and I quote, that Pollard looked good because no one was throwing the ball on us. That he looked good in coverage only because people were running on us every chance they got.


We were "run on" the 5th fewest of any NFL team.

Maybe we gave up so few rush attempts because teams got such good yardage they didn't need to run much?

Nope, we only gave up 4.3 ypc, good for 17th in the league. Thats right in the middle.


Another Fact: We were thrown on the 9th most of any team in the NFL. Teams threw the ball on us almost >150 more than they ran on us.

I dont care how much yardage we gave up in specific games. The fact is that teams threw the ball on us 60% of the snaps.

There is zero way you can say that Pollards coverage ability was masked because we were "run on all day" It just doesnt make sense if you look at the reality

thunderkyss
10-14-2010, 03:13 PM
Aren't our Safetys suppossed to be interchangable? Like hybrid SS/FS's in this scheme?

that went away when we got Pollard.

Malloy
10-14-2010, 03:29 PM
In Pollards defense he did have 4 INT's and 7 passes defended last year, so it's not as if he's a complete liability in pass coverage.

cdollaz
10-14-2010, 03:42 PM
He is definitely the best option we have, but to think he is perfect, and has no deficiencies, is silly.

The perfect situation for him would be to be on a team where the rest of the secondary is made up of good cover guys, so he could just head hunt. We are not that, so it is natural that he is going to be exposed on occasion. He is not a superstar, but still one of the better players we have on defense. And he does make game-changing plays somewhat regularly. As has been said, he is far down the list when it comes to our problems.

Texanmike02
10-14-2010, 04:53 PM
He is definitely the best option we have, but to think he is perfect, and has no deficiencies, is silly.

The perfect situation for him would be to be on a team where the rest of the secondary is made up of good cover guys, so he could just head hunt. We are not that, so it is natural that he is going to be exposed on occasion. He is not a superstar, but still one of the better players we have on defense. And he does make game-changing plays somewhat regularly. As has been said, he is far down the list when it comes to our problems.

I know this isn't directed at me specifically and I'm just responding in general. I would certainly agree that he isn't perfect and I don't think anyone is trying to say that he is. I do think though, that he his as good as just about anybody in the league against the run from the SS position. He makes good reads and to me if someone is advocating replacing him to cover the deficiencies in the other DBs they are out of their mind.

He brings positives to the game while most of the rest of the secondary seems to have a bunch of deficiencies.

Mike