PDA

View Full Version : In-depth numbers on Texans v. rest of NFL


Texans_Chick
01-28-2011, 11:55 AM
On my Chron blog, I got someone from Pro Football Focus to put together interesting numbers that compare the 2010 Texans to the league as a whole.

Lots of interesting stuff there:

Texans v. the NFL: The good and the bad from Pro Football Focus (http://blogs.chron.com/texanschick/2011/01/texans_v_the_nfl_pro_football.html)

Interesting food for thought.

OzzO
01-28-2011, 12:13 PM
Wow, some stat overload. So basically, offense good - defense bad (to put in Tarzan terms). ;-) Good article TC.

Wait.... Fisher is gone?!?!?!

BetaV1
01-28-2011, 12:22 PM
I'm setting the over/under for "The only stat that matters is wins" post at 6.

I say under.

Major stat info there. The biggest stat that somewhat surprises me is the interception per attempt. It just seemed like Schaub was throwing picks nearly every 3-4 drives., yet these numbers show that he was still in the upper tier of QB's this season in terms of accuracy.

Texans_Chick
01-28-2011, 12:38 PM
I'm setting the over/under for "The only stat that matters is wins" post at 6.

I say under.

Major stat info there. The biggest stat that somewhat surprises me is the interception per attempt. It just seemed like Schaub was throwing picks nearly every 3-4 drives., yet these numbers show that he was still in the upper tier of QB's this season in terms of accuracy.

I'd take the under. I set the over/under for "you are a stat worshipper" at 8.

It doesn't matter how many times I say that I put stats out there as one tool of many for evaluation, I always get that comment. People certainly should use their eyeballs and brains for evaluation too, but everybody's brains say different things.

Numbers are always an interesting starting point for discussion, and I don't see why people wouldn't want to look at them, but if people don't like the numbers (that I didn't create), I get people saying stupid stuff directed at me.

thunderkyss
01-28-2011, 01:15 PM
I'm interested to see what those guys say about our chances next season.

They pretty much nailed 2010.

Goatcheese
01-28-2011, 01:28 PM
Next time can you ask him for numbers on the Texans CB yards allowed per play in coverage and how they measure up to the league average? I'm guessing it's going to be pretty brutal, but I'm a glutton for punishment.

:handshake:

Oh and obligatory stats are for "loosers" comment.

disaacks3
01-28-2011, 02:50 PM
A telling stat for those of us who thought Schaub didn't go downfield enough:

Finally, here is some Matt Schaub pass distribution data and how he's changed over the last 3 years:

(Includes QBs with at least 200 pass attempts in 2010. Sample size is 33 QBs)

* Schaub threw 20+ yards down field 9% of the time (29th highest)* Schaub threw between 10-19 yards 23% of the time (14th highest)
* Schaub threw between 0-9 yards 55% of the time (2nd highest)
* Schaub threw behind the line of scrimmage 13% of the time (23rd highest)

Think about that....68% of the time, the ball never went more than 9 yds. downfield.

Either:
A) our WR's aren't getting good separation
B) our line isn't protecting Schaub well enough
C) Schaub isn't looking at the deep route often enough in his progressions

steelbtexan
01-28-2011, 02:56 PM
Here's a stat that's the most consistent thing of the Kubiak era.

5-7 four yrs in a row.

Thanks Dex.

Goatcheese
01-28-2011, 03:07 PM
A telling stat for those of us who thought Schaub didn't go downfield enough:



Think about that....68% of the time, the ball never went more than 9 yds. downfield.

Either:
A) our WR's aren't getting good separation
B) our line isn't protecting Schaub well enough
C) Schaub isn't looking at the deep route often enough in his progressions

Lets play Jeopardy!

This offense was designed by Bill Walsh around short and intermediate passing routes that stretch a defense and open up passing options deeper down field during his tenure with the Bengals in 1968-75?

What is The West Coast Offense?

nero THE zero
01-28-2011, 04:32 PM
Interesting that, as bad as our defense was, according to these metrics it wasn't the worst at any one thing.

Kind of renders all the squawk about "worst defense in the history of the NFL" hyperbolic, no?

CloakNNNdagger
01-29-2011, 07:50 AM
Interesting that, as bad as our defense was, according to these metrics it wasn't the worst at any one thing.Kind of renders all the squawk about "worst defense in the history of the NFL" hyperbolic, no?


When you mix a little sour milk with a little vomit along with a little feces with a rotten egg, and leave it out for a little while on your front porch on a hot day, you'r not going to get a little smell. You can, in fact, expect to have the very worst stink in the neighborhood.:wadepalm:

disaacks3
01-29-2011, 10:21 AM
Lets play Jeopardy!

This offense was designed by Bill Walsh around short and intermediate passing routes that stretch a defense and open up passing options deeper down field during his tenure with the Bengals in 1968-75?

What is The West Coast Offense?Nice try. Care to go back and look at the 49'ers stats on attempts downfield during THEIR heyday? I'm guessing Young and Montana weren't the 4th lowest in the league.

Also, last time I checked, the WCO didn't have some "cap" at 9 yds. Coryell and Walsh also didn't rely on the ZBS to run the ball.

I'm not saying our Offense can't be very effective, but I'd like to see more downfield attempts, especially with the speed this team has at WR.

The Pencil Neck
01-29-2011, 02:36 PM
Nice try. Care to go back and look at the 49'ers stats on attempts downfield during THEIR heyday? I'm guessing Young and Montana weren't the 4th lowest in the league.

Also, last time I checked, the WCO didn't have some "cap" at 9 yds. Coryell and Walsh also didn't rely on the ZBS to run the ball.

I'm not saying our Offense can't be very effective, but I'd like to see more downfield attempts, especially with the speed this team has at WR.

I think you'd actually be surprised. The Niners in their heyday was all about short passes to big recievers who got big YAC. Most of their passes were <10 yards.

I do believe that the short passes are what this whole offense is designed around. And although Schaub didn't throw it down the field that much, he did have the 6th highest yards per attempt in the league. And finished second in the league with 59 pass plays over 20 yards (that includes YAC.) So, even though people may have been throwing the ball deep more often that MS, they weren't doing it with amazing accuracy or anything.

Personally, I don't have any problems with our offense or how it worked. There were times when I would have preferred us to run more and times when I wish our passing game would have clicked a little better, but overall, it's hard to knock an offense that has the #1 rusher and a passer with more than 4000 yards. That's something we couldn't have dreamed of a few years ago.

No, the problems are with the defense.

welsh texan
01-29-2011, 05:49 PM
On average, tight ends facing the Texans see a:

* 0.6 increase in their yards-per-reception average (11th worst in NFL)
* 0.2% increase in their receiving TD / Reception average (14th worst in NFL)
* 3% increase in their catch / target average (10th worst in NFL)


Slightly surprising, it was a major theory throughout the season that the Texans were terrible against Tight Ends yet they were actually more below average.

Think this proves TC's point about knowing your own teams' strengths and weaknesses really well yet not being able to put that into context against the rest of the league.

6-10 is the only stat that really matters, the people who analyse why the team achieved that stat have sat down and made the changes they deem necessary so hopefully that will now improve. Only problem is, it had better improve at an unprecedented rate because a 2 game improvement isn't acceptable to anyone except Bob McNair it seems.

76Texan
01-29-2011, 11:03 PM
Slightly surprising, it was a major theory throughout the season that the Texans were terrible against Tight Ends yet they were actually more below average.

Think this proves TC's point about knowing your own teams' strengths and weaknesses really well yet not being able to put that into context against the rest of the league.


It's not simple as ABC.
A TE is usually responsible by a LB with possible help from a safety, but in zone defense, the responsibility could belong to a CB.
At any rate, my take is that the LBs became better overall in pass defense with Sharpton & Bentley in there. (Bentley is not anywhere as good as Demeco in run defense and is slightly better in pass defense.)
Among the LBs, Sharpton had the best year defending the pass, with Bentley and Demeco next in line, then Cushing, Adibi and Diles (I don't want to put these 3 in any particular order yet.)
The last 3 guys were disappointments since each of them regressed in that department.

Basically, if you look at the numbers, you will find that with the arrival of Sharpton, the TE was hardly a problem for us.
(And if I remember correctly, Pollard kind of redeem himself with a few good plays.)

Texans_Chick
01-30-2011, 10:57 AM
Slightly surprising, it was a major theory throughout the season that the Texans were terrible against Tight Ends yet they were actually more below average.

Think this proves TC's point about knowing your own teams' strengths and weaknesses really well yet not being able to put that into context against the rest of the league.

6-10 is the only stat that really matters, the people who analyse why the team achieved that stat have sat down and made the changes they deem necessary so hopefully that will now improve. Only problem is, it had better improve at an unprecedented rate because a 2 game improvement isn't acceptable to anyone except Bob McNair it seems.

You also need to consider the limitations of these particular numbers.

They are looking at overall performance--not taking into account field position, etc, but rather over the course of an entire game.

If you look at Football Outsiders numbers, which are only based on easily chartable info (position on the field, how many yards a play went) and also takes into account strength of schedule, the defensive numbers look very very bad (scroll to bottom where it has numbers against #1WR, #2WR, TE, RB. It gets ugly:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

thunderkyss
01-30-2011, 12:49 PM
If you look at Football Outsiders numbers, which are only based on easily chartable info (position on the field, how many yards a play went) and also takes into account strength of schedule, the defensive numbers look very very bad (scroll to bottom where it has numbers against #1WR, #2WR, TE, RB. It gets ugly:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

Wow.... they have the Patriots as the most efficient offense 2 years in a row (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff). They have the Texans a distant #2, which is puzzling to me, because I didn't think our offense was efficient, or consistent.

That's if I'm reading their numbers right. 27.2% efficiency with a 9.7% variance makes us the #2 offense?

Pittsburgh's 25.4% efficiency (which should be good for #3) with a 9.2% Variance makes them the #5 offense?

Is that how y'all read it?

DexmanC
01-30-2011, 12:54 PM
Here's a stat that's the most consistent thing of the Kubiak era.

5-7 four yrs in a row.

Thanks Dex.

....now if we can get TK to stop looking for the "incremental" improvement
within consistent failure, we might be getting somewhere.

:tiphat:

steelbtexan
01-30-2011, 10:14 PM
....now if we can get TK to stop looking for the "incremental" improvement
within consistent failure, we might be getting somewhere.

:tiphat:

Good luck with that.

LOL

GP
01-31-2011, 09:32 AM
Regarding the posts in this thread (by disaacks) and the subsequent conversation about the "need more downfield passes" topic...

By throwing short passes, under 9 yards, the offense is working the clock. With as bad as our defense is, perhaps us NOT throwing bombs down the field was actually a lifesaver for us.

I'm not sure that this was done by design, since I have a hard time thinking Gurry Kubiak has thought about this aspect (since he doesn't seem to really put much effort in creating weekly strategies based on who we face each game). Rather, I think it might be more of a blessing in disguise type of thing.

We ate more clock by keeping stuff shallow. Whenever I think about this team's offense, I think of long sustained drives (that's what she said) that eat lots of clock and ends up putting 6 on the board. I think that's what this offense is designed to do: To methodically "matriculate" the ball down the field and end up with 6. It's a risk/reward, though, because we know that when we eat clock and put up a FG instead of a TD...we are potentially hurting ourselves if we can't get TDs later in the game.

It feels like, to me, the games where we won...we were putting together lots of sustained drives and getting TDs on most of those drives. In the games where we lost, it seemed as though we were not sustaining drives, or if we DID sustain a drive we weren't capping it off with TDs. This is what magnified the problems of the defense, though they still stand alone and I will not say that they were bad due to the offense.

What consistency we had on offense, IMO, masked the defense's failures. One can assume that an improved defense, under Wade Phillips, might actually produce a better record than 6-10. But then there's that whole "ASSuming" thing, right?