PDA

View Full Version : When does the Denver Scheme become the Houston Scheme?


m5kwatts
01-23-2011, 01:58 PM
This isn't exactly a hardcore x's and o's discussion I'm opening here, more fun talk.

We always refer to our offense as the west-coast Denver ZBS or however you want to reference it, either way Denver is brought up.

Ask any coach around the league and they'll tell you the Texans are the best zone-run team in the league.

Since the Texans run the Denver version of the west-coast offense with the ZBS better than anyone in the league (and I challenge anyone to argue otherwise), why do we still cling to the "Denver" associations? Well, we do it for identification purposes, obviously.

But isn't it time to start referring to this as the Houston version of the west-coast offense? We've gotta think of a name, but it should be HOUSTON-associated now since we've taken it and are now doing it better than anyone else.

Don't forget that Bill Walsh developed the west-coast offense in CINCINNATI first then brought it to San Francisco where it earned the name the west-coast offense (not the MID-west-coast offense).

jaayteetx
01-23-2011, 02:07 PM
when they actually win something other than an occasional games or six

PapaL
01-23-2011, 02:07 PM
This isn't exactly a hardcore x's and o's discussion I'm opening here, more fun talk.

We always refer to our offense as the west-coast Denver ZBS or however you want to reference it, either way Denver is brought up.

Ask any coach around the league and they'll tell you the Texans are the best zone-run team in the league.

Since the Texans run the Denver version of the west-coast offense with the ZBS better than anyone in the league (and I challenge anyone to argue otherwise), why do we still cling to the "Denver" associations? Well, we do it for identification purposes, obviously.

But isn't it time to start referring to this as the Houston version of the west-coast offense? We've gotta think of a name, but it should be HOUSTON-associated now since we've taken it and are now doing it better than anyone else.

Don't forget that Bill Walsh developed the west-coast offense in CINCINNATI first then brought it to San Francisco where it earned the name the west-coast offense (not the MID-west-coast offense).

You know why it's not called the Houston Scheme? Because we've had zero success with it. Kinda like Cincinnati and the West Coast Offense.

It's not about who runs it best. It's about who wins rings with it. That alone determines the name IMO...

m5kwatts
01-23-2011, 02:14 PM
You know why it's not called the Houston Scheme? Because we've had zero success with it. Kinda like Cincinnati and the West Coast Offense.

It's not about who runs it best. It's about who wins rings with it. That alone determines the name IMO...

Zero success? If success is measured in Lombardi trophy's (which is ridiculous) then I guess zero success? You need to talk to a Dolphin fan or a Niner fan and find out what real offensive misery is if you think the Texans had zero success on offense this year.

But yes, the name will come if the rings come, I think that is a good answer. But you don't scheme against rings. Ask any defensive coordinator, the Texans offense has a stellar reputation around the league, rings or no rings, 6 wins or 9 wins.

Thorn
01-23-2011, 02:16 PM
Houston does have a very good offense, one of the best in the league. But they haven't done shit with it yet except rack up some nice stats.

Carr Bombed
01-23-2011, 03:07 PM
Zero success? If success is measured in Lombardi trophy's (which is ridiculous) then I guess zero success? You need to talk to a Dolphin fan or a Niner fan and find out what real offensive misery is if you think the Texans had zero success on offense this year.

But yes, the name will come if the rings come, I think that is a good answer. But you don't scheme against rings. Ask any defensive coordinator, the Texans offense has a stellar reputation around the league, rings or no rings, 6 wins or 9 wins.

Not making the playoffs is zero success. This game isn't measured by offensive stats, only wins and losses. They need to start winning important ball games, how many times were they completely ineffective for a entire half of football?

Showtime100
01-23-2011, 03:44 PM
Not making the playoffs is zero success. This game isn't measured by offensive stats, only wins and losses. They need to start winning important ball games, how many times were they completely ineffective for a entire half of football?

Not making the playoffs is zero success as a team, but if we are strickly talking offense I would disagree.

It reminds me of Mark Madden, radio personality in Pittsburgh. When talking about the best linebacking team in history he says Pittsburgh and his main (and really only) argument is how many rings the Steelers linebackers have to show. New Orleans was and is the consensus because, after all, they are talking linebackers, not team results.

PapaL
01-23-2011, 03:44 PM
Zero success? If success is measured in Lombardi trophy's (which is ridiculous) then I guess zero success? You need to talk to a Dolphin fan or a Niner fan and find out what real offensive misery is if you think the Texans had zero success on offense this year.

But yes, the name will come if the rings come, I think that is a good answer. But you don't scheme against rings. Ask any defensive coordinator, the Texans offense has a stellar reputation around the league, rings or no rings, 6 wins or 9 wins.

I didn't mean zero success running the offense, I meant zero success period. We're not even the most relevant team in our own city. That's what I mean.

thunderkyss
01-23-2011, 05:51 PM
Zero success? If success is measured in Lombardi trophy's (which is ridiculous) then I guess zero success? You need to talk to a Dolphin fan or a Niner fan and find out what real offensive misery is if you think the Texans had zero success on offense this year.

But yes, the name will come if the rings come, I think that is a good answer. But you don't scheme against rings. Ask any defensive coordinator, the Texans offense has a stellar reputation around the league, rings or no rings, 6 wins or 9 wins.

When people start taking our coaches to implement the same thing we are doing, it will be the Houston ZBS. But as long as we are rethreading Denver coaches to get it going here, it will be the Denver ZBS.

TheMatrix31
01-23-2011, 07:09 PM
I don't care about names. If we're running it, it's our scheme.

Big Lou
01-24-2011, 01:16 PM
How about the Gulf Coast Offense?!?!?!?! :evil:

Big Lou
01-24-2011, 01:17 PM
Houston does have a very good offense, one of the best in the league. But they haven't done shit with it yet except rack up some nice stats.

How about the Stats Coast/Blocking Offense?

Double Barrel
01-25-2011, 06:46 PM
Right Track Offense

It is basically a version of the WCO, but the defining difference is that the majority of points are scored in the second half of games.

Now we just need the Left Track Defense! :joker:

GNTLEWOLF
01-26-2011, 12:18 PM
I would think it becomes known as the Houston Scheme when Kubiak and Company add some twist to it that makes it just a little different from what was run in Denver. As it stands now it is jut the Old Denver Scheme revisited....A scheme , I might add that looked like it had been passed by by the rest of the NFl and was no longer working well in Denver when Shanahan was axed.

Norg
01-26-2011, 02:40 PM
Dis yeah to me we kinda Morphed into something different we not like the denver system anymore well not 100% like it i think we finally moved on and for the worst we scored less points last year

Doppelganger
01-26-2011, 03:04 PM
Zero success? If success is measured in Lombardi trophy's (which is ridiculous) then I guess zero success? You need to talk to a Dolphin fan or a Niner fan and find out what real offensive misery is if you think the Texans had zero success on offense this year.

But yes, the name will come if the rings come, I think that is a good answer. But you don't scheme against rings. Ask any defensive coordinator, the Texans offense has a stellar reputation around the league, rings or no rings, 6 wins or 9 wins.

The Buffalo Bills did not win a Superbowl but went there 4 straight years. Their hurry up style of offense became known as the Buffalo scheme. The Indy scheme is one where the QB basically calls the plays at the line of scrimmage.

You only get these names when you are considered a perennial contender for the Superbowl. First, the Texans must make the playoffs. Then they have to be a contender for the SB and get there or be in the Championship game a few times. Then they must win at least 3 superbowls(since Denver won 2). Then and only then will the Denver scheme become the Houston scheme.

DexmanC
01-26-2011, 03:05 PM
Right Track Offense

It is basically a version of the WCO, but the defining difference is that the majority of points are scored in the second half of games.

Now we just need the Left Track Defense! :joker:

Too bad the Right Track Offense requires a two-touchdown deficit
to get started. :vincepalm:

Doppelganger
01-26-2011, 03:06 PM
Too bad the Right Track Offense requires a two-touchdown deficit
to get started. :vincepalm:

Maybe someone can hypnotize Kubiak and the team right before each game to think they are 2 touchdowns behind at the beginning of the game. We can even get the sign operators to depict that and have the crowd boo the team mercilessly as they come out to their first drive!!!

DexmanC
01-26-2011, 03:30 PM
Maybe someone can hypnotize Kubiak and the team right before each game to think they are 2 touchdowns behind at the beginning of the game. We can even get the sign operators to depict that and have the crowd boo the team mercilessly as they come out to their first drive!!!

Sounds like a plan!

Doppelganger
01-26-2011, 04:00 PM
Sounds like a plan!

How are your hypnosis skills?!
http://images2.layoutsparks.com/1/224825/swirls-concentric-pattern-animated.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2taRwe_6afk
NOTE: LINK IS NSFW

CloakNNNdagger
01-26-2011, 05:27 PM
Not making the playoffs is zero success. This game isn't measured by offensive stats, only wins and losses. They need to start winning important ball games, how many times were they completely ineffective for a entire half of football?

As long as the Texans maintain their high-powered high-octane half-a-game offense, they will continue to receive half-a-look by the rest of the NFL.

Thorn
01-26-2011, 06:43 PM
As long as the Texans maintain their high-powered high-octane half-a-game offense, they will continue to receive half-a-look by the rest of the NFL.

Does this mean we are halfway there? :lol:

CloakNNNdagger
01-26-2011, 08:12 PM
Does this mean we are halfway there? :lol:


That's a half-ass way of looking at it.:D

spurstexanstros
01-27-2011, 09:36 AM
I think Kubiak is the brains behind the system anyway. Look at what has happened to Shannahan since they split. Kubiak's last year in Denver they were in the Afc championship game and had one of the best offenses in the league . After Kubiak left, Denver's O went downhill fast even with Cutler. In washington with both Shannies and HOF qb the o was horrible. However, Kubiak came here and his offense was able to rack up yardage and points with a back up like Sage . Kubiak started out with players that didnt fit his system and as the years have gone by he has stocked the offense with atheletes that perform at their peak running the plays he designed. The offensive line. Myers, Brown, Wade Smith, Eric Winston, Breisel etc may be under sized but in his line they fit together like a puzzle to form a cohesive zone. The only weakness with the line is that they struggled with the more physical defesive lines but I think some of those struggles could have been attributed to qb holding ball too long or not moving around in the pocket they created. The offensive line was the bane of the Texans for years..now not so much, and our skill players are among the best in the league.

I think this year the problem they had was that they had to score every time, not just score, touchdowns were needed. Also the O was held back...too conservative. Not because Kubiak cant coach but because he likes to try to control the tempo. I think he needs to be more agressive with the O from the start of the game put up 14 and then sit on the ball with the long time consuming drives in the second half. However, with that d we had last year that wasnt possible.

This offense is good and Kubiak should get credit for its success not Shannahan.

steelbtexan
01-27-2011, 04:33 PM
When this team doesn't suck.